/lit/ - Literature

>>/R9K/ has some theories, you should check it out

A badly done movie with 90s cliches?

"Real love" is being a horny, angsty teenager who kills himself over someone he just met and would have gotten tired of in a month anyway?

I really enjoyed the movie too.

Because that is idealized love and it leads to tragedy everytime.

You either have a "happily ever after" ending in which things never happen and you don't get to see Snow White getting old and saggy and wake up complaining about her spine and lighting up a cigarette and scratching her vagina with her greasy fat fingers. Or you get two characters that actually know they can't be together "happily ever after" and so they kill themselves.

In the real world though, you've got glimpses of things and nothing is too perfect and nothing is too bad.

>>2367238
>nothing is too bad

Wrong.

because reality is written in prose

It is the ruthless plague that afflicts the romantic idealists such as myself.

Foolish, pure, young love.

Sadly, passions like Romeo and Juliet's are not dealt with in real life. You're not going to be totally up front with a stranger saying how you love them. You will nurture the foolish love until it eats away your soul, and you will feel ashamed of the misplaced affection, yet so attached to it. And when you finally realize how stupid and pointless it all was, and that one can't hope for a truly ideal love, you feel despaired, lost, and empty.

Speaking from personal experiences here

Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

>>2367234
This.
>>2367238
How is Romeo and Juliet idealised love? Shakespeare wrote a play about how stupid horny teenagers are and how much they can fuck up the status quo.
At the beginning of the play Romeo is whining about some girl he's in love with, then he sees Juliet and is all like "Fuck Rosaline, here's some chick with better tits."
And Juliet is all like "A boy showing interest in me? It must be truelove.jpg"
Then they get fuck and get married within a couple a couple of days. And they choose to keep the fact that they're married secret - a fact that would probably stop the conflict between their families - and people die because of it.
Then because of a mis-communication they both an hero.
If Romeo and Juliet had have lived instead of offing themselves then their lives likely would've been shit because they married the first person who had sex with them. Juliet would pop out a few kids and lose her beauty, Romeo would womanise and grow fat and decadent.
They'd live bitterly ever after until they were killed in the revolution of the proletariat for being the definition of petty bourgeois.

inb4 "but it wuz tru love!" Incorrect. It was hormones.
Lady Macbeth's love for her husband, that was true love.

OP here. I don't know. Not many teenagers (at least that I know of) would actually legitimately kill themselves over something like this. And I mean not only the relationship, but the beauty which they use to express it.
For example,
>"Soft, what light through yonder window breaks, it is the east and Juliet is the sun."

>"Come loving black brow night, give me my Romeo. And when I shall die, take him and cut him out into the stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine, that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the sun."

That shit's beautiful /lit/

>>2367299
In case you're not trolling:
Romeo and Juliet was blatantly unrealistic, and it didn't need to be realistic. For the purposes of the play, it was not hormones that caused their affection, it was the irresistible love that they felt.

>Then because of a mis-communication they both an hero.

It's called dramatic irony, you little bitch

>>2367312
that's because they're not talking

they're just vessels for shakes to drop down cock-glorious verse

>>2367315
>cock-glorious

this term you have coined is absolutely fabulous!

I enjoyed the movie but just because it was fun to watch. I hate that they fell in love at first sight. I hate that they were derp enough to die that way. One could have mourned the other for a while before offing themselves, thus the other would wake and lalala the end.

>>2367316
>desiring any sort of degree of realism in literature
dafuq

>>2367228
Because the average lifespan of your Shakespearean-era person was around 30 to 40 years old. These people had to fall madly in love because they had a very restricted time in which to do so.

>>2367339
True, but I mean, why don't people just fall as passionately in love as they used to? Why did it turn into,
>"Yo baby, lessss' fuck sometime"
rather than
>"See, how she leans her cheek upon her hand!
O that I were a glove upon that hand,
that I might touch that cheek!""

>>2367299
It doesn't matter if it is about hormones or "a god-like energy called love", the result is the same: they idealized each other, saw their love as something perfect. I don't see how coming for hormones make it not idealized love, actually, on the contrary, teenagers are the ones with crazy hormones and idealized love so...

Yeah, that's about it.

>>2367250
It's not. Have a revolution, be tortured, be hungry, acquire AIDS... Whatever, you'll die and you'll be released. By too good and too bad I mean basicly heaven and hell, eternal glory and worst possible world ever.

>>2367348
>dat innocent desire

I wish so much that I had someone to be so passionate for

>>2367356
that feel when I do, and she isn't anywhere as interested :(

>>2367359
as me, that is

>>2367299
sounds like you've got it all figured out.

bumping?

You're all dumb. Shakespeare WAS writing about how stupid teenagers feel their love is the most powerful thing -- sure, it can seem like a beautiful thing and people reflect on Romeo and Juliet thinking that they want their love to be like that. But Shakespeare was smart and knew that if real love were like Romeo and Juliet's, the world would be worse off.

Also, OP is a fucking faggot.

>>2367313
>Implying dramatic irony exists in Shakespeare.
You keep believing that, bro.

>>2367470
>doesn't know what the definition of dramatic irony is

Just accept it when a fact is placed before your eyes, irritable child.

>>2367482
>Mfw you seem to lack an understanding of Shakespeare's literary techniques.
Dramatic Irony:
adjective
1. A writing technique defined by its rhythm of pairing ten syllables for each line into five pairs.
2. When the characters in a work of fiction are aware of something the audience is not.

>>2367617
Mfw when I have no face.

>>2367624
>mfw your lies tell the truth
>mfw I have no face
>mfw my nonface is your nonface

>Why cant all love be teenage romances from the nineties where both lovers always die after their friends kill each other and bring grief to everyone who knew them

True philial love is rare between opposite sexes. Instinct is often labeled as eros.
The love you refer to does not really exist. Believe what you want. You argument goes the way of trying to prove the existence of a supreme being.

>>2367759
Think you mean filial, bro.
And filial love refers to child-parent relationships.

>>2367766
I mean philia.
Filial is different.

FUCKING MOVIE PIECE OF SHIT. COP OUT. romeo and Juliette >personally< is not his best piece.

I'd rather love be like Romeo & Juliet considering the only way I've been able to get any girls attracted to me is by treating them like shit, and whenever I don't treat them like shit I get friend zoned.

>>2367794
Wow, you must be terribly uninteresting.
>no girls like me
>all girls fault

>>2367808

Learn to read. I've had many girls fawn over me, but it only happens when I treat them like shit.

>>2367809
as the arbiter of the internet, i feel his post addressed the meaning of your post closely enough. i'll allow it.

>>2367809
My experience is slightly different. I've had girls fawn over me regardless of whether or not I'm treating them like shit. BUT, yes, they tend to lust after me even more once I start ignoring them and treating them awfully. This is nothing new under the sun. We've known about this for a long time.

>>2367810

You can make assumptions based off of a miniscule amount of information, but it doesn't make you right.

I don't believe it's the girls fault. They're in the same light of children, and they fail to sustain the same status of a loyal dog. They're not worthy of a leash, but should be cared upon in the same light of a naive child.

This is not to say the majority of males are any better.

>>2367826
>This is not to say the majority of males are any better.

hmmmmm maybe human beings in general are just kind of dumb, emotional idiots (and that's okay and not a bad thing, just how we are) and it's basically unrelated to gender hmmmmmm

>>2367830
But I think we can relate this phenomenon particularly to females. I find that I get bros to stick around by being open, honest, and sincere. I find that I get women to lust after me by being dishonest, brooding, and sardonic.

I would happily accept your rebuttal (which I'll assume will be the classic--"I think that's just you. You must be boring/ugly," but I assure you that I'm neither. We must always keep in mind that when guys complain about "typical female behaviour," they're often complaining about the behaviour of the typical hot slut. I don't treat the girls that I sincerely respect as fellow intellectuals like shit, but I also don't want to stick my dick into em'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>2367838
>But I think we can relate this phenomenon particularly to females. I find that I get bros to stick around by being open, honest, and sincere. I find that I get women to lust after me by being dishonest, brooding, and sardonic.

I would argue that there's a fundamental difference between these kinds of relationships and how we orient ourselves towards them and all that shit

like, unless you're a bi dude and you're actually fucking both groups of people, you don't actually know what kind of behavior would lead those dudes to let you stick it in em. it's a really complex topic, man, all this human interaction stuff, and it really does not admit of simplicities like "girls want assholes, all the time." not even mentioning the significance of socially-constructed gender roles...

>>2367299
>>2367458
>mfw nobody realizes that Shakespeare's "tragedy" of Juliet and her Romeo is saturated with the bard's trademark, knife-subtle sarcasm, and these guys do.

Everybody get mad. Then live to be 25 and realize that maybe your frame of mind wasn't quite what it was when you were 15. All in good time.

>>2367850
wait do people not "get" that at least the title characters in R&J are really dumb yet? on /lit/, of all places? it kind of shocks me that anyone can unironically hold up romeo and juliet as an example of idealized true love, frankly

>>2367299

This anon is right until he gets to the point of saying marrying the first person you bang doesn't work out.

>mfw couples who marry young divorce at much lower rates, especially if both report having been virgins or being each other's first lover

>>2367842

Or maybe you're just a fucking idiot that doesn't actually understand the conversation at hand.

>>2367861
no i'm pretty sure thats not the case

>>2367842
>like, unless you're a bi dude and you're actually fucking both groups of people, you don't actually know what kind of behavior would lead those dudes to let you stick it in em.

Well, OK, I'm going to sound pretty full of myself, but while I'm not a bi, I'm handsome and have a nice enough personality that I get a fair amount of gay guys who openly express their lust/affection for me. And in all of those cases, these were gay guys who I treated exactly like I treat my heterosexual bros: honestly, sincerely, and openly. To be fair to the female gender, I also get some girls who respond very positively to honesty and sincerity, but unfortunately, these girls are often the homely, middling to ugly looking ones who look for these traits in a male because they feel insecure. They've told me as much when I inquired what their attraction was to me.

But I think you're spot on about how ridiculously complex human interaction is. It's pretty idiotic of me to try to generalize across an entire gender.