What are your thoughts about Shylock? Was he considered a villian or a hero?
Printable View
What are your thoughts about Shylock? Was he considered a villian or a hero?
ITs all shades of gray. He wasn't evil, no. He was seeking revenge. He was acting as a terrible person would, it is true, but there were still good things about him as a person, right? He is bitter about life because he has been dealt a rough hand; his daughter betraying him, his life spat upon by Christians, threats, etc. He has led a difficult life, and he acts the way he has so far had to to live his life without crumbling under the pressure he is put under by the Christian people. Yet the punishment he is subjected to is, in my opinion, unecessary. It gives him no reason to live on.
Shylock is not good, but nor is he evil. Not a villain, not a hero. He's in between, really. He did bad things, but he did them with reason. I think that, if Antonio had not acted the way he did towards Shylock, as well as the others' behavior towards Shylock, then Shylock would have been fine.
now what do you think of Antonio? hero or villian, and what do you think of when Antonio comanded shylock to convert...
My thoughts of Antonio? A drama queen ;).
Being perfectly honest, Antonio takes the world as a personal insult, acting above all others one moment, and the next saying "I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano; A stage where every man must play a part, And mine a sad one." (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 77-79)
Antonio is stuck-up, arrogant, and racist. He thinks himself above Shylock merely because he is Christian! Now we also have to think of the other side of Antonio's life, and realize that msot Christians put themselves above those of the Jewish faith. It was how children were raised to think. Antonio cannot truly be entirely blamed for his reactions to Shylock, but he could restrain himself from spitting on the man, from insulting everything about him. Even as he asks Shylock for help he looks down upon him and calls him a dog! Antonio strikes me as the type of man who is kind as kind can be to his friends, but childishly cruel to those he dislikes. He is also, again, very dramatic, and enjoys thrusting himself into the limelight.
Antonio's contribution to Shylock's sentence was, indeed, for Shylock to become a Christian. I think that his decision merely reinforces his character. By taking away Shylock's religion, Shylock no longer has a will to live; he lost that which he thought no one could take from him: his beliefs.
While he could still believe what he does in his original faith, he would be forbidden to practice it, and would be forced to be baptised and pray as Christians do, break bread as Christians do, etc. It is not the same.
Antonio exacted revenge on Shylock jsut as quickly as Shylock would have. What strikes me as sad is that Antonio gives such a cruel sentencing so very quickly after Portia gives her speech on mercy.
Remember, though....no one is purely good or purely evil. Some of each exists in all of us, it is a matter of will to keep either from controlling us. I don't believe that Antonio is evil, but he is blind to others suffering, and is somewhat consumed with himself. Even when he gives a loan to Bassanio, he seems very dramatic about it. He goes on about how he does it only becaus ehe loves his friend, and though it is such a great sum, and he without money that is not sent out to sea, he will do it only for his trust for Bassanio.
Honestly, though, it all depends on your personal point of view. It depends on what life experiences you have gone through, etc. Take what I've said into consideration, but try to form your own views on them both. It never hurts to find other opinions, but you'll likely think of something I've missed here.
I think that Antonio's reason for hating Shylock is not because Shylock is a Jew, rather, that is just the excuse given.
I believe that there are many hints givent hroughout the book that Antonio is homosexual and in love with Bassanio. Because of society, Antonio is forced to stay in the closet so to speak, and because of this he has a lot of pent-up emotions, including rage.
He strikes out at Shylock not because he is Jew specifically but because he is one of the few people whom it is socially acceptable to rail at. This is because Shylock is Jewish, but he could just as easily have been dark-skinned (like the Prince of Morocco), or gay himself.
Shakespeare obviously has other literary reasons for making him Jewish, but in regards to Antonio the fact that Shylocke is socially ostracized is enough.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Antonio is gay. I don't see the connections, and I feel that, when it is explained to me, people are looking too deeply and its a long stretch. Far too long of a stretch, for my tastes.
I'll elaborate on this more, if you'd like, but I'm on my way to school!
Oh come one. That Shylock is all shades of grey is such a dull answer.
In my opinion Shylock is indeed a villain. Of course, their are ways in which we pity him and he is certainly not completely black, but we can judge him harshly.
Shylock was marginalized and mocked to be sure, but what he attempted was legalized murder! It is difficult for a modern audience to grapple with the concept of Shylock's guilt after our exposure to the history of this century, the holocaust, black civil rights movements etc. But in 15th century Venice, racism and in particular anti-semitism was a part of every day life, and for Shakespeare, not something which justified the destruction of life. Shylock too, was a racist. He "hated" Antonio because "he is a christian," and yet we do not pity Antonio, nor forget his downfalls simply because Shylock is prejudiced toward him.
Although Shylock did not succeed in his quest for "justice" does not mean that he would not have committed the act! His hunger for an "equal pound" of Antonio's "fair flesh" was not a bluff, and had he succeeded, no doubt we would not be feeling so emphatically for his loss.
What befell Shylock in the end wasn't satisfying, and there is a bitterness in the harshness of his punishment. However, he is a villain, if we look with out politically correct lenses that is.
Oh, and btw, I do believe the relationship between Bassanio and Antonio has homosexual elemnets- there are far too many sexual references to be ignored. Many of them are not a 'stretch' at all. Our sexually repressive society may close its eyes... but the suggestion is certainly there.
He's a villain. The extent of Shylock's malice is really irrelevant as he takes the position of a villain in the play. That being said, Shakespeare's talent shows in that he transforms the well poisoning jewish malefactor stock figure, such as Marlowe's Barabas, into a figure for which (I believe) even his audience could feel some amount of sympathy, surely not as much as we do these days however.
Both Antonio and Bassanio are "good christian gentlemen". Men could be very affectionate to one another including kissing on the lips and longing gazes but if homosexual sex (buggery) was practiced then their lives might well be forfeit, if found out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bethalina
Shylock is a villain but not an unjustified one.
As for Antonio loving Bassanio, I don't really think there's anything sexual in it. He may feel deeply for his friend but it's not like 'Ooh, Bassanio, I so would!'
The bit where Bassanio says that he loves Antonio above everything is, I believe, meant to show how Venice is a man's world in which women have no place. Indeed, at one point in the play, every character is either male or disguised as a male.
Shakespeare wrote a comic villain - a true 'stage Jew' of his time. It's just very hard to portray/consider him as such in our post-holocaust world.
Actors started playing him sympathetically since Kean- and that was in the first half of the nineteenth-century, long before the Holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Actually, pretty much all of Shakespeare's villains can be sympathised with to an extent (maybe not so much aaron, but even so). They're just doing what they can in a world that shuns them.
It's tempting to classify the play as a problem play, really. It may be a comedy but it tackles real issues.
Shylock bears the brunt of some seriously foul "Christian" treatment. But they are hypocrites. His servant Laucelot calls him a devil, and yet upon bumping into his aged blind father after many years, the first thing he does is to play tricks on the old man. Shylock's daughter, Jessica, elopes with a gentile, stealing much of her father's wealth, including his very special "Turkies" - the ring he got off Leah when he was a bachelor. To cap it all, she swaps the ring for a monkey.
Spat upon, verbally and physically abused, called vile names, made the but of filthy jokes, all from so-called "Christians", but their attitude soon change when they need the use his money. No wonder he's pissed off.
He asks for a pound of Anthonio's flesh in payment of the debt, and much is made of this, as if this makes Shylock is a bad man. It should be remembered that the sum of three thousand Ducats was a great amount of money. The punishment for stealing a mere rabbit from a wealthy estate was often death, so what would the punishment be for the sum which Anthonio "borrowed"?
My final point is this: The deal was made between the parties, nobody twisted anyone's arm, and if the shoe had been on the other foot, and a Jew had borrowed that sum from Anthonio, but failed to honour the debt, then I wonder what would have been the outcome in that case? Would Shylock have been able to get the other Jews to influence the court?
Comic villain? true stage Jew? What are you on? Expand please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Yeah, no female actors in Shakespeare, so you get a man playing a woman disguised as a man pretending to be a girl. That's comedy in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Legalized murder? How so?
I know this thread is years old, but I've just been discussing how we can interpret Shylock in a post-holocaust world. I'd like my students to consider him from a 16th century perspective as much as possible, and it's hard! Personally I find him both gruesome and wonderfully human. And I far prefer him to Portia who, for all her proto-feminist wit and vigour, is puposefully vile to both Shylock and Bassanio.
On the question of Antonio, I think there is something in the idea of his homosexuality. He doesn't really display the stereotypical mysongeny of, for example, Mercutio (but then again he's much more dull than Mercutio);however his feelings for Bassanio are certainly on the borders of homoerotic. Sonnet 116, I think, sums up this attitude to platonic love well, and again, the border between the platonic and the erotic isn't particularly defined. Shakespeare says the 'lover' in a "marriage of true minds" should be a lighthouse in the storm. Freudian imagery, anyone?