Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews: To Read Entire Book or Not Read Entire Book? That is the Question.

Picture I forgot to include in my original post of this series.

Like my Hamlet reference?

I came to a realization today about my summer reading challenge.

Lately I've been trying to read two books. One, a classic (Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen) and the other, a fiction (The Abstinence Teacher by Tom Perrotta). However, both books are kind of a challenge for me for different reasons, and yet they are both enjoyable for different reasons. I am working on explanations for this for a separate blog post.

The thing is this whole time I was concerned about actually finishing these books in order to write about them. I mean, I know that is the ideal way of reading and it is my goal to actually finish reading more books, but like I said, it depends on the book to keep my attention alive.

I've begun thinking that because these books are kind of annoying me to an extent, perhaps I should move on to another book in my collection. There are certainly many to choose from. Then it hit me. This could be my summer reading challenge. Isn't that what reading is all about too? Just having fun reading randomly? I could sample a bit of every book to see what I do and don't like, to make for a very successful reading experience. And, if I really am engaged in it, I will continue reading it of course. That way I can say that I read a bunch of different books during the summer instead of the few I struggle to get through. That way, as a reader I can feel more accomplished in my reading agenda. If a person struggles to complete reading a book, is it really worth it? Shouldn't the experience of just reading be enough?

Or is it that the ultimate goal of reading with always be to complete the material? What should matter? Should the fact that I am reading anything at all and getting something from the material be what matters or is the whole reading experience considered a somewhat failure because the reader does not finish his or her reading material? Will the experience be incomplete and will the reader him or herself feel incomplete?

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews: Equus by Peter Shaffer

So far what anybody really knows about this play is that a troubled teenager went crazy one night and blinded a bunch of horses...

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I even decided to buy Equus from the Lacordaire Academy Book Sale:

 

That's right! I saw this hanging up in Life Hall awhile ago and decided to take a picture of it for this blog! Apparently, they will be performing Equus in the Spring 2013 semester, so I figured I'd read the play to prepare myself for it, since I very rarely read a play ahead of time on my own before I go see it. Now you have the honor to see me review both the actual script and if I able to, the Peak Performance for The Montclarion. I will write this review based on how I feel MSU will produce it and then down the line we will see if I am right.

BEGAN READING: May 20, 2012

FINISHED READING: May 21, 2012

This is one freaky play that makes for intricate theater (especially the final scene of Act 1, right before the blackout), so it's no wonder that Montclair decided to perform it this upcoming season. I can picture it being performed in Fox, for there is limited setting that can be accomplished with benches, which is actually what the script calls for. Equus includes lighting changes according to mood and flashbacks, background chanting and other sound effects, a singular setting that can incorporate multiple settings which don't require much set, and cast members sitting on the actual stage when they are not in a scene as opposed to going backstage, all of which I've seen happen in Fox before, so therefore I believe that is going to be the choice theater.

There are scenes in which the lead male character, Alan Strang, mimes taking his clothes off or actually takes off some of his clothes. Yeah, this is a Montclair Peak Performance production. There's going to be full-blown theater nudity in this, which is probably another reason why Montclair has decided to include it in the 2012-2013 lineup. If the script calls for it and other productions of this same show have Alan get completely nude, we're definitely doing it too. Chances are this production will be directed by Susan Kerner if this all plays out. However, both theatrical nudity and Susan Kerner productions have only taken place in Kasser, but we may yet be able to see it done in Fox. 

I'm actually going to bring what I learned in my "Major Film Genres" course from this past semester about the hard-boiled detective genre into this review. Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist who has issues of his own and is overworked, is approached by Hester Salomon to help troubled teen Alan Strang. Like hard-boiled detectives, Dysart is approached with an assignment and becomes more and more invested to get to the bottom of the case. The only difference here is we are told right away what has happened (1.2) and Dysart's task is to figure out why it happened and spends the whole play trying to use different methods, such as hypnosis, to get into Alan's psyche. He is trying to solve the case instead of cure Alan. To me, Dysart acts more like a detective than a psychiatrist, because the script leaves you in suspense about what actually happened the night Alan, ahem, blinded six horses with an ice pick. See, usually this is the punchline but here it is revealed when the play begins, getting it out of the way, so it therefore is a bunch of flashbacks and works backward. In normal mysteries, the "what" is discovered along the same time as the "why," but in Equus this is not the case.

The play is pretty much about a seventeen-year-old kid who worships horses. His mother, Dora, is religiously devout whereas his father, Frank, wants nothing of the sort. It is because of the conflict between his parents that Alan connects religious salvation to horses. However, Alan's thoughts and actions seem too psychotic for his mother to be the blame. I could see if Dora was a religious fanatic with him growing up, but from what I see all she really does is teach him biblical verses and the ways of the Lord just like any other religious mother would. In fact, in Act 2 Scene 23, Dora has a very interesting monologue about how she shouldn't be blamed for Alan's actions because she is a parental influence but rather Alan should because he is his own person. To me, Dora isn't to blame because she hasn't done anything abnormal when raising Alan to cause his mental confusion to happen. It's Alan's own perspective of religion and horses that drive him into such a frenzy.

When Alan was a child Dora bought him a picture of Jesus shackled in chains, which hung on the wall in front of his bed, but Frank replaced this picture in the same location with that of a horse looking at him. Alan's young mind connected the horse, Equus, with Jesus because the horse took Jesus's place in Alan's bedroom and they both wear chains, so ever since his childhood Alan was influenced by this, so it was his parent's doing after all, though it was his own perception of everything that caused his confusion and intense reactions. Dora tells him that God watches him all the time and it just so happens that the horses watch him as well, further connecting the horse to God. Christians believe God is in Heaven watching over us, but Alan physically sees the horses always watching him, making it more real for him and putting him under extra pressure. Next time you look at a horse (but ignore the teeth first) think about this. It's a majestic looking animal, so it's very understandable that Alan makes it his deity. 

Horses represent so much for this kid! They represent salvation, sexual expression, freedom, sensuality etc.! There's a whole argument here I can bring up about how sexuality and orgasms bring you closer to God because it gives you an ecstatic feeling of no pain and worry, pleasurable feelings you experience to make you at one with God (I actually read about this idea in an article and really like the analogy.). This is exactly what Alan experiences, but with horses! We can say that this is bestiality, because it's clear throughout the play that Alan is sexually aroused by these horses even though it is not blatantly told to us. It may seem gross at first glance, but if we connect his love for Equus to his love for God, and if sexual love and spiritual love are one in the same, it makes a lot more sense and seems less grotesque. To him, Equus IS God. I definitely think of horses differently after reading this play in this religious sense.

A good thing about this play is that even though Dysart and Alan go into philosophical rants, which are the poetic, somewhat confusing moments of the play, the rest of the play is pretty understandable. It flows well, the scenes being continuations from the previous ones as if they are chapters of a novel, so there is not a lot of pausing and you can understand the issues of the characters. One criticism I have about the play is how Shaffer incorporates Dysart's background story and connects it with Alan's. Normally I would appreciate this and think that the play is lacking if Shaffer left out Dysart's back story, but the thing is, I don't feel Dysart's story is needed in this particular play. Dysart comes to realizations of himself because of his interactions with Alan, but it doesn't' really contribute anything to the plot. Alan's story is interesting enough to keep the play flowing, deeming Dysart's story unnecessary, even if it is connected to Alan in some way. We are there to figure out what the deal is with Alan. In fact, we are at the edge of our seats waiting for the conclusion and Dysart's story, which is presented in lengthy monologues, just interferes and proves as a distraction from the center plot. Alan is the reason why people care about this play and the reason why they go see it. They care about Alan's story because his story is the catalyst and reason of the play. Dysart's story isn't what people care about and audiences may not even know about it going in or remember it coming out. Alan's story is automatically known. I could be wrong about this for I don't speak for the public, but what character is more interesting: the teenager who has been committed in a ward because he rides horses in the nude and has blinded six of them or his psychiatrist whose main focus is Alan and his marital problems come second to his work and are just thrown into the play as random additions? Exactly. Alan is the way more interesting character.

I can't conclude this review without talking about this: 

 

Isn't it kind of sad that my first exposure (pun definitely NOT intended) to this classic play was a nude ex-wizard? From what I remember, the girls of America went wild when they found out Dan Rad would be baring all for the Broadway production of Equus back in 2007. I never saw Daniel Radcliffe's production of Equus, but this is how I first heard of this play's existence and as I was reading the play I kept thinking about him in it. I'm sorry, but I do not picture Radcliffe pulling off Alan Strang well, who is actually a pretty rebellious jerk (Ha! I called him a jerk) of a character. We grew up with Radcliffe portraying the greatest literary hero of our generation, Harry Potter of course, so it's kind of difficult picturing him portraying such a tortured soul as Alan. I feel like Alan is too heavy of a character for Radcliffe, who played a lighthearted yet emotionally mature 10-year-old boy...who grew up in a wizardry school. I know he has the right to expand himself through all different characters, but a sarcastic brat like Alan doesn't seem to suit him well to me. I actually can picture Radcliffe pulling off the highly ecstatic frenzy parts, but not necessarily the snarky mocking remarks Alan makes to Dysart. From what I see, when actors are in the business for a while a trend they seem to inherit is portraying the same archetypal characters, so probably because Radcliffe is fairly new to the acting field, being in his early twenties, perhaps he has not yet found his archetype yet, which is fine, nor is it a requirement. I'm not suggesting that he totally failed at playing Alan but I am saying that there are certain parts I can't see him doing. 

The Harry Potter series was both a blessing and a curse for this guy. It was good that it established a career for him, but it's not good in the fact that we will always see him as Harry Potter and nothing else really compares. The same goes for a lot of child actors. However, his fans seemed to really appreciate his Broadway debut in Equus and still feel the same way about him in How to Succeed (Without Really Trying), in which he is currently starring on Broadway. At first I couldn't really see him singing and dancing either, but people told me he does very well in this musical and then I was really impressed with his performance on the Tonys, so I'd say he's doing well for himself and will continue to do so. The Harry Potter series proved to have been a springboard for him and a variety of roles.

Hey, you think that since Darren Criss has followed in Radcliffe's footsteps thus far, he'll be running around with horses in the nude sometime soon? Hey, just a thought. ;)

Anyway, all in all Equus is a very captivating read. I started this series off by saying that I am not much of a reader but I finished the book in two days, even with people talking around me, something that normally distracts me often, so that's saying something. It's a very small book without the intimidating bulkiness, so that helps. Reading it gave me chills. It's heavy and simple all at the same time, so yeah, I recommend. 

Okay, well there you have it. The very first installment of "Stef's 'So Good You Can't Put It Down' Book Reviews." This is what I take from Equus. I apologize for the length of this. I didn't expect it to be THAT long, so I will try to make my future installments a little bit more concise. I want my next one to be a classic, so I'm thinking Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. Or, I might write about a fiction that I want to return back to. Already I'm slacking so we'll see. :)

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews

I was waiting to post this in June. :)

I have a confession to make. This has been a long time coming and I have been wanting to write a blog post about this sooner or later. Here goes...

I feel like such a failure as an English major, not because of my work ethic, but simply because I don't like to read.

Well, it's not that I totally hate reading. It's just that I'm the type of person who has to be REALLY engaged in a book in order to stay focused. It's not really like me to sit there, read, and be totally concentrated on the material. There's always a distraction. There are very few books that I have completed from beginning to end, and normally those books are the ones that I cannot put down and end up completing in a very short time span. The thing is, I don't like reading for school. Every time I have to read for school I always say that I am going to read it but then when the time comes I am never very motivated to do it and then end up not being able to contribute in class as well. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the book itself that just doesn't interest me or the fact that I am forced to read it for a grade, but I think the reason is I don't have a very focused attention span. Then there are the books that I get very invested in by then stop halfway. Again, my lack of attention span.

So this summer one of my main goals is to read more books (and complete them!) since I have more free time. Reading is very important and is something I want to return to. I was inspired to do this awhile ago, but the recent Lacordaire Academy Book Sale gave me even more convincing. I often buy plenty of books there because at the time they all look interesting and I want to collect reading material, but then I end up not reading them, which is a trait of mine that frustrates me. And to force myself to do this, I am hereby promising you some book reviews, whether they be on here or my YouTube channel. They may be plays (my favorite genre for obvious reasons, plus I find them quick, easier reads so it might be best to start off my book review series and summer reading challenge with something simple), classics (a goal of mine is to read as many classics as possible, some of them I have read already and some I am yet to read, so I may do these as special blog posts or do one every so often), fiction books I haven't read yet, fiction books I have read nonstop, completed, and loved, (I was thinking of doing these in their own series or starting off this series with them considering I have already read them), fiction books that I have started and finished halfway, and any other reading material that suits my fancy. I also want to do more movie and TV reviews on here as well, so I have my work cut out for me.

Okay, so there you have it. My summer blog project. We'll see how this goes. Of course, I will be writing about other musings and creating other series this summer as well.

I have just finished reading Equus by Peter Shaffer, so we'll begin "Stef's 'So Good You Can't Put It Down' Book Reviews" with that one, including a special announcement by me in regards to the MSU Department of Theater and Dance productions of the 2012-2013 season. ;)

Speaking of book reviews, check out my friend Janis's blog, where she actually specializes in book reviews.

MSU Website Makeover

Just today parts of MSU's website got a makeover. Can we please take a moment to look at the College of the Arts new homepage?:

Isn't it awesome?? When I clicked on it I was like "Whoa!" It's beautful! :D Click here to see for yourself. Click around. There are a lot of artistic changes. Arcadia is actually the background for a lot of the pages!

They redid a lot of the site. It looks really cool. Check it out! :)

Like, OMG, Boys are Such Jerks!: A Musing About the Slang "Jerk"

Hi Everyone! Stef here and the Spring 2012 semester is finally over and I am officially a senior at MSU!!! "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" has been ignored for a while because of school and work obligations, but hopefully this summer I will have more time to write for you. I have been brainstorming new topics and series to write about and I have posts in my drafts that I have worked on during the semesters but haven't had the chance to post until now, so I am excited with what the summer has in store for us, so hopefully it will be a successful one. I have a bunch of ideas planned!

So we begin my summer series of posts with the following thought-induced topic:

"Why are boys such jerks???"

...Okay, this is not a sexist piece against men and you probably do not expect it to be anyway considering how I often defend men on this blog. Also, I do recognize that girls can be "jerks" as well, so this isn't a one-sided argument. I'm just saying "boys" because that is my matter at hand.

So one night a couple of weeks ago I was crying to my friend about a male acquaintance of mine whom is currently upsetting me. Long story short, I met him the semester of Fall 2011 and he was so sweet to me, chatting with me and acknowledging me from time to time. Plus, I find him interesting. More of this continued on into my Spring 2012 semester, when I felt like we were developing our friendship a bit more. But then, after a while, his friendliness toward me started to dwindle. He does still somewhat acknowledge me, but he's just not as friendly as he used to be. Perhaps he is stressed and tired, but that isn't necessarily an excuse (though can it be?). I rarely talk to him, so for a while I've been looking back at our encounters, trying to figure out what went wrong and why things have changed between us so suddenly. I know it's not that serious, but I actually feel kind of bad about it. It's like, "What happened? Did I do something wrong?" I've been nothing but nice to him, though, so I don't think that's the case. It's probably not me.

So anyway I was/am upset about this and my friend simply said, "He's just a jerk," to which I responded, "There must be a better reason. It can't be just that." She then said, "You don't think guys can just be jerks? He's blowing you off. What other reason can it be?"

This brief part of our in-depth conversation stayed with me and made me think about the word "jerk" more analytically. I don't want to just settle the issue by just calling him a "jerk." I feel like that is either letting him off the hook or labeling him as something he isn't. I feel like just saying that a person is a "jerk" is excusing him or her for behaviors, dismissing the person as if there should not be any more thought on the matter and it's just how it is ("Oh, he's just a jerk. Don't worry about it."), whereas I believe that something may be going on with him and there's a reason for his not so friendly treatment of me and so calling him a "jerk" is unfair. Can people just be "jerks" and that is all there is to it? Is that a good enough definitive label to give someone? I don't feel that people can just be labelled as "jerks," as if that is who they are and there's no more to it because I believe we are all bigger people who deserve better descriptions than just being the low "jerks." To me it's a slang, writing a person off by saying "What a jerk" instead of coming up with better adjectives to describe the person. People have both their good and bad sides so being classified as just "jerks" doesn't do them any justice because that word is pretty dehumanizing.

A part of me too doesn't want to accept the fact that this guy in particular is a "jerk" because I just don't see him that way. I feel like he's a good enough guy so therefore my friend's label of him isn't just, since neither she or I know him very well to judge. But then again, since we don't know him well, we can't really say for sure that he is a "good guy" either or defend him from being labelled as a "jerk" simply because we don't know him enough the determine him either way. I just have a good impression of him, okay?!

It's probably best if I don't over think it, just let the chips fall where they may, and not worry about it (because since summer vacation began and I haven't been seeing him I've been concerning about it less and less and gradually have been realizing even during the semester that it is not worth obsessing over), which is what I try to do but sometimes have difficulty with because I am also a believer of taking matters into my own hands (This can actually be a good blog post topic: When to let things happen and when to contribute your own actions.), but I am still curious about the whole "jerk" aspect of it and how the word came into existence in the first place. Should people be demeaned as such by others? Then again, do people present themselves as such and deserve this title anyway? If this is the case, then we should probably determine the following: Is there such a thing as a "jerk" at all? Is being a "jerk" just a personality trait like any other that defines people or do people just have "jerk" tendencies and should not be defined as such? What constitutes a "jerk"? What are the official qualities? What is the definitive definition? There should probably be a common ground.

What do you think? Can people just be classified as "jerks" with no explanation, just an observation of their actions, or do people always have a background reason for their ill-treatment of others and should these reasons be taken into account? Have you ever experienced a friendship like this where you try to befriend someone, it looks like it is going well, and then everything is brought to a halt and you don't know why? Is this just something people do and it's considered normal? Maybe the issue is I never met a guy like this one before and I am just not used to his type. Then again, maybe this is just his personality and I am taking it personally. Now that I remember he exhibited this behavior early on as well and maybe I am just noticing it more because I have been talking to him more. I just feel like he only does this to me and not anyone else, but I can't say for sure. But still, just because people have certain personality traits doesn't make them "jerks!" Or does it?

Or should I shut up and just accept the fact that there are "jerks" in the world no matter which way I turn it?

Or, should we refrain from name-calling and stop calling people "jerks" and disregard this whole argument altogether? I don't have a problem with the word, it's just that I haven't thought much about it until now.

This is pretty much me trying to dissect the word "jerk" and figure out what happened at the same time. lol

Lacordaire Academy Annual Book Sale 2012

I've been wondering what I should post as my first blog post of the summer after my Spring 2012 semester ended and to finally post something in May because May is almost over (Though I've had ideas), and then I received this as a request to write about on here (My first blog request that I am able to carry out!) and figured what better way to open up a summer of blogging than with my high school's annual summer book sale.

I went to high school at Lacordaire Academy and the one tradition in which my family and I continue to participate even after I graduated is the Annual Book Sale. Every year towards the end of May a book sale takes place in the school's gym, the books and other material separated by genre and extremely affordable (the highest cost is $2 for a hardcover book). I love going there because it is such a relaxing atmosphere and gives me a chance to look at all of the different books (which can sometimes be overwhelming because eventually I have to make choices and there are so many to choose from) and encourages me to read more. This year, it is also part of the reason why I want to begin writing book reviews and such for this blog or perhaps my YouTube channel, which is a summer project I've been brainstorming for a while now (We'll see what happens. More about this later.).

Alas, the book sale is wrapping up for this year, but there is one more chance to scavenge for some books and other material. Tomorrow, Sunday, is the book sale's final day of the year, so don't miss out! Check out the photo below for more information! :)

The Easter Song

I love this song. It has such a joyful and beautiful sound. I can picture a dance being choreographed to its melody. I even dance to it myself. :)

I found this video last year while I believe looking for Easter jingles and listened to it a lot. I even listened to it awhile ago again. I posted this video last year on Facebook for Easter and planned to post it again this year so I am so glad I remembered and found it again so I decided to dedicate a blog post to it. Originally sung by Keith Green (you can find him singing it on YouTube as well). Enjoy this harmonious, musical celebration! :)

Another video I found last year of the group singing it. :)

Happy Easter Everyone! He is Risen! Alleluia! :D

Happy International Women's Day!

Today is International Women's Day! To celebrate, I decided to post an e-mail my mommy sent to me when Women's History Month began this year, just like I did last year on this day. <3

She wrote this to me after reading my mother/daughter post:

Click photo to read it better haha

Isn't this sweet? :)

Even Google is celebrating again like last year!

Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictitious): Mother/Daughter Duos from TV Shows

To kick off Women's History Month, I decided to post photos of some of my favorite mother/daughter relationships from TV shows. I'm not going to write about them individually because I pretty much like every duo for the same reasons, but this is a post to honor them.

What I like about every single one of these mother/daughter duos is their strength and abilities to take on challenges together. No topic is off limits when it comes to conversation. They have very close, healthy one on one relationships. A lot of times, these strong female characters remind me a lot of my relationship with my own mother. <3

Brooke and Hope Logan from "The Bold and the Beautiful"

Taylor Hines and Steffy Forrester from "The Bold and the Beautiful"

A nice shot of all four of them :)

Lorelai and Rory Gilmore from "Gilmore Girls"

Blair and Starr Manning from "One Life to Live"

Edith Bunker and Gloria Stivic from "All in the Family"

Maude Findlay and Carol from "Maude"

But there are so many more! Who are some of your favorite mother/daughter duos from TV, film, etc.?

Happy Women's Herstory Month Everyone!

Also, Happy 100th Blog Post to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" :D

Reflections about...Dept. of Theatre and Dance Romeo and Juliet Performance Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 7:30 PM

One thing I forgot to mention in my last Romeo and Juliet post is that a reason why I think they chose to perform that particular play at Montclair State University is because it is so well known. They know that this is how they can get audiences. Montclair seems to do this sporadically. They have the intricate, different materials, but then they bring in shows that are more close to home to even it out and of course they all have the same result. Romeo and Juliet was sold out, just like how Sweet Charity and Sweeney Todd were also sold out shows.

So since I ranted last time about just how well known Romeo and Juliet is to our society, here are some observations I have made about the play from this particular performance that perhaps aren't so well known.

"I bite my thumb at you, sir."

This is actually one of the lines that opens up the play. It's so awesome because we can totally relate to obscene gestures, which is exactly what this is. Thanks, Shakespeare! :D

A funny background story about this is how I always thought the line was "I thumb my nose at you," meaning the person would flick his or her thumb on his or her nose. My friends and I in high school, when we were reading the play in English class freshman year, would do this to each other as a joke.

Fast forward to now. My friend Kelly and I always argued about which is correct: "I bite my thumb at you" or "I thumb my nose at you." We would even look it up and they would both appear correct. She and I saw Romeo and Juliet at school opening night, and we finally got our answer. Kelly poked me while we watched the scene to prove her victory.

Thanks, Shakespeare. -__-

By the way, when the servants are having their first battle among each other, Juliet was actually one of the spectators on the side cheering them on. I thought that was odd considering how the character of Juliet wouldn't be expected to have any part of this feud. I know this was a decision to have a good number of people cheer for the battle, considering that it was a small cast, but it's Juliet, you know? It just looks weird lol.

Why are they fighting?

Does anybody else wonder how this family feud began in the first place? Is it said and I just missed it? I feel like Shakespeare might have included this detail. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's just something that crossed my mind as I was watching it. Knowing the reasons why something is happening helps the audience comprehend the story better and can also help the characters settle their disputes better. I'm just under the impression that the two families have been fighting so long that they have forgotten what the fight is about. Either that or their ancestors started the fight and it continued down the generations.

Why Juliet is actually a strong female Shakespeare character

I used to really dislike this kid. I just pictured her such a teenage drama queen, and Romeo no better. I really don't think I'm the only one.

What's funny to is, in this Peak Performance, Juliet was actually excited about her attachment to Parris. It wasn't until she meets Romeo that everything goes haywire and she starts to get miserable and fight against it.

The thing is though, I've now realized that she is pretty intelligent Shakespearean female character regardless of how she is often viewed. She is constantly being suppressed by everyone around her so she has to figure out what to do on her own. She goes to get help from other people of course, but the fact that she even takes the initiative to do so, being a young girl, is pretty admirable.

I disliked her too because I felt she was too young to be so passionate about love. However, in this time period, she is old enough to get married, so it does make sense that she would be so mature about men and how she handles situations.

Couldn't she just have told family/Parris?

Well, maybe not her family, because they seem pretty domineering and wouldn't even consider her explanation, but I feel like they wouldn't get as mad at her. She doesn't give them any reason for being defiant, so that is why they get so angry. But, telling them that she is in love with and married to the son of their greatest enemy may not go over well anyway, so I guess it's for the best.

At least tell Paris. He seems like a nice enough guy to understand. He seems like one of those guys who would do anything for the object of his affections, even let her go. Sad to say it, but he also seems like he would make a pushover of a husband. The only reason why he has issues with Romeo is because Romeo killed Tybalt and he considers him a threat. He has no idea about the connection between Romeo and Juliet.

I also don't understand why she doesn't tell her Nurse about the potion she takes from Friar Lawrence. She tells her everything else in her master plan so why not this? It would have been nice if she knew about this because perhaps she could've helped matters.

Something Lady Capulet says to Juliet

I never really noticed this until I saw this play, but Lady Capulet says the following words to her daughter after Juliet defies her father:
Talk not to me, for I'll not speak a word.
Do as thou wilt, for I am done with thee.

Then afterward Juliet gets all upset. However, I took this line as "Well that's nice of her, letting her daughter do what she wants." If a mother were to say these words to her thirteen-year-old daughter nowadays, the daughter would be like, "Fine! Screw you, Mom! I will!" And because, like I said, Juliet is in an adult position to take matters into her own hands, I'm surprised she doesn't take this as a blessing and adopt the rebellious teenage attitude. A lot of times teenagers consider themselves old enough to handle things they cannot handle on their own. Here, Juliet is a teenager but in this time period IS old enough to handle things on her own, but she freaks out when her mother verbally abandons her.

There's something that has to be said about how Mercutio gets stabbed by Tybalt in Romeo's arms.

I first I thought Zazzali included this, but apparently the script calls for it because later on Mercutio gets mad at Romeo for getting in the way and perhaps he would not have been stabbed if he didn't. It's just such a powerful scene because the music stops playing, the action is done, and the audience focuses on Mercutio collapsing and Romeo holding onto him. It almost looks slow motion and silent. It's a very mesmerizing moment.

Why mourn Tybalt and not Mercutio?

This is the main thing that struck me that never did so before. Okay, so we know that Tybalt stabs Mercutio in Romeo's arms. Benvolio drags him off and he dies offstage. Romeo, out of vengeance, goes to kill Tybalt, succeeds, and then runs away seeing the error of his ways. When this happens the whole cast runs onto the stage around Tybalt's body and mourns his death.

Um...Mercutio died too...

What the heck? Nobody seems to care about Mercutio! Mercutio dies and nobody but Romeo and Benvolio react right away but when Tybalt dies suddenly all of Verona gets bent out of shape? They ignore the fact that Tybalt was not the only one to die in the brawl. Mercutio is totally disregarded by everybody besides his two friends. His death is acknowledged, I will admit that, but it isn't acknowledged until Tybalt is killed. I think that's what made me take notice of this. It makes it seem like he was such an insignificant person to them, like they don't care, as if they wouldn't have noticed his death if Romeo had not killed Tybalt as well. That's not fair!

It's definitely obvious that blood is thicker than water here. Everybody cares about Tybalt's death because he is Lady Capulet's brother's son. Mercutio was just a friend of Romeo's, or like Kelly refers to him as when I asked her about this, "a kid who lives up the street." I think the thing is I've always associated Mercutio with the Montagues, and therefore put him in the family as a brother/cousin figure, when in reality he's kind of an outsider everywhere. Or, perhaps he is a median between the two. He does land himself on the guest list for the Capulet party. How did THAT happen? That's another thing this performance brought to my attention. How do the Capulets not notice that the Montague kid's friend is coming to their party? Wouldn't that bother them? He goes by his own name on the list, so it's not like he disguised the fact that he is attending. I guess he's just such a party goer that he knows his ways around the system.

However, this little observation I made has helped me to connect Romeo and Juliet with another Italian classic: The Godfather.

Oh yeah? Don't believe me? A bit of a stretch? Keep reading.

After Tybalt is found dead and Benvolio explains what happened (That's his only purpose in this play, let's be honest), Ben reveals that Romeo did the deed and so therefore Romeo is exiled by Prince Escalus and if he is found, sentenced to death. Much like in The Godfather, you mess with a family member, your mess with the whole family. You're going to get it and they will not yield until you do.

But another thing both of these Italian classics bring to the table is the idea that friendship equals family. When Don Corleone forms a friendship with someone, he forever has an alliance with them and he would do anything to help them. In Romeo and Juliet, it's the same thing. I already said about how I consider Mercutio a Montague family member even though he is just Romeo and Benvolio's friend. When Tybalt disrespects Romeo, Mercutio gets all pissed off and challenges him to a duel to protect Romeo's honor. When Tybalt kills Mercutio in this duel, Romeo mourns the death of his friend and vows to kill Tybalt in their own duel, and succeeds. The only difference is, I don't think death is the intent when it comes to Mercutio and Tybalt's battle. As you can see, respect is a huge theme in both Romeo and Juliet and The Godfather as well. And, of course, they both involve Italian families. Everything I have mentioned here has a connection to the Italian family culture.

Alright, so that should be the end of my Romeo and Juliet ranting...for now. The play has been closed for like a week and a half now lol.

I actually saved this post for today for a reason. It's the final day of February...and... Happy Leap Year Everyone! This is my only chance to post something on here on February 29 for awhile lol.