It honestly wasn't deliberate, but I seem (thus far) to have picked love stories that, when trying to pinpoint why they work or last, these reasons can be boiled down to two. Romeo and Juliet is no different, but I think some of my thoughts on this story are going to be met with much outrage.
So, here we have it, mid-week, and I'm talking about the love story of all love stories. They're a by-word in popular culture, they're often the first play anyone thinks of when they hear the words William Shakespeare, they've been the subject of songs, retellings, adaptations, movies, good God, this list could go on. They're the Romeo and the Juliet, and I don't think anyone can name their child Romeo or Juliet these days without a whole world of connotations (poor little Romeo Beckham; is he ever going to live up to the romantic ideal girls will attach to him?).
Today I'm going back to the original play. A rose by any other name, and all that.
What works
Forbidden love
Ah, the lure of the forbidden fruit. This trope hasn't yet gone out of style, and I don't think it will. There will always be a market for forbidden romances, star-crossed lovers, and the like, so if this is what you write, then you can be sure a lot of people will love your story!
I'm not psychology student, so I couldn't really explain why the forbidden is so appealing to us. I just know that it really is, at least to most of us, and this is one of the two core reasons why I think Romeo and Juliet is immortal. While it certainly wasn't the first to set the forbidden trend, it's the story of star-crossed lovers, it's the tale of feuding families and forbidden love and the consequences thereof.
Tragedy
Realistically, would Romeo and Juliet have been half as memorable if it hadn't ended with such devastating tragedy? There's something immeasurably stupid - and therefore tragic and memorable - about such hideous misunderstandings that lead to two suicides that could so easily have been avoided. I'm sure that the frustration many of us feel, that urge to shout for God's sake, Romeo, she's freaking alive, damn you, is part of what makes the story click; as readers, we need to be anguished, and frustrated, and want to shout; we need to be moved.
The deaths themselves have their own merit because, of course, what says true love better than dying because the one you love is dead? It's melodramatic, it's not exactly selfless, and it's certainly not what any of us want to be doing in real life, but it's very appealing to our dramatic souls when we read it and watch it in fiction.
And now, for the controversial part...
What DOESN'T work
What? you cry. There's something about the great romance that is Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet that doesn't work? Well, yes, I think there is.
The characters, quite frankly, suck. Of course, this is purely my opinion, so feel free to tell me I'm being an idiot. I don't mean all the characters, because I rather like Mercutio, the Nurse, and even Benvolio for all his mild-mannered not-doing-much-really-ness.
It's the lovers I find sorely lacking. I mean, this love story has become immortal, legend. But it's not because of Romeo or Juliet. It's because of their circumstances, their tragedy. These characters have nothing memorable or distinctive about them. Romeo appears to be somewhat indecisive, hot-headed, and full of pretty words. Juliet seems to swing like a pendulum between being meek and being rebellious, she's somewhat indecisive, and she's got lots of pretty words in her pretty head too.
What about either of these two, as characters alone, appeals to you? I genuinely can't find anything that appeals to me. The truth is, if someone were to transplant these exact characters into a book or movie today, disguised under different names, I don't think I would think twice about them. I might be mildly entertained by the book, but would then put it down and never again think about these characters or the story, simply because there would be nothing sharp about it, nothing that later clings to you.
Ultimately, I think there's a great formula to be found in Romeo and Juliet, and it's been used countless times, recycled, reused, and we're still not utterly weary of it.
But Romeo and Juliet, minus the italics? Well, they might be the star-crossed lovers, the epitomes of tragedy and of forbidden love. But I think it's been done much, much better elsewhere.
I'd love to know how the rest of you feel about them.
We've all heard it at one time or another, and most of you non-writers out there will probably have come across it too: it's apparently one of the cardinal 'rules' of writing. Write what you know. Meaning, write about places you're familiar with, emotions you've experienced, ideas you are familiar with, etc.
I think there's some sense in this, but only to an extent. I think something else is far more important: writing what you love. Writing about what you love.
There may be a paradox here in that you assume that if someone loves something, they probably 'know' it already, so writing what you know is writing what you love.
But I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, I love Italy. I know a few things about its history, and its architecture, and its art, and I'm absolutely dying to go there. But I wouldn't be able to write a novel set in Rome or Venice right now, simply because I don't know enough about it, love it though I do. Do you see?
Another example, of writing what you love that you also happen to know. I love the theatre. Immeasurably. Plays, musicals, being in the audience or backstage, I love it. But I also happen to know it pretty well.
My father is an actor, and most of his stuff involved the stage. So, from the age of about two or three, much of my free time was spent camped backstage while my father (and often my mother too) strutted their stuff onstage, off and generally in-between. As I grew older, I became the mascot of many of the shows my dad was involved in, largely because I was always around. I knew all the lines. I would repeatedly evoke choruses of laughter from the cast and crew because I would tell my father off for forgetting or fudging a line. There's this one theatre in Bangalore where most of these things happened, and I know it back to front. My parents know everybody who works there. Still.
Over the summer, my mother, who teaches at my old school, roped me into helping out with a huge school musical. I was somehow put in charge of playing the music during the show on cue. I protested a lot, but I have to admit, I loved it. The week of the show, Mum, who was stage manager, informed me that with two light/tech and dress rehearsals and three shows on, we'd be spending a lot of time at the theatre (the very theatre mentioned above).
Mum: We might as well set up a tent.
Me: So, just like old times, then?
[we laugh]
That is my history with theatre. So, could I write about it? Easily. Do I? Yes. Does that count as 'writing what I know'? Yes. But it's also 'writing what I love', and that part's far more important.
When you write about what you love, the passion shines through the text. It makes other people love that thing too, or at least, find the interest to be invested in it for as long as they're reading your story. I recently read Lucy Christopher's Flyaway, which revolves largely around a family, but also around a swan and swans in general. I don't mind swans, but I'm not particularly fussed about them. Yet the passion and interest in Flyaway was so clear and so lovely to read, I found myself caring very much about swans. It's such a great book.
If you've lived in London all your life, people might tell you to write about London, because you know it backwards. But you might not necessarily want to, you might not be interested in it. I think I'm expected to write about India, because that's where I'm from, and I do write about it. But only when I want to. Only when I see a story there, and not just because it's what I know.
So, should I ever write about Italy, considering I don't know it very well and have never been there? Yes, I should. Because I'm interested in it. Because I love reading about it, and seeing interpretations of it, and I love different parts of its history and art.
There's a remedy to not knowing enough about something. Research.
I think, in the end, you could write what you know, if what you know is what you love. And if what you love is what you don't know... just learn it instead.
I'd love to hear what other people think of the 'write what you know' dilemma. And while you ponder this monster of a post, I'll go back to writing TEA WITH DEATH, DESIRE AND RAGE. 700 words into Chapter Two now.
To follow on from two recent posts, I thought I'd talk about new music that's helped me get a better handle on the tone and mood of my works-in-progress.
I'm obsessed with musicals. I'm not kidding about this, some might argue it's a clinical, fundamental kind of obsession. My mother is hugely musical, and her love of musicals crept into the womb and into my childhood. While I can't sing a note, I'm more than happy to run through entire musicals anyway. My favourite is Jesus Christ Superstar, followed closely by Les Miserables and The Phantom of the Opera, both tied in second place. Wicked comes in at third, missing the cut to second place only because I like fewer actual songs. I think I know every word of Jesus Christ Superstar, and most from Les Mis and Phantom. I know I've certainly driven poor Steve mad because I've often started singing a musical from beginning to end, and refused to stop.
Other recent musical inspiration: 'Another Heart Calls' by the All-American Rejects, 'All The Right Moves' by One Republic and the music from the Doctor Who episode 'End of Time' (the bit where the Master saves the Doctor. Sorry if I just spoiled that for you.)
Any suggestions? What do you listen to when you need inspiration?
