Shylock Is My Name

Hogarth Shakespeare project

by Howard Jacobson

Το βιβλίο εντάσσεται στη σειρά Hogarth Shakespeare Project: τα πιο αγαπημένα έργα του μεγαλύτερου δραματουργού όλων των εποχών ξαναγράφονται από τους σπουδαιότερους σύγχρονους συγγραφείς.
O Howard Jacobson ξαναγράφει τον Έμπορο της Βενετίας .

Η γυναίκα του χαμένη. Η κόρη του εκτός ελέγχου. Ο έμπορος τέχνης Σάιμον Στρούλοβιτς χρειάζεται επειγόντως έναν άνθρωπο για να μιλήσει. Έτσι όταν συναντά τον Σάιλοκ σε ένα νεκροταφείο, δεν διστάζει να τον προσκαλέσει στο σπίτι του. Αυτή θα είναι η αρχή μιας ασυνήθιστης φιλίας...

Ο Στρούλοβιτς προσπαθεί να συμφιλιωθεί με το γεγονός ότι η κόρη του πρόδωσε την οικογένεια και την καταγωγή της, καθώς έπεσε στην αγκαλιά ενός διαβόητου ποδοσφαιριστή, ο οποίος έχει χαιρετήσει ναζιστικά στο γήπεδο. Ο Σάιλοκ εναλλάσσει το πένθος του για τη σύζυγό του με την οργή του για το γεγονός ότι και η δική του κόρη απορρίπτει την εβραϊκή της ανατροφή.

Μια προκλητική και διεισδυτική ερμηνεία του Εμπόρου της Βενετιάς, γραμμένη με τη χαρακτηριστική ειρωνεία του Jacobson, με πρωταγωνιστή έναν Σάιλοκ που διαθέτει διεισδυτικό πνεύμα, πάθος και έντονους προβληματισμούς για θέματα ταυτότητας, πατρότητας, αντισημιτισμού και εκδίκησης.

Genres: Fiction, Retellings, Contemporary, Literary Fiction, Jewish, Adult Fiction, Novels

275 pages, Hardcover

First published February 9, 2016

About the author

Howard Jacobson was born in Manchester, England, and educated at Cambridge. His many novels include The Mighty Walzer (winner of the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize), Who’s Sorry Now? and Kalooki Nights (both longlisted for the Man Booker Prize), and, most recently, The Act of Love. Jacobson is also a respected critic and broadcaster, and writes a weekly column for the Independent. He lives in London.

Profile of Howard Jacobson in The New York Times.

“The book's appeal to Jewish readers is obvious, but like all great Jewish art — the paintings of Marc Chagall, the books of Saul Bellow, the films of Woody Allen — it is Jacobson's use of the Jewish experience to explain the greater human one that sets it apart. Who among us is so certain of our identity? Who hasn't been asked, "What's your background" and hesitated, even for a split second, to answer their inquisitor? Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question forces us to ask that of ourselves, and that's why it's a must read, no matter what your background.”—-David Sax, NPR.

Reviews

[Lyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dear Woody Allen,

Please make this brilliant revision of Merchant of Venice into a film. You can play Strulovich but cast Charles Dance as Shylock.

Love your work,

Lyn

This was brilliant.

The Hogarth Shakespeare series commissioned modern writers with the task of creating a contemporary retelling of some of Shakespeare’s most captivating plays. Here we have English writer Howard Jacobson exploring a new twist to The Merchant of Venice. The Hogarth folks chose very well as Jacobson seems uniquely qualified to create this TASTY visit with Shylock.

Simon Strulovich goes to the cemetery to visit the grave of his mother and while there he sees a man conversing with his late wife. Turns out the man is Shylock.

Yes, THE Shylock. From 400 years ago, from Shakespeare’s play. At first I was not sure if this was a figment of Strulovich’s imagination, but NO! Howard Jacobson IS THAT COOL. Through absurdist artistic license and some magic realism slight of hand Shylock, living and breathing, becomes a part of this modern story of family, loyalty, revenge and recompense.

Strulovich’s young daughter has taken up with a gentile athlete and has left home, and left her religion behind. Not a strictly practicing Jew, he is nonetheless tied to his heritage and expects his daughter to be as well.

Enter Shylock with his centuries old weight of tortious injustice to advise his host. Jacobson explores themes of love and religion with prose that is Nabokovian in its rich complexity and with sometimes laugh out loud droll word play. Finally, Jacobson gives us a twist on what “pound of flesh” means these days.

Really very entertaining, I highly recommend this.

[Olivia-Savannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shylock is My Name is a book I have been pining to read since I heard about it. And it did live up to my expectations even though it was absolutely nothing like I was expecting it to be. The writing style at the beginning completely threw me. It was more literature than I had expected - even though this is a retelling of Shakespeare, I somehow wasn't expecting it to be like that. But the further I read, the more I fell in love with the beautiful writing style and the story. The wording was done so well and it built up the story perfectly.

The best thing about this novel was how thought provoking it was. It does help to have read The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, because the book is based on it. I was a little confused when I was trying to draw the parallels between this book and the play. The storyline of Portia was clearly the same as the one of Plurabelle in this novel. But Shylock's story with wanting his bond and all that occurs in The Merchant of Venice has already happened. Instead of Shylock's story we are getting Strulovitch's, which cleverly twists to run parallels with Shylock's old story. It was incredibly well done and I loved seeing the similarities in the retelling.


This one also heavily focuses on the theme of discrimination, religion, and religious culture. Especially Judaism, seeing as the original play is based around this. I know that the focus being on this will put off some readers, but seeing as I haven't read many books about Judaism it intrigued me all the more. I learned some things, and it made me think of some others. You could easily replace the word Jew here with other culture titles or religions and you might even get a similar story. It's amazing how well this relates to some issues present day, but to see that you'll have to do some of your own analysing.

I also liked that Shylock and Strulovitch were both fathers who had to raise their children alone for whatever reason. It's interesting to the different approaches they take, although they both are landing in the extreme.

D'Anton was another character I liked. He seemed to simply want to play the father to everyone and be of help. But sometimes it put him in difficult situations and it was so sad to see how events unfolded around him.


Without knowing what there was, there was quite a bit of rising suspense. The outcome wasn't a mind blowing plot twist, but it wasn't what I predicted either.

The best way for me to describe this book would be as pleasantly surprising? A gentle read but one that rested heavily on my mind. I'd recommend it and look forward to the next book of its nature.

This review and others can be found on Olivia's Catastrophe: http://olivia-savannah.blogspot.nl/20...

[Phrynne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Firstly I am VERY glad I listened to Shylock Is My Name on audio. The narrator was very English, very nicely spoken and gave emphasis to all the right words. He helped me stay on track whereas left to myself I probably would have read too fast and lost the meaning.

The meaning was deep, the prose very literary and at times it was very heavy. However there were also times that made me smile and there were some very beautiful passages. Of course no one does it quite like Shakespeare himself and Shylock beginning 'The quality of mercy is not strained' speech was an absolute and unexpected delight.

I am enjoying this Hogarth Shakespeare series overall but some of the books are more entertaining than others. This one is undoubtedly very good but enjoyable would not be a word to apply to it. It was interesting, even fascinating at times and extremely well written but some application was required to actually read it.

Recommended for lovers of Shakespeare especially if you have already read The Merchant of Venice

[Rebecca · Rating 2 out of 5]

(DNF @ 43%) I’d read Jacobson’s three most recent novels and liked them all well enough. He’s certainly your go-to author if you want a witty discussion of the modern Jewish “persecution complex.” I think the problem with this one was that I wasn’t sure what it wanted to be: a contemporary Jewish novel, or a Hebrew fable, or some mixture thereof. Shylock is pretty much dropped in as is from The Merchant of Venice, so it’s unclear whether he’s Strulovitch’s hallucination (though others also seem to see him) or a time traveler or what. The exasperated father characters are well drawn, but their flighty daughters less so. I just got to a point where I didn’t care at all what happened next, which to me was the sign to give up and move on to something else.

I must say, I’m pretty disappointed so far with the Hogarth Shakespeare updates. Jeanette Winterson’s The Gap of Time was alright in places, but not all that compelling. I have an advanced copy of Vinegar Girl by Anne Tyler on my Kindle, though, so I’m willing to keep trying the series. I’ve never read The Merchant of Venice and am only basically familiar with the storyline of The Taming of the Shrew (I saw one production, but it was about 12 years ago), so it will be interesting to see whether knowledge of the play enhances my appreciation or vice versa.

[Meg (fairy.bookmother) · Rating 1 out of 5]

//Edit: 28 February – I'm dropping this rating down to one star because I'm still angry at it.

Shylock Is My Name is Howard Jacobson's addition to the Hogarth Shakespeare series, and I felt it to be such a let down after reading Jeanette Winterson's The Gap of Time. I read Jacobson's J last year and was disappointed in it in similar ways as I am disappointed in this one. While he can write, Jacobson is very disjointed in his writing, as if he is showing off to us plebs how smart, how intelligent, how verbose, how white, how upper class, and (in this case) how Jewish he is and therefore how much better he is than the rest of us. I can't help but wonder if this is one of those books that are written for men, about men, and by men that us helpless females are too different fundamentally to understand what it's all about.

In this case, this is Jacobson's rendition of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. I have vague recollections of reading this play and finding Shylock interesting, but this novel didn't seem to capture the Shakespeare "essence" as I felt Winterson's retelling did.

What I disliked about this novel is the consistent and sexually charged current of a father obsessed with what enters his daughter's vagina. Yes. Literally. I don't recall that interpretation made of Shakespeare's play, so it caught me off guard.

In chapter eight, Strulovitch comments on his daughter, Beatrice:

"It had been going on a long time. She was thirteen when it started. Thirteen in fact, twenty-three in appearance. Luscious. A Levantine princess. A pomegranate. She was luscious to herself, too. He had caught her looking at her reflection in the mirror once, pouting her lips and laughing at her own fullness, smoothing her thighs, pushing out her breasts, amused by the too-muchness but overwhelmed by it at the same time. As though it imposed a responsibility on her. Was this really her? Was this really hers to do with as she chose? [...] Of course she had to deploy herself. Of course she had to feel her beauty had a purpose beyond her own gaze and, yes – because she knew he tailed her, knew he followed her into her own bedroom even – beyond his."

It continues throughout the novel with Strulovitch thinking about whether or not he should find his daughter attractive. He also, through the entire length of the novel, considers the utmost importance of his existence was to make sure that the penis that enters her vagina is circumcised and importantly Jewish so that Beatrice is not banished from her family. Strulovitch is incredibly abusive in all ways to his young daughter in the way that many fanatic religious believers are. As her father, he believes he controls her entirely, from her day-to-day life to her private, sexual life. When she doesn't listen to him, he goes off and throws a tantrum, demanding that pivotal pound of flesh.

In all, I think because I am not both "male" and Jewish, I miss the point of this self-reflexive novel. It brings to the forefront questions of Jewish morality in the modern age and whether or not the honest Jew should bend to the modern ways or be rigid as tradition dictates. And where The Merchant of Venice is argue as anti-semitic, I wonder if Jacobson's novel is meant to be a mirror to it of sorts as it is constantly questioning the role of Jewishness in society where Merchant did not.

And where the play is unsympathetic toward Jewish people, this novel is unsympathetic toward women. It's incredibly misogynistic in a way that's uncomfortable and anger-inducing. Men do not own women and should absolutely never control the expression of a woman's sexuality, no matter what age or relation. But alas. I don't think Jacobson works for me, and I don't think I'll read anything of his in the future.

This book was provided to me for my honest review by Blogging for Books.

[Jan Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book I've wanted to read for a long time, although I didn't realize it was part of the Hogarth Shakespeare project to commission modern novelists to retell Shakespeare.

Howard Jacobson has plucked forth Shylock, breathed new life into him, and given him another turn upon the stage, including a chance to finish unfinished business in "Act Five." In this book he appears in chilly England to help and support Simon Strulovitch, who finds himself stuck in a dilemma similar to Shylock's in A Merchant of Venice.

Don't get mad--get even (an idiom, not a quote)--not in the sense of a pound of flesh; no way--but just turning things the other way around. That's what happens here. Most work on antisemitic stereotypes and thinking involves exploring and setting it forth: very necessary, very important, but doesn't turn things around.

Two other writers I've read who deal specifically with Shylock are Philip Roth, in Operation Shylock: A Confession, and Stephen Greenblatt, in this New Yorker article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20... . Jacobson, a Shakespeare scholar before he was a novelist, knows more about Shakespeare than Roth and, I think, more about religion than Greenblatt. They can't give as good as they get like Jacobson.

Usually the effect of such work depends on shame or guilt or on instilling insight--on whether the perpetrator is willing to look at himself and think and of course on whether the targeted people catch on. Shylock Is My Name does not depend on shame, guilt, or insight. Neither does the effect depend this time on unearthing the complexity with which Shakespeare imbued Shylock. Shakespeare created Shylock out of his Christian perspective, which thanks to his genius he transcended. Jacobson knows that perspective but has another. So here Shylock turns the tables. He can do so since now Jacobson and not only Shakespeare is fashioning him. And oh do Plurabelle and D'Anton, the modern-day versions of Portia and Antonio, have it coming.

Think of it as one for the Jews.

No, it won't lay Shylock to rest once and for all. Yet kudos for the power of art and the might of the pen.

I read this out loud at dinner. That was perfect for this book. How many people read books out loud any longer? It probably stopped with the advent of radio.


Here is a review from The Guardian that likes the book in general but rails at the caricature of the gentile characters and what they're made to exemplify. But wasn't that part of the point, turn and turn about being fair play? https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

This one is a little closer: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

And this one from The Washington Post is helpful: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entert...

I f*cking love (this book).

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book – equally thought provoking, challenging and entertaining. It certainly helps if you have at least some familiarity and understanding of Shakespeare’s ‘The Merchant of Venice’ and I suspect those of us who don’t, might be find this book somewhat perplexing to say the least. Whilst I am no expert, having seen MOV several times certainly helped me to understand and get the most out of this book.

Whilst I do agree with some reviewers that the Strulovich / Shylock passages are stronger than those concerning Plurabell / D'Anton –the difference is however by no means as marked as some reviewers would have it.

I am a great lover of the plays of Shakespeare (watching not reading them) and certainly agree with some reviewers that this book enhances, broadens and deepens understanding and appreciation of the original play as well as the character and possible motivations of Shylock.

My advice is to go and see the play (brilliant – although troubling and challenging as it may be to a contemporary audience) at least once and then read the Jacobson book – definitely not the other way round.

[Roman Clodia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an intelligent, informed and brilliantly-written engagement with Merchant: it approaches the play thematically rather than strictly following the plot-line (although there's lots of that, too) and manages to be both inside and outside the play at the same time.

In a bold move, Jacobson has his own modern Jewish protagonist with a troublesome daughter meet Shylock (yes, that Shylock) in a local cemetery where he's speaking to his long-dead wife Leah, and takes him home. The two men bond over what to do with Jewish daughters, how to deal with lost wives, and discuss what it means to be Jewish in a transhistorical way.

The other half of the book offers a modern update on the Portia/Antonio/Bassanio plot and makes lots of lovely knowing gestures: the unpleasant edge to all these characters, their vapid and sometimes deliberate prejudices, the triangular nature of their relationship.

Jacobson's writing is wonderful, sometimes sparkling, sometimes diamond-hard and vicious. What he has done here is to bring the humour back to the story, something that has become increasingly difficult in relation to the original play for post-Holocaust generations (though contemporary Israeli theatre companies have done a fine job with this issue). His take is acutely informed by modern scholarship but it's done in a subtle and unobtrusive way - I especially liked the moments when Shylock is interrogated about his intentions in the play, a nice way of hooking this back to the original while still maintaining a critical distance.

This is my first Jacobson and I loved (loved!) his affinity with language, the way he chooses his lexicon with precision and attention to nuance, and the playful texture this gives to the book. I found the first half of the story brilliantly engaging and couldn't stop reading it; the second half slows down, becomes a bit muddled and laboured as it struggles with the pound of flesh, the transaction of the rings - all the same an excellent response to, reception of, and re-writing of Shakespeare's play to both bring out its modern relevance and to send us back to the original with another perspective.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did not like this book. More than halfway through I was certain that this one would get no better than two stars. My wife started reading this before I did and she quit at page 128 and then I picked it up. I could understand her frustration with the book but I hate abandoning books and so I kept reading. We discovered this book reading a rave review of a common GR friend of ours and, in truth, the plot did sound interesting inspite of the raves it got for its adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice". Since I have only very minor exposure to Shakespeare our friend assured me that a quick read of a Wikipedia synopsis of the plot would be sufficient to understand the references and humor. If there was humor in this book I missed it entirely. However, I think my lack of appreciation for Shakespeare also affected my ability to appreciate this book as fully as a true Shakespeare fan might. I give the book a reluctant 3 stars as recognition of the talent involved and after finally coming to an interpretation of the author's intent that made sense to me. I have no idea if what I concluded was what the author was aiming at but the author's intent is for the reader to determine and whether or not the reader is correct is a measure of the author's talent.

The book opens with the protagonist, Strulovitch, visiting his mother's grave in a Jewish cemetery in England. While there Strulovitch sees Shylock, yes that Shylock. Is there any other? Shylock is there speaking to the grave of his dead wife, Leah. Remember this is England and a Jewish cemetery in England and Shylock is a fictional character from a Shakespeare play sited in Venice. Without explanation of any sort the reader is immediately faced with questioning this occurrence. Is this a dream? A hallucination? Surrealism? No, the author has given Shylock flesh and blood existence and Strulovitch, knowing who Shylock is, invites him to his home. Shylock and Strulovitch both are Jewish fathers with errant daughters behaving in defiance of parental authority. The plot of the book has parallels with the plot of the play and with many of the characters and, to me, this was nothing but a gimmick and an annoying one at that. The story had some serious subject matter that could have been dealt with in a conventional manner and I found the Shakespeare device a distraction from the issues being discussed. I was genuinely irritated.

What was the point of all of this? The author is apparently something of a Shakespeare scholar so I guess I could understand this attempt at using this device but it just seemed to get in the way as far as I was concerned. Strulovitch uses Shylock as either an alter ego or a conscience as much of the book and the matters discussed are between these two characters and are devoted to debates about Jewishness. In fact there is so much discussion of Jewish existence that I started to wonder if this author wasn't actually a pseudonym for Woody Allen. That thought didn't last long since I thought if this had really been Woody it would have been more sarcastic and a great deal more amusing. Like I said if there was humor in this book I missed it. But then the dim bulb I call my brain started to grow brighter. This book is the author's attempt to discuss the history of Jewish life in the alien world of Gentiles and the interaction between Jews and Gentiles. The author uses Shylock as a creation of a Gentile and as the world's most universally known stereotype of a Jew in the Gentile world to trace that history and its evolution into the modern world.

With this hypothesis in mind I started to reevaluate what I had read and what was left to be read. The book started to make some sense but I still didn't enjoy it. I began to develop an appreciation for the author's effort and message but to me it came off as rather cliche. Really? What was discussed was what you would expect to read about two Jewish men in serious discussions about their lives. It was all angst and guilt. Forgive me for this but it's almost as though if an author wishes to create a fictional character suffering from angst and or guilt that character will most frequently be Jewish. I am of Jewish ancestry though not of the faith and I know plenty of happy and accomplished Jews. Why doesn't anybody write a novel about happy Jews? Why are all fictional Jews depressed and guilt ridden and in therapy? Exhibit one, Woody Allen.

So while the book might be difficult for the non-Shakespearean to appreciate and even more difficult for a non-Shakespearean Gentile it is well done. In retrospect the use of Shylock and "The Merchant of Venice" was a clever device for the author's message. I found the language somewhat forced or stiff in part but I attribute that to the Shakespeare influence in the plot and not a clumsiness on the author's part. Liking this book will be a matter entirely of individual taste and it just wasn't to mine. Enjoy.

[Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really made me laugh. I don't often laugh out loud at books, especially not on a plane surrounded by strangers. But I did while reading this.

I have read reviews that complain of Jacobson "showing off" in this book, that seem to think it is just about the author showing how well he thinks he can write and how clever he is. I didn't get any of that as I read it. But I did laugh a lot.

It might help that I am British and there's an element of the traditional English farce. It might help that the action takes place about 5 miles away from where I grew up so I can picture the scenery etc.. But it made me laugh.

I read the original just before I read this. Now I am in a trap I might never escape: this novel made me want to re-visit the play as I think I will get more out of the Shakespeare version having read the Jacobson version. But I am fairly convinced that re-reading the play would make me want to re-read the book, which would make me want to go back to the play, which would...

Did I mention it made me laugh?

[Alex Cantone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strulovitch found his guest in the garden when he woke. It was still early. And Cold. He was wearing his overcoat, with a black scarf over his shoulders - to Strulovitch’s eye not unlike a prayer shawl –and was sitting on his Glyndebourne stool talking to Leah. A few remaining droplet of dew sequinned the lawn, lighting him up from below like footlights.

Part of the Hogarth-Shakespeare series, I read this re-imagining of the Merchant of Venice in a contemporary setting, over 10 sittings, neither enjoying nor disliking it. Hard to relate to the main characters, two Jews, meeting in a cemetery in the North-west of England in winter, where Strulovitch is attending the grave of his mother, Shylock talking to his late wife and soul-mate, Leah. Both fathered daughters (Beatrice, Jessica) who have moved away from the faith to live with Gentiles. For some reason Strulovitch invites Shylock back to his house, where his own wife is bedridden following a stroke that has left her a semi-vegetable. For much of the book the two men ruminate on what it means to be Jewish.

‘We had a chance at a Homeland and we blew it. Belonging was never what (the Jews) were good at anyway. Being a stranger is what we do. It’s the diaspora, they are at pains to assure me that brings out the best in us. Which neatly sidesteps the question of what brings out the best in them.’

Eventually 16-year-old Beatrice arrives home and meets Shylock, with the usual indifference of teenagers, but Strulovitch is agitated.

Strulovitch was ashamed of himself. There’s something not right somewhere, he thought, when a father can’t see his daughter in the company of another man without envisioning foul play…

No worries there. Beatrice is intent on running away to Venice with her footballer boyfriend, Gratan, who has been married at least twice before. The lovers were introduced by socialite Plurabelle, who hosts a TV reality show between cosmetic surgeries, and her confident D’Anton. D’Anton introduced Plurabelle to a handsome mechanic, Barnaby, the epitome of uncertain youth.

What saves it from crassness is the lyrical phasing, which I could only take in in short bursts, and the theme seemed to drag, Jewish jokes aside, for 200+ pages and 23 chapters, until we come to Act V. Strulovitch is determined to get his pound of flesh from the unsuitable Gratan for sleeping with his daughter while she was technically underage, and accepts D’Anton as a substitute. Shylock delivers a powerful argument on the virtue of mercy, which Strulovitch ignores, only to be outwitted by D’Anton.

He wondered if Shylock were feeling much what he felt now. Knowing his words had all been for nothing. It wasn’t just that there was no victory to be had; it was that there was no victory worth having. Victory and defeat were alike absurd.

But the most thought-provoking lines are left until towards the end: Action had stopped arbitrarily for Shylock, but time hadn’t. Time had embalmed him.

[Lyn Elliott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve come to Shylock Is My Name via a winding path – watching the Merchant of Venice film with Robert de Niro as Shylock, reading James Shapiro’s Shakespeare and the Jews; then listening to Shapiro and Jacobson discussing Shakespeare, Shylock and Jews at which point I knew I had to read Shylock is My Name.

I’ve never been a great fan of Jacobson, but this book is one I’ll remember for his recreation of Shylock; the laugh aloud humour, sometimes sardonic, sometimes slapstick; anger and the revelation of Shylock not only as a man who grieved for his lost wife, daughter and ducats but as a deeply philosophical presence.

Most of what I’ve written here is derived from watching and listening to multiple interviews with Jacobson, on which the nature of Jewishness takes central stage, and that’s where my review focuses.

He repeatedly tells the story of how he came to author the reimagining of The Merchant of Venice as part of part of the Shakespeare project. He claims he didn't think of Merchant of Venice - he offered first to do Macbeth, Lear, Othello, early comedies, the history plays - anything else – but in the end the publisher left him no choice but to accept the Jewish play

Once he looked at the play, he says, he found it was marvellous, was delighted to take it on.

Part of what he did was Jew now- Jew then. He explains the presence of both Shylock and Strulovich like this: He couldn't do a modern equivalent of Shylock because Shylock is too big a person, so he had to be in the book. Strulovich is a type of maybe now Shylock, he can’t help asking Shylock the questions we want to know – what did you intend? Would you have taken the pound of flesh from around his heart, or why the heart suddenly became the object of his revenge? Would you have done it?

To which Shylock’s response is ‘I dealt in true obligation’ – both giving and taking. Antonio could only give, not take. Shylock felt himself to be the instrument of justice and there is no cruelty violence that a man won’t commit if he feels God on his side. He doesn’t project beyond the point at which the play stops “I don't know what it feels like to commit murder, but I can tell you what it feels like to want to commit murder”.

Putting words into Shylock’s mouth was a huge challenge, Jacobson says. It’s the hardest piece of writing he’s done, because he needed gravitas, had to convey Shylock’s gravity, quick wit and sense of the ridiculous.

The other characters who take up so much of the play and form the context for Shylock, are a shallow, nasty lot. Jacobson creates Antonio as endlessly melancholic, endlessly giving, all suffering, sanctimonious, emotionally coercive and nasty.

Asked whether he believes Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, Jacobson observes that Shakespeare is the greatest writer that ever lived, and that he had too great a mind to be an anti-Semite – he might not have loved all Jews but was not an anti-Semite. Shylock is portrayed as a man with feelings and principles several times he refers to the moment in which Shylock reveals himself as a man is when he learns that Jessica has sold his ring for a monkey. Shylock melts, ‘I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys’, suggesting a howling wilderness and loneliness – the antithesis of civilisation.

One of the most fascinating discussions I watched was between Jacobson and James Shapiro, author of Shakespeare and the Jews. They differ on whether there were Jews in England at the time: Jacobson says there were no Jews in England at the time, but Schapiro is adamant they had never really left, though they may not have lived large in the public eye.

Christianity was undergoing upheavals at the time and there was great debate about what it meant to be a human being and the human relationship with god. There is no doubt that Shakespeare’s Shylock is human and Jacobson has fleshed him out even more so.

And here are some extracts from an excellent piece from Liam Hoare's 2016 interview with Jacobson:

“I think it’s a Jewish thing to remember as acutely as we do,” Jacobson says. “Ours is a culture that is fixated upon memory. We are who we are because of our past. Sometimes it is said against, and sometimes it is said for us, that we live more in the past than in the present, but the past is an inescapable thing for us, and so is Shylock. Although Shylock comes from the mind of someone who isn’t Jewish, he has entered the Jewish imagination. He’s entered the literature, not just about Jews, but also of Jews. He is one of the ways that we see ourselves. He won’t go away—he’s always there. So it’s only a slight linguistic shift that makes him not just there in our imagination, but as a physical presence.”

Having Shylock there in the room also serves an important dramatic purpose. It enables Jacobson to explore further, through Shylock’s relationship with Jessica, the theme of fathers and daughters.
Shylock’s presence is a means by which Jacobson can wrangle with the problem play itself, and give Shylock the Act V he never had. “This [is] not me saving him, saving the play—this is me wanting to hear more. I liked that idea more and more, that there he is, he’s a real man, and he’s Shylock.

“He’s a very funny, serious writer, and therefore he’s a massive antidote to the pious and the politically correct, who can never be funny… He writes what he has to write. And he’s a very elegant writer. (quoting Nick Cohen)

Liam Hoare in Moment, March 7 2016 https://momentmag.com/22759-2/


https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

Jacobson and James Shapiro interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ZsY...

Interview with author Andrée Aelion Brooks at a program of the JCC of Greenwich & ADL of Connecticut at YWMCA in Greenwich, Ct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piqHN...

[Effie Saxioni · Rating 2 out of 5]

Από τις πιο απογοητευτικές (για μένα πάντα) μεταφορές στα πλαίσια του Project.
Κουραστικό και αδιάφορο κατά τόπους, αν δεν είχα την εμμονή να το τελειώσω πάση θυσία για να δω πώς χειρίζεται συνολικά το αυθεντικό έργο, θα το είχα εγκαταλείψει πιθανότατα πριν καν φτάσω στο 1/3 του βιβλίου.
2/5

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received an advance reading copy through Netgalley.

This is the first Howard Jacobson book I've read. I can't say it made me at all excited to read any of his other books. Shylock is My Name is a retelling of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in the Hogarth Shakespeare series. I'm definitely still interested in reading some of the other works in this series, but reading this book was a complete chore.

The story was so hard to follow that I almost don't even know how to describe it. It has something to do with Shylock, the actual character from The Merchant of Venice, and a present-day Shylock-esque character named Strulovitch. As in The Merchant of Venice, there is a daughter and payment of (less than) a pound of flesh. There's also a football player who makes Nazi salutes and a famous tv show host, I think. Even the synopsis didn't really help me in figuring out what was actually going on.

The only reason this isn't a one star review is because there are some extremely interesting and thoughtful discussions between Shylock and Strulovitch about Judaism and the way Jews are perceived by the non-Jewish world around them. Some of these discussions were so profound and painful, they kind of took my breath away. It's just unfortunate that all this insight is surrounded by what I consider gobbledygook. If you're not Jewish or have little to no interest in Jews, I don't think there's anything in this book to truly enjoy.

[Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've enjoyed reading the Shakespeare project hogart did. Haven't picked anyone up in a long time, don't know of it was because I though I have run out of books to read or I just forgot. anywho I wasn't impressed by this book. It wasn't a book for me. Didn't get invested in the characters and feelt like very "shallow" writting.

[Wanda Pedersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actual rating: 3.5 stars

Confession of ignorance first: I am completely unfamiliar with this author. Even his name is unknown to me, which is unusual for one who works in a library and frequently plays in them too. But the Hogarth Shakespeare has chosen well for their Merchant of Venice rewrite. Jacobson is a talented writer.

To my mind, the two plays of Shakespeare which are the most challenging for modern audiences are The Taming of the Shrew due to the role of women in it and The Merchant of Venice for what appears to be anti-Semitism. I know that there are plenty of arguments on either side for why these plays are or aren’t examples of prejudice and whether we should care or not. I don’t have the credentials to express any definitive opinions on these matters, although I can see where the debates spring from. I just know that I enjoy the works of Shakespeare and I don’t avoid these two plays, although they may make me uncomfortable.

Writing a modern version of the beloved works of Shakespeare can’t be an easy task, but Jacobson is up to it. The choice of a Jewish author for this volume was inevitable—who else to tackle the thorny problem of prejudice embedded in the plotline? And Jacobson explores it thoroughly and examines the nature of the prejudice from several angles. I found the introduction of the “actual” character of Shylock into the modern setting an interesting choice. At first, I was unsure that people besides the main character Strulovitch could see him, but it soon became obvious that he was an actual corporeal being. He is definitely more than just being Strulovitch’s outer conscience or cheering section. In fact, it is through his commentary that Jacobson analyzes the prejudice embedded in the play, and by extension in society.

During the first maybe 50 pages, I was strongly reminded of our Canadian writer Mordecai Richler, who wrote so colourfully of the Jewish experience in Montreal (thinking of St. Urbain’s Horseman). Perhaps it was just the suggestion that both men were Jewish and the impression melted away as I progressed. But it did make me think that I need to return to more of Richler’s works, which I haven’t read since I was in university many years ago.

I have to say that I didn’t enjoy this novel as much as Jeannette Winterson’s version of The Winter’s Tale, which is not to say that I didn’t find it worth my time. As usual, it is probably more to do with the fact that I have never seen The Merchant of Venice performed. I will also definitely keep Mr. Jacobson in my mind for future reading. I am very much looking forward to the next Hogarth Shakespeare volume—I have a library hold on Anne Tyler’s Vinegar Girl and have recently seen The Taming of the Shrew, so I expect to enjoy it a great deal.

[Sparkleypenguin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Friends, this has been a long road of reading this book. Let's discuss it together, shall we?
Firstly, this book is WAY beyond my vocabulary level as a human. Like every single sentence it felt like had a word I didn't know which was annoying to say the very least. I tried looking them up as I went but that failed after a couple of pages.
Secondly, the Shylock character I felt was a bit unnecessary. Like in the end *spoiler alert* his mirror doesn't even end up following his advice and goes through with the humiliation of D'Anton. He provided great discussions with Strulovich (the aforementioned mirror) about fatherhood and Judaism but in the end, I don't really think he was necessary.
Thirdly, the weird relationship that Strulovich has with his daughter. That was gross at points and I really don't approve. *spoiler alert* I'm glad she came home in the end but other than that, no just no.
If this book was actually on my reading level, I feel like this book would have been a lot more enjoyable for me. This book will always have a bad taste in my mouth. Hopefully the next one will be better.

[Lark Benobi · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this novel Shylock appears (materializes?) in a cemetery and follows the protagonist home and the two of them have great conversations about Judaism, Anti-Semitism, and wayward daughters. What I liked most about the novel is that Shylock gets to speak a good deal more about many interesting things than he ever gets to do in The Merchant of Venice, where he has admittedly memorable lines, but not many of them. I also liked the way this entire novel sounds like Harold Jacobson having an attack of logorrhea, in that he is a very witty man and I'm happy to listen to him no matter what he is saying, or how much sense it makes, or how little.

This is my second novel in the Hogarth series of Shakespeare reimaginings, after The Gap of Time and I'm still not entirely sure what I make of these novels, or if they even are novels. There are some places where I wish Jacobson wasn't having so much fun quoting the play. I wish he'd just lifted the character of Shylock wholesale and let him run amuck in modern times, rather than be as faithful as he was to plot elements from the source material, for instance, Jacobson makes more references to Jessica trading her mother's ring for a monkey than I ever care to read about again. Although come to think about it this is a fascinating detail from the original play, almost as fascinating as "exit, pursued by a bear."

[Roger Brunyate · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Schizophrenic Novel

It must have seemed a no-brainer. When the publishers of the Hogarth Shakespeare series were thinking of commissioning a writer to retell The Merchant of Venice, who but Howard Jacobson could so closely parse the layers of cultural criticism surrounding Shakespeare's choice of the Jew Shylock as his villain? The only other possible candidate would be Philip Roth. But on this count, Jacobson comes through in trumps. His decision to bring Shylock back in person as an adviser and sparring partner for his modern equivalent, Jewish philanthropist Simon Strulovitch, is absolutely brilliant, leading to some of Jacobson's most incisive (and funny) dialogues about Judaism in the world today. He has the wonderful audacity to deal in blatant stereotypes, Semitic and Antisemitic, and then to refine them into something witty and even subtle. Here is Shylock talking about the concept of the Wandering Jew:

We had a chance at a Homeland and we blew it. Belonging was never what we were good at anyway. Being a stranger is what we do. It's the diaspora, they are at pains to assure me, that brings out the best in us. Which neatly sidesteps the question of what brings out the best in them. But they feel no embarrassment in proclaiming that the proper Jew is a wandering Jew. Citizens of everywhere and nowhere, dandified tramps subsisting wherever we can squeeze ourselves in, at the edges and in the crevices. Precarious but urbane, like flâneurs clinging to a rock face, expressing our marvellously creative marginality.

But Shakespeare's Shylock is only one of twenty characters; Jacobson still has to retell the rest of the play, and here he is much less successful. He seems determined to ridicule all the romantic qualities of the original plot. The heiress Portia, for example, becomes a much-botoxed television personality named Anna Livia Plurabelle Cleopatra A Thing of Beauty Is A Joy Forever Christine, or Plury for short. Barney (Bassanio), her lover, is a mere boy, vacuous but pretty. Gratan Howsome (Gratiano), who runs off with Strulovitch's daughter, is a muscle-bound footballer, thrice divorced and twice her age, a stud without a single claim to culture. Jacobson does have an interesting take on Shakespeare's title character, the merchant Antonio, by making him a refined homosexual aesthete named D'Anton. His dealings with Strulovitch are no longer about money but art; both men are well-known collectors and connoisseurs. Jacobson's novel is full of references to Shakespeare's play, which may delight those who know it well, but he can hardly be said to retell it. Unlike its predecessor in the series, Jeanette Winterson's retelling of The Winter's Tale as The Gap of Time , which follows the action pretty closely, those who come to Jacobson without knowing Shakespeare will have a very hard time of it indeed.

So it is a schizophrenic novel: the wonderful chapters about the two Jews alternating with the semi-farcical sections into which all the rest of the play must be crammed. But even so, I would recommend the book for the sections on Shylock and Strulovitch alone. Simon meets the old Venetian in a graveyard, where Shylock is mourning his much-loved wife, Leah, and invites him home. The men are both widowers of a kind, although Kay Strulovitch lies upstairs, in a permanent vegetative state. They are united, too, in being the father of daughters. The elopement of Shylock's daughter Jessica with the gentile Gratiano is something that we are meant to applaud in the play, but here we see it from Shylock's point of view, as a matter for deep regret and sadness. The sixteen-year-old Beatrice Strulovitch has not eloped (yet), but her father watches over her like an insanely jealous hawk—an over-protectiveness that Jacobson miraculously transmutes into evidence of love, on both sides. We may not especially like Simon, but we get very interested in how he thinks, the cultured secular Jew who is nonetheless more deeply invested in his Judaism than many a temple-goer. And set against him is Shylock, gaunt and rather terrifying, but deeply religious and in the end utterly humane. It is a perfect stroke that in the attenuated trial scene, the "Quality of Mercy" speech is given not to the cartoonish Plury, but to Shylock himself, the perfect token of his moral rehabilitation.

And, oh yes, that pound of flesh? Suffice it to say that it barely weighs an ounce. This being a novel about Judaism, it is one whose ritual excision has been a feature of Jewish manhood from time immemorial.

[Paula · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tried for 128 pages over a period of 9 days and just could not engage nor was I enjoying this novel. Not sure if it’s just me, the writing style, the premise/characters or what. Decided that for me, the story was not going to get any better and to call it a day. This is only the 2nd time out of all the novels I have read that I did not finish a book.

[Mary Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

The reader has a big clue in chapter one where an amused 14 year old Simon Strulovitch tells his father that his mother claims to have seen Hitler in a department store; the father tells his son if she says she has seen Hitler, she has; his aunt has seen Stalin, and he himself has seem Moses.

Strulovitch is visiting his mother's grave a year after her death in the 21st century. As he ruminates about his mother, his disabled wife, his complicated and troubled relationship with his daughter, he sees an older man sitting by a very old gravestone, talking and reading. This is Shylock. Strulovitch, a very wealthy secular Jew, invites Shylock to his home, and thus, their centuries and stories merge, and Strulovitch begins his education on what it really means to be a Jew.

I am of the school of criticism which views Shylock as more victim than villain, and I thoroughly enjoyed Jacobson's inventive recreation of The Merchant of Venice. His style is lively and literary and shows an impressive agility in the use of language. His interpretation of the characters is brilliant (and often very, very funny). I do think a familiarity with the play, or at least the story, is a must; otherwise, the entire enterprise doesn't make much sense, and the humor and irony, as well as the conundrums and struggles of the principals, are lost.

[Ava · Rating 1 out of 5]

The best part of this book was when it ended

[Tiffany · Rating 2 out of 5]

Recurring thoughts while reading this book:
1. Were I familiar with The Merchant of Venice, would this make more sense?
2. I think these people would benefit from psychotherapy. And maybe some hands-on volunteer work with people that have actual problems.
3. Are Jewish fathers really like this?
4. These characters are the most self-absorbed, narrow-minded, unlikeable people I have read. To a (wo)man. They are seriously not cool.
5. I think I may be woefully ignorant about Jewishness.

The following quote, from a far more informative and entertaining book -The Gates, kind of sums up how I feel about this author and his main character:

"In general it's a good idea to avoid people who take themselves too seriously. As individuals, we have only so much seriousness to go round, and people who take themselves very seriously don't have enough seriousness left over to take other people seriously. Instead they tend to look down on them, and are secretly pleased when they get stuff wrong, because they just prove to the too-serious types that they were right not to take them too seriously to begin with."

The following quote from this book had me nodding - Yes, Yes, Yes! - Someone needs to have a tall, frosty glass of getoveryourselfyoutosser:

"They live with their nerve-ends exposed in this country, he'd told her. You can maim with a look, in this place. You can kill with a word. Our friend Strulovitch has lost the robustness native to our people. He could be the spinster sister of a country clergyman, he is so sensitive to slights. And as a consequence of that, he cannot judge what's worth going to war for. So he goes to war, mentally, over everything."

While reading this book, mostly my face had two expressions: that WTF look or that ewww look.
I gave it two stars because I learned I never need to pick up anything by Howie for the rest of my life and thank gawd for that.

[Carol Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Howard Jacobson's modern-day retelling of The Merchant of Venice is excellent. A Jewish Englishman, Simon Strulovitch, is having difficulties with his daughter, Beatrice. Indeed, his whole life is difficult, except that he has made money and lives in a large house.
Jacobson goes to the cemetery to visit his mother's grave, and there he sees a man who is conversing with his dead wife. The man is Shylock, talking with his wife, Leah. He has survived the centuries, and talking to Leah is his only consolation. He is a double of Strulovitch.
Strulovitch takes him home. Amid the story of Strulovitch's daughter's infatuation with a gentile athlete who has been penalized by his coach for giving a Nazi salute, Strulovitch and Shylock discuss The Merchant of Venice. They ponder whether anti-Semitism has changed: They do this with considerable wit and depth.
The gentile characters are anti-Semitic. In a retelling of The Merchant, that's what you'd expect.
This book shows that Hogarth Press's plan to ask contemporary novelists to write books based on Shakespeare's plays is a good one, though not all of the books may be as good as Shylock Is My Name.

[Brendan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well written but soulless book adaption of the Merchant of Venice. The characters are boring and the story just feels unplanned. This is the first dud for 2016, a real disappoint is an understatement. I don't like giving negative reviews but I felt empty reading this book so it's worth noting to others. It really has great wording but that felt like compensation for the dull story.

[Krista · Rating 4 out of 5]

A question, then, for Shylock:

How merry was your bond? When you set the forfeit at an equal pound of Antonio's fair flesh, to be cut off and taken from whatever part of his body it pleased you, what intended you by it? What intended you by it in the spirit of jest – that's to say how far in earnest were you, and how far playing the devil they expected you to be? And what intended you in the matter of anatomy? Did you mean salaciously, flirtatiously even, to designate Antonio's penis as it pleased you to take? Was that the pound of his fair flesh – weighing hyperbolically – you originally had your sights set on, before all jests went out of the window with your daughter?

When I was in grade nine, The Merchant of Venice was the first Shakespeare that I studied. The casket plot, the rings plot, the cross-dressing court scene: there's something about your first Shakespeare that stays with you forever. And, of course, it was Shylock himself who left the greatest impression upon me: for four hundred years, the image of the money-hungry Jew who demands his pound of flesh has hunched over Western culture, and no matter how nuanced my English teacher's interpretation of Shylock was, I, too, believed Shylock was more villain than victim. Along comes Howard Jacobson, and as part of the Hogarth Shakespeare series, he has reinterpreted and updated The Merchant of Venice in Shylock Is My Name; and as one might imagine from such a prominent writer on modern Jewish themes, Jacobson doesn't merely acknowledge Shylock's looming presence; he invites the moneylender into the plot.

The book opens with Simon Strulovitch – a rich art dealer and nonobservant Jew – visiting his mother's grave to inspect her new headstone. He is aware of a fellow mourner – Of course Shylock is here, among the dead. When hasn't he been? – and when he leaves, Strulovitch proposes for Shylock to come along with him. The two men talk extensively about Jewish law and culture, comparing their different times; for though Shylock is presumably alive and well and real, he is indeed the Shylock of Shakespeare, with the events of the play always in his immediate past: Action had stopped arbitrarily for Shylock, but time hadn't. Time had embalmed him.

Strulovitch has a pressing reason for wanting Shylock's advice: just as Shylock' own daughter Jessica had run off with a Gentile, Strulovitch's daughter, Beatrice, has been tormenting her father with her love of non-Jews and is currently trying to get him to meet her new boyfriend: a semipro soccer player infamous for parodying the Nazi salute on the field. Although Strulovitch doesn't eat kosher or attend temple, at the moment of Beatrice's birth he felt the presence of God and the weight of His covenant with the Jewish people, and despite having once married a Gentile himself, Strulovitch can't bear the idea of his daughter leaving the clan. The new crowd of friends that Beatrice meets through the soccer player are parallels to characters from The Merchant of Venice and events are put into motion that force Strulovitch – the nonobservant Jew; the generous philanthropist and benefactor – into playing the stereotypical Shylock; into demanding his payment in flesh.

Howard Jacobson, as a British Jew, has something very particular to say about modern Jewish life. Strulovitch must watch as his offer to open a museum of Jewish art is refused as not in keeping with the local Manchester historical character (despite the artists themselves having been born in the area); he witnesses a group of protesters who want to stop a company from providing local trash collection because they also produce sewer systems for a disputed West Bank settlement; even the parody of a Nazi salute on a soccer field is based on actual events: while no one is literally spitting on Jews (as mentioned in Shylock's famous “If you cut us do we not bleed?” monologue), the modern Jew still suffers by association with a maligned past and with a lumping in with their larger community; and with the assumptions that others make about their motives and their desires; behind every Jewish businessman, the Gentile recognises the presence of Shylock fingering his ducats.

The two men, who would rather not, in any circumstances, wish to be exchanging glances, direct their gazes over each others' shoulder. If D'Anton were a pirate with a parrot, Strulovitch would be addressing that. D'Anton himself is looking even further to the rear of his guest, as though at Strulovitch's grandparents in their headscarves and skullcaps, falling under the hooves of Cossacks' horses, muttering to their mouldy god while their hovels go up in flames...But enough of that, D'Anton tells himself.

I find Jacobson to be a very funny writer, and there is much dark humour here. Purists might not like that this isn't a straightforward modernisation of The Merchant of Venice, but I liked the device of having Shylock serve as counsel and example as Strulovitch stumbles right into Shylock's own dilemma: the irony is rich as the art dealer has every opportunity to not sink to the expectations of others, but whether through spite or devilry, sink he does. If the central conflict in Merchant is Shylock's quest for justice counterpoised against Portia's call for mercy, it was a nice touch for Shylock here to lecture her modern equivalent on that theme:

It is wrong not to know where you got your sweet Christian sentiments from. It is morally and historically wrong not to know that Jesus was a Jewish thinker and that when you quote him against us you are talking vicious nonsense. 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.

So does that demonstrate what Shylock had always believed, or is it the result of four hundred years of thinking? Four hundred years later, why couldn't a non-observant Jew like Strulovitch embrace mercy? Shylock Is My Name is an interesting, entertaining, and thought-provoking book.

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to admit that after 86 pages of Shylock is My Name I skipped to the end to see how Howard Jacobson dealt with the pound of flesh problem in a modern setting. (It was pretty clever.)

Did I return to page 86 and read what was in between? No, I did not. For all my reading 20th c Jewish writers and Holocaust literature, this book taught me I don't understand what being Jewish is like at all.

A man once told me about the hostility he faced just walking home from school. He was Jewish in a Michigan city with few Jews. I know the history, the persecution, the genocide---as fact not experience.

The characters in this updated telling of The Merchant of Venice obsess about Jewish identity and oppression. And when their daughters are old enough to date, these father obsess over the horror of their daughters marrying a Christian.

I was not taught racism in my family. Christian vilification of the Jews was something I read about in history books.
"Being a stranger is what we do. It's the diaspora, they are at pains to assure me, that brings out the best in us....they feel no embarrassment in proclaiming that the proper Jew is a wandering Jew."

As a woman, I resented the men's controlling paternalism-- which seemed to drive their daughters to rebellion.

"As far as you're concerned, he retorted, "I am the police."

"The universe decreed that father should love their daughters not wisely but too well. And hat daughters should hate them for it."

The novel does not have much action and the conversation between Shylock and Strulovitch is intellectual, about ideas. This is not a novel for someone who prefers story and plot driven books. I have read all of the Hogarth Shakespeare novels released so far. This one was the hardest for me to connect with,

I received a free book from Blogging for Books in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.

[Lauren Matakas · Rating 1 out of 5]

I promise I am here for the Hogarth Shakespeare retellings. This is where I live, people. I love this stuff. I just simply could not force myself to finish this installment.

Shylock Is My Name ended up being Jacobson trying to prove just how smart he is, and ended up producing an incomprehensible, unfollow-able, piece of work that makes no sense, and has little to do with retelling Merchant. It's not that he's not allowed to take liberties with the original work-that's the whole point-but Jacobson tries to get away with no connective tissue to the entire novel. Shakespeare is endlessly watchable, his stories may not always make sense, but there's always some rationalization or explanation. In Jacobson's retelling, there's a lot of weird internal monologuing with no explanation of what's caused anything to happen. Characters who should be the ones driving the action are reduced to strange two dimensional versions of what they could be, and frivolous asides stint the flow of the novel. It's like he took the characters names, wrote what he wanted to write, and then laughed at his editors, as though too far above them, when they said "This doesn't follow Merchant at all".

I'm excited for Vinegar Girl, the next one out, which retells The Taming of the Shrew, and I'm excited for the others in the series. This one was just a swing and a miss.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is refreshing to encounter a contemporary novel that is primarily ideas, not actions. Shakespeare's Shylock is the protagonist in a battle of wills; a contemplation of identity; and ruminations on the parent-child relationship.

I've read a lot of Shakespeare and seen many of the plays, but don't think I have ever experienced The Merchant of Venice. Certainly, it would have been an asset to approach this book with a fresh reading of the play, but my lack of familiarity with the details didn't detract in any way from the power of this novel.

What does it mean to be Jewish? Jacobson's book seems to ask that question on every page. But, it is not just about the Jewish faith, or Jewish heritage; it is a bit Philip Roth-ish in its exploration of Jewish persecution, Jewish self-doubt and, yes, Jewish superiority. There is a moral struggle at the center of this book that kept me reading and thinking.

This was a rare book. More interesting than enjoyable, but definitely one that I would recommend and particularly one that would be fun to discuss with others.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some good humor, the writing is good, but the characters are meh. Cover is pretty though.