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.

I'm going to take the IB stance and claim that this play is not actually about any of the characters in the novel, but rather who they represent. Each of the major characters seems to be a manifestation of stereotypes of the day. Solarino (the stead-fast anti-semetic...nearly everyone at that time), Shylock (the greedy Jew), and Anotnio (the minority of the population who has seen the error in their anti-semeticism and realize that Jews are people too). This play is not about these characters. It is a portrayal of the world as it is and the societal conflicts that are arising as Europe is begining to shift away from this anti-semeticism.

I think that in a way Portia is the "poor little rich girl" but her actions convey that she is trying to rid herself of that image. In the beginning of the play when she and Nerissa are discussing the lottery, Portia complains of her situation -- when in fact she has no reason of such complaints. Initially, she conveys herself as a "spoiled brat" -- but after involving herself in the trial of Antonio and demonstrating her intelligence and bravery, I know believe she is more than a "poor little rich girl". She's more of a.."poor & smart rich girl" ;) .

2. >>Antonio took a huge RISK out of LOVE for his friend Bossanio. He borrows money from Shylock when his ships have not even returned. Since Antonio has always had money from his success as a merchant, he borrowed the 3,000 ducats knowing that he would be able to return the money in less than 3 months. The BOND can be seen as two things: the BOND of friendship between Bossanio and Antonio and the BOND that Antonio borrows from Shylock. The EXCHANGE of Antonio's flesh to Shylock shows how Antonio would die for his friend, Bossanio.

Ok, so there is a reason for there to be two overlapping stories in this play. This is the greatness of Shakespeare's genius! Through the story of Portia and Bassanio, Shakespeare shows a comedy which ends with a happy ending of their getting together. On the other hand, Shylock's story is a tragedy, with the depressed tragic hero and the antagonist (which is also arguable...different topic though) and a sad ending where they both lose everything. Through this melee of stories, the audience is both relieved and sad at the end of the play, a hard mix of emotions to bring out in an audience. And this feat is accomplished by Shakespeare!:D

I think this play is centered around religous prejudice. All of the main characters are in some way, "bound" to Shylock -- either directly or indirectly....making Shylock the object to which around the play revolves.

I agree with SonOfGreat that Shylock and Antonio are not opposites. Even taking their religion into account they're much more similar than they are different. Both are very biased against outside beliefs, both are confident in their finances and love money maybe a bit too much. Both are vengeful, and both, as SonOfGreat says, play the villian. Also, both have a tragic flaw. Does this mean that either can be the tragic hero? Antonio, of course, has hubris. Shylock has a bad case of vengefulness. Both are shot down in the end. Antonio nearly loses his life because of his extreme confidence, and Shylock loses his religion. Furthermore, either could be seen as the tragic hero depending on the audience's beliefs. Of course, in Shakespeare's time the audience probably would have been adamently Christian. But if you showed the same play to a group of Jewish people during the same era, they probably would have viewed Shylock as the hero.

I think classifying this play as a tragedy or comedy depends on what you see as the "main conflict" in the play. If Shylock is the real player, and you see his conflict with Antonio as the main one, you might see this piece as a tragedy due to his great losses. If people see the marriage between Bassanio and Portia as the main conflict in the play, then it is easy to see it as a comedy due to the fact that everything works out at the end (also with the scene with the Prince of Morocco).

I think that Shylock is the justified victim of a very prejudiced society. Maybe because I am a minority I have more sympathy towards Shylock. Lets lay out the facts, Shylock and Antonio made a bond, which both sides agreed. Bassanio cautioned Antonio to reject the bond, but Antonio being the risky character he is, very confidently shrugs away the warning. I think Shakespeare uses the very strong word "bond" to portray the very firm nature of the stand. Whatever his reason was for wanting the pound of flesh, Shylock was justifed by the law. Lets look at this from Shylocks side. What if Shylock was the one that owed Antonio the pound of flesh. In my opinion, the court would justify Antonio if he wanted to take the pound of flesh. The contrast of the two characters Antonio and Shylock do seem very similar, yet almost having the opposite beliefs, and religion.
:crash:

I think that Portia is both the poor little rich girl, as well as the cunning imposter to save her friends. Portia is under the will of her dad, and she really doesn't have the will to pick the person that she wants to marry. If the Prince of Morocco had picked the right chest then Portia would have been forced to marry someone she really doen't want to marry, and would have most likely been miserable. Portia also plays the role of a cunning imposter. The way she dresses up and pretends to be a man to see her future husband and then she rescues her friend, proves that Portia plays both roles in the novel.

one of the things i thought about as i was reading ThatIBGirl's comment was the ending. She says that the both get "shot down in the end." But i think that from the end of the novel we can get a bit of Shakespeare's racism. Although both play a villain, the Jew "loses" in the end, and the Christian wins.

I think Shakespeare shows every major character to have contrasting characteristics (villiany vs heroism), which not only makes them seem more realistic since no one is either entirely good or entirely evil, but also leaves the play open to interpretation. People who wanted to see a play with anti-Sematic elements could see Shylock as the villian and the Christians as the heroes. People who sympathized with Jews could see a play that portrayed Shylock as the victim of Christian oppression. Contrasting elements within a single character allows the audience to fit the play as a whole into their own set of beliefs.

It is a possibility that Shakespear could be a racist, but I have trouble seeing him as one. I think he merely has Shylock losing in the play because it makes for a better story and because it plays along with the feelings of the time period.

I agree with both Mr. Coltrane and Son of Great. As I mentioned in my last post about Merchant of Venice, I see two different stories within one play--one is a tragedy, while the other is a comedy.

Antonio and Shylock connected are connected by more than the issues of love, bonds, and money...they both have elements of evil within their characters, as Son of Great mentions. Their common vengefulness shows that they are not truly polar opposites. Antonio's success at the end of the play and Shylock's demise show that people who are very similar can end up in extremely different positions, simply because of their position in society and their connection. Antonio is the revered merchant of Venice, with influential connections (i.e. Portia), while Shylock is the merchant of Venice who is regarded as an outsider, and therefore, has few influential allies.

I'm not sure that I would be able to see this play at all as a comedy. The reason for this lies mostly in the ending. I think that the ability of the characters to laugh and reminisce about their good fortune while Shylock faces his most precious attributes of life being ripped away from him is anything but comical. It seems to me that Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, Jessica,etc. Are being extremely malicious in what they do to Shylock and their lack of remorse for causing him such pain. I also think that in the court house Portia could have made an even deal for the characters. She could have allowed the repayment of twice the sum and to let Antonio go because I honestly think that the characters would have come away from the situation with much more contentment and equality. However, she pushes the enevelope by letting Antonio pick Shylock's punishment and he furthers the issue by making Shylock convert.

Maybe it'sjust me but I cant find the hilarity in any of it?

This is play, all these concepts (risk, bond, exchange, and love) are important because, first of all, the play starts with risk and ends with risk. In the beginning, Antonio risks his money on his ships and the sea. After that, Antonio risks his flesh in exchange for Bassanio and his love in a bond with Shylock. At the end of the novel, Antonio makes Bassanio exchange his ring with the lawyer for his "fees," which risks Bassanio's promise with Portia. Portia saves Antonio during the trial for her love for Bassanio. Shylock loses everything he had for a bond that was not clear enough to punish Antonio for not being able to pay him back.

I agree with nphearts on this issue, every single aspect mentioned is an integral part of the play. The "redundant" or "fluffy" act five is necessary in a way because it concludes what happens when people take risk on finance and other fancies. The fact that the play ends in an uncertain tone makes it so that Shakespeare doesn't explicity say whether you should take risks or not, he merely exposes the issue

Everyone seems to be focusing on Shylock and other characters as the main focus of the play, but we need to consider that Shakespeare named the play The Merchant of Venice, referring to Antonio, and he did so for a reason.

My personal opinion is that the play starts with Antonio, and then several storylines branch out from him (Bassanio's, Portia's, Jessica's, Shylock's, etc.). These storylines then continue pretty much without Antonio's presence (except that little scene 3 we did our essay on). When the storylines all converge, it is when Antonio is in trouble at the trial. He also is present, though not a major player, in the resolution scene. He seems to me to be the Nick Carraway of the play (The Great Gatsby), where a lot of stuff happens around him, but he is not the most important or most interesting character in the events. Also, just like Nick, his character seems to determine the course of events and have an indirect influence on most of the play.

Oh, but this play was entirely a comedy, Shaush! The difference between tragedy and comedy is very, very thin, especially when you bring dark humour into the picture. While Shylock's ultimate fate of being rejected by all is tragic, it is, in a sense, cruelly comedic. It's an excellent juxtaposition of his state earlier in the play, when he was confident, angry, and powerful, comedic in the sense that it is, indeed, cruel. Sadly, cruelty is an important quality of humour -- where else would we get slapstick from, and the typical insulting style of stand-up that remains prevalent in these days?

When the audience of this play is considered, I think we have to see this play as a comedy. This play would have been performed in front of tired workers looking for some entertainment after work. The fact that the play is set in Venice and Belmont creates a huge feeling of detachment from the daily life in London. The people in the play are talking about more money than the average Londoner would make in a lifetime, so why would a Londoner worry if the rich merchant died? I don't think the average Englishman would care if something bad happened to Shylock or Antonio, so they would probably be more inclinded to laugh at their problems than sympathize with their problems.

i agree with selena in that this play is a very dark comedy. shylock's fate is undoubtedly tragic - but in a very ironic and slightly comical way. not in a 'haha stupid jew way' that shakespeare might have written is as but more so 'haha selfish old man' way.

I think this play is a comedy within a tragedy. The tragedy is the general backdrop of Venice at the time portrayed very clearly through Anti-Semitism and the nervous tension of a society obsessed with money. The tension and problems that arise between Antonio and Shylock are representative of the general conflicts occuring over money, class, and religion at the time. The issue of Jessica leaving her father and abandoning her religion in pursuit of love of a Christian is also a great tragedy. Amidst the tragedy playing out in Venice, a comedy folds out in Belmont as Portia attempts to secure the right suitor. Although comedic, her story also has a sense of doom in it as she deals with the possibility of being stuck with a bad suitor for life. The comedy and tragedy tie in when Antonio is forced to risk his flesh for the sake of Bassanio and Portia living happily ever after. In the end, the tragic state of Venice that the play began with is worsened for Shylock, but for the others all immediate tragedies are resolved when Portia wins the case for Antonio, making everything right for the weddings in Belmont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggjj

i agree with selena in that this play is a very dark comedy. shylock's fate is undoubtedly tragic - but in a very ironic and slightly comical way. not in a 'haha stupid jew way' that shakespeare might have written is as but more so 'haha selfish old man' way.

---

Very dark comedy...I think Trajedy fits in this category. In my opinion, Shylock is the protagonist of this play as well as the trajic hero. And in the end, he loses everything he has, his wealth, his daughter, his religion. I guess you could say its dark comedy since it is ironic.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidwarf223

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??

---

I think you are basing your interpretation way too much on the interpretation of whoever created the movie(s). Actually, I don't think you have ANY interpretation of your own. All of this aside, I think warf does have somewhat of a point. As zdiggy pointed out earlier, for the people that this was written for, this would have been considered expected and probably somewhat comedic. The flim interpretations bring about a much more modern, non-anti-semetic approach to the apply, which was not what Shakespeare intended for his play. This is definitely a Shakesperian comedy, although it may not necessairily be what we consider today a comedy.

I still cant seem to grasp the comedy
I mean if for whatever reason an audience did find this comedic, I'd see it as tradgic that they thought so because it says a lot about the society in which they live and can just laugh at such serious matters of love and religion and a loss of both.
Also, the fact that comic relief, as in the Duke of Aragon and his random Spanish-y dancing in the movie, hits on the idea that the play is serious and needs bouts og humor to make up for it.

Exactly, FengShui. Although...tragic heroes usually come out on top in the end, don't they? They die, or are at least spiritually broken, yet they win against evil in the end. Hardly the case in Merchant.