Romeo and Juliet... romantic???

I agree that the two of you are way too intelligent and above simple vices to allow your educated bickering get in the way of good sportmanship. So begone animosity and welcome enlightened conversation.

Note- the fact that Shakespeare could appeal to the masses as well as to an intellectual elite is just another testament to his greatness. I'd say very few literary analysts would say that J.K. Rowling's sort of "mass appeal" would put her up there with the great writers of history. She is what I like to call "McLiterature;" easily consumable, lacking substance, and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. 

I couldn't have said it better, my friend. That is what makes true genius; when something only appeals to the masses, it is probably crap, or worse- NASCAR. When something only appeals to intellectuals, it is probably elitist, smarmy jibber-jabber- when something can appeal to both, and indeed, to all castes and classes, i has "classic" written all over it. Shakespeare is that way. Everyone can appreciate the fellow, and some can even truly understand him- but his last mark of literary greatness is that none can transcend him. 

Very true. In fact, in earlier versions of Lear (pre-Shakespeare; the story is a old one) Cordelia does in fact survive. Her death in Shakespeare's rendition from (IIRC) Quarto 12 (forget which folio) is what I think makes that play the most successful tragic tragedy of all time. The final impression one is left with, wherein almost the cast expires, is that of an uncaring universe (not lost on the naturalists of the American Realist period, such as Crane [the Open Boat], London [to Build a Fire], Cather [Paul's case], etc.) where the earthly doings of man are utterly unaccounted for. This is of course wildly at odds with the prevailing Providential and PreDestinational Christian worldview of the time. Lear cannot exist as a morality tale (such as, say, Everyman) because not only are the evil characters punished with death, but also the only character with any moral virtue.
One can see the bastard son of Gloucester, Edmund (or was it Edgar?), trying to superimpose morality into the play numerous times; especially at the end with his hollow-ringing speech attributing sin to be the cause of his father's blindness and death (ironically, the 'sin' of which he speaks is that which led to his conception)- which cannot be true, as an alert audience would observe- and the general reception of his speech by the other characters is "Uh...?" One can thus see even the characters as rejecting the Christian mindset native to England at the time of the initial performances.

This sort of thing usually ended up with people being burned at the stake, mind you.

With Shakespeare, if you want a pleasant ending, go see one of the comedies. All of the tragedies are mind-bendingly black. I particularly like Othello, just for Iago (Coleridge called him the "motiveless malignity"). I don't think there has ever been so evil a character with so little explanation. Throughout the play, even though Iago functions as a sort of confidant to the audience, one never hears a valid explanation for his malice. Even at the end, when apprehended and threatened with torture, he refuses to speak- frustrating both the characters, and the audience as well. In my mind, Shakespeare exists almost as meta-theater; the man had it down to a science.