IB Discussing Merchant

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.