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.