#CLE vs. WAS | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

yanderefairyangel · 4 months ago

Text

Recently I was overcome by a surge of Shakespeare brainrot which i didn't felt for quite some years (mainly blame it on the fact we had to study Hamlet which is MY FAV PLAY EVER) but it was mostly Romeo and Juliet (RomiJuri) brainrot (my second fav play ever) and subjecting me and my mutual to YA retellings of Romeo and Juliet and I kinda need to vent

So retellings as far as I know don't have a strong rule nor rules at all.

Back then retellings mainly consisted in remploying a narrative schema as seen per how fairy tales works and Romeo and Juliet are one of the many takes on an archetypal take called the Star-crossed lovers (obviously named after the play)

There are different tales about lovers meeting a tragic fate in very region of the world, Grece (Pyrame and Thisbe), middle east (Leila and Al Majnun) even China (the Butterfly lovers) and RomiJuri itself is one of the tale born of thse narrative schema being resused

See Shakespare was actually writing one of his most famous tragedy as a retelling/adaptation of a poem by Arthur Brooke called the Tragical history of Romeus and Juliet, which is itself the result of the translation by Wiliam Painter in his Palace of Pleasure of a short story written by italian writter Matteo Bandello, Romeo e Giulietta, itself inspired by Historia novellamente ritrovata di due giovani amanti by Luigi Da porto which is itself inspired Masuccio Salernitano's Mariotto e Giannoza etc

Suffice to say that Shakespeare's own most famous play is itself the result of a long game of retelling

For my memoir I had to read Nicole beaumont's Poetics of tale, essay on the oral tradition of tales in which she makes a point about how some versions of fairy tales have become so iconic that modern rewriting held these version as the "canonical" one or mostly refers this one when retelling/reimagining/adapting etc. (she takes the example of Perrault's take on BlueBeard as being the new paradigm defining the tale despite it being vastly different from the source he used)

While Romeo and Juliet isn't a fairy tale it defintely relies on a similar tradition when it comes to the usage of the narrative schema and how people mainly turn to the Shakesperian retelling of this archetypal tale when offering a new version, I have seen few stories that takes inspiration from others versions of the tale (I stress it few doesn't mean "never" after all I grew up watching an adaptation of the Butterfly lovers and was still able to connect the dots with Romeo and Juliet, I can still name adaptation of Pyramus and Thisbe, here I am mostly refering to other Romeo and Juliet stories just as Bandello, Da Porto, Brooke or even Lope de Vega)

So the fact we are still retelling this story ourselves even after all this time isn't that much of a surprise but a lot of these retellings were disappointing honestly

And look, I am not what I would call a purist when it comes to retellings

To give you an idea, one of my favorite movies ever is La foile des Grandeurs by Gérard Oury, a very loose adaptation of Victor Hugo's Ruy Blas, yet despite the notable difference in tone and a lot of aspects, I still love this movie and even prefer it over the source material play (sorry Tortor) for reason I could spend the day listing

And when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I am not picky either : I actually like Romeo x Juliet, Kishuku gakkō no Juliet and Sirius no densetsu aka an adaptation that puts a whole sci fi cosmic twist with Juliet having a Zorro persona where Romijuri ends up living happy, a modern retelling set in a fictional japan where RomiJuri ends up living happy and a story that only uses the narrative schema putting insane mythological twist but ends up tragically

Heck I even kinda digged in Quinnrose's Romeo vs Juliet and it's a literal otome game putting a vampire vs vampire hunter twist

Even more recent examples, me and my friend we are both hyped by AstralShift's new game which is a Divine Comedy retelling where Dante is a girl !!

So clearly my issue isn't liberties taken by adaptations imo if you want to put spin on a story you are free to do so but a concept is only as good if there is little effort in execution and it just crumbles

I don't want writers to feel like they are limited in the possibilities they can pull linked to a certain tell when they want to retell but imo there needs to be some justification to using a source material as inspiration no matter how loose the adaptation is and I think you still need to be somewhat talented of a writer to put certains things off

But honestly most YA takes I have seen on RomiJuri just fall flats because while they might offer something conceptually interesting they do nothing interesting with it or worse they just feel like they are completely missing the point of the original play

See, I think that just because you pull some twist, it doesn't necessarily translate into your own interpretation or take away from the play. For example, does the fact Romeo and Juliet made Romeo Montague into a vampire oresama bookworm means they thought at any given moment Romeo of the play was a vampire ? No

However, most YA novels feels like they are translating of a direct reading of the play which is very irony poisoned and feel like they are reading through one of those meme I despise with all my soul (looking at you the "It's not a love story, it's a relationship bla bla bla" take)

And those kinda ruined interesting concepts to me

For examples, they are obsessed with telling Rosaline's story which is interesting on paper, after all we know little of her and what might have happened to her during the play

Rosaline is a glaring hole, she is little characterized and few is none about her (for example, reading these retellings where Tybalt is portrayed as her cousin made me realize that in reality it wasn't really explicit what type of cousin she is to Juliet because i always thought she was Tybalt's sister or something for no other fault than my own lol) heck we don't even know what her exact relationship with Romeo is (we know he was in an unrequired love with her which she never reciprocated because of her desire to stay chaste but we have 0 information about whether or not Romeo actually went and tried to woo her to begin with or not because as far as I am aware both interpretation can be argued over) so she basically makes a perfect character for a retelling cause she is easy to model as you desire it and she can bring some unique material to the old love story

The problems is the lack of originality in every single one of them, you can find a lot of recurring elements that just makes every single one of these so samey : super girlboss mary sure Rosaline, Romeo is either an idiot or a villain for some reason, shoving my girl Juliet aside, whatever happens to Mercutio, Benvolio Paris and even Tybalt they can either not appear at all or serve as a love interest for Rosaline, but for some reason these retellings love to do it with Benvolio (and i don't like it, literaly each time Benvolio is used in some purposeful way in these retellings it's just to serve as a replacement for Romeo, a consoling price grrr)

I have pondered upon why exactly do people obsess on having Rosie as a protag and frankly, the only way I explain it is what I call a "Watsnonian revenge on a doylist injustice"

Because see Rosaline in the play isn't a character, she is merely the catalyst for Romeo's meeting with Juliet and thus she "isnt given a voice" and "is treated like a plot device" because "she just exist so that Romeo, that swine, can love another woman!" which feels unfair to these writers

Granted they might invoke a lot of the surface level takes about it not being love but lust, hyperfocusing on Juliet's age or Romeo moving on too quickly from Rosaline, but imo THIS is the real reason mainly because of how a lot of these retellings reads as with featuring Rosaline like she is your typical YA heroine who is everything and not like the others girls, who gets wronged by the swine Romeo and this silly little girl Juliet but it's all right because she finds a new man who is perfect and so miuch better than stupid Romeo and she gets everything she deserves because she is soooo much better and deserves soooo much better than stupid Romeo and her romance is REAL true love, the REAL deal while the stupidity of Romeo and Juliet's relationship is exposed to the whole world and yadi yada ugggh

But the problem is that because they follow this specific schema and tropes and plto beats not only are they are all identical to each other but also they are in complete cognitive dissonance

In reality you aren't told Rosaline's story unlike what these claims, they fail to give her a voice unlike what these claims

Rosaline's story would be what ? An intepretation on what her vows of chastity is, maybe a dialogue between her and Romeo where she firmly rejects him, maybe explaining whether or not she actually went to the Capulet party and what happened there from her pov, her remarking Romeo didn't come to see today (if he ever went to see her at all to begin with), shrugging shoulder, going back to usual buisness, hearing of Tybalt's death and mourning over him with occasional swearing to Romeo, back to usual buisness, hearing of Juliet's death, mourning her, going back to usual buisness and uncovering the whole story with the rest of Verona when everythin'g's over

Obviously this means decentering from RomiJuri but that's what a story about Rosaline should be because Rosaline has no horse in this race, she has no reason to be involved with these two's love stories

But these retellings aren't really interested in Rosaline as a character, in reality they just use her as plot device/protagonist to be shoehorned in the traditional plot and thus breaking the original premise in order to retell the story

In short those aren't really Rosaline retelling as much as they are RomiJuri retellings using Rosaline as the focaliser

Again it would be fine if it wasn't just endlessly the same rendition of Rosaline presented to us... like for a character who has so little shared about her outside of her being pretty, a type of fierce beauty who isn't interested in love, you would see some interesting takes especially given how much renditions of Romeo and Juliet can feel unique depending on the adaptation's choices but no, NO

It's always the old same shtick of a "strong independant woman who need no man and is perfect at everything" with occasional hobby changing (Lisa Fielder's Rosaline wanted to become a healer while the Rosaline of the 2022's movie wanted to be a cartographer) and different love interest (often Benvolio because he is Romeo 2, Paris, sometimes Mercutio or Tybalt depending on the mood or even a made up one) and nothing else, no real flaws, no real struggles nothing

So as a result it just becomes boring to follow her as a protagonist because she is just this ideal person who can do no wrong and baaaaa

And of course it's all in the context of a love story that is completely derided like RomiJuri just gets the worst fate possible

O Romeo Romeo, wherefore are you like this Romeo ??? What have they done to my boy, the hate he receive and character assasination is insane

There is a pattern of people insisting on breaking the premise of Rosalie rejecting Romeo in favor of "Romeo and Rosaline were dating but he fell in love with Juliet and threw her away in favor of her cousin because men bad" even tho it doesn't really make sense anymore.

In the play Romeo got rejected by Rosaline and was so sad he was in a state of lovesickness and all mopey and sad, that's because his friends were worried about him (cause he usually isn't like this) that they suggested going to the party in order to help him change his spirit and even find someone who will love him back because what's the point in crying over someone who will never love you back and you know it ? Better move on. What's crazy is that Romeo originally goes "ok i will go but just to see her" but when they are on their way he literaly changes his mind because his guts tells him not to, he has to be FORCED to go there and once he is there he just stays by a corner and doesn't participate in the party (as seen per Juliet saying he didn't even dance)

In the previous version Rosaline's role is even more minor but it still follows the same principle : Romeo falls in love with her, it doesn't go well. According to Bandello, he fell in love and courted her for 2 years without success which made him feel so bad he wanted to leave the country to forget about her but he stayed upon insistance of his friends and they dragged him to all the parties held by the italians noble of the city in hope to find a new love, which means Romeo saw many beautfiul ladies but still couldn't move on until he went to the Capulet party and met Juliet. Brooke also follows this events.

The main difference between Shakespeare's version and Bandello (who got it from Da Porto) and Brooke is the time. In the previous version Romeo was mourning this unrequired love for a moment and tried going at different parties before falling for Juliet, in the play tho, we are introduced to his woe and a few scenes later he falls for Juliet

I suppose it feels more sudden that said given how the play comments Romeo had this behavior for a while through both Benvolio and Friar Lawrence's cues, it seems obvious Romeo was like this before the play but only revealed the reason of his present state in act 1 scene 1 it's not as immediate as many or even I myself like to joke about

In the previous version it seems that Romeo was more affected by it or at least trying but in the play this is questionable and his love for Rosaline feels more like an infatuation that one mistakes for love because they aren't that experienced with it which is crucial in contrast to his love for Juliet who is meant to feel authentic in contrast

Honestly, conceptually it could work if it was in reality centered around Romeo's character growth or if spiteful Rosaline (because that's how she is often portrayed as a reaction to that) would play an antagonistic role in discovering this relationship but softens when she comes to realize Romeo didn't really love her but he is genuinely in love with Juliet and happier but like... they don't do that. The Movie Rosaline made me hope it would go like this but they had to ruin it with the joke ending where Romeo and Juliet are stuck on a boat and realize they have nothing in common (this ending was what made me soldifiy my opinion on this movie as being a parody by the by if you have read the play and payed close attention you know they aren't like that)

The same could be said about Fielder's Rosaline's story and its ending that just feels like a slap on the face where she is trading the tragic yet meaningful death of the lovers for a failed doubel suicide where Rosaline saves Romeo but fails to save Juliet for dumb reasons and Romeo realizes he didn't truly love Juliet but merely felt lust towards her...

Ok but like not only does it makes the reconciliation between the Capulet and Montague makes no sense because it was precisely the loss of their beloved children that made the two families realize the extent of pain their feud caused because they got directly affected in the most gut wretching way possible (in learning they ruined the life of their two kids) but also ???? like for a feminist novel that had gripes with how young Juliet was to the point it was being very preachy about condemning it, it sure had little qualms letting an innocent 13 year old in love dying just to present the other half of the couple and their relationship in a bad light !!

But also while you can call Romeo's love for Rosaline fickle i failed to see how it can be extended to Juliet ??? if anything the differences between how he talks about the two and the everything would hightlight that Romeo had faced character growth where he is ready to be in a committed relationship with Juliet whereas Rosaline was merely a love of youth and I think it's normal ? Romeo is a teenager he has the right to experience such feelings, it's not as though he actually hurt Rosaline since she rejected him (and love) anyway, just because it didn't worked with Rosaline means that he will be like this with Juliet and I think it's very obvious when you pay close attention

Just to give one example on the top of my head, the balcony scene begins with Romeo having at least 3 cute agressions as he witnesses Juliet

But honestly this is only when we get luck because Romeo can face worse

Like this novel called Fair Rosaline, I have been complaining non stop to my friend about how it misses the point of everything in the play.

Look... Antagonist Romeo is conceptually interesting, really and it just sounds hot ok ? But the problem with Romeo Montague is that he isn't made to work as one, he lack fundamentally every good characteristics that makes an antagonist, he isn't protrayed as ambitious nor calculating, he is a gentle well behaved youth whose biggest flaws would be he can let feelings get the better of him (this is a surface level summary of his character heh if I begin to talk about him I won't stop) so to adapt his personality to a more antagonistic one it would require a lot of work but you could present a very charismatic and unique antagonistic

Unfortunately this novel doesn't do that instead it turns Romeo into a 30 groomer whose trapping young girls for a whole ring involving every men in Verone expect those closely related to Rosaline, who in this novel, doesn't want to become a nun and lost her mother and is 15/16 but becomes Romeo's "victim"

And by that I mean that she crossdressed to go to a party held by the Montague and let herself easily seduced because a few sweets nothings later she was in his bed

...honestly this moment felt less like "manipulator" and more like "woman dumb"

And I was also greatly bothered by the authors claims that Romeo in the play could be 30, that he was never portrayed as a teenager until modern days, that he was just into young girls and that he was a groomer and etc.

And no like... Romeo's age is indeed not specified but that's because Shakespeare didn't felt the need to ?? I am greatly bothered by how everyone focuses on Romeo's age but not the other characters when they aslo don't have one ? Also how is Romeo being portrayed as a teenager only modern ? What is a modern acception is the idea that Romeo is specifically 17 which seems to come from the Zeffirelli version but if you look at Romeo and Juliet paintings, he is portrayed as a teenager and some adaptatations of R&J of the 19th century have him played by a women which I am assuming means he felt like a young boy in people's mind (from what I recall women were usually cast to play as young characters) and I have read my fair share of RomiJuri's essays, not even actual scholars would agree because they all consider Romeo to be a teenager

Moreover, in the previous sources (which the author mentionned herself to talk about Juliet being older) this is disproven : Brooke's Juliet is 16 but so is Romeo who is also described as not having had a beard growing up on his chin yet. As for Da Porto and Bandello, their Romeo is 20 but their Juliet is 18-19

So why exactly would Shakespare look at this pattern of Romeo and Juliet being very close in age to the point the age gap and go "ok gonna make my Juliet 13 and my Romeo... hum... how about 30?"

Wouln't it make more sense he both aged them down to the same age ?

It certainly isn't a modern conception honestly, if Juliet is the minimum legal age to be married (13) why can't Romeo also be that age (14) ?

In the end of the day his specific age will never be known but a lot of Romeo's behavior only make sense if viewed him as a teen a 30 year old wouldn't behave like that imo but anyways

"he just likes young girl " is so weird to say and so is play boy Romeo in general like, the guy only love 2 girls, that being Rosaline and Juliet in every version with earlier sources highlighting that Romeo isn't falling in love with the beautiful women he met at the parties he went but even then he ever dated, married and killed himself for one girl that being Juliet

It's very hard to establish a pattern based on 2 girls not to mention that Rosaline being 15-16 is something made up, we don't know her age and scholars usually views her as being older than Romeo for 3 reasons : 1) the Bandello and Da porto version mentionning his love for Rosaline lasted 2 years, he is 20 at the begining of the story or about 20, implying he fell in love when he was 18 and he Brooke version making him fall in love with her at age 16 2) because Rosaline checks every checkbox of the checklists of the typical Petrachan muse who is often portrayed as a woman older than the poet in love to the point it kinda became a topos (for instance in Les Illusions Perdues by Balzac features the poet, Lucien in love with a woman older than him) 3) the comparison between the sonnets dedicated to Rosaline and those dedicated to Juliet, to the point they believe Shakespeare could have written these at different period of his life, regardless textually everything supports the reading that Romeo is just not really experienced with love, he though his infatuation was real love but he had to meet Juliet to realize what was the real deal

There are more I could point I am sure but I also have a problem with how Solomon claims Romeo is taking advantage of the girl's vunerabilities, fills them with empty promises and ressorts to violence like...are we really talking about the same character ?

Regarding him taking advantage of vulnerable girls... he doesn't. Really. Firstly because Rosaline's vulnerabilities are all made up for the sake of Fair Rosaline's plot but don't exist in the play (Rosaline is said to have made vow of staying chaste which would be implying she is a nun but out of her own volition and not against he will unlike in the novel and again she doesn't return Romeo's love at any point) and also because even then he doesnt ? like it's Rosaline who went to the party because the author couldn't come up with a better excuse for them to meet than just using the ball which was how Romeo met Juliet... be serious

As for Juliet she isn't vulnerable when she meets him, she is just passive ? For context, Romeo meets her at a ball the Capulet held so that Paris, a suitor, could court Juliet. Juliet earlier said she wasn't interested but still accepted to try for her parents but as of now she has no real reason to feel pressured ? Also this is missing how Romeo and Juliet's relationship works because Romeo approached her in anon threatening way by using metaphors and was being courtly and respectuous, Juliet could have just ignored him or pretend to not understand the metaphors and he would have probably went away becoming all mopey again, this doesn't happen, instead she goes along and even expends on his metaphor, clearly she is just as interested in him as he is in her and this intereaction is like... essential ? It's what is setting up a lot of motifs in the play and their entire dynamic ?

Romeo also doesn't make any empty promises. If it's refering to Rosaline again, he never was in a relationship with her because she rejected him off the bat so like he literaly never made her any promises... as for Juliet sorry but he is shown constantly respecting his promises to her, like he tells her he would marry her and he does

As for violence ??? The only times Romeo goes into violent modes are when 1) Mercutio dies and he feels remorseful and like he must avenge his friend 2) when he kills Paris in self defense ... that's it. And that' s not even counting the Da Porto, Bandello and Brooke version where Romeo kills Tybalt in act of self defense when he was trying to protect both the people of his house and of Juliet by preventing them from fighting. Romeo isn't a violent person, the Nurse herself say he is as "gentle as a lamb", the only time he is shown to be violent is when he is pushed to emotional limits

And to be honest, even if we put aside the character assasination of Romeo, the Romeo presented by Solomon doesn't feel threatening but stupid (seriously for some reason the Romeo who seduces young girl and throw them away as soon as he is bored doesn't do that with Juliet and instead marries her ?? and that's not even to present Juliet as being more clever that she doesn't fall for the trap unlike all the others girl including our heroine, no that's feeling more like a child throwing a tantrum) which honestly is bad... like really bad it feels like a lazy way to make a character a predator while forgetting to make them actually behave like one so as a result this Romeo feels flat as an antagonist

And it's not helped that he is so one dimensional which is a disservice to Romeo's complexity in the play but also very bad because this isn't really helping the cause ? Like can we stop treating grave subject such as trafficking so lightly and making people behave the one involved are one dimension cartoons villains instead of dangerous individuals ????

And obviously no Romeo and Juliet isn't about how no adult is there to protect poor baby Juliet from big bad Romeo but oh well

What annoys me is that it could have worked if 1) instead of being the actual Romeo and Juliet, it was completely different characters and the antagonist was making the girl believes their relationship was like Romeo and Juliet's when it was in reality not but it was just to manipulate them 2) It was a little red riding hood retelling because LRRH is literaly about that ... oh wait someone already wrote that book (Neil Nehaus Big bad wolf, read it when I was in middle school) 3)It was Paris instead of Romeo, you know, the actual walking red flag in the play

Like it's kinda like Lady Macbeth where I felt that if instead of being a retelling of Shakespeare but rather of Perrault the whole idea would have worked a lot better

And as much as Romeo being turned into a villain or a play boy makes me shiver because it's feeling a lot like diabolization for the sake of it sometimes it can work like Goodbye my Juliet is a webtoon where Romeo is a first presented as a brat and play boy but as we learn more about him we come to realize he is like this because of his father pressuring him with toxic masculinity and as the story progresses he shows developpement so even if he isn't like his Shakespearian counter part he is at least a rounded character

Also needless to say that these adaptations don't do Juliet any justice : one has Rosaline want to marry her to Paris to help him cover for the fact he is interested in men so dooming her to be forevever with someone she doesn't love, the other has her die so her husband can express he didn't genuinely love her and the last one is so infantalized I am wondering if the writer knows how actual 13 year old behaves (seriosly she plays with dolls ??? most girl I knew at that age had dropped the dolls at age 11 !!)

And frankly this is a bad look because claiming to defend a character you do not understand because of what their portrayal reflects of your vision of them is really not a good look

See the problem is that if you misunderstand Romeo, you misunderstand his relationship with Juliet and if you misunderstand his relationship with Juliet, you misunderstand Juliet and vice versa cause they are two sides of the same coins

And even then I can quote some Rosaline retellings (looking at you Go away Romeo) that still presents a Juliet more interesting to follow than the perfect flawless girlboss Rosaline despite the fact that these authors throw her on the side because she "killed herself for a man" or "is 13", even tho it's doing great disservice to a character who is shown to be complex, mature, growing thanks to her relationship, both capable of being sweet and cold and determined in her love for Romeo to go through extremes lenght

Frankly this is my problem with these retellings.

A lot of time the hatred for Romeo and Juliet reads like people are mad they aren't perfect and flawless instead of appreciating their flaws for the fact they are what makes them into complex characters, what elevates them from being simply personas to feeling like actual human beings

However this goes directly against the principle of wish fufillement that we are meant to get from YA. YA relies a lot on idealization of female characters and male protagonist but that doesn't work with stuff like Shakepsare's play where every character is a complex flawed human being

And this is bound to create cognitive dissonance because of the idealization of others characters as oppose to characters made to be fully fleshed out and this also creates this weirder cognitive dissonance of wanting to criticize RomiJuri's love by... playing into tropes it falls into

Let me explain

Romeo and Juliet's relationship is constantly portrayed as not being so great because they are either portrayed as having nothing in common past the first moments, as being just lust or demonized with Romeo being a manipulator etc

Meanwhile, the perfect FL Rosaline has her perfect romance with the perfect ML...

make it make sense ?

How can you tear down RomIJuri's relationship for being unrealistic using overtly cynical arguments while also portraying a type of unrealistic romance that comes from how idealistic it is ?

That's not mentioning how every trope or rather topos criticized that is the fundation of RomiJuri (love at first sight, flirting, etc) is also present for these like believe it or not but every single work of fiction features what we call a "scène de vue", a first meeting involving a type of attraction between our lead and while some such as Aragon in Adrien have tried to subvert it, that still is a type of love at first sight and in a genre of idealization where the narrator or focalizer is musing on how handsome the ML is, I am afraid you are no better than Romeo fawning over Juliet, really

I could go even more in depth in all this really but it's more of a vent than a proper analysis and again I have nothing against YA but that's how novels in this category have turned into and frankly I wouldn't care if they didn't tried to use "feminist retelling" as a buzzword while presenting retellings that are poorely done both as standalone and as adaptations and even feels sexist mainly because of how they treat Juliet in favor of Rosaline like stripping her of her complexity to make her a love rival or a damsel in distress

And again, I do believe people should be free to retell the story as they want after all I don't recall anyone booing Shakespeare for making RomiJuri's relationship shorter, developping Mercutio making his role in the play different than the previous sources or having Romeo die before Juliet wakes up unlike Da Porto and Bandello where he is awake long enough to tell Juliet to live even without him cause he loves her but the thing is before you criticize a change you kinda have to analyze why these changes where made, what do they create etc.

And in those adaptations it feels not only samey but doesn't seem to understand the play as seen per a lot of elements

#romeo and juliet #shakespeare

5 notes · View notes