William Shakespeare

[Satya]

What do you think?

 

[Kwistalline]

When I first read the typelogic description of INFJ's, I laughed. Hamlet is my favorite of all his works! Though, to this day, I think hamlet as neither crazy nor sane. I think he chose a controlled insanity. More like "on the verge". Could have gone either way. Leaving was the best thing he could have done.

Anyhow, in general, I don't mind shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet? Not his best work. Of course, I have yet to read King Lear (it sounds utterly boring . . .)

The problem with Romeo and Juliet is that they were very young in the story. 13 and 16 I think (when my cousin was twelve she looked 18-guys hit on her all the time). Anyhoo, taking from psych theory, they were not mentally developed enough to understand the difference between love and physical attraction. Stories based on nothing deeper than physical chemistry aren't very inspiring, for me!

Besides, it has strong correlations with greek mythology, though right now I can't remember which one, specifically. I believe, in that one, the young man is killed by a lion . . .

 

[Satya]

The problem with Romeo and Juliet is that they were very young in the story. 13 and 16 I think (when my cousin was twelve she looked 18-guys hit on her all the time). Anyhoo, taking from psych theory, they were not mentally developed enough to understand the difference between love and physical attraction. Stories based on nothing deeper than physical chemistry aren't very inspiring, for me!

I disagree with that idea. Back in those days, children had to develop much faster. And I've never read anything in psychology that suggests all individuals between the ages of 13-16 are not "mentally developed" enough to understand the difference between love and physical attraction. I challenge you to provide a reputable piece of psychology to back that up. And Erickson doesn't count since he never observed adolescents when he proposed his theories.

 

[Inkling]

Hmm.... The Twelfth Night, on the other hand, was pure genius!!!

 

[Kwistalline]

The problem with Romeo and Juliet is that they were very young in the story. 13 and 16 I think (when my cousin was twelve she looked 18-guys hit on her all the time). Anyhoo, taking from psych theory, they were not mentally developed enough to understand the difference between love and physical attraction. Stories based on nothing deeper than physical chemistry aren't very inspiring, for me!

I disagree with that idea. Back in those days, children had to develop much faster. And I've never read anything in psychology that suggests all individuals between the ages of 13-16 are not "mentally developed" enough to understand the difference between love and physical attraction. I challenge you to provide a reputable piece of psychology to back that up. And Erickson doesn't count since he never observed adolescents when he proposed his theories.

You know what, I agree! I don't know what I was thinking!! I've actually defended that stance before, so I think that maybe I'm just unsure of it. Culturally they were conditioned under different circumstances with different expectations. Today, 13 and 16 year olds aren't expected to do anything more than be kids. Using farm-kids as an example, they tend to grow up faster b/c more is expected of them at an early age. You are correct.

 

[sriv]

But they were horribly immature.

I think Shakespeare wrote the story to teach a lesson against "love", so I have no idea why it is called the greatest love story of all time.

 

[Satya]

You know what, I agree! I don't know what I was thinking!! I've actually defended that stance before, so I think that maybe I'm just unsure of it. Culturally they were conditioned under different circumstances with different expectations. Today, 13 and 16 year olds aren't expected to do anything more than be kids. Using farm-kids as an example, they tend to grow up faster b/c more is expected of them at an early age. You are correct.

Yay! I get to be right for a change! It feels good!

But they were horribly immature.

How so? I would say they were naive, not immature.

I think Shakespeare wrote the story to teach a lesson against "love", so I have no idea why it is called the greatest love story of all time.

I think the story was written as a statement of how society can interfere with individuals interests. The actual love in the story is portrayed as innocent and pure. No such love exists, but it creates the illusion of this perfect love, that only the young can have.

 

[sriv]

How so? I would say they were naive, not immature.

Same thing to me.

I think the story was written as a statement of how society can interfere with individuals interests. The actual love in the story is portrayed as innocent and pure. No such love exists, but it creates the illusion of this perfect love, that only the young can have.

I've never heard the libertarian stance on it. But it definitely seems to be more like infatuation than love. Then again, my perspective of love is very different than theirs.

 

[Satya]

How so? I would say they were naive, not immature.

Same thing to me.

Trust me, there is a difference. An old grandmother can be naive.

I think the story was written as a statement of how society can interfere with individuals interests. The actual love in the story is portrayed as innocent and pure. No such love exists, but it creates the illusion of this perfect love, that only the young can have.

I've never heard the libertarian stance on it. But it definitely seems to be more like infatuation than love. Then again, my perspective of love is very different than theirs.[/quote]

Libertarian stance? I suppose it does read like that, doesn't it.

 

[Kwistalline]

Yay! I get to be right for a change! It feels good!

But they were horribly immature.

Would you say that if you knew they were older, like . . say . . . 25? I think their deaths were pre-mature. But immature doesn't really fit in, if you look a little closer. Circumstances did not allow for more honest interactions. :?: Of course, this is presumptive of me. What, specifically, gives you the impression they were immature?

Trust me, there is a difference. An old grandmother can be naive

Agreed. Naivetee (sp?) is more of an exposure issue, which is more of an external issue. Immaturity is related to exposure and time + internal issues pertaining to cognitive development and choice.

 

[sriv]

Would you say that if you knew they were older, like . . say . . . 25? I think their deaths were pre-mature. But immature doesn't really fit in, if you look a little closer. Circumstances did not allow for more honest interactions. :?: Of course, this is presumptive of me. What, specifically, gives you the impression they were immature?

Agreed. Naivetee (sp?) is more of an exposure issue, which is more of an external issue. Immaturity is related to exposure and time + internal issues pertaining to cognitive development and choice.

The Romeo-Rosaline relationship which revealed his poor decision making skills and shallowness. Very impatient at times. Lack of understanding between parents and children. And the moderately underdeveloped characters led to that belief.
Naivety as a word choice does work better though.

 

[Kwistalline]

Would you say that if you knew they were older, like . . say . . . 25? I think their deaths were pre-mature. But immature doesn't really fit in, if you look a little closer. Circumstances did not allow for more honest interactions. :?: Of course, this is presumptive of me. What, specifically, gives you the impression they were immature?

Agreed. Naivetee (sp?) is more of an exposure issue, which is more of an external issue. Immaturity is related to exposure and time + internal issues pertaining to cognitive development and choice.

The Romeo-Rosaline relationship which revealed his poor decision making skills and shallowness. Very impatient at times. Lack of understanding between parents and children. And the moderately underdeveloped characters led to that belief.
Naivety as a word choice does work better though.

. . . lack of understanding . . . well, it was period accurate. The children were raised, not by their parents, but by their servants. There parents were really more like people to whom they were greatful for their existence, but basically just strangers they didn't trust enough to divulge these sorts of things too. In the same position, would you? Fear, hatred, and prejudice are intense emotions not easily won over by reason. R+J had no examples to follow, no precedents for how to continue, how to fix the problem, how to be together without secrecy for the sake of their lives.

Character development is a matter of perception. I think he did ok, I just hated the play. More b/c I can't see it happening today, at least, I couldn't respect it. Teens today are just overgrown children. Teens then were more the equivelent of the average 20+. They were of marriagable age.

 

[sriv]

. . . lack of understanding . . . well, it was period accurate. The children were raised, not by their parents, but by their servants. There parents were really more like people to whom they were greatful for their existence, but basically just strangers they didn't trust enough to divulge these sorts of things too. In the same position, would you? Fear, hatred, and prejudice are intense emotions not easily won over by reason. R+J had no examples to follow, no precedents for how to continue, how to fix the problem, how to be together without secrecy for the sake of their lives.

Hm...you make some good points.

Character development is a matter of perception. I think he did ok, I just hated the play. More b/c I can't see it happening today, at least, I couldn't respect it. Teens today are just overgrown children. Teens then were more the equivelent of the average 20+. They were of marriagable age.

Yeah, same here.

I'm an overgrown child? :?

 

[Kwistalline]

Maybe a tad overgrown!! It's ok. We like you anyway (just to clarify, it's a purely friendship related platonic sort of big sisterly "like", just in case I'm ever potentially confusing in that respect)!