Is the relationship that Romeo and Juliet have actually love?

Both. They had a genuine love for each other but they were too hasty and unthinking in actions.

>>9519532

>genuine love

"Hey, your hot!"
"Wow, you too, hottie!"
"Let's get married so we can FUCK"
"Okay!"

Wow

Such love

>>9519540
Well, yeah. Am I missing something???

>>9519541

Yes, the gap between lust and love

juliet grew braver and was able to overcome her nurse the true evil-rational

romeo after the death of mercutio regressed into something he was against in the beginning

romeo was saying juliet and romeo switched places, in terms of development romeo is at one end and lear and the other end
brutus macbeth and co in the middle

>>9519545
>romeo was saying
shakespeare had

>>9519544
That would be the double suicide

>>9519544
Well, if you want a non-meme answer to your stupid bait post, consider the textual evidence. When Romeo (and other characters) are introduced they speak in extremely sub-par poetry, very deliberately satirizing Petrarchan sonnet fad of the day. Look at Romeo pinning about Rosaline. Compare it to when Romeo and Juliet first meet and every instance after, their poetry (notably his) is much improved and the first meeting has the two complete, together, an actually good sonnet. Notice that Paris stays an idiot throughout the play while Romeo is mentally becoming much more mature (though far too passionate at the same time).

Idiots read for plot.

>>9519575

And this means the one day relationship is love?

>>9519575
>Idiots read for plot.
I thought idiots killed themselves for the D/puss

>>9519588
Yes. In the Shakespearan play universe, people are not intentionally inhibited by the necessity of having time prove the notion of a one true love. Though if you wanted to look at it this way, the death of the characters proves their true love since they wouldn't have killed themselves for any other reason, and the deaths prevented any possibility of time undoing this love. The only way to really question this love is to be a cynic, in which case the answer is that there is really no such thing anyway.

Shakespeare doesn't really care, either way.

>>9519588
>Love's legitimacy is proportional to time
Meme thinking.

>>9519595
Well, this is also true. But as already noted, Romeo and Juliet were both truly in love and truly idiots.

>>9519600
To continue, consider the relationship between Elizabethan (including Shakespeare's) comedies and R&J. It's structured exactly like a comedy except that it ends as a tragedy. No one ever questions if Beatrice and Benedick are TRULY in love, it's just granted. Shakespeare likes to think that people CAN just fall in love and not, in my opinion, as simply a matter of convenience (i.e., the time constraints of a play).

>>9519611

No one would argue that a battered wife and an abusive husband who have been together for 20 years are truly in Love.

But I think you'd also be hard-pressed to get someone to agree that a couple that met yesterday are also in love because they want to fuck.

>>9519618
OP, you aren't just missing the point, you are shooting at an entirely different target. One that is smaller and much easier to hit than the intended one.
You might as well be complaining about the Catcher in the Rye being whiny.

>>9520017

Not OP, just curious if we're okay with this definition of "love"

It wasn't """""love""""" it was young love, a first love. When you are young and inexperienced all those emotions are felt with much more intensity. Something you autists will never understand.

Pretty sure Romeo was only trying to fuck a loli. No respected 16th century lady would let herself go without marriage, so he came up with a cunning plan of finding a dodgy priest to marry them. Annulling wouldn't be completely simple, but the possibility was there.

young love is like this, you fucking nerds