Final implications of backwards and forwards

Hey everyone, so here are our implications expanded and with examples and what we think the play is about based on our analysis. feel free to add on with comments or additional posts. if you think i should change anything just say the word.

Implications:

 

            After having done our plot analysis both backwards and forwards, we have come up with a few discrepancies or differences between the two ways of plotting the action. First, we noticed that, in doing the plot backwards, it permitted us to focus a lot more on the details of how the story moves forward. There are many different story lines in Merchant of Venice and by going backwards we got a better understanding of how the relationships relate to one another and how they are ultimately connected. We were able to notice more highlighted relationships (Portia and Bassanio and their relationship with Antonio) versus less forwarding relationships in the play (Lorenzo and Jessica). The story line of Antonio and Bassanio constructing this entire plan to get money and in turn Portia really moves the story forward; where as Jessica and Lorenzo add to Shylock's character and why he is so angry, they do not forward the story as much.

            Another difference we found working both directions was how the focus of the plot shifted based on the direction we were plotting. When we plotted forwards our plot focused more on the relationship between Portia and Bassanio, how their love fuels the other actions and we did not have Antonio being a character with many forwards. However, plotting backwards we noticed that the story more intimately follows Antonio and his promise to help Bassanio get Portia, which forwards the action of getting the money loaned in the first place. Instead of it being Portia and Bassanio forwarding most of the action, when we did it in reverse Antonio's relationship to the loan and his need for his ships to arrive so he can pay it back without Shylock killing him forwards the action more.

            Lastly, one more thing we noticed that stuck out to us when doing the plot backwards was the complexity of the splits and returns in the plot branches. When doing it forward it was much easier to follow, all the sub plots broke apart and defined themselves throughout the play and came back together at the end nice and neat. In plotting backwards we did not get the same clean results. All the plots come together at the end still, but when they broke apart we found many ways in which they slightly connected to other sub-plots instead of being their own complete stories that simply collide at the end. For example, backwards the meeting and agreement of the loan forces four different forwards to occur which reconnect before the trial over the loan even begins and during the trial we find a few branches off the unison story line, but when we did it forwards they do not connect until the trial is over. Plotting backwards is much more of a web than the defined linear progressions of the forwards.

 

What the play is about based on our analysis:

 

            Based on our analysis of the forwards and backwards plot we believe the play is meant to highlight the good outcomes of playing by the rules or strictly following the law. Portia gets exactly what she wants: Bassanio, by not waving the rules her father intended for her to find a suitor. She did not cheat or lie with any of her suitors, and love found her just as she wanted it. Also, we discovered that Antonio lives solely because Portia follows the law as literally and strictly as possible. Shylock could have gotten away with killing Antonio over the loan by taking a pound of flesh, but it is Portia who notes that if he bleeds, the law is no longer in Shylock's favor and he will then be in trouble with the law. Portia defines the details of the law to help Antonio survive. With that being said through these actions we can say that Shakespeare was trying to focus on the difference between greediness versus generosity. Shylock is a greedy man who only wants what is best for him (money) and will take down anyone in his way (Antonio and his own daughter Jessica and her lover Lorenzo). However, Antonio, Bassanio and Portia in the play are all working together and generously helping one another to find what they each desire. It is their generosity that wins over Shylock's greediness in the end. 

Implications of Completing our Analysis

Implications: The implications of doing the backwards and forwards in conjunction with each other is that it allowed us to break down the relationships better between couples. We were able to find a through-line that extended both through a backwards and forwards analysis, which is that the attraction between Portia and Bassanio kind of controls the movement of the play and the plot.

It was interesting to find that the backwards analysis was more heavily focused on Antonio, while the forwards was mostly focused on the relationship between Portia and Bassanio.

The backwards analysis seemed to require a much stricter observance of detail. It was interesting too because it was hard to find a straight line from the end to beginning, there seemed to be a lot of splits and "coming togethers."

Based on our analysis we found that strict observance to the law (and its nuisances and loopholes) ended up helping Portia and Bassanio achieve their end goal, marriage based on their true love for each other. This strict observance also helped Antonio get out of his bond to Shylock.

Divvying up these Posts

I think that it is nearly impossible to divvy up these posts evenly especially since we are dealing with a continuous line of thought and can’t really divvy something like that up. I think that if we all do our own separate backwards and forwards we can compare our findings and see what we think about that. Otherwise it will just be an extremely confusing set up and hard to comprehend.

-PJ

some additions

Hey guys,ok so hannah sent me a mapped out version of the plot forwards that she did (trying to figure out how to put it up on here, stay tuned) and it’s really great. However, I think we need to specify a lot more. I agree with Chelsea that the interaction between Bassanio and Antonio is one of the first actions of the play but i’m not quite sure if it is the first one. It seems odd that the first action is not until the second part of the first scene. There has to be a reason why he begins with Antonio, Salarino and Salanio talking.In terms of plot splits Portia’s story (all her suitors and her relationship with Nerissa) is definitely one, Jessica and Lorenzo (??) could be another one, but i feel like all the other splits get all tangled up. Antonio, Bassanio and Shylock continue to come together throughout the play so does that mean that we have splits that come back together and then split off again and come back together? CONFUSING! what do you all think?

Some Ideas on What Happens

I think the first major thing that happens in the text is Bassanio asking Antonio for a loan. I would say that the trigger for that would be Bassanio falling in love with Portia and deciding to go to Belmont to take the challenge (the trigger for that being Portia’s dad dying and leaving the challenge of the three boxes to win her hand in marriage), but I’m not sure if we’re supposed to go that far back or if that’s stasis/intrusion business. But the loan and introducing Portia connects the sort of split between the plotlines of what’s going on with Bassanio and co. and what’s going on with Portia in Belmont.
Bassanio asking Antonio for a loan triggers him to say yes, and that they should go find a benefactor
This triggers them to seek out Shylock, which triggers his agreement to give them the money and to set up the term that if they cannot pay it back at the exact time and place agreed upon, that Shylock will cut out a pound of Antonio’s flesh.
This triggers Antonio to agree and they set up a meeting after Shylock runs home for a minute

Here’s where I’m getting kind of lost – the next scene is with Portia and the Prince of Morocco. I know we can have both plotlines occuring simulataneously, but then when we return to Antonio/Bassanio’s side of the plot, it’s Launcelot (is this another split? Meaning the next heap would be Gratiano’s request to go with Bassiano, as triggered by the agreement to lend the money which allows Bassanio to go on the trip?)

I’m so sorry if I’ve confused everyone, but please let me know what you guys think.