Much Ado About Nothing as an Exploration of Conformity In Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Beatrice and Benedict rant about marriage for most of the beginning of the play, while Claudio raves about how wonderful it will be being married to Hero. Yet in the end, Claudio exchanges his marriage to Hero for an opportunity to bash her in public, while Beatrice and Benedick marry despite that they were mortal enemies for most of the first three acts. How did the situation swing around to this degree? Beatrice and Benedick had been using the most extreme metaphors to demonstrate their scorn of each other and of marriage, and Claudio had been doing the same to demonstrate his love of Hero. Not only did none of these three characters mean what they were saying, but meant the reverse, and the people that plotted to bring them together or pull them apart plotted because they understood on some level what each really wanted. Beatrice and Benedick seem to have had some relationship before the beginning of the book that ended badly. This suggests that the initial situation between Beatrice and Benedick was one of mutual attraction, not of the overt hate they seem to flaunt at the beginning of the play. Scorn of this magnitude is rare among people who dislike each other from the start, and seems very unlikely in a broken up couple. In addition, both Beatrice and Benedick turned out to be very willing to abandon their smear campaigns as soon as they are convinced the other is aching for them. It is ridiculous that one would abandon one's own principals to bail out a hated enemy in trouble. This makes clear that their attitude toward each other is an act. If this is so, what is the purpose of the act... ... middle of paper ... ...ther, and nearly kills an innocent woman. In a broader perspective, conformity can leave people walking aimlessly down the beaten path with no real direction except conformity, doomed to live yet another meaningless life in a society based on archaic principles. Works Cited and Consulted: Barton, Anne. Introduction. Much Ado About Nothing. The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997. 361-365. Lewalski, B. K. "Love, Appearance and Reality: Much Ado About Something" Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 8 (1968): 235-251. Prouty, Charles A. Conformity in Much Ado About Nothing. New York: Books for Libraries Press/Yale University Press, 1980. Rossiter, A.P. "Much Ado About Nothing." William Shakespeare Comedies & Romances. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.
Benedick and Beatrice both benefit from the deceit that they encounter. At first, both are enemies in a battle of insults and wit, until they are each fooled into thinking that the other loves them. When Benedick hears that Beatrice is supposedly attracted to him, he thinks that it is “a gull, but that the white-bearded fellow speaks it: knavery cannot, sure, hide itself in such reverence” (111). Little does he know, Leonato, the "white-bearded fellow," is also in on the joke (111). Benedick starts to admire her when he is aware that Beatrice might actually be attracted to himself, as well. She is also astonished when she first hears that he loves her. However, when Beatrice comes to terms with their affection, she hopes "Benedick [will] love on... And [she] Believe it better than reportingly" (134). In other words, she falls in love with Benedick as soon as she believes that he, too, is fond of her. They each start to fall in love with one another under the pretense that other was hiding their affection from them. Now that they are both in love, they start to open up to each other and prove that the deception they endured was worth it in the end.
This can be seen during his conversation with Beatrice, after every one hears of Hero’s “infidelity”. In this scene, when Don John and Claudio were leaving, Benedick doesn’t follow them. Instead, he sticks around with Beatrice. His action in this scene is highly critical, as it shows that he considers his love for Beatrice more important than his Allegiance to his brothers, Don John and Claudio. This action is something Benedick from the beginning would never think of doing. While in the beginning, Benedick’s allegiance remained rooted to his brothers, it has now pledged allegiance to his lover, Beatrice. In this scene, Benedick is seen to have grown as a person. Instead of losing complete trust due to un-proven rumours like Don Pedro and Claudio, he is able to take in the situation more substantially. He further proves himself during his conversation with Beatrice. By telling Benedick to “Kill Claudio” (Shakespeare 4.1.288), “Beatrice asks for her newly-professed lover the utmost favor: to place his love for her above that of his long-established friendship with Claudio. The command shows that Beatrice and Benedick are now more serious than they were. Rather than jest about serious problems as they did at the play’s beginning, they are now engaged with them” (Smith 182). Although a bit reluctant in the beginning, Benedick decides to follow his lover’s orders, and challenges Claudio to a duel. From this point on, all of Benedick belongs to Beatrice, for “Love is his compass” (Horowitz 50). To Benedick, “Love is immediately the basis for decision over life itself…. [and] Benedick’s love for Beatrice must determine his [decisions]” (Horowitz 49). The fact that Benedick decided to challenge his long-time friend Claudio further proves how much he has changed as a person. To Benedick, Beatrice has now become more important than his fellow
William Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is a play involving by deception, disloyalty, trickery, eavesdropping, and hearsay. The play contains numerous examples of schemes that are used to manipulate the thoughts of other characters; it is the major theme that resonates throughout the play. Ironically, it is one of these themes that bring serenity to the chaos that encompasses most of the play.
"Much Ado About Nothing: Entire Play." Much Ado About Nothing: Entire Play. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. .
Shakespeare, William, and David L. Stevenson. Much Ado about Nothing. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.
In William Shakespeare’s play ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, there are many instances of trickery and deception, which seem to surround the whole of the play.
Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing is, on the surface, a typical romantic comedy with a love-plot that ends in reconciliation and marriage. This surface level conformity to the conventions of the genre, however, conceals a deeper difference that sets Much Ado apart. Unlike Shakespeare’s other romantic comedies, Much Ado about Nothing does not mask class divisions by incorporating them into an idealized community. Instead of concealing or obscuring the problem of social status, the play brings it up explicitly through a minor but important character, Margaret, Hero’s “waiting gentlewoman.” Shakespeare suggests that Margaret is an embodiment of the realistic nature of social class. Despite her ambition, she is unable to move up in hierarchy due to her identity as a maid. Her status, foiling Hero’s rich, protected upbringing, reveals that characters in the play, as well as global citizens, are ultimately oppressed by social relations and social norms despite any ambition to get out.
Every day in our lives and everything we do involves some degree of decision making or choice selection either mental or physical. We start making choices and decisions from the moment we wake up everyday to the second we sleep. Some decisions we make are blatantly obvious to ourselves because of our need to reflect on the choices before choosing. However, most decisions we make throughout the day are made without much thought. We are even, quite often, unaware that we are making decisions due to habituation and preference. Before going further, we must define the terms free will, determinism and fate or destiny. Free will is the ability to choose. Furthermore, it is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate. Fate, or destiny, can be defined as the inevitable events predestined by this force. However, there is a better position to take when it comes to arguing against free will; and that position, or belief, is called determinism. Determinism states that the conditions at one moment are the necessary result from the “previous” conditions. Simply put, every effect has a cause, every action is predetermined. Unlike fate or destiny, it does not mean the future is already established. It is one thing to say that our choice is caused. It is another thing to say that we do not choose, and fate says, we cannot choose. This is definitely an endless argument given that it is a matter of personal opinion with no facts involved. However, free will definitely seems like the most plausible standpoint. We do have free will.
This brings us into a topic that has been very controversial through time, free will. Free will is a concept that becomes null for Sociologists for they claim that humans are controlled by biological reactions and their environment. For example, sociologists would argue that if you happen to have the desire for ice cream and you eat some, you are not taking this decision freely. There is an internal force that drives you to eat ice cream and you cannot overcome this desire. I disagree with this point. Yes, there may be an internal force that sparks the desire for ice cream in us. However, we are the ones who decide to eat it or not. Moreover, God gave us the ability to make our own decisions, he did not programmed us to act in a certain way. Therefore, humans actually have a mind in which free will
As previously stated the topic of free will has long been a debated issue of which philosophers have disagreed on. This is due in part to the three positions that philosophers take on, which are the—libertarianism, skepticism, and hard determinism views. Libertarianism (not political) holds the view that everyone no matter who the individual is has free will, and that casual determinism or the idea that every state of the universe is caused by prior states is completely false. The main question that surrounds the libertarian view then is how exactly free actions arise, which is drawn from the premise that the libertarian not only refutes the notion of casual determinism, but would also seem that free actions could in no way be uncaused let alone be a product of chance. Within libertarianism, philosophers have long debated the question of how free actions arise, this is because the libertarian not only rejects casual det...
Much Ado About Nothing. The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997. 366-398.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
For many years philosophers have discussed and argued on the subject of free will; whether or not we have free will to determine our course in life or whether our actions are being determined by forces outside of our control. A precise arguer would have to be Peter van Inwagen who although says we do have free will, he goes into depth about its relationship to determinism. I would have to agree with his choice that we can deny the claim that all our choices are determined and hold that we do have control over our choices even if we are still left with a mystery in the end.
Free will is the term for a particular way of thinking in which an individual chooses to act or behave without exterior input from a variety of alternative actions (O’Connor, 2002). For example, if a person was waiting to cross the road, they have the ability to either wait until the green light signals
• Do we have a ‘FREE WILL’… and IF WE DO, What is The Origin of ‘FREE WILL’?