/lit/ - Literature

He wrote of them fondly enough in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
>most 'eke and lovely Jew
As for what's more cringe, anti-Semites come to mind. I find it anti-Semites, racists, trannies, overly-political persons, underly-political persons, modern feminism, and a lot of other things more cringe than Jews wanting Shakespeare to have loved Jews.

>>23397050
Another centrist cuck to run over with my steamroller.

>>23397050
>Hate anti-Semites
So you support everything Jews do, and you hate the people who oppose them? Interesting

>>23397050
Shakespeare often just uses 'Jew' as a general insult in his plays. The context of the word's use in A Midsummer Night's Dream, especially coming from those comic relief characters, seems to be in reference to the middle eastern origin of Pyramus and Thisbe. It's just how Shakespeare conceived the myth, it doesn't relate to his own very evident antisemitism.

>>23397072
Of course, I don't support everything done by "Jews," but neither do I think of them as one singular mass the way you do. My entire worldview is more nuanced than yours in every respect. For instance, you've already created another false dichotomy just since you've read my post.

>Anon loves Jews
>Anon hates people who oppose Jews

I said neither of those things, actually; but even had I said the first, it would not necessitate the second. Your thinking is very sloppy.

>>23397076
Or, you're doing the same revisionism you're accusing others of and manipulating the narrative to suit your own allegiances. I don't particularly care what a dead man of 400 years ago loved or hated, but even so.

>>23397086
Ok Rabbi we get it, Jews are totally good and we should ignore everything that says otherwise.

>>23397086
>Or, you're doing the same revisionism you're accusing others of and manipulating the narrative to suit your own allegiances.
Then explain how. I'm simply pointing out that your attempt to show Shakespeare actually liked Jews is a misrepresentation. You're going out of your way to prove Shakespeare was super progressive for his time, and now you're stating you don't actually care about his political opinions, that his political opinions are irrelevant, and accusing me of doing what you had done. It's a ridiculous projection. All I did was point out the reality in his text. And yes, Shakespeare's political opinions do matter, because they're not arbitrary to his artistic vision. How on earth could you discuss the significance of The Merchant of Venice without talking about the historical relation between Jews and Christians?

I find it difficult to believe that he had particularly strong opinions either way, though especially positive ones, when he never left England and jews were completely forbidden to settle in England from 1290 to 1655. At most he just detested them as the people who murdered and deliberately rejected Christ, like most christians did before WW2.

>>23397124
Completely forbidden from settling, should have said.

>>23397092
The "pretend everyone who doesn't hate Jews is a Jew" tactic is as tired as an old whore. Just stop.

>>23397093
>explain
No. Figure it out. If you can analyze Shakespeare and all your opposition, then you can analyze yourself. I don't have infinite time to post on this site.

>>23397198
Yet you keep bumping this thread. Interesting...

>>23397049
w.s. inherited all his plots, what matters in his plays is what the man says. the original intention in creating the character was deflected and instead of a comic moneylender, he produced a figure of tragic significance.

>>23397198
Bait became too obvious.

>>23397260
>w.s. inherited all his plots, what matters in his plays is what the man says
That's not true. Many of his plots are mostly his own creation, including The Merchant of Venice, and even when they're not he changes a lot and defines everything to such a degree by his own creativity that the characters become wholly unique creations. I've never heard of Shylock being originally a comic figure, what source are you talking about? At any rate it's very clear that Shakespeare supported Antisemitism, or at least wrote a play that supported Antisemitism because that was the current view at the time. You can't divorce Shakespeare's plots from his own creativity and intentions.

>>23397050
Based, fuck keyboard nazis

>>23397061
You showed him!

>>23397050
Okay Shylock, your Talmudry is showing

>>23397276
MANY of them? may want to reconsider this estimate.
the merchant of venice was based on earlier works (viz. il pecorone). shakespeare built on shylock as a comic villain (the play is a comedy). what is really very clear (by-your-leave) is shakespeare sinned greatly against current morality, but he loved greatly, and I think on the matter of bigotry, no one has ever spoken out better than he has four hundred years ago.

>>23397260
Shylock is not a figure of tragic significance. There is nothing tragic about him because there is nothing noble about him. He’s just a grotesque money lending Jew who hates Antonio because Antonio has lent money freely to save people from forfeiting loans to Shylock in the past. He’s a grubby villain and the scene where he is ruined by his own greed and forced to convert is a comic and triumphant one without a hint of tragedy.

>>23397316
his impassioned plea for understanding still evokes sympathy in all men whose hearts are not composed of flint

>>23397302
Tired as an old whore, you are.

>>23397333
He pleas for sympathy in a calculated fashion to support his demand for a pound of a man’s flesh, arguing that Christians would likewise seek similar revenge even though the mercy shown by Antonio later in the play refutes him. This speech is only pulled out of context as evidence for Shakespeare’s philosemitism by people too stupid to read and understand the full play.

>>23397304
Willy shakes doesn't hate jews, just their usury. Not everybody's a chud

>>23397304
>MANY of them?
To the degree in which he reinvents the plots that they become his own, yes. The Merchant of Venice is also a comedy, something people forget, and which explains why Shylock's story is not treated as the centre of the play, and simply fades away at the end. There are touches of sadness and seriousness in Shakespeare's comedies, which is obviously not foreign to comedy in general, but that doesn't mean Shylock becomes a tragic character. Just because he is three dimensional and possessing some sympathetic attributes does not make his loss tragic. His criticism of bigotry is ultimately shown to be hypocritical and a poor excuse for his own behaviour.

>>23397340
What reason would a seventeenth century christian man have to not despise them?

>>23397350
You don't understand Christianity

>>23397338
in every one of shakespeare's plays - and if i'm not right about this i'm wrong about all of them - if he wants a character to say anything it's said quite clearly, stated to the audience. if you choose to disbelieve what shylock says, fine, but he does say 'hath a jew not eyes...'
as far as i'm concerned, in shaxpy, you must believe what the gentleman says.

>>23397375
Are you retarded?

>>23397345
shakespeare's plays aren't novels. a play requires a plot, but it's not a narrative; it is a drama (obviously). re your final word, isn't that a monumentally tragic end

>>23397377
where'd I lose you

Shakespeare was literally a moneylender which is what Shylock’s most evil quality is said to be throughout the play

>>23397378
>re your final word, isn't that a monumentally tragic end
The villains in comedies are usually shown up in such a way that their faults lead to their punishment. They don't die, they're not condemned to evil, the punishment is not extreme. Even if it's nigh impossible for redemption given the nature of the villain, there is still the possibility of redemption because they are alive and have been shown their wrongs, and that possibility stops it from being a tragedy.

>>23397375
You took Peter O'Toole's Shakespeare opinions too seriously. Do you think characters are incapable of lying in Shakespeare? It's such a retardedly simple way of looking at the plays that you might as well not even be able to understand any character at all. Because from the simple example of lying, you jump right to all the other countless subtleties, illustrations and implications of the characters that would be impossible were every line stated as literal truth towards the audience. It is an utterly stupid conception of Shakespeare that only people who have difficulty understand him latch onto.

>>23397541
yes, tragedies end in death and comedies end in marriage. i'm talking about something other than semantics of elizabethan theatre.

>>23397050
why do people living in the greatest societal collapse in centuries if not history itself, act like "politics" are boring and dumb? is it politics if it's discussing solutions to massive problems currently facing the majority of people?
it just seems weird, did anyone in the past go "you're so cringe" when people protested for more food?

>>23397549
isn't what I meant. the most sensible and telling speech is made by shylock, whom antonio thereupon strips of his wealth, religion, selfhood. shakespeare presents him as greedy, ruthless, hard-hearted, and a general nuisance; but the speech and the christians' brutal actions stay on record.

>>23397556
This has nothing to do with semantics, the separation between tragedy and comedy is far greater than just between ending with death or marriage, you missed the larger point. One could easily reframe it as that between the legendary and the prosaic, to make one point.

>>23397628
>the separation between tragedy and comedy is far greater than just between ending with death or marriage
it's a quote from lord byron (know him?)

>>23397633
...And your point is? You are so unbelievably stupid, are you cowering from answering? Do you think my statement is a refutation of Lord Byron's? You're stupid enough for thinking Byron's statement had any relevancy here at all, so step over it and respond to what was said. Or just admit you couldn't understand the treatment of Shylock.

>>23397615
>the most sensible and telling speech is made by shylock
Rather than by Portia? I think this is an extreme misinterpretation of the text. You're being led astray be a superficial humanism, which simply agrees with what is said out of context so to be a general moralism. But the very generality and broadness of such a moralism should show its insignificance. The Jew is protesting his plight, it's beautiful, but it's also one sided and does not encapsulate the drama surrounding him.

I think you may be very confused when you say Shakespeare says what he means through his characters.

>>23397658
if I'm lead astray then I'm in good company

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH2a45plqQc

>>23397656
rattled

>>23397678
Yes, Peter O'Toole was in the interview with Welles when he made that statement. They stand just about the same in their shallow appreciation of Shakes.

>>23397700
I'd like to see an otherwise reasonable person defend this in their own words

>>23397711
Oooh the otherwise reasonable person defend the unreasonable post angle, that's so original! How bout you stop repeating this gay line of incompetence to unrelated things so much.

>>23397721
that was rhetorical

>>23397049
Jewish analysis is as boring as gender shit. Holy fuck why does anyone care if a work or person is a jew lover or not.

>>23397658
You're making the mistake of thinking the person you are talking to has actually read the entire play, instead of that one snippet from the one Shylock speech he was taught to memorise in Hebrew school.

>>23397746
me: i'm alleyn's

>>23397050
What's wrong with not caring about politics? There's nothing cringe about letting retards kill each other over power and control while you do your own thing.
>b-but it affects y...
It ends the moment you bomb their buildings, fuck with their systems and kill their leaders if they make it their mission to fuck with you personally. That's not really a political statement either, it's just a natural answer to being pushed to the edge.

>>23397086
>muh nuance
How many baby dicks do they have to suck, how many subversions should they do, how many countries should they be kicked out of before you might, maybe, just maybe, start to consider there's a pattern? The whole
>jews aren't a singular mass, chud
Is such a dishonest argument. Nobody ever claims that. But if dogs shit on your front lawn day in and day out, you don't go, "I shouldn't blame all dogs!" and let your front lawn become a public toilet. You notice it's just something they do and do something about it. At the very least avknowledge it, you don't even do that

>>23397733
it matters a great deal to the tourists on this board