OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

I...Don't see how that matters to the discussion of it being a well-written play. Yeah, they're stupid teenagers who made decisions impulsively based on a combination of genuine love and not a small amount of sheer lust. In the original, that's their folly. That they shouldn't have loved. But, in Shakespeare's version, we're meant to sympathize. Yes, their decision making was stupid, and they fell in love at first sight based on arbitrary qualities, as teenagers are wont to do. But, in Shakespeare's view, they don't deserve to die for it. The tragedy in that play is that they died because the structure of society didn't allow them to work out their standard teenage issues in a constructive fashion. If they had been born in a more enlightened time, their short relationship may have died out in due time, or it may hebv blossomed into true love. But the fact is, by the cosmic injustice of the universe, they never got the chance to find out, and that is the tragedy. They are two passionate lovers who, and they merely been a little less passionate, might have survived. Like all tragic heroes, they are laid low by the very qualities that made them heroic.

You keep saying "love." they knew what each other looked like, and each other's names. That's pure lust, not love, which is unsympathetic. Thats also their only motivation. "Hey that person is pretty." that's the only thing driving them. If they made stupid decisions I could understand, but they kill themselves. That's ridiculously extreme over so thin a justification. And, to top it all off, there's zero character development; they're exactly the same at the end as they are in the beginning. There is nothing whatsoever that makes them heroic at any point, sive all their actions and decisions are selfish.

I don't know what play you read, but it sure as hell wasn't Romeo and Juliet.

[Fyraltari]

You keep saying "love." they knew what each other looked like, and each other's names. That's pure lust, not love, which is unsympathetic. Thats also their only motivation. "Hey that person is pretty." that's the only thing driving them. If they made stupid decisions I could understand, but they kill themselves. That's ridiculously extreme over so thin a justification. And, to top it all off, there's zero character development; they're exactly the same at the end as they are in the beginning. There is nothing whatsoever that makes them heroic at any point, sive all their actions and decisions are selfish.

I don't know what play you read, but it sure as hell wasn't Romeo and Juliet.

‘Love at First Sight’ is a whole thing in literature.

[Peelee]

‘Love at First Sight’ is a whole thing in literature.

Putting aside that I reject it as a trite, valueless premise, it's usually followed by learning literally anything about the person afterwards.

[The_Weirdo]

Putting aside that I reject it as a trite, valueless premise

Well, yeah, but it is a thing in literature...

it's usually followed by learning literally anything about the person afterwards.

Well, yeah, but it's still not something over which they deserved to die... There are many morals to the story, but even the weirderst of mine is more normal than "People who fall in lust die and deserve it"...

[pendell]

‘Love at First Sight’ is a whole thing in literature.

My wife and I celebrate our 25th anniversary in two weeks. It was lust at first sight; we were married six weeks after we met for the first time.
"Love", since then, is not something we've fallen into. It's been more like a giant co-operative project that we've both spent years at, as we learn about each other. The rose-colored glasses generated by our hormones didn't last long; soul-crushing reality set in over the next two years. It took another few years to push past all the negatives which had finally become obvious to see the good parts as well.

I think I can truthfully say we love each other; but it's the product of effort, of sweat, of patience, and of work for decades. "Love" is not something that just happened to us. We earned it.

We married in the western style, in the sense that we arranged our own marriage to each other as our own choice without input from our families, but I suspect even an arranged marriage could achieve the same degree of love and respect we have for each other if both parties are willing to put the effort in.

ETA: As witness, I would call several of my Hindi co-workers. Pretty much all their marriages were arranged. But they don't seem unhappy. If anything, they seem more happy in their marriages than westerners who ostensibly have more choice in the matter.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

My wife and I celebrate our 25th anniversary in two weeks. It was lust at first sight; we were married six weeks after we met for the first time.
"Love", since then, is not something we've fallen into. It's been more like a giant co-operative project that we've both spent years at, as we learn about each other. The rose-colored glasses generated by our hormones didn't last long; soul-crushing reality set in over the next two years. It took another few years to push past all the negatives which had finally become obvious to see the good parts as well.

I think I can truthfully say we love each other; but it's the product of effort, of sweat, of patience, and of work for decades. "Love" is not something that just happened to us. We earned it.

We married in the western style, in the sense that we arranged our own marriage to each other as our own choice without input from our families, but I suspect even an arranged marriage could achieve the same degree of love and respect we have for each other if both parties are willing to put the effort in.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Good on you guys, man. Happy early anniversary!

[KorvinStarmast]

I think I can truthfully say we love each other; but it's the product of effort, of sweat, of patience, and of work for decades. "Love" is not something that just happened to us. We earned it.

Yeah, and congrats to you both for the journey.

ETA: As witness, I would call several of my Hindi co-workers. Pretty much all their marriages were arranged. But they don't seem unhappy. If anything, they seem more happy in their marriages than westerners who ostensibly have more choice in the matter.

It seems to depend on the effort put into the marriage. The more a couple invests in it, the stronger it becomes (usually ...).

[zimmerwald1915]

It seems to depend on the effort put into the marriage. The more a couple invests in it, the stronger it becomes (usually ...).

That's true of marriages generally though (caveat accepted). What would seem to be the difference is that people who've had their marriages arranged would tend to expect to have to make them work, while people who did not have their marriages arranged would tend to expect them to work themselves out.

[Skull the Troll]

How about: "Look, when people fight, they cause collateral damage, and whoever took the collateral damage will cause the people fighting to die." ?

None of the people who fought in Romeo and Juliet died. Only the ones who didn't want fighting. I always thought the real villian of R&J was Friar Lawrence. That was SUCH a dumb plan.

[The_Weirdo]

None of the people who fought in Romeo and Juliet died. Only the ones who didn't want fighting. I always thought the real villian of R&J was Friar Lawrence. That was SUCH a dumb plan.

Yeah, I was describing the lesson Romeo and Juliet should have taught their families.

[zimmerwald1915]

None of the people who fought in Romeo and Juliet died. Only the ones who didn't want fighting.

Oh, that's not true. Tybalt and Mercutio were bellicose enough.

I always thought the real villian of R&J was Friar Lawrence. That was SUCH a dumb plan.

Probably not a coincidence that it was proposed by a Catholic.

[Keltest]

Yeah, I was describing the lesson Romeo and Juliet should have taught their families.

I hope you realize that telling a stronger party "do what I want or I will instigate violence against you" almost always results in the one doing the threatening being put down extremely hard by said stronger party? To say nothing of the implausibility of a teenage girl being remotely able to actually physically harm her armed and presumably trained older male relatives?

[The_Weirdo]

I hope you realize that telling a stronger party "do what I want or I will instigate violence against you" almost always results in the one doing the threatening being put down extremely hard by said stronger party? To say nothing of the implausibility of a teenage girl being remotely able to actually physically harm her armed and presumably trained older male relatives?

I'm not saying they should warn them. And I did say Juliet should use poison.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not saying they should warn them. And I did say Juliet should use poison.

I thought you said she should use fire?

[Resileaf]

I'm not saying they should warn them. And I did say Juliet should use poison.

Yes, I'm sure that any random teenager can cold-bloodedly murder her entire family with poison.

[Skull the Troll]

I hope you realize that telling a stronger party "do what I want or I will instigate violence against you" almost always results in the one doing the threatening being put down extremely hard by said stronger party? To say nothing of the implausibility of a teenage girl being remotely able to actually physically harm her armed and presumably trained older male relatives?

Oh man don't even go there. TW's problem is that hes judging a fictional family from 500 years ago by today's standards. By today's standards of our world, I agree with him, its not very far removed from sex trafficking. Judging people of the past by todays standards (to say nothing of fictional worlds) is called Presentism. Future people may judge us harshly on any number of things we haven't even realized are bad yet, but it doesn't make us bad people by today's standards. Most everyone, including the people of 15th century England were doing the best they could.

[The_Weirdo]

I thought you said she should use fire?

If I did, I sorta meant after the poison. Regardless, I'm not claiming to think she should have used swordplay, given her context.

[The Extinguisher]

Oh man don't even go there. TW's problem is that hes judging a fictional family from 500 years ago by today's standards. By today's standards of our world, I agree with him, its not very far removed from sex trafficking. Judging people of the past by todays standards (to say nothing of fictional worlds) is called Presentism. Future people may judge us harshly on any number of things we haven't even realized are bad yet, but it doesn't make us bad people by today's standards. Most everyone, including the people of 15th century England were doing the best they could.

Just because something was more normalized in the past doesnt mean that it was okay to do so. We tend to infantalize the people who came before us, but its pretty ridiculous to say "the people of that time just didnt understand that women werent property we can't judge them".

It may be the case that my actions will be looked on in a negative light in the future, but i would very much like for that not to be the case, so i try very hard to improve myself and be better than i was before

[Cazero]

Oh man don't even go there. TW's problem is that hes judging a fictional family from 500 years ago by today's standards.

No, the problem with TW is that he's advocating mass murder. If anything, he's trying to apply standards from before civilisation, back when revenge-driven murder was the closest thing there was to justice.

[Kish]

No, the problem with TW is that he's advocating mass murder. If anything, he's trying to apply standards from before civilisation, back when revenge-driven murder was the closest thing there was to justice.

Yes, this. It's seriously messed up to suggest that the problem with "whenever anyone violates one of your rights, slaughter everyone in sight and tell anyone who questions this that it's the fault of the person who pushed you first" is that it's too modern.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's true of marriages generally though (caveat accepted). What would seem to be the difference is that people who've had their marriages arranged would tend to expect to have to make them work, while people who did not have their marriages arranged would tend to expect them to work themselves out.

No idea, as it's well beyond my own experience. Cultural expectation doubtless vary and inform such an approach.

Yes, I'm sure that any random teenager can cold-bloodedly murder her entire family with poison.

It's not a novel idea.

(Lehrer, Irish Ballad )

[hroþila]

I imagine that Skull is only referring to the "sex-traffickers" thing and they assume the whole mass murder shtick is just hyperbole on TW's part.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, I'm sure that any random teenager can cold-bloodedly murder her entire family with poison.

It's Renaissance Italy. Everyone with even a little money had a garden or window box of deadly nightshade, just in case.

[Resileaf]

It's Renaissance Italy. Everyone with even a little money had a garden or window box of deadly nightshade, just in case.

I kind of want to protest, but I know when I'm beaten.

[Ironsmith]

Well, yeah, but it's still not something over which they deserved to die... There are many morals to the story, but even the weirderst of mine is more normal than "People who fall in lust die and deserve it"...

Only if you read "and deserve it" into the moral; otherwise, it's a cautionary tale. "Kids, that could be you."

It's Renaissance Italy. Everyone with even a little money had a garden or window box of deadly nightshade, just in case.

Actually, it's more likely they kept nightshade (aka belladonna, "beautiful woman") for a domestic use... For instance, small quantities of the extract was often used in a kind of impromptu eyedrop, to cause pupil dialation (making eyes appear to be bigger, and therefore "prettier", hence the name), as well as numerous other cosmetic applications. It's also a natural anesthetic (the Romans used it as such). It's also just pretty. Insisting that noble families had it only for its toxic properties strikes me as pointlessly cynical.

[Ruck]

I imagine that Skull is only referring to the "sex-traffickers" thing and they assume the whole mass murder shtick is just hyperbole on TW's part.

Why would Skull, or anyone, assume this-- and why, for that matter, would you-- given that The Weirdo has repeatedly and explicitly said this is what he really believes?

Only if you read "and deserve it" into the moral; otherwise, it's a cautionary tale. "Kids, that could be you."

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." If a tragedy makes you feel like the writer wrote the conclusion to morally judge the protagonist rather than as a plausible consequence of the protagonist's actions, that writer has failed.

[hroþila]

Why would Skull, or anyone, assume this-- and why, for that matter, would you-- given that The Weirdo has repeatedly and explicitly said this is what he really believes?

Hey, I didn't say I assumed it's just hyperbole. As for why, well, I wouldn't blame anyone for believing TW is just being edgy on the internet, and since Skull only addressed the (in)adequacy of judging the distant past, without getting into anything else, I think it makes sense that they didn't take anything else seriously.

[Ironsmith]

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." If a tragedy makes you feel like the writer wrote the conclusion to morally judge the protagonist rather than as a plausible consequence of the protagonist's actions, that writer has failed.

Well, yeah. That's half the point of a cautionary tale- it's a narrative that discourages certain actions due to the consequences, not necessarily because said actions are morally wrong.

[Ruck]

Well, yeah. That's half the point of a cautionary tale- it's a narrative that discourages certain actions due to the consequences, not necessarily because said actions are morally wrong.

Yeah, I guess it's assumed when quoting a post that the author disagrees with the quoted, but I was more or less backing up your point.

[Flying Turtle]

Just because something was more normalized in the past doesnt mean that it was okay to do so. We tend to infantalize the people who came before us, but its pretty ridiculous to say "the people of that time just didnt understand that women werent property we can't judge them".

It may be the case that my actions will be looked on in a negative light in the future, but i would very much like for that not to be the case, so i try very hard to improve myself and be better than i was before

It also bears mentioning that something has to be started before it can be normalized. That means that (insert example of normalized human inflicted tragedy) had to be created by people who weren’t normalized to it.

On the plus side, 500 years from now, when global warming has killed billions of people, people will defend us by saying we didn’t know any better. Even though we did.