Shakespeare's Couples: When Romeo & Juliet Work, Part I

Despite generations of heart-sick teenagers taking Romeo & Juliet as a blueprint for "success," Shakespeare likely meant it as a cautionary tale--directed more at the parents than the teens.

The Romeo & Juliet trope rests on the premise that two people from opposite sides of the tracks meet and fall in love. Maybe their families are enemies. Maybe one is a liberal and one is a conservative. Maybe one is poor and the other is rich. Maybe one is royalty and the other is an obscure non-royal (Cinderella). Maybe one is a spy or con-artist and the other is the mark.

The tension arises from (1) outside forces stating, "You must not be together." And (2) inner forces stating, "I don't really get you."

Sometimes the tensions are resolved in accordance with this literary tale's most celebrated example: lots of death. Sometimes it ends with sacrifice and acceptance (Casablanca). Sometimes it ends with an utter lack of realism. And sometimes, if handled correctly, it ends with a sweet, romantic resolution.

The first two are not the focus of this post (despite Casablanca being a great movie). The focus is the last two: what separates the positive romantic unbelievable ending from the positive romantic believable ending.

The difference lies in acknowledgement of the accompanying problems.

In Frasier, Niles meets Daphne's lay-about

brothers and still wants to marry her.

Unrealistic Romeo & Juliet tales focus only on (1) the external forces rather than accepting that (2) internal qualms will have impact.

Internal qualms count because people cannot be magically stripped of their familial/cultural/monetary expectations. There is a reason that most people do, in fact, marry within their "class" (even in America). One reason Austen is so popular even now is that she verbalizes issues that have become taboo in our own culture (every culture has, as Tom Wolfe argued, its own Victorian Gent).

Truth: money and background impact relationships.

Elizabeth can argue fiercely with Lady Catherine de Bourgh that she equates to Darcy since she is a gentleman's daughter. Yet Austen never allows any of her heroines to contemplate marrying a farmhand or a minor clerk in an office. Love conquers all within a specific social milieu.

Austen was not being naive or prejudiced; she was being realistic. Money, where people want to live, how people want to live, their friends, their families, their social settings: all these things are factors in a relationship. To pretend they are not is to leave the door open for worse problems.

Austen perfectly encapsulates these "worse problems" in Sense & Sensibility. At the end of the book, Willoughby--who married for money--regrets that he didn't marry for love. Elinor wisely reflects that if Willoughby had married her sister, he would have ended up resenting their mutual poverty.

So how does a Romeo & Juliet tale end without the couple, in the long run, hating each other's guts because "you estranged me from my family...you buried me in poverty...you forced me to live in a horrible city/country/town...you prevented me from accomplishing what I could have accomplished..."

Type of Romances: Romances with Royalty

Americans as royalty--popular trope.

On Votaries, I discuss royals who transform. 

 

Below is a repost of why romances should avoid "the royal who falls in love with an ordinary person" trope. 

 

* * *

 

A great many romances tackle the royal personage in love. Several exceedingly popular books have tackled this trope--and succeeded in terms of reader interest.

I generally avoid them. To me, royal life is rather like pioneer life: I fail to see the appeal. Being a member of the royal family or the aristocracy stinks--as a large number of Americans have discovered. It's a Hollywood-level loss of privacy plus social and political expectations mixed into one.

And sure, Kate Middletons exist--the significant other who manages to combine exuberance and natural ability into one strong package. That woman has political and social intelligence coming out her ears.

The problem in fiction is that the non-royal protagonist is so often portrayed as an ordinary mortal--the person who doesn't have super-duper extroverted social and political moxie coming out the ears. There's an understandable fascination with the idea of just any-old-person suddenly entering the fantastical world of royalty. It's so glamorous and high-powered...

And dull...

Oh, wait, my bias is showing.

(Truly, as a lifestyle, I think being royal sounds utterly horrific: horror-movie terrifying and claustrophobic.) 

Some writers will have the ordinary mortal lover rise to the challenge--this is actually more believable than the writers who determine that the ordinary mortal lover shouldn't have to rise to an acceptable level of social and political obligations. Yeah, we've all seen how well the latter comes across in real life. No matter how many people want to back Edward or Harry or Fergie--the fact is, Kate Middleton makes a better impression with the populace.

Because in the end, the willingness of a royal family member to sacrifice all for love doesn't really pay off since the royal family member comes off as kind of a jerk or mired in wishful thinking. 

Like with the Hollywood romance, I generally leave the genre alone. 

Elsewhere I tackle why the JOB of being royal is generally best left alone as well.  

Shakespeare Couples: Richard and Anne Neville

Although I watched much of The Hollow Crown, I did not watch The Hollow Crown's Richard III. 

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the hunchback evil king--I understand that he did a splendid job. I also understand that the interpretation is classic. 

And I appreciate that Shakespeare went to town when he created a villain to top all villains. 

Nevertheless, I find the characterization annoying. 

The reason is not because I think that Richard III didn't oversee the deaths of his nephews. I think they likely died from disease in the Tower, leaving Richard III with an almighty problem on his hands. I do think he deposed his oldest nephew and turned both children into bastards. I frankly found the movie The Lost King to be somewhat irritating since it is saturated with a sense of victimhood (poor misunderstood king and poor misunderstood researcher). 

What irritates me about Shakespeare's villain to top all villains is the non-historicity. I don't agree with all Josephine Tey's arguments in Daughter of Time but she makes the excellent point that historians tend to see the removal of heirs prior to Henry VII and Henry VIII as barbaric and medieval--yet the same systemic shoring up of a dynasty by the Tudors, they paint as crafty statesmanship. (Uh, folks, it's the same thing.)  

I continue to believe that Richard III and Henry VII would have understood each other substantially better than they would understand us--or we would understand them. 

Tey argues in Daughter of Time that Richard was beloved by the city of York (his primary seat was in the North--as they say in Dr. Who, "Every planet has a North!"). She argues that he loved his wife, Anne Neville, and mourned his son and heir, who died before the age of 10. 

At a purely human level, there's no reason to doubt her regarding these relationships. As Shakespeare points out, any single king or magistrate has his supporters.    

What Makes This Manga Different: Sweet Room Romance

I mention the omniscient lover in a previous post. Sweet Room Romance has a sort of omniscient lover. In truth, thought, Albrecht simply has very good staff. He determines to make Haruto his boyfriend, but that determination originates in his personality, not in "I know best" assumptions. And he is often stymied by Haruto's rather wistful playboy act.

However, what makes the 2-volume series unique isn't the pursuit--though it helps that both men have distinct personalities. What makes it unique is the "hobby."

Granted, in this case, the "hobby" is work. However, for some characters--like Adachi and Kurosawa--work is simply work. They do their best because, well, why not?

For Haruto and Albrecht, however, the hotelier business (as well as travel and interior design) is something they both care about, find interest in. It's a great example of characters bonding over their passions. And it creates opportunities for them to relate to each other.

Consequently, one of the funniest sequences is when Haruto--convinced that Albrecht will be horrified by his choice--takes him to a love hotel in Japan. But Albrecht is fascinated by the "erotic cultural heritage" and starts objectively pondering how the concept of meeting customers' needs could be transferred to fancier settings. 

One of the most touching sequences is when Haruto buys Albrecht cufflinks from the pottery maker who supplies elegant work for the flagship hotel.

I happen to love staying in fancy hotels, when I can afford it. So the series not only works well, I can relate to the protagonists!

The Omniscient Lover: Bad Writing However Desirable

On Votaries, I comment on the problems caused by omniscient detectives.

Omniscient lovers cause equal problems. The best romances, though they may involve rescues, provide lovers who improve. Darcy learns to communicate outside of his man-cave. Elizabeth learns that she may--despite her quickness of thought--misjudge situations. They come to an understanding.

The omniscient lover overrides all that. This lover may sometimes express doubt, may occasionally--after knowing exactly what the significant other wants, borderline stalking the significant other, arranging the significant other's life--say, "But if you don't want to--"

But such token "I guess you have free will" statements don't suggest a personality in need of transformation or adaptation. Such lovers are rather dull.

However, I do understand the creation of the omniscient lover better than the creation of the omniscient detective--why it is such an attractive proposition. I believe that at the back of original sin or the natural man--the stuff that leads people to behave stupidly and meanly--is a desire for ease, for guarantees, for absolute and all-encompassing answers.

Life is just so hard! And people often wish it could be simpler. Label the bad guys. Force the perfect utopia on people. Go with the latest peer pressure/trend.

Dorothy Sayers called this behavior "snatch." And it's understandable--even if wrong (and explains the number of people who have convinced themselves that Chat GPT "borrowing" other people's work for their benefit isn't lazy, short-sighted, and unethical: what will humans do when the work becomes one mass of circular reasoning?)

In romance, searching and dating and breaking up and searching and dating and trying to make a relationship work is hard. It's exhausting. It's understandable that people sometimes fall back on a trope where the desired partner simply makes it happen.

Of course, few people truly want that "simple" solution when it does appear.

Shakespeare Couples: Richard II and His Subjects

Richard II doesn't really have a romance. It is one of Shakespeare's (extremely well-written and terrifyingly human) political plays. It's rather astonishing that he wasn't, at the time the plays were put on, accused more often of treason. But the plays can be interpreted in multiple ways, which may be what protected him.

Richard II is about what a king, however divine he perceives himself, should not do--not if he wants to prevent the War of the Roses. I watched The Hollow Crown version, which starts that series with a profoundly gifted set of actors!

The Hollow Crown presents Richard as believing fully in his mantle (unlike some of Shakespeare's other kings). He is nevertheless profoundly out of his depth regarding human behavior. What he assumes will be an object lesson (stopping the tournament) is perceived quite differently by the combatants. He appears waffling rather than decisive and understanding.

One of the most memorable scenes is when he attempts to face down the returning Bolingbroke. He is terrified, yet he once again attempts to respond through elaborate playacting. Bolingbroke--a far more pragmatic and down-to-earth guy (he becomes Henry IV)--is confused by this king whom he wants to follow but who seems mired in performances rather than actual statecraft. 

One of the most popular videos online is the scene where Richard gives up his crown to Bolingbroke and prophecies, in sum, that it is a burden that will destroy him.They want to understand each other yet cannot.

The most important relationship is not between Richard and a wife but between Richard and his subjects, which is, in many ways, appropriate to the time period and genre. An example on the plus side (despite an equally fraught relationship) is Aragorn and Boromir at the end of Boromir's life. 

 

X is for Xie Lian's Series: Couples Who Solve Supernatural Problems

X authors are not the easiest to find, even if one goes beyond American & English authors. 

Mo Xiang Tong Xiu is a great exception! 

So far I have read Heaven's Official Blessing, Vol. 1 and started Vol. 2. The reading is slow--the novels belong to "world fantasy," which, like "world romance," involves EVERYTHING that is going on around the characters. But the denouements are always quite gripping.

The series belongs to a romance/sci-fi/fantasy sub-genre: a couple investigate supernatural happenings. Basically, X-Files. Priest's Guardian series falls into the same category as does the Onmoyoji & Tengu Eyes series. 

I quite like these series overall though they can cross a line into nihilism. I always considered Death Note to be about 1000 times more interesting while Light was still alive than after Light died. That is, part of the draw of these books--whether romantic or non-romantic--is the push & pull, the banter, the constant readjustments between the two main characters. Working together to solve a problem IS the underlying structure.  

Heaven's Official Blessing is a decent addition since the personalities are complementary. In addition, though San Lang seems confident and powerful, a dominant partner, he has his own uncertainties and weaknesses. The characters balance each other.