“Shylock is My Name”

So I am about to do something here that I try never to do.  I am going to review a book I did not like.  I really wanted to like this book and was quite excited when I bought my copy, but try as hard as I could I did not find it an enjoyable read.  In the past I have always thought that I would only review books I could recommend, but this time that doesn’t seem fair.   I am sure there are others who will love this book.

A few years ago I read Jacobson’s novel, The Finkler Question.  I also did not really enjoy that novel.  But I had read it for a book discussion and the controversy of some people loving it and some not and others not feeling they had even understood it made for a great discussion.

Now this new book was being promoted and it sounded so interesting.  The reviews described it as, “a clever and entertaining retelling of the "Merchant of Venice”.  I even went to see Howard Jacobson speak at Temple Kehillath Israel in Brookline, MA in anticipation of this new book and the plot as he was describing it was enticing.  So I am doubly disappointed that I again find that I just do not like Jacobson’s writing style.

So I am sure you are saying to yourself, what were you expecting, Shakespeare created Shylock as the ambiguous money lender.  Through the years he has become the epitome of the negative Jewish stereotype, how the gentile world portrays the anti-semantic metaphor, greedy, vengeful and legalistic.  So when Jacobson modernizes the character of Shylock, what can you expect.  In the novel we have Shylock who has remained alive for four centuries meeting his modern day equivalent, Simon Strulovitch, an art dealer and conflicted father, in a cemetery.
Strulovitch is concerned with his daughter, Beatrice’s disassociation with her heritage and family becoming involved in a romantic relationship with a football player, just as Shylock was concerned with his daughter, Jessica running away.  

I find that though Jacobson is described as writing “comic novels about Jewish dilemmas”, I just have a hard time finding them funny.   His books portray Jews in a negative light, not humorous, and degrading not uplifting.

For example, first there is a discussion about money and wealth.  Plurabelle, the modern day Portia, and D’Anton, the updated Antonio, are talking about a gift he has brought her when he comes to visit.  She lives in a splendid home and says she is sad.  She wonders if they are unhappy because they are the advantaged.  D’Anton wonders if they are really the advantaged, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

The conversation I would say takes a turn toward the negative when they bring the subject of Jews in and say that Jews have to be the center of every drama, human or theological.  Then in what must be meant as humorous, Plurabelle says, “So they don’t count is that what you are saying?” and when D’Anton says he doesn’t think so she counters with, “Oh yes they do,” she laughed.  “That’s all they do.  They just sit and count...and count….and count..”

Jacobson does deserve credit for being very creative with the reinterpretation of Shakespearean classic.  As Strulovitch tries to extract his “pound of flesh”, Jacobson is exploring the concepts of Jewish identity and anti-semitism.  In this novel Jacobson In the original story we have never been really sure if Shakespeare was himself anti-semitic and using the Shylock character as the vilification or if Shakespeare was letting Shylock speak to justify the anger of Jewish persecution.

I have given you some suggestion of the plot and will let each of you make your own determination of whether to read the book or not and how you feel after reading it.