You're viewing a single thread.
The author's intent was to show that Romeo and Juliet is dumb teenager behavior, despite generations of people being taught the opposite. This would at least remind the public of that.
And yet, it is also likely commentary on the futile squabbles of specific nobility at the time, like most of the Bard's plays. Layered meanings are not new to Shakespeare, nor is neglecting to admit everything that is meant by a work. Nudging and winking to avoid danger is a long held artistic tradition, so there's no way to know that recorded authorial intent was the entire authorial intent. This is why authorial intent can never carry the power some may think.
Death of the author is one of my most cherished tropes.
Warning: that is a tvtropes link. Don't click unless you are somehow resistant to rabbit holes, or you feel like entering one.
It probably has layers, but one meaning that's probably not part of the intention is the romantic yet tragic love story it's often presented as.
I disagree. It's a boldheaded romance that would've been possible if not for the petty feud of the families. Toxic social group dynamics prevent a romance AND the couple is foolish in love. Both can be true without there being a party unequivocally in the right. The story is messy, and that's likely the point.
They're like 18 and 13 years old (Romeo's age is never specified, but Juliet is definitely 13). Just no.
That is fucked up, and yet that sadly wouldn't have been seen as such a bad thing back then. Values of the past sucked, but that doesn't change the equation. The romance is toxic AND the society that prevents peace is too.