My Merchant of Venice Challenge Project

          For my Merchant of Venice Challenge Project, I partnered with Morgann, and we designed props and costumes for the Portia-Suitors scene. I sketched my designs for the costumes, and she made a sketch of her vision of the set and 3d designs of the chests. We also wrote an expository essay on why costumes, sets, and props are important in the Merchant of Venice, and specifically in this scene. I think that the creative/visual portion of our project turned out really well. We both worked really hard on it and I think they looked really good, and we had pretty solid reasons behind all of our artistic choices. I think our paper turned out all right too, but it could have been better. Also our process of writing the paper needs a lot of work. I think in the future, our paper will turn out much more smoothly connected if we improve the process of writing it by sitting down together and writing the outline step by step starting with the introduction and thesis. If this part of the writing process is more organized, our separate parts will connect more because we will both be clear what the other is writing, and how to connect our parts to it.

Why are there so many characters?

         In the Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, there are a lot of characters. There are a few small ones like Tubal and Old Gobbo, but there are also a lot of big characters, like Salario, Salanio, and a few other of Antonio's friends, that do not seem like they are that important to the story. My question is Why did Shakespeare write all these big parts in his play? I think that one of the main reasons is to make the main characters seem more real, for example, in real life, Antonio would probably have a lot of friends like he did in the play, and Portia would have maids like she did in the play. I think this reality could be achieved without all Antonio's friends being such big parts. If most of them showed up a couple times in the play, but were not huge parts, it would not change the play very much, and it would make it much more clear to the audience. Another reason Shakespeare might have written all these characters as big parts is because he wanted it to be a complicated and interesting story, but I think he has enough interesting plot lines going on in the play, that he could have achieved this complicated play with a few less seemingly unimportant characters.
          These characters may only seem unimportant to me, because I am sure Shakespeare had a reason to write them all, I think it would be helpful to me, and other audiences if he had written a little more about them to show their importance.

Is the Social Order Restored?

          In Shakespearean plays, there is social order at the beginning and the end. The social order in the beginning of the Merchant of Venice, included things like Christians had more power than Jews, Women had no power, etc. But in the end of the play, I don't think the social order was fully resolved. Part of it, Christians having more power than Jews, was still true in the end, but another important part of the social order, men being in charge and women having little or no power, did not get resolved in the text. I think that at the end of the Merchant in Venice, Portia and Nerissa, the women, still had the upper hand. In the end of the text, they were threatening their husbands because they had lost the rings, and they were talking about things they would do when their husbands weren't home, showing that the men did not really have control over them. To the audiences back in the 1600s though, this would not make sense. I think that although this aspect of the social order does not get resolved during the text, the way it was performed in the 1600s would probably imply it gets resolved after the text.

Shylock's Big Speech

          On page 49 of the Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, Shylock, the Jewish father of Jessica, gives a speech, making the point that just because he is a Jew, it does not make him any less a human than the Christians. Many people think that this is a strange speech for Shakespeare to write into his play, because up until then, Shylock was portrayed as an antagonist, and was picked on by the other characters because he was Jewish, and in the time period that this was written, that would seem completely normal. But, as I have heard so many times, Shakespeare does not write black and white characters. Shylock only seemed bad because other people spoke badly of him, but I think it is possible that Shakespeare wrote this speech, and everything else Shylock said to the other characters, and the other characters said to him to show that the other characters were not all good. It makes you wonder if the supposed protagonist and his friends are really all that good, and it makes you sympathize with the character that had seemed the antagonist up to this point. It also gives the play an unexpected twist, making it much more interesting. Especially since this is during the climax of his play, I think Shakespeare purposefully wanted to have some unexpected character development, that contrasts with what previously went on, and sheds light on hidden aspects of some of the characters.

My favorite Character So Far

         There are several very interesting characters that we are introduced to in Act 1 of The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare. Some of them include Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, Nerissa, Shylock, and several others. So far, the most interesting character to me, it Portia. One of the main things that interests me about her, is how outspoken she is. Even if it is just to her maid, the amount of scornful remarks she makes surprises me, because I would not have expected women to be that outspoken in Shakespeare's time. So far, she is also, in my opinion, the most clever and witty character so far, which makes her more interesting to me. I like how Shakespeare has written her, not just as the prize of her father's contest, but as a adept young women who has her own ideas about who to marry, and will do whatever she can to keep herself from having to marry any of the "vilely" suitors she talks about.

How Blind Were the Suitors?

          In the Odyssey, there was much foreshadowing about the suitors death, which of course they couldn't see, but there were several signs they could see, but did not seem to recognize. Were they really that blind, or did the Gods put some spell on them so they wouldn't notice all the signs pointing to their deaths?
          The first big thing that pointed to their deaths was the Hospitality rules they were breaking. I'm sure that they knew these rules, and knew that breaking them would lead to terrible things, so did they not care, or was some God clouding their judgement, and keeping them from noticing all the prophecies leading to their deaths?
          The second thing was the anger Telemachus had toward them, and their ignorance to the fact that he might be planning to kill them just like they were planning to kill him. It makes sense that they might not see him as much of a threat because he was just one young man, but he was in the line of Zeus, and his father was Odysseus who had done many amazing things, so it seems like they might have taken more precautions.
          The third, and most obvious thing that they did not notice was the trap that Telemachus and Odysseus were laying for them. It seems like they should have noticed that all their weapons had gone missing, and also after Odysseus won the contest, they should have noticed that he did not put his bow down, and he was not planning to let them get away with all they had done.
          These were the three big things I found in the Odyssey leading to the death of the suitors, that seemed like they should have noticed. I know that several of them were cunning, but they were young and immature which could have affected their judgement and awareness. I also think that there definitely must have been some God clouding their minds and keeping them from noticing the most obvious things.

Strong Foreshadowing About the Suitors' fate in The Odyssey

          In The Odyssey, the tale of the hero Odysseus and his many struggles, Odysseus is gone for 20 years, first for the Trojan war, and then lost at sea on his way home. Everyone thinks he is dead, and many suitors from all over have come to try to win the hand of his wife Penelope, who they believe to be a widow. The suitors come, and end up staying for many, many years, outstaying their welcome and breaking the rules of hospitality. This was a very high offense back then, and it was often punished by the gods with the loss of the person's life. Throughout the book, but especially in the later chapters, there are many things spoken that strongly foreshadow a bad end for the suitors. The first one is on page 260, when Telemachus says "That's the Odysseus I want the suitors to meet! They'd get married all right––to bitter death." I think that this is saying that if Odysseus ever gets home, and is still the man he was when he left, the suitors will meet a bitter end. The second bit of foreshadowing is on page 271 when Odysseus, disguised as a beggar says "If there are gods for beggars, or avenging spirits, may death come to Antinous before marriage does." I think that this is showing that the punishment for offenses such as the breaking of hospitality rules should be put in the hands of the gods to do with as they please, and mortals can only hope that the offender gets the end they deserve. The third example of predictions of a horrible death for the suitors is when Penelope says "That means death will surely come to the suitors, one and all. Not a single man will escape." In this example, Penelope has just read her son's sneeze as a sign from the gods that the suitors will meet their end, and none will escape.