Comparing Much Ado About Nothing :: essays research papers

In the source es assign, written by Jean Howard, the main idea or dissertation seems to focus on the antitheatrical aspects of the depend. The actual thesis would be Shakespeare employs antitheatrical discourse in a way that advantages certain social groups without calling attention to the situation that it does that. Howard takes a Marxist approach to the looseness. She looks at how the conflict intertwines itself and makes a aeonian reference to the social aspects of all(prenominal) of the characters in the play. Howard starts by giving ecumenic ideas where she gives a brief summary of the main plot of the story that involves tire out John, assume Pedro, and Claudio. She reads the play in relationship to antitheatrical tracts. This makes the political dimensions more observable in the work. The play itself speaks to several different gutss of social class. Although Much bunko about Nothing is a play, it mirrors the world as it was. It deals with the power be put in th e hands of the "status quo" and it makes mention of the social order, peculiarly the fear of women who want the same power as men.Howard also mentions that the play seems to emphasize the consequences of sin, in this case, telling lies. She goes into the scene where Don John gets Margaret, Heros servant, to play Hero as so to deceive Claudio. This would make Hero step forward to be "easy" and make Claudio not want to marry her. in advance all of this goes on, Don Pedro impersonates Claudio at the ball, to get in Heros good graces. This is another(prenominal) lie. Even though Don Pedros "trick" does more good than harm, the audience and readers are now given the job to cope with the morality of each situation. Most of Howards reading of the play deals with the two impersonators (Don John and Don Pedro) and their sense of moral duty during this time. It also speaks to the social consequences of their practices. Howard suggests that Don John provides a moral reading because he is the chief antagonist in the play. She seems to say that in essence, he is evil and readers can identify and justify his actions because he is evil. Does that make it right? She also says that since he is the bastard brother of Don Pedro, his evil acts are ideologically significant because they identify the social swage of those who have and those who have not.