Paragraph 1 – Follow the notes I’ve written on your essay.
You should be keeping an open mind in your introduction. You should not be
coming to any conclusions. You make the poi9nt that comedy has evolved. You might
want to expand by talking about how society as a whole has changed.
Paragraph 2 – You have said that Beatrice is being insulting
and how this makes her different from what we would expect of a woman of the
time. However, you have not explained what the evidence means. Signor Mountanto,
some suggest, is based on a French fencing term. It would roughly translate as ‘Mr
Fancy Fighter’. So she is ridiculing the elements which would uisually have
been admired in a man of the time. You must explain the significance of this.
You must also back up this point by providing additional pieces of evidence and
analysing them fully. Supporting an argument with just one piece of evidence,
usually, is not a very strong plan.
Paragraph 3 – You say that Shakespearean audiences were ‘not
used to happy endings’. This simply is not true. You will need to re-write this
paragraph to make it more accurate and more insightful. This paragraph is very
weak. I would suggest putting something more ‘in-depth’ in there instead.
Paragraph 4 – This is a very basic point. It could be built
on, but you need to put A LOT of work into it. You are basically talking about
the fact that the play ends with the lovers overcoming their struggle. Start
off by making this point and provide multiple pieces of evidence to prove that
their plight is over. ANALYSE the text in detail, talking about what linguistic
techniques have been used to accentuate the point, and then talk about the
effect that this ending would have on the audience. However, if I were you, I
would then go on to take the point much further. What would be the reaction of
the audience to such a sudden forgiveness of Claudio? What would a modern
audience think about the fact that a man is so easily forgiven for his
wrongdoing? Provide evidence and discuss. What would an audience of each age
think of the idea of Hero being slandered so easily? What does this tell us
about the place of women? Provide evidence and explain. What is Shakespeare
saying about love? The two are ‘helped together’ by Don Pedro, split up VERY
EASILY by Don John, who usually would not be believed because of his social
status, and then easily reunited by the action of a very weak trick. Is
Shakespeare trying to make humour out of love itself? Is he trying to make it
seem fickle? Also, how easily is Hero’s unrealistic ‘death’ believed by those
around her? Would this be believed in reality? Does the pastoral/green world
setting enhance the ability of this plan to be believed? LOTS OF WORK. Put the
hours in!
Paragraph 5 – Much more needed. Base this whole paragraph
around deception. Look at the way Shakespeare manipulates his audience with
various different types of deception. Masks/Plots/Eavesdropping etc. For each
instance that you choose to use, exemplify it with evidence and fully explain
the significance of the evidence. Why is Shakespeare manipulating the audience
this way? How does this relate to the title of the play? When we analyse it, is
Shakespeare’s aim with this play simply to confuse and bamboozle the audience?
Is the humour actually on the part of Shakespeare as he watches his audience
struggle to understand the complexity of what he has created? I’m giving you A
LOT to go on here. Also, look at how humour is created THROUGH deception. Look
at how confident the female characters are in the play when wearing masks. It
gives them the EXCUSE to be confident. Why is this amusing? Exemplify and
explain. Next, look at how the plots, although they have elements of tragedy,
create comedy too. For example, the plot against Hero gives Shakespeare an
excuse to introduce Dogberry. The plot to convince everyone Hero is dead causes
the scene where Claudio is ridiculed in front of her grave. For every tragic
element, the deceptive elements are balanced out by comedy.
Paragraph 6 – Why, considering Dogberry’s position, is his
idiocy so amusing to an audience? Analyse his malapropisms in more detail. Most
are antonyms. Why is this important/amusing?
Lots of work to be done Daniel. Get it done please.
No comments:
Post a Comment