In Defence of 'Romeo & Juliet'

“Romeo and Juliet is one of my favorite plays by Shakespeare.”

Whenever I tell anybody this, I will never fail to (I kid you not) receive either an eye-roll, a cringe or a somewhat polite (not really) slow and tentative nod from the other party. Some people go the extra mile by scoffing about how it’s just a story about “dumb teenagers” and “puppy love”. This is probably the point where I’m prompted to give a groan in return because guess what! This only marginally begins to breach what’s going on in ‘Romeo and Juliet’. So, calm the ‘cynicism monster’ down for two seconds and allow me to highlight the crazy amount of non-‘dumb teenager’-esque messages that run beneath the surface of this play.

Granted, I won’t be able to touch on everything, but I’m sure as heck I can touch on enough.

Now, I’m not trying to say you absolutely have to like this play… you can hate it with every fiber of your being and that would be completely understandable. However, what bothers me is when those who refuse to bother with why such tropes were put there in the first place simplify a lot of the caricatures placed into the story. Before we get to the nitty-gritty part of the analysis, I’d just like to warn you that this article contains mentions of violence, suicide, abuse, mental illness and social issues.

Let’s first address what ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is wrongly recognized for (emphasis on the word ‘wrongly’): a satire of young love. I mean, really? Come on. We’re talking about Shakespeare the literary genius, here. If he wanted to talk about “dumb teenagers”, the last scene would not have contained the line: “… for never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo.” That is a HUGE statement to make, particularly as an ending to the play (it’s what you leave your audience with). Shakespeare is essentially telling the audience to “sit down, shut up and reflect because there is no other story more tragic than the one you’ve just witnessed”. There is absolutely no sense in him writing that for no reason. 

I’ll give you a quick run-through of what ‘Romeo and Juliet’ should be recognized for (emphasis on the word ‘should’): socially born destruction, doomed youth, the inevitability of fate when something is so socially ingrained in society that it becomes normalized, how time will never seem to be enough and most importantly how silence is the deadliest toxin of all. 

So, who started all this?

No one actually knows because as soon as the play starts, we’re immediately thrown into a world whereby the Montague/Capulet tensions are high and have been stuck that way for so long that it’s become a given. I mean, imagine any social problem that first comes to mind… one that never fails to enrage or irritate you. That’s what the Montague/Capulet issue is like in Shakespeare’s world. These two families completely loathe each other and for what? They give each other Hell and its foundation is nothing more than a social issue of which the origins cannot even be traced back to anymore. These characters condemn, judge and ultimately doom everyone to misery and for some, even premature death. “Ultimately, for what?” you ask? Let me tell you: nothing. Besides pride and a supreme belief of superiority in both parties, the audience is never told about why it is these two families are even warring in the first place. Doesn’t everybody’s death in the play seem pointless in that perspective?

Well, that’s the idea.

However, we can be damned sure of who should not be held responsible for whatever happens in the course of events: Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio, Tybalt, Benvolio, and whoever was a part of the youth of Verona. I’ve heard so many people say how “stupid” Romeo and Juliet were and that their affair “ruined everything” as well as (you’ll never guess) how “they deserved what happened to them”. I just wonder if these people realize that they are essentially blaming the kids who have been brought up in a socially destructive society that mentally abuses them, the kids who are trying to stay alive day after day in a society that hates them for reasons they cannot fathom, the kids who are willing to die for some semblance of inner peace… those are the kids you deem responsible for the events that unfurl? Do you see how heartbreaking that is?

Let’s take a look at poor Romeo. People either think he’s an “idiot” or a “dreamboat”. Don’t you think that’s a little unfair? He is Shakespeare’s protagonist for a reason, after all. He’s not just some privileged teenager who falls in love and screws things up for fun. The introduction of his character in the plot is definitely indicative of that. We see Benvolio (his cousin) have a dialogue with Romeo’s parents about Romeo’s peculiar behavior (we see him on stage in a complete state of depression, by the way). When Benvolio assures them that he can “cure” his cousin, Romeo’s parents simply accept this notion and leave the stage without further contemplation.

A+ parenting, huh?

This scene somehow suggests to us that that’s just how Romeo was raised. That’s probably how the other Montagues were raised as well. The children take care of the other children while the parents are mostly absent from their lives. I, for one, have a hard time recalling a scene where Romeo even talks to his parents face-to-face onstage (spoiler alert: that’s because it doesn’t exist!) This young boy has no guiding hand whatsoever and is raised by other young boys who teach him about the life he has to lead in a city that is filled to the brim with its own blood.  

Then again, that doesn’t take away the fact that he is the “only son” of Capulet’s “great enemy”… the only living heir to the House of Montague. There are expectations put on him, obviously. He is expected to perpetuate hate and prejudice, brutalizing anybody who dares step in their way. However: he doesn’t. In fact, he’s perfectly fine with the Capulets even before ever meeting Juliet (recall his infatuation with Rosaline Capulet at the start). Even though she rejected him, he doesn’t see that as a reason to start a war (as you would imagine could be the perfect chance to take the lives of a couple of his father’s greatest enemies)… he just wallows in his misery over it. Romeo is actively rejecting the opportunity to slaughter (as taught to him by the other Montagues) and perpetuate prejudice… why do we hate him again? Aren’t those supposed to be admirable qualities to model after? When he screamed: “I defy you, stars!” he really did defy whatever sinister expectations were put upon him, which is both heartbreaking and poignant.

The only son of House Montague does not want social injustice. What does he want? He just wants someone to love him… and more importantly, he wants to love someone. Don’t you think he realizes that it would be so much easier to give in to societal pressures that attempt to force him into a life filled with hatred (a-la Tybalt)? This kid spends his whole life searching for love, but does not recognize its shape or form and is thus rendered to depression because of that. The neglected Romeo wants nothing more than love and yet he cannot have it (and is punished for finding it in the end). There is nothing “romantic” or “swoon-worthy” about that. It paints his life as far from being “privileged” and more to it being rife with confusion, to be honest.

Needless to say, this has probably been the root of Romeo’s mental instability. I think it’s safe to say that most of these kids are mentally unstable at best, if they haven’t completely lost it already (*cough* Tybalt *cough*). He’s practically bursting with passion and does not know what to do with it. The poor guy is largely neglected by his parents whilst still having expectations thrust open him… not to mention his only “guiding hand” is in the form of other mentally unstable youth who find themselves in similar circumstances as he. Yes, Romeo is reckless and he doesn’t think things through (as seen when he rushes into love and commits a murder he never intended to commit)… but do you think he should bear full responsibility for the way that he is? Do you think, at any point, Mercutio and Benvolio would have been telling him to “think things through” before doing them? No way! This is simply the way that they’ve been brought up and it is what partly contributes to Romeo’s eventual death.

Moving on to Juliet Capulet… I’m just going to put this out there: do not ever, ever, ever call her "dumb" in my presence because I will lose it. I say this because that seems to be the reputation she’s made for herself amongst throngs of audiences and I just don’t see it. Juliet is smart as a whip and knows exactly what to say as well as when to say it. She’s the Margaery Tyrell of Verona… and she was only fourteen years old. Fourteen! How does a fourteen-year-old fathom growing up in a turbulent society where literally half the population wants you dead? I have no idea, but Juliet did, that’s for damned sure.

The audience can actually note that Juliet seems a little more stable and “put together” than the guide-less Romeo. I’m not saying she received her guidance from the Capulets (no way, Jose)… but she does have a supportive adult figure in the form of ‘The Nurse’ in her life. The most important thing to realize about their relationship is that Juliet is sent into a downward spiral (in the second half of the play) the moment ‘The Nurse’ is no longer there to hold her hand, so to speak. All this while, the character who was not only comic relief for the audience, but to Juliet as well, had been there to keep the young girl from sinking into a deep depression at least (with her hilarious moments). I don’t blame her, though… like I said: she was a fourteen-year old girl whose life had been in danger at the hands of the Montagues ever since she was born. Having your one lifeline (Nurse) ripped away from you in moments of high tension could send any impressionable youth off the deep end.

At the same time, it’s crucial that we are aware of what was mentioned earlier, which is her astute awareness of the world around her (as opposed to Romeo’s choice to simply drown in his own mind and misery). This is demonstrated when her mother attempts to match-make her with Paris, to which she makes the smart decision in ‘playing along’, simply asking a set of questions to find out who he is and maintaining her composure throughout the scene. As soon as her mother exits, she tells the nurse as well as the audience about her true feelings (which are basically that she doesn’t flipping care about whether he is a “handsome and worthy gentlemen” or not). Juliet is equally as loving and as passionate as Romeo, but she knows when to reel it in and that is what makes her a wise, young girl beyond her years. She picks and chooses what to show and what to hold back because she is determined to live in this violent world she’s been born into. Her fighting spirit continues and ends on her terms and nobody’s prejudices will ever restrain that for her.

Moving on to everybody’s favorite trio: Tybalt, Benvolio and Mercutio. I personally think Tybalt gives Romeo a run for his money in being, quite honestly, one of the most tragic figures in the play. Everybody seems to disregard him as an evil brute whose character is as shallow as it is underdeveloped. No… just: no. Tybalt has likely gone through a severe amount of mental abuse, considering how he’s the closest thing to a male heir in House Capulet (without actually having a title). The family uses him to carry out their dirty work and he simply follows orders, doing what he feels is right in their eyes. He’s like a Doberman on a leash and has known no other life but the one that’s been forced upon him. Much like Romeo, his actions are largely ruled by passion… the only difference is while Romeo’s actions stem from a confused need to escape, Tybalt’s stems from a completely obliterated psyche that causes him to lose all form of inhibition. He is exactly the brutal and vicious so-called “warrior” that society had wanted him to be, but when he does perform the way he’s been brought up to, everyone turns against him and makes him look like the villain who’d brought all that upon himself.

Benvolio, on the other hand, is probably one of the more stable characters in the play. Sure, he is a Montague and he is Romeo’s cousin, but the pressure of being “the only male heir” is not on his shoulders. As he mostly watches the events unfurl, I’d like to think of him as a sort of window into the private lives of this world for the audience. This is because as soon as the play ends, Mercutio and Romeo (his “brothers”, his caretakers, his friends) are dead and all that’s left is for him to pick up the pieces. He is a representation of those that bear witness to the “two hours traffic of our stage”.

Next, everybody’s favorite: Mercutio. There is always that one character in a Shakespearean play that says the most inappropriate things (especially in the context of an Elizabethan play!) like Touchstone in ‘As You Like It’, for example. Mercutio is “that guy” in ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and we absolutely love him for it. Now, Mercutio is by no means a Montague because he’s actually a member of the royal family (he’s related to the Prince). In fact, he has a brother named Valentine who seems to have an in with the Capulets (since he was the one with an invitation to the ball). In conclusion, Mercutio does not have a “blood obligation” to either family because he belongs to neither (he chooses to be an ‘honorary Montague’). He’s such a wild card because you never know what to expect from him… he acts a little mad, but we know that he isn’t because we recount the famous speech he gives. It’s a pretty iconic moment because he reveals his surprising clarity and awareness of the world around him (John McEnery’s version of it in Zeffirelli’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is one of my favorites! It’s a definite scene-stealer).

Okay… this is where we get to the core of everybody’s hatred for the play: Romeo and Juliet as a couple. Let me paint you a little picture; imagine that these two kids lived in a normal world where they weren’t mentally abused and physically threatened on a daily basis. Are you imagining it? Let’s just say the family “feud” was nothing more than a little quarrel over who gets to park in the spot right between their respective driveways. Even then: who gave anybody the authority to decide what constitutes as ‘love’? It is absolutely irrelevant for anybody to determine whether or not these two were in love. Yes, they knew each other for less than a week… other baby-faced youngsters are raping and murdering each other in the streets of Verona and the fact that two teenagers found love with one another is what you’re so enraged about? Are you kidding me? As ridiculous as it sounds, Romeo and Juliet loved each other even if it came out of a brief glance… enough to die for one another and that’s all that matters. Although, I digress because that’s not what the play is even about anyway!

Shakespeare uses ‘love’ as a tool to deliver the messages he intends to, but by no means is it the center of attention. He means to highlight the fact that Romeo and Juliet’s connection to one another is like no other. Proof? The poetry when Romeo and Benvolio speak of Rosaline is all. over. the. place. That wasn’t Shakespeare having an off day, okay… that was him reminding us all again why he is indeed a literary genius. I say this because if you compare it to the dialogue between Romeo and Juliet when they first meet… you will get chills, I kid you not. Their dialogue forms a back and forth Shakespearean sonnet in perfect form. That is the playwright alerting the audience that Juliet isn’t just another Rosaline to Romeo (as I’ve heard plenty of people say). This is it for him. This is his be all, end all. There is no other for either of them, which is a terrible revelation to the audience because we’re told from the prologue how it all ends! They fall in love and they die. We already know that as soon as we witness their first meeting. The fact that they fall in love almost immediately and take their own lives only a mere week later is the extreme consequence of what constitutes as an extreme way of life. The fact that their love story spanned for only a week should not render their tale unbelievable because that quick burst of passion is exactly the point of the message Shakespeare was getting at! The intensity of how they survive day after day under the threat of the opposing family is how they have to live and the realization that they may not live to see the next sunrise (day after day) is how they have to love. As the audience, we know their efforts are all in vain because we already know that they are going to die in the end. Their parents had already killed them before they’d even met each other.  

These two characters are essentially every young person who’s ever said “no” to whatever prejudices society had tried to force upon them. They are the people who tried to fix social injustice with love, but to no avail. As the play approaches its conclusion, we realize with horror that these children become increasingly desperate… even Juliet who had demonstrated such strength and determination to live earlier on in story. We see the truth dawn upon her: that she is nothing more than a powerless fourteen-year old girl who cannot escape the downward spiral that is their society. Every single member of the young cast is doomed because by perpetuating hate and prejudice, society invariably dooms itself. There is no bright light at the end of the tunnel because even before the show starts, the children have been constantly pushed to depression, to extreme circumstances, to finding outlets in dangerous ways… in the end, the only way they can find solace is in death. The protagonists that we’ve been rooting for (despite the fact that we know how it ends) actually resort to taking their own lives.

“For never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo.”

I would like to bring this line up again because I find it extremely crucial to the point that I’d like to make. Why is there no other story that is more tragic than the one we’ve just bore witness to? It’s because every story of “woe” stems from this: hatred and prejudice. This is quite literally the foundation of misery and sorrow, yet society continues to inflict it upon itself. The youth of tomorrow, children, kids… They are killing themselves because society will not grant them the peace they so desperately seek. Speaking in terms of Verona: even if you do survive, all you’ll be caught up in is the never-ending downward spiral to destruction anyway. Who’s to say that that notion doesn’t transgress into reality?

However, it does not have to be that way.

Romeo and Juliet were fated to eradicate the social prejudice that had been plaguing their society for generations, even in death (especially in death, if you think about it). Even though we are made aware of what happens in the prologue, Shakespeare makes us sit through five acts and actually watch the horrors that unfold. Here is the world and these are its problems… These are the children and you’re about to watch them die. Like a helpless bystander, we watch these innocent kids get slaughtered by their society… we watch as they fall in love (we watch with a sinking feeling in our stomach because we know that any semblance of happiness will be ripped from their grasps in a matter of “two hours”… yes, Shakespeare actually writes the time taken for everything to take course). We’re given this terrible knowledge of their fates and we cannot do anything about it because everything is doomed to unfurl the way we knew it was going to unfurl from the start.

In the end, Romeo and Juliet die… but it is not a death borne by hate. Their lives were not claimed by an “ancient feud” the way Tybalt and Mercutio’s lives were. Tybalt and Mercutio were two of the many, many young lives lost due to this war that no one even understands what the point is about anymore. Romeo and Juliet were the first to die from love and that is what changes everything. Their union had been the glimmer of hope for a future where innocent lives did not have to be lost for pride or arrogance… their deaths signify the death of that future and this destroyed possibility is what makes their parents see. This is what lights a fire for change.

I’d like to bring Benvolio’s role as the window into this world up again because like I mentioned before: he is a representation of the audience’s presence on stage. Benvolio leaves with the same knowledge as we have procured: how much longer does Verona (and by that extension, the world) have to drown in its own blood before we actually do something about it? How much longer do we sit back and watch our friends, our family, our children die in vain? We are left with all these questions and Shakespeare actually urges us to embrace these thoughts with the idea that change is imperative:

“Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things.”

In conclusion, I can’t force you to do anything… but at least think twice before you scoff about how ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is “nothing but a sappy love story about two dumb teenagers”. Remember that that attitude is exactly what killed generations and generations of youth in Verona… it is that kind of indifference that has silenced the cries of help heard around the world today.