IB Discussing Merchant

If you found this thread, congratulations. There are already a number of interesting and relevant conversations on this forum about Merchant (excluding the ones that begin with "help!"). I encourage you all to browse some of them and see what other readers have had to say about this play.

I have a set of questions I'd like to pose as we study the play, and I'll be careful to avoid any spoilers. Some of these can only be answered after seeing the entire story, but might be worth keeping in mind as we go. And I actually have an ANSWER KEY to these questions I'll share with you later.

Don't feel obligated to answer all of them, but choose the one(s) that interest you.

1.> Who is this play really about? Shylock? Antonio? Bassanio? Portia? Jessica?

2.> I suggest that we look at this play in light of a few central words: risk, bond(s), exchange(s) and love. What does the play say about any of these concepts?

3.>I know you want to chat about it, so I'll go ahead and bring it up: what's up with Antonio and Bassanio? Is their portrayal in the film version(s) we are watching supported by Shakespeare's script, or is this "revisionist literature" at its best/worst? Is assigning a sexual orientation to either of them enlightening or limiting?

4.> Are we looking at a comedy or a tragedy here? Google the terms if you need clarification, and we will define them in class. If you say "both," well OK then, what about it? How funny is a tragedy allowed to be? Can a comedy have very serious points to make?

In my opinion, the focus of the play is about the relationship between Antonio and Shylock with an emphasis on Shylock. Jessica was introduced to late to be anything more than a supporting character. Bassanio and Portia are not original to the play; the star-crossed lovers without choice isn't a new invention.

However, the dynamic between Antonio and Shylock creates a situation where the former inferior now has power over the superior in the society. The situations with Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia are left up to chance, but Shylock is the only character in the position to make a choice (at least through the first 2 acts). Because he is the only one with the power to make choices so far in the play, I think this play is really about Shylock.

I agree with Z Diggy. This play seems to have an emphasis on Shylock as the focus. I say this for a couple of reasons. One is that Shylock is the only one with noticable asides, which can be seen particularly in the film version we are watching. Also, Shylock is referred to directly as a "merchant." And like Diggy said, the lovers are not original, the other characters are just background; Shylock seems to undergo the most personal conflict. He is persecuted, his daughter has left him (which seems to be her only role in this play), he has lost much money, and he desperately wants revenge on Antonio.

-DM

Thanks for the backup SonOfGreat.
If the play is really about Shylock, that raises serious questions about whether this play is a tragedy or comedy. If the play was about Bassanio, Portia, or Antonio I would say that the play is a comedy. However, there is nothing comic about what happens to Shylock in the play. This makes me think that this play is really a tragedy with lots of comic relief.

Yeah, it's hard to read it as a comedy if you put Shylock at the center of the play. Maybe the play's not really about any one character, but the bonds between them. Good discussions in both groups today.

I agree with Z Dizzy about this play having both tragic and comic elements. Perhaps this play has two distinct, yet interrelated, stories within it--one a tragedy and one a comedy. The fact that Shylock loses his daughter, the right to practice his Jewish faith, and all of his possessions does evoke some sympathy in the audience. His initial stubbornness to yield his bond, and the disastrous consequences of his refusal to yield gives Shylock qualities of a tragic hero. Thus, his story does seem like a tragedy. In contrast, the fact that Antonio, Bassanio, Gratiano, Portia, and Nerissa straighten out all misundertandings in the end and "live happily ever after" gives their own story qualities of a comedy.

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards comedy. After all, would the people of the time see Shylock's humiliation and conversion as a bad thing or as the just resolution to that part of the play? His humiliation could be seen as just and even comic (insert audience throwing fruit/vegetables here). For the time period, I see the play as more of a restoration of order than a destruction of disorder.

In my opinion, after studying scene 3 from Act 3, this passage acts as a microcosm of the entire play. This scene answers the big question of who this play is really about. This scene portrays the dynamic relationship between Shylock and Antonio, which at first glance seem to be stimulated by hate. However, when looking more in-depth this relationship is represented by a circle of love. Shylock makes this bond because of his love for money and his daughter. Antonio makes this bond for his " weird " love for Bassanio.

OK, I don't think this is a comedy at all. Sure, there are funny moments, like that creepy Spanish dude, and Gratiano. But overall, I cannot help but feel bad for the Jew no matter how evil or bad-guy-ish he has been. I mean seriously, this dude was all pumped up to get that pound of flesh, for who knows what, and he got his hopes and dreams just shot down. I know that if I couldn't get the much wanted pound of flesh I would be quite preturbed.

If you were a racist, and enjoyed making fun of other people and cultures then this could be a comedy very much. Watching Shylock look inhuman and crying in the movie would make some people laugh. It could also be very funny watching this guy wanting his pound of flesh very bad. I don't know about you guys but I was dying of laughter on this inside when Shylock pulled out the scale to weigh the pound of flesh. Come on now, how was this not funny??

Im not so sure why everyone thinks Shylock is the big bad evil heartless character. He is justified in his "bond" with Antonio according to the most just. If anything, Shylock is a strong man in his faith because he endures the constant mockery of him being a Jew, and faces the christian court with a very strong tone.

I personally think that this play has Shylock as the protagonist. Why? well Shylock seems to be the one with the problem when he accepts Antonios bond. Towards the end however, Antonio does not pay Shylock's bond and also the bond could not be fulfilled. As a result, his wealth was taken away and also his religion. In a sense, Shylock, who started with everything, wealth, a daugther, and a religion, lost it all. It seems to me that this play can be portrayed as a Tragedy based on Shylock.

I'm going to throw a real monkey wrench in your whole polarized world here. Maybe the very nature of the play is adding to one of the central themes, that opposites are really just two extremes of the same essence. Let me explain. Hot and cold are both temperatures, up and down are both directions. Without yin, there is no yang. So, if you take this into the play, both Jew and Christian, while portrayed as opposite poles, are still human. Antonio and Shylock, while enemies, are both merchants of Venice. Belmont and Venice, though apparently worlds apart, are still dealing with the same issues of love, bonds, money that make us human. In other words, you can't have the experience of one extreme without at least an understanding of the other side. I know this is going a little ToK on you, but may be relevant to the tragedy/comedy debate, too. Can we understand the comic without knowing how to cry? And, can we truly feel the pathos of tragedy without also having laughed before? Maybe the fact that this play defies easy categorization is in a sense a comment on the play's characters; Antonio, Bassanio, Portia and even Shylock also defy easy labels. Is Portia the "poor little rich girl" or the cunning imposter who saves her friends, and isn't it possible she is both? Is Shylock the justified victim of a prejudiced society, or the really evil villain, and is it possible he is both? Chew on that, amigos.

I think Portia is not just the poor little rich girl. There is nothing that makes me feel bad for her. Her life not that sad, in my opinion. She has things well off. She doesn't have to worry about money or her future. Her love is pretermined by her father. She has nothing to concern herself over.

I think she is a very well thought out person. She knows all her actions and all the consequences. Surely she knows what box her picture was in. Portia also had a very well thought out plan to save her husband's best friend.

MR. COLTRANE! very cool ideas that you threw out. and i agree. without knowing what comedy and tragedy is, we cannot know the other. but, i'm not sure about shylock and antonio. because although one is a christian and the other a jew, they are not otherwise opposites. they both seemed to play the role of villain: Shylock a villain to Antonio, and vice versa.