Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Many schools and school boards have decided that The Merchant Of Venice is an unsuitable play for classroom study, on the grounds that it may be offensive to some students. The play famous for 'a pound of flesh', and the lines "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, shall we not revenge?". III, 1, 57-59 The Merchant Of Venice portrays a prejudiced message. All throughout the play, the Christians are battling with the Jew, Shylock, and neither of them will listen to the other, because their hearts are filled with intense prejudice. Some people would think the play itself was a racist. The reader might not want to portray the play to others, because of the villainous character of Shylock. The reader doesn't realize the Christians portrayal was just as bad as the Jewish man, Shylock's portrayal. The play teaches the reader about prejudice, why it is wrong. People would see how everyone was hurt at one time or another by a prejudice, whether it was the Christians mocking and making fun of Shylock or Shylock showing his prejudice to the Christians. This is first noticed in Act one when Shylock is openly saying to himself, "I hate him for he is a Christian....Curs'd be my tribe if I forgive him!" I, 3, 37-I, 3, 46-47. Antonio proves he is unwilling to change his prejudice feelings towards Shylock when he says, "I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too." I, 3, 125-126 They do not realize their prejudiced attitudes and actions are portraying an ugly message to the reader and the reader is thinking, this is not suitable for younger children. Their messages could get themselves killed, which in fact comes very close to happening. This is a bad message that is portrayed to the reader. There is a motif of revenge in the play The Merchant Of Venice which also stuns the reader. Shylock has great hatred for Antonio, and his intent is getting revenge for all the things he assumes Antonio has done and said to him. "He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies"”and what's his reason? 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, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled 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, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, What should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, Revenge!". III, 1, 49-59 This clearly explains the intent of Shylock, the man who is mocked by the Christians. He wants revenge, and this is driving him too far. The readers will not like the motif that is presented by Shakespeare. They will want this play banned from school and will not want to show their children. The desire of revenge is almost inseparable. This play provides a point of view in which racism can grow and become only a bigger problem. It will teach the reader to hate another race and racial discrimination will only grow and grow. There are a lot of racial comments in this play, and could indeed have an effect on the reader and also influence them in the wrong way. There is a lot of racism, especially between Shylock and Antonio. They both hate each other immensely and all throughout the play they are both snapping back and forth at each other. The other is probably hurt from what the other is saying, but they are not showing it. There is racist comment that is 'a Negro's belly', which is censored in the newer versions of The Merchant Of Venice. This is a fact in the play that racism is occurring and this could have an effect on the society. This is a reason why the school boards might want to take this play out of the curriculum. As you can see, there are many reasons The Merchant Of Venice should not be taught in classrooms. Although there are many reasons, The Merchant Of Venice is an excellent play and it should not be removed from the classroom. A. Whitney Griswold said in a speech, "Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas." This quote here, by A. Whitney Griswold, clearly states the bad idea of racism in the play should be viewed by a positive view of anti-racism and showing how wrong the racism is. Also, if the play were to be banned, why hasn't it been banned yet? If the play were to be banned because of the character and portrayal of Shylock, this would be wrong, because the Christians portrayal was just as bad as Shylock's. They ended up taking away his religion from him and the punishment that was given to him was even more severe than the one he had intended. If the play were to be banned, they would have to look at both sides of the arguments. Most readers are missing out on the point of Shylock's. He is a human and he has feelings as well. After a discussion, it is concluded that The Merchant Of Venice should not be banned by the school authorities. This is an excellent play to be taught, and the problem of racism everybody is facing today. This play should be taught properly by a teacher, who can explain the play's meaning, so the students do not miss any important points from it. The play can teach many new, great things to the reader, and it can also have a positive effect on them. The reader will understand the play has a point to it and how wrong all this revenge, prejudice, and racism is and can be. If this play is read correctly, it will stop one person from being racist, by teaching them it is wrong. This play is a strong, emotional read, and it should always remain in the classrooms, so the students can gain the knowledge of reading this.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1151 Views: 151 Comments: 0
Many schools and school boards have decided that The Merchant Of Venice is an unsuitable play for classroom study, on the grounds that it may be offensive to some students. The play famous for 'a pound of flesh', and the lines "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, shall we not revenge?". III, 1, 57-59 The Merchant Of Venice portrays a prejudiced message. All throughout the play, the Christians are battling with the Jew, Shylock, and neither...
students do not miss any important points from it. The play can teach many new, great things to the reader, and it can also have a positive effect on them. The reader will understand the play has a point to it and how wrong all this revenge, prejudice, and racism is and can be. If this play is read correctly, it will stop one person from being racist, by teaching them it is wrong. This play is a strong, emotional read, and it should always remain in the classrooms, so the students can gain the knowledge of reading this.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Love and Isolation in John... Love and Isolation in John Steinbeck's "The White Quail" and "The Murder" John Steinbeck is a prolific author. In his writings, he explores the intricacies and enigmas of the human spirit and condition. In the short stories collected in his book, The Long Valley, he poignantly captures the very essence of those not-so-perfect relationships in which many people may relate. Through the theme of love and isolation in his stories "The White Quail," and "The Murder," he paints a vivid portrait of what it is like to be part of a lose-win union where one contributes his best and the other takes without positively reciprocating. To start, consider Steinbeck's use of love to expatiate on the neuroticism of the respective relationships of "The White Quail's" Harry and Mary Teller and "The Murder's" Jim and Jelka Moore. In the former of the stories, such phrases as, "She didn't think so much, 'Would this man like such a garden?' but, 'Would the garden like such a man?'" and "He wanted to kiss her over and over, and she let him," act as clear indicators that something in the relationship is quite awry 14-15. For how can one be more concerned about a garden "liking" a person than that person liking that garden? It is true that a garden may symbolize a part of one's character and life, but should it be a great factor in the determination of the existence of a positively meaningful relationship? Sure, one would like a potential mate to like that which one works hard to maintain in this case, Mary's garden, but should one go as far as attributing a kind of human ability of "liking" to plants and making it the deciding factor? More greatly, should one really care whether the other person likes such a thing? It appears that in true, honest and loving relationships that one need not be concerned over such trivialities because if the other person truly loved and cared, then that person would come to love all including the garden of the other, without reserve or judgement. Moreover, in regards to "letting" one kiss another, the usage only more greatly exposes the twisted thinking in this case, Mary's present in the construction of the sentence. For one would think that if one loved another, kissing would be mutual and equal, not based on permittance or sanctioning, as connoted by Steinbeck's ingenious use of the word "let." As for Harry, seemingly without choice, he becomes the victim of his wife's siphoning of love. He works to make her happy, deciding not to plant some of his own plants in her garden because he would instead like to see her own mind come out of it 16. And as Steinbeck even puts it, "He tried so hard to understand when she told him things" 20. But alas, he realizes that she truly is only like her garden, untouchable and fixed 17. He cannot even whole-heartedly do something for her without her criticizing, shutting him out, and/or shunning him. Even the instance with the beginning of the planting of the garden and his decision not to contribute she justifies in her mind as being for the better because she was the one, after all, who had invented and willed it 16. Instead of loving him plainly because he just truly wanted to make her happy, she instead perverts it to loving him for leaving the garden to herself 16. The ramifications of this are great for him, culminating in his defeated feelings represented by his mournful, sad, and angry comments of "I'm lonely" and "Oh, Lord, I'm so lonely!" 27. Harry's ending epiphany suggests to the reader that he should find another wife, one where love and interest for one another is equal and mutual. Yet, at the same time, one is also lead to understand that Harry cannot and will not bring himself to leave her partly because of his true love for her, and also because of her prettiness, coolness, and perfection in being a wife that any man, or person for that matter, would cherish 17. And perhaps, also, because he has no one else. And then, there lies Jim and Jelka Moore's relationship. The title of their story, "The Murder," is quite an interesting use of doublespeak. Not only is there the literal murder of Jelka's grown cousin, but also of Jim's attitude toward love. From the beginning, his father-in-law's comment during their wedding of, "Don't be big fool," in regards to his comment, "I wouldn't beat Jelka," already foreshadows the wrong that is to take place 122. Additionally, their outright difference in culture and approach to love as laid out by his father-in-law clearly works against him. The beginning of the neuroticism starts with Jim's never wanting of any habitual thing in the house and how Jelka had it ready for him before he could even ask 123. Moreover, how she was just plainly remarkable because she always had Jim's dinner ready for him no matter what time he came in from the farm, how she would push dishes close when he needed them, and all those other things 123. And so where is the problem? The problem lies in those very tasks that Jelka performs and Jim receives. The reader can only speculate on Jelka's intentions on those tasks she does for Jim, that is, whether that really was a sign of her love for him, a way to rebuff her guilt for sleeping with her cousin, to provide her only seemingly known way of truly pleasing her husband, a means to appease her inner restlessness, or some other motives. However, one does get the feeling of distance between them. She, as Steinbeck puts it, is really "so much like an animal" 123. Like a domesticated pet, she trains to do tricks tasks for her master Jim to receive attention, acclaim, and regard. The only and the only one necessary downside to this is that she is a subordinated animal interdependent on others' and in this case, Jim's charity, pity, and the like. Then, to compound the issue, she being a woman only more greatly sets her apart from her counterpart. With all these variables factored in, the divide in interconnectedness between her and Jim exponentially grow. Now, the difference is not only in love and in the manner of loving, but now also in being human versus subhuman. Simply put, with respect to these regards, she is the lesser in her relationship with Jim. But in regards to lose-win relationships, Jim is the loser. All throughout the story, he finds himself, much like Harry in "The White Quail," unable to connect with her. Even his attempts at conversation with her are failures. Her responses to his prompts of "Why don't you ever talk to me? Don't you want to talk to me?" are shot down by a neutral comment of "Yes. What do you want me to say?" 123-4. And so, it is no surprise that the reader finds him riding to the Three Star to drink and to be with the company of chatty women, even at the expense of having to lie to his wife 124. Nor is it a surprise that the reader finds Jim commenting to her after he has killed her grown cousin, has beat her, and she has asked, "Will you whip me any more"”for this?" that "No, not any more, for this" 134. In his frustration and loneliness, as with Harry, he struggles to go against his conscience true character to somehow get in touch with her. But whereas Harry's struggle is going against his role of the ill-represented, obedient and docile partner of Mary as illustrated in their conversation about killing the cat, Jim's is marked by his "civility" in approach in his treatment of her 25; 123-4. In his desperation, he resorts to his father-in-law's suggestion of physical violence and finds that although it is something that he does not care to do, it seems to work to get at least a reaction out of her 122. It seems like his father-in-law was right all along. It seemed like he did have and would have to beat her whenever she was bad and whenever she had been good for too long to get her to make some kind of response. Maybe his father-in-law was more right about his comment of "He's not like American girl," during his drunken stupor than he had initially estimated and imagined 122. Whatever the case, the fundamental truth that they are from two worlds apart and that she is clearly East of Eden is obvious. And that, too, is obvious in Harry and Mary Teller's case in "The White Quail." As Harry was the loser in his relationship with his wife, so is Jim with his. And as Mary is the foreigner to her husband, Jelka is the secret and mystery to hers. However, whereas the murder for Harry lies in the wake of his self-realization of loneliness, for Jim it is in his resolution to beat his wife, because in essence, it is the murder and destruction of himself, his very conscience. It is quite humorous, when we, as active relaters of the experiences of Harry, Mary, Jelka, and Jim, assign meaning and ultimately judge their experiences. We all are aware that although their travails are unique, they are not too uncommon in invariance. Perhaps that is why John Steinbeck's stories are so powerful; they continue to promulgate relationships although we become highly aware of those characters' deformities, irregularities, and nuances, in his writings that oftentimes mirror the lives of many people"”perhaps of some whom we know.   

Love and Isolation in John Steinbeck's "The White Quail" and "The Murder" John Steinbeck is a prolific author. In his writings, he explores the intricacies and enigmas of the human spirit and condition. In the short stories collected in his book, The Long Valley, he poignantly captures the very...

Words: 1652 View(s): 302 Comment(s): 0
Discuss the nature of power... Discuss the nature of power explored in the texts, Eva Luna, and A Doll's House. In the two texts Eva Luna, and A Doll's House, by Isabel Allende and Henrik Ibsen respectively, there are various people who have power over others. However this power comes in a number of forms, different characters use it for different purposes, and the ways the characters achieve it also differs. These different natures of power allow some people to succeed where others fail, and it is those who succeed that, in the end, have the true power. In the novel Eva Luna, there are various people who are in positions of power. The one who is the most obvious to the reader is the General; a dictator. He has the power to control and manipulate others to do as he wants, in order to benefit himself. His power comes about through the use of force, violence, propaganda, and persuasive tactics. He can control people, but it is only because they fear him. There is no feeling by the people he has power over, that he deserves it, they have no respect for him, and so without his armies, his power is meaningless. Rolf Carle's father in Eva Luna parallels this nature of power. Lucas Carle has total control over his wife and children, to the point where he treats his wife more like a prostitute, and his children hide from him when he comes home because they fear a beating from him. It is this fear of being punished if one does not obey that gives Lucas Carle his power, and as in the case of the General, if the only reason to give in to someone's power is fear of the consequences if one doesn't, then this power gains no respect from those it affects. The kind of power that the General possesses is totally different to that of Eva herself. Both of them are able to change people, however, where the General changes people through the force he puts onto them, Eva changes people from the inside. She is able to change people by bringing out what is already inside of them, and of herself. She does this by focusing on the positive parts of any situation, and in this way inspiring hope. Her power is based on having the courage to rise up against her oppressors, and the ability to lead others by evoking feeling and passion within them, instead of a power based on the fear of the consequences of not conforming. She doesn't need an army behind her to enforce her ideas; people are drawn to her. One reason for this is because of her stories. Her stories allow her listeners to escape from their real worlds and for them it is a way that they can get happiness out of a life that isn't treating them well. For Elvira, it is almost that she can't cope without one of Eva's stories to get her through the day. And when they were separated, and she would visit Eva, she would ask Eva for 'a long story to last till the next visit.' Allende, 96 The imagination is a powerful thing, and Eva is able to communicate directly with people's imaginations. It is this ability to cope in, and move beyond oppressive situations that made her life such a success, and her ambitions more achievable. Eva was able to put up with a lot in her time as a servant. She had the self-power to tolerate much harshness from her employers, but when she was unhappy, she did not contain this unhappiness inside her, and let it destroy her emotionally, as perhaps weaker characters might, she let her mind be known, and this is nowhere more obvious, then when she left her job working for the minister: "With absolute aplomb, as if it were something I did every day, I lifted the receptacle high and emptied it over the head of the Minister of State "“ with a single motion of the wrist liberating myself from humiliation. For an eternal second the Minister sat motionless, eyes bulging.' Allende, 101 In the play A Doll's House, both Nora and Torvald have power over each other. However, they are very different types of power. The power of Torvald over Nora is more obvious because it is economic, physical, social status, and sexual power, however Nora's power over Torvald is less obvious. In the beginning of the play Nora is basically living her life to please Torvald, which for the time pleases herself as well, and she is contented with a life where she is totally provided for by her husband, and this gives her fairly materialistic view on life: "Well, I mean, it's lovely to have heaps of money and not to have to worry about anything. Don't you think?' Ibsen, 30 We get the impression that Nora belongs in this kind of society where women are totally dependent on their husbands, however through the play, that impression gradually deteriorates until the climactic ending when Nora totally frees herself of Torvald, and it is at this point that we see who really has the power in their relationship. Nora shows that she has the power to overcome the impositions of the society she lives in, in which it is not acceptable for women to be independent people, and reaches the self-realisation that she has to go out into the world, in order to educate herself, she realises that she can not just accept everything that Torvald tells her as truth. She goes on a journey from living her false life with Torvald, to coming to the realization that her marriage and supposed happiness, are all artificial. She has the power within herself, and the courage, to make that journey: 'I know most people think as you, Torvald, and I know there's something of the sort to be found in books. But I'm no longer prepared to accept what people say and what's written in books. I must think things out for myself, and try to find my own answer.' Ibsen, 100 Nora realises that self-fulfillment is not about finding truth in books, and from other people, it is about finding what is true for oneself. There are some links which can be drawn between the characters in these two books. One can compare the General in Eva Luna, to Torvald in A Doll's House. It seems that both these characters have power over someone, or some people, however it is a power which is forced onto its recipients. If the circumstances were different, then these two characters would not posses such power. In Eva Luna, if there were no armies, no propaganda, no forceful tactics that the General could use, then he would have no power, because he could no longer control people. But, Eva's power is what she stirs inside people, not what she forces upon them. This is paralleled in A Doll's House with Torvald. If society had different values, and women were the dominant sex, then Torvald, and many other men that he represents, would have no power, and we see this occurring when Nora defies society and decides to be independent, and leaves Torvald "“ and there is no question that this was an absolutely unheard of thing to do at the time, when the play toured to Germany it was such an outrageous notion, that German authorities forced Ibsen to change the ending - it is then that we see that it is Torvald who is totally dependent on Nora, not the other way round, and by leaving, Nora has shown that she always had the power in the relationship. Both of these women, Nora and Eva, had very little or no power at the start of the texts, but by the end they have gained economic, emotional, and physical power. Both women are faced with adverse circumstances, but through their self-determination, they are able to triumph over these circumstances, and gain the power they lacked at the beginning of their journeys. I believe that the authors of these texts are putting forward the message that true power is something that is innate in people, not something that can be achieved in the ways that the General, and Lucas Carle did. Where the power lies in a certain situation is not always where it first seems most obvious. In these two texts there are different people who posses different forms of power in society. There are those who force ideas upon others, and who only wish to benefit themselves, and seek absolute power, but there are also those who have power because they are able to communicate to the core of other people, and they are able to give people the courage to stand up for what they believe. These are the people who have the true power, and who, in these two texts, eventually, in one way or another succeed.   

Discuss the nature of power explored in the texts, Eva Luna, and A Doll's House. In the two texts Eva Luna, and A Doll's House, by Isabel Allende and Henrik Ibsen respectively, there are various people who have power over others. However this power comes in a number of...

Words: 1503 View(s): 112 Comment(s): 0