Sunday, January 30, 2011

Where is the hero?

After reading Act I of The Merchant of Venice, what struck me as unique and odd is that, thus far, there appears no distinct, good-natured heroes in the story. Each character is someone self-involved and not extremely like-able. While one could argue that the character who comes closest to our hero is Bassanio, who needs money in order to fight for his love, I would have to disagree with giving him this title. Bassanio's primary interest seems to be in borrowing money so that he can ultimately gain more wealth. While he may care for Portia, he appears to have an equal interest in her wealth as he does in her looks and virtue. As he states:

"In Belmont is a lady richly left . . . /
Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth . . . /
O my Antonio, had I but the means
To hold a rival place with one of them
I have a mind presages me such thrift
That I should questionless be fortunate"

(1.2.161-76)

Bassanio uses words such as "rich," "worth," "thrift," and "fortunate," indicating that his mind is on money just as much as love, if not more so. This, as well as him easily accepting the terms of a deal in which his best friend, if he loses, will be forced to give a pound of his flesh, shows him to be a man who cares more about monetary conquests than love for those closest to him. Wouldn't a true hero object to this unfair deal?

We can neither classify Antonio as the hero of this play, due to the fact that he is wealthy, but whines about it rather than appreciating it. He is also clearly prejudiced against Jewish people, and has no problem treating them poorly. Yet when it is convenient for him, he solicits help from a man whom he has spit upon and insulted in the past. Even when he makes the deal with Shylock, he refuses to do it upon the basis of friendship, rather stating that he will continue "To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too" (1.3.126). This is hardly hero material.

Portia has yet to prove a heroine, based upon the behavior she displays thus far in the play. At the top of 1.2, we find her bemoaning her wealth and popularity amongst men. She states, "By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is aweary of this great world" (1.2.1-2). She then asks Nerissa to list all of her suitors, so that she may state the reasons that each one is unworthy of her love. She hardly seems noble upon this first impression we glean from her.

Finally, Shylock is presented to us as an embittered old man who is bent on revenge towards Christians who have insulted his religion. Ironically enough, this character who is classically portrayed as the villain, seems to me to be the closest thing to a hero that we have in this play thus far. Shylock may be angry and wish ill upon Antonio, but this is only because Antonio has treated him like shit in the past. Later on, we will learn that he has other reasons for feeling dejected and spiteful. His daughter has rejected him and married a Christian man, and he is alone in the world. He even tells Antonio, after being scorned, that:

"I would be friends with you, and have your love,
Forget the shames that you have stained me with,
Supply your present wants, and take no doit
Of usance for my moneys; and you'll not hear me.
This is kind I offer"

(1.3.133-37)

This statement shows that, despite his poor treatment, Shylock is willing to make a friendly deal with his enemy. Of course, he could be lying in order to look noble, but we do not know either way. Therefore, I conclude that a true hero is thus far missing from our story. Perhaps one will emerge as we read further, but it seems to me that in this tale of money and deal-making, everyone has their own best interests at heart. Where's the heroism in that?

6 comments:

Jessica said...

I agree with you that there is no hero thus far in the play. From the first scene, Antonio appears as the most important character, but so far he is not a hero. Shylock only cares for himself and his money, which makes him look like a villain in the story, but I think he could possibly be a hero because he fights for respect and dignity as the play continues. I agree with you that he has been treated horribly because he is a Jew, and that is one of the reasons he is portrayed as the villain in the story.

jolisa said...

Why must we have a hero? I think that this play is different because it shows true human nature, we are all inherently flawed. I think Bassiano isn't to be looked at as a hero nowadays because we can't understand that love and money went hand and hand. You could not think of marriage back then without thinking of the person's financial standing. Portia although she may be picky I don't believe it is coming from a bad place. You can't help who you like and I respect the fact that she doesn't go for just any old suitor that walks through the door. So what if these people aren't heros, sometimes people are just ordinary. They haven't yet to do anything exceedingly special yet, so let's just wait to see what may play out. Personally I hope no one is the classic hero, it makes things more intriguing.

Anonymous said...

I would have to agree with JoLisa.

Think about all of Shakespeare's plays: is there really any solid hero within them? Even the supposed "good" guys have some irreparable flaw, and the "bad" guys have a motive that deep down is just as good as any other character's.

I think the question that needs to be asked is, "Will any of these people learn?" because that is what we really want: we want one of them to realize their mistakes and fix it for the better. Maybe Bassiano will realize that he's a schmuck for putting his best friend in potential debt; maybe Portia will learn what her father meant with the casket game and be happy for it, not annoyed.

I think there will be no sort of 'hero' in play, because so far, no one really needs help from someone else: they need to help themselves.

Anonymous said...

I'm torn in this argument. While I agree with everyone's comments about not needing a clear-cut hero or heroine, I do agree with Rachel's frustration at this missing piece. This was my first time reading this play and at the end of this first act, my first reaction was that I was annoyed with everyone. But having given it more thought, I agree with JoLisa and Elaine, that the blending of good and evil is what makes this play interesting and certainly (in my opinion) more relatable, despite my first reaction. If anything, I feel as though Shylock has more motive for his behavior; he is simply reacting to years of mistreatment, antisemitism, and discrimination. I'm interested/eager to see character development.

Cory said...

I think the idea that there is no character with heroic qualities is what makes this play enjoyable and more realistic. By displaying the heartlessness of the characters in their attempts at personal gain provides an introspective look at what plagues people everyday. This is not to say that there is no character with a desire to help out his fellow man, but the individual usually is at the top of the list.

Cyrus Mulready said...

This is a GREAT conversation about Rachel's provocative post. I'd just like to add that, although the play is called "The Merchant of Venice," seeming to point at the centrality of Antonio (if not, perhaps, his heroism, exactly) the one character everyone remembers in the play is Shylock. I think you could make a case that his anti-heroism is so dominant as to make the other characters seem marginal. Thoughts?