OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[Ironsmith]

Antonio insulted and assaulted Shylock regularly over a long period of time, cost him large sums of money, and is sheltering a guy who ran off with Shylock's daughter. Shylock's hate is completely justified by the text in a way the intended audience would have understood and identified with; he is entirely intended to be a sympathetic villain, much like many of Shakespeare's villians, since Shakespeare spent a lot of his time inventing the modern Western sympathetic villian.

Now, stanning him implies a belief that his actions are justified, or at least that his victims are so reprehensible that even if his specific behavior isn't justified it's still karmic in a wider perspective (such as rooting for the Joker to kill a Nazi who's only crime against Joker in particular is stepping on his punchline, for example). So that's probably a sign of an off-kilter perspective, you're definitely right there. But saying Shylock's not supposed to be sympathetic just because you assume neither Shakespeare nor his general audience could possibly have been remotely willing to have a shred of empathy for a Jewish guy who converts to Christianity by the end of the play, despite a body of playwrighting that includes nuanced murderers, fairies and tyrants of much greater cruelty than Shylock, is a pretty odd disservice to ol' Billy Shakes.

That being said, I can still see some merit to Zim's case, as having Shylock convert at the end of the play seems a little cop-out-ish, especially for ol' Billy Shakes, implying that Merchant Of Venice might not have been his best-written play overall.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Antonio insulted and assaulted Shylock regularly over a long period of time, cost him large sums of money, and is sheltering a guy who ran off with Shylock's daughter. Shylock's hate is completely justified by the text in a way the intended audience would have understood and identified with; he is entirely intended to be a sympathetic villain, much like many of Shakespeare's villians, since Shakespeare spent a lot of his time inventing the modern Western sympathetic villian.

Wait.
If i remember correctly, we have only Shylock's about this. We never see Antonio actually do any of these things, and the Narrative have already framed Antonio as the classical good guy. And the losing money part was actually the consequence of antonio's low interest rates, compared to Shylock's ones.

To me, the narrative was setting up credible motivations, but not sympatethic motivations for his hate of Antonio. So that we, the audience may understand his hate of Antonio, but not sympathize with him.

[Sindeloke]

That being said, I can still see some merit to Zim's case, as having Shylock convert at the end of the play seems a little cop-out-ish, especially for ol' Billy Shakes, implying that Merchant Of Venice might not have been his best-written play overall.

Eh, still better than As You Like It. (What does Weirdo think of that one, I wonder.)

[Ironsmith]

Eh, still better than As You Like It. (What does Weirdo think of that one, I wonder.)

Probably a bit more than he does The Taming of the Shrew, but less than Much Ado About Nothing.

[Sindeloke]

Wait.
If i remember correctly, we have only Shylock's about this. We never see Antonio actually do any of these things, and the Narrative have already framed Antonio as the classical good guy. And the losing money part was actually the consequence of antonio's low interest rates, compared to Shylock's ones.

To me, the narrative was setting up credible motivations, but not sympatethic motivations for his hate of Antonio. So that we, the audience may understand his hate of Antonio, but not sympathize with him.

Hm. If you're right about that, that's a fair assessment - it's been a long time since I read it and I can't remember whether there's anything to back Shylock's claims up. I would still argue that Shakespeare tends to make it obvious when his character's speeches are lies or delusions and Shylock never seems to be cast in that light, but Zim may be right that in the context of the time his mere Jewishness was considered enough to convey that by itself.

Damn. Now I'm gonna have to go reread the thing. I hope you're all happy with yourselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmmm. If you're right about that, that's a fair assessment - it's been a long time since I read it and I can't remember whether there's anything to back Shylock's claims up. I would still argue that Shakespeare tends to make it obvious when his character's speeches are lies or delusions and Shylock never seems to be cast in that light, but Zim may be right that in the context of the time his mere Jewishness was considered enough to convey that by itself.

Hmm, that might depend on the PoV of a given member of the audience. The Bard might have been giving people a poke in that regard. Following that theme slightly, and depending on one's perspective, conversion at the end can come off as offensive ... and I'm not going to chase that any further.

It's certainly not one of my favorite plays from The Bard; Titus Andronicus (done as a farce) and Twelfth Night are both much better. I saw a production of the former about 30ish years ago done more or less in Monty Python-ish style as opposed to a straight tragedy. It was sold out every night and a huge hit. (Washington DC area). One of the reviewers in the Post suggested that a reason for its popularity when it came out might have been that it was often staged in such a manner (farce) rather than as the bloody handed pile of murder that the text alone suggests. We also saw Julius Caesar done in a setting that was not Rome, but rather a mid 20th century revolutionary setting, but that was at the annual Shakespeare by the Sea in Va Beach. It worked.

[Ruck]

I prefer "highly individualistic worldview", TYVM.

Killing an entire family for the actions of a few is hardly individualistic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Killing an entire family for the actions of a few is hardly individualistic.

Charles Manson might disagree. (Not that I'd guess you would care about his opinion)

[pendell]

Hmm, that might depend on the PoV of a given member of the audience. The Bard might have been giving people a poke in that regard. Following that theme slightly, and depending on one's perspective, conversion at the end can come off as offensive ... and I'm not going to chase that any further.

It's certainly not one of my favorite plays from The Bard; Titus Andronicus (done as a farce) and Twelfth Night are both much better. I saw a production of the former about 30ish years ago done more or less in Monty Python-ish style as opposed to a straight tragedy. It was sold out every night and a huge hit. (Washington DC area). One of the reviewers in the Post suggested that a reason for its popularity when it came out might have been that it was often staged in such a manner (farce) rather than as the bloody handed pile of murder that the text alone suggests. We also saw Julius Caesar done in a setting that was not Rome, but rather a mid 20th century revolutionary setting, but that was at the annual Shakespeare by the Sea in Va Beach. It worked.

So we're talking Shakespeare rather than Hilgya's alignment? Works for me.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out we're doing a Shakespeare-themed let's play in Message Board Games.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention Overly Sarcastic Productions, which riffs on Shakespeare plays among other things.

I sympathize with Shylock because of the context. The character was originally written as evil, a walking cartoon, but I lived through the 20th century. Many of the tropes Shakespeare landed on Shylock's brow were repeated by the same people who were pushing Jews into ovens in the last century. The obvious slander and cruelty of , say, Protocol of the Elders of Zion, the caricature of Jews, makes me look back at Shylock, one of the earliest Jewish caricatures, with sympathy. Not because I'm stupid -- the character, being fictional, doesn't have subtlety or depth or any in-text grounds for reinterpretation -- but simply because I detest the caricature so much I want to re-imagine Shylock, NOT as a caricature, but as a real person seen as a caricature through hostile eyes. And that means reinterpreting Shylock as sympathetic, despite the fact the author had no such intent.

Another place this comes through in Shakespeare's work is Richard III. So far as I can tell, the original Richard III wasn't nearly as cruel or evil as he appears in the play, but Shakespeare was making his play for a Tudor audience. This meant blackening their enemy with propaganda rather than presenting him as an objective character. So a modern understanding of the real Richard requires pushing past the propaganda to the actual historical evidence. I apply a similar "unmasking" process to the character of Shylock, to imagine a real person distorted by propaganda. Even though, being fictional, there never WAS a real person. Make sense?

Well, this seems like a great time to invoke Death of the Author, which is all the more helped because the author is actually dead. If we can't reinterpret stories through our modern lens, what value do they have?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The_Weirdo]

Killing an entire family for the actions of a few is hardly individualistic.

It's one family, isn't it?

Eh, still better than As You Like It. (What does Weirdo think of that one, I wonder.)

I will admit here that I don't know the basic plot of As You Like It, Much Ado About Nothing or of The Taming Of The Shrew, I'm afraid. If you wish to give me the rundown on both and on what about them might lead me to support this or that character, by all means.

I do think Romeo should have slaughtered his own family and Juliet should have poisoned hers, because the lives of their families became worth less than their choices the moment they placed restrictions on them regarding whom to love.

[Ruck]

Charles Manson might disagree. (Not that I'd guess you would care about his opinion)

An astute guess.

It's one family, isn't it?

The sun rises in the east, and The Weirdo deflects a point he can't answer with a joke.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The Weirdo deflects a point he can't answer with a joke.

That's generous of you. T_W deflects issues he can't answer with a sentence and a smiley, yes, but calling the preceding sentence "a joke" stretches the truth, I'd say.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

So a modern understanding of the real Richard requires pushing past the propaganda to the actual historical evidence. I apply a similar "unmasking" process to the character of Shylock, to imagine a real person distorted by propaganda. Even though, being fictional, there never WAS a real person. Make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. It also opens the door to re-imagine Hilgya as seen through Loki's lens. After all, she serves him. How does Loki feel about her actions and attitudes? I think that's important for two reasons:

1. In character, since she is portrayed as a PC, or at least a NPC of some importance - a high level cleric of Loki.

2. At a slightly meta level vis a vis Loki. We have Loki's involvement in the deal with the Dark One, his on screen time at the godsmooot, and a few of his earlier on screen appearances early on to include the strip where both he and Thor are grossed out by H and D making the beast with two backs. (yes, that's a nod to Othello / Iago ...).

I expect that we'll see more Loki on-screen time, and since I guess wrongly about Hilgya wandering off on her own (so far) perhaps more Hilgya on-screen time as well. I'll guess that she will participate in the cleansing of the Exarch/et al from Firmament due to her being a cleric of Loki: "Loki hates the undead, you know. His scriptures teach us that lo, they are such gross, icky things."

I do think Romeo should have slaughtered his own family and Juliet should have poisoned hers, because the lives of their families became worth less than their choices the moment they placed restrictions on them regarding whom to love.

Are you just trolling us at this point? The Bard derived R&J from an older Italian story. Shakespeare borrowed his plot from an original Italian tale. It is believed Romeo and Juliette were based on actual characters from Verona

And who, I ask, sheds a tear for dear Rosaline, the original object of Romeo's affections? What is she, chopped liver?

[The_Weirdo]

Are you just trolling us at this point?

They loved one another. They had a right to choose whom to love.

The Bard derived R&J from an older Italian story. Shakespeare borrowed his plot from an original Italian tale. It is believed Romeo and Juliette were based on actual characters from Verona

And who, I ask, sheds a tear for dear Rosaline, the original object of Romeo's affections? What is she, chopped liver?

1- Interesting.
2- She didn't want him and he didn't want her after looking at Juliet, so literally no one sheds a tear for her, not even herself..

[Resileaf]

Right. Family feuds are a justification for both families to die. Of course. How did I not think of this obvious solution.

[Ruck]

Right. Family feuds are a justification for both families to die. Of course. How did I not think of this obvious solution.

I'm not sure why you're surprised; The Weirdo has been arguing for months that "murdering anyone and everyone associated with someone who impinges on my freedom even in the slightest is a justifiable moral response."

That's generous of you.

It is one of my better qualities.

[KorvinStarmast]

They loved one another. They had a right to choose whom to love.

Might be useful to understand the whole story.

Romeo's friend, Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission" and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays Tybalt. Montague argues that Romeo has justly fought and killed Tybalt for the murder of Mercutio. The Prince exiles Romeo from Verona and declares that if Romeo returns, he will be executed.

Romeo is a killer, but we'll go with manslaughter as the crime since duelling was apparently OK in Verona in those days. Or maybe it wasn't. The Duke seems to have been very lenient with Romeo ... but hey, maybe Romeo has connections. And then he violates the conditions of his parole. (sneaks back into town to visit Juliet). Romeo's life is already forfeit based on the Duke's sentence regardless of what a mess the two families have made with their feud.

And to put this whole story into modern context requires a bit of work ... Juliet is either 13 or 15 as this all transpires.

They loved one another. They had a right to choose whom to love

One needs to rewrite the story slightly so that a modern audience won't gag.

[The_Weirdo]

Right. Family feuds are a justification for both families to die. Of course. How did I not think of this obvious solution.

Well, Romeo and Juliet have a right to pick whom they marry.

I'm not sure why you're surprised; The Weirdo has been arguing for months that "murdering anyone and everyone associated with someone who impinges on my freedom even in the slightest is a justifiable moral response."

You call that slight? The families pushed the two into suicide (via botching a plan, but still).

Might be useful to understand the whole story.
Romeo is a killer, but we'll go with manslaughter as the crime since duelling was apparently OK in Verona in those days. Or maybe it wasn't. The Duke seems to have been very lenient with Romeo ... but hey, maybe Romeo has connections. And then he violates the conditions of his parole. (sneaks back into town to visit Juliet). Romeo's life is already forfeit based on the Duke's sentence regardless of what a mess the two families have made with their feud.

I'm talking about before the whole issue with Thibault started. Also, his own blood family, not Thibault. And figure out someone to pin it on.

And to put this whole story into modern context requires a bit of work ... Juliet is either 13 or 15 as this all transpires. One needs to rewrite the story slightly so that a modern audience won't gag.

Well, it was the Middle Ages, to be sure, but, yes, of course. Though there are quite a few not-so-underdeveloped places where the age of consent is fourteen. Make of it what you will.

[Resileaf]

I'm not sure why you're surprised; The Weirdo has been arguing for months that "murdering anyone and everyone associated with someone who impinges on my freedom even in the slightest is a justifiable moral response."

Oh, I'm not surprised. Read my previous post in a 'dry, sarcastic' response kind of thing.

[Ruck]

You call that slight?

That's not what I said. Don't twist my words on purpose; you've made your morality clear many, many times by now.

[The_Weirdo]

That's not what I said. Don't twist my words on purpose; you've made your morality clear many, many times by now.

Sure. And, in this context, I'm pondering how to make it so R&J isn't a tragedy.

[hroþila]

Looking forward to The Weirdo's gritty remake of The Little Mermaid, where Ariel straight up murders her father, and Sebastian, and probably that dumb seagull for getting in the way somehow.

[The_Weirdo]

Looking forward to The Weirdo's gritty remake of The Little Mermaid, where Ariel straight up murders her father, and Sebastian, and probably that dumb seagull for getting in the way somehow.

In my remake she's actually a manatee, so it's both easier for her to do these things and not as gritty.

[KorvinStarmast]

Looking forward to The Weirdo's gritty remake of The Little Mermaid, where Ariel straight up murders her father, and Sebastian, and probably that dumb seagull for getting in the way somehow.

... but the handsome prince Erik will run into the arms of Rosaline who finally gets a happy ending after all of these centuries.

[The_Weirdo]

... but the handsome prince Erik will run into the arms of Rosaline who finally gets a happy ending after all of these centuries.

Why would Rosaline want anything to do with a man that wants to have relations with a manatee?

[Resileaf]

Why would Rosaline want anything to do with a man that wants to have relations with a manatee?

Um, who wouldn't want to have a relationship with a manatee?
Specieist.

[The_Weirdo]

Um, who wouldn't want to have a relationship with a manatee?
Specieist.

Well, let's see:

1- The prince wants a manatee.
2- Rosaline isn't a manatee.

Wait. Rosaline could be a manatee.

So could the prince!

Oh, that's genius!

[Larre Gannd]

Sure. And, in this context, I'm pondering how to make it so R&J isn't a tragedy.

There are easier ways to not consider Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. However, looking at them as protagonists, and through the intent of the author, it is a tragedy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why would Rosaline want anything to do with a man that wants to have relations with a manatee?

The point of Eric running off might be that he wants a lady from his own species rather than a manatee ... but it's your rewrite so go with whatever rolls the ball for you.

[The_Weirdo]

There are easier ways to not consider Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. However, looking at them as protagonists, and through the intent of the author, it is a tragedy.

Sure, it is a tragedy. And I don't want to consider it not a tragedy, I want to rewrite it so it's not a tragedy.

The point of Eric running off might be that he wants a lady from his own species rather than a manatee ... but it's your rewrite so go with whatever rolls the ball for you.

Or! Or he could harbor a secret fantasy for manatees and it ends up with a lukewarm relationship between him and Rosaline.

The Disney movie music video could be this: