|
z0331 posted:Sorry to interject before Brainworm has a chance to respond, but I'm curious about this part of your argument. You said that the fact that Shylock is a Jew would never be overlooked and so he could never convert and lead a normal life. So why do you think that a.) Bassanio is willing to marry her if she is Jewish and that, as you said, is an unwashable taint, and b.) she is able to convert and marry and suddenly is accepted despite having been Jewish? I never really dove too much into Jessica's plight (my study of the work focused mostly on Shylock and his characterization), but Jessica's situation is problematic. Launcelot specifically tells her "I think you are damned" because her father is a Jew, which implies that Judaism cannot be erase through conversion. While Launcelot is a fool and a clown, often the clown tends to unveil a truth about society that people are ignoring. Also, Lorenzo is in love with her, which also influences how Bassanio, Gratiano, and others see her. Also, her action in the play is to betray her father, which is to separate her further from the Jewish community. Honestly, Jessica is another example of the society's hypocrisy. It serves Lorenzo to accept Jessica as a Christian, even though society would always view her as a Jew first, yet they cannot find the same acceptance for Shylock. Remember, after his conversion, Shylock never appears again. The characters don't even mention him. It's an implied finality since Shylock, no longer a Jew, cannot practice usury or associate with his Jewish friends. However, Shylock the Christian society does not welcome Shylock. He isn't dropped from the story. We are to assume that he is exiled, and that means death. The film version adds a shot of Shylock being kicked out of the ghetto in the night, being left on the streets as the gate closes, with nowhere to go, and no money. In response to your second question, I want to add on a point to my argument. Shakespeare is playing with his culture's normal perceptions and assumptions about the the true nature of the characters. In many regards, Shakespeare takes what society holds true, and exposes the invalidity of their beliefs. Look at Antonio. As Brainworm argues, he should be the moral center. He fights against the heretic. By all means, we should have no sympathy for Shylock because not only is he a heretic, but he is (and this is an Elizabethan reading, not mine) a Jew. Europeans justified their killing of Jews with the notion that they are paying with their blood for the death of Christ. And yet, the play provides us with a sympathetic Jew. I often contrast Shylock with Barabas in the Jew of Malta, because it really brings out Shylock's humane characteristics. He responds like an average human being to the abuses of society, and in his hands, what would normally be a justified action becomes an abuse. Look at Antonio. We see a very limp Antonio. He is a passive. His friendship for Bassanio is not offering guidance or respect, but rather, he offers him only money. He has no grand speeches in the courtroom scene. In many regards, we don't care what happens to Antonio because he does not nothing to preserve himself. He hands over the reigns of his credit to Bassanio, he takes a foolish and suicidal bond, and he deals with an usurer. Suddenly, when we apply a critical lens to Antonio, he is not a martyr, he is just an unfortunate victim to his own stupidity and his culture's greed. Honestly, given the plays few speeches on the subject of antisemitism (and let's face it, Jews were singled out, so even if the concept didn't have that name, it was there), you can't argue that Shakespeare didn't have some notion of the idea of basic human rights. You can't read "If you prick us do we not bleed," and think that it is just a plea for sympathy and respect without also being a call for equality without ignoring the content of the speech. Shylock's calls for equality with the Christian (remember, he rationalizes his revenge with the fact that the Christian example is revenge), he expresses pain at Antonio's unseen abuses. Shakespeare does not give us Antonio attacking Shylock, which prevents us from witnessing any more than Shylock's reaction to the events. We do not get a chance to view it as a heroic action from Antonio. We do not get a chance to reel in horror either. We only see the emotional scars Shylock carries. So, the question is "Why don't we get to see this?" My theory is that Shakespeare doesn't want the director to have a chance to romanticize Antonio's abuse of Shylock on the Rialto (since with Shakespeare, a lot can change based upon how you stage a scene. Just add one beat of silence in the scene where Hal banishes Falstaff from his company in 2 Henry IV and compare it to the same scene without that silence, and suddenly, Falstaff's character changes greatly). I argue that it is impossible to take sympathy with a character's plight and not naturally lead to some questioning to the validity of the social constructs surrounding that plight. As you can see from my analysis of Merchant, there's a lot more going on the surface that contradicts the Elizabethan's view of the world than there is those that supports the Elizabethan view while showing sympathy for the Jew. Or think of it this way. If we can sympathize with the pain a character is going through because of his status, then it is illogical to assume we can then support the social constructs that lead to this pain whole-heartedly. Some criticism is implicit in that sympathy.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think you need to reread the play without trying to read it as the Elizabethan audience would and pay attention to Shylock's characterization. Yeah. I've done this a few hundred times. Turns out you have to cut the play to ribbons to make it work, and the only way it seems to work is with Shylock as a tragic hero and Antonio as a rabid antisemite. That's an interesting play, but it's not Merchant. It's actually Wesker's The Merchant. quote:He is a sympathetic character who does question antisemtism. While the word may not have existed, Act 3 Scene 1 explicitly shows the understanding of the concept when Shylock succintly explains the reason why Antonio mistreats him: "I am a Jew!" Dude. No. You're not getting this. Shylock says that Antonio is mistreating him because he's a Jew. Antonio says he mistreats Shylock because he's a moneylender. The other evidence in the play suggests that Antonio's story, not Shylock's, is closer to the truth. Antonio never has a bad word to say about Jessica or Tubal, even though he knows both of them. And he provides a competing service, lending money at no interest, to discourage usury. And when he argues with Shylock, all he ever argues is that usury is wrong. Shylock is, accidentally or intentionally, misreading Antonio by reasoning from effect to cause -- something like "I'm a Jew, and only Jews are allowed to lend money, so if Antonio hates me because I lend money, he must really hate me because I'm a Jew." Which is totally specious. All usurers are Jews, but not all Jews are usurers. Shylock is a wealthy man and can choose a variety of careers, yet he chooses one that Antonio (and the balance of Venice) finds morally repulsive. This doesn't necessarily make Shylock unsympathetic, either to Shakespearean or modern audiences. But it does make him a villain. That's one of several reasons modern productions need to mess with the text so much -- you can't stage a dramatically effective 21st century play where the murderous antagonist is a wealthy moneylending Jew, and you can't stage a dramatically effective 21st century play with a protagonist crusading against an evil that our society has so thoroughly internalized that we could not function without it. quote:Now, I have some historical knowledge. Now, as far as I understand, saying that Shylock remains a Jew is like saying "a black person remains black." Regardless of what Shylock does, society will always view him as a Jew. Again, no. Think about Jessica's conversion for just one second. It happens in the middle of the play, and we never really hear from her again. So why have it? What's the point? It's probably there to show us more of Shylock's character once she elopes. But it's also there to show you that Shylock can convert. It's an option. It's on the loving table because the play goes to great pains to put it there. This is why the entire Jessica subplot either gets entirely cut from or hamstrung in modern productions. To make Shylock a tragic hero, you need to take away the choices that would make him a villain. Historically, this is more complicated. There are some cultures that viewed Jews as a race, and so a Jew there was always either a Jew or a converted Jew (and so were their kids until they were baptized). But the play goes out of its way to tell us that that's not how Venice works. Jessica converts and she's a marriageable Christian. Full stop. quote:Also, societies needed usury to pay for large wars and other social projects. Why would usury be allowed to exist if it didn't provide some larger social good? It always ensures that the kingdom has an enemy close at hand for the people to fight, and it also provides the kingdom with money for its coffers when it wants to start a military campaign or take on other great expenses. All true, but this didn't make usury morally acceptable in Renaissance Europe -- at least not for another century or so. The fact that Venice requires usurers is completely irrelevant when we're talking morality, for the same basic reasons one can say "thou shalt not kill" and talk about acceptable civilian casualties during wartime. Now we can argue all day about what people in Renaissance Europe should have thought about usury, but the brute fact is that they classed it as a crime "against nature," a class of criminal sins that included sodomy (i.e. buggery, bestiality, and other sexual acts your pastor wouldn't openly endorse). So what you've got is a morally repulsive act that has a clear social utility. There's no contradiction there. Every society I've ever heard of has these, and generally on a grand scale. And the case is pretty much always the same. "Social utility" and "moral good" aren't siblings. They're not even distant cousins. That's the kind of social complexity Shakespeare loves, which is probably why he made it the engine of conflict in Merchant. quote:You also say that Antonio does not rail against all Jews. What other Jews do we have in the play? Jessica and Tubal. Tubal is such a minor character that all he really serves is to show that Shylock has some social network. Jessica, on the other hand, is a character who they accept as Christian because she is willing to marry one and convert. So, basically, Shylock is our only example of a Jew in the play. Yes. Except for the two others. And the ones that Shakespeare would have written in so Antonio could harass them, at least if he wanted Antonio to be an antisemite. And the ones that would have been mentioned in the speeches Shakespeare would have written for Antonio if he wanted him to be an antisemite. quote:Antonio's taking the loan with interest provides us with a greater justification for usury than Shylock's biblical example [...] Yet, Antonio attacks a system he willingly takes advantage of when it suits his needs. This is almost a stock example of hypocrisy. If I were to crusade against smoking, and then decide to pick up the habit, I am a hypocrite. Regardless of whether the Elizabethan audience at large would have recognize this is unimportant, it's in the play, and given the rest of the moral hypocrisy in the play, it is unlikely that this is just a niggling point. No, it isn't in the play. Antonio borrows money from Shylock, but the deal they strike is that Antonio will forfeit a pound of flesh if he doesn't pay back the money by such-and-such a date. There is no interest involved here. This is an interest-free loan against collateral, also known as a "bond" both in this play and during this period. If you don't want to track down the meaning of the word in the OED, just read the play. Here's the amount in I.iii. Shylock posted:I am debating of my present store, Or you can go anywhere else in I.iii. It's 3000 ducats. 3000 loving ducats. It's all over the goddamn place. Bassanio and Shylock work it out like a million times. And then Shylock reassures Antonio that even if he forfeits the bond, he won't be paying interest even through some kind of voodoo math because the flesh he surrenders won't be worth more than the original loan: Shylock posted:If he should break his day, what should I gain I.iii, in other words, takes great pains to tell you that this is not an interest bearing loan. The most obvious clue is that, were Antonio to pay interest, there would be absolutely no need for the "pound of flesh" business that drives the rest of the play. It's not like Shylock does this with everyone he loans a ducat to. But if that doesn't convince you, fast forward to III.ii, three months later: Shakespeare posted:Portia: What sum owes he the Jew? And then Bassanio and Portia make sure they get the amount right. Double it, make it six thousand. Triple it. It's like an Electric Company math exercise. 3000 ducats after three months and forfeiture of the bond. There is no interest here. quote:The fact is, the play subverts many of the Jewish stereotypes, which did exist. Why would Shakespeare make his Jewish villain a character we should have sympathy for if he did not mean to question society's demonetization of the Jew? Because a play can have sympathetic characters without systematically making sweeping claims about the justice underlying their moral, political, or social situation? I mean, do you honestly think that Taming is an indictment of Renaissance gender politics? That Richard III is undermining the Renaissance stereotypes surrounding hunchbacks? That Macbeth questions Renaissance society's unjust demonization of Scotsmen? That 1 Henry VI puts English stereotypes of French women on trial? Because every single one of these is an analogous case -- you've got characters defying stereotypes that cast them as inferior, if not outright evil, and evoking some sympathy in the process. But Shakespeare isn't Harriet Beecher Stowe. He's not a political activist masquerading as a writer* -- and if he is, if this is the one exception, he chose a hosed up issue to take a stance on. Elizabethan England had 99 problems, but discrimination against a population of Jewish moneylenders ain't one. There were more polar bears than synagogues.** If there's a Jewish question, it gets asked and answered on the continent, not in England; Edward the Confessor cut that particular Gordian knot when he changed church zoning laws to bar Judaic practice in England about two centuries before Shakespeare was born. * There was lots of Renaissance political theater -- Middleton's A Game at Chesse is a good example. Almost every other major playwright of the age wrote at least one, but Shakespeare was so apolitical he didn't even make fun of them when they went to prison for it. ** Two and zero, respectively. The number of polar bears may have increased to six during the reign of James I, but the number of synagogues remained constant from about 1300-1650.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Einsteinmonkey posted:A philistine question: But a good one. quote:I'm taking a distance literature course on Shakespeare for the sole reason that my faculty requires me to take two courses worth of literature (and this course gives that many credits). To put it briefly, what is the most efficient way of getting through this and churning out papers? If you're provided essay topics, subtle readings are going to impress readers (and professors) more than anything that doesn't work closely with the text and makes simple statements (e.g. "The Tempest is an anti-colonial play"). There's nothing simple about an Shakespearean text, ever. My job depends on it. So the first step to a nuanced reading is paying attention to the characters. Shakespearean comedies, and many of the tragedies, are driven by information asymmetry: some characters know things that other characters don't, and conflicts between characters are largely driven by how their knowledge (or ignorance) shapes their actions. A good exercise for this: As you read (or re-read), stop at the end of each act and think about what each major character has already experienced and what's just transpired on stage. Then, try to tell the story of the play from the perspective of each major character. What does he or she know? What would he or she suspect based on that knowledge? How is he or she likely to interpret what's just happened in light of those suspicions? That exercise, or some version of it, is at the heart of every good piece of character criticism I've ever read, because good readings of characters mean you need to get into their heads. It's also a good exercise for reading Shakespearean plays because, with the exception of Act V marriages (which I know is a big 'un), Shakespeare generally respects the motives of his characters over the needs of tight plotting. This is one reason Hamlet's such a sprawl. But you benefit from that sprawl, because you can be Shakespeare-literate without knowing much (if anything) about play construction. So that's a machine for generating really nice readings of plays. Writing you'll need to figure out for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 04:51
|
|
|
Grouco posted:Boring question. But a good one. quote:I've read Titus, 1 and 2 Henry IV, Henry V, Measure for Measure, Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, As You Like It, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Troilus and Cressida, Coriolanus, and The Winter's Tale. What should I be reading next? Ooh. I notice a gap in your first tetralogy, so you'll definitely want to read Richard II. That's a good one because Richard's one of the earliest versions of one of the most compelling Shakespearean characters: the articulate and introspective intellectual who's very good at recognizing problems and terrible at solving them. And I think you also want Lear, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Othello. Which one you start with is completely up to you. R&J is a great contrast to Antony and Cleopatra -- they're early and late-career versions of the same story, so they read off each other nicely. Macbeth is Shakespeare at the height of his language game. Othello has the best villain. Sure, Hamlet could out-think him -- two soliloquies and Iago'd be bubbling his last in some tree-nestled pond -- but Iago is still the best incarnation of Marlowe's Barabas/Shakespeare's Richard you're likely to find. And Lear. I come down hard on that play, but Lear may be Shakespeare's most emotionally complex and deeply tragic character. But which one to read next? Richard III. It's not my favorite play -- it drags whenever Richard's not on stage just like Paradise Lost drags whenever Satan exits -- but it's the most frequently performed of Shakespeare's plays, and for good reason.* Maybe more important, it's structured tightly enough that you can learn a great deal about Renaissance play construction just by reading it. There are parallels all over the place, for instance. And, honestly, I root for that bustling, homicidal hunchback every time. Nobody else in the play is interesting enough to live. quote:Also, do have an opinion on any Canadian English grad programs? I've been researching specific faculty member's research interests, department focuses, etc, but I was wondering if you had any comment on department reps/research strengths? I don't have a lot to say on this. I've got a friend (Holger Syme) at Toronto, and anyone who hires him is doing something very, very right. And a quick trip through my phone's contacts actually makes a good case for Toronto: John Astington, David Galbraith, Katherine Larson, Mary Nyquist, Paul Stevens.** I know a few at McMaster (Anne Savage, Helen Ostovich, and Mary Silcox), and having them speaks highly of the program. Helen is especially good. * You only need one good actor (Richard). Everything else is a bit part. ** I can't imagine how they get along, especially with Paul in the room, but gently caress if these aren't all great people one-on-one. And I for some reason never put together that they were all at Toronto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 05:31
|
|
|
^^^ That was fast. Great minds? :PGrouco posted:Boring question. I've read Titus, 1 and 2 Henry IV, Henry V, Measure for Measure, Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, As You Like It, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Troilus and Cressida, Coriolanus, and The Winter's Tale. What should I be reading next? You could go with the staples - Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello... I love Much Ado (though that may get me beat in this thread). I also enjoy Lear for the tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 05:51
|
|
|
I'll get started on Richard III tomorrow. I was never sure how to approach the first tetralogy, and really wasn't up to reading all of them in order. The first half of my Shakespeare class only planned to read 1 Henry IV, but everyone fell in love with Falstaff, so we decided to change the schedule and read the rest of the series. Antony and Cleopatra is one of my favourites so R&J will come after that. I've been looking at UofT and McMaster so that's reassuring. My Shakespeare prof is a UofT grad. Going into Grad school did you know you wanted to focus on Shakespeare? I love Shakespeare and the Renaissance in general (I know English makes up a small part of Renaissance studies), but quite frankly I'm not sure what narrow, focused research interest I want to pursue, if it is Early Modern at all. What more can be said on Shakespeare after 400 years of scholarship? Also, which edition of the plays do you assign? Anthology or individual texts? Grouco fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jun 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 05:55
|
|
|
What would you say was the most difficult, most exhausting piece of fiction you've ever read? My first time reading through The Sound and the Fury, the narrative gave me fits. Understanding the general idea and general moral of each individual story in The Canterbury Tales was straightforward enough, but trying to parse the Middle English syntax and come up with line-by-line translations would get extremely tedious. Paradise Lost was a massive (and entirely worthwhile) undertaking. But overall, I think the hardest thing I've had to read was Finnegans Wake. And even then I hesitantly say "read" as I didn't finish it completely nor did I make much sense of what was going on. What were you taught in high school? Out of curiosity's sake, I always ask my incoming freshmen what they had read and studied in the previous four years. The usual suspects naturally come up (Gatsby this and Crucible that; Beowulf this and Iliad that), but every once and a while I'll be pleasantly surprised by something I don't normally associate with a high school curriculum (for example, Swift's "A Modest Proposal.") I'd also be interested in knowing if you took regular, honors, or AP classes. When it comes to mega chain bookstores, Barnes & Noble and Borders have cornered the market. Do you have a personal preference between the two?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 06:30
|
|
|
I'm a bit late to the party and only half-dressed (still back on page 4 or so), but I just wanted to chime in with my heartfelt appreciation for this thread. I had just finished posting an e/n wall of text in another thread about how bitter I have become towards my degree (guess) and literature in general. I haven't touched a book since November, which, for a pretentious charlatan douchebag like myself, is saying quite a lot--and in this case, it attests to how spiteful, pig-headed, and miserable I have been. I'm not attributing magical powers to you or anything (nor am I being capital-R Romantic), but as I was catching up on the thread something clicked and my deathgrip on self-loathing loosened just enough for me to fumble through my sock drawer for Beckett's trilogy. I kept a very elaborate cheatsheet of page numbers and chickenscratch for locating the most gut-wrenching and soul-rending of quotes. I pawed through and found a few and it wasn't long before I found that "I, of whom I know nothing, know my eyes are open, because of the tears that pour from them unceasingly," for "I alone am man and all else divine." (See? I told you I was a douchebag.) Honestly though, I teared up because I feel that every day which I have not read Beckett or Heaney or Joyce or Yeats or loving something to keep that part of my brain which craves beauty and pain from completely atrophying has been a tragic waste, and to think that I have been intellectually starving myself on purpose? When I graduated I wanted more than anything to throw myself at a PhD program knowing full well that I probably would never get accepted/finish/get a job. I gave up on my misguided dreams too soon. I've got to at least try.  The worst that can happen is I fail, utterly and miserably, but I can say without a doubt that place is better than here.P.S. I promise my next post will have some real content. micnato fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jun 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 08:18
|
|
|
I've been enjoying this thread and I thought back to my last experience with literary criticism. In high school, I wrote a long paper on how Hemingway's short stories are postmodern through his use of a sparse prose style and various narrative methods. Looking back, I wonder how valid this thesis would be, considering my ditzy English teacher that year absolutely loved the paper. Do you know anything about it? I'm thinking it's time to re-read Shakespeare! Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 10:48
|
|
|
Grouco posted:Going into Grad school did you know you wanted to focus on Shakespeare? quote:What more can be said on Shakespeare after 400 years of scholarship? quote:Also, which edition of the plays do you assign? Anthology or individual texts? And for surveys, I like it when students have different editions of the plays. It's a good way to start discussions about the provenance of the text and the editing strategies behind it. But I like the Riverside for anthologies, and the Folgers for individual texts, mostly because they're the editions with the most room for taking notes. And my dream edition? I'd love to see individual plays published magazine style -- basically laid out like in the Riverside and consequently only 30-40 pages. That'd make a cheap and readable edition you can still one-hand on the subway. * My publisher wants another book on Shakespeare to go along with the book on Renaissance cryptozoology, since the first book did so "well."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 12:53
|
|
|
Scum Freezebag posted:What would you say was the most difficult, most exhausting piece of fiction you've ever read? My first time through Ulysses was nightmarish. I was in my early teens and decided I just had to read the motherfucker, and I got nothing out of it. Looking back, I think emotional development was an issue. I mean, what thirteen year old can fathom anyone's motivations? quote:What were you taught in high school? Never went, or at least not to class. I started college the Summer before most of the kids my age would have been Freshmen. But yeah, they all seem to have read "Modest Proposal," Catcher, and at least one oddly-chosen piece of Shakespeare. Caesar sometimes. Also Hamlet. Not having gone through a curriculum I can't make sense of it. It's like looking at the ingredients list on a Twinkie or a bag of Doritos. quote:When it comes to mega chain bookstores, Barnes & Noble and Borders have cornered the market. Do you have a personal preference between the two? I think B&N. Borders seems to lean a little heavy on the music and DVDs, and so doesn't offer a really good selection of anything. And this might just be me, a trip to B&N isn't complete without meeting some fit girl in a Threadless T-shirt and dorky glasses, getting her number, and realizing as I leave that she's probably like twenty.* The Borders trip means single moms who smell like self-tanner and menthol and just have to have the first season of Gilmore Girls. * It is not a good feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 13:25
|
|
|
micnato posted:I'm a bit late to the party and only half-dressed (still back on page 4 or so), but I just wanted to chime in with my heartfelt appreciation for this thread. [...] I wouldn't tear myself up. Thinking's like food, and sometimes you need to go on a diet. Really. When I finished my first book the first thing I did was buy a giant loving TV, hunt down a pawn shop VCR, and watch Black Belt Jones* like three times. And if you're doing something real while you're not reading, I wouldn't call that time a loss. It's not like Yeats is going anywhere. * The soundtrack is electrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 13:33
|
|
|
Also: I'm not sure how to handle this or whether it really needs handling, but I'll be out of town for the next two weeks on a consulting binge. So responses might not be timely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 13:35
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Because a play can have sympathetic characters without systematically making sweeping claims about the justice underlying their moral, political, or social situation? But when your character is a Jew, an incredibly maligned race in Europe, to turn that Jew into a sympathetic character suddenly implies humanity, which has SOME moral question at its center. Whether Shakespeare is writing specifically about the Jews or Catholics or any other race is not necessarily incredibly important. But the fact that Shylock does not match the stereotype of the purely evil and demonic money-lending Jew opens up the door to the idea that Shakespeare could be attacking the stratification of religion. Let's consider that Shakespeare takes the Italian "pound-of-flesh" story. It implies that he is working with the demonic image of the Jew. Hell, you don't have to go out of England even to find stories of child-killing Jews (Canterbury Tales, I believe the Prioress's Tale is the one). Also, regardless of whether or not Jews were a real threat to the Elizabethans, let's remember that they were still a fear of the people. Shakespeare isn't taking some poor manure handed farm boy and giving him sympathetic qualities. One cannot argue very effectively that Shakespeare is attacking the class structure just on that evidence alone. Here, though he's taking the Christ-killing evil demonic "dog Jew" and suddenly giving him very human qualities. The lowest of the low. A subhuman and suddenly granting him at least some dignity. If there aren't social implications from that, especially when we have Act 3 Scene 1's speech, if that isn't meant to question somewhat Shakespeare's audience's view of morality, then I don't know what would outside of a direct attack. The play gives us that attack of a society. We do have a dysfunctional society. Now, I wouldn't argue that Shylock isn't the antagonist or some tortured-hero. Shakespeare doesn't give us that. Shylock never shows mercy or forgiveness or acts heroic in any way, shape, or form. He acts dignified though. He is not some force of pure evil. I argue that he gives Antonio the forfeiture of the pound of flesh to mock him. To say "I'll show you this courtesy, but the deal is going to be attached with such a suicidal pact that only a fool or a desperate man would take it." However, Antonio enters into Shylock's establishment with the express intent of taking out an usurous loan. And what's the great social good? So his friend, who already blew through a ton of money, and is intending to do the same exact thing that lost him his money (remember, his childhood plan of shooting an arrow in the same place) can go and woo a rich girl. Ignoring any possibility of modern social ideas of marriage to corrupt my reading, we can agree on one part here. There's no guarantee that he will be successful. That she will respond in kind. Now, I'll preface that much of my readings on Shakespeare as a social construct arises mostly in the dysfunction and hypocrisy and illogical actions of the "Norm" in each work, in this case, the Christians. Remember, Antonio specifically says: "I neither lend nor borrow / By taking nor by giving of excess, / Yet to supply the ripe wants of my friend / I'll break a custom." (1.3.58-61). Antonio is willing to make a deal with the cultural Devil for his friend, who is already a spendthrift (one of the seven-deadly sins). Now, even if the "Norm" doesn't make the religious distinction, we can still use it because Shylock makes that distinction clear: "I hate him for he is a Christian" (1.3.39). Now, some critics do argue that Shylock does create the antisemitism in the play, and while perhaps that may be true to a certain extent, it isn't completely true. Now, as you state, Antonio does not practice usury - but he specifically comes to Shylock to engage in that practice. The mere fact he is there makes him a hypocrite. The fact that Shylock gives him a bond instead of a loan is an accident that arises in Shylock's attempt to best him. As to Antonio always arguing that usury is wrong: he doesn't do so very effectively. After Shylock provides an example from scripture to justify usury, Antonio first weakly attacks the notion, by saying basically that since God organized it, and that since lambs are not money (of course, ironically, ignoring that livestock, like money, were tender used to engage in trade). Then when Shylock attempts to answer his questions, he just cuts him off, warning Bassanio that "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (1.3.95). Now, allow me to interject that I do not believe that Antonio is some villainous antisemite, some evil person scheming about how he can wrong a Jew today. It basically comes down to the distinction between an evil act and an evil person. Antonio doesn't know any better. He unwittingly acts evilly, but because his society teaches him that usury is a great evil, he is fighting against his perceived evil. Now, that does not mean that Antonio's actions are not wrong, and that Shakespeare could not mean to indict Antonio's actions. Now, you say that Antonio only rails against usury, but not Judaism. But you really can't separate the two so easily and neatly. Usury was forbidden by the Catholic church and good Christians wouldn't practice it, and only Jews were allowed to practice usury. Usury is one of the few legal occupations a Jew could hold. Thus, your attempt to separate the two concepts wholly ignores that reality. Yes, the two ideas are not completely equal, but when one rails against usury, there is an implied attack against the Jews (Well, not anymore today, obviously). However, even in the play, Shylock is constantly referred to as the Jew by the lead characters. Now, I argue that "Jew" means more than just "a Jewish person" in this play. Shylock is typically referred to as "Jew" when they mean to make him look foolish or evil (so in 2.8, when Solario and Solanio make fun of him because his daughter ran away and stole from him), or in the courtroom scene, when we see lines like "Harsh Jew" and "We all expect a gentle answer, Jew" (the latter of which is a play on words, since gentle is similar to gentile, or one who isn't a Jew). Now, one could argue, I suppose, that Jew is just referring to "Jewish person," but my issue with that conclusion is that it ignores the moral and historical implications of the word. Now I will admit that it is a very subtle antisemitism, and not some rabid, foaming at the mouth antisemitism that would make it easy for us to say "Oh, Shylock is the hero." But to say that only Shylock brings up Judaism as an attack is just as wrong. It all comes down to a matter of degrees. Shakespeare is arguing that the Venetian society is not ideal, and uses Shylock as a point of juxtaposition. To avoid repeating prior points, I won't mention all of there dysfunction, but it's there. There is hypocrisy, there are attacks. Shylock, who should be an easy target, suddenly becomes a 3-dimensional antagonist. To say that he is the tortured hero would be to simplify him in the opposite direction of the Jewish stereotype, it would imply that he is capable of no wrong. We can all admit that he is wrong. In the courtroom scene, he is quite the smug little bastard, savoring the power he holds over the Christians, since the bond is legal and they can't do anything to stop him from recouping the forfeiture. However, underneath his evil acts, there is desperation. He views that the Christians have taken everything from him, including his daughter, and his money. He wants to get revenge for a lifetime of abuse. However, on the other side - we have a society that would allow Shylock to commit legal murder. The leaders of the society cannot come up with the loophole that saves Antonio. It requires an act of deception to save Antonio's life. However, I'm not in the business of damning Portia. I'm out for the ineffective and passive law. No, Shylock is not some tortured misunderstood hero who is really good. He is about to kill Antonio for actions he had no part in (assuming, my reading into Shylock's character and motivations are correct). But that's what makes him so deep. He is evil not because he is a Jew, but rather, because of what he is willing to do for revenge. But Antonio is not the ideal Christian who almost becomes a martyr for forgiveness and not practicing usury. He is very passive, he takes a suicidal bond, he gives too much to a spendthrift friend, he can allow his anger to control him. Bassanio is an idiot, and his only solution to try and save his friend is to throw money at Shylock. Maybe Shakespeare isn't writing about prejudice, but I do think he is attacking his audience's notions of their moral superiority, and their assumptions about the humanity of "lesser" people. Now, I can't talk too much about the other plays in detail. The only ones I could do with the same level I'm comfortable with for Merchant are Henry V and Macbeth (basically, if you ever want to have a discussion as to why Duncan is not the Erasmusian king as a lot of people have argued, or why Henry V is so loving badass, I'm game). I haven't read Taming of the Shrew in a long time, so I won't because I can't say if Shakespeare is indicting anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 14:46
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But when your character is a Jew, an incredibly maligned race in Europe, to turn that Jew into a sympathetic character suddenly implies humanity, which has SOME moral question at its center. Whether Shakespeare is writing specifically about the Jews or Catholics or any other race is not necessarily incredibly important. But the fact that Shylock does not match the stereotype of the purely evil and demonic money-lending Jew opens up the door to the idea that Shakespeare could be attacking the stratification of religion. I still don't see where you're finding this sympathy for Shylock, and I'm not sure where you're pulling this Renaissance Jew stereotype from, either. and I've got a flight, so I need to keep this quick. Forgive the typos. Sympathy Let's talk about the sympathy angle first, because what you're saying absolutely baffles me. Really, what makes Shylock a sympathetic character? Antonio doesn't like him, granted, but Shylock deserves to be disliked -- not because he's a Jew, but because he continually makes reprehensible moral choices and yet asks that he be judged by his humanity rather than his actions. That's what "hath not a Jew eyes" is all about. It's Shylock copping out of any kind of moral responsibility, saying that the fact that he sees evil around him makes his own evil permissible. Judge me by what I am, he says, not what I do -- because if you judge me by what I am, I'm as good as everyone else, but if you judge me by what I do, I'm a terrible loving person. But I'm willing to place a wager here. Antonio, who you don't seem to find any sympathy for, gives interest-free loans to people who need them (which is one reason Shylock hates him so much; Antonio's charity keeps him from profiting off other people's desperation). And he risks his life (and is willing to compromise his principles) to help his friend. Whatever else you can say about those actions, they're unselfish. The same is true of Bassanio, even though he's shallow, and of Portia, even though she's a raging bitch. Bassanio is willing to stand in for Antonio when it looks like Shylock's going to get his pound of flesh, and Portia is willing to spend any amount of money to help Antonio after he defaults on his bond, even though she's never met him. Now all three of these characters are flawed, I suppose. Antonio's naive, Bassanio's shallow, and Portia, again, is a controlling bitch. But they're also clearly capable of unselfish action, of putting the priorities of other people ahead of their own.* Stereotyping This gets us to this Jewish stereotype. The Renaissance stereotype of a Jew like Shylock isn't that he's inhuman. It's that he's greedy, grasping, vengeful, selfish, and basically sociopathic -- he'll wreak endless misery for the pettiest reasons. Think Barabas, if that helps. Shylock completely conforms to this stereotype, which is why audiences likely didn't sympathize with him when the play was written, and why sympathizing with him now is really about making him a different kind of stereotype -- a two dimensional victim instead of a fully-formed moral agent capable of choosing good over evil. So show me that this Renaissance stereotype doesn't fit Shylock. Show me one place in the play where he does something good. Hell, show me a point where he even considers doing something that puts someone else's needs ahead of his own, and I'll consider this sympathy argument you're making. I mean, sympathy is for people who do good things, or at least try. Bad things happening to bad people, that's justice, not tragedy. * And let's not forget that they (and the rest of Venice) show mercy to Shylock, even though Shylock refuses to show any to Antonio; when Shylock's convicted of seeking Antonio's life, the sentence is death and the confuscation of his fortune. But Antonio persuades the court not just to spare Shylock's life, but to let him keep half his fortune so he can continue to live comfortably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:So show me that this Renaissance stereotype doesn't fit Shylock. Show me one place in the play where he does something good. Hell, show me a point where he even considers doing something that puts someone else's needs ahead of his own, and I'll consider this sympathy argument you're making. I mean, sympathy is for people who do good things, or at least try. Bad things happening to bad people, that's justice, not tragedy. Right now, the clearest scene is 3.1, right past the grandiosely ironic speech (regardless of anyone's feelings on that speech, the merest fact that he concludes that he has the right to get revenge despite its immorality brings him closer to the 'Christian' example). Tubal tells Shylock that Jessica has sold his topaz ring, which Leah gave to him. He becomes enraged with his daughter, saying "I would not sell that ring for a wilderness of monkeys!" He holds sentimental value to the ring because his presumably dead wife gave it to him. It gives him both a background, and shows that he is capable of love and is not some purely self-centered man who only cares about the monetary value of things. I'm not going to argue that Antonio is pure evil incapable of good because that's not true. He's simply part of a misguided society. Now saying that Shylock acts maliciously is true, but we also have to consider his motives as well. Why does he set the bond as a pound of flesh? I argue to mock Antonio - look at 1.3.134-138, and on, and just see the sarcasm dripping from his lines. He just wants to rub it in Antonio's face that he can loan money without the usance. But let's look at what leads up to that. Basically, Antonio comes to Shylock's abode despite their heated relations. One could argue that the aside at 1.3.38-49 simplifies Shylock to that stereotype, but I rather argue that Shakespeare takes that 2D character and makes him fully 3 dimensional, providing a reason for that stock character. We initially get a very basic version of his hate for Antonio, but as time goes on, we began to realize where his hatred for the man comes from. If it sounds like I'm picking on Antonio, it's not because I think he is some monster foaming at the mouth to kick some Jews, but rather, because he's the only character who's abuses we hear about. Now, let's not let the Christians get off so easily. Antonio takes the bond. Let's just put aside any notion of hypocrisy, and instead, let's consider why he takes a suicidal bond. At this point, it is no longer a selfless act. It suddenly becomes selfish. He does not want to be bested by the Jew. If refuses to take the bond without the usance, than Shylock can then mock him for it and basically say "So you'd rather take the usance." He would lose a lot of face. Sure, the initial intent was selfless, if rather foolish. But we cannot hold Antonio to a higher regard than Shylock. He's willing to put his life on the line for some money. Bassanio, on the other hand, allows Antonio to take the bond. Yes, he voices his discontent, but he does not have to take the money. Bassanio, who selfishly allowed his friend to put his life on the line, at the courtroom scene, attempts to offer himself in his friend's place, but if he hadn't acted so stupidly foolish before (and he recognizes it, so we can't say he had an epiphany and allow him to get off for being ignorant, he speaks his hesitations about the bond with Antonio at the end of 1.3), Antonio would have never had been in any trouble. Portia, on the other hand, does risk herself to save a friend of her husbands (who we can assume they have never met). Remember, she's impersonating a doctor of the court. If discovered, she's in deep poo poo. Now, I take her fraud not as an attack against her, since she could not allow Shylock to commit legal murder, but rather, a flaw in the Venetian court. You say she's a controlling bitch, I really have nothing to say on that matter. Bassanio needs a controlling bitch with his inability to take action. Now, I take issue with calling Shylock greedy and willing to cause great suffering for the pettiest of reasons (if I were to try and say he wasn't vengeful, that would be ignoring so much of what he does and why he does it, and even what he says). We really don't see that greed. Shylock is unwilling to give up his bond for any amount of money, meaning that the issue has moved beyond the material. This bond is personal (wrongly personal, since Shylock is now holding Antonio responsible for things he didn't do, like Jessica marrying and converting to Christianity). Shylock, like Khan, wants to hurt the Christians, and he intends to hurt them as much as possible (sorry, I came THIS close to doing my thesis on Shakespeare's influence on Star Trek and its implications). Can we hold his usury against him? Not really. It is his livelihood, and historically speaking, one of the few avenues for Jews to make their money. Now, his reasons for causing suffering arises from his desperation. At the point Shylock becomes a raging villain, he believes, perhaps falsely, that he has been made a great victim against many wrong doings. His daughter has betrayed him many times over, stealing from him and converting and then selling the ring his wife gave to him for a fad pet. Antonio, who came to him in need despite all of his mockery of Shylock, cannot pay off his debt, making Shylock feel like a fool. And of course, the ever presence abuse. Frankly, I don't view Shylock as a calm collected man who's out to get vengence, but rather as a raving lunatic who is unable to see straight. I may be wrong with Barabas, but we don't ever see moments of great passionate anger coming from Barabas. We only see just a general misanthropy. Shylock's reasoning is never justified, but that doesn't make it petty. Just wrong. Of course, to argue what's petty and what isn't ultimately comes down to our own personal judgment. I argue that given what has happened, it really isn't all that petty. But his reasoning could reasonably be considered petty by other people. Now, my image of the Jew comes largely from Leon Poliakov's "A History of Antisemitism" and Verberto Morais book on the same subject, as well as a history professor at my school who's also studied and published on the same subject. Also, the Bedford Handbook to Shakespeare, along side a few other articles and books here and there (but those were my primary sources to go to). PS - Let's try not to keep this from becoming an argument over the Merchant of Venice. I'll give you the last word, especially now that I'm starting to repeat myself. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jun 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
Am I allowed to post an E/N-type post in this thread? If not, ignore it, I guess. Anyways, i'm compiling a list of books I want to read this summer, and although none of them really deal with your area of expertise, I was just wondering if you've read any of these. If you have, which ones did you like? -A people's history of the United States -Structural transformation of the public sphere -Anything by Jorge Luis Borges -Anti-intellectualism in American life -A confederacy of Dunces -Travel novels by Bill Bryson Again, this is also outside of your area of expertise, but I'll have a go anyway. Me and one of my roommates had a pretty heated discussion about No Country for Old Men(we've both seen the movie, but only I have read the book). I think the book is about the generational gulf in America. Bell is basically from another time- he can't keep up with the "new" face of crime in his county(and, on a greater scale, the "new" American culture). Then again, I could be completely off the mark. What do you think of McCarthy's writing in general?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 18:54
|
|
|
xcdude24 posted:I think the book is about the generational gulf in America. Bell is basically from another time- he can't keep up with the "new" face of crime in his county(and, on a greater scale, the "new" American culture). Then again, I could be completely off the mark. What do you think of McCarthy's writing in general? I haven't read the book, but this is certainly NOT what the movie is about. It goes to lengths to debunk that claim with the dialogue between Bell and his friend. About the indians? I think it pretty well establishes that world has always been violent and unforgiving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
xcdude24 posted:-A people's history of the United States Anti-Intellectualism in American Life is one of the finest works of American history ever written. Hofstadter's prose is both precise and exciting, and his scholarship is impeccable. In many ways he's an excellent antidote to Howard Zinn (the guy who wrote A People's History of the United States). Zinn appeals to the rebel in us that wants to completely invert the given order of things, but in the end he's really the other side of the same superficial coin. Hofstadter, on the other hand, is not nearly so partisan (although he was a well-known liberal firebrand in real life): he is interested in a fair-minded examination of American anti-intellectualism, and that's precisely what he delivers. Sometimes he comes to no conclusion, because on some matters no conclusion is possible, but it's an extremely enlightening book. I also highly recommend Borges, especially if you want stories that will give you a world-class mindfuck. Borges is a master at playing around with time and personal identity, and even when he lays it on a bit thick, it's still very fun to read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
I'm a graduate student in theatre with an emphasis in script analysis and creative writing (kind of - it's open ended). I currently teach two sections of Introduction to Theatre Studies for a large state university, usually with about thirty to forty students per section. Many of your notes have been helpful in dealing with papers and play responses, but several of our graduate assistants have come across the same problem I've had: how strictly should we grade writing at a state university? I would love to enforce the same standards and the level of analysis you give per student, but I usually have about seventy at a time. Are we just feeding the system by allowing sub-par writers/students through, or am I just worrying too much? I guess this became a larger question about state education, but I've been wondering this for a while and you're pretty pragmatic about these situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
xcdude24 posted:I was just wondering if you've read any of these. If you have, which ones did you like? I've read People's History, some Borges, Anti-Intellectualism, and Confederacy. I've also read some Bill Bryson, but not much. He comes off a little smug, and I'm only comfortable when I'm the smuggest in the room. Out of these, Confederacy seems the odd book out. It'd be a mistake to call it anything other than light reading, for sure, and if you take it as anything other than a farce* the stereotyping can get under your skin. If you like your fiction with more brains in it, Borges is your man. And if you don't have to read him in translation, all the better. Of People and Anti-Intellectualism, I think AI is the more interesting, not least because Zinn has been so successful that you've probably seen selections from People all over the place. For me, reading the book was more like a hunt for familiar passages. quote:Again, this is also outside of your area of expertise, but I'll have a go anyway. Me and one of my roommates had a pretty heated discussion about No Country for Old Men(we've both seen the movie, but only I have read the book). I think the book is about the generational gulf in America. Bell is basically from another time- he can't keep up with the "new" face of crime in his county(and, on a greater scale, the "new" American culture). Then again, I could be completely off the mark. What do you think of McCarthy's writing in general? I can't help you here at all. I haven't read No Country or any of his other work (at least that I can remember). * I don't know how you could, but I've met people who do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:PS - Let's try not to keep this from becoming an argument over the Merchant of Venice. I'll give you the last word, especially now that I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm not sure that the ring gives Shylock a moral center -- it just shows that he's really attached to his stuff. And I fail to see how Shylock's mourning the theft of his ring suggests that he has put someone else's interests ahead of his own; it just means he's incapable of mourning his wife in terms that don;t attach her value to her jewelry. But I think we've laid enough of both our arguments on the table for people to get a perspective, so we're best to set it down. My background on this, incidentally, is coming from a few different places. The situation of English and European Jews is largely from Shapiro's Shakespeare and the Jews, while the information on usury comes from the collected work of David Hawkes and Marc Shell, Bruce Carruthers's City of Capital, and Norman Jones's God and the Moneylenders. The role of finance and financial themes on the English stage is from Doug Bruster's classic Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare and Agnew's Worlds Apart. Brainworm fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2009 20:56
|
|
|
bartlebee posted:I'm a graduate student in theatre with an emphasis in script analysis and creative writing (kind of - it's open ended). I currently teach two sections of Introduction to Theatre Studies for a large state university, usually with about thirty to forty students per section. Many of your notes have been helpful in dealing with papers and play responses, but several of our graduate assistants have come across the same problem I've had: how strictly should we grade writing at a state university? I would love to enforce the same standards and the level of analysis you give per student, but I usually have about seventy at a time. Are we just feeding the system by allowing sub-par writers/students through, or am I just worrying too much? With that many students in a course that's not really built around writing,* you'll need to choose your battles. But I'm sure you've already figured this out. The first thing you need to decide, especially if the University hasn't given you any guidance on the matter, is exactly what role your course plays in student development. That is, are you supposed to be a gatekeeper (who shouldn't let sub-par students through) or a coach (whose job is to improve every student's work as much as possible)? Because you can't do both of those jobs at the same time, and classes that split their attention between them are almost universal disasters. So if your college makes you a gatekeeper, be a gatekeeper. Early on, cut out the kids who don't already have the skills they need, and spend what time you have with the ones on the bubble. And don't sweat the students who leave, because that's not your job. If you're a coach, use everything you can as a motivational tool, including grades. And don't sweat the students who might be unprepared for later courses. That's not your job. In other words: decide whether the University wants you to be an evaluator or a motivator, because those two jobs are at bottom incompatible, especially when you've got so many students. The second thing you need to decide is what you want student writing to accomplish. I've said before, but maybe not in this thread, that half the work in teaching is building the right kinds of evaluative tools. As a rule, writing should grow or develop a student's skills, while tests should evaluate a student's command of a predefined set of skills or factual knowledge. With this many students, your writing assignments need to be short and skill-targeted. And if you can't name the student skill you're improving with each writing assignment, you're evaluating and should probably be using a test. Again, you've probably already figured this out. But the chief implication of this is something lots of people miss: Early in the semester, you need to set clear writing goals for each student. Depending on your class composition, which I expect is diverse, these might need to be granulated at the individual level. More homogeneous classes can have groupings or even blanket goals. Either way, your comments on and evaluations of each individual student's work should basically orbit your goals for that particular student. Anything not related to those goals, slice out. So say at the beginning of the semester you've got a student, Ryan, who clearly has problems with organization and clarity while writing detailed and complex pieces, plus a host of grammatical issues and problems getting work finished on time (for reasons you don't yet know). You need to decide which of these problems to pick up and which ones to drop. How you decide this is up to you. If you're at a Uni. with good advisers, a call there can help (it could let you know whether this late work problem is global, or whether it's specific to your class or to an assignment type). If you've got a Writing Center, call there; lots of Writing Centers also do time management (study skill) work, so you could farm out some of Ryan's problems to support staff. That's what they're there for. However you decide, you're either going to spend your semester working on Ryan's process (so he manages his projects well enough to get quality work done on time) or helping him write clearly while maintaining the complexity of his ideas. But you can't do both. Not in one semester of a non-writing-focused course with thirty-five other students. You need to use this kind of selective approach for two reasons. The first is that none of your students will be able to improve everything that needs improving, and this is exacerbated when you don't get much one-on-one time with them. The more stuff you try to fix, the less fixing you'll be able to do. The second is for your own self-evaluation; it's possible to get a clear idea of how each of your students has holistically improved as a writer if you have, say, thirty or forty of them. For larger numbers, you're only going to get a clear idea if you periodically chart each student's progress toward a well-defined and limited set of goals. So for Ryan, this means setting an objective (or objectives) for him at the beginning of the semester, and making sure you track his progress. If he's going to the Writing Center, get all the information you can about how he's progressing. Talk to his adviser to see whether the problems you're trying to solve persist in other classes. And (of course) keep careful track of his progress on whatever you're working on together. This might or might not be useful for Ryan. But it's definitely useful for the next student in Ryan's position, since you'll have a clear idea of what worked and what didn't. * I mean in foundational terms. There's no such thing as a writing-focused course with thirty or forty students, no matter what you do on the syllabus -- I mean, each student's unlikely to write more than what, thirty pages of formal, revised work? Brainworm fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jun 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2009 00:37
|
|
|
Brainworm, you mention that people in Shakespear's time saw Usury as something terrible and "unnatural", on a par with paedophila, bestiality, etc. Why was that? Why was lending money at interest considered to be so bad? PS: I never knew Shakespear could be so interesting, so good job. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
Obscene profit without labor and fears of loansharking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
Scorponok posted:Brainworm, you mention that people in Shakespear's time saw Usury as something terrible and "unnatural", on a par with paedophila, bestiality, etc. Why was that? Why was lending money at interest considered to be so bad? The reasoning is built on Renaissance understandings of Aristotelian morality. This percolated into the culture via Church policies, which morally reasoned in chiefly Aristotelian terms. Aristotle's "four causes" logic suggests that all things have a natural purpose, a telos, which is a sort of consequence of whatever they are in a quintessential sense. So think about Church (and Renaissance) positions on sexuality. The telos of intercourse is procreation, so non-procreative sex is a sort of metaphysical violation, since it bends the natural order to unnatural ends. The English vocabulary used to describe these kinds of violations is generally either "against nature" or "against kind," where "kind" refers to type or category. For reasons that are well evidenced but whose logic is not entirely clear, telos seemed chiefly to matter in crimes against the state, crimes involving sex, and crimes involving money, which Aristotle explicitly claimed existed to be exchanged for goods. Nobody ever accused anyone's shoe use of being "unnatural." So if you look at early treatises on "sodomy," for example, they include what we now think of as sodomy (then called "buggery" and including all sorts of non-procreative sex), as well as counterfeiting, usury, and plotting against the Crown or its agents. All of these were alike in kind as well as degree because they're violations of the natural order. This is still with us, especially in Church policy regarding, say, birth control, and in almost universal religious disdain for other forms of sex that don't have babymaking as their intentional end. But the other teleological crimes have either been hamstrung by expedience (usury) or recategorized in ways that make more modern sense (treason, counterfeiting).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2009 11:48
|
|
|
Grouco posted:Also, do have an opinion on any Canadian English grad programs? I've been researching specific faculty member's research interests, department focuses, etc, but I was wondering if you had any comment on department reps/research strengths? I can answer some of your questions, as I'm a PhD student at uOttawa. E-mail generalcannonhat[at]gmail.com .
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:But I had a sort of conversion experience -- like the one that pulled me out of Physics -- when I figured out Hamlet. There's no going back after that. I'm a double major in English and Physics and I'm interested in this conversion experience. Would you be willing to share?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2009 07:19
|
|
|
Getao posted:I'm a double major in English and Physics and I'm interested in this conversion experience. Would you be willing to share? Sure, but I need to do it a little quickly. The background you probably need on this has to do with how I got into physics in the first place. Back when I was a college freshman, there were these regional college-level invention competitions. I haven't seen one in a while, so I don't know whether they're still done or whether I've moved out of sight of them. Anyway. I won at my large State University and got some mention at the regional level for building a gun with a solid-state firing mechanism that used (basically) off-the-shelf ammunition.* I'd just turned fourteen then, and so (a) probably took this validation a little too seriously and (b) thought of this as as an imaginative and theoretical, rather than a technological, accomplishment. This was back before internet research was, you know, possible, and the college library didn't have anything pertaining to experimental gun designs, so I was convinced for several weeks that the idea for solid-state firing mechanisms was completely and uniquely mine -- I was able to get a couple patents on things surrounding the mechanism (the chemical propellant, the modified shell hulls, and some matters specific to my particular mechanism), so I'd like to think anyone my age would naturally come to the same idiotic I-did-it conclusion. This led em to think I had a good future in this basic field -- I mean, I had the imagination and the basic math I needed to run the chemistry and physics behind the gun, so that seemed like a foundation worth building on. And I got calls from a couple companies that were willing either to send me to grad school or hire me once I finished my BS (and then send me to grad school). So this seemed like a good start to a career. Of course, anyone over fourteen can see about a billion things wrong with my thinking here. I saw them too, eventually. But by that point I was knee-deep in physics and enjoying it, and still considering grad school and about a billion other ways to roll chemistry and some engineering into my skill set. Then a couple predictable things happened. The first one is that I thought about why I was enjoying what I did. It was totally ego driven. I could have told you that when I was fourteen of course, but it took me a couple years to suspect why an ego-driven course of study (or career choice) is such a terrible, terrible idea. The second was that, as a consequence, I widened my world a bit. And once I let some light in, my whole plan looked as ugly as it probably clearly looks now. More important, other things started to look better -- especially once I realized that I liked them for reasons that had nothing to do with getting approval from other people. And that was where Hamlet came in. I've written a lot on that play in this thread, so I won't do an in-depth reading here. But you can probably see how an egotistical teenager in my position would find guidance in Hamlet's tragedy -- it is, after all, partly about Hamlet negotiating a complex relationship with his talents, and in the process rethinking who he is and what he wants at the most basic levels. So I fell in love with my uses of the play first, and then the play itself. That's more or less how the conversion happened. * This is more impressive than it sounds. I just retrofitted a shotgun and mucked with the the hull reloading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2009 23:41
|
|
|
I've been considering going back for post-bacc training. However, some of the stories I hear about doing so makes me nervous. Is it true that you need to be fluent in two other languages? What else can you tell us lowly Bacc grads about getting a Masters or our PhD?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Quick question: Can Chick Lit be good? I know the term can be used to pigeon hole books but like every area, is there a good example you are aware of that does the genre justice i.e a young female oriented book written well possessing the qualities of a good novel? Or is the nature of the genre to appeal to the LCD, and be a mass market seller? In addition to that, I got into an arguement over what constitutes "sci-fi", and par example, Star Wars, which while set in a technological future, comes off as more fantasy then anything else. It seems like most conventional "sci-fi" is just fantasy stories decorated with lasers and spaceships. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
drkhrs2020 posted:Quick question: Can Chick Lit be good? I know the term can be used to pigeon hole books but like every area, is there a good example you are aware of that does the genre justice i.e a young female oriented book written well possessing the qualities of a good novel? Or is the nature of the genre to appeal to the LCD, and be a mass market seller? Hey, not everything that's "female-oriented" is automatically chick lit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
BrideOfUglycat posted:I've been considering going back for post-bacc training. However, some of the stories I hear about doing so makes me nervous. Is it true that you need to be fluent in two other languages? What else can you tell us lowly Bacc grads about getting a Masters or our PhD? Personally, I've never really heard that before. I mean even in linguistics it's not a requirement (anywhere that I've encountered, though it certainly wouldn't hurt).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
Head Movement posted:Personally, I've never really heard that before. I mean even in linguistics it's not a requirement (anywhere that I've encountered, though it certainly wouldn't hurt). Most reputable liberal arts program will require proficiency in at least one foreign language. For fields like literature or philosophy, it will often be one ancient and one modern (in my case--politics--I did Greek and German).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been addressed already, but I've always been curious to get a Shakespeare scholar's thoughts on the ideas of Hamlet expressed by Stephen Dedalus. I've listened to Joyceans talk a lot about it, and its significance in Ulysses, but I've always wondered how a Shakespeare critic would approach it if it were expressed by an actual person, purely on Shakespearean terms.
Your Proud Pal fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jun 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
Head Movement posted:Personally, I've never really heard that before. I mean even in linguistics it's not a requirement (anywhere that I've encountered, though it certainly wouldn't hurt). For my PhD (in linguistics) two languages other than English are required. When I was checking out schools, this seemed normal. One language other than English was usually required for the MA. I was looking mostly in Canada. It might not be that way elsewhere. The language requirement can be met in various ways. You don't have to be totally fluent to pass. At my school you can: a) be a native speaker, b) have taken 4 or more university courses in that language with at least a B+, c) pass a reading test by translating an academic article from that language into English, d)find a native speaker of that language who can vouch for you. That last option was for lesser taught languages, or for field work languages that linguists are learning as they study them. Most universities have a "graduate handbook" that you can download from the department website. It will detail what the requirement for the degree are: course work, languages, qualifying papers, thesis, etc. edit: spelling...apparently I didn't pass the English requirement FoiledAgain fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jun 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:For my PhD (in linguistics) two languages other than English are required. When I was checking out schools, this seemed normal. One language other than English was usually required for the MA. I was looking mostly in Canada. It might not be that way elsewhere. Sorry, I was mostly referring to MA. PhD most definitely. Though, yeah, I mean I can't think that I've met too many linguists who hasn't put at least a little substantial study to a language beyond their native tongues. Head Movement fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jun 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2009 14:19
|
|
|
BrideOfUglycat posted:I've been considering going back for post-bacc training. However, some of the stories I hear about doing so makes me nervous. Is it true that you need to be fluent in two other languages? What else can you tell us lowly Bacc grads about getting a Masters or our PhD? I don't think there's much reason to be nervous, especially about the languages. I think it's still true that most good PhD programs in English want fluency in two foreign languages, but that shouldn't be intimidating for at least two reasons: 1) When these programs say "fluency," they mean facility at written translation rather than something approaching native speaking ability. The usual test is for a student to translate a page of text relevant to his or her field, usually with the aid of a dictionary, and usually in a generous amount of time -- say, two hours. 2) You don't need to matriculate with both languages. You just need to demonstrate fluency at some point during the program (usually, but not always, around the time you take qualifying exams, i.e. a semester or two after you've finished your coursework, i.e. about two years after you earn your M.A.). So if you don't have a second language you've got time to pick one up. The real obstacle is finding the time and money, since foreign language study isn't built into the courseload. And I should add a third reason. Languages are easy. Becoming a fluent speaker needs a year or so of training followed by something close to immersion -- easy enough when you've got four years of grad. school and Telemundo. But becoming a competent translator takes somewhat less time; a couple dedicated translation courses are at least sufficient, and probably overkill if you've already learned a structurally similar language. EDIT: Also, what FoiledAgain said. I'm turning into a sloppy reader of my own thread. Brainworm fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jun 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 13:12
|
|
|
drkhrs2020 posted:Quick question: Can Chick Lit be good? I know the term can be used to pigeon hole books but like every area, is there a good example you are aware of that does the genre justice i.e a young female oriented book written well possessing the qualities of a good novel? Or is the nature of the genre to appeal to the LCD, and be a mass market seller? Well of course it can. Every genre has its geniuses, so as long as you read pieces according to the standards the genre sets for them, you'll find things that are at least good if not outright clever. I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by "Chick lit," though -- the closest I can guess is something like "books written for teenage girls," in which case Virginia Woolf's Flush is excellent. quote:In addition to that, I got into an arguement over what constitutes "sci-fi", and par example, Star Wars, which while set in a technological future, comes off as more fantasy then anything else. It seems like most conventional "sci-fi" is just fantasy stories decorated with lasers and spaceships. Any thoughts? The best definition of s.f. I've heard involves the introduction of a "novum," that is, of a fundamental change in the ways people interact with one another. This is sometimes technologically driven (e.g. discovery of alien life changes human political relationships, a drug allows users limited telepathy), but this can be driven other ways, too (alternate history is a good example, at least if the alteration of history changes human behavior). So I'm not sure Star Wars meets that genre definition, since the novel technology doesn't seem to change how people interact with one another. But it's also a tough call. Convincing portrayals of human interaction aren't generally part of George Lucas's dramatic arsenal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
I believe you mentioned before your thoughts on Othello, specifically, the lack of motive for Iago. At the time you posted it, I thought you simply weren't giving the "he was a racist" hypothesis a chance, but after reading your discussion with Cemetry Gator, I'm having great doubts believing it myself. So in that case, what do you believe Iago's motives were? I feel like I'm missing something monumental about this character now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2009 21:14
|
|
