In this 'untelling' of the most famous tragic love story, we see what happens when the veneer of romance is stripped from the star cross'd lovers and remember the woman who was the moon to Juliet's sun. With a narrative that evokes the best of the Bard, this book nevertheless focuses a 21st century gaze on a 16th century play, raising questions that I'm not entirely sure needed asking. 

I have to give kudos to the author for maintaining a Shakespearean writing style consistently throughout the book. It's all in modern English (except where direct quotes have been taken from the play), but every line has been crafted to sound like it could have been penned with ink, parchment and quill. This alone helps the reader settle into the story very quickly; it's easier to read than the original text, but no less powerful for it. 

It seems fairly evident to me that the author has taken the basic story progression of Romeo and Juliet, and translated that to form the basis of her story of Romeo and Rosaline. So even before the question 'wherefore art thou, Romeo' is uttered, there is a strong sense of familiarity in the actions taking place. While this in itself adds to the point that the author is trying to illustrate (which I'll comment on in a moment), at the same time it does feel that, for something that is meant to be Rosaline's story, it's kind of short changing her as a character. I would have liked to see something perhaps a little more original to add to the legendary tale.

For the most part, there's no need for the author to develop the characters as they are already familiar to the majority of readers. However, as she herself points out in her author's note, Rosaline doesn't have any lines in Romeo and Juliet, nor is she ever actually seen. She's just talked about by Romeo and his friends. So what we needed was the building of this  character from the ground up. Sadly, this didn't quite feel accomplished to me - I found her very difficult to empathise with or 'get' as a character. The basis of her character is absolutely there, but I just felt that there were a lot of layers missing, perhaps because the focus was more on how Romeo was treating her rather than building her as an independently character in her own right. If anything, in the first half she was essentially a carbon copy of Juliet from the play. While there is an element of 'woman scorned' to her during the later chapters, it feels tempered somehow, and doesn't quite have the effect I was expecting.

So, Romeo. In this version, he's far from the romantic lead. The whole story is an illustration of coercive control, with him love-bombing Rosaline until she has stars in her eyes and manipulatibg her emotions every time she doesn't fall in line. As mentioned, the progression of their relationship mirrors that of Romeo and Juliet's, and so you are presented with Romeo as a serial abuser. This feeds into a larger sub-plot, which only serves to make 'Fair Verona' seem like a cess pit of creepy men. In this version, although Juliet is the same age as she is in the play, the author has chosen to make her immature for her age to further highlight the problematic nature of the relationship (we don't actually know how old Romeo is, but it's heavily implied he is at least in his mid-20s, or indeed older). In short, Romeo is an ass. And I get it, I do. There are many, many problems with the source material when looked at with 21st Century sensibilities and Romeo would be a walking red flag in today's world. The book does do a great job at making you feel uncomfortable about Romeo's antics and definitely makes you look at the play in a different, more critical way.

But. The source material reflects the time it was written. I absolutely appreciate that it was not 'normal' for a 13 year old to marry, and certainly not in those circumstances. But equally, it was not unheard of. Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) was wedded and bedded at 12, for example. And if we're picking on elements that wouldn't fly today, what about the fact that those with a duty of care to both Rosaline and Juliet (their 'nurses') go along with the hair-brained schemes? Or that it might not be OK for Juliet to choose her own older man, but it's perfectly fine for her parents to choose one for her? I just found it a little disconcerting that the book paints Romeo as the bad guy without doing anything to change other aspects that are equally 'problematic'.

In addition, I couldn't help but compare the author's thoughts on R&J with some of the books I read today. Dark Romance is a huge subgenre now, containing all sorts of triggers and content that, in the real world, would be utterly horrifying. And even 'lighter' romance books often contain questionable scenes or implications. But ultimately, they're all fiction, meant to be consumed for enjoyment and not as a guidebook to real life. So I struggle a bit with the feeling that books like this treat Shakespeare (or any other author) like he was reporting real events and romanticising them. But why can't Romeo and Juliet just be about love at first sight, young love and love against all odds? Ultimately, like dark romance today, this is just a story with content warnings. 

It's not a bad read, but there was so much scope for more retelling that was sadly missed.