|
Post by Batspam on May 12, 2013 18:53:53 GMT -5
I love talking about literature and picking bits for discussion. After reading Romeo and Juliet a few years ago I got the impression that the families didn't really stop fighting but that they said as much to save face when they realized what their hate had driven them to. I just don't buy the idea that two (tragic?) deaths managed to make a long standing feud end. Especially one so long standing that no one even knows how it started in the first place. However, I've also talked about this with my mom and she thinks that the ending wasn't meant to be realistic, hence why they stopped fighting. It was meant to teach a lesson and having the more realistic ending would have made the lesson moot. That seems logical to me, I kinda buy that one.
Anyway, I'm curious, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Sidny on May 14, 2013 9:59:08 GMT -5
I'd think it would be just as bad after the deaths. They'd probably be blaming one another for causing their kids to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Ibiscribe on May 16, 2013 9:58:30 GMT -5
Yeah, for issues that deep, I don't think it would've suddenly made everything perfect. Not for everyone, at any rate. Some of the people involved might've been able to step back and see what was wrong with what they were doing, and rise above their prejudices because of it; but other relatives, especially older ones who had become "habitual haters", would probably just have become more bitter... blaming themselves internally because of the part they'd played, sure, but outwardly they would have been blaming the other side.
|
|
|
Post by lioness626 on Jul 16, 2013 8:20:11 GMT -5
I believe that it shocked them so much, that they halted the fighting at least, temporarily. There had been lots of deaths caused by their feud, so maybe those two couldnt end it
|
|