Hearing between the lines

Posted on September 26, 2011 by Rikki

In the final act of Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare’s contrast of two sets of lovers comes to a head. “Thou and I are too wise to woo peaceably,” Benedick says to Beatrice. Contrary to Benedick’s claim. the road to Beatrice and Benedick’s union, when compared to Hero and Claudio’s, is decidedly smooth. What are a few sharp words compared to public humiliation, feigned death, and resignation of suicide? This is one of the wonderfully universal and timeless elements of Shakespeare’s writing. Shakespeare has his characters say one thing and display another. We are told that Claudio is honorable and yet he behaves in an unprincipled manner. We are told that Benedick is unquestionably a bachelor and then he changes his tune so dramatically that he agrees to duel his best friend at his lover’s behest. We are told that Margaret is “just and virtuous” and then, two short scenes later, we see her trading phallic jokes with Beatrice’s lover (5.1.305). Again and again we hear Shakespeare’s characters deceive themselves and others with that commodity that Shakespeare himself trades in. While the most immediate effect is comedic, the lasting message of contrasting words and evidence speaks to a larger message about patterns of human behavior. Again we see the relevance of the reception of a Shakespearian play. That the audience is expected to hear the play, asks that they listen and piece together verbal clues. In offering this exchange with his audience, careful listening for comedy and romance, Shakespeare also trained his audience to pull apart the speech of everyday life. The Elizabethan version of “leap frog,” Shakespeare provided educational entertainment, teaching his audience to hear between his lines.

This entry was posted in Much Ado About Nothing, The Taming of the Shrew and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Hearing between the lines

  1. ef082014 says:
    October 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    I like what you propose here, that is if I understand correctly. When you state “the lasting message of contrasting words and evidence speaks to a larger message about patterns of human behavior,” I think you are implying that humans are – naturally – hypocritical and, to a lesser extent, indecisive/fickle. If that is indeed what you are proposing, then I think you raise a very nive argument here. After reading the final act, I was also struck by the change we witness in Claudio. Up until the wrongful accusation at his wedding, the audience really had no reason to dislike the character of Claudio, however that quickly changes. Also, in response to your feeling that Shakespeare “trained” his audiences – I agree with you to some extent, though I feel that it is impossible to know that for sure by just reading the text; we would have to see it performed in its original and authentic setting in order to have a definitive answer.

  2. neilcooperman says:
    October 30, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    I like what you said here as well. I whole heartedly agree, Shakespeare was great at displaying true human form. Staying true to human form, we constantly say one thing and do other things. All the good points have already been brought up, but I believe that is very hard to train your audience. Your audience is unpredictable on any given show. The great thing about plays I believe ties into to the great thing about Shakespeare. Which is you take whatever you want from what you read or what you see. Although for the most part Shakespeare’s themes are congruent and kind of obvious. I am not gonna deny someone’s view of a play if it’s different than the “normal” view.

Comments are closed.