Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collections
Publication
Hogarth (2016), Edition: First Edition, 288 pages
Description
Man Booker Prize-winner Howard Jacobson brings his singular brilliance to this modern re-imagining of one of Shakespeare's most unforgettable characters: Shylock Winter, a cemetery, Shylock. In this provocative and profound interpretation of The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is juxtaposed against his present-day counterpart in the character of art dealer and conflicted father Simon Strulovitch. With characteristic irony, Jacobson presents Shylock as a man of incisive wit and passion, concerned still with questions of identity, parenthood, anti-Semitism and revenge. While Strulovich struggles to reconcile himself to his daughter Beatrice's "betrayal" of her family and heritage--as she is carried away by the excitement of Manchester high society, and into the arms of a footballer notorious for giving a Nazi salute on the field--Shylock alternates grief for his beloved wife with rage against his own daughter's rejection of her Jewish upbringing. Culminating in a shocking twist on Shylock's demand for the infamous pound of flesh, Jacobson's insightful retelling examines contemporary, acutely relevant questions of Jewish identity while maintaining a poignant sympathy for its characters and a genuine spiritual kinship with its antecedent--a drama which Jacobson himself considers to be "the most troubling of Shakespeare's plays for anyone, but, for an English novelist who happens to be Jewish, also the most challenging."… (more)
Media reviews
It’s hard to imagine that the commissioning editors for the new Hogarth Shakespeare series had to deliberate for long before deciding which contemporary novelist should take on The Merchant of Venice, the tragicomedy that gave us the most (in)famous Jewish character in literature
Language
User reviews
LibraryThing member laytonwoman3rd
Simon Strulovich, a wealthy philanthropist and collector of Anglo-Jewish art, is visiting his mother’s grave in the north of England to inspect the headstone recently erected there. Whom should he meet but another mourner, in deep conversation with, sometimes reading to, a wife long buried.
Strulovitch is not an observant Jew. Yet there are lines he will not cross, things he will not accept. A Gentile husband for his daughter in one of those things, despite the fact that his own first wife was not Jewish. So, what does it mean to be a Jew?
Shylock and Strulovitch debate this question, and others, in the traditional intense, almost mathematical style of ancient talmudic scholars, calculating the meaning of each word, then each word in relation to the one next to it, and so on. That the debate has not been settled after more than 400 years, that anti-Semitism has not been laid to rest in all that time, that stereotypes of race and gender are still the stuff of both comedy and tragedy certainly makes Shakespeare’s genius feel timeless.
Shakespeare’s Shylock has been portrayed in many ways over time, from a simple villain to an outright monster, from a comical caricature of avarice to a proud, relatively sympathetic victim of Christian persecution and contempt. Jacobson’s Shylock is a grief-stricken husband, an outraged father, a witty philosophical debater, and a diabolical schemer who has a proposal to thwart Beatrice Strulovich’s non-Jewish suitor…a proposal less drastic than forfeiture of a pound of flesh, but still involving a very sharp knife.
Jacobson has crafted an ironic modern paraphrase of The Merchant of Venice, and made a clever job of it. But he has let the Bard down in his recreation of the female characters, who simply do not deserve comparison to Portia or Nerissa in the original. Strulovich’s obsession with his 16 year old daughter simply made my skin crawl. And finally, there is a profoundly unsettling aspect, for me at least, of the whole Shylock/Strulovitch debate over the essence of Jewishness--elements of ambiguity, self-loathing and misery which I have never encountered in any living breathing Jew of my acquaintance, and which reminds me unpleasantly of Philip Roth. Shall we give Jacobson the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant to preserve the ongoing controversy over whether Shakespeare’s play is anti-Semitic? Nope. I found very little to sympathize with in either Shylock or Strulovitch, but the rest of the cast was no better.
Show More
Strulovitch, with his passion for Shakespeare (who he thinks may have come from a family that changed its name from Shapiro), recognizes this second man as none other than Shylock. And Shylock, once he has finished communing with his wife, seems to have been waiting to speak to him. Strulovich is neither bewildered nor astonished to meet an Elizabethan fictional character in the 21st century; in fact, Shylock does not appear to be suffering from any culture shock himself. When Strulovich invites him to go home with him, to have dinner and spend the night, Shylock merely expresses surprise that his host owns a German-made car. He takes a ringing cell phone in stride. He already knows, somehow, that Strulovich, like himself, has a rebellious, even disloyal daughter. Strulovitch is not an observant Jew. Yet there are lines he will not cross, things he will not accept. A Gentile husband for his daughter in one of those things, despite the fact that his own first wife was not Jewish. So, what does it mean to be a Jew?
Shylock and Strulovitch debate this question, and others, in the traditional intense, almost mathematical style of ancient talmudic scholars, calculating the meaning of each word, then each word in relation to the one next to it, and so on. That the debate has not been settled after more than 400 years, that anti-Semitism has not been laid to rest in all that time, that stereotypes of race and gender are still the stuff of both comedy and tragedy certainly makes Shakespeare’s genius feel timeless.
Shakespeare’s Shylock has been portrayed in many ways over time, from a simple villain to an outright monster, from a comical caricature of avarice to a proud, relatively sympathetic victim of Christian persecution and contempt. Jacobson’s Shylock is a grief-stricken husband, an outraged father, a witty philosophical debater, and a diabolical schemer who has a proposal to thwart Beatrice Strulovich’s non-Jewish suitor…a proposal less drastic than forfeiture of a pound of flesh, but still involving a very sharp knife.
Jacobson has crafted an ironic modern paraphrase of The Merchant of Venice, and made a clever job of it. But he has let the Bard down in his recreation of the female characters, who simply do not deserve comparison to Portia or Nerissa in the original. Strulovich’s obsession with his 16 year old daughter simply made my skin crawl. And finally, there is a profoundly unsettling aspect, for me at least, of the whole Shylock/Strulovitch debate over the essence of Jewishness--elements of ambiguity, self-loathing and misery which I have never encountered in any living breathing Jew of my acquaintance, and which reminds me unpleasantly of Philip Roth. Shall we give Jacobson the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant to preserve the ongoing controversy over whether Shakespeare’s play is anti-Semitic? Nope. I found very little to sympathize with in either Shylock or Strulovitch, but the rest of the cast was no better.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Cariola
This is the first in the new Hogarth Shakespeare series that I have read, and I look forward to more—even though this one didn’t impress me quite as much as it has some other readers. The opening scene is an attention grabber: while visiting his mother’s grave, Simon Strulovitch sees a man in
There are plenty of humorous moments in Jacobson’s revisioning of The Merchant of Venice, and all of the play’s original characters are there in distinctive guises. Portia becomes the bored, manipulative heiress Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is A Joy Forever Shalcross (known as Plury); her suitor Bassanio is Barnaby, a mechanic; the merchant Antonio is now the art dealer D’Anton; etc. Jacobson weaves in plenty of lines from the original play (as well as a number of other Shakespearean plays).
But for me, the long-winded conversations between Strulovitch and Shylock began to get rather tedious, and, in time, they began to detract from the more engaging strands of Jacobson's reimagined plot. Caught up in the concept, I quickly read the first 2/3 of the book. I read the last third just as quickly--because I wanted to reach the end and move on to something more enjoyable.
Show More
a fedora who seems to be talking to his dead wife, Leah. It’s Shylock, of course, and Strulovitch promptly takes him home. The two have men have much in common: like Shylock’s daughter Jessica, Simon’s teenaged daughter Beatrice seems determined to run off with a gentile (in this case a married footballer), and although his wife Kay still lives, she has been seriously disabled by a stroke. And both suffer from the weight of centuries of resentment suffered by their people. Strulovich has never been a religious man, but a part of him clings to his Jewish identity, while for Shylock, his faith was everything. During the course of the novel, the two men engage in long philosophical conversations about what it really means to be a Jew and how one should respond to the way they have been treated by society.There are plenty of humorous moments in Jacobson’s revisioning of The Merchant of Venice, and all of the play’s original characters are there in distinctive guises. Portia becomes the bored, manipulative heiress Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is A Joy Forever Shalcross (known as Plury); her suitor Bassanio is Barnaby, a mechanic; the merchant Antonio is now the art dealer D’Anton; etc. Jacobson weaves in plenty of lines from the original play (as well as a number of other Shakespearean plays).
But for me, the long-winded conversations between Strulovitch and Shylock began to get rather tedious, and, in time, they began to detract from the more engaging strands of Jacobson's reimagined plot. Caught up in the concept, I quickly read the first 2/3 of the book. I read the last third just as quickly--because I wanted to reach the end and move on to something more enjoyable.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TadAD
Shakespeare's Shylock has always been a conundrum. On one hand we have the avaricious, vengeful, prejudiced, clownish Jew of The Merchant of Venice, a character it is almost impossible to like. Yet, on the other, the author has placed one of the play's two most memorable monologues...a monologue on
And now we have Jacobson's retelling of the story. I generally hate spoilers of any sort in reviews. Yet, in a sense, Shakespeare wrote a five-act spoiler 400-odd years ago, so I guess I will relax my rules a trifle because this is a book I find difficult to talk about beyond, "I really liked it," without delving into who and what the characters are. If you abhor spoilers, albeit not large, stop now.
Shylock Is My Name is The Merchant of Venice but it's the play in a funhouse mirror, simultaneously recognizable and distorted. We meet Shylock immediately—in fact, we meet him twice, but more on that in a bit—in the person of Simon Strulovitch who is wealthy, emotionally distant and slightly vindictive; secularized but unable to renounce his Jewish roots. He talks with his wife Kay (Leah), who is not dead in this version but has suffered a stroke leaving her in an uncertain vegetative state. Mostly, he talks about problems with his daughter, Beatrice (Jessica), who takes up with unsuitable (i.e., non-Jewish) boys in utter defiance of her father.
We then meet Plurabelle (Portia) but it's at this point that a vague sense begins to creep in that Shakespeare's archetypes may not be Jacobson's. Yes, Plurabelle is Portia-like in her beauty and, yes, she had a doting father who thought that suitors had to prove themselves worthy. But, isn't she just a trifle bit shallow, much given to partying, cosmetic surgery and dancing men about on strings? And, true, she does seem to have a yen for playing judge advocate. But, isn't it just that: playing, achieving her Kardashian-like moments through a reality TV show where she allows the audience to vote on who should win any given dispute?
D'Anton (Antonio) enters. He is urbane and polished but also narcissistic, prejudiced, and more than a trifle disingenuous. He craves attention and actually wants Plurabelle's suitor for himself but would never be so crass as to voice these out loud, limiting himself to sulkiness when thwarted. I remember thinking those very things of Antonio when I first read the original 30 years ago, despite a teacher talking about, "kind and generous, a wonderful friend."
The entrance of Barney (Bassanio) and Gratan (Gratanio) affords a pause. Shakespeare's leading young men, in the comedies at least, are usually puerile dolts and Jacobson has done nothing to tinker with this. This pause allows me to check my perspective. Antonio is usually considered a Good Guy yet I had once thought "not so much." Portia is the epitome of fairness and Christian mercy but, really, hadn't she used exactly the fraud and scrupulosity Shylock was accused of to deny him any recompense whatsoever?
Was Jacobson saying, "LOOK at the characters"?
It's time to mention that I left out the most important character of this book. We meet Shylock twice, once in the person of Strulovitch and once in the person of Shylock, himself. Not quite in a flashback to the 16th century and not quite as a resetting of that character into the 21st. In an act of unreality allowed by fiction, we have the 16th century character still alive today. His history is known to the other characters who find it vulgarly interesting but not particularly remarkable. This Shylock becomes the confidant of Strulovitch-Shylock but, more importantly, he becomes the deepest character. He is lifted from a pure caricature to person who thinks deeply about the nature of prejudice, the role of fairness, and the consequences of what we do. He is not untrue to the original, just dimensional.
All this is early in the book and I don't want to reveal more about the tale other than to suggest you shouldn't assume that Shakespeare has actually spoiled the eventual fates of the characters, or even the somewhat (in my opinion) predictable twist.
What Jacobson has done is not...or not principally...re-tell the story of the merchant and the Jew in Venice, but to ask the reader to look at the roles that have been assigned to the characters and ask whether that's as deep as we want to go. Is this version the distortion or was the original? Most of all, he has reclaimed a human-ness for Shylock...whether it is a good one or a bad one you'll have to read and decide for yourself.
Show More
pain and humanity...into his mouth when confronting the heroes' version of justice. Is this a play of serious anti-Semitism or exposé of the same? Scholars have been arguing about it for centuries and will probably do so as long as the play is read.And now we have Jacobson's retelling of the story. I generally hate spoilers of any sort in reviews. Yet, in a sense, Shakespeare wrote a five-act spoiler 400-odd years ago, so I guess I will relax my rules a trifle because this is a book I find difficult to talk about beyond, "I really liked it," without delving into who and what the characters are. If you abhor spoilers, albeit not large, stop now.
Shylock Is My Name is The Merchant of Venice but it's the play in a funhouse mirror, simultaneously recognizable and distorted. We meet Shylock immediately—in fact, we meet him twice, but more on that in a bit—in the person of Simon Strulovitch who is wealthy, emotionally distant and slightly vindictive; secularized but unable to renounce his Jewish roots. He talks with his wife Kay (Leah), who is not dead in this version but has suffered a stroke leaving her in an uncertain vegetative state. Mostly, he talks about problems with his daughter, Beatrice (Jessica), who takes up with unsuitable (i.e., non-Jewish) boys in utter defiance of her father.
We then meet Plurabelle (Portia) but it's at this point that a vague sense begins to creep in that Shakespeare's archetypes may not be Jacobson's. Yes, Plurabelle is Portia-like in her beauty and, yes, she had a doting father who thought that suitors had to prove themselves worthy. But, isn't she just a trifle bit shallow, much given to partying, cosmetic surgery and dancing men about on strings? And, true, she does seem to have a yen for playing judge advocate. But, isn't it just that: playing, achieving her Kardashian-like moments through a reality TV show where she allows the audience to vote on who should win any given dispute?
D'Anton (Antonio) enters. He is urbane and polished but also narcissistic, prejudiced, and more than a trifle disingenuous. He craves attention and actually wants Plurabelle's suitor for himself but would never be so crass as to voice these out loud, limiting himself to sulkiness when thwarted. I remember thinking those very things of Antonio when I first read the original 30 years ago, despite a teacher talking about, "kind and generous, a wonderful friend."
The entrance of Barney (Bassanio) and Gratan (Gratanio) affords a pause. Shakespeare's leading young men, in the comedies at least, are usually puerile dolts and Jacobson has done nothing to tinker with this. This pause allows me to check my perspective. Antonio is usually considered a Good Guy yet I had once thought "not so much." Portia is the epitome of fairness and Christian mercy but, really, hadn't she used exactly the fraud and scrupulosity Shylock was accused of to deny him any recompense whatsoever?
Was Jacobson saying, "LOOK at the characters"?
It's time to mention that I left out the most important character of this book. We meet Shylock twice, once in the person of Strulovitch and once in the person of Shylock, himself. Not quite in a flashback to the 16th century and not quite as a resetting of that character into the 21st. In an act of unreality allowed by fiction, we have the 16th century character still alive today. His history is known to the other characters who find it vulgarly interesting but not particularly remarkable. This Shylock becomes the confidant of Strulovitch-Shylock but, more importantly, he becomes the deepest character. He is lifted from a pure caricature to person who thinks deeply about the nature of prejudice, the role of fairness, and the consequences of what we do. He is not untrue to the original, just dimensional.
All this is early in the book and I don't want to reveal more about the tale other than to suggest you shouldn't assume that Shakespeare has actually spoiled the eventual fates of the characters, or even the somewhat (in my opinion) predictable twist.
What Jacobson has done is not...or not principally...re-tell the story of the merchant and the Jew in Venice, but to ask the reader to look at the roles that have been assigned to the characters and ask whether that's as deep as we want to go. Is this version the distortion or was the original? Most of all, he has reclaimed a human-ness for Shylock...whether it is a good one or a bad one you'll have to read and decide for yourself.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LizzieD
Is it your wish to read The Merchant of Venice from the point of view of a 21st century Shylock? Shylock Is My Name is your book then.
Simon Strulovitch is living Shylock's story when he meets the real Shylock in a cemetery and takes him home. The best parts of the book show these two trying to
Except that the women were given short shrift (Plurabelle=Portia and Beatrice=Jessica), the whole experience reminded me of reading Iris Murdoch. Jacobson is not responsible for the plot, but Murdoch is also prone to complicate her characters' lives and then to watch them struggle to make sense of their experience by talking it out. Sometimes I was exasperated; sometimes intrigued. At any rate, Shylock is the best character. I loved that he's lived all these years (he has!), constrained to go no further than the parameters of the play. Having thought about it, I am more appreciative of the book finished than I was as I was reading.
Simon Strulovitch is living Shylock's story when he meets the real Shylock in a cemetery and takes him home. The best parts of the book show these two trying to
Show More
figure out what it means to be a Jewish man and father to a daughter. Each also does a lot of thinking on his own so that issues are thoroughly laid out. Near the end Strulovitch thinks, "Loneliness, was it? Or guilt? He thought both. But then it was a habit of his mind to think both. Hence his being an on-again off-again Jew. Being a Jew was everything to him, except when it wasn't. Which is a debilitating characteristic of the Jewish mind; unless it is a strength." There you go: a lot like life.Except that the women were given short shrift (Plurabelle=Portia and Beatrice=Jessica), the whole experience reminded me of reading Iris Murdoch. Jacobson is not responsible for the plot, but Murdoch is also prone to complicate her characters' lives and then to watch them struggle to make sense of their experience by talking it out. Sometimes I was exasperated; sometimes intrigued. At any rate, Shylock is the best character. I loved that he's lived all these years (he has!), constrained to go no further than the parameters of the play. Having thought about it, I am more appreciative of the book finished than I was as I was reading.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Liz1564
Shylock Is My Name by Jacobson is the second in the Hogarth Shakespeare's series retelling the canon. A 21st century Jew from Manchester meets Shakespeare's Shylock in a graveyard where Simon Strulovitch is remembering the one year anniversary of his mother's death and Shylock is conversing with
So, perversely, I am not going to discuss this aspect of the novel since much better and more knowledgeable writers than I am have written essays analyzing Simon/Shylock. Instead, I want to concentrate on the Gentile players in the novel and see what Jacobson does with them. First of all, Portia and her friends are laugh-out-loud funny in the meanest sense. In the 21st century Portia is Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is A Joy Forever Christine. Plurabelle does honor the spirit of her father's will but she does this not because she must but because she realizes it is a great way to get rid of unwanted suitors and keep herself independent. So instead of three caskets she manages to show her potential loves three of her fleet of cars: a Porsche Carrera, a BMW Alpina and a Volkswagon Beetle. She also has a reality show called "The Kitchen Counsellor where she cooks a meal and then invites guests to bring their grievances to the dinner table where she arbitrates their disputes. So her judiciary skills are established.
The other Belmont characters fare little better. Antonio/D'Anton has become Plurabelle's permanent houseguest, art advisor, and confidant. He will do anything for his young male friends including procuring sex partners. Bassanio/Barney has a winsome smile and nothing much else to offer and Gratiano/Gratan is a much-married dolt. There is absolutely nothing good at Belmont/Utopia. Plurabelle and D'Anton think it great fun to get a lovely Jewess for Gratan because he wants one and they settle on Simon's 16 year-old daughter Beatice/Jessica. Unlike the Simon/Shylock tragedy, the lovers story is biting, bitter farce. What vacuous and shallow people Plurabelle and her friends are, with not one single redemptive feature among them.
So finally, all roles are reversed. The hated Jew is the complicated, misjudged hero and the Gentiles are the stereotyped, laughable villains. Is this true to the spirit of The Merchant of Venice? It worked for me. It might not work for others, but I think Shakespeare would have approved.
Show More
his dead wife Leah. So begins the saga of Simon and Shylock contemplating the meaning of being a Jew in both the 16th and the 21st centuries. Have times really changed? Or is it that "the more things change, the more they remain the same"? Certainly both Simon and Shylock feel the same love, possessiveness, and proprietory ownership of their daughters and both daughters rebelled against the boundaries set by their fathers. At times I felt uncomfortable being in the minds of Simon and Shylock because their experiences were so foreign to anything I have ever gone through. (I have only been judged once based solely on my identity. During the invasion of Iraq a woman in the National Gallery in London approached me and asked if I was an American. She then yelled at me for supporting the invasion and said she hated Americans. Astonished, I did not have the opportunity to state that I agreed with her about the invasion before she turned away. ) For Simon/Shylock prejudice is an everyday occurrence and the question of Jewish identity is the heart of the novel.So, perversely, I am not going to discuss this aspect of the novel since much better and more knowledgeable writers than I am have written essays analyzing Simon/Shylock. Instead, I want to concentrate on the Gentile players in the novel and see what Jacobson does with them. First of all, Portia and her friends are laugh-out-loud funny in the meanest sense. In the 21st century Portia is Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is A Joy Forever Christine. Plurabelle does honor the spirit of her father's will but she does this not because she must but because she realizes it is a great way to get rid of unwanted suitors and keep herself independent. So instead of three caskets she manages to show her potential loves three of her fleet of cars: a Porsche Carrera, a BMW Alpina and a Volkswagon Beetle. She also has a reality show called "The Kitchen Counsellor where she cooks a meal and then invites guests to bring their grievances to the dinner table where she arbitrates their disputes. So her judiciary skills are established.
The other Belmont characters fare little better. Antonio/D'Anton has become Plurabelle's permanent houseguest, art advisor, and confidant. He will do anything for his young male friends including procuring sex partners. Bassanio/Barney has a winsome smile and nothing much else to offer and Gratiano/Gratan is a much-married dolt. There is absolutely nothing good at Belmont/Utopia. Plurabelle and D'Anton think it great fun to get a lovely Jewess for Gratan because he wants one and they settle on Simon's 16 year-old daughter Beatice/Jessica. Unlike the Simon/Shylock tragedy, the lovers story is biting, bitter farce. What vacuous and shallow people Plurabelle and her friends are, with not one single redemptive feature among them.
So finally, all roles are reversed. The hated Jew is the complicated, misjudged hero and the Gentiles are the stereotyped, laughable villains. Is this true to the spirit of The Merchant of Venice? It worked for me. It might not work for others, but I think Shakespeare would have approved.
Show Less
LibraryThing member KittyKeith
This is the second book that I have read in the Hogarth Shakespeare collection. The first was The Gap of Time. I really shouldn't compare the two books because they are written by different authors but they are part of the same collection, so I feel like there is no getting around the comparison. I
First, I feel like this book is linguistically above my pay grade. I don't think I'm smart enough. I used my context clues to help me out as much as possible, but stopping to either look up a word or reread sections to better understand took me out of the story too often to really enjoy the story.
Second, I really don't understand where Shylock came from. Is he a ghost? Is he immortal? Is he a time lord? Do I really need to understand this to fully understand the book? I just don't know.
Third, it was maybe a little over halfway into this book that I finally got into that flow where I was pretty sure I knew what was going on and felt comfortable grasping the storyline. I almost put this book down so many times. Friends kept telling me to just give up and move on but I hate doing that with books. I always want to give the book a chance, it might have an amazing end.
Lastly, there was a lot, and I mean a lot about Jewish life. I am not Jewish and I do not know much about Jewish life. I wonder if I were Jewish, would I have understood more of this book.
In the end, I would have to say that the story was ok, but just not for me. There was an interesting end to the story and I am glad that I finished. I really hope others give it a try and let me know how they felt. I might lend this out to a friend of mine who is Jewish and see if she gets more out of the book.
Show More
have to say that I didn't love this book as much as I did Gap of Time. First, I feel like this book is linguistically above my pay grade. I don't think I'm smart enough. I used my context clues to help me out as much as possible, but stopping to either look up a word or reread sections to better understand took me out of the story too often to really enjoy the story.
Second, I really don't understand where Shylock came from. Is he a ghost? Is he immortal? Is he a time lord? Do I really need to understand this to fully understand the book? I just don't know.
Third, it was maybe a little over halfway into this book that I finally got into that flow where I was pretty sure I knew what was going on and felt comfortable grasping the storyline. I almost put this book down so many times. Friends kept telling me to just give up and move on but I hate doing that with books. I always want to give the book a chance, it might have an amazing end.
Lastly, there was a lot, and I mean a lot about Jewish life. I am not Jewish and I do not know much about Jewish life. I wonder if I were Jewish, would I have understood more of this book.
In the end, I would have to say that the story was ok, but just not for me. There was an interesting end to the story and I am glad that I finished. I really hope others give it a try and let me know how they felt. I might lend this out to a friend of mine who is Jewish and see if she gets more out of the book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kbuchanan
This book was, I admit, a difficult one for me to pin down. I received a copy through the Early Reviewers group, and so was reading knowing that I would be reviewing. Even so, my opinions on even whether or not I was enjoying the book were constantly in flux. On the surface, this is a modern -
The book's real strength, however, is in its frank, weighty, and distinctly grown-up discussion of Jewish identity in the modern world. While these ideas certainly may not be lamed as universals, Strulovitch and Shylock nimbly navigate the irony of being thought of as symbols or representatives of what it means to be "Jewish" while attempting to come to terms with their individual experiences as men and fathers. While Shakespeare's play does focus more on the character of Shylock, I found myself wishing for some more insight into the character of Beatrice in this novel. Plagued by labels of "exoticism" and hounded by older men of several stripes, Beatrice could have provided some interesting counterpoint to the perspectives given by Strulovitch/Shylock. Ultimately, however, her's is not the story Jacobson has set out to tell. The parallels to the Portia, Antonio, Barnaby side of the story leave much to be desired, in my opinion, as it is clear that Jacobson's focus is so clearly on Shylock's story. The book's title, in this, is not misleading. So, even if we are left with a not-entirely satisfactory bit of story-telling, we are given an exceptionally insightful feat of character building and intellectual food for thought. Given the strength of writing here, I was left wishing that Jacobson had widened his focus ever so slightly, that we might have glimpsed more than an interesting character study.
Show More
"re-telling" is definitely the wrong word - of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." Jacobson's re-imagining of Shylock in Strulovitch is an intriguing one, as, obviously, is the decision to include a representation of the "real" Shylock as well. Jacobson is fully in command over the often elegant language in this work, but certainly not to the extent that I was made to forget about the frequently stagnant storyline. Yes, it's not as if "The Merchant of Venice" is a "Lord of the Rings"- style epic, but the decision here to have most of the action happen either prior to the book's coverage of events, or in essence, happen off-stage, is particularly frustrating. Perhaps some of this off-stage business is a nod to Shakespearean convention, but what works in a stage play may not turn out to be quite as effective in a novel.The book's real strength, however, is in its frank, weighty, and distinctly grown-up discussion of Jewish identity in the modern world. While these ideas certainly may not be lamed as universals, Strulovitch and Shylock nimbly navigate the irony of being thought of as symbols or representatives of what it means to be "Jewish" while attempting to come to terms with their individual experiences as men and fathers. While Shakespeare's play does focus more on the character of Shylock, I found myself wishing for some more insight into the character of Beatrice in this novel. Plagued by labels of "exoticism" and hounded by older men of several stripes, Beatrice could have provided some interesting counterpoint to the perspectives given by Strulovitch/Shylock. Ultimately, however, her's is not the story Jacobson has set out to tell. The parallels to the Portia, Antonio, Barnaby side of the story leave much to be desired, in my opinion, as it is clear that Jacobson's focus is so clearly on Shylock's story. The book's title, in this, is not misleading. So, even if we are left with a not-entirely satisfactory bit of story-telling, we are given an exceptionally insightful feat of character building and intellectual food for thought. Given the strength of writing here, I was left wishing that Jacobson had widened his focus ever so slightly, that we might have glimpsed more than an interesting character study.
Show Less
LibraryThing member KatyBee
This Hogarth Shakespeare novel is a contemporary interpretation of The Merchant of Venice. The main character is a millionaire art collector named Simon Strulovitch who meets Shylock in a cemetery. They do engage in interesting conversations but I found the other characters weird and the storyline
Show More
strange. In the end, I found it difficult to relate to this book, both in style and content. Perhaps it’s best read by fans of author Howard Jacobson or readers interested in one of the main themes such as Jewish identity or father-daughter relationships. I like the concept of Hogarth’s project very much but this one wasn’t for me. (And probably, I love another Hogarth novel too much - sorry, but Hag-Seed is so great! Nice that there is a variety to choose from in the Shakespeare project.) Show Less
LibraryThing member SamSattler
Howard Jacobson’s Shylock Is My Name was the second title published in the Hogarth Shakespeare series that began in October 2015. Crown Publishing invited a group of notable novelists each to retell one of Shakespeare’s classic plays as a Shakespeare-inspired novel in their own style, and
According to Jacobson, it is on “one of those better-to-be-dead-than-alive days you get in the north of England in February” when Strulovitch and Shylock have their fateful encounter among the headstones of a cemetery. Strulovitch, an occasional visitor, is there to inspect the new headstone recently placed over his mother’s grave. Shylock, a regular visitor, is there to speak with his dead wife, Leah, whose own headstone is “worn to nothing.” Strulovitch cannot avoid overhearing Shylock’s conversation, and recognizes the man for who he is: the actual Shylock made famous by Shakespeare’s (some would say) anti-Semitic play, The Merchant of Venice. In a decision he would come to question, Strulovitch invites Shylock to his home where he offers the man a bedroom of his own.
Strulovitch is not a practicing Jew, but he firmly believes in the Jewish tradition, as did his father who declared Strulovitch dead to him after Strulovitch dared marry a non-Jew. Strulovitch has returned the favor to his daughter by demanding that she date only Jewish men – and she is having none of it. The harder Strulovitch pushes her, the more rebellious she becomes, and now she has run off with a decidedly non-Jewish local football player. Oh, and she is only sixteen years old. Now, devastated by his daughter’s rejection of her heritage and family, Strulovitch shares his grief with Shylock, who is equally overwhelmed by his own daughter’s rejection of Jewish tradition.
Those familiar with The Merchant of Venice will enjoy ticking off, as he makes them, all the nods to Shakespeare’s story that Jacobson manages in Shylock Is My Name, even down to the novel’s climax in which Strulovitch demands his “pound of flesh” from the volunteer standing in for his daughter’s Christian lover. A product of its times, The Merchant of Venice often reflects the accepted anti-Semitism Shakespeare’s audience would have expected. Howard Jacobson, instead, has used Shakespeare’s basic plotline as a reflection of the modern Jew’s struggle to define himself in today’s world. Shylock Is My Name reminds me very much, in fact, of Jacobson’s 2010 Man Booker Prize winner The Finkler Question, another book about recreating the Jewish identity in the modern world.
Shylock Is My Name is my third experience with the Hogarth Shakespeare series and I continue to be impressed with the novels.
Show More
Jacobson’s Shylock Is My Name is based upon Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Shylock Is My Name was preceded by Jeanette Winterson’s take on The Winter’s Tale and has been followed by Anne Tyler’s look at The Taming of the Shrew and Margaret Atwood’s at The Tempest. Yet to come are Tracy Chevalier’s retelling of Othello, Gillian Flynn’s of Hamlet, Jo Nesbø’s of Macbeth, and Edward St. Aubyn’s of King Lear, bringing the series to a total of eight books.According to Jacobson, it is on “one of those better-to-be-dead-than-alive days you get in the north of England in February” when Strulovitch and Shylock have their fateful encounter among the headstones of a cemetery. Strulovitch, an occasional visitor, is there to inspect the new headstone recently placed over his mother’s grave. Shylock, a regular visitor, is there to speak with his dead wife, Leah, whose own headstone is “worn to nothing.” Strulovitch cannot avoid overhearing Shylock’s conversation, and recognizes the man for who he is: the actual Shylock made famous by Shakespeare’s (some would say) anti-Semitic play, The Merchant of Venice. In a decision he would come to question, Strulovitch invites Shylock to his home where he offers the man a bedroom of his own.
Strulovitch is not a practicing Jew, but he firmly believes in the Jewish tradition, as did his father who declared Strulovitch dead to him after Strulovitch dared marry a non-Jew. Strulovitch has returned the favor to his daughter by demanding that she date only Jewish men – and she is having none of it. The harder Strulovitch pushes her, the more rebellious she becomes, and now she has run off with a decidedly non-Jewish local football player. Oh, and she is only sixteen years old. Now, devastated by his daughter’s rejection of her heritage and family, Strulovitch shares his grief with Shylock, who is equally overwhelmed by his own daughter’s rejection of Jewish tradition.
Those familiar with The Merchant of Venice will enjoy ticking off, as he makes them, all the nods to Shakespeare’s story that Jacobson manages in Shylock Is My Name, even down to the novel’s climax in which Strulovitch demands his “pound of flesh” from the volunteer standing in for his daughter’s Christian lover. A product of its times, The Merchant of Venice often reflects the accepted anti-Semitism Shakespeare’s audience would have expected. Howard Jacobson, instead, has used Shakespeare’s basic plotline as a reflection of the modern Jew’s struggle to define himself in today’s world. Shylock Is My Name reminds me very much, in fact, of Jacobson’s 2010 Man Booker Prize winner The Finkler Question, another book about recreating the Jewish identity in the modern world.
Shylock Is My Name is my third experience with the Hogarth Shakespeare series and I continue to be impressed with the novels.
Show Less
LibraryThing member browner56
Shylock is one of literature’s most enduring characters. As the Jewish money-lender who demands his “pound of flesh” in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, he is the focal point for that comedy of manners and cultural differences that was set in 16th century Italy. So, what would happen
To be sure, this is an occasionally clever reinvention in which every main Shakespearean player has a modern counterpart (e.g., Strulovitch = Shylock—and, of course, Shylock = Shylock, too; Plurabelle = Portia; D’Anton = Antonio; Barnaby = Bassanio; Gratiano = Gratan; Beatrice = Jessica; and so on). Even the infamous pound of flesh that Strulovich demands from D’Anton is represented in a creative way that drives much of the narrative development toward the end of the book. However, I was also confused as to the author’s main purpose in tackling this project. As a straighforward homage to Shakespeare, it probably fails in that it is way too farcical—think of some of Michael Frayn’s story-telling—and the characters are too one-dimensional to honor the original play in a serious way. In fact, for those not already very familiar with Shakespeare’s production, I suspect that they will find this updated treatment to be a little confusing.
For me, the real false note in the retelling is Plurabelle, who has little of the wit, charm, or resourcefulness of Portia. Indeed, Portia is one of Shakespeare’s great female protagonists and, by comparison, Jacobson’s Plury is simply vain and vapid; she provides none of the necessary moral and theological contrast to Shylock (or Strulovitch) that gave the original play such substance. Moreover, all of the forces in this story who align against Strulovitch/Shylock—Plury, D’Anton, Barnaby, Gratan—are so pitifully shallow in their intents and self-interests that there is very little drama involved at all. Further, some of the plot points were so ludicrous (e.g., Plury’s three-car puzzle for prospective suitors) that it was as if the author felt compelled to work them into the story just because they were prominent elements of the original.
On the other hand, what I found far more engaging about Shylock is My Name was the author’s considerable reflection on what it means to be Jewish in today’s society. (This may well have been why Jacobson was selected for this project in the first place, given the themes of some of his past work.) Although at times a little heavy-handed and polemical, the thought-provoking exchanges between Strulovitch and Shylock were illuminating and underscored the deep uncertainties that people of all faiths can have regarding their religious observance (e.g., a non-practicing Jewish father nevertheless demanding that his daughter not marry a Gentile). While The Merchant of Venice introduced the issue of antisemitism almost incidentally in the name of presenting a romantic comedy, the author here tackles the topic more forthrightly. Ultimately, then, the reader is invited to walk the proverbial mile in Jacobson’s shoes, even if where that journey ends up is not altogether clear.
Show More
if Shylock suddenly reappeared in 21st century England to serve as sort of a spirit guide to an emotionally and theologically conflicted art collector and businessman? In Shylock is My Name, Howard Jacobson gives us his answer in a novel that combines an updating and retelling of Merchant with a nifty bit of meta-fiction (i.e., the modern-day Shylock in the new tale is advised by the legendary original, who ostensibly has been brought back to “life” for just that purpose.)To be sure, this is an occasionally clever reinvention in which every main Shakespearean player has a modern counterpart (e.g., Strulovitch = Shylock—and, of course, Shylock = Shylock, too; Plurabelle = Portia; D’Anton = Antonio; Barnaby = Bassanio; Gratiano = Gratan; Beatrice = Jessica; and so on). Even the infamous pound of flesh that Strulovich demands from D’Anton is represented in a creative way that drives much of the narrative development toward the end of the book. However, I was also confused as to the author’s main purpose in tackling this project. As a straighforward homage to Shakespeare, it probably fails in that it is way too farcical—think of some of Michael Frayn’s story-telling—and the characters are too one-dimensional to honor the original play in a serious way. In fact, for those not already very familiar with Shakespeare’s production, I suspect that they will find this updated treatment to be a little confusing.
For me, the real false note in the retelling is Plurabelle, who has little of the wit, charm, or resourcefulness of Portia. Indeed, Portia is one of Shakespeare’s great female protagonists and, by comparison, Jacobson’s Plury is simply vain and vapid; she provides none of the necessary moral and theological contrast to Shylock (or Strulovitch) that gave the original play such substance. Moreover, all of the forces in this story who align against Strulovitch/Shylock—Plury, D’Anton, Barnaby, Gratan—are so pitifully shallow in their intents and self-interests that there is very little drama involved at all. Further, some of the plot points were so ludicrous (e.g., Plury’s three-car puzzle for prospective suitors) that it was as if the author felt compelled to work them into the story just because they were prominent elements of the original.
On the other hand, what I found far more engaging about Shylock is My Name was the author’s considerable reflection on what it means to be Jewish in today’s society. (This may well have been why Jacobson was selected for this project in the first place, given the themes of some of his past work.) Although at times a little heavy-handed and polemical, the thought-provoking exchanges between Strulovitch and Shylock were illuminating and underscored the deep uncertainties that people of all faiths can have regarding their religious observance (e.g., a non-practicing Jewish father nevertheless demanding that his daughter not marry a Gentile). While The Merchant of Venice introduced the issue of antisemitism almost incidentally in the name of presenting a romantic comedy, the author here tackles the topic more forthrightly. Ultimately, then, the reader is invited to walk the proverbial mile in Jacobson’s shoes, even if where that journey ends up is not altogether clear.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Bellettres
On a winter day, some time in the early 21st century, Simon Strulovitch ( a non-practicing Jew) meets Shakespeare's Shylock. Because he is a character only, Shylock has not changed since the end of Act V of The Merchant of Venice. He does, however, share a number of life experiences with
It took me about 40 pages to become engrossed in the story. I do not know much about Jewish culture, and I'm sure I missed a lot because of that. I am quite familiar with The Merchant of Venice and was impressed with Jacobson's ability to incorporate all of the famous speeches (with a surprising twist on Portia's "Mercy Speech" at the end), as well as many of the plot elements. (I did get out my Riverside Shakespeare to review parts of the play.) His vocabulary is amazing. (I also got out my dictionary more than once.) He has succeeded in keeping the "comedy" alive, although this is not comedy in the Shakespearean sense of the word.
In brief, if you loved the play, you'll probably like this novel.
Show More
Strulovitch. Both men have wives who are no longer present, but the husbands talk to them nonetheless. Shylock's Leah is dead; Simon's wife Kay has had a stroke and is unable to communicate in any meaningful way. Both men have teenage daughters who, in their father's opinion, have made very bad choices, especially when it comes to men. Both men have been discriminated against, even hated, because they are Jews. Howard Jacobson has taken Shakespeare's play, and updated it to include texting, politics of the Middle East, and British soccer teams. While creating parallel characters and situations, his main thrust is an attempt to answer the question: "What does it mean to be a Jew?" There are many other questions as well: What's the definition of a good father? How should a society and the individuals in that society deal with religious differences? What demands does friendship impose?It took me about 40 pages to become engrossed in the story. I do not know much about Jewish culture, and I'm sure I missed a lot because of that. I am quite familiar with The Merchant of Venice and was impressed with Jacobson's ability to incorporate all of the famous speeches (with a surprising twist on Portia's "Mercy Speech" at the end), as well as many of the plot elements. (I did get out my Riverside Shakespeare to review parts of the play.) His vocabulary is amazing. (I also got out my dictionary more than once.) He has succeeded in keeping the "comedy" alive, although this is not comedy in the Shakespearean sense of the word.
In brief, if you loved the play, you'll probably like this novel.
Show Less
LibraryThing member michigantrumpet
I've been excited by the concept of the Hogarth Shakespeare Collection in which respected authors reimagine the Bard's works in modern retelling. The editors of the series have been quite imaginative in their assignments, including Judaic-navelgazer Howard Jacobson for The Merchant of Venice.
Mr. Jacobson and I did not part as friends after my reading of his Booker Prize winning "The Finkler Question". I reconsidered when the interesting concept and hearty review of a respected friend led me to "Shylock is My Name." Alas, my same reservations remain. No question -- the man can write an exquisite sentence. However, his characters -- especially the women -- are thinly portrayed cardboard. This was particularly galling as I so appreciate the Portia and Beatrice of the purportedly unenlightened 400 year old original. As with Finkler, we are treated to Strulovich and Shylock's MANY lengthy philosophical discussions over modern Judaism and Jewish identity. (Strulovich must be desperately lonely to sustain a friendship with such a tedious man.) If this is your sort of thing, I heartily recommend the book. I've no doubt Jacobson would find I'm not the reader for him. Conversely I'll be perfectly comfortable saying he's not the writer for me.
Show More
Wealthy Strulovich, bereft of wife and friends, and rattling about a large home with a rebellious daughter, befriends devout and shabby Shylock after a chance encounter in a cemetery. E-mail snooping, offended honor over said daughter's dalliance with a Gentile and forced circumcision are all the order of the day. Mr. Jacobson and I did not part as friends after my reading of his Booker Prize winning "The Finkler Question". I reconsidered when the interesting concept and hearty review of a respected friend led me to "Shylock is My Name." Alas, my same reservations remain. No question -- the man can write an exquisite sentence. However, his characters -- especially the women -- are thinly portrayed cardboard. This was particularly galling as I so appreciate the Portia and Beatrice of the purportedly unenlightened 400 year old original. As with Finkler, we are treated to Strulovich and Shylock's MANY lengthy philosophical discussions over modern Judaism and Jewish identity. (Strulovich must be desperately lonely to sustain a friendship with such a tedious man.) If this is your sort of thing, I heartily recommend the book. I've no doubt Jacobson would find I'm not the reader for him. Conversely I'll be perfectly comfortable saying he's not the writer for me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DarthDeverell
In Shylock is My Name, Howard Jacobson adapts and reinvents Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice for modern London as part of Hogarth’s Shakespeare series in which various plays by the Bard are retold by famous authors. Like Shakespeare’s play, Jacobson’s Shylock crosscuts between the
Strulovitch, like Shylock, has troubles with his daughter, Beatrice, here taking the place of Shylock’s daughter, Jessica, as well as Nerissa, Portia’s waiting maid in the play. Unlike Shylock’s wife Leah, Strulovitch’s wife has not died, though she has suffered a stroke that fully incapacitates her. In an interesting turn of events, Strulovitch meets Shylock and the two strike up a rapport. Jacobson uses Shylock and Strulovitch to discuss the Jewish experience in Europe from 1492 through Shakespeare’s time up to modern London. In a discussion between the two, Shylock says, “The individual Jew brings the collective Jew. It’s the collective Jew that Christians see. Person to person, I grant you, they can be very nice…A German apologized to me in a cemetery once. But when I extended my hand he seemed afraid to take it. Why? Because at that moment it wasn’t the individual Shylock’s hands, it was the hand of the collective Jew” (p. 65). Though Strulovitch and his daughter speak to Shylock, Jacobson maintains ambiguity as to whether or not Shylock exists outside of Strulovitch’s head. At times, Shylock serves as a moral compass for Strulovitch and reads as though Jacobson had plucked him from the folio of The Merchant of Venice and dropped him into the novel. In a moment of self-awareness, Shylock says, “For me personally…there is no now. I live when I lived. I have told you: where the story stopped, I stop” (p. 68). As further evidence of this view of Jacobson’s Shylock as literary-figure-made-manifest, Shylock muses on the end of The Merchant of Venice in which the Venetian authorities ordered his conversion to Christianity: “Before Shylock had been able to convert, or pretend to convert, the footlights dimmed” (p. 84). Shylock continually breaks the fourth wall in this manner, aware of his role in the play just as Strulovitch is aware of it, but able to interact with the modern world. A warning of what was and might be again.
Beatrice, like Jessica, continues to refute her father and enters the social circle of Plurabelle, Jacobson’s updated Portia of London’s modern celebrity-obsessed culture. Like Portia, Plurabelle finds herself orphaned with a vast fortune. In a clever homage to the test left by Portia’s father for her suitors in Shakespeare’s original play, Jacobson portrays Plurabelle attending swingers parties and bringing the keys to her Volkswagen Beetle, BMW Alpina, and Porsche Carrera. Naturally, none of the would-be suitors choose the keys to the Beetle. Plurabelle’s friend D’Anton, whose melancholy and sexuality echo both the character as Shakespeare wrote him and as scholars have interpreted him, attends her. The suitor who finally passes Plurabelle’s test is Barnaby, an updated Bassanio. Plurabelle initially brings Beatrice into her circle in order to please a footballer named Gratan, a reference to Gratiano from The Merchant of Venice, and both Plurabelle and Beatrice dress as men, another reference to the play.
In condensing some of the characters, Jacobson helps to move the plot forward more directly than Shakespeare’s play, arriving at the showdown between Strulovitch and D’Anton. Shylock attends, explaining his relationship to Strulovitch: “He thinks of me as his conscience” (p.233). In that role, Shylock transcends his literary source and pleads with his modern doppelganger for mercy with D’Anton. On the subject of mercy, he says, “Charity is a Jewish concept. So is mercy. You took them from us, that is all. You appropriated them. They were given freely, but still you had to steal them” (p 267). In arguing for a victory of morality, Shylock becomes the social superior to the Gentiles around him. Jacobson’s fifth act allows him to transcend the play, to draw upon an additional four hundred years of Jewish history in order to comment on The Merchant of Venice and to re-appropriate it for modern Jewish audiences. If Jacobson’s writing is any indication of the quality of the rest of the Hogarth Shakespeare line, then readers are witnessing a new day for scholarship dedicated to the Bard.
Show More
Jewish and Gentile characters. When his story begins, a feud already exists between Strulovitch, his stand-in for Shylock, and D’Anton, his updated Antonio.Strulovitch, like Shylock, has troubles with his daughter, Beatrice, here taking the place of Shylock’s daughter, Jessica, as well as Nerissa, Portia’s waiting maid in the play. Unlike Shylock’s wife Leah, Strulovitch’s wife has not died, though she has suffered a stroke that fully incapacitates her. In an interesting turn of events, Strulovitch meets Shylock and the two strike up a rapport. Jacobson uses Shylock and Strulovitch to discuss the Jewish experience in Europe from 1492 through Shakespeare’s time up to modern London. In a discussion between the two, Shylock says, “The individual Jew brings the collective Jew. It’s the collective Jew that Christians see. Person to person, I grant you, they can be very nice…A German apologized to me in a cemetery once. But when I extended my hand he seemed afraid to take it. Why? Because at that moment it wasn’t the individual Shylock’s hands, it was the hand of the collective Jew” (p. 65). Though Strulovitch and his daughter speak to Shylock, Jacobson maintains ambiguity as to whether or not Shylock exists outside of Strulovitch’s head. At times, Shylock serves as a moral compass for Strulovitch and reads as though Jacobson had plucked him from the folio of The Merchant of Venice and dropped him into the novel. In a moment of self-awareness, Shylock says, “For me personally…there is no now. I live when I lived. I have told you: where the story stopped, I stop” (p. 68). As further evidence of this view of Jacobson’s Shylock as literary-figure-made-manifest, Shylock muses on the end of The Merchant of Venice in which the Venetian authorities ordered his conversion to Christianity: “Before Shylock had been able to convert, or pretend to convert, the footlights dimmed” (p. 84). Shylock continually breaks the fourth wall in this manner, aware of his role in the play just as Strulovitch is aware of it, but able to interact with the modern world. A warning of what was and might be again.
Beatrice, like Jessica, continues to refute her father and enters the social circle of Plurabelle, Jacobson’s updated Portia of London’s modern celebrity-obsessed culture. Like Portia, Plurabelle finds herself orphaned with a vast fortune. In a clever homage to the test left by Portia’s father for her suitors in Shakespeare’s original play, Jacobson portrays Plurabelle attending swingers parties and bringing the keys to her Volkswagen Beetle, BMW Alpina, and Porsche Carrera. Naturally, none of the would-be suitors choose the keys to the Beetle. Plurabelle’s friend D’Anton, whose melancholy and sexuality echo both the character as Shakespeare wrote him and as scholars have interpreted him, attends her. The suitor who finally passes Plurabelle’s test is Barnaby, an updated Bassanio. Plurabelle initially brings Beatrice into her circle in order to please a footballer named Gratan, a reference to Gratiano from The Merchant of Venice, and both Plurabelle and Beatrice dress as men, another reference to the play.
In condensing some of the characters, Jacobson helps to move the plot forward more directly than Shakespeare’s play, arriving at the showdown between Strulovitch and D’Anton. Shylock attends, explaining his relationship to Strulovitch: “He thinks of me as his conscience” (p.233). In that role, Shylock transcends his literary source and pleads with his modern doppelganger for mercy with D’Anton. On the subject of mercy, he says, “Charity is a Jewish concept. So is mercy. You took them from us, that is all. You appropriated them. They were given freely, but still you had to steal them” (p 267). In arguing for a victory of morality, Shylock becomes the social superior to the Gentiles around him. Jacobson’s fifth act allows him to transcend the play, to draw upon an additional four hundred years of Jewish history in order to comment on The Merchant of Venice and to re-appropriate it for modern Jewish audiences. If Jacobson’s writing is any indication of the quality of the rest of the Hogarth Shakespeare line, then readers are witnessing a new day for scholarship dedicated to the Bard.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SheilaDeeth
Communication is a curious thing, as valuable as gold, as life-saving as a pound of flesh, and as fluid as the life-blood underneath. It's a vital part of fiction, and a complex part of Howard Jacobson's Shylock Is My Name. The author presents readers with two fathers and one father-figure in his
Childhood slights form the background to adult lives. Child-parent problems redefine themselves, from past to future. Childhood rebellions revert to adulthood’s fears. And the reader is led to ponder, what humor did Shakespeare’s character intend, what anger did he hide, what result did he expect?
Indeed, what results do any of us expect when hurts create deep soil for prejudice, in all directions? Shylock is My Name tells vividly of Jewishness in the Gentile society of rural Northern England. But underneath, it tells equally of difference in a world of sameness, of humor and confusion in the face of disaster and loss, and of wrong directions in communication. Relationships either fail or last beyond death in a story that's written with complex art and prose, and conveyed through a wealth of fascinating conversations—which, of course, are never the same as communication. It’s an artful read, sharp, dark, and unforgiven.
Disclosure: Blogging for Books provided this book to me and I offer my honest review.
Show More
modern-day take on Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. Both fathers talk to their wives, though one wife is dead and the other scarcely lives. Both fathers fail to talk to their daughters—one daughter is gone and the other seems set to leave. Meanwhile the non-father gathers his protégés, struggles to please them and please himself, and despises the Jewishness of the others—though of course, he doesn’t really despise Jews… not unless they get in his way.Childhood slights form the background to adult lives. Child-parent problems redefine themselves, from past to future. Childhood rebellions revert to adulthood’s fears. And the reader is led to ponder, what humor did Shakespeare’s character intend, what anger did he hide, what result did he expect?
Indeed, what results do any of us expect when hurts create deep soil for prejudice, in all directions? Shylock is My Name tells vividly of Jewishness in the Gentile society of rural Northern England. But underneath, it tells equally of difference in a world of sameness, of humor and confusion in the face of disaster and loss, and of wrong directions in communication. Relationships either fail or last beyond death in a story that's written with complex art and prose, and conveyed through a wealth of fascinating conversations—which, of course, are never the same as communication. It’s an artful read, sharp, dark, and unforgiven.
Disclosure: Blogging for Books provided this book to me and I offer my honest review.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RyanF221
On first hearing about the new Hogarth Shakespeare series I was genuinely intrigued, if not excited. This year has been my year of Shakespeare, reading 5 works for the first time and one as a re-read. One of those reads was The Merchant of Venice, which I enjoyed and found cringeworthy in equal
One of the best things about Howard Jacobson's Shylock Is My Name is that he does not try to retell Shakespeare's story with Shakespeare's characters. Actually, the only characters from the play that appear are Shylock, Leah (his deceased wife), Jessica, and Antonio; only Shylock has any substantial visibility here. Instead, Jacobson writes a modern parallel about Simon Strulovitch, a British-Jewish art dealer with an incapacitated wife (Kay) and rebellious daughter, Beatrice. Strulovitch, who has his own history of forsaking his heritage by marrying a Christian woman, spends the novel trying to prevent his teenage daughter from making a similar mistake with - possibly anti-Semitic - footballer, Gratan Howsome. When Strulovitch makes his own "pound of flesh" bargain with Howsome in exchange for his daughter, an "elegant" and "not definitively heterosexual" friend named D'Anton offers to serve as his intermediary.
But the novel's show-stealer is Shylock himself. Whereas Shakespeare's Shylock is confined to anger, greed, and vengeance, Jacobson's Shylock is nostalgic, remorseful, and considerate. To be sure, Shylock is not devoid of anger; he does acknowledge his previous hostilities (the events of Shakespeare's play are treated as a part of Jacobson's Shylock's past), but explains them rationally. This Shylock, who serves equally as Strulovitch's conscience and mentor, is also endearing. He consistently visits the cemetery to speak with his "dearest Leah" and admits to a hope that his daughter might return - a far cry from the Shylock who shrieked "My ducats!" when she left. Shylock uses his own history to try to guide Strulovitch towards a more rational response to his own situation.
Jacobson's novel should not be looked at as a retelling of Shakespeare so much as a companion piece. At times the dialogue is heady and philosophical: when Shylock and Strulovitch discuss the consequences of Jewish history on the decisions of Jewish individuals. But this is balanced by bits of humorous vapidity among minor characters (Barnaby, Plurabelle, and Gratan) and witty exchanges between Strulovitch and Shylock or Beatrice. Some of the novel's major themes are parenthood, identity, and history; though told mostly from a Jewish perspective, these are universal themes that any reader can appreciate. The only major negatives are the lack of the casket test from the play (dealt with in one page and changed to cars) and absence of the cross-dressing leading ladies (Portia and Nerissa). I would feel comfortable recommending this to most readers but suggest that it be read with or after Shakespeare's play.
Thanks to Librarything and Hogarth for this ARC
Show More
measure (a brief summary follows, skip to next paragraph if you're familiar with the play). The play revolves around a loan made between a Jew (complete with every possible anti-Semitic stereotype) and the eponymous Venetian merchant, Antonio. When the deal goes poorly for Antonio, Shylock demands payment in the form of a pound of flesh. Shylock's intransigence is then turned back on him and he is forced to forgive the loan and convert to Christianity. A Shylock-less Act V sees Antonio's friends Bassanio and Gratiano make it through their first fight with their new wives and Shylock's daughter Jessica playfully bantering with her Christian lover. As far as Shakespeare's audience is concerned, this is a successfully concluded play: the lovers are happy, the Christians win, and the greedy Jew is forced to "get thee gone" with his tail between his legs.One of the best things about Howard Jacobson's Shylock Is My Name is that he does not try to retell Shakespeare's story with Shakespeare's characters. Actually, the only characters from the play that appear are Shylock, Leah (his deceased wife), Jessica, and Antonio; only Shylock has any substantial visibility here. Instead, Jacobson writes a modern parallel about Simon Strulovitch, a British-Jewish art dealer with an incapacitated wife (Kay) and rebellious daughter, Beatrice. Strulovitch, who has his own history of forsaking his heritage by marrying a Christian woman, spends the novel trying to prevent his teenage daughter from making a similar mistake with - possibly anti-Semitic - footballer, Gratan Howsome. When Strulovitch makes his own "pound of flesh" bargain with Howsome in exchange for his daughter, an "elegant" and "not definitively heterosexual" friend named D'Anton offers to serve as his intermediary.
But the novel's show-stealer is Shylock himself. Whereas Shakespeare's Shylock is confined to anger, greed, and vengeance, Jacobson's Shylock is nostalgic, remorseful, and considerate. To be sure, Shylock is not devoid of anger; he does acknowledge his previous hostilities (the events of Shakespeare's play are treated as a part of Jacobson's Shylock's past), but explains them rationally. This Shylock, who serves equally as Strulovitch's conscience and mentor, is also endearing. He consistently visits the cemetery to speak with his "dearest Leah" and admits to a hope that his daughter might return - a far cry from the Shylock who shrieked "My ducats!" when she left. Shylock uses his own history to try to guide Strulovitch towards a more rational response to his own situation.
Jacobson's novel should not be looked at as a retelling of Shakespeare so much as a companion piece. At times the dialogue is heady and philosophical: when Shylock and Strulovitch discuss the consequences of Jewish history on the decisions of Jewish individuals. But this is balanced by bits of humorous vapidity among minor characters (Barnaby, Plurabelle, and Gratan) and witty exchanges between Strulovitch and Shylock or Beatrice. Some of the novel's major themes are parenthood, identity, and history; though told mostly from a Jewish perspective, these are universal themes that any reader can appreciate. The only major negatives are the lack of the casket test from the play (dealt with in one page and changed to cars) and absence of the cross-dressing leading ladies (Portia and Nerissa). I would feel comfortable recommending this to most readers but suggest that it be read with or after Shakespeare's play.
Thanks to Librarything and Hogarth for this ARC
Show Less
LibraryThing member Jonri
I won an Advanced Reader's edition of the book from LibraryThing.
This is one of a series of books by Hogarth Press in which well known authors update a Shakespearean story; in this case, The Merchant of Venice.
In this version it is not Shylock himself who demands a pound of flesh (although it is
The book is upsetting and in the end unsatisfying. I had a hard time getting into the story. The plot, which is sort of "pegged" to the actual story line of the play, is preposterous. The characters, especially the Gentiles, are despicable. I am not so naive as to think anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the modern world; of course it does. However, when it does exist, it isn't going to be eradicated by a three minute speech.
This book discusses important themes, but it isn't believable and that ultimately makes the discussion meaningless.
This is one of a series of books by Hogarth Press in which well known authors update a Shakespearean story; in this case, The Merchant of Venice.
In this version it is not Shylock himself who demands a pound of flesh (although it is
Show More
implied that he is done this on a previous occasion.) Instead Shylock convinces another Jew to do so. The book is upsetting and in the end unsatisfying. I had a hard time getting into the story. The plot, which is sort of "pegged" to the actual story line of the play, is preposterous. The characters, especially the Gentiles, are despicable. I am not so naive as to think anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the modern world; of course it does. However, when it does exist, it isn't going to be eradicated by a three minute speech.
This book discusses important themes, but it isn't believable and that ultimately makes the discussion meaningless.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Watry
First things first; I suspect there's a lot about this book, especially the second half, that I didn't get because I know almost nothing about The Merchant of Venice, and the fact that this is a retelling overshadows pretty much everything in the book.
I'm still working out exactly what I think
I'm still working out exactly what I think
Show More
about the book, beyond 'the language is gorgeous' and how D'Anton stands out as the only genuinely unsympathetic character. I'd also really like to know where and when the book is set. References are made to The Golden Triangle, but a quick Google search says that the Golden Triangle is a trio of countries in Southeast Asia, known for drug production. Show Less
LibraryThing member reb922
I'll admit it despite being a prolific reader I have utterly failed in being able to read Shakespeare. As a result I don't actually know the story of The Merchant of Venice. Maybe that was my problem here? I was often confused and had no idea what was going on. Not sure if that was me or this book.
After reading some of the reviews I think I actually did understand it so maybe its just the source material that left me at a loss.
Show More
That being said I completed it and didn't really question giving up. After reading some of the reviews I think I actually did understand it so maybe its just the source material that left me at a loss.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AnnArborCityClub
“Palestinian Girl shot by Israeli Guard,” so reads the headlines of the Sunday New York Times. The second line explains the security guard had been attacked and stabbed with a knife by the Palestinian girl. It is this kind of world-view, this choice of presenting the facts, that churns behind
Well, this author has accepted the challenge, in a world that today often still identifies the Jew as villain in one form or another, he has agreed to find meaning for Hogarth Press who has requested a redoing of Shakespeare’s plays in a modern context, to search for the continuing significance of complex enigmas that continue and continue long after Shakespeare has exited our time, our globe, our world. And he does it right. Funny and Serious. For who else but a Jew knows how to tell a joke “jewishly”; perhaps Jews know best the world is quite serious.
Let me be careful. As I tell you about the non-Jews will I make them all sound vacuous and prejudice? Please, if I even get close to an “us and them” scheme, prepare yourself for the characterizations of Jews that will fill your mind with painful flaws, flaws, flaws. So do not dismiss my or Jacobson’s characterizations as an attempt at being “balanced,” for balancing is certainly not what this author has in mind. The antithesis of balanced is much more truly a vision of “inclusive”-- in its motives: this is a novel about the human condition, if ever that, perhaps, stale, epithet can be applied.
Shall we begin with Shylock as a character in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice or should we begin with the Shylock who we meet at the cemetery talking to his Leah in a contemporary world in which we will meet him in Jacobson’s rendition? That must be a rhetorical question by me, the author has no problem bringing Shylock out of the past and having us listen to him, pouring his heart out to the woman he loves lying long buried below the ground. He exists now.
Get to know Shylock, get to know the man who never had a chance to finish his story. Now is his time. For both you and me.
We will both meet him and lose him as Jacobson’s narrator opens (and ultimately closes) the novel with: “It is one of those better-to-be-dead-than-alive days you get in the north of England….” The man who first eyes Shylock in that cemetrary is Simon Strulovitch, a rich philantropist, a collector of art and bibles, and a passion for Shakespeare. The graveyard presents him with a doppleganger of sorts. Shylock the eternal wandering Jew looking for closure which Shakespeare’s drama never allowed him. Once they meet the intellectual fun begins: Would Shylock really have taken a pound of Antonio’s flesh—from his heart? Strulovitch asks. Shylock doesn’t really know; he knows it is the role he has been given…but thinking about that does drive some interestingly analytical exchanges and certainly does depart from the scope of Shakespeare’s drama. Why not go for the penis? Strulovitch asks. After all, it would be aesthetically pleasing to circumscise him—make him a Jew? Let me not lead you astray at this “silliness,” Jacobson is a smart writer—and quite provoking. Shylock’s exchanges are sophisticated, savagely funny, and coldly cunning. (I have a feeling I could be describing Jacobson’s writing persona.)
Why oh why does Jacobson have to introduce a particularly humorous, satirical?,dumb? Subplot? AAhh I guess if Shakespeare depends on the subplots illuminating the main plot, so too this author. But let me ask you. What do you think of a father who names his daughter “Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is a Joy Forever Wiser Than Solomon Christine? Honest engine, I am not joking, that is her name; just call her Plurabelle for short. She is a daughter without a father. Shylock is a father without a daughter, and Shylock’s somewhat counterpart, Strulovitch is losing his daughter to a gentile as well. All daughters have lost their mothers as well, either through death or a silencing stroke. All surfaces resemble one another, but the wondering why the surface is subterfuge is the heart of the novel. As it must be for all readers: how do we alienate the ones we love; how do we live with loss? What happens to the “us” when we defend a stand based on our ideas of right and wrong --for others, for family interactions?
The different levels of society subterfuge in different ways, but …but…the Nazis gassed the Jews; British society bars them from their country clubs.
Why? Why? The question is rhetorical really. We become what roles we are given, what roles we then give ourselves, Jacobson implies, and I think for good reason. Shylock retorts when asked by Strulovitch why he would proceed toward taking a pound of flesh from another human being: “Speak not against my bond. I am now become the thing itself. You have reduced me to my bond, and to my bond, nothing other than my bond, you must answer. You never granted me the wherewithal to feel pity, to have that emotion, how dare u expect it now.”
Counting on his readers to make the psychological leaps that really may seem so natural when we are prepared to think about them, as Jacobson hopes he has done. We begin to see these rebellious daughters who run away with gentile lovers as much more complex than we might have; let’s be careful to be not glib when we judge Jessica, for example. The Shylock of Shakespeare’s play could chase any daughter into another’s arms. Couldn’t he? The overbearing, controlling man called Shylock by Shakespeare is pretty much a stereotype. Right? Yet , in spite of Shakespeare never ever having met a Jew, in spite of being part of a society that despised the Jew, in spite of attempting to make Shylock the “other,” his imagination won’t stand for it, he does become a self, that says “doesn’t a Jew have eyes, if u prick us do we not bleed.” That should not be surprising about Shakespeare, he takes a despised black man and ultimately creates a noble soldier…and Falstaff, and Caliban….
Serious and deep psychological analysis once begun has no where to go but to diffuse itself out into the strata in which all of these characters live. Listen to the bad Beatrice, Strulovitch’s, remember the one who saw Jews as ugly black beetles, later she asks her father, “So if we don’t have Jewish friends and we don’t eat Jewish food, and we don’t celebrate Jewish holidays, why must I go out with Jewish boys?” (Not an uncommon question asked in this contemporary world.) Her father actually answers quite appropriately: “for the sake of continuity.” Think about that Beatrice, I will. Years later, when Beatrice has run away with her gentile Gratin, she begins to wonder, and wonder pretty analytically. She thought about how much of a fight she had put up against her father’s controlling, a fight she had put up all her short life. “In some corner of her soul, she respected his obsessions, or at least her father’s fanatic embrace of them.? She had read about hostages falling in love with their captors—the captor being her father, not Gratin.” Quite an insight for this young girl, for us as well.
The author is a genius at shifting tones, going from satirical to seriousness, there is a deep and sincere soul searching for fathers, for daughters, for members of a world that alienates but suffers from that alienation. And irony upon irony, it is Shylock who finds a voice for pity before he exits. No matter what the problems may be with this subject, Jacobson has given Shylock an afterlife, no easy feat.
Reviewed by Lillian Back
Show More
the scenes of Howard Jacobson’s new book, Shylock is my Name. But, it is not only the non-Jew who flavors the world with right and wrong, with victim and villain, with wrong is the Jew and his or her actions. Listen to what the “nice” Jewish daughter says to her parents: “She had never been happy with the Jew thing. ‘It is such a horrible little word.’” “She remembered saying to her parents when she was just a little girl. ‘Jew’ it sounds like a black beetle with spikes.”Well, this author has accepted the challenge, in a world that today often still identifies the Jew as villain in one form or another, he has agreed to find meaning for Hogarth Press who has requested a redoing of Shakespeare’s plays in a modern context, to search for the continuing significance of complex enigmas that continue and continue long after Shakespeare has exited our time, our globe, our world. And he does it right. Funny and Serious. For who else but a Jew knows how to tell a joke “jewishly”; perhaps Jews know best the world is quite serious.
Let me be careful. As I tell you about the non-Jews will I make them all sound vacuous and prejudice? Please, if I even get close to an “us and them” scheme, prepare yourself for the characterizations of Jews that will fill your mind with painful flaws, flaws, flaws. So do not dismiss my or Jacobson’s characterizations as an attempt at being “balanced,” for balancing is certainly not what this author has in mind. The antithesis of balanced is much more truly a vision of “inclusive”-- in its motives: this is a novel about the human condition, if ever that, perhaps, stale, epithet can be applied.
Shall we begin with Shylock as a character in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice or should we begin with the Shylock who we meet at the cemetery talking to his Leah in a contemporary world in which we will meet him in Jacobson’s rendition? That must be a rhetorical question by me, the author has no problem bringing Shylock out of the past and having us listen to him, pouring his heart out to the woman he loves lying long buried below the ground. He exists now.
Get to know Shylock, get to know the man who never had a chance to finish his story. Now is his time. For both you and me.
We will both meet him and lose him as Jacobson’s narrator opens (and ultimately closes) the novel with: “It is one of those better-to-be-dead-than-alive days you get in the north of England….” The man who first eyes Shylock in that cemetrary is Simon Strulovitch, a rich philantropist, a collector of art and bibles, and a passion for Shakespeare. The graveyard presents him with a doppleganger of sorts. Shylock the eternal wandering Jew looking for closure which Shakespeare’s drama never allowed him. Once they meet the intellectual fun begins: Would Shylock really have taken a pound of Antonio’s flesh—from his heart? Strulovitch asks. Shylock doesn’t really know; he knows it is the role he has been given…but thinking about that does drive some interestingly analytical exchanges and certainly does depart from the scope of Shakespeare’s drama. Why not go for the penis? Strulovitch asks. After all, it would be aesthetically pleasing to circumscise him—make him a Jew? Let me not lead you astray at this “silliness,” Jacobson is a smart writer—and quite provoking. Shylock’s exchanges are sophisticated, savagely funny, and coldly cunning. (I have a feeling I could be describing Jacobson’s writing persona.)
Why oh why does Jacobson have to introduce a particularly humorous, satirical?,dumb? Subplot? AAhh I guess if Shakespeare depends on the subplots illuminating the main plot, so too this author. But let me ask you. What do you think of a father who names his daughter “Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is a Joy Forever Wiser Than Solomon Christine? Honest engine, I am not joking, that is her name; just call her Plurabelle for short. She is a daughter without a father. Shylock is a father without a daughter, and Shylock’s somewhat counterpart, Strulovitch is losing his daughter to a gentile as well. All daughters have lost their mothers as well, either through death or a silencing stroke. All surfaces resemble one another, but the wondering why the surface is subterfuge is the heart of the novel. As it must be for all readers: how do we alienate the ones we love; how do we live with loss? What happens to the “us” when we defend a stand based on our ideas of right and wrong --for others, for family interactions?
The different levels of society subterfuge in different ways, but …but…the Nazis gassed the Jews; British society bars them from their country clubs.
Why? Why? The question is rhetorical really. We become what roles we are given, what roles we then give ourselves, Jacobson implies, and I think for good reason. Shylock retorts when asked by Strulovitch why he would proceed toward taking a pound of flesh from another human being: “Speak not against my bond. I am now become the thing itself. You have reduced me to my bond, and to my bond, nothing other than my bond, you must answer. You never granted me the wherewithal to feel pity, to have that emotion, how dare u expect it now.”
Counting on his readers to make the psychological leaps that really may seem so natural when we are prepared to think about them, as Jacobson hopes he has done. We begin to see these rebellious daughters who run away with gentile lovers as much more complex than we might have; let’s be careful to be not glib when we judge Jessica, for example. The Shylock of Shakespeare’s play could chase any daughter into another’s arms. Couldn’t he? The overbearing, controlling man called Shylock by Shakespeare is pretty much a stereotype. Right? Yet , in spite of Shakespeare never ever having met a Jew, in spite of being part of a society that despised the Jew, in spite of attempting to make Shylock the “other,” his imagination won’t stand for it, he does become a self, that says “doesn’t a Jew have eyes, if u prick us do we not bleed.” That should not be surprising about Shakespeare, he takes a despised black man and ultimately creates a noble soldier…and Falstaff, and Caliban….
Serious and deep psychological analysis once begun has no where to go but to diffuse itself out into the strata in which all of these characters live. Listen to the bad Beatrice, Strulovitch’s, remember the one who saw Jews as ugly black beetles, later she asks her father, “So if we don’t have Jewish friends and we don’t eat Jewish food, and we don’t celebrate Jewish holidays, why must I go out with Jewish boys?” (Not an uncommon question asked in this contemporary world.) Her father actually answers quite appropriately: “for the sake of continuity.” Think about that Beatrice, I will. Years later, when Beatrice has run away with her gentile Gratin, she begins to wonder, and wonder pretty analytically. She thought about how much of a fight she had put up against her father’s controlling, a fight she had put up all her short life. “In some corner of her soul, she respected his obsessions, or at least her father’s fanatic embrace of them.? She had read about hostages falling in love with their captors—the captor being her father, not Gratin.” Quite an insight for this young girl, for us as well.
The author is a genius at shifting tones, going from satirical to seriousness, there is a deep and sincere soul searching for fathers, for daughters, for members of a world that alienates but suffers from that alienation. And irony upon irony, it is Shylock who finds a voice for pity before he exits. No matter what the problems may be with this subject, Jacobson has given Shylock an afterlife, no easy feat.
Reviewed by Lillian Back
Show Less
LibraryThing member jpporter
The Hogarth Shakespeare series is to be comprised of modern adaptations of Shakespeare's more memorable plays. Howard Jacobson's Shylock Is My Name is - as one might suspect - an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. It is also an excellent book.
The story involves Simon Strulovitch, a
This is a clever rendition of the Shylock scenario - the quest for revenge - humorous without being irreverent, serious without being heavy. Jacobson updates the story insightfully, probing for the foundation of (a) the Jew's perception of what they believe is their persecution at the hands of Christians, and (b) the persecution of Jews at the hands of Christians.
The Hogarth series has several brilliant names on its list: Margaret Atwood (The Tempest), Gillian Flynn (Hamlet), Jo Nesbo (MacBeth) and others. I hope they all maintain the high quality of Jacobson's offering.
It makes me want to read The Merchant of Venice all over again.
The story involves Simon Strulovitch, a
Show More
wealthy art collector who feels the sting of anti-Semitism in England's Golden Triangle - an area wherein reside many wealthy families. Strulovitch's daughter, Beatrice, has fallen in love with a goy footballer - aided and abetted by TV celebrity Plury Christine and her friend D'Anton. The family strife becomes fodder for Strulovitch and Shylock - whom Strulovitch has invited to stay at the Strulovich home - as the two men wax philosophic about the state of Judaism and the plight of Jews.This is a clever rendition of the Shylock scenario - the quest for revenge - humorous without being irreverent, serious without being heavy. Jacobson updates the story insightfully, probing for the foundation of (a) the Jew's perception of what they believe is their persecution at the hands of Christians, and (b) the persecution of Jews at the hands of Christians.
The Hogarth series has several brilliant names on its list: Margaret Atwood (The Tempest), Gillian Flynn (Hamlet), Jo Nesbo (MacBeth) and others. I hope they all maintain the high quality of Jacobson's offering.
It makes me want to read The Merchant of Venice all over again.
Show Less
LibraryThing member GarySeverance
Shylock is My Name is a novel that describes people who covenant at many levels, deep and shallow. As in Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is a Jewish character who is complex, a contemporary term for a man capable of maintaining multiple often contradictory ideas. Strulovich, a
The drama plays out in the novel in a story similar to that of one of Shakespeare’s most interesting plays. The structure of the action reminds me of The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann in respect to the interaction of Shylock and Strulovich. It is similar in many ways, in my mind, to the lengthy discussions in Mann’s novel between the secular humanist Lodovico Settembrini and the former purist Jew (now Jesuit) Leo Naphta. I imagined sitting out on a balcony of a hotel in the Alps wrapped in a warm blanket contemplating both novels, oddly wishing I belonged to group with an ideology that is all-encompassing at both mundane and devine levels, enjoying the harmony and dissonance.
I enjoyed reading Howard Jacobson’s novel as much as I did reading an earlier novel by the author, The Finkler Question. I give it my highest rating.
Full Disclosure: This novel was given to me for an honest review as part of the Early Reviewers program of LibraryThing.
Show More
Jewish contemporary of Shylock, is more of a purist, absolute about his covenant of religion. Shylock, the reformer in Howard Jacobson’s novel, attempts to influence the thinking of Strulovich about the exclusivity of the traditionalist’s theology. For Shylock, it does not seem to be a matter of accumulated tradition and strictly observed custom that can make the Jewish people resilient and capable of a strong cultural identity. This commitment has caused the purists to incite rebellion against parents by the younger generation, thin-skinned sensitivity to the thousand little daily insults of the older generation, and poorly defined acts of revenge by the survivors of outsider anti-Semitic atrocities. Shylock points out to Strulovich indirectly and directly the consequences of his rigidity of beliefs. The Jew has to maintain a morality in the present age that is more flexible, forgiving, and intelligent or subtle and violent conflicts will be perpetuated against the people’s all-encompassing covenant.The drama plays out in the novel in a story similar to that of one of Shakespeare’s most interesting plays. The structure of the action reminds me of The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann in respect to the interaction of Shylock and Strulovich. It is similar in many ways, in my mind, to the lengthy discussions in Mann’s novel between the secular humanist Lodovico Settembrini and the former purist Jew (now Jesuit) Leo Naphta. I imagined sitting out on a balcony of a hotel in the Alps wrapped in a warm blanket contemplating both novels, oddly wishing I belonged to group with an ideology that is all-encompassing at both mundane and devine levels, enjoying the harmony and dissonance.
I enjoyed reading Howard Jacobson’s novel as much as I did reading an earlier novel by the author, The Finkler Question. I give it my highest rating.
Full Disclosure: This novel was given to me for an honest review as part of the Early Reviewers program of LibraryThing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DuffDaddy
I received this book through the Early Reviewers program at Library Thing. While the book was well-written, I was expecting a modern retelling of the Merchant of Venice, not a philosophical discourse on Christian perceptions of Jews laid on a fictional framework.
I found Jacobson's writing thick
I feel my mis-placed expectations have hurt the review of the book, but I can't help but to think Jacobson would have been better off sticking to the original plot for his modern retelling.
That being said, as a huge fan of Shakespeare, I'm glad I read this book and will try other offerings from the Hogarth Shakespeare project.
I found Jacobson's writing thick
Show More
and slow at times, though well-written in an academic sense. The story did not move along as Shakespeare's original did. I feel my mis-placed expectations have hurt the review of the book, but I can't help but to think Jacobson would have been better off sticking to the original plot for his modern retelling.
That being said, as a huge fan of Shakespeare, I'm glad I read this book and will try other offerings from the Hogarth Shakespeare project.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cfk
I really looked forward to reading this book, but absolutely could not get into it.
LibraryThing member Felliot
I was given an advanced reader's copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I must admit that I approached this book with more than a little trepidation because, while I enjoy seeing the occasional Shakespeare play performed live, I had not read any of his works in decades and was not
The result is an intellectual examination of identity, family, and anti-Semitism. This book will be of interest to readers with a deep interest in Shakespeare as well as those who care about modern anti-Semitism and cultural assimilation. I doubt that it will have a broader appeal. While I am interested to see how the other authors in this series retell other stories in the Shakespeare canon, I can not say that I enjoyed this one.
I must admit that I approached this book with more than a little trepidation because, while I enjoy seeing the occasional Shakespeare play performed live, I had not read any of his works in decades and was not
Show More
familiar with the story of The Merchant of Venice. It became clear in the very first chapter that this is not a retelling of that masterpiece but rather a re-imaging of it's main character and a very modern reinterpretation of it's themes. The result is an intellectual examination of identity, family, and anti-Semitism. This book will be of interest to readers with a deep interest in Shakespeare as well as those who care about modern anti-Semitism and cultural assimilation. I doubt that it will have a broader appeal. While I am interested to see how the other authors in this series retell other stories in the Shakespeare canon, I can not say that I enjoyed this one.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TooBusyReading
This second in the Hogarth Shakespeare collection, a modern retelling of The Merchant of Venice, was good, but didn't draw me in as completely as did the first in the series, The Gap of Time.
The writing could, on occasion, be a bit obtuse, and I had to work at understanding some of the passages, as
"Though the order was malignantly meant, once having restored the status quo ante Iudaeus they had other things to think about, honour was satisfied, the merchant had won while briefly enjoying the masochistic ecstasy of losing, and ultimately it was my loss if I stubbornly went about Jewing it as before, hobbled as to cash, humiliated, orphaned either end, and without the intersession of Christian grace to save my soul." Whew!
Shylock and accidental friend Strulovitch had much discussion about wayward daughters, about lost wives, about anti-Semitic prejudices. Including their own. There was a great deal about the infamous pound of flesh, with a twist.
It has been years since I read The Merchant of Venice, and it was, if memory serves, my introduction to Shakespeare. Unlike most kids forced to read it, I loved it. This version fell rather flat for me, Too much pondering, too much of the same arguments. And unlike the original, no characters who drew my empathy or my sympathy despite their flaws, unlike the original.
This series is great, and I can't wait to read the next, Vinegar Girl, but this one is one I'm glad I've read but also not going to be one that I'll want to re-read.
I was given an advanced e-book copy of this book for review.
The writing could, on occasion, be a bit obtuse, and I had to work at understanding some of the passages, as
Show More
in this sentence:"Though the order was malignantly meant, once having restored the status quo ante Iudaeus they had other things to think about, honour was satisfied, the merchant had won while briefly enjoying the masochistic ecstasy of losing, and ultimately it was my loss if I stubbornly went about Jewing it as before, hobbled as to cash, humiliated, orphaned either end, and without the intersession of Christian grace to save my soul." Whew!
Shylock and accidental friend Strulovitch had much discussion about wayward daughters, about lost wives, about anti-Semitic prejudices. Including their own. There was a great deal about the infamous pound of flesh, with a twist.
It has been years since I read The Merchant of Venice, and it was, if memory serves, my introduction to Shakespeare. Unlike most kids forced to read it, I loved it. This version fell rather flat for me, Too much pondering, too much of the same arguments. And unlike the original, no characters who drew my empathy or my sympathy despite their flaws, unlike the original.
This series is great, and I can't wait to read the next, Vinegar Girl, but this one is one I'm glad I've read but also not going to be one that I'll want to re-read.
I was given an advanced e-book copy of this book for review.
Show Less
ISBN
0804141320 / 9780804141321