Shaking up Shakespeare

Okay, so I've reviewed a good deal of new book in the last two years but as 2009 draws to a close I find that I don't have any books left the review. So I cracked open some of my shakespeare books. The one I haven't read in a while is Romeo and Juliet (or to be a pedant, "The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet"). In the 7 years since I last read the play I have a new perspective on the story and just what it is and I'd like to share them with you.


First things first, Romeo and Juliet is not, let me repeat that, IS NOT a love story. It occurs to me that shakespeare is laughing at the folly of young love (for love read lust).

In the second act we have the following quote "Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks", which really does sum up the truth of the two young people. They are in love with each other's looks. Shakespeare has his character's rush around (actually it is debatable whether the characters are even shakepeares but I won't digress) and the speed with which they act, coupled with the way in which the couple rail against the established social mores, are what lead to their downfall.

It seems to me that the characters are little more that stupid children. It occurs to me that it is the way in which Romeo and Juliet were written that make them so.

Romeo is a character who is said to 'kiss by the book', which is the only real motivation that is given for Juliet falling in 'love' with him. Whilst Juliet is drawn as a girl on the cusp of maturity and immaturity. To look upon either as anything more than innocent and naive seems to be a stretch.

Shakespeare was, if nothing else, great at painting the flaws of 'the human condition' (urgh did I just write those words?) so why would he tell a story with a main theme that love leads to death. It seems to me it is far more likely that instead he was pointing out the folly of giving over to lust and physical attraction.
 
Regardless, I do wonder why it is that the idea of Romeo and Juliet as a love story has persisted. If nothing else surely the fact that so many die should be the first big sign. Let's face it when you pick up a shakespeare tragedy you know that at least half the cast don't survive!
 
Of course I am no academic (thank goodness!), but when looked at as a tragic love story the play seems like purile drivel; when looked at as a satire of 'young love' (again read lust) it is far more entertaining.
 
What do you think?