	The extreme focus upon Shylock’s humanization infers audiences appreciate the character for his breakage of stereotypes, while simultaneously believing those stereotypes make up a significant portion of Shylock’s character. 
Corbin’s wording of ‘psychologizing the Jew’ postulates that while similar enough to be understood, the ‘Jew’ possesses distinct traits removed enough from Christians that mandate his character be analyzed under a different scope. The Shakespearean Jew manifests as ‘the other,’ or an entity recognizable yet in need of explication. Shylock’s heroic representation becomes diluted when his status as a hero becomes contingent on the audience's’ ability to recognize him as the exception. 
	Furthermore, Merchant of Venice advertisements during the pre-World War II time period seem focused extensively upon the actor’s of the play, and less so about analysis. While analytical reviews exists, their numbers comparatively fewer numbers reveal a focus on comedic enjoyment rather than critical analysis. The advertisements run repeatedly; one series of ads for Merchant of Venice during 1896 runs for 8 days in a row, with additional ads for later showings appearing in the following weeks. The constant mentioning of lead actors and their portrayal of Shylock, and the fewer pieces on the play’s content, infers the contemporary audience is viewing standardized renditions of Merchant of Venice without dramatic changes or challenging additions. Shylock, while not hated and impressively ‘complex,’ still functions as a character distinct from the audience. Viewers likely interpret the play at a shallower level, and contextualize Shakespeare’s ‘genius’ depiction of Shylock as floating, rather than contingent on an anti semitic past.
	As anti semitism rises internationally and the Nazi’s begin using Merchant of Venice as propaganda, the play’s popularity dips extensively during the 1930’s - 1940’s time period. Advertisements for the play decrease, and the majority of its mentions come from obituaries, acting honoraries for past performances, and critiques. The absence of Merchant of Venice, while not explicitly mentioned, definitely comes from the uncomfortable nature of the play in a time where its written anti semitism becomes tangible. One 1942 article laments “When Shylock was presented in a red wig as a hilariously comic character, in a mood of callous Jew-baiting”. 
This perspective shift is demonstrative of the attitude surrounding Merchant of Venice as a whole. People still willingly defend it, but not out of admiration for its performances, but for the sake of maintaining Shakespeare’s massive interpretive influence upon theater.
	The ‘inescapable genius Shakespeare’ interpretation calms down during the war years, but reappears in the 50s, albeit holistically the approach towards Merchant of Venice still teeters on cautious. 
The author reaffirms the belief of Shakespeare as the master of the English language, being a ‘genius’ capable of creating perfect art. By noting the dichotomy between reading Shakespeare and watching Shakespeare, Atkinson seeks to remove the written word from the equation, and focus more on performative value. By obfuscating the written word - or completely disregarding those who understand Shakespeare primarily through it - Atkinson wishes Shakespeare’s theatrical performances to be truncated from its historical context. What Shakespeare wrote is up to infinite interpretation, and he can rhetorically dodge allegations of racism or unsavory opinions held contemporarily by Shakespeare through flexibility. 
