Shylock: Villain/Victim? T3P2

Shylock is a character who plays a vital role in the Merchant of Venice. Many people have attempted to classify him as a villain or a victim but to no avail. In this post, I will be discussing the reason why Shylock is both a villain and a victim.

Firstly, Shylock is extremely vengeful and he will stop at nothing to get his revenge. He is unmerciful and unforgiving. When Salerio asks Shylock what good would Antonio's flesh do Shylock if Antonio forfeits the bond, he replies, "If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation." The quote shows his extreme hatred for Antonio, to the point where he does not mind paying three thousand ducats just to have Antonio's flesh. He mentions many times that he does not mind losing his money to have Antonio's "carrion flesh".

Next, Shylock is extremely shrewd and cunning, having planned his murder of Antonio right from the start. When discussing the forfeiture of the bond, Shylock says "let the forfeiture be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of the body pleaseth me." What appears to be him suggesting a forfeiture playfully is actually him setting a death trap for Antonio to walk into.

However, Shylock may not be the villain he is made out to be. He was also mocked by the Christians for being a Jew. It was mentioned several times that Antonio spat and kicked at him as if he were a dog. Also, the Christians taunt and compare him to the devil. Throughout the book, he is referred to as "Jew" rather than by his name.

His daughter was also brought away by Christians, Antonio's friends. I feel that Shylock has a right to be outraged at his daughter's outright betrayal. With his daughter gone and that she was taken by Lorenzo, a Christian, Shylock naturally placed the blame on Christians as a whole. I feel that Shylock is wrong to be outraged but he has his reasons as to why he wants vengeance so badly. After all, he is only human.

The Peter Principle T3P1

The Peter Principle is an interesting observation formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book, The Peter Principle. It states that "in a hierarchy, every person tends to rise to their level of incompetence". What it means in layman's terms is that a person usually gets promoted to a point where his level of skill is less than the others who were promoted to the same point, making him one of the people he got promoted past.

I decided to blog about this as I found this principle interesting and extremely true. This is the case in Hwa Chong. As this year, I am in secondary two, there will be streaming at the end of the year. What this means is that all the secondary two students will be streamed into different classes based on their academic abilities. Some may choose to take up special programmes in the area of their choice, while others may not even get the chance. Those who did extremely badly or have been found to have no discipline may get channelled to the "O" level class. This means that some students who may have been topping their class in all their subjects may find it to be a different case next year, where they get sorted into the class for other students who have been topping their classes. At this point, some of them will be found incompetent compared to the rest of their class while the top, if another streaming occurs, will carry on to be in the same class as the top of the top, like them. This would go on and on. As the Chinese saying goes, "There is always another taller mountain", one can never be the best as there will always be someone better than them.

However, this does not mean that we should stop trying to achieve the best we can. I believe that we should strive to accomplish what we do to the best of our ability, and aim for greater heights.