Shylock Discussion

Moe_Zambeek

fretmeister said:

Lawyers get called shysters all the time. Background doesn't come into it.

Yes...but Shyster is not the same as Shylock.

octatonic

EricTheWeary said:

Quick Google suggests that Shakespeare is considered to be anti semitic by some and productions of the Merchant of Venice sometimes receive protests due to the portrayal of Shylock (who converts from Judaism by the end IIRC).

Spoilers, dude!

Handsome_Chris

What about Sherlocks?

Paul_C

from wiki:

Shyster:

"The etymology of the word is not generally agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "of obscure origin", possibly deriving from a historical sense of "shy" meaning disreputable,^[1] wheras the Merriam-Webster Dictionary deemed it probably based on the German Scheißer (literally "defecator"^[2] but also used to refer to deceivers^{[dubious – discuss]}). Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, possibly associated with the character of Shylock from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, but there is no clear evidence for this."

My personal view is that it's easy to say that there's no offence intended by the use of a word or phrase, but unless you are on the wrong end of such things there's no way to understand the emotional response when you see such things written.

The general view of the forum seems to be that by and large there's no need to consider a minority view when the majority see nothing wrong with what's been said, and if that's the case then nothing can be done. However it wouldn't hurt once in a while to reflect on the possibility that a "sorry dude" and a little more thought for others might make the place a slighter better experience for everyone, rather than a leap to defend every remark that causes upset.

UnclePsychosis

When I studied The Mechant of Venice at school in the mid-nineties there was loads of discussion as to whether or not the character of Shylock was  anti-Semitic. I'm amazed that people seem to think this is a new thing or that they haven't heard it before.

mgaw

i doubt very much the comment was intended to be anything other than innocent......one problem for me about all this is cant the "offendee" show some common sense here, it is obviously not being used in an anti semitic manner at all...therefore why take offence.

With the onus always being on the rest of us to "watch what we say", it becomes very tiresome indeed....obviously we all learn as we go that certain things offend certain groups...and indeed we have come along way...but on here as an off the cuff remark?

Really?

As a Scot i could for example get royally pissed off at many things, "Jock" "Jocko" "Och Aye the Noo" and numerous other racial slurs, but being the level headed, underdstanding chap i am, these are relatively harmless, even from the English, who lest we forget slaughtered raped and generally repressed my forefathers for hundreds of years....not that i would bring it up or anything

Drew_TNBD

Oh pipe down Jocko!

lloyd

As with most interactions between people and language it all comes down to context. 

There's some gay people I can call a faggot and it's taken in the manner it's meant and they in turn will call me a ginger taffy or sheep shagger and no offence (well there is, we're supposed to be insulting each other as mates) is taken.

Whereas I would never call some of my gay colleagues or friends a faggot, and I'd be pissed off if some people called me a sheep shagger.

If the term is used in an offensive way then it's out of order.

crunchman

I accidentally posted this in the other thread:

I did the Merchant of Venice for O Level English lit.  I remember my English teacher discussing the whole issue.

There are some pieces where he comes across in a very poor light, but is that because he is Jewish, or is it because he is just a villain?

On the other hand, there is this famous speech he makes:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? 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, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

I'm not sure anyone these days can say what Shakespeare's intentions were.  I think different productions of the play have also interpreted him very differently.

CabbageCat

mgaw said:

i doubt very much the comment was intended to be anything other than innocent......one problem for me about all this is cant the "offendee" show some common sense here, it is obviously not being used in an anti semitic manner at all...therefore why take offence.

He didn't take offense. He pointed out that it was a term that could be taken as offensive. It seemed obvious that the OP wasn't using it offensively and so it seems reasonable to suggest that he didn't know it could be used so. Thus peteri was actually being pretty helpful...until the anti-PC police waded in being offended by the idea that someone could be offended.

Lewy

CabbageCat said:

mgaw said:

i doubt very much the comment was intended to be anything other than innocent......one problem for me about all this is cant the "offendee" show some common sense here, it is obviously not being used in an anti semitic manner at all...therefore why take offence.

He didn't take offense. He pointed out that it was a term that could be taken as offensive. It seemed obvious that the OP wasn't using it offensively and so it seems reasonable to suggest that he didn't know it could be used so. Thus peteri was actually being pretty helpful...until the anti-PC police waded in being offended by the idea that someone could be offended.

Precisely this. 

Drew_TNBD

crunchman said:

I accidentally posted this in the other thread:

I did the Merchant of Venice for O Level English lit.  I remember my English teacher discussing the whole issue.

There are some pieces where he comes across in a very poor light, but is that because he is Jewish, or is it because he is just a villain?

On the other hand, there is this famous speech he makes:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? 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, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

I'm not sure anyone these days can say what Shakespeare's intentions were.  I think different productions of the play have also interpreted him very differently.

It's fiction. He can write what he wants.

Or does Brett Easton Ellis need to be on some kind of list in case he starts murdering and eating people?

crunchman

Drew_fx said:

It's fiction. He can write what he wants.

True.  But it didn't stop my English teacher from pontificating about it for hours and reading all kind of stuff into it that Shakespeare probably hadn't even considered when writing it.

Drew_TNBD

crunchman said:

Drew_fx said:

It's fiction. He can write what he wants.

True.  But it didn't stop my English teacher from pontificating about it for hours and reading all kind of stuff into it that Shakespeare probably hadn't even considered when writing it.

Aye. It's their job to do that, to get us all thinking critically about things. Doesn't mean our conclusions are necessarily correct though.

Dominic

Shylock is the caricature embodiment of Anti-semiticism -Shakespeare was playing to the common feeling of the time much as many Hollywood movies today will cast the villains as a group of middle-Eastern Terrorists as being the ones who have stolen the Uranium to use in a dirty bomb rather than a few Home-grown survivalist nutters

Whether Shakespeare himself was any more anti- Semitic than anybody else of the time is irrelevant

It is offensive to Jews in the same way that the Caricature was intended to be .

crunchman

Drew_fx said:

crunchman said:

Drew_fx said:

It's fiction. He can write what he wants.

True.  But it didn't stop my English teacher from pontificating about it for hours and reading all kind of stuff into it that Shakespeare probably hadn't even considered when writing it.

Aye. It's their job to do that, to get us all thinking critically about things. Doesn't mean our conclusions are necessarily correct though.

The discussion of that speech probably was good.  Living in a small Devon town, where there was basically no-one who wasn't white British, discussion of anti-semitism and race issues, and the history of how Jews have been treated over the years was definitely beneficial to me.

The fact that I remembered the speech and the discussion 31 years later and went looking for the speech to quote it shows that it must have had some impact.

That was one of the better lessons I had with him.  It doesn't change the fact that there was a lot of pontification and waffle reading things into stories that the author never intended.  At least one book was completely ruined as a story for me by all the over-analysis.  It was only when I went back and read it 10 years later that I realised how good a book it was.

Snap

FFS.

There's a great article by Tony Parsons in the current issue of GQ about indignation. Its worth a read. He makes a very good point. Talking about people's willingness to get offended.

scrumhalf

Shylock has been used too frequently by anti-semites for it not to be perjorative. That may not be the intention of many who use the term, but that doesn't change a thing.

As for whether Shakespeare was or wasn't anti-semitic, all I can say is that I doubt that he was a philo-semite because that just wasn't the way people thought back then.

If soneone I didn't know referred to me as "Shylock" they would be aware of the error of their ways pretty bloody quickly.

Troy

Why do people think other people may be offended by something and thereby apologise on their behalf? Surely be better if someone was offended to say something and then apologise to them directly. 

World is too PC these days...

Drew_TNBD

scrumhalf said:

If soneone I didn't know referred to me as "Shylock" they would be aware of the error of their ways pretty bloody quickly.

This is why we can't have nice things.