So as I was looking at the individual learning objectives for this week, I realized that one post fulfilling all the requirements would be quite a beastly post, and there's a good chance even my eyes would glaze over trying to read it. So here is the first of three, maybe four, posts on my individual play: The Merchant of Venice.

There's something similar in all these lines. Can you spot it?:

"I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips let no dog bark!"

"You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog, and spit on my Jewish gaberdine... Should I not say, "Hath a dog money? is it possible a cut can lend three thousand ducats?"... you spurned me such a day; another time you called me dog-and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys."

"The patch is kind enough, but a huge feeder, snail-slow in profit, and he sleeps by day more than the wildcat. Drones hive not with me."

"I have never heard a passion so confused, so strange, outrageous, and so variable as the dog Jew did utter in the streets"

"Thou called'st me dog before thou hadst cause, but since I am a dog beware my fangs."

"Oh, be though damned, inexecrable dog... Souls of animals infuse themselves into the trunks of men... for thy desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous."

"For do but note a wild and wanton herd or race of youthful and unhandled colts fetching mad bounds, bellowing and neighing loud."

Yes! You got it. Shakespeare uses a lot of animal imagery. And in this particular play, lots of dogs. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to the subject because I'm still on the fence with my newest idea for a major (Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation), but as I was reading through the text I couldn't help but notice the motif. I almost focused only on the dogs, because there are a lot of them, and, for the most part, they  all focus on Shylock. But I though it was important to recognize that he uses animals generally for comparisons, as well as to make a repeated point about one character.

Shylock is compared to a dog over and over again. Sometimes by others, sometimes by himself. With today's attitude of dogs as man's best friend, this might not be much worse of a comparison than to say that Shylock was inferior, but loved. However, in Shakespeare's time the idea of keeping dogs as pets was frowned upon. They were used for hunting and gaurding, and not much more. One special troupe of dogs used was trained to preform, do tricks, and jig as part of Elizabethan entertainment. Another form of entertainment, dog fighting, dates back thousands of years. But their value as companions was not appreciated. 

So as Shylock is repeatedly being called a dog, there is a sort of dehumanization going on. They are saying he is inhuman and less than them. He claims they call him dog without cause, and then warns them to beware his fangs. I think images of violence are easier for people to imagine when they are linked to animals rather than people. We like to think of people as rational, and animals as driven by instinct. With Shylock acting as the animal, his anger with Antonio seems much more real and dangerous. And Shylock seems more inhuman and less capable of mercy. The other characters dehumanize Shylock by comparing him with a dog, and he retaliates by showing anger and intolerance characteristic of an animal. Still not sure if he's the villain of not...

The actor who plays Shylock in the BBC adaptation (and apparently the radio voice).

So when I first started reading Merchant of Venice it was pretty black and white who was who. Shylock's the villain, and Antonio and Bassanio the good guys. Then as I got a little farther into it, my perception flipped. I actually felt bad for Shylock. His daughter ran away with a Christian and took all his money, Antonio humiliates him in public, and his servant runs away to work for Bassanio. Antonio starts to look like the guys who gets whatever he wants, and no one likes that. But then there was a court scene, and Shylock is demanding a pound of Antonio's flesh to repay a debt and refuses to have mercy, which kinda heads back towards the villain status, and Antonio is so sad, just wanting to see his best friend before he has to die. So then I thought, ah-ha!, Shylock is the bad guy, and this court scene proves it. But by the end of that same scene Bassanio's wife, disguised as a lawyer, has tricked Shylock out of demanding Antonio's death and Shylock pretty much loses everything. They take away all that he owns and give back half on the conditions that he turn from Jew to Christian and, when he dies, give everything to his daughter who has run away with a gentile. I feel so bad for him. I mean sure, he wanted to kill the protagonist, but "Nay, take my life and all" is the line of a pretty beaten down man.

So the moral of the story is I don't know who I'm supposed to be happy or sad for in this comedy of sorts. Sure, I know Shakespeare intended for his crowd to hate the Jew and be glad he got such a harsh punishment, but I just don't know that he deserved it. And the movie didn't help, he was such a cute little, old Jewish guy with his Jewish hat and thick Hebrew accent. And all the other guys seemed kind of pompous to me.. Perhaps the BBC production wanted to be more open about who's side to be on. Anyway.... If you're still reading this long rant, thank you. I guess the point is that I really loved this play, but loving something doesn't mean I completely understand it. So maybe next week my thoughts will be a little more coherent. Until then, Hakuna Mutata:)

Honestly, I am so excited to read this play. The plot summary was so confusing and twisted that I'm not even going to try and sum it up here, but this play had me laughing just reading the summary. What I got from it was a double wedding, debts payed in a pound of flesh, women dressed up as lawyers, and a Jew forced to convert to Christianity or give over half his property. I can't wait.

The only slightly disappointing thing about this comedy that I can see is it's romance. Like I talked about before, Shakespeare really only has two kinds of love. This one seems to fall right into the "love at first sight, meant to be together" category. Not once, but twice in this play do two people fall so easily in love it's like fiction. Oh wait....

I am, however, thrilled for the villain. His name is Shylock, and the Urban Dictionary definitions of his name are quite fantastic. Which is funny, because I didn't know Shakespeare was urban. But basically he is a ruthless, Jewish, money-lender. When the merchant Antonio takes out a loan for his friend, he promises Shylock a pound of his flesh if he does not pay the money back in full. When Antonio's ships are lost Shylock tries to cash in his debt. Can you think of any better villain than one who demands a pound of your flesh? I didn't think so.

As far as movie adaptations of the play, there have been at least 18 that I could find. (Well, that IMDb could find.) They all seem okay, but nothing really stuck out. There was a 2004 production that was looking pretty good, and it's the only one that's been really heavily advertised. I tried looking it up on the BYU library website to no avail, only to realize that it's rated R. Shucks... So I'll have to keep working on that. But I'm sure one of those other 17 movies are worth watching.

So what's my plan? Read the play straight through and be on the lookout for themes and motifs that interest me. Then watch a movie, noticing how the specific adaptation affects my views on the play. Hopefully this way I can completely focus on each media, rather than trying to read along to a movie and get distracted with edits and cuts.