JZ, can we call that cause and effect? I mean, if you're actually talking to women, you have to pick up something about what goes on in their (our) heads.

JZ, can we call that cause and effect? I mean, if you're actually talking to women, you have to pick up something about what goes on in their (our) heads.

I think so. Though Trollope was such an utter freak that he not only talked to them, he was a notorious listener. Other men couldn't understand why women seemed so fond of him--he was big and burly and frequently scruffy and had lousy table manners and was so plainly Not A Gentleman; it apparently never occurred to them that women liked him anyway, no matter which fork he failed to pick up or which shitty brandy he liked to swill, because he treated them like people.

One glance down, one glance up, literally one second could have saved them both at three or four different points in the scene

Yes, the split-seconds difference, when he turns his head just a little as he drinks! And the missed letter!

What Trollope do you recommend? I've tried a couple, but I get bogged down in the manneredness and my impatience with the social conventions.

Yes, the split-seconds difference, when he turns his head just a little as he drinks!

One spit-take away from a comedy, in other words (although Mercutio's and Tybalt's deaths had raised the stakes past the point of comedy, I think).

Framley Parsonage or The Eustace Diamonds -- one has a great, smart, snarky heroine (Trollope was consciously trying to write a modern Rosalind) and the other has a gloriously small-minded but cunning anti-heroine, both of whose stories comment on and critique the manneredness and social conventions of the world they inhabit.

Do not under any circumstances attempt to begin your Trollope reading with Can You Forgive Her? or The Small House at Allington, both of which ride hard on one of his romantic-love-related hobbyhorses and are fairly irritating even to people who love him.

For a complete oddity, not especially representative of his work as a whole but very very enjoyable, there's his one slightly science fiction novel, The Fixed Period.

There were a lot of things about Luhrman's R+J that irritated me, but I loved the way he staged their deaths (loved in the sense that I found the entire scene physically unbearable): the comedy-gone-wrongness of it was ratcheted up to a ridiculous pitch, with that inevitable sum depending on split-second bad timing. One glance down, one glance up, literally one second could have saved them both at three or four different points in the scene. People in the theater I saw it in were actually pounding their armrests in frustration, and I wasn't the only one who started blubbing when that last bad number slid into the equation and the last trapdoor out of death slammed shut.

I was convinced, for a split second at least, that he had actually changed the ending and was going to let them live! I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more had I not been in a theatre full of Leonardo fangirls where I was the only one laughing at jokes like sending the letter "post-haste" and then showing a FedEx like vehicle with a logo for "Post Haste"

yeah for me it's the "too stupid to live" angle that makes R&J interesting to me. That and the fact that grownup meddlers are as responsible for their deaths as R&J their ownselves. So many people cite the story as this romantic tale of true love and tragedy when I think the reality is that if the grownups had just let them be those whacky kids would have been in love with someone else within a week.

I hated Luhrman's movie the first time I saw it. My position has been that you either stick to the text or re-write it completely. I don't think it's OK to cut and paste Shakespeare and the guns as swords and Romeo being literally wet-behind-the-ears in every scene made me roll my eyes forever. But then the girl I was in love with told me it was her favorite movie and John Leguizamo is great so now I kinda love it.

There were a lot of things about Luhrman's R+J that irritated me, but I loved the way he staged their deaths (loved in the sense that I found the entire scene physically unbearable): the comedy-gone-wrongness of it was ratcheted up to a ridiculous pitch, with that inevitable sum depending on split-second bad timing.

Yes, exactly. I think where you run into problems with R&J is when you try to downplay the utter ridiculousness of it all, rather than the opposite.

I was the only one laughing at jokes like sending the letter "post-haste" and then showing a FedEx like vehicle with a logo for "Post Haste"

Oh yes. And the film is just littered little details like that.

ETA:

My position has been that you either stick to the text or re-write it completely. I don't think it's OK to cut and paste Shakespeare and the guns as swords and Romeo being literally wet-behind-the-ears in every scene made me roll my eyes forever.

Like this. And see, this is a big part of what I love about it. Why isn't it okay in your book?

I remember seeing Ian McKellan's Richard III in the movie theater with a relatively small group of other viewers, and at least they got into the little jokes/incongruities of the updated setting. When his jeep got stuck in the mud and he shouted, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!", we all busted out laughing at the very apt setting of that very famous line.

I love this adaptation of R3--McKellan is so delightfully slimy. I also recently saw the Trevor-Nunn-directed Macbeth with McKelland and Judi Dench, and his performance was equally impressive (as was hers, of course!).