In review of our reading of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing in 8th grade, I want to challenge you to reflect on what we've read. Please post a well-constructed, 1-paragraph (minimum) response to one of the following prompts. Please feel free to comment on other students' responses.
- Based on what you read in Much Ado, do you think Shakespeare is a feminist (pro-equality for women)? Why or why not? Give evidence from the text.
- During the Elizabethan era, there was a great emphasis on social expectations, rituals, and behavior. Discuss how these expectations affected the characters and dramatic situations in Much Ado.
- Shakespeare uses characters of both high and low social classes. How does he demonstrate intelligence (or lack thereof) in both classes of characters in Much Ado?
- Give your own, modernized version of what would have happened in Much Ado if the same characters were challenged with similar plot obstacles, but the story was set in 2010 in America.
Sean Y 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:49 pm
In a more modern version of this play, Don John’s trick wouldn’t work because Hero was just talking to another man. In this century, that doesn’t matter, but back then it was a crime. There would also be drugs and crime. The girls in the play would also get a say instead of a world run by men. Their friends might not be able trick Beatrice and Benedict because someone might hear what actually happened and just tell Beatrice or Benedict. So the plot of the story might somewhat work but most of the twists won’t work.
Matt 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I agree with you completely sean
Geri 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Question 3 Response:
Shakespeare uses characters of both high and low social classes. William Shakespeare, in my opinion, shares an even amount of intelligence among the social classes. Well intelligence can mean lots of things and most people would just define it with a synonym of smart. Intelligence can mean knowledge, collection of information, and other meanings. Although these meanings may seem the same, I'd beg to differ because they can actually be irrelevant to each other. Bad intelligence would mean to collect information BADLY. This is an example of what Claudio and Don Pedro did when they exhibited the scene and gain knowledge of a secret affair between Hero and another man, when in reality, it was Borachio and Margaret. Instead of Claudio actually talking to Hero and discussing what really happened that night, Claudio accused her of being a "rotten orange" and shamed her in her wedding in front of the public. Bad intelligence can also be bad knowledge (naive, ignorant). This would be an example of Dogberry and Verges. They are so naive and ignorant at being cops, no one actually respects them and they are treated like fools (which they are). See how William Shakespeare shares the wealth of intelligence. He has given BAD intelligence to high class like Claudio and Don Pedro; also he has given it to, low class like Dogberry and Verges. Don't worry, GOOD intelligence has been served to. Examples would be to Antonio and Leonato (high class) for their wisdom and the guards (low class) for their experience and common sense. Shakespeare hasn't at all divided intelligence by social classes. He has though divided it by their personality, which I believe is a good way to portion it.
Yup... that's pretty much what i want to say.
David Roche
// Mar 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Hey Shaksepeare lovers! Mr Roche here. I wanted to share with you an experience I had playing Benedick in a production of Much Ado in Canada. It was a simple design, performed outdoors. All of us were wearing baseball jerseys and jeans, so at the beginning, instead of the guys returning from battle, we were coming back from a baseball game. So there were no need to carry weapons around and the challenge for the actors was to use the language of the play to communicate our relationship to one another and create particular behaviors to express a certain status without elaborate costumes to rely on. Have fun!
Marco 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm
3. Shakespeare does indeed use both high and low class characters in Much Ado About Nothing. However, I do believe that Shakespeare demonstrates intelligence of both high and low classes in numerous ways. Shakespeare starts firstly, by introducing his readers to Benedick and Beatrice. Despite the dispute of these two characters, Shakespeare does show intelligence between the two. As two the lower intelligence and social classmen, Dogberry and his police companion Verges. The two men do surely emphasize malapropisms as the book progresses. Be that as it may, Shakespeare does still show his readers some intelligence through Dogberry and Verges by showing us there allied evil intelligence with Don John. I am sure that there are numberless ways that Shakespeare shows his readers that both high and low class character show some intelligence, however, these are only a few.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Just to clarify, Marco, Dogberry and Verges are not allied with Don John. Athough they're certainly dim-witted, they are trying to do the right thing by arresting Borachio and Conrade. They and the watchmen (including Seacole) are the forces of "justice." Why do you think Shakespeare makes those lower-class, barely educated folks the "forces of justice" in this play in which status and public appearances are so important?
Danny H. 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:11 am
Great Job Marco!!!!!!!! nice support
Deborah
// Mar 16, 2010 at 8:19 pm
4) If the play Much Ado About Nothing was in 2010. It would be totally different from the past. When Don John tells Claudio that Don Predo went to woo Hero for himself, Claudio was forced to let go of her because he was the prince. In 2010, he wouldn't have let go because Don Pedro wouldn't be a prince now. Claudio could have fought for Hero for himself instead of just letting go. Also the wedding wouldn't have been immediate, it would've took months to plan the wedding. It would also be harder to trick Don Pedro & Claudio about the cheating because Hero could have proved that she wasn't there easier and they wouldn't be outside far off listening to them in the dark. Also if Claudo and Don Predo did indeed believe that Hero was unfaithful, then it wouldn't have been so major. Hero may have been hurt but it wouldn't ruin her reputation or her father, Lenato's, reputation because cheating happens many times in our century. She wouldn't have died and life would just go on for them. Don Pedro probably wouldn't have been jailed because technically it wasn't illegal to break up the 2.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Two questions:
1. Can you think of any countries that do have princes nowadays? Maybe that part of the story might work if we set the play in another country?
2. You state, "life would just go on for them." Would it really be the same as before the cheating scandal? Would anything change for a modern victim of a damaged reputation?
Kristina 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Heyy. #4
Now and the Elizabethan times are different and similar. If plot of Much Ado About Nothing took place now, in 2010, the reactions and plans on how to take revenge on Claudio or how to prove that Hero is innocent, or any of the other events in the play would be different. For example, Beatrice and Benedick insult each other many times throughout the play, but they hide their affection towards each other. Nowadays, people would do the same thing, insult each other, which is a way of flirting. Also, instead of Don John stating that Hero was talking to man late at night, Don John could say that "Hero" and another man could be seen going on a date. Since people now believe rumors even without seeing if its true or not, Don John would be pretty successful, in my opinion.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Yes, Kristina, these aspects of the story you point out seem to feel very familiar to modern situations we've seen or experienced with bickering as a way of flirting or people believing rumors about others. Can you think of specific examples? (without naming names of friends, of course!)
Kristina 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:14 am
Hmmm...ok
i have a couple of friends that are always arguing with each other about the stupidest things; they're always trying to beat each other...turns out they like each other...HA!
Zoy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Shakespeare shows a variety of both high and low social classes of the characters in Much Ado About Nothing. For example, the two policemen, Dogberry and Verges, try hard to sound that they are from the upper class, but trip up over a few words here or there. In one of Dogberry's line, he says, "Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons..." He tries to sound smart, but messes up the words "comprehend" and "auspicious", when it should be "apprehended" and "suspicious". Shakespeare also demonstrates upper/high class in his characters. For example, when Benedict and Beatrice are in their quarrels, they are clever and wise in their choice of words. In fact, during the masked ball in the beginning of the book, Beatrice is talking with a person with a mask on [Benedict]. She knows she's talking to Benedict and calls him a dull fool, but since Benedict cannot reveal who he is, he has to take whatever Beatrice says.
Deborah
// Mar 16, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Oh, that's really observant. I didn't notice that. From the examples, you showed. Now I can tell a lot of the differences of the low and high social class of the characters.
Christian 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I agree with Zoy because Dogberry and Vergus are not upper class even though they try to act like it because when Dogberry talks he uses many malapropisms. But most of his malapropisms are in front of Upper Class people and for the reason that he wants to show off but really makes himself look stupid. But you can tell that Don Pedro, Leonato, Benedick, Beatrice, and many many more are all upper class because they all talk very sophisticated.
Don 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 1:09 pm
1. Looking back at the text, Shakespeare definitely does not appear as a feminist. For example, when Don Pedro woes Hero, Shakespeare, in my opinion, intentionally shows that Hero is won easily.
Mel R 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm
yes, but look at how shakespeare portrays beatrice, she is strong willed and she gets what she wants. this shows a bit of feminism
Geri 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:36 pm
No, i think that Shakespeare is more of an anti-feminist than a feminist. Look at the way Beatrice says that how she wishes she were a man! It is because he believes that man do have more power, but that could also be because of the time he lived in.
Drew 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:57 pm
two things
1. Your response is a little on the short side and doesn't give much detail and support
2. how does showing that Hero is won easily express that Shakespeare is a feminist. How does it prove that he tries to empower women if they are easily won by a man in one night?
Adam E 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm
When Beatrice stands out against Benedick and insults him, like Mel said, it is portrayed as her being strong-willed. Also if Shakespeare was an anti-feminist, Beatrice would have been punished.
Matt 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 22, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Well is beatrice was punished then there would be a lot of controversy over that and i think shakespear was trying to avoid things like that
Mick 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:59 pm
3) Shakespeare demonstrates the differences between intelligence levels between social classes in a couple of ways in “Much Ado About Nothing.” He first shows that the higher-class characters are clearly more literate than those of the lower social class, whose speech is littered with malapropisms and grammatical errors. Where as the higher-class citizens are articulate and quick witted when speaking. Shakespeare doesn’t give all the credit to the upper class, though. In the story, some of the biggest mistakes are committed by those thought to be more educated, such as Claudio and Don Pedro, who fell for a trick played by none other than Don John. In this situation, neither Claudio nor Don Pedro thought to question Don John’s motive for this huge accusation of Hero, but rather believed right away that Hero was to blame, regardless of the outrageous claim. Also, the “simple” watchmen were the individuals to bring to light the truth of what has transpired with the whole plot to wreak havoc among the upper class. The illusion of education among the higher social classes is evident for being somewhat mislead, common sense-wise.
Adam C
// Mar 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm
nice explanation Mick! very descriptive and easy to understand!
Daniel K
// Mar 16, 2010 at 8:11 pm
That is very clever, nice thinking. Totally get your point
Hannah 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I completely agree, but also, I think that the people actually watching his plays (In the 1500s) would have probably found this idea almost illogical, so this could've been Shakespeare being unrealistic, instead of using his actual opinions.
Andy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:38 am
Mick, I like how you pointed out how some higher class people made mistakes, good job.
Jed 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:38 am
Amazing response, you must have put a lot of thought into this.
Mrs. Stotz 192.168.52.26 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:14 am
Hello Shakespeare scholars...
Such interesting points of view being expressed here. I especially like the arguments surrounding Shakespeare and his views of women. Interesting...Did you like reading "Much Ado" in manga-style? What did you think of that??
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:53 pm
I really enjoyed it. Much more than I thought I would. I think once we were able to distinguish the characters from each other (1-2 days of reading), we were well off. Most students finished the book before it was due. What about the rest of you? What did you think about reading it in graphic novel form versus script form?
Sean Y 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I think the graphic novel displayed more than I thought it would. The graphics were funny and meaningful. It wasn't just some random pictures with no color contrast and perspective. I haven't read the script form so I can't compare but I would think that the script might have more details in words because the graphic novel might have to cut some lines from the real script.
Jed 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:01 am
4.
If the setting was in 2010 in America, everything would be a lot less formal. Instead of all this formal language, everyone would be very comfortable, wearing more comfortable clothing, less formal language. Instead of duels, someone would just start the fight by punching them, and there would be no formality at all. There is wireless communication, so there would probably be no messengers.
Michelle O 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I think messages are still sent in the modern world even with telephones. People still send others to give their responses or messages to others. In this case, I don't agree with Jed about having messengers because message sending still happens today.
Marco 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Indeed Jed! i totally agree...and people wouldn't be riding on horses either haha
Christian 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Adding onto that there would be infinite things that would change. One of those things would be when Claudio insulted Hero if Hero was in such a High in power family than when they said she died she would have to not ever show her self again because it would be all over the internet and newspaper that her family were liars. Also people would not get married that quickly as Hero and Claudio did.
Andy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:39 am
2) Shakespeare puts great emphasis on social classes throughout “Much Ado About Nothing”. For example, Hero, the daughter of Leonato (Governor of Messina), is of a high social class. This is a big thing in the play because Claudio disgraces Hero at the wedding. Since she is of a high social class, this is a big problem. She has a reputation to uphold which causes the idea to fake the death. Also, Dogberry is of a low class so Shakespeare has him use malapropisms. This means that he wields very little power and he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Daniel K
// Mar 16, 2010 at 8:12 pm
I agree, great thoughts
Mick 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:13 pm
I agree Andy, Shakespeare uses social status as connection to education, but possibly as a way to show reality rather than expectations. It seems that, though of higher social class, many of the characters seem to lack common sense and good judgement, even if they are articulate. Also, though Dogberry does use malapropisms, the characters of lower social class have enough common sense to see that Borachio, Conrad, and Don John are to blame for the trouble in Messina, not little ol' Hero.
David Roche
// Mar 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Great observation of the different classes of characters. One could argue that there are no dumb characters in Shakespeare's plays.
Drew 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:23 am
3) Shakespeare demonstrates intelligence in both of the social classes in mostly the way that each member in the class speaks. For example, the members of the high social class such as Leonato, Don Pedro, and Beatrice talk with precision in their words and flowing grace in their speeches. In contrast, Dogberry and Verges are apart of the lower classes and are only guards that are promoted as royal night watches for the situation at hand. They talk sloppily and cannot correctly say certain words that would come easily in the high classmen’s vocabulary.
rochek 192.168.53.79 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:27 am
And yet, the watch were able to discover and arrest the true villain behind the plot! How does that coincide with your theory?
Drew 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm
The guards discovered about the villainy of Barachio and Don John because they basically confessed in front of the guard members. The only job they were given was to protect the royal family and, since Barachio confessed of trying to get inbetween the marriage of Hero and Claudio, this would be a crime of decieving or harming a member of the royal family. In a way, I guess this could show that the lower class has the capability of comprehending simple facts but does not show that they have the high intelligence of the high class princes and lords.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Does he mean just those guys or people like Seagull. If he is including Seagull then his theory is wrong. But if he is only including Verges and Dogberry then his theory is right cause it was Seagull who figures it all out.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Just to clarify, Moe, you mean Seacole, right?
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:28 pm
yes i didn't know how to spell it
Nikki
// Mar 16, 2010 at 6:34 pm
What about Hero and Claudio? Aren't they considered part of the higher social classes? I agree with Dogberry and Verges being part of the lower social class, because of their speech. By the way, Dogberry and Verges aren't promoted to the royal night watch; they're volunteers for the royal night watch.
Daniel K 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:09 am
Shakespeare shows uses characters that are of both high and low status in Much Ado About Nothing. The high class, like Don Pedro, Leonato, and Claudio are portrayed as royal people. By the clothing they wear, one can tell that they are very important. Many respect them and honor these type of people. However, Shakespeare uses different statuses to show intelligence. The recorder (writer), he is of low status, a clerk, but plays his part well in doing his job. Borachio, a henchmen/servant of Don John, is of low status, but is the mastermind of the plan to trick everyone into thinking Hero cheated on Claudio. An example of people that are unintelligent is Dogberry and Verges, Verges doesn’t talk much in the story but Dogberry. Dogberry is the head of the watch guarHd, trying to make himself look good, he often uses big words, like the high class people, but is misuses them almost all the time. This is an example of someone who is of low status and is unintelligent. Don John is the villain in Much Ado About Nothing, many times in the story he tries to make Don John and Claudio look bad in one way or another. Though he is a villain, he is very smart. When Don Pedro is wooing Hero for Claudio, he tricks Claudio into thinking that Don Pedro is wooing Hero for herself. Shakespeare shows that people of both low and high class can be smart and outsmarted.
Niko
// Mar 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Nice response Daniel. I also did number three and agree with you.
Danny H. 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:07 am
Shakespeare was definitely not a feminist. For example, when Claudio confronted Hero of being unfaithful towards him that idea does not portray the support of woman, and in the beginning of the story when Beatrice and Benedced bickered non-stop. Non of these ideas have anything to do with feminism. Yes there are a lot of woman in this story, But why does this have to mean that he is a feminists?
Shannon
// Mar 16, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Although Claudio confronted Hero does not show his support of women, we know, as readers, that Hero was not with Borachio. So, I think that that was to just show how they were separating from each other. Plus, in the end, Claudio admits he "sinned not but in mistaking" and that Hero was not disloyal to him. So, Shakespeare does portray that Hero was being faithful and that it was Claudio that misunderstood.
Marco 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Yea i totally agree.. He definitely wasn't a feminit...He was A LEGEND!!! haha
Adam E 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 am
In the play, "Much Ado About Nothing," Shakespeare uses social classes in many ways to define characters. The upper-class people had nice clothes and were very proper. Claudio and Don Pedro are to upper class people that wore elegant clothes and were in the upper class. Seacoal, one of the people chosen for the prince's watch had a little dirt on his nose when he showed up for duty. Also, upper class people also had a better education which was shown very clearly. Dogberry, someone in the lower class, uses malapropisms. That means he uses words in the wrong context. Don Pedro and Leonato did not use malapropisms and they are part of the upper class. These are some ways that Shakespeare used social classes to define characters.
Mel R 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Also Shakespeare seems to focus more on the important people, such as the higher class people. He also uses titles such as my lord, or don to express people's social status. In messina, leonato has much more status than dogberry, especially because he is governor and dogberry is the equivalent of a poiceman
Kristina 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 am
I would just like to say I agree with both of you. I would imagine that Shakespeare wouldn't want to focus on lower class (peasants) in his stories. I haven't really read a play about peasants by Shakespeare; then again this is the only one i read through entirely. But still, higher class and lower class are very distinctly...portrayed(?) in Shakespeare's writing.
Niko 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:51 am
3. People like Don Pedro are high-class and he was the one who came up with the plan to trick Benedict and Beatrice. Beatrice and Benedict are also high class citizens and they feud with their wit constantly. Borachio is also high class and he came up with the plan to fool Claudio and Don Pedro. Then people that are low-class like Dogberry are not smart and use malapropisms. The watchman also are low class and they are lazy. There is no low class citizen that is smart or vice-versa.
Emile
// Mar 16, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I would not say every low class citizen is not smart. I am sure that there are probably geniouses out there but just lack funds.I keep in mind that classes are separated by money.
David Roche
// Mar 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Money was certainly something that separated the classes Emile. Another thing was having a certain title or family name of reputation.
Mel R 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:50 am
If Much Ado About Nothing were modernized, it would be quite different than how Shakespeare wrote it. First of all, Don John could have placed a video camera on Borachio and instead of just talking outside the window; they could have been shown together instead. Also, Don John probably wouldn’t be brought back, because that just makes the story ever so much more perfect. However, life is never perfect, unlike the story. Furthermore, Conrad and Borachio most likely would have outsmarted Dogberry and Verges to get away and become rich. Dogberry was a poser, he wanted to be like an upperclassman by using words he thought fitting. He usually misused the words. In the scene where he is getting the men to confess he uses the word “auspicious” instead of suspicious. Lastly, the characters would dwell on their feelings more. In the scene where Don Pedro has won fair Hero for Claudio and their marriage is announced, Beatrice goes against every strong opinion about marriage she has made so far. She says that everyone is getting married but her and she is going to sit in a corner “crying hey ho for a husband.” Then she gets up and says congrats cousins, I am overjoyed for you! She seems genuinely happy for Hero. The modern Beatrice would not be able to push away her jealousy whereas the Beatrice in the play shakes it off and jubilantly joins the celebrations.
Niko
// Mar 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Cool. I think that it was good that you showed how some of the characters would be different in a modern version.
Adam E 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Wow Mel, excellent response! I like how you talked about the possibility of Conrad and Borachio outsmarting Dogberry and Verges. However, in that scene, Borachio was drunk so I wonder how that altercation would turn out if they were caught trying to lie their way out. Anyway, good job!
Ryan H 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:46 am
3. Sometimes they show how smart or not intelligent they are. Such as Don Pedro, Claudio, and Benedick are smart people. Verges and Dogberry are not intelligent because they use words incorrectly. One of the smartest people in Much Ado is Borachio because he is the one who planned Claudio to think that Hero is going out with somebody, so Claudio will feel betrayed.
Nikki
// Mar 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Question... what are some examples of Don Pedro, Claudio, and Benedick being smart... especially Benedick? Hehe! Borrachio is one of the smarter people, though, because of his evil, schemish, plan.
Tay B 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:47 am
If Much Ado about nothing was written in the modern time it would be a complete different story. For example Today(20 the century) we don't dress like king and queens we wear jeans and shirts. They had to wear dresses and skirts and the guys wore cardigans with ties.
Another example is today as in 20th century we talk different from Shakespeare time. We may have slang words but it sounded nothing like the book. A common word used in the book was (He) as of talking in 2nd person. Today we would use the persons name or I.
Another example is the actions of each character. Today(20th century) we would not marry so quick like Shakespeare time.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:59 pm
How did you feel you did with understanding the Shakespearean language? Did you "get it" by the end of our unit?
Michelle O 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:11 pm
#3!!!!!!
Shakespeare shows low class and high class characters by text and wardrobes. He shows Don Pedro as being royalty by the type of clothing he wears. He also shows this by having many of the characters think of and talk to him respectfully. Leonato is shown to be higher class because of the size of his house hold that was drawn for us and the power he has among the citizens of Messina. For example, the men guarding his house who caught Borachio and Conrad. They told him immediately and found their purpose at the time of being caught with Leonato's command. One of the lower class characters was Dogberry, the watchmen, who often times spoke his sentences out of order and just spoke grammatically incorrect. There I thought Shakespeare was trying to portray someone who didn't have a good education with a lower class job too. Another thing to keep an eye on to determine if someone is higher or lower class, look at what they are wearing in the story or there role.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Keep in mind we might not have clothing to look at if we had just read the script! That's part of the magic of seeing the play, or, in our case, reading the graphic novel!
Sarah C 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:03 pm
3. I think a way that Shakespeare demonstrates the lack of intelligence is through the character Dogberry. Dogberry isn't that smart, and he tries to use big words, which doesn't come out of his mouth right. He uses "dicerns" instead of "concerns."
The way he show's intelligence is through most of the characters, like Leonato and Borachio. They are very proper and are considered high class and very respected.
I also think that Shakespeare shows intelligence of the characters by their plans and how well they work out. For example, when Hero was accused of being unfaithful to Claudio, the priest suggests that Hero should be dead, so Claudio can feel guilt, and it worked. Also, by the way Don Pedro, Claudio, Leonato, Margret, Hero, and Ursula convince Benedick and Beatrice that the other both loves them. It worked until they found out.
Drew 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm
I think that this is a very good way to think about it when you say that Shakespeare also shows intelligence of the characters by their plans and how well they work out. I could only think of the way that the characters think and speak but not on the different plans they devise. The only thing I had a problem with was finding out what you were talking about in the beginning but I caught on during the second paragraph. GOOD JOB!!!
Noah 98.253.27.40 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I like how you didn't just read someone else's response and re word and used new ideas
Nice Work!
adam 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Based on what you read in Much Ado do you think Shakespeare was a feminist (pro-equality for women)? Why or why not? Give evidence from the text.
A feminist is someone who wants women rights to be equal to that of men.
And from what I have learned from reading Much Ado, I believe that Shakespeare was not a feminist. I have come to this conclusion from the outcome of the conflict in this play. This conflict revolves around a one of the main characters, Claudio, who was tricked by an “evil villain”, Don John; into thinking, his “soon to be wife” was being disloyal to him by seeing another man. More importantly, because of the low social status of women in those times, the “soon to be wife”, Hero, was not able to fully allow her innocents to her father, Leonato, and the rest of the characters. Luckily, Hero’s family believes her for the time being and soon afterwards, the truth is revealed. If Shakespeare was a feminist, he would have either give Hero the “power” to persuade everyone that she is innocent by her self, or he would have changed the conflict altogether and think of something else that would give more power to the women characters.
Also, most characters are men in this play. There are only four women, two of which are Hero’s gentlewomen, out of the seventeen characters. Only three women play any sort of role in the story line and one, Margaret, although she plays a part it was a small part overall. (She is the one who pretended to be the “disloyal Hero”)
All in all, If Shakespeare were a feminist, you would see much more women roles with a lot more power given to them.
adam 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:48 pm
ADam S. BTW (yes i meant to do the D)
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Excellent thoughts, Adam. Very well expressed. You have a very convincing argument for your position. I will be very curious to see how some of the other students who think he is a feminist will respond!
adam s 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I appreciate your quick response. (\_/)
(=.=)
(")(")
Marco 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm
hahaha good ideas adam
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I agree but, everyone in world at that time were anti-feminist. So would it still count???
Sean Y 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Exactly, so Shakespeare isn't racist against women he's just following what society said. If he made the women equal to the men, there would be a lot of arguing and he might even get assassinated or something. The church would also try to ban his plays.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 22, 2010 at 3:49 pm
But what about what Mrs. Roche said in class Shakespeare made beatrice say as sure as I have a mind and a soul that showed that he was a feminist cause in those days women were considered property and were not very well educated.
Zach
// Mar 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I happen to think that, while the characters in the play are feminists, Shakespeare is not. The most explicit example is that there is no stigma inflicted when Beatrice speaks in a demeaning manner. Also, the play itself isn't anti-feminist either. Hero and Claudio are just as in love with each other and Beatrice and Benedick have just as much hate for each other. The stigma of Hero standing alone in her balcony is not so much a stigma of Shakespeare's or the characters, but it was a stigma inflicted by society at that time.
I do agree, however, that Shakespeare isn't a feminist. Some of his other works ("Taming of the Shrew" comes to mind) seem downright anti-woman to me. This one, "Much Ado About Nothing," seems to lean in the slightly pro-feminist square, though I highly doubt this was intentional.
Nikki 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:44 pm
4.) If this play was done, in 2010, there would be different names for what happened in Much Ado About Nothing. All the characters would have been portrayed with different personalities, but still fitting to their "Elizabethan time" personalities. None of them would be royalty though, because there's no such thing as royalty nowadays. Most of them would be close family friends or related in some way, followers, or like Don John, probably once removed... or twice. It would start out probably with little crushes, when they meet or if they’ve already met. Don Pedro would introduce Claudio to Hero where they fall in love at first sight, but don’t say anything. Betraice and Claudio would have already met, meaning they would just quarrel between each other, even though deep down they know that they like the other. Claudio would propose to Hero. I don’t know what reason Don John would have, but he would make it seem like Hero was cheating on Claudio, using the help of his two followers Conrade and Borachio. Claudio would announce that the engagement was off, because I don't think he'd want to pay for a wedding. Especially if he knew, that he was going to call it off, anyways. Instead of Benedick challenging Claudio in a duel, they would probably get into a fist fight, because he wants to please Beatrice and her feelings, knowing that Hero wasn’t cheating. Leonato would be disappointed, in Hero, and she would be depressed until someone unsealed the truth about her not cheating on Claudio. In which case, Claudio would express how sorry he was to Hero and he’d propose to her again. In the end everyone will know that it was Don John and his followers, Conrade and Borachio, who tried to ruin the wedding and they would be hated. After Hero and Claudio’s wedding, Beatrice and Benedick would express their love for each other and decide to get married.
Nikki 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:46 pm
i know mine is long, but not as long as Stacy's.
Hehe!
Stacy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I like yours! It's a lot more simple than mine... Mine doesn't make any sense lol... ^^ Good job!
Corey W 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I don't think at all that Shakespeare is a feminist. So yeah he has people having different opinions on each other but that is just the way life is you have to take chances. For instance Benedick took a shot in the dark with Beatrice and she said yes so it's not always about feminism. Another example was Claudio with Hero he added a lot of both sides just because it seemed like Claudio was bad it didn't mean he was. Shakespeare portrayed both sides. SO all in all I don't think Shakespeare is a feminist.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Even though Beatrice is written as someone who is refusing to marry for status and security and chooses to wait for love?
Olivia 98.253.27.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:39 pm
4. If this was written in modern time, it would obviously be way different. First off, the language would be completely different. Also, when they were trying to convince Benedick and Beatrice that they love each other, they probably would've put a little more thought into it instead of just saying that they love each other. When Hero supposedly cheated on Claudio, it wouldn't have been such of a big deal to Leonato because it wouldn't do anything to his social status.
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Just a thought--in today's world, does a child's actions (in this case, poor actions) reflect on the parents? How so? or Why not?
Mick 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I believe that in some cases that it is the fault of the parents because they have either allowed their children the opportunity/temptation to make poor decisions, or they haven't instilled in their children the importance to think and act for themselves. But in other cases, kids are taught to think and act in sober judgement, yet they still make irresponsible decisions, in which case, it is their own fault.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I like that some Shakespearean phrases are seeping into your vocabulary. See "sober judgement." HA!
Nathan 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:29 pm
In times today, the plot would be somewhat alike but the character's personalities, actions, and language would be different. The battles of wit between Benedick and Beatrice would be more insulting than it was back then. They would be able to use more insulting words like stupid and ugly. When Claudio, Leonato, and Don Pedro convince Benedick that Beatrice loves him, this could end up occuring through text in today's world. Leonato would send a text to Claudio and Don Pedro about Beatrice having a crush on Benedick. This text could "accidentally" be sent to Benedick. When Claudio is convinced that Hero is cheating on him, he would want proof. Unless somone closer to him like Benedick or Don Pedro told him. Benedick challenging Claudio, would either be a verbal fight or an actual bar type of a fight.
Michael G 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I like your idea with the "accidental" text.
Mick 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I think you're right Nathan, I think most of the set-ups would be through technology rather than speaking to one another. Don John would have a harder time proving Hero cheated, too, because it is not as easy as just hiding in the bushes, waiting for someone to show up and pledge their love to whatever person is in question. The battle of wits would be entertaining to see today, though, because there is really no restrictions on what can be said, so it would turn ugly, fast.
Kristina 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:23 am
Haha i agree with all 3(?) of you. Most of the insults would be through text. Like, "Ur so ugly n annoyin blah blah
" hah~ ANYWAY...I wrote about the same topic so I can relate. I think that if Don John was trying to show that Hero was "cheating" he would have just texted Claudio and Don Pedro saying that he saw Hero and another guy at Old Orchard walking around or something. The turning ugly fast thing about what Mick said is sooooo true. Back then, there were still limits about what you could say to a person, and the person who is insulting would keep that in mind because it would be really rude. But nowadays, a lot of people don't care about what is being said, as long as it's being said and potentially might "hurt" or "beat" the other person. No one really cares if anything is rude or nice now, but that's also because no one takes anything said through technology seriously.
Michael G 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:22 pm
1. I think that Shakespeare is not pro women. This is because in Much Ado no women characters make any big moves or act that independently. Margaret is forced to play hero in a plot to break up Claudio's marriage. Hero, except for her romance with Claudio is in the background for the entire story. Beatrice is probably the strongest women character in Much Ado and all she does is bicker with Benedick for the entire play (at least until they get married). Overall throughout the entire play Shakespeare gave no major roles to women characters and no women made any story changing moves willingly.
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm
You and Adam S. are on the same page. Check out his rationale.
Emile
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:11 pm
3. In the story Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespear shows the two social classes of high and low. As for the high class,it is shown as clever and intelligent. The way the high class characters plotted against eachother is very full of thought and clever since every plan they created worked. You can see the intelligence of the high class by the way they speak. Every word fits its sentence. For the low class, it is portrayed as foolish and dimwitted. Dogberry, the policeman, was shown as a person who tries to sound smart but fails and tries to have the last word between him and his deputy. You can see the difference in intelligence between classes in this story.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Do you consider Borachio high class or low class? He is a servant...
Haley H 98.253.33.152 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
I definitely agree with you! The higher class spoke proper, while the lower class had tons of mistakes! Shakespeare definitely made an effort for us to realize who was part of what class.
Noah 98.253.27.40 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm
3. Shakespeare used the high and low social classes inhis Much ado about nothing play. For example, Leonato was of the highest class and he was very intelligent and used very proper language. On the other hand, Dogberry was of a lower class and he had many malopropisms. He would use wrong words in the wrong context because of his not as high intellect. Shakespeare utilizes all classes and all people of different mental abilities. This helps him build a more interesting plot in his plays.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Why is the story more interesting with a variety of different characters?
Krista 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:55 pm
2. Since there was an extensive amount of emphasis on social expectations, rituals, and behavior there were several instances where these expectations affected the characters. In one instance Claudio reveals that he loves Hero and Don Pedro agrees to woo Hero on Claudio's behalf. This affected Claudio by giving him relief when it came to winning Hero's heart. Another example of when these social standards affected the characters would be when Claudio witnesses "Hero" being disloyal the night before her wedding. When Claudio saw this he decided to shame Hero the next day at her wedding and I think that if this were to take place in our era Claudio would have gotten in a fight with Borachio that very night. I think part it affects Claudio by bringing out the more villainous side to him, thanks to Don John. In another part of the play Beatrice tests Benedick's newly declared love for her by telling him to kill Claudio. Beatrice does this because, I think, that in Elizabethan times a woman could not challenge a man or kill him because she felt that something was unjust, or she was wronged. Woman had to behave properly and had to follow a certain set of "social rules" and I would think that forbidding the murder of a man would be in that set of "social rules". We today have some social standards, behaviors and rituals and they seem completely normal to us today and I think the social expectations seemed perfectly normal to the people in Elizabethan times.
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Are there any social "rules" or expectations that you sense are in place today and affect the way we behave?
Hannah A 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:53 pm
4. A modernized version of Much Ado about Nothing would be very different. So here's my basic plot: A rich man and his two good friends (Don Pedro, Claudio, Benedick) go to a wealthy man's mansion. (Leonato). This man has invited them to stay for a month. Claudio is in love with this man's daughter, a girl he went to school with. (Hero). Claudio, Benedick, Hero, and Beatrice are all in high school. Hero has her cousin Beatrice over, because her parents are out of town. Beatrice doesn't like Benedick because he stood her up at a dance (?). Beatrice and Benedick argue. Meanwhile, Don brother comes in. His name is Don John, and he's older, but always been living under Don Pedro's shadow. Don John is very mad at Don Pedro, and tried to kill him once. He now wants to ruin Don Pedro's reputation in any way possible. So, he decides to sent HIS best friend (Borachio) to flirt with Hero. Hero pushes Borachio away, but not before Claudio sees and gets the wrong idea. Meanwhile, Leonato, Claudio, and Don Pedro sent Benedick an e-mail saying how Beatrice loves her. AND, Hero, Margaret, and Ursula (Hero's best friends) do the same thing to Beatrice. Both are weirded out at first, but then become more comfortable around each other and fall in love. MEANWHILE, Claudio plans to stand Hero up at a big event (like a ball or something). When he does, Hero is devastated, and turns to her priest for help. Her priest says that Hero should pretend like she isn't interested in him anymore, so then Claudio will think about Hero. Hero takes this advice, and Claudio starts to feel very bad. He talks to Leonato, who says that Claudio should instead go out with Hero's twin sister. Claudio agrees, but when they go out, it's actually Hero (!). MEANWHILE, Borachio feels really bad about ruining Claudio and Hero's relationship, so he tells the principal about it. The principal immediately informs Don Pedro and Leonato, who aren't mad at each other anymore. (they were, because they're friends/kids were fighting). After this is all sorted out, Benedick asks Beatrice if he loves her. After she says no, Beatrice asks Benedick if HE loved HER. He says no, and they are both very mad. That is, until they realize they are really in love with each other, and kiss. (!) Also, Don John moves out of town, because he knows that his brother is very mad for ruining his best friend's relationship. The End.
The names would probably have to change. But with that plot, and maybe a little tweaking, this would make a really good-bad romantic comedy!
Susan Paprocki 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:10 am
This is such a thoughtful post, Hannah. The details certainly support your notion of a modernized version of this Shakespearean play. My husband and I go to the theater at least monthly. Reading this blog really motivates me to see this play by Shakespeare. Until that time, I will read the play and follow this blog.
William L 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I like how you instead of Borachio flirting with Maragret pretending to be Hero, he goes directly for hero, trying to get someone to pose as someone else, and have others see this posing, would be very hard in our modern times, so i think this is a very good change. I guess it would be hard to get Dogberry and Verges in this story, but over all very good job!
adam s 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Your modernized version of "Much Ado" seems realistic in the sense that it follows the same basic plot as Shakespeare's "Much Ado". You're writing is easy to understand and it shows that you understood the play very well. However the only part that I have some trouble with believing is when you said, "Don John is very mad at Don Pedro, and tried to kill him once." The "kill him once" part I think is a little unrealistic based on our "modern" civilization. But your writing clearly shows you did a fine job.
Hannah 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:30 am
I totally think that Don John tried to kill Don Pedro in the real version. But there are still murderers in modern civilization! there's still hate crimes, and I think if some people are sick enough to kill, they probably have a "good" reason, Like a brother that constantly overshadows him. just saying.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:02 pm
In the book Much Ado about Nothing Shakespeare uses many different ways to show the intelligence between classes.
The first example and probably the most widely known one is Dogberry and Borachio. They are both of the lower classes. Dogberry is rather dumb using big words without knowing there true meaning or just getting them confused. He says statements like " Marry sir, I have the confidence with you that discerns you nearly." While Borachio is lower class as well but is highly intelligent and tricky. He is Don John's brain in the scheme. He is known as "a good sharp fellow." So this shows that people in the lower class use intelligent differently some lack it and some embrace it.
Another example of intelligence is Benedick and Beatrice. They are both high class and they pin their wits against one another. This show great intelligence wasted on childish quarrels. Yet what I think the best example for this is Don John. He was able to trick everyone for a good period of time. And would never have been cause if not for his betraying servants. This shows a high class man stuck down since birth. Who has great intelligence and is clever. He was even able to trick his own brother think how clever you’d have to be to do that. So this shows how even in the high class intelligence can be wasted or it can be manipulated.
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Good point about how intelligence can be wasted or used to one's advantage.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Thank you that was the part that really stuck out to me too.
Jamie
// Mar 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm
I didn't think of how different people use their intelligence (how they waste and manipulate it.) You analyzed the characters intelligence amazingly!!!
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm
thank you
William L 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Is Benedick high class? he is just a soldier, and as far as we know, has no name, and just has a sharp mouth. Overall great interpretations of what shakespeare has done
Zoy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I think Benedict is from the high class, because he's Claudio's friend, who is Don Pedro's right hand man. Although Benedict doesn't have a title, he would be from the upper class, because if he wasn't, would that mean that he wouldn't be allowed in Leonato's place?
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
thank you but I think Benedick is part of the high class he isn't a servant or a low guard he is highly respected among most people. Plus he joins even higher class when he gets married.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Well Zoy other army members and peoples servants were allowed to stay at Leonato's house.
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 22, 2010 at 3:51 pm
And if they were not the whole balcony scene with Berachio and Margot would not of been able to happen because they were both servants.
William L 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:56 pm
3. Shakespeare uses different classes of people to show intelligence in all people. Such as the recorder, he may only be a lowly clerk, but he also knows how to do his job really well. Borachio is another example of a person thats low class, and intelligent. He is a servant, but comes up with a plan to get Don Pedro and Claudio to look stupid, or get Hero's family disgraced no matter what happens if they are not caught. Don John is an example of someone who is smart and part of the high class. He artfully plays out his roll of villain by looking good to Don Pedro, and coaxing on the mistreatment to Hero. He would have succeeded also if not for Borachio giving away his plan. Shakespeare shows that both classes in this story are smart.
Adam C
// Mar 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm
nice interpretation! I like your point of view! Shakespeare really used a lot of what you said in his scripts! He is truly a genius.
Ryan H 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Nice Job Will! This is very descriptive because it shows that each character is unique.
Stacy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm
(I know this is long, but I didn’t know how long this was supposed to be… BUT, still enjoy this to the maximum amount of enjoying a Shakespearian play turned to 2010 generation can possibly give you. Thank you.)
If "Much Ado About Nothing" was changed to a modern story, I think it would go a little like this...
Setting: School, peoples’ houses
Characters: Ben- The jock's friend (Benedict), Becky- A straight "A" student (Beatrice), Chris- The head of the chess club, the jock's best friend (Claudio), Heather- The very religious girl (Hero), Paul- The jock (-Don- Pedro), John- The loner brother of Paul (-Don- John)
Carl and Brice- The followers of John (like a gang) (Borachio and Conrad), Leonard- Religious girl’s dad (Leonato), Anthony- Leonard’s brother (Antonio), Amy and Margaret- Heather’s followers (like a gang) (Ursula and Margaret), Dan and Mike- The computer nerds (Dogberry and Verges)
Background information: Ben, Chris, and, Paul are friends (Even though they have a status difference) and Becky, Heather, and Heather’s gang are all friends. Paul has an outcast brother, John, who is usually shunned by the other students. John has recently made up with Paul from his mistake of tricking Paul to date some girl he didn’t like. Chris and Heather often talk about each other (in a good way) to their friends and want to go out with each other. On the other hand, Ben and Becky talk about each other in very negative tones. Becky is secretly heart broken by Ben when he broke up with her, many moons ago.
Beginning: Everyone has returned from ______ (spring or winter) break. There is an upcoming dance (I suppose homecoming or something to that nature) and Heather and Chris desperately want to go with each other. Since Chris cannot muster up the courage to ask Heather, he asks Paul to ask her for him.
At the dance, Paul asks Heather if she would like to dance with Chris and she accepts. Ben and Becky bicker. John wants to cause drama in Chris’s life, knowing he is the best friend of his ever so perfect brother.
Since Chris and Heather are happily going out, they want to spread the love to Becky and Ben. They purposely talk about how much the person wants to go out with the, (near them) and they soon start to get interested in each other.
Chris wants to introduce Heather to his parents and John finds out. He wants to mess things up… John pulls Chris to the side and shows him Heather’s “texts” to him (John is really just texting himself like a loser). Chris and Paul are outraged by the loving conversations and breaks up with Heather in front of her amigos. Heather pretends to be sick for a couple of days to avoid him.
Leonard asks Heather what happened; she says Chris likes to break up with people, randomly. Leonard picks up Heather’s gang from school so they could come visit her, but hears John saying to his gang that Chris broke up with Heather. Leonard confronts Chris and smacks him.
Becky and Ben start to have a steady relationship. Becky becomes enraged when she hears about what happened to Becky. She tells Ben to set him straight.
Leonard and Ben come to Chris’s house with light sabers and demand a dual. Paul quickly shoos them out and they hear John (who happens to live next door to Chris) talking about his amazing plan of tricking Heather. Chris and Paul both feel guilty and goes to Heather’s house.
At Heather’s house, Leonard says that she has moved in with her mother (pretending) and Chris and Paul cries. Leonard says he has to date Heather’s twin. Chris agrees.
At Heathers goodbye party, Chris meets Heather’s “twin” and they continue to go out. Ben and Becky find out how they both feel about each other (that they don’t REALLY like each other THAT mucho), but Ben still wants to go out with Becky.
Now randomly, at the end, they have a random break-dancing battle and Anthony is the old DJ trying to act young (he wasn’t really in this, so I added him…) John and his gang end up being shunned from the dance party (as usual) and Dan and Mike both are there handling all the techy stuff.
The End!
(I know this is long, but I didn’t know how long this was supposed to be… BUT, still enjoy this to the maximum amount of enjoying a Shakespearian play turned to 2010 generation can possibly give you. Thank you.)
Nikki 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Stacy, you put a lot of thought into yours... i like it!
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Wow! Quite a saga! I love it. You should really consider scripting this out. It would make a fantastic class performance!
Nicole
// Mar 16, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Wow, stacy... great job i like how you organized. I like your version so much. You put alot of effort for this. Good Job!
Moe 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I agree!!!
Marion
// Mar 16, 2010 at 3:47 pm
This is really good Stacy! I agree with Mrs. Roche that this should be turned into a class performance! I like how you changed the names of the characters; no one has those names today.
Jamie
// Mar 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Stacy, I loved this! I like how you went through all the characters and the story so we really get a full picture.
Zach
// Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I enjoyed reading this, but I have a question: why did you make Hero the "religious girl." Was there anything in the play that led you this decision?
Michelle O 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Stacy this is amazing! I think you worked really hard on this assignment and deserve to read your answer in class in front of everyone! Nice work!
William L 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Great job stacy on this, you really stepped up on this including many crucial details, and you overall translated this story well into our current times
amanda 98.253.34.177 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Wow creative! entertaining to read!
Noah 98.253.27.40 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Stacy, i think that you put a lot of work into your responce and i like your creativity
Nice job!
Ryan H 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Stacy, you were very creative and really focused on this one topic. Nice Job!
Zoy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I really like the plot of the story and it was really creative and fun to read. I am also wondering why you made Heather [Hero] religious. Was there a reason for that, or was it just random?
Jamie 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm
1. I believe Shakespeare is not a feminist, but an anti-feminist. This idea of not thinking of women as equal of men is stated numerous times throughout Much Ado. One main example would be Beatrice's "If I were a man speech." When begging Benedick to kill claudio Beatrice states, "I cannot be a man with wishing, therefore I will die a woman with grieving." Beatrice wishes she could become a male in society because men are allowed to be powerful and violent. A lady, like Beatrice, would never be allowed to challenge a man like Claudio. If she did it would of been laughed upon because she was a woman. This result on Beatrice having to request a male to do this job even though Beatrice should of been able to challenge claudio herself
Another example of this would be the accusation of Hero's disloyalty at the wedding. Claudio and Don Pedro state words like " Rotten Orange and Common Stale." This is not the main problem though because everybody believed Claudio and Don Pedro because they were Princes and men. Even though Hero denied the accusation her own father even turned against here. He even threatened to kill her if Hero didn't die. This shows how Hero being a young female was ignored and two powerful men overtook her voice. These examples show Shakespeare (and other people of that time) thought men were more better than woman.
Michael G 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I like your descriptiveness and all your main points.
Elizabeth
// Mar 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
1. Was Shakespeare a feminist? I would say yes. Shakespeare was one of the only men of his time who showed the oppression of women in his time by portraying them on the stage. Here is an example from Much Ado About Nothing. In a scene shortly after Hero is accused of being disloyal, Benedict and Beatrice are talking about whether Claudio was incorrect in accusing Hero.
“Think you in your soul Count Claudio hath wronged Hero?” asks Benedict.
“Yea, as sure as I have a thought and a soul.” responds Beatrice.
Some men of this time believed women didn’t have souls, that it was an honor reserved only for men. By using this line, Shakespeare indicated that he thought women had thoughts and souls.
In Elizabethan times, men thought women were stupid. Shakespeare had some very strong and smart female characters, like Cleopatra. Through his plays, Shakespeare was able to give women a voice and show the oppression of women that occurred in his time.
amanda 98.253.34.177 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:33 pm
nice thoughts! i completely agree. Hero and Beatrice had their own, strong, personalities. At the time people did think that they were less than men. However, by giving them good personalities and actual characters, they were equal to men.
adam s 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I have to say I enjoyed reading this response because I disagree. Although, your points are convincing and totally true. I did not ever think of Shakespeare being a feminist before. My concern is this, Shakespeare used men or young boys to play the parts of women in his plays. Even though he still portrayed women in his plays so did other playwrights at the time. He did express some power in the women characters but I do not believe that this makes him a feminist. I agree with Corey when he said, "Another example was Claudio with Hero he added a lot of both sides..." Shakespeare does show power in male and female characters and I have to say he gives much more power to the male roles. (Thats what was expected)
Nicole
// Mar 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
4.) Well, my modern day version of Much Ado About Nothing. I would change alot. Such as the language. Shakespeare language is really confusing and hard to understand and now a days our language is easy to understand. The mask idea doesn't work now a days because we can kinda tell who it is. There would also be no royalty because we don't have that here only in diffrent country's. Benedick's and Claudio's Challange would be like a boxing match or something. This would be my modern day version of Much Ado About Nothing.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I agree that the mask idea might need updating. Any ideas about what might work as a modern replacement?
Nicole
// Mar 20, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Well, think maybe a crazy hat and a big mask the covers the face. Would be a modern replacement.
Shannon 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:51 pm
1. I think Shakespeare is a feminist mostly because he gives Beatrice the courage to speak out. Women in the high class back then would never talk back to anyone, but Beatrice and Benedick talk back to each other all the time. In addition, in the Elizabethan times, women were thought to not have brains and could not think for themselves. Instead, they were mostly used to bind different families' wealth together. Shakespeare contradicts this on page 144, in the last panel, where Beatrice states, "Yea, as sure as I have a thought and a soul."
Marion
// Mar 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I agree that Shakespeare is a feminist. He also allowed Hero to talk as well. You chose a good text reference to demonstrate this idea.
Hannah 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I agree with you that Shakespeare is overall a feminist (at least for his time), but he did make some remarks in the play that were not at all feminist, like when Beatrice said "if I had a soul" (somewhere between page 1-202). But other than that yeah I agree.
Danny H. 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:10 am
I agree with you shannon u really use good support to show that he was a feminist
Andy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:42 am
I agree with your thoughts shannon. Shakespeare allowed the women in his plays to speak freely. In the Elizabethan period, woman were not typically allowed to speak their minds which is why I agree that Shakespeare is a feminist
amanda 98.253.34.177 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:38 pm
4. If Much Ado About Nothing was modernized, it would be very different. For example, in the beginning, Claudio and Benedick would not be riding in with a prince since, here in America, we are a democracy.
When Claudio first talked to Don Pedro about him liking Hero, one of the first things he asked was if she was the only heir to Leonato's fortune. Nowadays, that is not the first thing a man asks if he wants to marry a woman. Back then, marriage wasn't all for love, but more as a business. In the 21st century, marriage (with some exceptions) is based on love.
In the story, Leonato prepares Hero for Don Pedro to ask for her hand in marriage (or so he believed). It was perfectly acceptable for Hero to marry a man that much older than she was (an added bonus was that he was also a prince). One must remember that Hero may not even be 18. She is younger than Beatrice. So, if she was to marry an older man now, there would be some legal problems.
Don John was born when his parent's weren't married. It was such a shock and uncommon back then. Unfortunately, children being born out of wedlock isn't such a big deal today as it was back then. Granted, people will still be shocked, however it is not as common as it used to be. If a child was born out of wedlock nowadays, no one would pay much attention to the matter.
In the play, Benedick challenged Claudio to a duel. Then, if you were challenged, you would be labeled as a coward if you didn't go through with it. It was perfectly acceptable to duel out one's problems, even to the death. However, if that were to happen in modern times, you would be labeled smart for stepping out of a challenge. If you killed someone in a duel (or as we would commonly call it, a fight) you would be arrested and tried for murder. This is some of the stuff that gangs do. Now, people are trying to promote better ways to solve your problems, like talking to someone, instead of fighting.
Elizabeth
// Mar 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I like how you showed what would have been acceptable back then (marrying a much older man, dueling) compared to what people accept now (stepping out of a fight, etc.) Nice job, Amanda!
Stacy 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm
It's so good! Better than my abnormally long response! I like that you tell examples from "Much Ado About Nothing" and explaining the differences. Good job!~
Krista 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 21, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I like how you tied the duels in Much Ado about Nothing to gang fights and such. It was a great example.
Marion 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm
If Much Ado About Nothing were set in modern America in 2010, the story would change completely. We do not have royalty in America, so there would be no need for messengers. Now, we would just text, call, or Facebook someone. If we were to hold a masquerade ball, people would instantly know who was behind their mask, unlike Hero when Don Pedro wooed her for Claudio. We could tell by hair color/style, and voice, which the characters in Much Ado seemed to be oblivious about. In our world, characters like Beatrice and Benedick would not believe their friends so easily when one is told that the other likes them. It would take more time for this relationship to begin. If Don John wanted his plan to work now, he would have Margaret and Borachio go on a date instead of meeting at a window. We do not challenge people to duels today; we have arguments that include gossiping and trash-talking behind others' backs. All in all, if people in modern-day America were to reenact Much Ado About Nothing, the story and characters would be radically different to reflect our usage of technology, communication, and feelings.
Shannon
// Mar 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I agree that now-a-days, people are sarcastic and pulling jokes on people all the time. I think that instead of believing that Benedick loves Beatrice and vice-versa, the eavesdropper would think, "Wow, they are trying to trick me somehow." Plus, I think it would be really funny and outdated if someone had challenged someone else to a duel.
Haley H 98.253.33.152 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm
1. From what I have read in Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare seems like a feminist to me. I believe this because 400 years ago, when this play was written, women did not have many rights. Who and when they married was not up to them, but up to the parents and the man. In Much Ado About Nothing, Hero and Beatrice have an equal and fair say in who they will marry. This was almost unheard of in the time of Shakespeare! By giving these women these rights, Shakespeare is showing that he is a feminist.
Elizabeth
// Mar 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I had forgotten that Beatrice and Hero had an equal say in who they married. Good point!
Nicole
// Mar 16, 2010 at 7:25 pm
I would agree with you Haley.. I think Shakespeare is a feminist. The girls should have a right to marry who they like and love.
Deborah
// Mar 16, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Don't forget about how Lenato pretty much disowns her daughter if she was truly unfaithful to Claudio. He also takes their side because they are men and they are part of a high social class.
Adam C
// Mar 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm
4. If much ado was set in 2010 America today a lot of the books settings would be different. All the people who have high ranking positions wouldn't be treated as a queen or a king but, a leader or the president. The settings of the palace or royalty would probably be Washington D.C., New York, and Chicago. Instead of faking the death of Hero she probably would be buried and dead. If Hero did come back to life she would probably be expelled from the U.S. Duels will also be set a different way such as a boxing tournament, martial arts tournament, wrestling tournament, UFC and more.
rochek
// Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I love your Washington, DC idea. If it were set in DC, what else would change about the story?
Jed 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:39 am
Very interesting thoughts. I agree with your thoughts, and I could see this happening.
Haley H 98.253.33.152 not found // Mar 18, 2010 at 6:47 am
I agree with you in the fact that there wouldn't be royalty, but a President or something! This is very creative! Good job!
Matt 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:06 pm
4. In a more modernized version of much ado about nothing, everything would have been very different. First off Benedick would have been more clownish and there wouldn't have been royalty. That means when Beatrice asked Benedick to challenge Claudio it wouldn't have been a challenge it would have been more like a UFC fight. Also when Don Pedro, Leonato and Claudio were talking about how Beatrice loves him he would probably have been a little more closed-minded and found out some real facts behind why she actually loved him. When they had masks on they would have known who eachother were. Also Borachio's plan wouldn't have worked, so Hero and Claudio wouldn't have any flaws in their marrige.
Drew 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Awesome remake. Very realistic. Maybe a brawl not a UFC cage match. That's a little drastic.
Zach 192.168.32.18 not found // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:38 pm
3. Shakespeare uses many ways to demonstrate the various social classes and intelligence of his characters. For instance, Beatrice and Benedick spit venomous wit at each other that is both stated in a clever manner, but also in an intelligent manner. On the other hand, Shakespeare demonstrates the low intelligence and social class by emphasizing the malapropisms of Dogberry and his police companion, Verges. By making them speak dimly, Shakespeare shows their low class. Also, by having his characters construct complex plans to fool other characters, Shakespeare demonstrates their high brain power and their high social stature.
Emile
// Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Very Interesting
rochek
// Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04 pm
How do you reconcile this with the fact that the watchmen (low class) were the ones who were able to uncover Borachio's plot? Notice it wasn't the high-status characters who were able to shed light on the truth.
Zach
// Mar 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Granted, while Dogberry and Verges, the most dimwitted of the cast, do catch Conrad and Borachio, it wasn't because of their intelligence; it was just because of their pure luck. Seacoal just happened to hear of the plan.