|
In reply to someone asking about critical theories (I almost have my BA in English Lit so I have some knowledge) - deconstructionism sucks. At least the ones I've read. Most of it is nonsense, like I have a hard time figuring out what they are exactly getting at. Granted, whenever I get a definition on deconstructionism, I'm always left profoundly confused as to what they are trying to argue (it has something to do with the inherent contradictions within the text, or something like that, I've never been 100% sure). I remember telling my thesis adviser about this, and she laughed heavily. Then she explained to me that once she went to a convention, and a deconstructionist gave his presentation, and she and another professor at my school just looked at each other and asked "What's going on here? What are they trying to argue?" The other one I'm not a huge fan of is the psychological study, but that's mostly because it appears to superimpose a lot onto the text. It can be an interesting read, but often times, they'll end up arguing something the text just has no evidence for. Aside from that, theories with a specific bent, like queer theory (er... no pun intended), tend to annoy me since, like psychological, it is often superimposition. However, that's not to say that they can't produce quality studies, but it's when they find homoerotic undertexts in the work that they really start stretching and reaching. But for the most part, most theories are just about finding a time and a place. For instance, I used biographical theory in my examination of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn (it didn't make it into the final paper, but alas). I supported it by arguing that seeing how Twain operated with slaves would allow us to determine if Jim was a racist depiction or if there was a chance he wasn't. If you see how Twain felt about slavery and his feelings towards slaves, you would understand that the town he grew up in did not treat slaves like pure objects and abhorred the slave trader, and that he had great admiration for some slaves, which argues against the idea that Huck Finn is just racist trash (the furthest your could really go is that it is insensitive). Just note that the more crits you read, the more bad ones you find. Seriously, I found one that argued that the Merchant of Venice was anti-Semitic, but instead, he only proved that the characters act anti-Semitically. Which makes sense when you read into Shylock's character and see his struggle against a hypocritical Christian society.
|
#
¿
May 14, 2009 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I think the other problem too with trying to call students out is that some colleges overload students. My university does 5 courses a semester, which may not seem like a lot, but since my English Lit major actually requires you to do work, what ends up happening is that you get burnt out quickly with all the work that you have to do and eventually stop caring about some courses. What started to happen to me was I would base the time and quality control of assignments based on my personal enjoyment of it and the importance to my grade. So an assignment that really meant nothing to me that I could fail and still walk out with an A obviously got very little thought. I imagine it is like this in most schools. Not to diverge too much, but one of the biggest issues with college is that it is a completely dysfunctional environment. On the one hand, the schools want to be taken seriously as academic institutions. On the other, you have to deal with substandard housing for students (my apartment on campus holds 4 people. It's clearly only meant for 2 by design, which makes living and studying there a tightrope walk sometimes), passive university responses to students who are obsess with getting drunk and partying (and don't give me the old "good times" line. What a lot of these kids do is borderline obnoxious, and is often destructive), and a university that has to balance the books before they can offer a good education. The other problem too is that our university system isn't designed to push students to their maximum potential, but rather to just push students out at the schools maximum ability. Which means, for people like me, if your professors don't notice the issues, they'll never call you out and push you further. I have a lot of classes where I plateau. My biggest problem is that I can slip on through and appear to excel. When my heart is into something, I can do really well. I'm mentally adept and able to understand and comprehend data quickly. In most classes, I get bored. The problem is I mask this plateauing by my positive qualities: my curiosity, my work-ethic, and my willingness to engage in conversation. Granted, that's not to say I don't care about my education. It's just that I can be bored by it. But with the right professor, I can push myself to new levels. For instance, I did well in one class when we did the novels until we got to the poetry, and then it all fell apart for me. First off, I hate reading poetry for classes, since I like to explore character's motivations and historical implications over symbolism and other such stuff. I noticed that the output on my work just wasn't up to snuff. Instead of getting great grades, I wasn't getting merely only good and okay. I went to the professor, and she didn't answer my initial question, which was some help on understanding the work. Instead, she answered a question I didn't even know that I wanted an answer to: and that is what was I doing that was holding ME back. She explained that I am 25% weakness and 75% strength (I imagine that this is normal for most people), and she said what was holding me back was that I relied on my weaknesses more than my strength. I had potential, and I was riding on my potential more than actualizing it, and she said I needed to strive to get at the work. Guess what, I went back to getting those great marks after taking what she said. But the problem is that in a lot of my classes, I've been able to ride in more by simply just naturally riding above the crop, while at the same time, stagnating and not reaching my potential. Frankly, all the poo poo I learned in the classroom is nowhere nearly as valuable as that one lesson. The problem is that I only a minority of the teachers I had cared about making sure I was doing the best I could.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2009 04:54
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:What are your thoughts on Macbeth? I frankly think his later work just isn't that good. For instance, I absolutely abhor the Winter's Tale, and had no idea what was going on for most of the play. In my opinion, Shakespeare's biggest flaw as a writer was that he could be clever to be clever, which ends up with passages that really say nothing but say it in a complicated way. Basically, the only reason why you should ever glance at the Winter's Tale is for the stage direction, "A bear attacks." Shakespeare's best plays focus on human nature and the consequences of our foibles and hypocrisy. But if you look at his work, you can find a ton of flaws. For instance, the Merchant of Venice (the play that I did my thesis on), the play focuses too much on the "comedy" of the romantic trials of the Christians rather than the "tragedy" of Shylock. Antonio and Bassanio are only interesting when compared to Shylock because the Jew brings out the hypocrisy and cruelty of Christianity. The last act of the play is practicably negligible, and frankly uninteresting. They've conquered Shylock, dehumanized him, and practicably killed him (remember, a Jew converted to Christianity could no longer live in the Ghetto but would not be accepted by the Christians). And yet, we have this act that focuses on the love affair between the Christian characters in Portia's mansion. Frankly, I feel as if the 5th act is there not because the play needs it, but rather, the audience would demand that the loose ends be tied up.* Frankly, I wish people would stop all this "Shakespeare is the greatest writer of all time" nonsense. He's like the Beatles. At his peak, he provided some really amazing work that very few have bested, admittedly. However, at his worst, he provided some absolute poo poo that an untalented hack could create. Now, to answer someone's questions about Catcher in the Rye: It is a very good book, but I think part of the reason why it remains so widely studied is two fold: 1. The novel speaks to post 1950s youths, and still does. The disillusionment felt by Holden echoes much of the feelings behind youth culture today, though much more complexly and maturely. 2. Salinger hasn't written another work since, and he's still alive, giving the work a mysterious legendary air. Let's be honest, our society loves a good story behind a work of art. Granted, I haven't read the book since high school, so I'm going off what I remember, so take my thesis with a grain of salt. Holden's journey is similar to James' journey in Rebel Without a Cause. On the surface, both seem to live normal, well-adjusted lives, but on closer inspection, one recognizes how dysfunctional they really are. Holden has great schooling and opportunities, but his parents are completely absent in the text. Now, English is like free-jazz. You pay attention to what isn't put into the text over what is.** If something pivotal is missing from a work, the author did so intentionally. Salinger didn't just forget to include a scene with Holden's parents. Basically, Holden is a lost youth. He is lost in a modern world, he lacks direction. His depression arose from the moral destruction all around him. Why does he etch out the word "gently caress" from the elementary school's staircase? Because he sees the decay in even the young children. Catcher in the Rye is heavily studied because it really does sum up the post World War II and 9/11 mindset. I wish I could say more, but I would have to revisit it. Now, I have a question. What can I do with my thesis once it's done? I have a thesis that got an A from a tough professor just sitting around, and I'm really proud of it. I basically argue that Shylock serves as a huge inspiration for Jim in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. * I may be mistaken, but it wasn't until the 20th century that the ambiguous and incomplete ending was accepted by the audience. At the end of a work, everything either had to be dead or fixed, where as today, many of our best works leave things hanging in the balance. Consider the ending of the Godfather Part I and the Godfather Part II. At the end of I, everyone who betrayed Don Corleone is dead, and Michael is now in charge. Disorder has been restored to order. Yet, at the end of II, although everyone is dead, balance has not been revived. Michael is a shell of a man: he tore apart his family, he lost his wife and children, and the Corleone crime syndicate is basically in shambles. Juxtaposed with the rise of the Vito, Michael's downfall and the lack of any restoration drives home the tragedy inherent in the work. It's one of the reasons why II is more satisfying than I. The first film provides resolution to the characters, but their actions do not justify that resolution. The second film provides no retribution, which emphasizes the destructive nature of the crime family. ** Not really. You really should pay attention to both, but if you want to wow your teacher really quickly, just note something of importance that the author didn't put into the text.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2009 02:25
|
|
|
Sorry Brainworm, but I disagree wholly with your assertion that Shakespeare is not questioning antisemitism. First off, let's consider Shylock as the villain. Unlike Barabas in the Jew of Malta, Shylock is not some stock character who is evil for the sake of being evil. His hatred for Antonio arises from a very clear list of abuses the usurer faced from the businessman, including being spat at, being kicked, and perhaps, most importantly and ironically, having his own trade mocked, since usury is Shylock's livelihood and his only means of survival. To simply say he hates everyone but Tubal is to overlook many important subtleties in Shylock's character: the society refuses to recognize his humanity, they attack him in every way possible, and they denigrate all that he has sacred. For instance, his anger at Jessica comes from the fact that she has basically rebelled against him in every way possible: not only did she sacrifice her religion and her culture for those of the people who seek to destroy Shylock, but she also sold the ring Leah gave to him when he was a bachelor for a monkey. The ring is important because we see Shakespeare directly counteracting the stereotype as Jews as the money obsessed people (which Solario and Solanio echo in act 2 scene 8. Remember, we only hear about Shylock crying out for his ducats from these two characters, and seeing how the other bit of information we receive in this scene, Antonio's ships sinking, is wrong, it does bring into question the veracity of their claim). Shylock holds a strong sentimental value to the ring, and Jessica's trading the ring for a monkey symbolically destroys his entire family for a simple pet (which we never see or hear of again). One of the biggest points you miss is that ANTONIO WILLINGLY TAKES THE BOND FOR A POUND OF HIS FLESH. He agrees to it! If Shylock didn't have to offer the bond, Antonio didn't have to take the bond. We cannot look at Shylock with pure condemnation and then not chastise Antonio for getting into the bond. It's an example of Christian hypocrisy. They mock the Jews for being driven by money, but yet look at the Christian society. It is actually driven by money and trade. Compare Shylock's ring with Gratiano and Bassanio's rings. While Shylock wouldn't give it away for anything in the world, Gratiano and Bassanio hand their's over despite the promise they made to their wives. Bassanio values Antonio's input more than a promise he made to his wife. Then let's look at Bassanio's courtship. Why does he attempt to woo Portia? Is it for love? No! It's because she can pay off his debts and so he can keep up his gallant lifestyle! If she wasn't rich, he wouldn't be pining for her. There are examples of marriage for love in this play, so we can't just write it off as the "marriage is a business contract" trope. So, throughout the play, we have a Christian society that is so obsessed with money, they would willingly allow someone else to murder them so they can provide it. And Shakespeare isn't attacking the Christian's condemnation of the Jews? Now, we get to the question of mercy. Shylock shows Antonio no mercy in the courtroom, despite the fact that the Christians all but demand it from him. Yet, when the Christians have the upper hand, what do they do to Shylock? Do they show him any mercy? No! Instead, they kill him! While they don't directly execute him, they take away his goods and possessions, and then they force him to convert to Christianity. This has a great impact on him: he loses all of his connections and friends, he can no longer live in the Jewish ghetto, but the Christians will never accept him. Most importantly, he loses his livelihood. He now has to try and etch out a living with practically nothing. You can argue that Antonio shows Shylock mercy, but remember, what mercy is it. He forces Shylock to become a Christian. Then, he requires Shylock to give HIS half of Shylock's possessions to Jessica and her husband. What is the Christian example? Revenge. Remember, Shakespeare was possibly a Catholic or at least a Catholic sympathizer, so I doubt he would be one to not attack the Elizabethan notions of humanity and right and wrong. When you really begin to peal apart Shylock, especially compared to the Christian society around him, you begin to uncover a villain whose plight we pity rather than take delight in. I really think your analysis of the play ignores a lot of the damning evidence against the Christian society around Shylock. Perhaps the Merchant of Venice attacks Christian morality more than it defends the Jews, but I do believe that Shakespeare argues against the denigration of a whole group of people just because of their religion. Edit: One final point. Shylock is interested in revenge. Remember, Jessica's marriage isn't just a defying her father, it's betraying her father. She goes far beyond just running away with a Christian. SHE STEALS FROM HER FATHER. Shylock believes the Christians obviously corrupted his daughter. Antonio is Shylock's one true chance to hurt the Christians, his only chance to get revenge. I honestly believe the bond for a pound of flesh was a mockery at Antonio. Remember, Antonio is so averse to money-lending with interest but yet, he willfully takes a loan with interest when no one else will give him credit (Remember, Antonio says that his credit is stretched very thin). Also, Shylock has no way of knowing what misfortunes will befall Antonio, so thuse he couldn't give out the forfeiture with any reasonable desire to collect on it. The pound of flesh (which is an Italian story) is Shylock's way of insulting Antonio, sort of a way of saying "you're so desperate that you need to go to a Jewish money lender." By the point that we reached the courtroom scene, so much has escalated. Shylock has had his family destroyed by Jessica's betrayal. The bond has grown beyond money. Shylock will not take the 6000 ducats, or even 36000 ducats because he wants to get revenge on the Christians. Remember, they have shown him no mercy during his the play. They have attacked him verbally, they have stolen from him, and now, he has his chance to get back. Remember, Shylock does not exist in a vacuum. Shylock is an example of a desperate man who acts evilly because it is the only way he can get back at the society. I can't say he is a good character. We don't have that in the play. But we also don't have someone who is evil because they are naturally evil. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jun 3, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2009 14:11
|
|
|
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. 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!" 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. The Bedford handbook and numerous historians like Poliakov agree with me on this. Also, Launcelot hints at that notion when he talks to Jessica about the rising prices of pork. Remember, Jews were viewed as less than human by much of Europe. No amount of conversion could wash that away. 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. 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. Antonio's taking the loan with interest provides us with a greater justification for usury than Shylock's biblical example: it provided a need for society. Usury was allowed to exist not because it couldn't be contain (History has no shortage of accounts of Jews being slaughtered wholesale), but because the society needed it to raise large amounts of funds quickly. 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. 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? If he didn't mean to question, then why does he not provide us with the moral Christian example? Examine all of the Christian characters. There are dysfunctional. Antonio's first words in the play are "I do not know why I am so sad" (not the exact quote), implying a social disorder (seriously, you can see how dysfunctional the society's in a Shakespearean play are by looking at the first words out of the character's mouths). I think you need to look at the play, and allow that to shape your judgment. Not the Elizabethan understanding of the play. In the play's text, Shylock is a sympathetic character. Yes, he is the antagonist, and he is by no means perfect, but there is no ultimate moral paradigm in this play just as there isn't a Barabas-like caricature of evil.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
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
|
|