Sunday, November 13, 2011

Open Prompt 5

1974. Choose a work of literature written before 1900. Write an essay in which you present arguments for and against the work's relevance for a person in 1974. Your own position should emerge in the course of your essay. You may refer to works of literature written after 1900 for the purpose of contrast or comparison. Much Ado about Nothing
             In a society that is obsessed with the new, it’s easy to imagine that past works have little relevance today. This is an untrue assessment based on the continued applicability of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. The exploration of gender relations and problems of courtship gives it lasting appeal. However, modern readers’ unfamiliarity of Shakespeare’s poetic techniques and language often provide an impediment to its accessibility.
         The battle of the sexes forms a large part of the dialogue of Much Ado About Nothing. The “merry war” between Beatrice and Benedick provides an ongoing commentary on which gender is capable of enduring love, and their doubts that either can commit. Through their witty arguments they spurn each other’s respective gender for what they perceive as intrinsic flaws, uttering disparagements very familiar to modern readers. Fidelity is a main plot point in this work. Hero’s supposed affair reveals an enormous double standard for sexual morality. Although most fathers today would not threaten to kill their daughters, there is still a different stigma attached to female sexual behavior outside marriage than to male “exploits”.
         The hazards of courtship drive the adventures and misadventures of the characters. The leap of faith needed to trust is a recurring theme for both the male and female characters. Benedick disparages love because he feels he cannot trust women while the often repeated song decries men as “deceivers ever”. Fear of rejection paralyzes both sets of lovers. Don Pedro woos Hero in place of Claudio and neither Benedick nor Beatrice are willing to pursue the other until they are convinced they will not be spurned. With these common dilemmas Shakespeare creates characters we identify with to this day.
         Shakespeare’s poetic conventions and use of early modern English can serve to distance the modern reader. The use of iambic pentameter is now an uncommon convention and can make the dialogue seem unnatural and forced to modern ears. Words in Early Modern English had slightly different sounds and thus created rhymes that no longer translate well. Many of his puns and humor derive themselves from idioms no longer in use.
         Despite the setback of outmoded language devices, Much Ado About Nothing remains relevant to today’s reader. The trials of love remain constant, human nature has changed little in the past four-hundred years. We are still plagued by insecurities, jealousies, and desire literature to help us sigh no more after the misadventures of the heart.

3 comments:

  1. I think your topic sentences and thesis statement flowed really well together, and that's been really difficult.

    The sentence "The 'merry war' between Beatrice and Benedick provides an ongoing commentary on which gender is capable of enduring love, and their doubts that either can commit" did not make sense to me. I think I may have gotten the gist. Do you mean something along the lines of "an ongoing commentary about each gender's capability of enduring love"?

    Your sentence introducing the concept of fidelity would fit better with an "also" or a "related."

    I think you should to elaborate more on how modern individuals identify with the hazards of courtship. As is, it's just a list of things that happen with a mention of the present. Your first and last body paragraphs do a better job of connecting to "now."

    Your conclusion was also impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The first sentence threw me off; it's rather awkwardly phrased. Also there's a grammar mistake involving the plural of 'gives'... I'd revise it a bit for a more clarified, concise voice.

    You really cover a lot of elements in this piece. I thought the first point about the double standard was especially insightful, and the flow is orderly and logical. Nice.

    Cassidy Murphy

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that your thesis statement answers the question but your selection of material may be why this essay is slightly confusing and vague. The points that you make are sweeping generalizations about, in realilty, practically all of Shakespeare's works. The piece is never presented its own opportunity to shine as something relevant to (at the time of this essay) "today's reader". I think defining the work as its own entity would allow for an analysis that relates more directly to your positions on the relatability of the play. It seems more of a reaction to Shakespeare than an argument on the subject of the play.

    ReplyDelete