something inside this tells me
something inside my head
and it's always something else
it's always no
why don't you say yes
it's always something, something else
it's always no
why don't you say yes
something inside my head
and it's always something else
it's always no
why don't you say yes
it's always something, something else
it's always no
why don't you say yes
Heather Greene - Why Don't You Say Yes? : Sweet Otherwise
7 comments:
I don't know that song but I bet she doesn't say yes cause Romeo is a bit of a tool.... just throwing that out there!
OUCH!
You sound a little bitter there "me." Isn't every guy at least 1% tool somewhere deep down inside? You have to make some allowances for true love, ya know!
Well, every guy is at least 5% tool--just as every woman is at least 5% ridiculous. That is not the point. What is the point, you ask? The point is that fickle Romeo is clearly a tool on an epic level. He does not fall head over heels in love with Juliet-He is head over heels for Love itself.
And anyways, Shakespeare wrote Romeo & Juliet as a lesson on what foolish kids should NOT do, yet everyone thinks it is some romantic story of two kids who've decided to love one another in spite of everything... lets just ignore for a second that Romeo wasn't in love with another woman at the beginning, didn't slay Juliet's most loved cousin, and isn't a complete whiney bitch... Juliet just knew that Romeo was less of a tool than Paris. Romeo was at least a "bad boy" of sorts, so she cut her losses.
Plus, they both just wanted some--added bonus that they pissed their parents off. The end.
I feel strange conversing with Me, but here goes...
First off, it's been a while since I've read the play, and by the sounds of it you've either just finished it or are a Shakespearean Scholar. Either way, you've got me beat!
As to your point, it is well argued as to Romeo's toolishness, but...
BUT...
I would ask you, when a work of literature such as this becomes embedded in society's consciousness as an exemplar of true love, which is more important: the author's intended message (as identified by you) or its popular interpretation?
Using "Me" as a signature is quite fifth grade, isn't it?
Well, I suppose if we are throwing authorial intention to the dogs then you're coming from a reader-response theorist's perspective. In that case, alright. However, if we look at it from a psychoanalytic perspective
(and what critic doesn't at least dabble in this?)for a second, I think that it isn't quite so difficult to combine the author's voice with our structuralist whims. Doing so might bring us to the realization that "despite Shakespeare's intentions, Romeo's immature nature, fickle heart, and foolish mistakes can also be viewed as an almost pitiful charm. Which, if we choose to fall for, may or may not make this a tragic love story.
But, it's whatever, really.
Oh Me, you had me (lower case m) at "throwing authorial intention."
It is very much 5th grade. In fact, it goes very well with the picture of the choices to check mark.
Me, do you believe in true love? [ ] yes [ ] no [ ] maybe [ ] only in Disney movies
To be honest, I wasn't going for the "reader-response theorist perspective"...I was just trying to side-step your wicked-smart sounding argument with a comeback that seemed just as smarterest. As far as your psychoanaphylactic higgly-piggly perspective, well, uhhh, if we were to closely analyze the color of Juliet's knickers and Romeo's knickerbockers, it's very clear to see that a true love's kiss quite clearly emboldens the heart to soar in directions previously considered unobtainable.
So yeah, take that Me.
[X] Yes, somewhere deep down I do.
And if we were to psychoanalyze things we wouldn't be looking at knickers and knickerbockers... Shakespearian actors were originally all male, as I'm sure you know. So, yeah, I guess they were a "match" in that way.
So, if you'd like to look at this from a gay and lesbian reader response perspective now would be the time to do so--since you sort of brought it up.
I think that covers things.
Post a Comment