Alice Hazard - Essay Guidance

Introduction – You state at the start that many of Shakespeare’s convetions are presented through his plays – they all are, otherwise they wouldn’t be his conventions. Change this. There are some changes of wording etc as written on your draft. Change these.

 

Paragraph 1 – I’ve put a good few notes at the side of this paragraph to help you along. There is a part in Act 1 where Beatrice discusses her views on being single, where she talks to her uncl about being sent to heaven with the other single people etc. Find that, and use it as an example of her views on being single. You can then expand a lot on why she is totally different to women of her time, and how the audience of the time would have reacted compared to modern audiences.

Paragraph 2 – The wording of your first sentence needs work. This whole paragraph seems like a bit of a ‘stem’ of a much larger point. You’ve done well to give credit to Shakespeare  and his deliberate use of deception. However, this links to the much larger issue of deception within the play. The play, after all, is called ‘much ado about nothing’, which implies that a lot of fuss takes place around not much activity. There are many acts of deception  and misunderstanding within the play such as the plot to woo Hero, the plot to SHAME Hero, the plot to join Beatrice and Benedick in romance, the masks etc. In this paragraph, you could give examples of all of these types of deception and have a big discussion about why Shakespeare does this – How these types of deception might be seen as different by audiences of different eras etc. As I’ve said in my notes on your draft, look at the structure of the scene also. The way the characters are ‘rotated’ around the stage as they speak in turn is a very clever device from Shakespeare as it shows the many levels of misunderstanding with in the play and how they all begin. It is also worth mentioning that the women seem to be very much in the ascendency in this scene, something that we would not expect in Elizabethan times. What is Shakespeare trying to say about the role of women here? Outspoken when masked, but timid (with the exception of Beatrice) when in public. There is so much more to discuss, so do it!

 

Paragraph 3 – In order to get the best out of this point, you need to talk about the structural significance of how  the main characters, including Benedick, are introduced. Firstly, it is important that the play is set within the walls of Messina, cut of from the outside world. This gives the impression of a ‘new beginning’ in act one, and makes the way the characters are introduced seems far more significant. For example, look at how the other characters characterise Benedick (the things they say about him) . This ensures that the audience see Benedick as a witty womaniser with nothing but contempt for marriage. If you can find one of his speeches which is elevated in its importance by Iambic Pentameter, even better! This, then, is why it is so funny when, by the intervention of chaso and confusion by the playwright, he changes his principles so quickly. Make this clear! Also, what is Shakespeare saying about love and marriage? That they are fickle? Would this amuse an audience also? Would this have changed over time?

 

Paragraph 4 – You need to expand hugely on this point about Dogberry and the watch. If you look closely at the malapropisms which he speaks, you will notice that many of them are antonms for what he meant to say. This means that the meaning of what he tried to say is reversed. You must exemplify this in detail. This would amuse people who saw him as being an authority figure who does not have a clue. Also, this ties in well with the ‘Superiority theory of comedy’ which we looked at in lesson. Read up on that a bit. You need to include a lot of evidence and explanation here.

 

Paragraph 5 – (ending ‘this looks not like a nuptial)

This is a particularly amusing device as what Benedick is doing is interacting with the audience, a device which, structurally, adds an elements of informality to the play, making is more comedic. He also does this in the garden after the song is played, and Benedick says ‘Were he a dog, he would have been hung’ or something to that effect. He is ‘breaking the fourth wall’, which means that he is speaking to audience members when, in reality, the character shouldn’t know that the audience are there. It is another way of Shakespeare interfering with the plot and the play. You also need to point out why he wedding is so important. The wedding should have been a happy ending, but actually ends up displaying many features of a tragedy with the breakdown of the relationship and the ‘death’ of Hero. So, how does Shakespeare ensure it remains a comedy? There are 2 points:

1.       Shakespeare has Dogberry appear at the start. Dogberry is a comedy character, but also, we know that Dogberry knows the truth about the plot against Hero, so we are safe in the knowledge that, eventually, the truth will come out.

2.       Hero has not really spoken much at all (you can find evidence for this) which means that we are not really attached to her as a character, and can focus more on the plot. You go on to mention is in….

Paragraph 6 – But you need to explain further and provide further evidence!

Elle McNamara - Essay Advice

Firstly, it must be said that the quality of your writing in your mock exam was far superior to your coursework. You should take comfort from this, but also realise that you must put quite a lot more effort into this piece if you are to get the best mark possible out of it.

 

Paragraph 1 – Fine

Paragraph 2 – It is not clear why you have chosen to compare Shakespeare to The Lieutenant of Inishmore. There is absolutely no point in making a cross-textual comparison unless you have a very specific reason for doing so. Is there some poignant specific relevance to this? If there is, you need to be making a clear textual comparison between the two texts, backed up with evidence. If not, leave it out. You go on to make a point about how ‘clever servants’ are often considered to be part of Shakespearean comedy, yet you have not exemplified this at all? Do we even see this convention in ‘Much Ado’? If we do, you need to back this up with evidence and show me you particular slant on it. If we don’t, then you might want to consider making a different point instead. Remember. PEE is still the key on a VERY basic level. ALL paragraphs should make a clear and interesting point, back up the point with MULITPLE pieces of evidence, and explain fully why the evidence is so important to your argument overall. There is no escaping this formula!

 

Paragraph 3 – You have begun a point about malapropisms. This is certainly relevant, but you need to expand on this much further. You need to provide more evidence, for a start. If I were you, I would look closely at all of the malapropisms which Dogberry makes and attempt to explain SPECIFICALLY which ones would be most inaccessible to a modern audience based on context and historical understanding. What I am saying is, the gist of your point is valid, but it is not in any way in depth enough to gain you top marks. What I pointed out at the time, also, was that many of Dogberry’s malapropisms are actually antonyms for what he was trying to say. The result of this is that his statements often end up meaning the exact opposite of what he set out to say. This creates humour as it adds to the chaos of misunderstandings and confusions from within the play. Remember, the play is called ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, meaning , lots of fuss over nothing. Dogberry can be seen as one of Shakespeare’s comedic devices in causing this chaos. This antonyms may also cause humour as the audience might find it amusing to see a man in a position of authority being so inept. Look at the ‘Theory of Superiority’. Lastly, you could make the point that these malapropism work on multiple levels. Don’t just see them as words coming from Dogberry’s mouth. See them as devices used by Shakespeare to create a sense of chaos, comedy and possibly ridicule when it comes to the audience. Remember, this was a time when the boundaries of the English Language were not set in stone. An educated person might realise all of the malapropisms and find humour in them, but there would certainly have been many uneducated people watching the play who would have totally missed the significance of these words. MORE EVIDENCE NEEDED

 

Paragraph 4 – This paragraph contains no point and no evidence. At the moment it is a worthless paragraph. If you are going to mention the raillery between Beatrice and Benedick, you need to make a specific point based on something significant which you have noticed about it, back it up with multiple pieces of evidence and then explain the context of this in terms of its social and historical significance. You SHOULD be mentioning Beatrice’s character in relation to how women were seen at the time, the way that B&B’s relationship creates comedy through their use of intertwined imagery and language as well as other devices. This creates almost a sense of dramatic irony as it becomes apparent to the audience that these two will get together although everything appears to be against the idea.

 

Basically, Elle, you need to write me a proper paragraph here!

 

Paragraph 5 – I’m not sure there is any ‘slapstick’ humour in Much Ado About Nothing. Again, you haven’t really explained your point well enough here. You have given me ONE example of the ‘witty banter’ between Beatrice and Benedick, when there are hundreds to choose from. Further exemplify please, and try to find more patterns in how they speak to each other. If you can notice patterns of communication or language and point this out to the marker, it is far better than just analysing ONE example. If you are going to compare this to Friends, you need to have a very specific point to make. Again, I would be looking for extended PATTERNS of humour, not just one example of language which happens to be similar. My advice would be to merge this with your last paragraph and turn it into a detailed analysis of the raillery between B&B, linked to the historical context (Place of women/Courtly love/etc).

Paragraph 6 – Again, this is not really based on the text. If you’re going to talk about how the happy ending is significant, I would approach it from a slightly different angle. You’ve given some examples of other comedies which have a happy ending. Don’t say ‘and many more’. List the ones you want to include and end your sentence. However, there are also many elements of this play which make it more akin to a tragedy. If I were you, I would have a BIG discussion here about how Shakespeare infuses tragedy into the play. Once you have done that, you should then analyse how Shakespeare stops this play, ultimately, from becoming a tragedy.  Talk about his placing of comedy scenes, Benedick interacting with the audience (breaking the fourth wall) etc, the unusual death (and what this says about the roles of men and women at the time) Try to spot lots of different devices. What I’m saying is, this play has a lot in common with tragedies such as ‘Othello’ or ‘Romeo and Juliet’. So, how does Shakespeare use his skill to ensure that this is not seen as a tragedy.

Paragraph 7 – I would really focus on Hero here. Your point about focussing on story rather than character is strong. Have that discussion in your essay. Shakespeare has not allowed us to become too attached to Hero. Right from her introduction at the start of the play, she has been introduced as a passive character. Look at the scenes she is in, how little she speaks, even when she would really be expected to speak! Like when she gets engaged. This means that when she ‘dies’ we are not too emotionally challenged by it. However, it does say a lot about the place of women in society. How a man’s word is taken over a woman’s. How she has to ‘reinvent’ herself in order to shake of the slander of adultery. You are clever enough to have a very in-depth discussion about this and come to various conclusions how audiences of different times would be amused/disgusted/confused by the whole thing. LOTS OF EVIDENCE PLEASE.

Hannah Wade - Essay Guidance

Paragraph 1

 

The first sentence needs to be reworded as it is not quite clear at the oment. In sentence two, you need to clarify which genre you mean. You go on to talk about different thing which are apparently common in Shakespearean comedies, but you give no examples of what you mean. Talk about this please. Finish off your introduction by saying what exactly it is that is interesting about Much Ado. How it has elements of comedy and elements of tragedy, and Shakespeare expertly deviates between the two through various types of deception in order to keep the audience entertained. Etc

 

Paragraph 2 – Wording needs work. You’ve mentioned here the idea of a ‘green world’. I’m assuming that you have read up on the article which I posted on the blog. If not, you will need to do this now. The idea of this play being set in a ‘pastoral setting’ (removed from real life) is very important. But remember, you must link this point to the question you have chosen, the character of Hero. The pastoral setting is important with regards to Hero. It is important, for example, as it could be argued that this removal from reality allows certain aspects of her life to become more believable. I am thinking primarily about her ‘death’ from grief which, in normal circumstances would be seen as quite ridiculous. There are also a couple of scenes regarding Hero which are set in ‘gardens’ which allow us to see something more of her character. Firstly, there is the scene where Hero takes part in the plot to convince Beatrice that Benedick is in love with her. This scene is quite out of character for Hero as she is quite forward and talkative. In the rest of the play, she is very quiet indeed, and hardly sticks up for herself at all. In a way, she is very typical of women at the time. Beatrice, for example, is the exact opposite. This scene set in the garden allows Hero to take part in a scene which creates confusion and deception which are both key features of Shakespearean comedies. So, she is playing a comedy role here. The other scene which spring to mind is the dark humour created in the scene where Claudio goes to speak to ‘dead’ Hero’s ‘grave’. Here, we learn a lot about Claudio and the sort of character he is. The scene is full of dramatic irony because Shakespeare has allowed the audience to know the truth that Claudio does not – that Hero is not dead. So, again, she is contributing to comedy. But it is not the character herself. It is Shakespeare who is using the character to create this dark dramatic irony. You need to make all these points and back up with evidence!

 

Paragraph 3 – Don’t just mention ‘conventions’ as if the marker will automatically know what you mean. Separation and unification are things which recur a lot in Shakespeare’s comedies, and this play is no different. Word it more like that. The actual point that you make is really good, but you MUST back it up with multiple textual references. If I were you, I would also link this to context – how, at the time, a woman’s word would count for nothing once she had been accused by a man. Incredibly, there is an even more shocking point here – that the social outcast ‘bastard’ is the one who accuses her. This really reflects the lowly status of women at the time. Again, back up with evidence. Check your wording also, it is not great in parts. You must finish by making the point that Hero has the potential to become a very tragic character at this point.

Paragraph 4 – You’re not really making a point, just retelling the story. Focussing on how Hero plays her part in the various deceptions in the play is a good angle, but you need to make it clear that you are making a strong point. You need to give credit to the playwright who is the architect of all of these deceptions – Claudio and Don Pedro’s plot to woo Hero (support with evidence), Hero’s plot to fool Beatrice (support with evidence), the masks at the ball (support with evidence), the horrible plot to shame Hero (support with evidence. Have a BIG discussion over which if these deceptions paint hero as a comedic character, and which paint her as a tragic character. Always support with evidence, and always support fully with a good explanation.

 

Paragraph 5 – Not needed

 

Paragraph 6 – Not needed. Instead, use this paragraph to compare her to Beatrice, the other leading female. Talk about how much of a stand-out character Beatrice is, and how SHE creates comedy. You need to use lots of evidence to prove how different these two characters are and to support your point that Hero is not really intended by Shakespeare to be the comedy lead in this play. Find passages where Beatrice speak in Iambic Pentameter (there should be a lot) this elevates the importance of her words. By comparison, when Hero speaks she tends not to, which makes her seem less important.

Paragraph 7 – Make sure you come to clear conclusions in your work.

 

General advice:

Your essay is too short. You really need to add another couple of decent points supported by evidence. Ones you have made the changes listed above, do a word count. Get your word count right. If you are still struggling, come and see me on Monday.

Joe Garrett-Gallagher - Essay Feedback

Paragraph 1 – I think that your introduction needs work. Rather than dropping in the names of ‘conventions’, you should simply be outlining the fact that Shakespearean comedies tend to use conventions which are present in many plays of this genre. Don’t start to make points. You should be saving this for the main body of your essay.

Paragraph 2 (small one) – I’m not sure what the point of this little paragraph is. You’re not backing up your point with any kind of evidence. Also, you need to outline who the ‘low’ characters are.

Paragraph 3 – Your point in this paragraph is quite unclear. I’m not sure what exactly you mean in the later part of the paragraph. Proof read the paragraph and make sure that it makes perfect sense to you. If needs be, get someone at home to proof read it for you to make sure that it makes sense.

When you discuss Dogberry’s malapropisms, you need to use more evidence to support what you are saying, and try to make deeper, more original points. It is certainly worth discussing exactly how Shakespeare intended us to see these characters. You are right that social attitudes have changes greatly over time. I think it seems that you are suggesting that audiences would react in different ways to his intelligence. You need to make this argument clearer. Why would a modern audience laugh more at Dogberry?

Certainly is it possible that the audience might find themselves more disconnected from these characters due to the fact that they were not introduced until Act 3 of the play. Structurally, they did not appear in the ‘introductory’ scene of Act 1. Also, they would be seen as ‘authority’ figures in Elizabethan times, and an audience might have enjoyed them being ridiculed.

You also need to have the discussion about the nature of Dogberry’s malapropisms. If you read back over the scenes in which he features, you will find that many of the malapropisms mean the exact opposite of what he meant, making him seem even more ridiculous. This could also be said to be a deliberate act on the part of Shakespeare to add to the confusion and deception within the play (Linking to the title of the play)

Paragraph 4 – You’ve mentioned that Verges uses Egg-corns. These are not egg-corns. It could be argued that he is speaking in dialect which reflects a more working class background. This is an interesting discussion to bring out. This may result in the lower class members of the audience becoming more attached to this sort of character. Have a look online at the rise of estuary English. Mention this in an argument if possible. More evidence is needed to support this. Compare this type of language to that of the more upper class characters too.

Paragraph 5 – The annotations I have put next to this paragraph stand. Compare Borrachio and Don John’s language. Who is more powerful and significant? Does either speak more than the other? Does either seem to control the conversation? DO either speak in Iambic Pentameter? If you can possibly argue, using evidence, that Borrachio is more significant in these ways, then you are onto a really good point.

Then, you can really draw out an interesting point. You can begin to talk about social attitudes towards bastards at the time the play was written. It is arguable that Borrachio I just as much at fault for dreaming up the plan…if not more so. Yet, Don John gets most of the blame, and structurally, he disappears without having the chance to defend himself. Draw out this argument, and support with evidence.

Paragraph 6 – Too short

Paragraph 7 – You need to give other examples of other happy endings if you are going to mention that it is such a strong convention. In this paragraph, I think you should spend more time drawing out the argument that you have begun. Look at where Dogberry and the low characters appear in the play. Shakespeare expertly places their scenes so that they maintain the comedy element of the play.

*They appear in Act 3 scene 3 just after the plot is hatched (this scene comes exactly half way through the play so that a comedy scene can begin the second half)

*Dogberry appears just before everything goes horribly wrong at the wedding – just to reassure us.

Support this argument with evidence – give lots of credit to Shakespeare for making it this way!

Paragraph 8 – As indicated in the original annotations, you need to include more detail about how women’s place in society has changed. More evidence  to support Beatrice’s character too please!

Sophie Wilson - Feedback

Paragraph 1 – Your introduction needs work. The wording of it is confusing. Read over it sentence by sentence. Perhaps even get somebody at home to read over it for you, and you will realise that there are some sentences that do not make sense. You need to be a little clearer with what you are saying. Outlineloine who these ‘4 main characters’ are. You do not necessarily have to name ‘Shakespearean conventions’. What you should be doing is simply explainaing that there are elements of Hero which makes her far more akin to characters we would expect in a Shakespearean comedy, and then there are those which would make her fit quite well within the boundaries of tragedy.

Paragraph 2 – Always make sure that, whatever you’re arguing, you start off by saying ‘it could be argued that’ or, ‘ some readers might think that’. When you are dealing with a character who is ambiguous, we always have to sit on the fence a little bit.

I’m not sure it is quite true that Hero has to fake her own death to marry Claudio. The ‘fake death’ only comes about because Hero is advised to pretend that she died until the truth of the matter is revealed.

There is the stem of a good point here. However, you need to draw it out in far more detail.

Firstly, you mention that ‘young lovers overcoming a struggle’ is a convention of Shakespearean comedy. Rather than just dropping this in, why not mention a couple of other examples of Shakespearean comedy couples (not tragedy) who face such struggles.

Secondly, you MUST talk about how this part of the play would be perceived totally differently by audiences of different eras. During the Elizabethan age, chastity was a far more important issue than it is today.  We did work on this in class, if you remember. Today, an audience might be confused, or even offended by the fact that Claudia is let ‘off the hook’ so easily. You must provide evidence when discussing this part of the play. Is Shakespeare trying to create comedy by satirising the Elizabethan views on chastity? You must discuss this.

So basically – extend your points, and provide more evidence.

Paragraph 3 – It is right that you should include a paragraph about deception. This is one of the main devices that Shakespeare uses in order to create comedy. However, again, you must take your analysis much deeper:

*Start by making the point you already have about how deception is a convention used extensively in Shakespearean comedy.

*Talk about how this links to the title of the play, perhaps. ‘Much Ado about Nothing’ means ‘A lot of fuss over nothing’, so Shakespeare is telling us from the off how is use of deception, and the deception used by the characters, will cause a large amount of trouble.

*Talk about the different ways that deception cause comedy. Think about use of masks, characters hiding, character plots (both good and bad). Remember there are lots of plots. The plan for Don Pedro to ‘woo’ Hero. The plot to get Beatrice and Benedick together. The plot to shame hero.

*Talk about how Hero, through this use of deception, actually comes rather close to becoming a tragic character. Sometimes characters who have such tricks played on them end up becoming tragic victims. I would strongly suggest, as I’ve mentioned to the class before, that you read up on ‘Othello’ and make the connection between Hero and the character ‘Desdemona’ in Othello.

Paragraph 4 – This is a bit of a lazy paragraph. You have made a basic point, but you have not extended your argument or used ANY evidence to support what you’re saying. The comparison between Beatrice and Benedick is certainly worth mentioning. However, you need to mention why, specifically, they are different.

Firstly, Beatrice plays a traditionally masculine role (the role of a courtier) through her use of wit, hyperbole and extended imagery. You need to state this and argue using examples. Talk about how attitudes toward women have changed.

Secondly, find some examples of where Beatrice uses Iambic Pentameter to elevate the importance of her words.

Then, compare this witty, important speech to that of Hero. Hero rarely speaks. Even when she is wooed by Claudio, she only whispers in his ear.

The point is good, but it is not really OK at this level to be including paragraphs with no supporting evidence

Paragraph 5 – I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make with this paragraph. You have already stated that Hero does not meet a sad ending. It is because she does not die that this play is, in fact, a comedy. You might want to write a paragraph where you talk about how she is ALMOST a tragic character who ALMOST meets a tragic end. However, you would need to talk about how Shakespeare structurally places the comedy scenes (such as the ones featuring Doberry) in order to add comedy relief, and to reassure the audience that there is little to worry about. Dogberry eve shows up just before the wedding (although he is not listened to) in order to rassure that audience that the comedy character has ‘the truth’, and Hero will not be in trouble for long. Again – EVIDENCE needed.

Paragraph 6 – Again, no EVIDENCE. You MUST use evidence. Talk about the ‘tragic flaw’ theory by all means, but state where this view/theory came from. I think it was Aristotle. Then, you can have an interesting discussion about WHAT Hero’s tragic flaw is. The characters think that it is that she is unchaste. However, Shakespeare has divulged enough information to the audience for us to know that she is, in fact, chaste. So, any references to her infidelity now take the form of dramatic irony. It could be argued that her tragic flaw is that she is too meek, and does not speak enough. Analyse the scenes with Hero in, support this argument with lots of evidence, and it should be a much better paragraph,