Much Ado About an AP rating?

Is Much Ado About Nothing worthy of an AP rating? I actually struggled with this  question. While on one hand, it’s Shakespeare, and I’m sure I barely scratched the surface of any deeper meaning the play held. On the other hand, it was not that hard to follow. I found that I understood characters intentions, reasonings behind their actions, and how their plans were carried out. I didn’t have to take many pauses to thin deeply about some passage. To an extent that’s good! It made reading the play much more enjoyable. Although it sounds bad, the fact that it was purely enjoyable reading and watching Much Ado About Nothing makes me question its AP level. While there were other AP books that I enjoyed as a whole. I was always confused during at least part of the book. And to a degree that is good, it forces me to read deeper into the book. As a whole however, this book should be read by AP classes. While I did not find it to be the most complex of Shakespeare’s works, it was not empty, and there was plenty of analysis to be had. I believe that this would be a great ‘first Shakespeare’ read. Many students steer far away from Shakespeare, and I think that starting with an easily understood comedy like this play would be extremely beneficial in getting students involved in Shakespeare. I can’t say that I struggled to find themes or symbols during this play, however I do believe that it is a great AP book in that it could open a student's eyes to Shakespeare as a whole.

And so I conclude my blog on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. I was slightly hesitant to choose Shakespeare to begin with. While I do enjoy performing his works, I was not sure how I would feel about reading the play through. The comedic style and laughable attitude of many characters instantly made this book a hit, and it is one that I would gladly read again and strongly suggest for other students.

How Much aDO I Like the Play?

For someone not taking a Shakespeare course, I feel as if I have read much of his work. I have performed in Pericles: Prince of Tyre,  and Measure for Measure, and I have read Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and seen a different adaptation of Hamlet. After finishing Much Ado About Nothing, I can say without a doubt that I have a new favorite. I am someone who loves comedy, and I was surprised at how much I understood the jokes the first time around. Usually, when understanding Shakespeare it takes a couple run throughs to find the deeper meaning. In this play however, it seems as if Shakespeare’s style was different. This play didn’t seem to hide deep ideas, or show secret views of society, it was made for enjoyment. It showed the witty, joking side of Shakespeare. I figured that I would enjoy the comedy style, I suppose I just didn’t think Shakespeare had it in him to create a work that I could see myself reading multiple times. I found that characters like Bendick were relatable in his use of puns, I found that the constant deception throughout the novel showed a humorous aspect to falling in love, and provided strong irony throughout the duration of the play. Compared to his other works, I thought that this play was readable. Not in the sense of enjoying watching or performing, or even literal reading. I have always enjoyed studying and reading Shakespeare throughout high school. No, this play was readable in the sense that I could find myself reading it on a rainy Sunday afternoon. The written form itself is made to create a mental story. As a somewhat thespian who greatly enjoys plays, I hope I can someday see my favorite of Shakespeare’s masterpieces live.

Would I suggest someone else read this? Yes and no. I read the play, but I also watched it be performed on youtube. If given the option, I would suggest the latter. I find that it is much easier to understand the language from listening to the play, and I believe that the correct emphasis of certain lines that made the play so enjoyable is better shown through a performance. While it is good to read the play, I believe the true masterpiece can only be see in the form it was meant to hold; a play.

Much Ado about Symbols

For any piece of work to be considered ‘AP’ worthy, it must contain some symbolism. For Much Ado About Nothing one consistent symbol is that of horns. Now, in pop culture today horns may seem irrelevant, and not represent anything specific. In Shakespeare’s time however, horns represent marriage, more specifically a man being forced into marriage. Early in the play, this symbol is established, by Bendick stating:

“The savage bull may; but if ever the sensible Benedick bear it, pluck off the bull's horns and set them in my forehead, and let me be vilely painted, and in such great letters as they write "Here is good horse to hire," let them signify under my sign "Here you may see Benedick the married man.”(MY BOOK IS MISSING IN ACTION, THIS QUOTE IS IN Act I, Scene I)

The symbolism of horns also tied the beginning of the play to the end, giving the play a sense of closure. While at the beginning Benedick uses horns negatively, Claudio uses them in a positive way, stating that Benidick “thinks upon the savage bull. Tush, fear not, man. We’ll tip thy horns with gold, And all Europa shall rejoice at thee”(MY BOOK MISSING, Act V, Scene IV). What Claudio is saying is that although Benedick is marrying, he is not wearing the horns of a whipped man, he is proudly showing golden horns, a sign of honor and goodness. For me, this is what gave the thematic pieces of the story a complete ending. I always enjoy when stories tie back to the very beginning, and this tale uses the same symbols in the opening pages as it does in the closing lines. Horns may not make sense to a modern reader, however after doing a little digging, the symbol reveals its true prowess, and fits perfectly into the play.

Much Ado about Theme

One major topic that has been discussed multiple times throughout my blog posts is one of the major themes; marriage. From the beginning of the play we see different views of love and marriage. Claudio enters Leonato’s castle, sees Hero, and states his intentions to marry her. Counterly, Benedick enters Leonato’s castle, sees Beatrice, and swears off marriage. By the end of the play, both of these couples had married(How many times have I said this).

One of the draft ideas about marriage throughout the play is that it is seen as a necessary thing. Claudio and Hero both seem to believe that one cannot achieve a full life without marriage, and while she appears tough Beatrice may be hiding her secret desire for a husband. One of the conundrums I had while reading the play was that throughout the duration love and marriage is mainly discussed using negative terms, however the entire plot comes back to the marriage between different pairs of characters. For example, Benedick describes himself as falling “horribly in love”(77) with Beatrice. Usually, one does not describe their love as horrible. Yet everything comes back to marriage. For Beatrice, marriage seems to be more of a trap. She has opportunities to marry, Don Pedro proposes to her, however she refuses, and it is almost as if she simply dislikes the idea of being a wife. We know that Beatrice is a bit of a feminist, and it isn’t extremely surprising that she finds the institution of marriage from the past as undesirable. Many different characters throw themselves into marriage, or swear it off, but the underlying idea beneath the skin of dialogue is the necessity of marriage to the characters in the story.

Tying directly into marriage is the theme of love. At different points in the novel it is clear that none of the characters desperately seek out love, it just sortof happens. It almost seems like love is secondary to marriage. As I mentioned previously, everything seems to come back to the importance of being married; where is the importance of loving? While Claudio and Hero fall in love quickly, they didn’t seek each other out, they just fell in love. As for Benedick and Beatrice, the opposite occurred. They attempted to escape from love, and seemed to battle each other with hatred. However, they too fell for eachother. So I guess the theme isn’t love a whole, it is the inevitability of love. You can swear it off, you can run from it, you can ignore it, but love always finds you.

Much Ado about Characters

Novels and plays try to accomplish the same goals, in different ways. In novels, characters are described in a variety of ways, one of which being a paragraph or description of a certain character. In a play, however, the difficulty that the writer faces during the characterization process is that the viewer only gets to see the characters interactions and actions. It then becomes very important to make any scene a character is a part of extremely detailed and representative of that character as a whole.

My personal favorite character in the play is Benedick, for one main reason. He is punny and quick on his feet. As someone who loves puns I found myself connected with this character instantly. As mentioned in a past blog post, Benedick swears off love, wishing to be a bachelor forever. However, he falls in love with Beatrice. One of my favorite conversations in the story is when Benedick is trying to put up a front about his dislike for Beatrice. He begs Don Pedro, the man he serves under to

“command me any service to the world’s end? I will go on the slightest errand now to the Antipodes that you can devise to send me on. I will fetch you a toothpicker from the furthest inch of Asia . . . do you any embassage to the pygmies, rather than hold three words’ conference with this harpy.”(MY BOOK WAS MISSING IN ACTION, THIS QUOTE WAS IN ACT II SCENE I)

This quote show Benedick’s desire to be away from Beatrice, saying he would rather be sent across the world to fight than to talk to Beatrice.. Obviously it is eventually revealed that this is a front, however I found it extremely funny to see the description and emphasis he went in trying to cover up his love. Benedick’s over the top attitude and witty behavior made him a hilarious protagonist, and I constantly found myself enjoying his crafty remarks and ongoing humour.

Going hand in hand with Benedick(literally) is his sassy counterpart Beatrice. Throughout the play, Beatrice proves to be a FOIL of her friend Hero. Hero is always shown as quiet and respectful, whereas Beatrice is sarcastic, bordering on mean with her comments. Like Benidick, Beatrice swears of marriage, having an early idea of feminism and women’s rights, thinking that a women should not be married to anyone she does not love. Beatrice is a fiercely loyal friend, and when she hears the rumours that Claudio cheated on Hero, she berates him, using his actions as an example as to why women should be equals. As a whole, Benedick and Beatrice fit together perfectly. Based on the constant battle of remarks they share, I assume that they have a romantic history, and it is likely that Benedick led her on. However, after trying to beat the other in every aspect of life, their love is known by each other, and they reconcile. These two characters are characterized by their actions, and how others act towards them. They do not get the luxury held by authors who can write paragraphs of description, and Shakespeare provides detailed, remarkable scenes in order to characterize the future couple.

Much Ado About Foreshadowing

Hinting at the future. Foreshadowing. This literary device is used in many ways in many novels, and Much Ado About Nothing by the great William Shakespeare is no different. ,Much Ado About Nothing is a romantic comedy, with much of the humour coming from the swearing off of love. In the early stag es of the play, a group of men arrive at the castle of Leonato. The conversations that follow are, in my mind, some of the most humourous in the play. Now, for anyone who has seen a movie, it is obvious when two characters are destined to fall in love. The relationship between Beatrice and Benedick starts as if they were eight; insulting each other to hide their true feelings. This is seen through immediately by the audience, as no juvenile teasing could be taken as anything other than deep flirting. The humour in this section comes not only from the childlike playing of the characters, but also by the resolvement of each character to never marry. Benedick is quite vocal about his ideas, stating that  “I may go the finer, I will live a bachelor.”(21). As someone who enjoys watching plays, I searched for a visual form of this work, and I found that the actors who portrayed the role of Benedick said these lines with enough sarcasm that a newborn would understand the true intentions of Shakespeare. It is clear that Beatrice and Bendick have a history of insulting and teasing each other- it’s all that's seen in the first scene! Within reading the first few lines of the script I knew that these two characters would fall in love, and spent the remainder of the play rooting for the foreshadowing of romance between the flirtatious characters to come true.

Reaching the End of the Road

Throughout The Road  our characters faced many challenges. They were attacked, almost trapped by cannibals, and starving(all the time). It never seemed like they had any chance at survival; it looked as if they were doomed to die… Until the end. For me, the ending of the novel was unfitting, and it did not sit well after reading.

One of the recurring ideas McCarthy seemed to show was the hopelessness of the father and son’s situation. They were never ‘ahead’ in life, with food and ammunition always running low. It seemed to me like the novel would end in their inevitable demise. This idea was reinforced in my mind until the very end, with the tragic death of the father.

The father’s death seemed a little weak. After seeing his survival skills I would have expected him to go down with style, protecting his son and killing enemies right and left, however he simply got sick and died. It was almost as if McCarthy was showing the irony of life; one can be strong, but there's always something that can beat them. For the father, he was ready to fight off many enemies, but he could not stop the sickness. This seemed like the ending I was expecting, the father reaches his death, tells the son to go onwards until the same type of demise occurs, however my hypothesis was destroyed pages later.

After watching his father, protector, and friend die, the boy is left with what little supplies they had, and the knowledge he had gained. He sets off to continue to survive… and immediately finds the ‘good guys’. Within walking distance of his father’s grave, he has found company to join with in order to survive. I understand what McCarthy was attempting; he wanted to add the glimpse of hope into the future of the boy, however I feel as if it came too late. It seemed like an ending that was too nice for the story. Watching the duo escape cannibals, and walk through a consistently grey environment seemed like a depressing tale that wanted a depressing ending, however that wasn’t what was given. The end was opposite everything that was shown prior in the novel.

Had I been writing the novel, I would have cut the last few pages off. I would have ended after the passing of the pistol, an item integral to the father and son’s adventure and survival. At that point I think McCarthy would have established the transition of the boy, who was about to set off alone, as well as leaving the idea of inevitable death intact. I understand why McCarthy ended his novel the way he did; to provide a little light, however that light was unnecessary on the grey path of The Road.

Does This Book Complete the Road to AP Merit?

Upon completion of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, it is my duty to asses the validity of the claim that this book is AP worthy. Beyond being a Pulitzer Prize winner for fiction, The Road is clearly a book of AP merit- but why? The Road is an AP level novel for a variety of reasons; it can be interpreted in multiple ways, it is a detail oriented story, and the purpose of the novel goes beyond entertainment.

When I say that the road can be interpreted in multiple ways, I mean that different pieces of the book can be put up for debate. As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that the most debatable theme in this story is noting the differences between good and bad. Throughout the novel the son constantly ensures that his father and him are the “good” guys. Some might make arguments that there are no good people left in society. Others may say that everyone is good from their own point of view. Overall, it is important to note that the novel will be read differently for each reader. One of the reasons this novel is AP worthy is because 5 people could read it, and come up with different meanings. Unlike novels that children read, the good and the evil are not clearly stated, and not everything is laid out to be easily seen. The Road begins to make a journey to becoming AP worthy by providing a different experience for each reader.

Part of the reasoning behind why a novel can be interpreted differently is due to the focus on detail shown throughout the novel. Focusing on detail over general plot is a huge part to creating an AP worthy novel. In The Road, there is not much plot. There is a basic guideline, move south, but there is no army to defeat, no journey to overcome, and no large end goal like most plot based novels. Plot based novels are easily seen in young fiction, like Harry Potter. In these stories, there will always be an attention to detail, however the focus will be on the plot. In AP worthy novels like The Road, detail is key. I do not mean detail as in describing a tree or a house very well, but by repeating descriptions, or using specific language to show hidden meaning within the novel. For example, McCarthy uses repetition of detail as a key in showing the overall bleakness of life; almost every sentence in the first half of the novel referenced the grey landscape. Novels have different focuses depending on the difficulty level, but AP merit novel must keep a focus on detail more than plot.

Tying in to the last qualification of an AP merit novel, a book must have a greater purpose than entertainment. For example, books read for the purpose of stretching imagination, like the Hunger Games, should never be called AP worthy. An AP novel is one that requires thinking. This is linked with the last reason, stories that are focused on plot generally are more focused on pure entertainment. It is the stories that focus on detail that provide a deeper meaning. In The Road, the purpose of the novel is not to enjoy or focus on the journey, but to see what McCarthy is shown with his writing. One of the major ideas McCarthy shows is how basic concepts will change as society does. As previously mentioned, the idea of goodness is one that can take many forms in the new world. As a whole, a novel becomes AP worthy if it is meant to be taken as more than words on a page. Much like The Handmaid's Tale, which had an underlying focus on people's roles of society, and how control is gained, The Road is more than simply words on the page, making worthy of the AP title.

Obviously the novel is considered AP worthy… it has to be if students are reading it for this assignment. After completing the novel I can easily say that it is rightly awarded this title. It goes above and beyond many standards, and is a novel that has many underlying meanings. This well written novel has clearly earned its AP acceptance.

A Road Built on Theme

With most of The Road behind us, it is time to start focusing on what McCarthy s trying to show. As I mentioned in my last blog post, McCarthy is not creating a novel with a focus on plot. There is no large enemy, no huge obstacle to overcome, the focus of the story is on the traveling, and the connections that grow between the father and son. The majority of the pages in the novel have been used to set up numerous themes, all of which are shown in many scenarios.

Since there are only two developed characters in the entire novel, it is clear that most of the themes will occur in the interactions between the father and son. The two are a dynamic duo, meandering down the road, starving most of the time, yet still having the strength to create themes. This strength is shown in one theme I believe exists- strength because of love.

It has been clear that the purpose of the father is to help his son survive. Unfortunately he may be very good at walking on a road, but his ability to find and ration food seems to be lacking at some points. The dynamic duo spend the majority of the novel starving, and it is here that the strength and perseverance of the father is shown. He watches his son starve and it is his love for his son that makes him fight twice as hard to see him well fed. It’s from this love that he draws much of his strength to keep pushing towards the south, to never give up, and most importantly, stay positive towards his son. The father never becomes angry at his son, even after he leaves the fuel tank open, losing all of their valuable fuel. Any obstacle they face simply makes him fight harder to provide for his son. As mentioned in a previous post, the father continues mainly for his love of his son. WIthout him, I believe his strength would fade rapidly, and his demise would occur quickly. The love he has for the boy gives him strength, and this interaction creates a key theme in the novel.

Without any clear challenge, it is necessary to ask: who are the good and bad guys? The father tells the son they are the good guys, and he seems to believe it… but is everyone left in the world telling themselves that? It seems that no one has the intention of being purely evil in the novel. There is no quest for power, everyone is trying to live. Could that not be used by every person to rationalize themselves as a good guy? The point that McCarthy is showing in the post-apocalyptic world is that there is not a clear line between good and evil. To the characters(and hopefully the readers) the group of people who are cooking a baby are clearly evil, but could that group say that they are good because it was necessary to survive?.. Okay, that might be a bit of a stretch, but McCarthy relies on the reader using their own perspective to place characters as good and evil. He does not say “they saw an evil man” he shows the interaction and lets the reader decide. He even gives the reader a few tests as to deciding where to place the main characters. When meeting the old man on the road, the boy wishes to give him aid, while the father would prefer to keep moving. For many compassionate readers, they would side with the boy, and think that the man is being mean in this scenario. From a different perspective however, the man thinks he is being good for saving food for himself and his son. Perspective plays a key role in explaining the interactions between good and evil.

So far, I have not found the novel overly interesting. I think it is well made for it’s intentions, however it does not suit my reading style. I expressed a few complaints in previous blog posts about the style of presenting events McCarthy uses, and I am just seeing a continuation of singular events, that do not tie into a much larger plot. Like many books that focus on themes and motifs rather than plot, I find myself caring less about the challenges that the characters face, and spending my time focusing on the smaller details that make up the themes. It is clear that plot is not as major as the in depth meaning, so I find myself paying less attention to what little pieces of plot we are given. I am about to read the rest of the novel, and I have to stick with the previous prediction: the characters are both on the road to death. With the lack of food, protection, and with the father’s sickness getting worse, I cannot think of a feasible way these characters could survive. That being said, there could be an exciting turn of events in the south that could prove me wrong. With the survival skills shown by the father, anything could be possible.

Everyone is Starving... For Some Plot

           The middle of the book has been reached, and frankly I am yet to feel like I am reading a novel. Thus far, we have been given a broad plotline: survive, and move South. After that we are left to watch the journey of the two characters. To me, this does not feel like a novel. It feels like a collection of memories that occur in chronological order. What I have perceived so far is that there have been many small events, like the viewing of the army, the cannibalistic group, and the finding of the shelter, however the story lacks a plot that ties all the events together. I feel as though any of the events could have been removed, and the story would not have been changed. The plot of the story seems to be 'survive' however the events during the survival process lack any connection.

         With that being said, perhaps this is McCarthy's style at work. With what we have read, it seems as if McCarthy is creating a new model for novels to take place on. He has skipped or altered many of the steps in a stereotypical novel. For example, we have not received any exposition on how the new world came to be. McCarthy began the story with the father and son and has ignored the underlying question; how did that world come to be? McCarthy doesn't seem to have a specific roadmap in mind. There are not set obstacles or objectives that will be conquered one by one until the climax, it is just a series of events, with the only linkage coming from the fact that they all take place of the long road. With what has been read so far, I do not expect for McCarthy to place any rising action or climax into the story. If I had to place my bets now, I would say that we will be led down 240 pages of unconnected events, ending with the inevitable deaths of our characters. I do not believe that our protagonists will come across a massive obstacle, which will become the climax of the story. I think it is impossible for the story to end in any way other than the death of our characters because the mood of the story seems to show the consistent battle for survival, on which the characters come close to starvation, only to be saved by some stroke of luck. McCarthy's style for the book will lead to the continuation of a timeline of events, and end with our protagonist's' demise.

           While I have a bleak view for the outcome of our characters, I cannot say that I did not enjoy this section of the reading. I found that the events that transpired showed much more about the characters, especially the relationship between the father and the son. The most significant scene for me was right after leaving the house of the cannibals, where the father temporarily gives his son the gun, making sure he knows how to kill himself rather than be caught. For me, this helped to show the relationship between the two because it shows the fathers outer strength, and inner worry. He lost no time in preparing to cause a distraction, which would save his son from any form of torture, but not himself. To me this shows what has been going on inside the mind of the father. On the outside he has constantly said that they were not going to die, however he seems to have come to terms with their predictable demise, and wants to make sure his son does not suffer before his death. I found this scene to really show the inner conflicts and the outer actions of the father, and it continues to show how he will suffer in order for his son to feel no pain.

 

 

 

The Road to Character Development

The road to character development has begun, and the beginning seems to be a bit rocky. One major style Cormac McCarthy has in place is his refusal to offer any help to the reader. He does so by eliminating the concept of naming characters. Throughout the book thus far, our main characters have been nameless, referred to as “he”, “the boy”, “the man” or “the child”. While it may be a stylistic choice of McCarthy to leave a cloud of mystery behind the characters, it does make reading about the characters more difficult. If close attention is not given, one might read an entire paragraph thinking that the wrong character is the focus.  As a whole, the protagonists of the story include a father and son duo, with the former being a survivalist and the latter being young and scared.

The father of the story is shown as having one goal: survive as long as possible. More importantly, keep his son alive. Repeated throughout the reading was the father’s willingness to sacrifice himself to keep his son safe. He shows this by making sure his son eats and drinks first, and to keep him safe, regardless of what they face. In the most climactic part of the reading, the man shoots an enemy in the head as the enemy makes a lunge for his son with a knife. Following the murder, the father makes it clear that he will not let anything hurt his son. Throughout the reading, we see that the father knows how to survive. By making multiple fires, scavenging, and having much knowledge about the world, it is clear that the father has the tools he needs to survive, and complete his journey to the South. One of the greatest struggle we see the father have is trying to provide a comfortable, enjoying life for his son in the unwelcome terrain. This is clearly shown through the efforts taken to get his son a Coke, as well as making him hot cocoa. He also tells his son stories, leaves the lamp on for him, and tries to make sure the son is comfortable. This can not be an easy task in the world. Though he be nameless, the actions taken by the father show his survivalist nature, and his care for his son.

Though they may be biologically related, the apple fell miles from the tree in this family. Unlike the father, the boy spends most of his time afraid, and has a very bleak view of the world and their survival chances. This is shown in almost all of the dialogue between the father and son. When he is not giving his father the silent treatment, the boy’s catchphrases are “I’m scared”(21), or responding yes to his father’s statement: “You mean you wish that you were dead”(47). Based on the dialogue we receive it is very clear that the boy does not have the strength of his father. Then again… is it reasonable to expect that he would? On one hand, the boy was born into the society, and has not known any other world. One would think that this would prepare him for the challenges of the world. But a question is raised; can a child be expected to be fearless? I believe the boy is about 9 or 10, judging by his interest in card games, the toy truck he has, and his fear of the dark. In our society, these match the behaviors and interests of many 10 year olds, and may explain the boy's age. Knowing the age of the child would greatly explain his personality.

As a whole, The Road highlights only two main characters in a family. Though they are very different from each other, they are co dependent. The boy needs the man to teach him the ways of the world, and help him through any struggles. The man however equally relies on the boy, to keep him alive and keep him sane. The boy provides someone the man can mentor, talk to, and it gives him a purpose in fighting for survival. These characters seem like foils in some aspects of their personality(being fearless vs. being frightened) however they provide a necessary companion on their journey.