I never liked the principle actions in Romeo and Juliet because it’s pretty obvious myopic choices end in tragedy. But more than that the tragedy is based in the fact that the youngsters were all high strung: Tibalt, Mercutio, Romeo, and Juliet. Additionally the apothecary enabled stupid things but that’s what apothecaries do. Potions are not problem solving. Remember that.
Knowing that, I still stumbled into a relationship with a woman who infatuated me for years. Romantic words were spoken and thoughtlessness ran rampant. Life-and-deathly the romance meant everything was sacred between us and very little was left to be shared with outsiders which was more than stifling to both of us. She told me to take her even if she didn’t want it. That was a bad idea. And as such, it ended badly. Morally, she asked for it, but also it’s not freedom to violate the freedom of another. We love our contracts, but they should ultimately be founded in continued voluntary commitment in my opinion.
I’ve known certain people who seem much more validating without the cost. The chemistry has the potential to be just as spicy but like good friends, they’d never make a deal that kills either of us. It’s nice to know some people keep their heads about them because the chemistry that existed was bidirectional and evolved into something we still value.
The current relationship has tons of promise. It’s unnaturally relaxed. There’s probably a billion places our lack of formality could be exploited to suck the joy out of the relationship, but no one involved wants to make that kind of a choice. Like the friend I referenced she’s level headed and hesitant to trap me and I feel the same way about her. Whatever makes us who we are needs to continue because I dig the results.
But no matter how awesome love seems. I don’t intend to die for it. I won’t accept anyone else dying for me. I’m only here for living. My love is a pacifist because love shouldn’t kill.
I agree. It’s very romantic to say you’d die for someone but when you start to get practical about things all kinds of problems show up with that idea. Plus, like you said, I’d rather live with someone I love than die for him. I like the idea of a comfortable, normal life that works, of romance that fits into the everyday, so much more than a life full of sweeping gestures that are unrealistic and must always be topped by the next big sweeping gesture. Give me small and lovely love over big showy love any day of the week and I’ll sign up. I have a feeling the love that might look plain and unshowy is the love that’ll outlast all the others. And I’m in the process of testing that theory with my very favorite person.
I think you know how I feel about how literature has no responsibility to teach us anything. I don’t think that the point is that they died for love – the point was that neither wanted to live without the other. It’s not a teachable moment, but it’s a compelling story. I doubt the illustrious bard would have advised any real-life star-crossed lovers to kill themselves as a solution to their problems.
Sure. Fiction has no obligation to provide education. However, I’ve met people who were overly romantic such that they killed their ability to think critically to obsess into their relationship and it all seemed similar to me.