The Merchant of Venice: Characters

There are quite a number of characters in The Merchant of Venice, each of them significant to the play in one way or another. After all, if Shakespeare started creating plays with useless characters in them, included only to drag out the play, then he would not be considered as a great playwright and his plays would not be studied. Thus, in the first section of this blog post, I shall be discussing on the significance of characters in The Merchant of Venice.

Certain characters may represent certain people in Great Britain at that time, or else, certain characters may be significant to the play in order to provide a stronger image of the main characters. For example, Launcelot Gobbo and Old Gobbo. They do not contribute to the progress of the play, however, they create a stronger image about the cruelty and stinginess of Shylock. Firstly, Old Gobbo's scene with Launcelot Gobbo is meant to establish that Launcelot is a good person at heart, and not some greedy and complaining person. At the same time, the conversation also shows how Shylock treats his servants, and the bad treatment of Launcelot by Shylock, as well as Shylock's unwillingness to give his servant anything but the bare minimal, contributes to Shylock's negative image, making the audience dislike Shylock more. Jessica's significance in the play is also similar to that of Launcelot - to show that Shylock must be really bad, for his own daughter to run away from him. The fact that he seems to care more about his stolen possessions than his daughter also contributes to his stingy, miserly and greedy image.

Salerio and Solanio are not just two Venetians, they actually represent the Venetian Christian community as a whole, which is why their characteristics and attributes, even their name, is extremely similar. They are just ordinary Christian Venetians, and their purpose is to show how the society and community at Venice support Antonio, showing Antonio's influence, while at the same time, their insults towards Shylock show how the entire Christian community at Venice are against Shylock, which can serve two purposes - one, to show how pitiful he is, which results in his hate building up, and two, to show how bad Shylock must be in order to for the Venetian society to cast him out.

Portia, also my favourite character, is meant to represent the Queen of England at that time. They are both women with power in a man's world, and due to her many desirable qualities, was in a way meant to praise Queen Elizabeth I, the Queen of England then. The reason why Portia is my favourite character is due to her intelligence and nobility. She was intelligent enough to find a flaw in Shylock's claim to Antonio's pound of flesh, and had even laid down traps beforehand in order to not only protect Antonio, but also reduce Shylock to a state where he would be powerless to try something similar again. The cunning of her makes people feel a sense of delight as they watch the antagonist get tricked and finally defeated. Also, she is rather noble, from the fact that she is willing to protect Antonio's life even though she did not know who he was, only that he was a good friend of Bassanio. It was dangerous for women to travel alone in those days, yet she did so in order to help a stranger. Although some people say that she is a hypocrite, preaching about mercy but in the end reducing Shylock to be absolutely powerless and have almost everything stripped from him, I disagree. For an attempted murder, Shylock actually got of quite lightly, still having the freedom to do whatever he wants, instead of, for example, life imprisonment. Furthermore, Portia had also prompted the Duke and Antonio to show Shylock some mercy, as they were the ones making the decision, therefore, it can be seen that Portia is not a hypocrite.

The character I dislike most (unfortunately, I cannot offer some other character with various arguments, as Shakespeare's portrayal of this character makes him rather disliked), is Shylock. Why Shylock? Well, obviously, Shylock is the has the most negative traits, due to the fact that his image must be so for the audience to know where to audience should invest their emotions in, including that he is stingy, domineering, unmerciful and cruel. His stinginess and domineering attitude is probably the lightest of these negative traits, and can be evident from how he treats both his jester, Launcelot, and his daughter, Jessica. His unmerciful and cruel side is extremely evident towards the end, where he seeks the life of Antonio, without wanting to show any mercy. Although this hate of Antonio and the other Christians was borne of the treatment that they had been showing him, however, it is still unjustified for him to try to seek Antonio's life. Shylock is also portrayed as a victim in the play, where he is abused by the Christians which lead him down the path of revenge. Another group of characters I rather dislike is the Venetians in general, comprising of not just Solanio and Salerio, but also Lorenzo, Gratiano and a side of Antonio. The reason is that they are extremely cruel in their treatment of Shylock, abusing him at every opportunity. Even at the end, they are unrepentant, as can be seen by the insults Antonio throws at Shylock even when he was about to die. This unjustified bullying of a person with a minority race may have appealed to an audience in the past, when their society accepted the racial prejudices as a social norm, but to a modern audience, it leaves one with distaste.

The Merchant of Venice: Plot

The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare is a piece of text that I am studying this term, therefore, I would like to share some of my opinions on it.

The Merchant of Venice is about how Antonio, the title character, in order to lend money to his good friend Bassanio who wants to woo the rich widow Portia in Belmont, loans money from a Jewish moneylender Shylock, the antagonist of this play. Although Antonio and Shylock have some animosity between them , due to Antonio's disapproval and thus abuse of Shylock, they manage to strike a deal - if Antonio does not return the sum of money in three months, he has to grant Shylock a pound of flesh closes to his heart, effectively killing him. Shylock, being the cruel and greedy antagonist, has his daughter run away from him with a Christian, the religion which he hates, along with a portion of his wealth. Bassanio manages to woo Portia, but they learn that Antonio, due to his investments failing and unable to pay back the loan, is soon about to die at the hands of Shylock, the law unable to interfere. Bassanio rushes back to Venice but is unable to persuade Shylock to leave Antonio alone, even with the offer of three times the original amount of money, Bassanio having become richer through his marriage with Portia. Portia, disguised as a lawyer rushes to Venice and manages to save Antonio through a flaw in the bond, and soon, everyone is reunited and celebrating at Belmont.

Now, I shall be discussing a few of my favourite scenes. One of my favourite collection of scenes is probably the three casket scenes. The casket scenes were rather suspenseful, even though through the nature of the play being a comedy I had guessed the outcome, as one wonders why each of the casket is not the correct casket and how they relate to the inscriptions. The delivering of the messages of the significance of the caskets to the audience is also very effective, while meaningful at the same time. Each of the starting of the casket scenes purposefully creates a tense atmosphere, with the audience wondering about the outcome and how it will relate to the inscriptions. The outcomes and revelation of why each casket is a success or failure according to the messages of Portia's father are also rather easy to remember and thus carries their messages across effectively, for example, I'm sure that many who have read or watched the play before would remember the line "all that glisters is not gold". Of course, the messages of the silver and lead casket may not be as easy to remember, but that does not matter, because "all that glisters is not gold" is the main message. It tells us why Morocco fails, that is because he is vain and looks at appearances, and why Arragon fails as well, because his arrogance leads him to believe that he is the best, but he is soon made to realise that the egoistic viewing of oneself is not at all a desirable quality. Bassanio succeeds because he realises that appearances can be deceiving and is not fooled by the appearance of the caskets made of precious metals. This scene is extremely suitable to display the theme of deception, of appearance and reality, as appearances are what causes both Morocco and Arragon to in reality, fail.

Another favourite scene of mine is the court scene where Portia is disguised as a lawyer and has to destroy Shylock's claim to Antonio's pound of flesh in order to protect Antonio's life. The scene in the court manages to generate a large amount of suspense, where they show how Bassanio tries to plead with Shylock for mercy, and Shylock's unwillingness to stand down, fuelled by anger and hatred at all the unfair treatment by the Christian community. This makes the audience wonder how Portia would be able to defeat Shylock, as pleading with him for mercy, and offering him money definitely does not seem to do any good. When at the start Portia agrees with Shylock's claims, the audience feels almost shocked at Portia's apparent giving up of protecting Antonio, however it is soon realised that she is testing Shylock and in order to bring about a great downfall to him. Though some people question whether Portia's reducing of Shylock to a pitiable state is justified, it is the only way to prevent Shylock from trying to attempt something similar again. This scene is also very good at showing the theme of justice and mercy, where Shylock attempts to use the law to dish out justice to Antonio, refusing to show mercy. However, it backfires and the law is used to dish out justice to Shylock, but, in contrast, some mercy is shown to him.

I feel that The Merchant of Venice is a rather interesting piece of text, however, I feel that the long chunks of speech which do not contribute at all to the development of the play, typical of a Shakespearean comedy, is a factor which may put off many readers. Furthermore, it is meant to be watched as a play, not studied as a text, therefore it may not be as interesting as a piece of literature as compared to other texts such as To Kill A Mockingbird.

Review: Rumours

I was excited to watch this play. The publicity wasn't that good, or at least, I don't think it is. The posters of the characters rather put me off, what with their bruised and battered faces. The other posters were average. What attracted me to it, however, was the description. It's synopsis was rather well written, and being a play by the Junior College section of the English Language Drama Debate and Film Society, I wanted to go and support them

Rumours is a farcical play written by Neil Simon, and is set in the deputy mayor of New York City's suburban residence. One by one, four pairs of couples arrive, and with each being the upper class of society, the first couple tries to hide the truth, - that the hostess is missing and that the deputy mayor has been shot through the earlobe - as they could not get any information from the unconscious host, from the second, but they soon find out about the truth, and they in turn try to hide it from the third and fourth couple, resulting in each couple's perceived truth contributing to an unbelievable deception. Soon however, all of them know of the truth, and agree that there is a need to hide the truth from the police until the whole truth is known. The police, however, after arriving from a report that a gunshot was heard in the vicinity, demand to see the host, and the husband of the second couple has no choice but to disguise himself as the mayor and tell an unbelievable story which all the facts fit... only to realise at the end that the story he had spun up could very well have been the truth.

I felt that the acting was rather good, the characters extremely believable. The fast-paced plot of the play, along with the various humorous situations which the characters find themselves in, expected of a farce, made the play rather exciting and interesting to watch, and one can't help being riveted to the stage, even during the more passive moments. However, I felt that the constables were too stiff and wooden, making their interactions rather dull and interesting, though the strength of the other actors manage to save them somewhat. Yet, such a difference in skill is glaring, and one can't help but feel that the acting of the constables could be greatly improved. The set was elaborate and the props maximalist, with the stage looking extremely like a house with the fourth wall removed - there were even stairs and doors - and filled with what one would expect to find in the home of an upper class member of society.

Being a farcical play, one cannot expect there to be really any expect any themes in it, after all, a farce is a comedy where characters are placed in unlikely and improbable situations, the characters themselves usually being two-dimensional and meant to represent certain stereotypes of people, in order to create as much humour as possible. A farce is watched not for its significance and messages, but is instead watched for entertainment value. However, farces, usually relying on misinterpretations and misunderstandings in order to generate humour, can teach us about the importance of communication and considering everything before making a justified decision. All in all, I enjoyed the play very much and would not mind watching it again, though there are some areas where it can be improved.

Review: Macbeth

I was not really enthusiastic about the performance. I mean, I wanted to see how a play in a park would turn out, and having read Macbeth for an assignment the previous year, I was quite familiar with the story and wanted to see how it turned out on stage. However, the thought that they would be speaking long Shakespearean verses for the entire two-hour duration of the play was rather unattractive. Unfortunately, I cannot say that the play turned out surprisingly pleasant to watch. It was not. If I had not read the play before, I would not even have understood what was happening in the story, and in fact, some portions left me confused. Also, being a Shakespearean play, it was rather long and dreary, the period between Macbeth’s assassinations of the King to the standoff with Macduff occupying nearly an hour. The plot was also rather simple when compared to other Shakespearean plays, with only one main antagonist, unlike say, King Lear, which has several antagonists and has a rather complex plot. However, I believe that the simplicity of Macbeth also contributes to its popularity, as the audience would be better able to understand the play.

Macbeth is a tragedy, about how the main character and antagonist, Macbeth, after being prophesized by three witches that he would be promoted from Thane of Glamis to the Thane of Cawdor and finally become King of Scotland. Soon after, he learns that he has been promoted to the Thane of Cawdor, thus feeding his greed and ambition, ultimately assassinating the King of Scotland and ascending to the throne. However, under his tyrannical rule of killing of anyone opposing him, the other thanes defect to join the Thane of Fife, Macduff, and the King’s son Malcolm in gathering an army to overthrow Macbeth’s regime. Macbeth, having received another prophecy from the three witches that he was safe as “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth”. Thinking that no one could be not born from woman, Macbeth had confidently fought against Macduff’s forces, only to realize that Macduff was born by Caesarian section and was thus, not of woman born, and in the end, was defeated by Macduff.

I thought that the acting was quite good, which is to be expected since it was performed by a professional theatre company, however, due to the nature of the placing of the audience and the stage, with the audience being close to the stage and able to view it from many different angles, the backs of the actors was occasionally facing my direction, as a result obscuring the actor’s actions. The set was rather interesting, as it was quite large and one wonders how it was transported. The set served quite a number of purposes, and the props the actors used were rather realistic, such as the guns, however, those were not enough to save the show. In fact, I found the guns too loud and winced whenever they were fired, contributing to my negative impression of the performance.

Macbeth’s most obvious theme is that of greed for power which results in corruption. It has shown that a person who has been exposed to a little power will be corrupted by it and keep seeking more, ultimately ruining the person. However, the play of course does not only hope to show people the evil that power and greed can do, if not, Shakespeare would not have had Macduff defeating Macbeth, though of course, that was necessary in order to have a resolution. The play also shows the difference between kingship and tyranny, as can be evident from the fact that the King of Scotland, King Duncan, was always referred to as “king” and had the loyalty of his many subjects, whereas Macbeth was referred to as “tyrant” and portrayed as a maniac who loses respect from all his subjects, only managing to keep them there through fear.

I think that these themes are still extremely relevant in today’s society. Even though the situation may not be that extreme, yet they are in essence the same. Take for example, Marxism in the U.S.S.R. Power corrupted, and absolute power corrupted absolutely, with Stanlin using the KGB to kill off opposition, and ruling the Soviet Union with tyranny. Even now, we hear of how people with power are misusing them, for example, the phone hacking scandals of News of The World, or the various scandals which many celebrities are caught up in. Therefore, although this play may have been written quite long ago, but it is evident that Shakespeare’s themes and messages can still be applied in today’s context.

Commencement of Comments

Commencing with commenting on comments (and other blog posts), here are my 10 comments, with my identity being "C.K.E.":

1) Newspapers, Leonard

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/newspapers.html

2) Essays, Language and Their Applications, Ivan

http://ivanlablog.blogspot.com/2011/05/essays-languages-and-their-applications.html

3) Education System Duel: Japan vs Singapore, Nathan

http://nathanang.blogspot.com/2011/04/education-system-duel-japan-vs.html

4) Thoughts on Hwa Chong on Stomp, Kenneth

http://lablogbypar.blogspot.com/2011/04/thoughts-on-hwa-chong-on-stomp.html

5) War Poetry, Nathanael

http://loonathanaellablog.blogspot.com/2011/05/war-poetry.html

6) How is life going to be like in the future?, Nicholas

http://nichtey.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-is-life-going-to-be-like-in-future.html

7) Debate Topic 1, Leonard

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/debate-topic-1.html

8) O.K, Kenneth

http://lablogbypar.blogspot.com/2011/04/ok.html

9) Nuclear power plants in Singapore, Nicholas

http://nichtey.blogspot.com/2011/05/nuclear-power-plants-in-singapore.html

10) Japan Earthquake, Wen Hong

http://language-artist.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-earthquake.html

Of Wars and Newspapers

At least two of my previous posts have linked concepts which have been taught in Term 1 and Term 2. Two links have been made between three concepts, all that is left is one more. I have made a link between war and prejudice, as well as of how newspapers display prejudice in their way of advertising. Now I am going to make an even more harder link, two concepts which seem so distant there could possibly be no link between them: war and newspapers. Of course, one can argue that newspapers report on wars and during wartime, people read newspapers to find out about the war. However, these are not links, these are merely examples of the uses of newspapers, which is to find out about current events. Initially, I was hoping to find out about newspapers which caused wars, but it appeared that humans were more intelligent than to start a war over trivial matters. Instead, I shall discuss something much more light-hearted: a newspaper war.

The birth of tabloids started in a rather intense journalism war between two parties: Joseph Pulitzer, the person who created the Pulitzer Prize, and William Randolph Hearst. The war begins in 1895, when newspapers throughout the world were all respectable, unless they were corrupted by the government. In 1895, William Randolph Hearst bought the Journal, which ironically, was founded by Joseph's brother Alfred in 1882 before he sold it for a profit. Meanwhile, Joseph Pulitzer owned the World, which along with the Journal, used to report respectable news. In a bid to increase circulation of the Journal, Hearst lowered its price to one cent, and increased its pages, meanwhile using his family's finances in order to support these moves. Copying Pulitzer, Hearst also made headlines bolder and more dramatic, and other than that, focused entirely on sensational news which may have no relation at all to whatever important was happening at that time. Then, in 1986, Hearst managed to persuade Richard Felton Outcault to draw a popular colour comic strip in the Journal, which only the World, happened to have at that time, and also persuaded the whole of Pulitzer's Sunday staff to work for the Journal.

Not a man to admit defeat so easily, Pulitzer hired George B. Luks to draw a colour comic strip about the same character and under the same name, "The Yellow Kid", which ultimately was what caused tabloid to be called yellow journalism. Since the public at that time were hungering for a scandal, no matter the consequences, the Journal delivered one by being not being objective in its journalism. Instead of reporting information from both sides of the party in the Cuba rebellion then, the Journal only reported information coming from Cuban rebels, claiming that Spanish sources could not be trusted. This resulted in increased circulation of the Journal, with people wanting to read more about the rebellion from a simplistic and one-sided point of view. In order to compete with Hearst, Pulitzer also lowered the standard of the World, resulting in such irresponsible journalism where both publications even ripped off stories from each other without any research. Hearst managed to catch Pulitzer at this by including a false article in the Journal. This all continued for quite some time, an era of irresponsible journalism and tainted articles, all in the name of trying to get publicity for their newspaper.

Thus, tabloids have been born, even though tabloids now do not go to such extreme means to create sensational news by providing tainted articles and questioning the words of important people such as the president. It would appear that tabloids are not really a source of reliable news, but rather a source for entertainment.

Technology - A Progressive Undoing of the Human Race

Technology has improved life all throughout the world. With technology such as email and cellular phones, one is able to contact anybody anywhere easily, thus making work more efficient and allowing people to be in touch with overseas friends or family members. With technology such as cameras and video cameras, one is able to record down an event, thus making life much more enjoyable and generally improving the quality of it. With technology such as the Internet and printers, information is easily shared with people all around the world. There are many more such examples, but unfortunately, I, being a pessimist, am not here to talk about the positive impacts of technology today. Instead, I shall talk about how technology has resulted in the quality of living being degraded as well as how it has impacted how long we live.

Firstly, the quality of life. As mentioned earlier, technology had allowed work to be more efficient. However, when we look at this from a different angle, does it not mean more work? After all, if one is able to complete work so quickly, what does one do for the rest of the day? Thus, one is forced to continue to work, and work. This work is of course usually not difficult, a routine done daily will usually become simple. However, this work would be rather tedious and if one does not work fast enough, it results in a great amount of stress on a person. Even if a person does not feel stressed about work, people around that person would. They would not be able to spend time with that person and with the lack of social interaction, the quality of life would also thus decrease.

Next, life expectancy. I shall not talk about life expectancy in its usual sense, because surely, with more healthcare services, and technology being advanced enough to cure most illnesses, sickness and diseases, I shall instead talk more about accidents. Technology has definitely increased the severity of accidents. The accidents I am talking about, of course, is health-related, and not for example, accidentally spilling a cup of water. Cars crashing together certainly does much more damage than two horses crashing into each other. In fact, horses are less like to crash into each other, unless it is done purposefully, than cars are. Technology has also resulted in a greater of life-taking accidents. Recently, there has been quite a lot of similar events where a person who is messaging, taking a call or listening to music gets crashed into by a car and thus, result in that person's death. Technology has definitely made humans more vulnerable to accidents.

Thus, in conclusion, while technology has improved the standard of living for most people, except possibly extremely poor people, the quality of life and vulnerability to accidents of humans have certainly degraded.