What do you think?
Rate this book
Juliet: The Life and Afterlives of Shakespeare's First Tragic Heroine
The enduring cultural legacy of Shakespeare’s Juliet Capulet — a history "as vital and provocative as the character herself" ( Literary Review ).
Romeo and Juliet may be the greatest love story ever told, but who is Juliet? Demure ingénue? Or dangerous Mediterranean madwoman? From tearstained copies of the First Folio to Civil War-era fanfiction, Shakespeare’s star-crossed heroine has long captured our collective imagination. Juliet is her story, traced across continents through four centuries of history, theatre, and film. As Oxford Shakespeare scholar Sophie Duncan reveals, Juliet’s legacy stretches beyond her literary lifespan into a cultural afterlife ranging from enslaved African girls in the British Caribbean to the real-life Juliets of sectarian violence in Bosnia and Belfast. She argues that our dangerous obsession with the beautiful dead teenager and Juliet’s meteoric rise as a defiant sexual icon have come to define the Western ideal of romance.
Wry and inventive, Juliet is a tribute to fiction’s most famous teenage girl who died young, but who lives forever.
Romeo and Juliet may be the greatest love story ever told, but who is Juliet? Demure ingénue? Or dangerous Mediterranean madwoman? From tearstained copies of the First Folio to Civil War-era fanfiction, Shakespeare’s star-crossed heroine has long captured our collective imagination. Juliet is her story, traced across continents through four centuries of history, theatre, and film. As Oxford Shakespeare scholar Sophie Duncan reveals, Juliet’s legacy stretches beyond her literary lifespan into a cultural afterlife ranging from enslaved African girls in the British Caribbean to the real-life Juliets of sectarian violence in Bosnia and Belfast. She argues that our dangerous obsession with the beautiful dead teenager and Juliet’s meteoric rise as a defiant sexual icon have come to define the Western ideal of romance.
Wry and inventive, Juliet is a tribute to fiction’s most famous teenage girl who died young, but who lives forever.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published June 6, 2023
23 people are currently reading
3324 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
March 12, 2023
I close this book with very mixed feelings, and if I were to put all of them in one single line, I'd say that this book didn't fulfil the potential it had, the potential it showed in the beginning.
Romeo and Juliet might not be my favourite Shakespearean play, but it's the first I read on my own, more than once, and the only one of his plays that was required reading for me in school. I still own my moth-eaten dual English/German edition and I still clearly remember our teacher taking us to watch the Baz Luhrmann film to write a paper comparing it to the play (don't ask me, all I remember is Romeo DiCaprio). But, fond memories and all, I have never ever, even at hardly a couple years older than Juliet, considered it a romance. I wasn't a rarity in my group in voicing problems with the play, starting with Friar Laurence and continuing with the Capulets (Nurse included), Romeo himself, and, yes, with Juliet too.
Let me enumerate why:
a. Juliet met Romeo for hardly a day before she accepts to marry him. For Juliet, it's somehow proactive and Strong Woman behaviour, but for Romeo, it's creepy.
b. Juliet was the one to arrange the marriage with Friar Laurence, she had just met Romeo the night before. And she blackmailed the friar with killing herself if he didn't marry them. How is that healthy and proactive/Strong Woman? As a Catholic, she'd know the penalty on the friar for unsanctioned sacraments and she didn't care (but Shakespeare was a Prot, what did he know?)
c. Juliet is Romeo's rebound girl, his "fuck to forget" to put it bluntly. He had been rejected by Rosaline and was mourning the rejection when he met Juliet. Rosaline is Lord Capulet's niece, so we can imagine Juliet would know. In short, Romeo was replacing a Capulet with another Capulet. You know the trope about sleeping with someone that looks like your ex? Yeah, that.
d. Juliet gives in too easily to Romeo's stalking and emotional blackmail in the window scene. Yes, that "romantic scene" is emotional blackmail, and she being a naïve 13-year- old that never goes out but to church, it worked.
e. Juliet never listens to the Nurse's warnings about Romeo and how not sensible the whole affair is. She lashes out at her, instead.
f. Juliet is as guilty as Romeo in the whole sad affair, if she's so proactive and Strong Woman, she could've said no and pushed him out her window, and at least hold Romeo responsible for Tybalt's murder, but she forgives him.
And that's only the major issues, there's other small nits to pick. Essentially, Juliet is no role model and definitely no romantic heroine. The way I saw her, she was an impulsive and idiotic teenager that, true to impulsive and idiotic adolescent behaviour, refused to listen to advice, got herself embroiled in an avoidable relationship with an emotionally manipulative teenager on a rebound, made rash and awful decisions, was co-responsible for the deaths of others, and finally killed herself rather than face the consequences of the idiotic decisions made jointly with her seducer.
No love story, no. Tragedy, yes. And an avoidable one. All great tragedies are avoidable ones.
But, in Sophie Duncan's Juliet, this girl is made to be a paragon of feminism. Of all the possible interpretations out there, Duncan singles out the most positive one. Juliet is so enterprising, so fast-thinking, so full of agency, so strong, so resilient, so active, so capable of flipping the bird at Patriarchy and shitting rainbows. Everything that goes badly in Romeo and Juliet is the fault of the guys; it's the Capulets's fault, it's the Montagues' fault, it's Lord Capulet's, it's Paris', it's Friar Laurence's, it's everyone's fault except for smart and Strong Woman Juliet. The only women at fault here are the Nurse, because she opposed Juliet's impulsivity, and Lady Capulet, who according to Sophie Duncan is the true villain (!!!) of the play.
And, as per Duncan, if Juliet ever did something wrong, it's because she was a teenager and Teenagers Gonna Teenage. Sure, she was a teenager and that explains a lot. But so was Romeo, and you can't use adolescence to excuse only one and not the other. It's reverse sexism at best.
Thing is, this book started actually very well. Duncan did excellent research on Shakespearean history, her knowledge of the Bard's life and oeuvre is impressive. That's why at the start I was so very pleased with the book, I learned a good number of details I hadn't known, such as what led Shakespeare to write Romeo and Juliet and whom he wrote it for, who played Romeo and who played Juliet first, the history of the early actors and actresses that got the roles during the Restoration, the Georgian period, the Victorian Age. This segment of the book is superb, very detailed, very well laid out and presented. I was taking note after note in this segment, so much to learn, so much food for thought. I even thought this book could perform the miracle of changing my view of Romeo and Juliet, or at the very least of the character of Juliet if not Romeo.
This section alone would've earned the book a high rating.
Then selective readings, confirmation bias, and ideology-tinted speculation rolled in. Although they're not the only examples she uses, Duncan builds her whole pro-Juliet argument around three depictions of her in modern media: the Franco Zeffirelli film with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, Baz Luhrmann's film with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, and the musical "West Side Story." And her interpretation of Juliet in these three is strenuously positive even if it clashes with facts. Like, for example, when discussing race in "West Side Story" and Zeffirelli's film, she calls Olivia Hussey "half-Latinx" and claims she was dressed in such an elaborate costume to hide the fact that she's not white. Sorry? There's no such thing as "half-Latinx" because Latinos aren't a race, they never were, and Olivia Hussey is white. I'd kindly invite Duncan to have a look at the demographics of Argentina and compare it to the UK before she blurts out the outdated and racist cliché British people perpetuate about Mediterranean people not being white, and inform herself better about what the majority ethnicity in Argentina (where Hussey's dad was from) is before she states such an embarrassing falsehood.
And this faux pas isn't the only one related to R & J and race. Duncan dedicates a whole chapter to colonisation and slave trade and its ties to the Shakespearean play, arguing that slaveholders used to give slaves Shakespearean names in function to what those characters were perceived to be like. Since Juliet was a nubile girl that was highly and morbidly sexualised by society throughout the ages, she argues, slavers gave young and nubile slaves (that they raped on the regular) the name of Juliet because they were sexual objects just like their literary namesake. This is sketchily argued, and relies entirely on subjective and selective interpretations. How exactly are you going to prove that slavers looked at pretty black girls they enslaved and decided "Oh, she is ripe for a rape, so I'll call her Juliet like that dead chick from the theatre that looked nice"? You simply can't prove intention in people from two centuries ago, so the argument falls by itself.
There's more arguments in that vein that try to paint Juliet in as good a light as can be, and there's a weird conflict in Duncan's writing between her need to present Juliet as a Strong Woman that can be a role model and her need to keep Juliet a perpetual victim of men and Patriarchy. This often leads to contradictions in her arguments and argumentative gymnastics that would be risible to anyone. In her quest to present Juliet as exemplary feminist icon, she even argues that her name is synonymous with romantic heroine whilst Romeo's name is a byword for, wait for it, a womaniser. I have never seen that in actual life, the times I heard someone be called a Romeo was in the "too infatuated to see reason" sense, never in the ladies' man seducer sense Duncan says his name is seen.
She also argues that the world only cares about Juliet out of the two in the couple, not Romeo, as "proven" by the tourist trap that is the city of Verona, where Juliet is seen as a secular patron saint and her house and statue and tomb are pilgrimage locations whilst, Duncan argues, nobody cares about Romeo beyond some obscure plaque nobody visits. In her crusade to discredit Romeo's character, the author seems to have forgotten that Juliet is fictional and that the reason Verona can boast "il Balcone di Giulietta" isn't because everyone loves only her and doesn't give a shit about Romeo but because, you know, ol' William Shakespeare didn't write us a Romeo at his house but wrote all the action at Juliet's house (never a balcony, though, so that one in Verona is a fiction within a fiction) and at other locations, but never ever mentioned any place Romeo could be forever associated with. If he had, today we'd have Romeo's pet's doghouse, Romeo's bachelor pigsty of a room, and Romeo's bathroom all in Verona. You can be sure of that, and that people would flock there.
This selectivity bothered me even more because Duncan just refuses to even address the negative interpretations of Juliet, which do exist and aren't just from our cynical modernity. The Victorians already had a poor opinion of Juliet, but this book glosses over them and merely acknowledges they existed. And there's not even a cursory glance at the problematic R & J depictions in film, theatre, and media in general. The one time Duncan does address what she sees as negative associations of Juliet's name is when the media (journalists specifically) call tragic love stories "Romeo and Juliet" . . . and she does so only to lecture us on how So Not Like Romeo & Juliet these stories are. Because, you know, literal this-for-that matching is what makes a couple be like Romeo & Juliet, and symbolic and metaphorical use of the couple to blanket-name other tragic couples is Not Allowed if they don't follow the exact plotline and, above all, the ending. Duncan says, hilariously, that a Romeo & Juliet story is one only if the conflict "ends" like in the play, where Montagues and Capulets reconcile upon the lovers' deaths, so if the conflict continues even after the deaths of the real-life lovers, then it's not a Romeo & Juliet story at all. And that's the "real problem" with naming news stories about tragic couples after the legendary lovers. Talk about dense and obtuse arguments...
I think all this suffices to paint a good picture of what you can expect from this book. I ended up not getting any new appreciation for the girl in a story of dumb and horny teenagers that it tries to lionise. I still see Juliet (and Romeo) like I saw them when I was a dumb and horny teenager myself.
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Romeo and Juliet might not be my favourite Shakespearean play, but it's the first I read on my own, more than once, and the only one of his plays that was required reading for me in school. I still own my moth-eaten dual English/German edition and I still clearly remember our teacher taking us to watch the Baz Luhrmann film to write a paper comparing it to the play (don't ask me, all I remember is Romeo DiCaprio). But, fond memories and all, I have never ever, even at hardly a couple years older than Juliet, considered it a romance. I wasn't a rarity in my group in voicing problems with the play, starting with Friar Laurence and continuing with the Capulets (Nurse included), Romeo himself, and, yes, with Juliet too.
Let me enumerate why:
a. Juliet met Romeo for hardly a day before she accepts to marry him. For Juliet, it's somehow proactive and Strong Woman behaviour, but for Romeo, it's creepy.
b. Juliet was the one to arrange the marriage with Friar Laurence, she had just met Romeo the night before. And she blackmailed the friar with killing herself if he didn't marry them. How is that healthy and proactive/Strong Woman? As a Catholic, she'd know the penalty on the friar for unsanctioned sacraments and she didn't care (but Shakespeare was a Prot, what did he know?)
c. Juliet is Romeo's rebound girl, his "fuck to forget" to put it bluntly. He had been rejected by Rosaline and was mourning the rejection when he met Juliet. Rosaline is Lord Capulet's niece, so we can imagine Juliet would know. In short, Romeo was replacing a Capulet with another Capulet. You know the trope about sleeping with someone that looks like your ex? Yeah, that.
d. Juliet gives in too easily to Romeo's stalking and emotional blackmail in the window scene. Yes, that "romantic scene" is emotional blackmail, and she being a naïve 13-year- old that never goes out but to church, it worked.
e. Juliet never listens to the Nurse's warnings about Romeo and how not sensible the whole affair is. She lashes out at her, instead.
f. Juliet is as guilty as Romeo in the whole sad affair, if she's so proactive and Strong Woman, she could've said no and pushed him out her window, and at least hold Romeo responsible for Tybalt's murder, but she forgives him.
And that's only the major issues, there's other small nits to pick. Essentially, Juliet is no role model and definitely no romantic heroine. The way I saw her, she was an impulsive and idiotic teenager that, true to impulsive and idiotic adolescent behaviour, refused to listen to advice, got herself embroiled in an avoidable relationship with an emotionally manipulative teenager on a rebound, made rash and awful decisions, was co-responsible for the deaths of others, and finally killed herself rather than face the consequences of the idiotic decisions made jointly with her seducer.
No love story, no. Tragedy, yes. And an avoidable one. All great tragedies are avoidable ones.
But, in Sophie Duncan's Juliet, this girl is made to be a paragon of feminism. Of all the possible interpretations out there, Duncan singles out the most positive one. Juliet is so enterprising, so fast-thinking, so full of agency, so strong, so resilient, so active, so capable of flipping the bird at Patriarchy and shitting rainbows. Everything that goes badly in Romeo and Juliet is the fault of the guys; it's the Capulets's fault, it's the Montagues' fault, it's Lord Capulet's, it's Paris', it's Friar Laurence's, it's everyone's fault except for smart and Strong Woman Juliet. The only women at fault here are the Nurse, because she opposed Juliet's impulsivity, and Lady Capulet, who according to Sophie Duncan is the true villain (!!!) of the play.
And, as per Duncan, if Juliet ever did something wrong, it's because she was a teenager and Teenagers Gonna Teenage. Sure, she was a teenager and that explains a lot. But so was Romeo, and you can't use adolescence to excuse only one and not the other. It's reverse sexism at best.
Thing is, this book started actually very well. Duncan did excellent research on Shakespearean history, her knowledge of the Bard's life and oeuvre is impressive. That's why at the start I was so very pleased with the book, I learned a good number of details I hadn't known, such as what led Shakespeare to write Romeo and Juliet and whom he wrote it for, who played Romeo and who played Juliet first, the history of the early actors and actresses that got the roles during the Restoration, the Georgian period, the Victorian Age. This segment of the book is superb, very detailed, very well laid out and presented. I was taking note after note in this segment, so much to learn, so much food for thought. I even thought this book could perform the miracle of changing my view of Romeo and Juliet, or at the very least of the character of Juliet if not Romeo.
This section alone would've earned the book a high rating.
Then selective readings, confirmation bias, and ideology-tinted speculation rolled in. Although they're not the only examples she uses, Duncan builds her whole pro-Juliet argument around three depictions of her in modern media: the Franco Zeffirelli film with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, Baz Luhrmann's film with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, and the musical "West Side Story." And her interpretation of Juliet in these three is strenuously positive even if it clashes with facts. Like, for example, when discussing race in "West Side Story" and Zeffirelli's film, she calls Olivia Hussey "half-Latinx" and claims she was dressed in such an elaborate costume to hide the fact that she's not white. Sorry? There's no such thing as "half-Latinx" because Latinos aren't a race, they never were, and Olivia Hussey is white. I'd kindly invite Duncan to have a look at the demographics of Argentina and compare it to the UK before she blurts out the outdated and racist cliché British people perpetuate about Mediterranean people not being white, and inform herself better about what the majority ethnicity in Argentina (where Hussey's dad was from) is before she states such an embarrassing falsehood.
And this faux pas isn't the only one related to R & J and race. Duncan dedicates a whole chapter to colonisation and slave trade and its ties to the Shakespearean play, arguing that slaveholders used to give slaves Shakespearean names in function to what those characters were perceived to be like. Since Juliet was a nubile girl that was highly and morbidly sexualised by society throughout the ages, she argues, slavers gave young and nubile slaves (that they raped on the regular) the name of Juliet because they were sexual objects just like their literary namesake. This is sketchily argued, and relies entirely on subjective and selective interpretations. How exactly are you going to prove that slavers looked at pretty black girls they enslaved and decided "Oh, she is ripe for a rape, so I'll call her Juliet like that dead chick from the theatre that looked nice"? You simply can't prove intention in people from two centuries ago, so the argument falls by itself.
There's more arguments in that vein that try to paint Juliet in as good a light as can be, and there's a weird conflict in Duncan's writing between her need to present Juliet as a Strong Woman that can be a role model and her need to keep Juliet a perpetual victim of men and Patriarchy. This often leads to contradictions in her arguments and argumentative gymnastics that would be risible to anyone. In her quest to present Juliet as exemplary feminist icon, she even argues that her name is synonymous with romantic heroine whilst Romeo's name is a byword for, wait for it, a womaniser. I have never seen that in actual life, the times I heard someone be called a Romeo was in the "too infatuated to see reason" sense, never in the ladies' man seducer sense Duncan says his name is seen.
She also argues that the world only cares about Juliet out of the two in the couple, not Romeo, as "proven" by the tourist trap that is the city of Verona, where Juliet is seen as a secular patron saint and her house and statue and tomb are pilgrimage locations whilst, Duncan argues, nobody cares about Romeo beyond some obscure plaque nobody visits. In her crusade to discredit Romeo's character, the author seems to have forgotten that Juliet is fictional and that the reason Verona can boast "il Balcone di Giulietta" isn't because everyone loves only her and doesn't give a shit about Romeo but because, you know, ol' William Shakespeare didn't write us a Romeo at his house but wrote all the action at Juliet's house (never a balcony, though, so that one in Verona is a fiction within a fiction) and at other locations, but never ever mentioned any place Romeo could be forever associated with. If he had, today we'd have Romeo's pet's doghouse, Romeo's bachelor pigsty of a room, and Romeo's bathroom all in Verona. You can be sure of that, and that people would flock there.
This selectivity bothered me even more because Duncan just refuses to even address the negative interpretations of Juliet, which do exist and aren't just from our cynical modernity. The Victorians already had a poor opinion of Juliet, but this book glosses over them and merely acknowledges they existed. And there's not even a cursory glance at the problematic R & J depictions in film, theatre, and media in general. The one time Duncan does address what she sees as negative associations of Juliet's name is when the media (journalists specifically) call tragic love stories "Romeo and Juliet" . . . and she does so only to lecture us on how So Not Like Romeo & Juliet these stories are. Because, you know, literal this-for-that matching is what makes a couple be like Romeo & Juliet, and symbolic and metaphorical use of the couple to blanket-name other tragic couples is Not Allowed if they don't follow the exact plotline and, above all, the ending. Duncan says, hilariously, that a Romeo & Juliet story is one only if the conflict "ends" like in the play, where Montagues and Capulets reconcile upon the lovers' deaths, so if the conflict continues even after the deaths of the real-life lovers, then it's not a Romeo & Juliet story at all. And that's the "real problem" with naming news stories about tragic couples after the legendary lovers. Talk about dense and obtuse arguments...
I think all this suffices to paint a good picture of what you can expect from this book. I ended up not getting any new appreciation for the girl in a story of dumb and horny teenagers that it tries to lionise. I still see Juliet (and Romeo) like I saw them when I was a dumb and horny teenager myself.
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
June 3, 2023
As you all know, if a book is in any way associated with Romeo and Juliet, I will be reading it. So, when I saw this book on NetGalley I had to request it and was so excited when my request was approved.
I won’t lie, this one took a little while to get through, but that’s because I wanted to take my time with it. I read it over the course of about 2-weeks and I really do think that was the way to read it instead of trying to breeze through it. There is so much detail in this book, and so much of it was information that I’d never heard of before.
While I’ve always loved and felt drawn to Juliet, I never really knew the influence she’s had on the world, which is truly astonishing when you think about the fact that she’s a fictional character. I loved learning about productions of Romeo and Juliet over the years, learning about some of the most famous actresses that have played her, the way that her character and influence changed the world…it was just completely fascinating!
It’s hard to fully describe what I got out of this book because I really got so much out of it. I think that if you’re interested in the story of Romeo and Juliet but more so about Juliet and her character, you must read this.
---
real thoughts to come because i am tired, but i loved this
I won’t lie, this one took a little while to get through, but that’s because I wanted to take my time with it. I read it over the course of about 2-weeks and I really do think that was the way to read it instead of trying to breeze through it. There is so much detail in this book, and so much of it was information that I’d never heard of before.
While I’ve always loved and felt drawn to Juliet, I never really knew the influence she’s had on the world, which is truly astonishing when you think about the fact that she’s a fictional character. I loved learning about productions of Romeo and Juliet over the years, learning about some of the most famous actresses that have played her, the way that her character and influence changed the world…it was just completely fascinating!
It’s hard to fully describe what I got out of this book because I really got so much out of it. I think that if you’re interested in the story of Romeo and Juliet but more so about Juliet and her character, you must read this.
---
real thoughts to come because i am tired, but i loved this
February 10, 2024
When I tell you I stood up and started doing a happy dance when I read the first few pages of this book I need you to know I am being 100% serious and not exaggerating.
This is the SHIT!!!!!!! This is the stuff i LIVE FOR!!!!!!!!!!! I *adored* this book. I annotated the living heck out of it. I am in every way this book's target audience. The best thing I've ever written was a paper about Juliet and I've loved her ever since. Reading this book gave me such a good excuse to think about her and all the impact she's had and how powerful a fictional girl can be! Look at her go! Look at her change and not change and resist interpretation by generations of (so many men) directors and interpreters and cultists and cultures. No matter what history says about her she'll always be her and she'll always be shifting! I also love how often my favorite read on R&J was conversed with. My read on R&J is that you haven't really understood it unless you've read it twice and seen how your perspective shifts as your relative age to the character shifts, and this book interrogated with that shifting perspective A LOT. Also so fun to see stage, screen, naming conventions, media parallels, and others all given the same type of credence. I am a huge fan of scholars talking to actors A LOT when talking about Shakespeare, because scholars and actors, while both spend time reading and rereading the text, experience the text in such different ways that melding both perspectives is where I feel we get the best stuff.
Just absolutely fabulous reading. I loved every second of it. My hopes that I would enjoy this the way I enjoyed Marjorie Garber's Shakespeare and Modern Culture and I was served that and more. I know it's January but I won't be surprised if this makes the cut for one of my favorite books I read this year.
This is the SHIT!!!!!!! This is the stuff i LIVE FOR!!!!!!!!!!! I *adored* this book. I annotated the living heck out of it. I am in every way this book's target audience. The best thing I've ever written was a paper about Juliet and I've loved her ever since. Reading this book gave me such a good excuse to think about her and all the impact she's had and how powerful a fictional girl can be! Look at her go! Look at her change and not change and resist interpretation by generations of (so many men) directors and interpreters and cultists and cultures. No matter what history says about her she'll always be her and she'll always be shifting! I also love how often my favorite read on R&J was conversed with. My read on R&J is that you haven't really understood it unless you've read it twice and seen how your perspective shifts as your relative age to the character shifts, and this book interrogated with that shifting perspective A LOT. Also so fun to see stage, screen, naming conventions, media parallels, and others all given the same type of credence. I am a huge fan of scholars talking to actors A LOT when talking about Shakespeare, because scholars and actors, while both spend time reading and rereading the text, experience the text in such different ways that melding both perspectives is where I feel we get the best stuff.
Just absolutely fabulous reading. I loved every second of it. My hopes that I would enjoy this the way I enjoyed Marjorie Garber's Shakespeare and Modern Culture and I was served that and more. I know it's January but I won't be surprised if this makes the cut for one of my favorite books I read this year.
April 15, 2023
Thank you to NetGalley and Basic Books, Seal Press for my arc in exchange for my unbiased opinion.
This book gave me mixed feelings. I think it's incredibly clear that this is a labor of love and a lot of hard work and research. As I did a lot of Shakespeare research during my undergrad, I just knew I had to request this one. Throughout my academic career going back to my middle school, I've found that Juliet has always been a polarizing character so yeah, of course I was interested in a book that really looked at who Juliet Capulet is in the literary world as well as in the pop culture world.
All of that said, I struggled with some aspects of this. I think the parts of the book where Duncan really shines is her initial analysis of Juliet, the original portrayers of Juliet, and comparisons within the Shakespeare canon but in her pop culture research, I think Duncan has quite a few ideas and theories that she never really follows through with. And I absolutely get it as someone who constantly has more ideas than what I know what to do with, I was sympathetic. However, I'm a graduate student and I think as a graduate student, I'm still learning how to finetune my focus for research papers so that I can write a thesis and then a dissertation. With Duncan, I got the sense that this was a collection of graduate papers or incomplete theses that needed a lot of finetuning. I don't think it's necessarily a knock against Duncan though because I think what's in this book makes a great addition to Shakespeare scholarship especially for those who want to look at Shakespeare legacy in contemporary media. Duncan, you're a good writer! The "I think..." and similar phrasings throughout the book really takes away from Duncan's authority as an Oxford scholar and that made me sad because you don't become an Oxford scholar overnight.
I did give this a 3/5 because I did struggle with reading this and because there were some low points but do not let this detract you from reading it. Duncan does do a brilliant job.
This book gave me mixed feelings. I think it's incredibly clear that this is a labor of love and a lot of hard work and research. As I did a lot of Shakespeare research during my undergrad, I just knew I had to request this one. Throughout my academic career going back to my middle school, I've found that Juliet has always been a polarizing character so yeah, of course I was interested in a book that really looked at who Juliet Capulet is in the literary world as well as in the pop culture world.
All of that said, I struggled with some aspects of this. I think the parts of the book where Duncan really shines is her initial analysis of Juliet, the original portrayers of Juliet, and comparisons within the Shakespeare canon but in her pop culture research, I think Duncan has quite a few ideas and theories that she never really follows through with. And I absolutely get it as someone who constantly has more ideas than what I know what to do with, I was sympathetic. However, I'm a graduate student and I think as a graduate student, I'm still learning how to finetune my focus for research papers so that I can write a thesis and then a dissertation. With Duncan, I got the sense that this was a collection of graduate papers or incomplete theses that needed a lot of finetuning. I don't think it's necessarily a knock against Duncan though because I think what's in this book makes a great addition to Shakespeare scholarship especially for those who want to look at Shakespeare legacy in contemporary media. Duncan, you're a good writer! The "I think..." and similar phrasings throughout the book really takes away from Duncan's authority as an Oxford scholar and that made me sad because you don't become an Oxford scholar overnight.
I did give this a 3/5 because I did struggle with reading this and because there were some low points but do not let this detract you from reading it. Duncan does do a brilliant job.
December 15, 2023
Brilliant stuff! Loved it.
October 4, 2023
Juliet (No Romeo)
It is not without its insightful tidbits, but from the first page on I had a sinking suspicion this social and literary history of Shakespeare’s heroine would be muddied by Duncan’s decision not only to focus on Juliet alone, but to minimize Romeo and his role in the narrative. Shakespeare kept his lovers apart out of dramatic and thematic necessity; Duncan does it out of misplaced feminist “rehabilitation.”
Duncan begins by making the claim that it is Juliet rather than Romeo that has had the most influence in culture—witness Il Balcone and La Casa di Giulietta, “Juliet and her Romeo,” the Juliet Club, and so forth. But if Duncan’s main argument is that this influence is chiefly due to Juliet’s strengths as a character—her passion, her intelligence, her bravery and agency—she ultimately ends up offering more evidence of a more depressing reality for Juliet’s popularity: Patriarchal culture’s sexualization of female adolescence, careful whitewashing of her agency, and categorizing her as yet another example of the Dead Girl trope. The hetero male gaze focusing on the female half of a couple instead of the male? What a shocker.
Moreover, Juliet is intimately tied to significant locations that are easily tourist-friendly—her house, her balcony, her tomb. Romeo, who is introduced by his absence and who is always on the move, has no such ties. How can you extract tourist money from that? And of course pop culture and even academics would accept Romeo’s destruction and feel more horror over Juliet’s—a dead boy is mere fodder for the patriarchal death cult machine.
Such distinctions are beyond Duncan’s surface-level treatise. After a good but too-brief history of her 16th century roots, she delves into Juliet’s afterlife, some of which is almost unrelated to Shakespeare’s character. Occasionally she does show some insight—modern adaptations’ tiresome penchant for turning a play about the erotics of love into one of hate, for instance, is a definite misinterpretation of the Shakespeare. Duncan also notes the more negative, conservative, and regressive interpretations of Juliet’s character. Unfortunately she doesn’t go into deeper detail or analysis over more modern adaptations’ interpretations of her, either completely reinventing the character for good or ill or sidelining her entirely.
In the end, it’s a wash. A social history of the character may be revealing, but only of 200 years’ worth of thinking and beliefs and biases. Duncan has great respect and love for the character, but without a full reckoning of her other half this tome will always feel incomplete.
It is not without its insightful tidbits, but from the first page on I had a sinking suspicion this social and literary history of Shakespeare’s heroine would be muddied by Duncan’s decision not only to focus on Juliet alone, but to minimize Romeo and his role in the narrative. Shakespeare kept his lovers apart out of dramatic and thematic necessity; Duncan does it out of misplaced feminist “rehabilitation.”
Duncan begins by making the claim that it is Juliet rather than Romeo that has had the most influence in culture—witness Il Balcone and La Casa di Giulietta, “Juliet and her Romeo,” the Juliet Club, and so forth. But if Duncan’s main argument is that this influence is chiefly due to Juliet’s strengths as a character—her passion, her intelligence, her bravery and agency—she ultimately ends up offering more evidence of a more depressing reality for Juliet’s popularity: Patriarchal culture’s sexualization of female adolescence, careful whitewashing of her agency, and categorizing her as yet another example of the Dead Girl trope. The hetero male gaze focusing on the female half of a couple instead of the male? What a shocker.
Moreover, Juliet is intimately tied to significant locations that are easily tourist-friendly—her house, her balcony, her tomb. Romeo, who is introduced by his absence and who is always on the move, has no such ties. How can you extract tourist money from that? And of course pop culture and even academics would accept Romeo’s destruction and feel more horror over Juliet’s—a dead boy is mere fodder for the patriarchal death cult machine.
Such distinctions are beyond Duncan’s surface-level treatise. After a good but too-brief history of her 16th century roots, she delves into Juliet’s afterlife, some of which is almost unrelated to Shakespeare’s character. Occasionally she does show some insight—modern adaptations’ tiresome penchant for turning a play about the erotics of love into one of hate, for instance, is a definite misinterpretation of the Shakespeare. Duncan also notes the more negative, conservative, and regressive interpretations of Juliet’s character. Unfortunately she doesn’t go into deeper detail or analysis over more modern adaptations’ interpretations of her, either completely reinventing the character for good or ill or sidelining her entirely.
In the end, it’s a wash. A social history of the character may be revealing, but only of 200 years’ worth of thinking and beliefs and biases. Duncan has great respect and love for the character, but without a full reckoning of her other half this tome will always feel incomplete.
May 17, 2023
"If Romeo and Juliet is the story we tell ourselves about what it means to be young, passionate and doomed, Juliet's is the story we tell about what it means to be a young woman in love."
Juliet Capulet is without a doubt, William Shakespeare's most famous and enduring female role.
It is unknown for sure where the role of Juliet truly came from, but Sophie Duncan believes, and argues convincingly, that it was potentially created on behalf of the young actor Robert Gough. This young man was familiar to Shakespeare, having acted in A Midsummer Night's Dream (as Hermia), Much Ado About Nothing (as Hero), and Love's Labour's Lost (as Rosaline) which all held similarities of appearance (that the characters were small and brunette) and the patriarchal society that they lived.
This book is more than an examination of the conception of Juliet's role. In a compelling narrative with depth that goes beyond the Shakespeare play, Duncan explores the "afterlife" of Juliet - as stated in the title - by examining the tourist appeal of Verona, the everlasting effect on the entertaining industry and even snippets of history such as the fascist origins of the love-torn "Letters to Juliet".
A challenging and eye-opening experience, the author may begin with the heartbreaking tale of Juliet, but this quickly becomes almost provocative as the meaning of Juliet morphs over centuries.
A truly fascinating and remarkable study, this is one that ought not to be missed by those who are interested in Shakespeare and his work.
Thank you so much to @sceptrebooks for kindly sending me a copy to review!
Juliet Capulet is without a doubt, William Shakespeare's most famous and enduring female role.
It is unknown for sure where the role of Juliet truly came from, but Sophie Duncan believes, and argues convincingly, that it was potentially created on behalf of the young actor Robert Gough. This young man was familiar to Shakespeare, having acted in A Midsummer Night's Dream (as Hermia), Much Ado About Nothing (as Hero), and Love's Labour's Lost (as Rosaline) which all held similarities of appearance (that the characters were small and brunette) and the patriarchal society that they lived.
This book is more than an examination of the conception of Juliet's role. In a compelling narrative with depth that goes beyond the Shakespeare play, Duncan explores the "afterlife" of Juliet - as stated in the title - by examining the tourist appeal of Verona, the everlasting effect on the entertaining industry and even snippets of history such as the fascist origins of the love-torn "Letters to Juliet".
A challenging and eye-opening experience, the author may begin with the heartbreaking tale of Juliet, but this quickly becomes almost provocative as the meaning of Juliet morphs over centuries.
A truly fascinating and remarkable study, this is one that ought not to be missed by those who are interested in Shakespeare and his work.
Thank you so much to @sceptrebooks for kindly sending me a copy to review!
February 18, 2023
Disclaimer: I received an ARC via Netgalley.
Juliet is one of the most well-known Shakespeare characters, if not the best known. Duncan’s book is one of those biographies of a fictional character and the impact that the character has had on popular culture. At times, the book is illuminating but overall it falls short.
There is no doubt that Duncan loves the character of Juliet. Her analysis of the original play and character, as well as the comparison to Shakespeare’s source material is quite brilliant and encourages a new look at the character as something more than a simple girl in love or in the possession of lust/love. Her sections about who may have played the part first as well as the subsequent actresses who eventually found themselves playing the role, and the scandals, connected to the actress is engrossing, even though one can say that all that detail isn’t really necessary. She bring to the fore forgotten or lesser known criticism, such as a woman who claimed that Lady Capulet was the villain of the piece. Her section about West Side Story is fascinating as is her discussion about Zeffirelli’s film version. Her detail about how Verona uses the story is also well written.
Yet in many ways the book does fall short. Some sections while having good and interesting points are not as fully developed as they should be. Duncan has a whole chapter about the use of Juliet in terms of colonialization, in particular as a name that the enslavers used for slaves The chapter contends that Juliet was used as a name because of how the character was seen during the colonial period. While chapter is interesting, it doesn’t fully support or detail its thesis. In part this isn’t Duncan’s fault, she cannot prove why someone chose a name. Yet one is left with impression that less general history of slavery that felt like padding and more focus on the names might have helped. For instance, Duncan points out that it was obvious why Macbeth was not used as a slave name, yet she doesn’t explain why names of other character who rebelled or killed rulers, such as Hamlet, were allowed.
Part of the reason why the name chapter is weak is the constant use of “I think” or its variants that Duncan uses repeatedly in the book. It isn’t so much that she is inserting herself, - the book is designed to include her travels to Juliet as it were - but the phrase makes her sound unsure.
Duncan does address race as well when she talks about how modern adaptions factor in the young couple coming from different races. Her points about how it doesn’t fully address or even cheapens the talk about race is valid (though she doesn’t cite the toxic Holocaust R&J romances) , but she also doesn’t seem to consider why teachers might use some texts to introduce or deal with race. It’s like when she is correct in saying that using race takes away from the point of the play (the feuding families have no real reason to feud) but doesn’t seem to consider that adaption means change. The absence of a detailed look at the first minority actresses to play Juliet to a European audience also seems strange.
Additionally, while her section about movies and media in the modern age presents an excellent look at the big three films – West Side Story, Rome +Juliet, and the Zeffirelli film, it does short shift to some other media. She discusses both Taylor Swift’s “Love Story” and the new Hulu movie Rosaline, but it is telling, and not in a good way, that here, discussing Juliets created by women, Duncan does not include quotes from those women creators. This stands out because of the numerous quotes from the male directors. It was also strange that Swift’s song was discussed in light of Romeo + Juliet which may have had an influence in how Swift saw the character. The fact that Rosaline is based on a book and is also not the first story based on the play to center Rosaline isn’t explored or even fully mentioned either.
In fact, while Duncan deals with film and one song, she largely ignored book retellings or inspirations of R&J, for the most part mentioning them in passing except for the one that was popular in Ireland and detailed a relationship between Protestant and Catholic, and the true stories of couples that have been marketed as Romeo and Juliet stories. It’s interesting because she ignores those works that feature a strong Juliet, her preferred Juliet. (Check out the kick ass Juliet in Kill Shakespeare for instance).
This might be okay if it was clear that Duncan was focusing on Juliet in terms of the British audience only. And in truth, this is something that she does indirectly, but she never directly says it. And when she does address fans of Juliet from other countries, she comes across as condescending or down right insulting. Her wording to describe Asian and American tourists for example. Her focus on Verona and Italy as simply capitalism Shakespeare is another example.
It is also disturbing that she takes the time to make fun of teen girls who show up in Verona with their notebooks but is disturbed by the men and boys who fondle the breast of a Juliet statue. While she condoms the men, as she should; the girl’s use of fandom is seen as silly. I’m so over that stereotype. Perhaps it is silly, but some of those silly girls might go on to love Shakespeare, so who cares?
The thing is before typing this review, I was all set to consider this book a 2.5 rounded up to a three, but now, it’s a straight two.
Juliet is one of the most well-known Shakespeare characters, if not the best known. Duncan’s book is one of those biographies of a fictional character and the impact that the character has had on popular culture. At times, the book is illuminating but overall it falls short.
There is no doubt that Duncan loves the character of Juliet. Her analysis of the original play and character, as well as the comparison to Shakespeare’s source material is quite brilliant and encourages a new look at the character as something more than a simple girl in love or in the possession of lust/love. Her sections about who may have played the part first as well as the subsequent actresses who eventually found themselves playing the role, and the scandals, connected to the actress is engrossing, even though one can say that all that detail isn’t really necessary. She bring to the fore forgotten or lesser known criticism, such as a woman who claimed that Lady Capulet was the villain of the piece. Her section about West Side Story is fascinating as is her discussion about Zeffirelli’s film version. Her detail about how Verona uses the story is also well written.
Yet in many ways the book does fall short. Some sections while having good and interesting points are not as fully developed as they should be. Duncan has a whole chapter about the use of Juliet in terms of colonialization, in particular as a name that the enslavers used for slaves The chapter contends that Juliet was used as a name because of how the character was seen during the colonial period. While chapter is interesting, it doesn’t fully support or detail its thesis. In part this isn’t Duncan’s fault, she cannot prove why someone chose a name. Yet one is left with impression that less general history of slavery that felt like padding and more focus on the names might have helped. For instance, Duncan points out that it was obvious why Macbeth was not used as a slave name, yet she doesn’t explain why names of other character who rebelled or killed rulers, such as Hamlet, were allowed.
Part of the reason why the name chapter is weak is the constant use of “I think” or its variants that Duncan uses repeatedly in the book. It isn’t so much that she is inserting herself, - the book is designed to include her travels to Juliet as it were - but the phrase makes her sound unsure.
Duncan does address race as well when she talks about how modern adaptions factor in the young couple coming from different races. Her points about how it doesn’t fully address or even cheapens the talk about race is valid (though she doesn’t cite the toxic Holocaust R&J romances) , but she also doesn’t seem to consider why teachers might use some texts to introduce or deal with race. It’s like when she is correct in saying that using race takes away from the point of the play (the feuding families have no real reason to feud) but doesn’t seem to consider that adaption means change. The absence of a detailed look at the first minority actresses to play Juliet to a European audience also seems strange.
Additionally, while her section about movies and media in the modern age presents an excellent look at the big three films – West Side Story, Rome +Juliet, and the Zeffirelli film, it does short shift to some other media. She discusses both Taylor Swift’s “Love Story” and the new Hulu movie Rosaline, but it is telling, and not in a good way, that here, discussing Juliets created by women, Duncan does not include quotes from those women creators. This stands out because of the numerous quotes from the male directors. It was also strange that Swift’s song was discussed in light of Romeo + Juliet which may have had an influence in how Swift saw the character. The fact that Rosaline is based on a book and is also not the first story based on the play to center Rosaline isn’t explored or even fully mentioned either.
In fact, while Duncan deals with film and one song, she largely ignored book retellings or inspirations of R&J, for the most part mentioning them in passing except for the one that was popular in Ireland and detailed a relationship between Protestant and Catholic, and the true stories of couples that have been marketed as Romeo and Juliet stories. It’s interesting because she ignores those works that feature a strong Juliet, her preferred Juliet. (Check out the kick ass Juliet in Kill Shakespeare for instance).
This might be okay if it was clear that Duncan was focusing on Juliet in terms of the British audience only. And in truth, this is something that she does indirectly, but she never directly says it. And when she does address fans of Juliet from other countries, she comes across as condescending or down right insulting. Her wording to describe Asian and American tourists for example. Her focus on Verona and Italy as simply capitalism Shakespeare is another example.
It is also disturbing that she takes the time to make fun of teen girls who show up in Verona with their notebooks but is disturbed by the men and boys who fondle the breast of a Juliet statue. While she condoms the men, as she should; the girl’s use of fandom is seen as silly. I’m so over that stereotype. Perhaps it is silly, but some of those silly girls might go on to love Shakespeare, so who cares?
The thing is before typing this review, I was all set to consider this book a 2.5 rounded up to a three, but now, it’s a straight two.
November 20, 2023
My thanks to both Goodreads and to the publisher Seal Press for an advanced copy of look at a character from Shakespeare who has quite the afterlife, one that had educated and mystified as much as entertained down through the years.
A child meets an older boy, the bad boy that parents warn about at her first real adult party. The child is enamoured, so much so that marries the boy, among other things, nearly causes a battle between families, dies, returns, dies again and lives forever on the printed word and on lighted stages around the world. And films. And mangas. And in hearts. A tale as old as time, but one that was shaped by the skillful imagination of playwright William Shakespeare, and carried forward by the works of others in adapted, playing, or even mangling the story of Juliet Capulet, one of the first of many dead girls to become a trope through time. Sophie Duncan, , a research fellow at Magdalen College, Oxford, has written a biography and history of this character, along with what Juliet has meant to many since the writing of Romeo and Juliet, in the book Juliet: The Life and Afterlives of Shakespeare's First Tragic Heroine.
The book begins with a summary of the play, who Juliet was and a little bit more of a look into her motivations, her age, and the tremendous sense of confidence and finally bravery Juliet contained, as everyone around her seemed to fail her in many ways. The book goes into the history of the writing and performing of works for the stage, in England up to the time where Shakespeare began to start to create his plays. After Juliet the book looks at the performances the men who first played Juliet on stage, and after the restoration of the King in the 1660's the allowing of women to act on stage, and who some of these early pioneers of the stage were. Different versions, copies, and theft included, are discussed and looked at, along with various performances around the world. Plus the meaning of Juliet is looked at, the fascination in society with dead girls, Julliet's meaning in different places, and what she means today.
A book that was about far more than a character in a play, or even about the creator. This is a well-written look at women in literature, how many of the themes and discussions that are taught and written about started with this young woman, this child, I keep forgetting the characters age was younger than my nephew. This is a well-researched book with lots of information on things I never knew much about. Duncan discusses the age of marriage in England, and how in some places it seemed better than the American South today. Duncan asks questions about the writing of Romeo and Juliet, not why it was written but for who, which opens up many interesting avenues for speculation. Duncan talks about the love of dead girls in literature and movies, and a lot of the modern takes on Juliet, love and more. A book that I found not only enjoyable, but learned quite a bit from.
Recommended for Shakespeare readers, and for young ladies who enjoy stories about Juliet, wish to be writers, or even to go into academia. This would be a perfect gift.
A child meets an older boy, the bad boy that parents warn about at her first real adult party. The child is enamoured, so much so that marries the boy, among other things, nearly causes a battle between families, dies, returns, dies again and lives forever on the printed word and on lighted stages around the world. And films. And mangas. And in hearts. A tale as old as time, but one that was shaped by the skillful imagination of playwright William Shakespeare, and carried forward by the works of others in adapted, playing, or even mangling the story of Juliet Capulet, one of the first of many dead girls to become a trope through time. Sophie Duncan, , a research fellow at Magdalen College, Oxford, has written a biography and history of this character, along with what Juliet has meant to many since the writing of Romeo and Juliet, in the book Juliet: The Life and Afterlives of Shakespeare's First Tragic Heroine.
The book begins with a summary of the play, who Juliet was and a little bit more of a look into her motivations, her age, and the tremendous sense of confidence and finally bravery Juliet contained, as everyone around her seemed to fail her in many ways. The book goes into the history of the writing and performing of works for the stage, in England up to the time where Shakespeare began to start to create his plays. After Juliet the book looks at the performances the men who first played Juliet on stage, and after the restoration of the King in the 1660's the allowing of women to act on stage, and who some of these early pioneers of the stage were. Different versions, copies, and theft included, are discussed and looked at, along with various performances around the world. Plus the meaning of Juliet is looked at, the fascination in society with dead girls, Julliet's meaning in different places, and what she means today.
A book that was about far more than a character in a play, or even about the creator. This is a well-written look at women in literature, how many of the themes and discussions that are taught and written about started with this young woman, this child, I keep forgetting the characters age was younger than my nephew. This is a well-researched book with lots of information on things I never knew much about. Duncan discusses the age of marriage in England, and how in some places it seemed better than the American South today. Duncan asks questions about the writing of Romeo and Juliet, not why it was written but for who, which opens up many interesting avenues for speculation. Duncan talks about the love of dead girls in literature and movies, and a lot of the modern takes on Juliet, love and more. A book that I found not only enjoyable, but learned quite a bit from.
Recommended for Shakespeare readers, and for young ladies who enjoy stories about Juliet, wish to be writers, or even to go into academia. This would be a perfect gift.
January 19, 2025
Sophie Duncan is a brilliant cultural critic. Her writing is sharp, accessible, and richly insightful, reflecting her incredible depth of research. She traces the evolution of Juliet, a fictional character from Romeo and Juliet, and examines how this iconic figure has been co-opted across centuries as a tool for political and social agendas. The book masterfully unpacks how Juliet's name, fame, and story have been manipulated to serve male-dominated narratives and ideologies.
I found this book both deeply educational and utterly engaging! Duncan spans centuries of history, examining everything from the practice of re-naming enslaved individuals after doomed Shakespearean characters in the British Caribbean to the makings of the most famous Romeo and Juliet films. Duncan offers a searing critique of how women, like Juliet, are often boxed into rigid, contradictory roles—too young, too old, too alluring, or too fragile—perpetuating harmful double standards. We are always too much of something or never enough of the thing men want us to be, aren't we?
What I appreciated most was how Duncan reclaims Juliet's agency, even as a fictional character, highlighting the bold choices she made within the patriarchal world she lived in. This reclamation doesn’t just reframe Juliet within Shakespeare’s narrative but also restores the autonomy of the women she symbolizes, whether saintly or sexual. It’s a compelling reminder of the power of reexamining cultural icons and the stories they tell about us.
I found this book both deeply educational and utterly engaging! Duncan spans centuries of history, examining everything from the practice of re-naming enslaved individuals after doomed Shakespearean characters in the British Caribbean to the makings of the most famous Romeo and Juliet films. Duncan offers a searing critique of how women, like Juliet, are often boxed into rigid, contradictory roles—too young, too old, too alluring, or too fragile—perpetuating harmful double standards. We are always too much of something or never enough of the thing men want us to be, aren't we?
What I appreciated most was how Duncan reclaims Juliet's agency, even as a fictional character, highlighting the bold choices she made within the patriarchal world she lived in. This reclamation doesn’t just reframe Juliet within Shakespeare’s narrative but also restores the autonomy of the women she symbolizes, whether saintly or sexual. It’s a compelling reminder of the power of reexamining cultural icons and the stories they tell about us.
June 3, 2023
What an incredible delight of a book. Informative and colorful, I didn't realize how much I didn't know about the famously doomed ingenue, Juliet, until I sunk my teeth into this.
Duncan does a marvelous job of providing compelling details about how Juliet was born to this world and how that has taken shape over the last 4+ decades. From historical use of her name to famous pop culture references, examinations of her youth and of people who've played her, shifts of focus in productions/offshoots of Romeo & Juliet from romance to violence, we're guided through details of a classic character who is so much more than what appears on the page.
There are fun facts as takeaways (The story of Romeo and Juliet itself came along way before Shakespeare. The "balcony scene" is never actually noted in the text as being from a balcony and wasn't performed that way until 50 years after Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet was written) but also so much more. As I read, I kept a personal list of notes to track names of actors, productions, and references I wanted to look into further when I put the book down. This will not be the last of my Juliet deep dive that Duncan kicked off!
Thank you to Seal Press for this advanced copy. All opinions expressed are my own.
Duncan does a marvelous job of providing compelling details about how Juliet was born to this world and how that has taken shape over the last 4+ decades. From historical use of her name to famous pop culture references, examinations of her youth and of people who've played her, shifts of focus in productions/offshoots of Romeo & Juliet from romance to violence, we're guided through details of a classic character who is so much more than what appears on the page.
There are fun facts as takeaways (The story of Romeo and Juliet itself came along way before Shakespeare. The "balcony scene" is never actually noted in the text as being from a balcony and wasn't performed that way until 50 years after Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet was written) but also so much more. As I read, I kept a personal list of notes to track names of actors, productions, and references I wanted to look into further when I put the book down. This will not be the last of my Juliet deep dive that Duncan kicked off!
Thank you to Seal Press for this advanced copy. All opinions expressed are my own.
February 29, 2024
I've got mixed feelings about this one. The subject matter is incredibly fascinating and Duncan does provide her readers with lots of interesting information, but it's tainted at points by the "ewww, men" attitude of the author. Her biases come through very explicitly: Shakespeare is being ruined when people adapt it in ways she does not like (ie: making Juliet smaller or quieter and giving more attention to Romeo) but it's a great thing when people adapt it in ways she does like (ie: making Juliet older or louder or queerer--and who really needs Romeo anyway?).
It's unfortunate that such a promising subject was given a treatment that prioritized the author's personality/identity/feelings/politics above all else. The book likely would have been improved by a different writer.
It's not all bad--and in fact much of it is good--but it's so disappointing to be able to see how much better it could have been.
It's unfortunate that such a promising subject was given a treatment that prioritized the author's personality/identity/feelings/politics above all else. The book likely would have been improved by a different writer.
It's not all bad--and in fact much of it is good--but it's so disappointing to be able to see how much better it could have been.
October 2, 2023
This was not what I was expecting. I was left wanting a bit more and I did not care for some of the conclusions that the author arrived to. Juliet is such a well known character and many of the points just seemed to not do justice to such an incredible love story. Further, some of the points just didn't articulate well or even make sense to me. Some of it seemed so genuine and just when I was beginning to follow and agree with a substantial point; the next seemed outrageous and borderline reaching. I'm not sure what to think.
July 16, 2025
Juliet: The Life and Afterlives of Shakespeare's First Tragic Heroine (Hardcover)
by Sophie Duncan 223 pages 4/5
A compact book, well researched. As a fan of Shakespeare, I truly enjoyed her analysis of Juliet. The author views Juliet as a feminist. Which I don't quite see. The chapter that discussed how the tourism of Juliet in Verona and what conservative government in that area and connected. Didn't quite make sense to me. The rest of the chapters cover different ways Juliet was portrayed over the years. I learned a lot about the various productions. It made for a good read.
by Sophie Duncan 223 pages 4/5
A compact book, well researched. As a fan of Shakespeare, I truly enjoyed her analysis of Juliet. The author views Juliet as a feminist. Which I don't quite see. The chapter that discussed how the tourism of Juliet in Verona and what conservative government in that area and connected. Didn't quite make sense to me. The rest of the chapters cover different ways Juliet was portrayed over the years. I learned a lot about the various productions. It made for a good read.
November 28, 2025
This book serves as a collection of research and analytical essays of William Shakespeare's character Juliet along with her influence on popular culture throughout several decades. Reading this book made me reconsider seeing Juliet as a complex heroine instead of just a tragic martyr for love. I feel proud to be a member of Club di Giulietta and still have a response letter even after writing to Juliet several years ago! This book solidifies my belief that anyone who's a fan of Juliet is a romantic and rebel at heart.
July 23, 2024
A very interesting deep dive into the character of Juliet and the wider use and abuse and influence of her character in culture, popular culture, politics, journalism, and personal experiences. Juliet is an often deeply misunderstood and undervalued character. Reading the book changed my opinion of her and the whole play, and it will affect how I teach the play in the future. An intelligent and accessible book.
March 14, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
Juliet brings the past to life with rich detail and fascinating insights, offering a deeper understanding into this pivotal time. The well-researched narrative and engaging storytelling make it a must-read for anyone interested in history and its lasting impact on the present.
I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
Juliet brings the past to life with rich detail and fascinating insights, offering a deeper understanding into this pivotal time. The well-researched narrative and engaging storytelling make it a must-read for anyone interested in history and its lasting impact on the present.
May 13, 2025
While playing Juliet at a local theater in Boulder, I picked up this book to educate myself on my character and her long, complicated history. I am so so glad I found Sophie Duncan's witty, layered, and attentive novel detailing the many ways in which Juliet's story has impacted real women and men throughout the world and time.
January 16, 2024
A fascinating look at the character of Juliet by an academic who grew up in Stratford-on-Avon. Most interesting was the section profiling Verona and how the town turned “Juliet” into a huge tourist attraction. (And the strange tradition of ‘fondling’ the Juliet statue for finding true love.)
December 20, 2024
I really enjoyed this book and it was very insightful on all the different productions of Romeo and Juliet and even the character of Juliet and her name and also the different actresses that have played her over the years :)
February 7, 2024
Snobby "feminist" narrative starts from a given point and works back to it. Not funny where it thinks it is or clever either. Contradicts a lot of more sensible readings.
Read
July 29, 2024DNF. Other reviews do an excellent job with outlining the similar criticisms I have.
May 16, 2025
"Juliet" by Sophie Duncan. New York: Seal Press, 2023.
I LOVE this book! I will love this book!
I know this already only having read the first five pages and a paragraph of the introduction.
I read up to where Sophie claims: "This book tracks Juliet's lives and deaths through 400 years of reinterpretation, from Elizabethan boy-players to twenty-first century warzones."
I LOVE Sophie Duncan and I don't care that she has a wife! [To anyone whom this might offend from any angle I say this: my tongue is severely in cheek. But I love her nonetheless.]
For, as most know, I am very, very familiar with "Romeo & Juliet" even to the degree of deeply listening, in two languages, to Elvis Costello and the Brodsky's 1991 work, "The Juliet Letters" in two languages!
I am especially familiar with the actual work (or, rather, the less-than-correct textualizations that we are so very inadequately left with (the real story of Shakespeare)) having read it at 30 years of age and having studied it at Tulane University at ~ 33-34 years of age and having painstakingly and lovingly 'translated' the entire thing into 70's era Cajun, a work of mine called "Romero & T-Jolie" which is still starving for a life on stage. That experience gave me so so so much insight into the work. I can't explain!
So, I know my stuff. And so does Sophie, infinitely more! The five pages and a paragraph which came before the mission statement enraptured me. It was so jaded and dripping with the knowledge of the subject that jaded it had to be. It is so very deeply jaded that it is fresh! The freshest thing it could possibly be! And, side-note: this dealing with those who might presume to know and love something, nae to worship something, that I have an unfathomable deep knowledge of is certainly and definitely something that I live with every day. And this time I'm not talking about Juliet.
So, indulge my posting. I LOVE this book! And I think that everyone should love it too. But I tend to always feel that way and am always left wanting and disappointed by others. But that's a "me" problem and has only to do with my ersatz earth-bound avatar of a personality. It need be paid no mind. Zero mind, mind you!
Read the book!
I LOVE this book! I will love this book!
I know this already only having read the first five pages and a paragraph of the introduction.
I read up to where Sophie claims: "This book tracks Juliet's lives and deaths through 400 years of reinterpretation, from Elizabethan boy-players to twenty-first century warzones."
I LOVE Sophie Duncan and I don't care that she has a wife! [To anyone whom this might offend from any angle I say this: my tongue is severely in cheek. But I love her nonetheless.]
For, as most know, I am very, very familiar with "Romeo & Juliet" even to the degree of deeply listening, in two languages, to Elvis Costello and the Brodsky's 1991 work, "The Juliet Letters" in two languages!
I am especially familiar with the actual work (or, rather, the less-than-correct textualizations that we are so very inadequately left with (the real story of Shakespeare)) having read it at 30 years of age and having studied it at Tulane University at ~ 33-34 years of age and having painstakingly and lovingly 'translated' the entire thing into 70's era Cajun, a work of mine called "Romero & T-Jolie" which is still starving for a life on stage. That experience gave me so so so much insight into the work. I can't explain!
So, I know my stuff. And so does Sophie, infinitely more! The five pages and a paragraph which came before the mission statement enraptured me. It was so jaded and dripping with the knowledge of the subject that jaded it had to be. It is so very deeply jaded that it is fresh! The freshest thing it could possibly be! And, side-note: this dealing with those who might presume to know and love something, nae to worship something, that I have an unfathomable deep knowledge of is certainly and definitely something that I live with every day. And this time I'm not talking about Juliet.
So, indulge my posting. I LOVE this book! And I think that everyone should love it too. But I tend to always feel that way and am always left wanting and disappointed by others. But that's a "me" problem and has only to do with my ersatz earth-bound avatar of a personality. It need be paid no mind. Zero mind, mind you!
Read the book!
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews