"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted.
Mark the music.

“How far that little candle throws his beams— / So shines a good deed in a naughty world” (V.i.89–90)

Sparknotes, I thank you for being my reading guide. Was fun checking out Shakespeare again!

I didn’t realize how much anti-semitism was at the crux of the plot.. In a perhaps unintended way, Shylock’s character was the most interesting and so a contemporary read provoked a lot of political and religious reflection. Sparknotes writes it well: “Modern audiences cannot help but view Shylock as a victim. He has become a tragic figure in a comedy that has no place for a character so complex.” There was a lot to unpack. Portia was also cool, save for her racism… oh Elizabethan era.

Also: gotta love that homosocial jig with the homoerotic - Bassantonio 4EVER

1) Shylock is a magnification of the Malvolio problem. His bitter demise jangles against the foolish ring games Portia and Nerissa play in a way that makes Act V feel unnecessary. I can see the thematic continuance of promises and broken oaths and blahdiblah, but the energy of the play is gone after Act IV.

2) Seriously? Antonio is the Merchant of Venice? This play is named after f'n Antonio!?

3) The thing that bothers me most is the disconnect between the eloquence of Portia's pleas for mercy from Shylock and the brutality of her turn against him when he denies Antonio mercy and sticks to his vengeful, absurd demands for the pound of flesh closest to his Antonio's heart. I have a buddy who argues that this business, this Christianity offering mercy to infidels who deny it and gets the sword, is a common pattern, but Shakespeare adds nuance to common patterns all the time. Here, Shylock turns the mirror back on the Christians--who have no real answer when he asks what should be done with their slaves--but little else distinguishes it. Shylock is cast out, converted, impoverished, and everyone returns to Belmont for a little frivolity. Bassanio, who has proven over and over that his word cannot be trusted, is blithely forgiven by Portia for giving away the ring he promised to keep, and all is well that ends well (here at least, that means ending on a bawdy joke). The marrieds walk off arm-in-arm, and Antonio (The Merchant of Venice, remember?) sits alone, pitifully enriched, and probably dreaming of what could have been with Bassanio.

I can see some of the themes surrounding broken oaths and promises woven into Act V, but it just doesn't work for me. I know these are just bitter and wandering words, but I need more from my Shakes: more unity, more meaningful closure, and more concern for Shylock who (in many ways) determines his own fate with his stubborn insistence on revenge over monetary compensation but still just gets raked over the coals because..well you know...because he's Jewish.

We're on to Measure for Measure now, and Isabella is making a similarly eloquent plea for mercy from Angelo who, like Shylock, refuses her (initially at least) with a legal literalism close to Shylock's. Can't remember where M4M goes from here, but I'll be interested to contrast.

I actually really liked this ! I'm going to read more plays from now on

[assigned reading]