Is the squeeze worth the juice?

 “Love is mean and love hurts” says a singer in a song. But if we know it before hand, then why do we embrace in that terrible venture? Only a fool would take that risk.

It seems that has been a typical topic along the years, we have seen it in almost every play written by Shakespeare.

In Romeo and Juliet, both lovers take a risk for falling in love with the heir’s enemy; we know their love story ended up in a tragic one.

In MSND, when lover rescue to get into the woods, they were tricked and their object of love was switch. It could have been a tragic closure, but still they were tested if they really were in love of the person that they had said.

In Twelfth Night, lovers are more involved; as a consequence, they are led them to commit outrageous actions. Nevertheless, the principal source that keeps them away from love and causes them pain, is not out there, but inside of them. They are their own enemies in the love game. Maybe in a level of their consciousness, they are aware that they might end up hurt, so they run “away”. As Cerati, would say: “al menos se que huyo porque amo”.

I’m pretty sure that all of us have been in a situation like this, at least one. Do you regret or your motto is “better to regret what you've done than what you haven't”? 

Perhaps we will be lucky if we could live without love and all the pain that involves, but then our lives will lack that spicy element, which makes us feel alive and other times dead.

We are different roles but still the same

Identity formation is not just thinking about oneself, but also about external factors that shape who we are. For that reason, media, fads, and peoples’ opinion (friends, family, classmates, etc.) influence what we do and the way we behave. As a result, we can be a different person in different groups of people, which leads to the main question of this entry: Who are we?

According to the Human Project, 2012

13.7 billion years ago, we were crammed into a single point.

10 billion years ago, we were stars exploding into existence.

3 billion years ago, we were bacteria, we were alive.

550 million years ago, we were flat worms without hearts and brains.

400 million years ago, we were fish, we had jaws

50 million years ago, we were gray apes; we had arms, legs, and bigger brains.

5 million years ago, we were humans, we had voice boxes.

100 thousand years ago, we could talk, but could not ask this question… (who are we?)

1,000 years ago, we were all God’s creation. Accept the guy next door was hideous.

200 years ago, we were British, French, American, Indian, Chinese.

100 years ago, we had proof we were one species descended from apes. Few of us were pleased.

60 years ago, we declared were all human entitled to the same human rights.

10 years ago, we started saying we are global citizens.

                                                Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26jKx74Wc5M

From this idea we get that changing is a rather natural thing, we have done it for a long time, and probably we will continue to do so whether at the global level, as human race, or at the individual level.

In the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q93iL-HSiNc, different questions are asked about identity, and from that, we start wondering what our true identity is. In this last video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0HEdbliaEM, we see how our identity changes in different contexts as well as how we are forced to so (by the hand). However, in all those situations we are still the same; we might be playing a different role, but we are still ourselves. So maybe, instead of having just one role in society, we have a lot of them, and we, simply, are all of those roles.

As we have studied in class and as Bakhtin (1968) poses “The feast (every feast) is an important primary form of human culture.” In this sense, carnivals provide people with a new opportunity to adapt a new identity and, actually, be free, not just from social conventions but also from inner restrictions or limitations. In that way, carnivals are the second life of people. But, that does not necessarily mean that we completely lose our identity. During the carnival or party we still are ourselves, or at least the part of ourselves that somehow we have neglected because of what is politically correct or for what is socially expected of ourselves.  In the play we recently read, Twelfth Night, or What You Will, we see how all the characters play different roles/masks, but we still are able to spot who they are, and in real life it may occur the same thing. Even if people were masks or play different roles, by paying close attention to how they are and to the way they behave we will somehow know what is the role they are playing, whether the fool, phony character, or “honest” one.

The scapegoat called Shylock for people who want be happy

 The most evident division of The Merchant of Venice arouses when the characters of Antonio and Shylock are brought into light, but that is just an example of what happens generally in the play. It is left out of consideration, though, that the mayority of the character's happiness depend on Shylock as their goodness is created in contrast to the character of the Jew.

The Merchant of Venice, 2004 move adaptation.

 The Merchant of Venice was first wrote as a comedy, which results obvious when considering that it shows a happy ending where all the characters are contempt: Antonio still lives, Portia makes sure Bassanio is in a debt of love to her, Bassanio holds no grim on his back, Lorenzo and Jessica love each other...but what about Shylock? He is the sole chap of the play who is, in a allegorical way, erased of the plot, and since he was the object of despise of the other characters, his nonexistence results in the joy of them. The happiness of the characters depends on Shylock, more specifically, his disappearance and defeat.

By despising the Jew along with his mates Bassanio, Lorenzo and the Anti-Semitic Gratiano, Antonio builds this identity of good fellow even though they are not morally better than Shylock. Antonio, as Harold Bloom (1892) portrays him, has another hidden side which basically "manifests his piety by cursing and spitting at Shylock;" Bassanio borrows money and favor from almost everyone; Lorenzo is basically a lusty bandit; and Gratiano can be perfectly considered a xenophobic flatterer. They need a foil to whom contrast their own behavior and they get that in the person of Shylock.

 

Such ideas lead to questions about ourselves: Are we that good we think we are? Have we used someone to gossip about as an excuse for establishing relations? Have we been happy when a hated one is in pain or sorrow?

References
 Bloom, H.; Wright, W.A.; Shakespeare, W. (2005) Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. NY: Riverhead Books.

Romeo & Juliet: How Romeo's Recklessness Led to Their Demise

Romeo & Juliet: How Romeo's Recklessness Led to Their Demise

It was an unavoidable conclusion. Throughout the entirety of the play, Romeo exhibited such rash and impulsive behavior that the only way he could have gotten a happy ending was to fundamentally change who he was. This, of course, is an impossibility, as is the power and extent of Romeo and Juliet's "love" had Romeo been a more mature and patient individual. This truly is one of those "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" situations. If Romeo had just waited a little bit before killing himself, or if he had thought about the consequences and repercussions of his actions BEFORE actually acting on his impulses, then surely both of them would have lived. However, had they lived, their love would not be one of legends, and their story would not be firmly cemented as the quintessential love story of all time. Nevertheless, the very "legendary" status of Romeo & Juliet's story worries me. Why, after all, is their love thought of with such esteem? Their love isn't any different to the thousands of stories we hear (or even experience ourselves) about two people falling MADLY in love, only to end up dead, beat up, in prison or alone. This crazy, passionate love is actually a result of chemicals going crazy inside our heads, giving us the feeling of "loving" the other person, when in fact we're simply high out of our minds and thus any decision that we make is neither logical nor rational, but in fact, can be quite dangerous and destructive. I believe it wise to make a distinction between "love" and "feeling-in-love". Love, after all, is not a feeling, but a decision. If love were a feeling, then it wouldn't last more than 2 years, because feelings change constantly and if we experience a feeling long enough, eventually it will cease to satisfy us. No, love cannot be a feeling. It MUST be a logical and rational DECISION to be with another person, both in the good and the bad, or so the marriage vows go. What Romeo experienced was a surge of serotonin (a "feel good" chemical released in our brains with the purpose of procreation) and every action he took part in was a result of, quite simply, being on drugs. We shouldn't hail their love as the most magical of all love stories; instead, we should see it as a warning, a warning of what happens when we lose all objectivity and chose to listen to our emotions against the better judgement of our minds. What would have happened, I wonder, had Romeo and Juliet survived their ordeal? Would they have lasted more than a year? Two? Or would they have been in love forever, as fairy tale princes and princesses often are? They are FAIRY TALES. People get married expecting to be in love forever, and when things get rough they simply get a divorce. How romantic. Why do we value the superficial relationships of fictional characters more than those of real individuals sticking together in spite of the hardships and problems that come with life and real human relationships? These fairy tale stories are lies, and the problem is that we still believe them. We believe Romeo to be a true romantic, when in fact he was quite a selfish and murderous child. How many people did he kill? 2? 3? Oh, but he did it for love. Right...

In my opinion, Romeo's rash and destructive personality led to his and Juliet's death, and all because of believing that what he felt was true and immaculate. The "love" that he felt is called infatuation, and the deaths that he caused are called murder. Romeo and Juliet's story is not a healthy view of romantic relationships, and should be considered quite accurate in depicting the end result of a tumultuous and obsessive romance.

Nicolas Reyes W.  

Antonio: Is he a good Christian representation?

We have discussed that The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play.We have also discussed that Shakespeare does not really portray his opinion or position in his plays. Instead, he makes us think about the relationship between the old order and the new order.

In this regard, Shakespeare presents 2 counterparts to be described and represented as the Christian and the Jew; Antonio and Shylock. Antonio is supposed to be the faithful representation of the Christian values such as compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and willingness to give up his life for the well being of the other, following Jesus' example. And Antonio seems to portray those values, especially when dealing with Bassanios' wishes. He is a good person, willing to put his life in danger for Bassanio. 

However, he abuses Shylock, the Jew, verbally and psychologically, hating him and his usury.  And this is the important and paradoxical point. Some passages of the play make me think that the way Antonio reacts and thinks doesn't make him look so Christian as supposed. For instance, in Act 1-scene 3, when Bassanio looks for Shylock to lend him money on behalf of Antonio, it is clear that Antonio is not willing to apologize for all the times he called Shylock a dog and spitted on his face:

(You can watch the video - from 5:09 - 6:27)

"I am as like to call thee so again
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee, too"

These lines make me wonder where the Christian compassion and forgiveness are portrayed. Not to mention the resolution of the trial when Antonio's "mercy" was to make Shylock a Christian--convert him into Shylock's most hated nightmare. Antonio is expected to react with compassion, as he needed Shylock, but instead, he couldn't demonstrate a bit of the Christian values and character. Furthermore, I think this could be interpreted as his own revenge, being easily confused with justice.

So I wonder, what is Shakespeare exactly trying to tell us about being Christian? Does the true Christian really exist? Can a person be a Christian while keeping hatred for someone that is not?

Shakespeare and the Syrian civil war

I think or I hope that for all of us it is familiar what is going on in Syria. The horrible stories from the news have informed us about the terrible situation that the civil war has brought to millions of people. It all began in 2011, when nonviolent protest inspired by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia rose up to challenge decades of dictatorship, corruption and violence. However, the government responded in the most violent way, killing activists and their families, kidnapping and torturing. The troops of the "government" opened fire on protest and finally civilians started shooting back.  The Syrian army positioned across the country and civilians organized rebel groups.  That is how the civil war started.  Political science, James Fearon of Stanford University, has said that Syria’s civil war will last at least another decade.  Foreign powers have supported different sides and the United Nations has persuaded to negotiate without success.

Now, in relation to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice something quite curious occurred on August, when the Syrian Parliament appears to have quoted part of Shylock’s famous speech to the UK MPs (The UK public elects Members of Parliament) in a try to convince them to not take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.cityam.com/blog/1377770719/syrian-parliament-invokes-strange-shakespearean-allegory-letter-uk-mps

In the second paragraph of a five-page letter, Mohammad Jihad al-Laham, speaker of the people's assembly of Syria, writes:

"We write to you as fathers and mothers, as members of families and communities really not so different to yours. We write to you as fellow human beings for, if you bomb us, shall we not bleed?"

Probably the idea of the Syrian parliament was to show Syria to the UK MPs as “the Jew” Even though Syria has been an example of religious tolerance. Prior to the 2011, more than 87 percent of Syrians ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they always treat people of other religious ideas with respect. 

 I think that the idea of the letter was to convince British members of parliament with one of the most recognized English writers of all times, perhaps with those words they will understand the pain and suffering that Syrian people  have lived  as Shylock lived as a discriminated Jew in 16th century.  However something is in my mind that I cannot understand. We know that Shylock was looking for revenge, he was the bad guy of the play, but in the end he was seemed as a victim, at least for me. Did the Syrian parliament try to show themselves as victims of a cruel war, or as victims looking for revenge? What do you think?

Is Shylock a justified villain?

When I read Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, I really loved Shylock's character and, in a certain way, I justified his actions of cruelty. I believe that maybe the same has happened to other people too, and that this is why it has been so difficult for critics to define him.

Even though I know it is hard to pity him, I think Shylock's hatred was a result of years of harassment, constructed by people around him. People like Antonio who discriminated him for being a Jew and not a Christian. The city thought of him as an outsider and even his daughter left him alone without a strong justification, as she said that her father did not mistreat her and asked for forgiveness through a letter, as it is shown at the end of the play.