One day, perhaps, I will manage to find both the time and the energy to pen some exquisitely crafted, deeply insightful, and highly informative reviews of Shakespeare's greatest plays. These reviews would, at the very least, afford the plays the modicum of respect they so justly deserve.

In the meantime, I present a few hastily thought-through ideas on what are undeniably the greatest literary works for the stage in the English language ever written.

The majority of Shakespeare's 37 or 38 plays (depending on whom you ask) are replete with brilliance. If pressed to select the greatest, I would proffer the following: Hamlet, King Lear, Richard III, Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing, Othello, and Merchant of Venice.

These plays are all transcendent in their brilliance and should be witnessed by all. I emphasize the word'seen' because, although these plays are widely read, studied, analyzed, and pored over, ultimately, all stage works are not written to be read but to be performed, watched, and enjoyed.

So, why are these plays great? All human thought is encapsulated here; everything concerning the subtleties of the human condition, in all its majestic glory and awful hideousness, is captured, expressed, and delineated. Shakespeare traverses the gamut from love to hate, from life to death, and everything in between – revenge, jealousy, avarice, ambition, vanity, mercy, passion, lust, deceit, humor, gluttony, pride, sorrow, despair, wrath, sloth, vainglory, religion, superstition, bravery, and cowardice, to name but a few – and he does so with such clarity, power, poetry, and perfection.

When Shakespeare was 'taught' or rather 'force-fed' to me at school, I understood little and enjoyed even less. For instance, the purpose and effect of the iambic pentameter only become evident in performance, and when performed well, as opposed to being read poorly and taught tediously in the sterile confines of the English literature classroom. To enjoy and be carried away by the rhythm and poetry of Shakespeare, one doesn't even need to be cognizant of the concept of the iambic pentameter. Nor does the learning and reciting of often-quoted (and misquoted) stock Shakespearian lines serve any real purpose other than as a memory test. While this may not be everyone's experience of Shakespeare at school, for me, it had the effect of completely alienating me not only from Shakespeare but from any classical literature or drama whatsoever.

It was only when, at the age of 18, I found myself inexplicably in the theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon, watching the RSC brilliantly perform 'Much Ado About Nothing', and was utterly absorbed and transported to a place I knew not where, that my outlook was completely transformed. Since then (and it has taken me around 30 years), I have finally watched all 38 of Shakespeare's plays – some as many as a dozen or more times.

The utter perfection of a play like 'Hamlet' means that it can be seen countless times in countless ways and can be so very different depending on the direction, the actors, the interpretation – and yet still remain faithful to the original brilliant play that Shakespeare wrote. There is simply so much life in all of Shakespeare's plays – as timeless and relevant today as they were when first written so very long ago.

Shakespeare holds up a mirror to our very existence and challenges us to look, see, feel, hear, think, enjoy, be transported, be part of something, laugh, cry, be excited, be invigorated, wonder…

To anyone who has had a similarly discouraging and alienating experience with Shakespeare's written word – don't give up, try again, and go and watch a live performance if you possibly can.

Quite simply: These plays are towering poetic works of truly unassailable and staggering artistic and literary genius.

Quando Shakespeare gioca

Under a dazzling sun, Shakespeare stages a tourbillon of passions, intrigues, games, and errors. The dialogues are brilliant, lively, and shrewd. It is a comedy about the misunderstandings of love and a perfect dissection of the human soul.

Many people love Shakespeare's tragedies, and I do too. But then I realize that, deep down, I prefer the comedies.

“Silence is the perfect herald of joy: I were but little happy, if I could say how much”.

Shakespeare's comedies are like a breath of fresh air. They are filled with laughter, romance, and unexpected twists. The characters are vivid and charming, and their antics keep us entertained from start to finish.

One of the things I love most about Shakespeare's comedies is the way he explores the theme of love. He shows us that love can be both beautiful and complicated, and that it often leads to misunderstandings and confusion. But in the end, love always prevails.

Whether it's the young lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream or the witty Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare's characters teach us about the power of love and the importance of following our hearts.

In conclusion, Shakespeare's comedies are a treasure trove of entertainment and wisdom. They remind us that life is full of laughter and love, and that we should embrace both with open arms.

Not much of a review but rather some disjointed impressions from one of my favorite Shakespearean comedies.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a brilliant display of wit and humor. From the lively squabbles and cutting retorts between Beatrice and Benedick to the unforgettable, malapropism-filled humor presented by the chief of the citizen-police in Messina, Dogberry, and his bumbling sidekicks.

In brief, the Prince of Aragon, Don Pedro, after defeating his half-brother Don John, returns home. Surrounded by his court and companions, including Benedick and Claudio, he visits the governor of Messina, Leonato, and stays at his household. There are intrigues afoot. The first, an evil one, aims to disgrace Leonato's daughter Hero and make her fiancé dump her at the altar. The other is a sweet intrigue targeted at Leonato's niece Beatrice and the Prince's companion Benedick. Since they seem oblivious to love even when it's staring them in the face, they clearly need a little push.

And then there are our night constables, Dogberry and Verges. They come across as incompetent fools and helpless losers, but let's not jump to conclusions too quickly. Here's a sample of Dogberry's flowery style:

"Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondly, they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves."

Also, Dogberry is a man who, in his own words, "would not hang a dog..., much more a man who hath any honesty in him." So, now you know with whom you have the honor.

This is a comedy, although it was only a step away from tragedy. If the diabolic plan of the prince's brother had succeeded, Hero, maliciously accused and spurned by her soon-to-be-husband Claudio, could easily have become another of Shakespeare's hapless heroines. The story between Hero and Claudio is picturesque yet a bit melodramatic, but it doesn't form the main framework of the play. They are both young, naïve, and cute, but it's not them who hold my interest.

My attention is focused on the other pair, "Lady Disdain" and "Signiore Mountanto," as they call themselves. Or simply Beatrice and Benedick. They are older and more sophisticated than Hero and Claudio, more watchful and guarded, and thus less likely to admit that they are head over heels in love. They seem to have a history together, definitely have feelings for each other, but constantly deceive themselves into believing that such a thing is impossible. They are too afraid of rejection and being the object of ridicule, so they prefer to pretend that they hate each other's guts and constantly challenge each other's witticism. I loved the chemistry between them, the banter, the bickering. I liked their squabbling, the sharp tongue of Beatrice, and the bluster and buffoonery from Benedick.

Even their love vows have an undertone of their previous verbal skirmishes.

Benedick: "A miracle! here's our own hands against our hearts. Come, I will have thee; but, by this light, I take thee for pity."

Beatrice: "I would not deny you; but, by this good day, I yield upon great persuasion; and partly to save your life, for I was told you were in a consumption."

Beatrice is such a wonderful character. She herself deserves an individual review. She's smart, feisty, independent, and despite (or perhaps because of) her sharp wit, she has a loving heart. I loved her unwavering loyalty towards Hero, especially when the latter was in a really difficult situation. I applauded her passionate "O God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace" directed towards the treacherous evildoer. Did I mention she's beautiful? Apparently not, but Benedick did when he confessed that "she exceeds her (Hero) as much in beauty as the first of May doth the last of December."

After watching the movie adaptation of "Much Ado About Nothing," every time I return to this play, I always envision Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh as Beatrice and Benedick.

And special props to Dogberry for saving the day, despite his apparent lack of skills and being, well, an ass, as officially stated (though not written down) on his own demand.

"O that he were here to write me down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass."

And since this is a comedy, "all's well that ends well," though it's just another story, and the final scene is filled with the celebration of love and the affirmation of life. So, "sigh no more my ladies. Men were deceivers ever..."

**In the current review: Why is the good daughter the dead daughter?**

**Who is Shakespeare's person of interest?**
It is the one who throws their heart into the sea. Someone who does not wait for events but is the cause of their occurrence. And these events do not necessarily mean the resolution of a narrative knot; rather, they can be something abstract and mental. Examples of the first case are numerous. Shakespeare's characters are constantly deceiving and being deceived. Through disguise and the use of masks, by hiding in a place and listening to words that should not be heard, and by speaking loudly to ensure that the right person hears. Without trickery and shrewdness, even in the presence of magic, drama does not emerge. But the introduction of a new plot is not only on the level of events but also occurs simultaneously in the language itself. The one who throws their heart into the sea is the one who, instead of passively waiting and enduring, tries to divert it from the ordinary path. This is why comedies are full of wit and witticisms. Naturally witty characters are of fundamental importance as they are the ones who take the pure and simple text and produce a complex and ambiguous one. The present respondent is not one to submit. He does not want or cannot understand the established meaning and instead constructs his own meaning. This is why the zealous person, regardless of gender and social status, is always there to make the language break free from its stagnant shell and take on a new face.

**What is a lot of fuss for?**
At the first level, for nothing. For what has no truth but what the playwright wants us and his characters to believe. But "nothing" in Shakespeare's time also had another meaning that could be of interest and a source of confusion. What is between a woman's two feet? From one perspective, nothing. Because the male genital organ is a sign, and when it is not there, it means nothing. From this point of view, men's claim over women is a claim over nothing. A negative meaning is also at work. Four hundred years ago, "nothing" and "noting" were almost pronounced the same way. The second means noticing, usually through the appearance and with the help of the five senses. A basic method for understanding the external world, which of course also makes many mistakes and can lead to a lot of fuss.
Such games are not limited to this play. [We can see another example in The Taming of the Shrew.] But why? Probably because he himself, like his intelligent and naturally witty characters, is a master of language, a conveyor of messages, and a seeker of error-free and optimal expression. The stage of performance is the only place that allows us to enjoy a language that, due to its confusion, prevents the transmission of the message without us having to worry about its consequences. [How much this approach has maintained its novelty over the centuries is another matter. Even Shakespeare scholars do not have certainty about many of the textual ambiguities of the plays, and it is natural that the general and unfamiliar audience does not have a special pleasure from them. But the nature of Shakespeare's attempt is very creative and praiseworthy.]
Now, what is the connection between these and the story? A war has ended, and the victorious prince and his attendants have come to their united home, that is, the governor of Messina. One of these attendants is Benedick, who, after the real war with the enemy, now has to engage in a different war with Beatrice (the governor's niece). A man and a woman who engage in an endless war of words and insults with each other. Both consider marriage stupidity and a yoke that they will never put on. The story of Benedick and Beatrice is a secondary but important story in the play that bears a large part of the satirical burden. What surrounds Benedick and Beatrice in the real world is deception, betrayal, and death, but they prefer to remain more in the new world created by language and its endless possibilities.
**A cliché lover or a cliché breaker**
Shakespeare's eternal art: both God and the date. Beatrice is an intelligent and brave woman who has, in a way, broken free from the gender molds of her time, and none of the men around her can match her. But she has so many traditional clichés that she has been able to maintain her audience over the years. The governor's daughter, Hero, is the negative Renaissance woman who waits for the prince on a white horse. Hero has an important role in the tragic narrative of the play, but from the few dialogues compared to her niece Beatrice, we can guess which character Shakespeare probably prefers. [In A Comedy of Errors, we also see the opposition of two women with different worldviews in one family.] After being wrongly accused, the governor considers his daughter a criminal and wishes he could strangle her with his own hands. The bad character in the story is bad because he is a bastard, and this is enough for him to take pleasure in harming others without any benefit to himself. If a man is afraid of marriage, it is because he does not trust women and knows that they will quickly betray their husbands, and he will be left naked and helpless, with the sign of two horns on his head, which is a popular motif in Shakespeare's comedies. [Of course, in this case, there is a certain balance because one of the few rhymed verses in the play is a short poem about the infidelity of men.]
A question that we never understand the answer to is whether Shakespeare really wants to be a conformist and, in order not to be removed from the stage of his time, submits to the beliefs of his era, or whether he has no special difference in his personal beliefs from his other compatriots and adds these unnecessary characters as a seasoning to the effect? But the important question - and its answer is just as difficult - is that if Shakespeare were not two-faced and remained faithful to his personal beliefs - whatever they were - would his name still be left in the twenty-first century for me, a Persian-speaking person, to write about?
-------
The end of the first phase of Shakespeare reading.

Rereading this, it dawns on me once more how the banter between Beatrice and Benedick is uproariously comical, bordering on slapstick. What escaped my notice the previous time was the stark contrast between the comedy and the tragedy. This play could have ended as tragically as Romeo and Juliet.

I just had the urge to shake Claudio when he thought Hero was cheating on him. What makes this one of my favorite Shakespeare plays is the fiery zest that exists between Beatrice and Benedick. Even up until the very last moment, they are unable to admit their love for each other. It's truly hilarious and always manages to bring a smile to my face.

I'll be editing this review next week, as I'm going to the Pop Up Globe in Auckland to see this play.

This is the final season for Auckland, so I am really looking forward to it.

I'm also going to Romeo and Juliet, but I'm not intending to reread this, as I have seen the Zeffirelli & Luhrmann versions multiple times. It's one of my favourite plays and the films based on it are also among my favourites.

As far as a reading experience goes, a few of the characters were really painful! In particular, Don Juan, Claudio & Hero. And Act III was very long, which made me start to lose interest. However, I may feel differently after seeing this live.

Edit: I only took a couple of photos and they were disappointing, but I really loved this production. The company added a strong Pacifika twist to some of the scenes, and the ones involving music were exuberant and joyful. I do still despise Claudio though!

The Pop Up Globe in Auckland offers a unique opportunity to experience Shakespeare's plays in a more immersive way. I can't wait to see how this production brings the story to life on stage.

After seeing the play, I'm sure my perspective on it will change. I'm excited to see how the actors bring the characters to life and how the director interprets the script.

I'll be sure to share my thoughts and impressions in my edited review next week.

https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...

“Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more,

Men were deceivers ever,-

One foot in sea and one on shore,

To one thing constant never.”

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare is perhaps his wittiest work when it comes to dialogue.

“He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man. He that is more than a youth is not for me, and he that is less than a man, I am not for him.”

The exchanges between Beatrice and Benedick are timeless. Just like many of Shakespeare’s works, this play comes to life for the reader not only because of the profound insights into human nature but also because Much Ado About Nothing has been so influential. The themes explored in it have been replicated and have provided inspiration for countless works ever since.

“For which of my bad parts didst thou first fall in love with me?”

Leonato: Well, niece, I hope to see you one day fitted with a husband.


Beatrice: Not till God make men of some other metal than earth. Would it not grieve a woman to be overmastered with a piece of valiant dust? To make an account of her life to a clod of wayward marl? No, uncle, I'll none. Adam's sons are my brethren, and truly I hold it a sin to match in my kindred.



The play "Much Ado About Nothing" is a delightful Shakespearean comedy. It has its flaws, like a somewhat cartoonish villain and not overly high stakes. But it also has many strengths. The romance between Beatrice and Benedick is the first believable one I've seen in a Shakespeare comedy. They know each other well, perhaps even had a past fling, and are now in a playfully antagonistic routine. It's a love story that feels real and is a lot of fun to watch.



Beatrice, the leading lady, is a strong and intelligent character. She's more than equal to the men and is clearly the most intelligent and funniest among them. Her falling in love doesn't feel like a diminishment because she pairs off with someone who respects her. As a comedy, "Much Ado" does its job well. As a love story, it's surprisingly rich. And on a character level, it shows Shakespeare breaking new ground. Overall, it's a play that I'm more than happy to recommend.



In conclusion, "Much Ado About Nothing" may not be a perfect play in every aspect, but it has enough charm, romance, and strong characters to make it a truly enjoyable experience. It's a play that shows Shakespeare's talent for creating engaging stories and memorable characters, and it's one that I'll definitely be coming back to in the future.

As I was in the process of preparing to post this review, I found myself engrossed in my next book, Rachel Cusk's remarkable Kudos. It was within its pages that I stumbled upon a passage that truly caught my attention. In it, the narrator's publisher makes light of platforms like Goodreads.

What he had learned, by studying these opinions, was that respect for literature was very much skin deep, and that people were never far from the capacity to abuse it. It was entertaining, in a way, to see Dante awarded a single star out of a possible five and his Divine Comedy described as ‘complete shit’, but a sensitive person might equally find it distressing, until you remembered that Dante – along with most great writers – carved his vision out of the deepest understanding of human nature and could look after himself.

This passage really made me stop and think.

So, I urge you to view the rating not in the context of literature as a whole - for clearly, even sub-par Shakespeare is still far superior to 99% of all other literature - but rather in relation to The Bard's works as a whole.

With that disclaimer in place, I must admit to feeling a relative sense of disappointment with this particular play. This is especially so considering that the two previous plays I had read were King Lear and Hamlet. The title might perhaps be better rewritten as Beatrice & Benedict's Bantz because, aside from that, the plot, as Lewis Carroll famously pointed out, is rather hokey and the other characters seem rather flat. It didn't even seem to contain those 'ah so that's where that phrase comes from' moments that one typically gets from Shakespeare.

That being said, the reason I read this was because my 10 and 9-year-old daughters insisted on going to see a performance of the play. They had been inspired by the verbal wit of Beatrice in an admittedly rather bowdlerized children's edition. Apparently, Beatrice will be played in the performance we are watching by Mel of Mel & Sue 'fame' (no, I'm not familiar with her either).

Postscript: After watching the play, I have to say that this is one that is perhaps best experienced rather than read. The Beatrice - Benedict repartee came across wonderfully. However, even the actors/actresses - particularly those playing Claudio and Don Pedro - seemed to struggle with making the plot developments and shifts of view at the end convincing.

\\n  \\n    Review\\n  \\n
I gave 3 out of 5 stars to William Shakespeare's play Much Ado About Nothing. We read this play in either my 9th or 10th grade English course. It was compared to his more popular plays like Macbeth, Othello, Romeo & Juliet, and Hamlet. It was also something different from his historical fiction plays about various kings and queens. It was a chance to see his brilliance in writing something unique, basically about nothing. Well, not really nothing, but you understand the idea.

This play was decent. I can say this because I've read over 40 of his plays. It's not like I just read a few and said "Eh, it's decent" without having read enough to know. Of course, it's Shakespeare. Everyone has their own opinion about him, basically depending on whether they like this kind of thing or not. Scholars can debate for hours about what it all means, who really wrote it, and what was hidden in the lines and characters. But for me, this was just an ordinary play.

Since I tend to like very character-driven stories or complex plots, this one doesn't rank very high on my scale of what I've read. Yes, the plot is fairly low-key. There's some romance and some issues between couples. It didn't have a great deal of magic for me, like something such as "As You Like It" or "Twelfth Night." Those had memorable characters that you rooted for against all odds.

It's very strong in terms of language, innuendo, imagery, and balance. But as for a leisurely and enjoyable read, I didn't get a whole lot out of it. Of course, all English majors should read it. But if you want some light re-exposure to Shakespeare, I wouldn't recommend this one as a starting point.

\\n  \\n    About Me\\n  \\n
For those new to me or my reviews, here's the deal: I read a lot. I write a lot. And now I blog a lot. First, the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com. There, you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge, and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.

[polldaddy poll=9729544]
\\t
[polldaddy poll=9719251]

“I will live in thy heart, die in thy lap, and be buried in thy eyes” - William Shakespeare's words in "Much Ado About Nothing" are truly captivating. This play is a good, light Shakespeare comedy that showcases many of his typical tropes. There are mistaken identities, smart women, dumb men, fools, gender roles, and marriage follies. While it may not be in the top half of my personal favorites, that's partly due to my slight bias towards his tragedies and histories. However, there are plenty of people who disagree and flock to see this play performed in schools, by Shakespeare companies, and in movies. It's a lively gambol that clearly has its charm.

Some of the favorite lines from the play include: “I can see he's not in your good books,' said the messenger. 'No, and if he were I would burn my library.” (Act 1, Scene 1) This line shows the strong opinions and perhaps a touch of stubbornness of the characters. Another great line is “He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man. He that is more than a youth is not for me, and he that is less than a man, I am not for him.” (Act 2, Scene 1), which plays with the ideas of age and masculinity.

“Some Cupid kills with arrows, some with traps.” (Act 3, Scene 1) is a witty observation about the different ways love can strike. “I love you with so much of my heart that none is left to protest.” (Act 4, Scene 1) expresses deep and unwavering love. And finally, “For it falls out That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lacked and lost, Why, then we rack the value, then we find The virtue that possession would not show us While it was ours.” (Act 4, Scene 1) offers a profound reflection on how we often take things for granted until they are gone.

Much Ado About Nothing is one of Shakespeare’s comedies. I had no prior knowledge of the story, and this was just my second Shakespearean work to read since high school, which was about 25 years ago. The first one was Hamlet last year.

This play offers a two-in-one romance. There is one couple that others are attempting to break apart, and another couple that a different group of people is trying to bring together. I liked it, but not as much as Hamlet. I found the story somewhat predictable, and I wasn't as engaged with the characters.

Claudio annoyed me a bit, and Hero seemed to have very little personality. However, I did like Beatrice and Benedick. The scenes with Dogberry were a delightfully funny surprise. I was laughing out loud at some of the things he said. If it hadn't been for the commentary I was reading along with the play, which informed me that he was misusing words, I think I would have been much more confused by his scenes and might have missed out on the fun. I could have thought it was my understanding that was at fault, as I'm still a bit unsteady in understanding all the language, especially those words that have a different meaning today than they did in Shakespeare's time. The unfamiliar words are actually easier to understand because I have many years of practice in understanding unfamiliar words based on context. The familiar-but-different words are more challenging for me since I'm more likely to automatically read them with the modern meaning without thinking about it.

Almost immediately after finishing the play, I watched the Kenneth Branagh version of the movie. After reading Hamlet last year, watching a couple of the movies added a lot to the experience. This movie was quite enjoyable. My main gripe is that the scenes with Dogberry, while somewhat funny, weren't nearly as hilarious as they were in my mind while reading the play. I was disappointed because I'd been really looking forward to seeing how that was portrayed in the movie. Don John was also played too exaggeratedly for my taste. Otherwise, my reactions to the characters in the movie were similar to my reactions while reading the play, except that I really liked the prince, Don Pedro, in the movie, whereas he didn't make much of an impression on me in the play. The actor gave him much more presence.