Much Ado About Nothing Much Ado About Nothing discussion


124 views
Should Hero gone back to Claudio?




Comments (showing 1-37)    post a comment »
dateUp_arrow    newest »

Annemarie Donahue Polina wrote: "Mike wrote: "Dear Ms. Kolatsi,

Your opinion of my character is not of the slightest interest, so it is sad that you spent so much time writing about it. I pointed the way to find out why this is a..."


Most people use this site to get ideas on what to read. Others find it to be a place to talk to people who love the same books. Even more use it as a social place to combine something they love (reading and writing) to finding others they can connect with. And then there are jackasses who honestly just want to be jackasses. This dude is a prime examples of why goodreads is a terrific site, we only get to meet ONE of them, not 27 of them!


message 36: by Polina (new) - added it

Polina Kolatsi Mike wrote: "Dear Ms. Kolatsi,

Your opinion of my character is not of the slightest interest, so it is sad that you spent so much time writing about it. I pointed the way to find out why this is a stupid quest..."


Dear Mr. Jensen,

Although admittedly slightly vexed by your lingering hostility, I congratulate you (sincerely) for your latest comment which I find to be a significant improvement on your previous ones. For there was in it, an actual attempt to say something meaningful and constructive to the topic of this thread.

By your attempted jabbing I gather it would be important to you to know that I am not familiar with Knight's work and that I am also new to the works of Shakespeare. So, I value the input of the people who are so familiar, like you profess to be, to gain helpful guidance, which accounts for my taking part in this thread. It is for this reason that I can extract meaning from our otherwise unpleasant conversation. So once again thank you for mentioning Knight's work to which I will be referring.

As to the hostility-ridden part of your message, I am at a loss to understanding the logic of someone who, on the one hand thinks it's obvious why any one else's opinion on his character doesn't matter but is on the other, so readily giving his opinion on mine by calling me sad. Apropos, you needn't worry about the time I spent. It was indeed very little.

The point of my previous comment seems to have eluded you. Much like the purpose of a public forum or basic civility.

So please block me as well as everyone who takes offence when you insult them or who, you know, disagree with you and then you will be free to go about invading Poland, grow a Charlie Chaplin mustache and instigate a genocide.

Goodbye Mr. Jensen.


Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "Dear Ms. Kolatsi,

Your opinion of my character is not of the slightest interest, so it is sad that you spent so much time writing about it. I pointed the way to find out why this is a stupid quest..."


Oh, I'm in love with you too. Let's get married.


message 34: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen Dear Ms. Kolatsi,

Your opinion of my character is not of the slightest interest, so it is sad that you spent so much time writing about it. I pointed the way to find out why this is a stupid question, as all such questions are, but you have either failed to read Knight's classic essay or failed to understand it. It ended this kind of irresponsible character criticism amongst people in the profession by pointing out the absurdity of it. With any text, characters only do what their creators make them do. It is moronic to ask "what if"s unless, perhaps, you ask them of the author. It is moronic, I add, to ignore the context and values of the time and place where and when a story is written in order to judge it by twentieth-first century standards. Such a moronic question is "Should Hero go back to Claudio." These exercises, these questions, pretty much guarantee you will not understand the story as written because you are so preoccupied with yourself. It may do things for your self-esteem, but your self-esteem is a lousy way to understand literature.

Incidentally, when you write, "I could at this point mirror your own thoughts against Annemarie and say that you have caused me to feel morally superior to you, but instead I will say . . .," you have done exactly that, even though you pretend that you have not. As for Ms. AD, I have blocked her so I shall never have to read her ravings again. I am about to do the same to you.


Annemarie Donahue Polina, the question you ask is a really interesting one on the characters in this book. I have to say that I believe Benedict would not have reacted in a similar manner to Claudio had he learned that Beatrice was cheating on him. The play speaks of not only gender but age differences, Benedict being quite a bit older than Claudio, probably would have been less easily swayed and more apt to do research. There's also the happy war that existed between B&B and SHX left enough evidence (in my opinion) to imply that Benedict did actually respect Beatrice because he knew her. They had been well acquainted long enough to have this little battle of wits.

As for Mike, don't worry he's a troll and not a teacher. Thank universe for the children. I had a blast making weird statements at a person clearly getting riled... I'm just sorry he chose to end it soon as it was a fun re-enactment of MAAN.


message 32: by Polina (new) - added it

Polina Kolatsi Mike wrote: "Ms. Donahue, thank you for your personal attack. It emboldens me to return in kind. I am frightened for your students. They will be ill prepared for thinking about texts when they reach a universit..."

Hello again Mike. I could not have foreseen that my question would have triggered a goodreads feud and for my own peace of mind I would like to point out that, had you expended this much energy to answering my question in a respectful manner- that is, in a manner that was less an attempt to belittle a complete stranger in an obvious self-serving display of pretentiousness- not only would you not have been subjected to an attack by Annemarie, but you would have actually contributed beneficially to this thread.

In replying to your comment to me, I chose not to engage your rudeness, but instead to give you the benefit of the doubt and invite you to share your "informed" thoughts on this play given especially that your only contribution until that point had been: Why would anybody bring 21st century psychology to an old story. The point is behind you, people. You missed it.” Instead you chose to enter a lengthy one-upping exchange with a fellow goodreader, exposing the quality of your character and culture. Indeed your whole behavior begs the question: why would you participate in a thread that you find so beneath your intellect in the first place? Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps an “intellectually honest person” can interact with “Should Hero gone back to Claudio?” as opposed to the question I posed. The point is you chose not to give your views on the matter despite the opportunity.

If you happen to be a teacher, it might serve you to know that your behavior and attitude towards those who express a genuine desire to learn will with mathematical accuracy quash that desire and impart no real knowledge.

I could at this point mirror your own thoughts against Annemarie and say that you have caused me to feel morally superior to you, but instead I will say that in my humble opinion, which I wouldn't give had I not been provoked, you have in this instance acted in a manner that is contrary to the wisdom you, indirectly yet so obviously, claim to possess.


Annemarie Donahue Seriously, this has been the funnest re-enactment of Much Ado I've read and had a blast taking part of. When you wrote "you always end with a jade's trick" I figured you were going to Beatrice's role, which was awesome and leaving me to play Benedict (whom I love as a jester!).
Anyway, thanks! I was psyched when you picked up the role. I tried to message you to get you some pointers but couldn't get through. I was hoping you would go after my avatar too.


Annemarie Donahue Stop sending me nude photos of yourself! It's weird that you can bend into those positions!


message 29: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen "If I'm not upsetting you, you wouldn't write." Ah, then you admit that I have upset you.

I wonder what it is like to be such a bad person.


Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "This has become funny, but not in the way you interpret. Sorry to disillusion you, but you have not upset me. You don't matter enough to upset me, but the fact that you think I am upset and are "ha..."

Oh Mike, your love for me is just too much, too real for me to handle. I'm sorry but this torrid love affair you want to have over goodreads is so strong that passion scares me.
Dude, I get that you love the smell of your farts, but you may want calm yourself down. If I'm not upsetting you, you wouldn't write. I'm loving this because I thought I was writing to a self-important jack-ass-clown, but now I'm a little worried I'm writing to a moron.

Actually, I think I'm writing to a 17 year old with a really bizarre avatar..... I am writing to a 17 year old trolling a book site! Oh my god. I just realized it. Kid, I get you just finished your first college course, awesome. But man you got to find something else to do! Also where did you get the photo, douchebags r us?


message 27: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen This has become funny, but not in the way you interpret. Sorry to disillusion you, but you have not upset me. You don't matter enough to upset me, but the fact that you think I am upset and are "having a blast" upsetting me does suggest that you are pretty messed up. Your own hand against you, to paraphrase Benedick. Incidentally, have I attacked your teaching style before? If not, then why did you say that I did? Incidentally, if your comments here indicate your teaching style then somebody should attack it daily until you fix it. Your students would not survived my Shakespeare class.

That you would run down somebody fairly well know in the world of Shakespeare scholarship without engaging the ideas behind my comments (and, yes, I did engage yours by suggesting that L. C. Knights invalidates this application of reader-response, a way of reading texts that has been largely discredited) demonstrates the shallowness of your position. You are clearly not able to engage on the level that this conversation deserves, and that is why you went all ad hom on my ass.

Look, I get that you can't engage in this debate on the level of ideas. That suspicion became concrete 2 or 3 messages ago. At this point, I am embarrassed for you.


message 26: by Annemarie (last edited Jul 26, 2014 08:17PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "Thank you. This exchange has been a rare gift. I seldom have reason to feel morally superior to others, but you have made me realize that I am morally superior to you. I realize that was not your i..."

I'm not angry. I'm having a blast upsetting you. This is fun. Listen, let's be honest. You were snobbily attacking the idea that people want to apply a reader-response lens to books that they like. I called you on it. As usual you then attacked my teaching style. Why? You're a jerk and therefor limited in your ability to think of responses. Go ahead, feel morally superior, not sure how a thread on goodreads got that for you, but hey man, live the dream!

But please stop asking me out. It's just sad.


message 25: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen Thank you. This exchange has been a rare gift. I seldom have reason to feel morally superior to others, but you have made me realize that I am morally superior to you. I realize that was not your intent, but I won't argue with the results. You may think this is sarcasm, but honestly, it is not: I hope you get help for your anger management problem.


Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "You always end with a jade's trick."

Listen, I get it, you're in love with me. But it's not happening dude. It's just not. I know, I know. shhh... don't cry.


message 23: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen You always end with a jade's trick.


message 22: by Annemarie (last edited Jul 26, 2014 09:53AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "Ms. Donahue, thank you for your personal attack. It emboldens me to return in kind. I am frightened for your students. They will be ill prepared for thinking about texts when they reach a universit..."

NO problem. Have a good day. But in the future please don't talk to me, I don't want to catch "pretentious asshole disease".


message 21: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen Ms. Donahue, thank you for your personal attack. It emboldens me to return in kind. I am frightened for your students. They will be ill prepared for thinking about texts when they reach a university if they continue your sort of thinking. No modern professor will let them get away with this, nor should they. You support a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that Shakespeare's texts operate. It is truly sad that you are influencing teenagers as they prepare for university.


Annemarie Donahue Mike wrote: "Polina, it is impossible for an intellectually honest person to interact with your question. It violates L. C. Knights's principle for asking questions of fictional characters. What I "think" here ..."

Seldom do I attempt to be rude to anyone on goodreads, and I usually try very hard to avoid this, as this is not the site for being abusive to people. We are all booklovers here and should set an example of good behavior on the internet. But I gotta say, man, that's one pile of bullshit you just wrote there. Congrats, you win the internet.


message 19: by Polina (new) - added it

Polina Kolatsi Mike wrote: "Polina, it is impossible for an intellectually honest person to interact with your question. It violates L. C. Knights's principle for asking questions of fictional characters. What I "think" here ..." Thank you Mike, for your input ...or L.C. Knight's. Would you care to enlighten on the "point" to which you referred in your previous comments to this thread?


message 18: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen Polina, it is impossible for an intellectually honest person to interact with your question. It violates L. C. Knights's principle for asking questions of fictional characters. What I "think" here is not possible because I do not think Benedick has a life outside of his story. If Shakespeare did not write it, then it does not matter.


message 17: by Polina (new) - added it

Polina Kolatsi Mike wrote: "To repeat: Why would anybody bring 21st century psychology to an old story. The point is behind you, people. You missed it."
Not that I disagree, but as a point of interest, do you think that Benedick would have acted in a similar way with respect to Beatrice under the same circumstances?


Nathan Gray I believe she should have. Claudio was given false information, that was something not in his control. She probably should have understood this


message 15: by Mike (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mike Jensen To repeat: Why would anybody bring 21st century psychology to an old story. The point is behind you, people. You missed it.


message 14: by Eric (new) - rated it 5 stars

Eric Simmons No. Claudio is a real ass in my opinion, but then so are a lot of Shakespearean men.


message 13: by Val (new) - rated it 5 stars

Val I used to object to Hero's marrying Claudio. He is, not to put too fine a point on it, a real jerk. That said, Hero is not. For reasons unknown to me, she does love Claudio and that she chooses to marry him makes her a woman both kind and forgiving. Perhaps Claudio learned from their experiences to be decent husband material.


message 12: by Eliza (last edited May 01, 2013 07:08AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Eliza I've always loved "Much Ado About Nothing" and I must admit, Hero and Claudio weren't as much of a concern to me as were Beatrice and Benedick. Both Hero and Claudio were not as interesting to me, and the foreword at the beginnning of a copy from the library said they were purposely made that way so the audience would focus on Beatrice and Benedick.
Now, if it were me, bye-bye Claudio. YOu can't trust your own "sweet Hero" just because John (who hates everybody) said so? Wishy washy and not very loyal. Hero was much kinder than I would have been. I certainly wouldn't have gone back.
By the way, the slap was a nice touch in your stage production, Lady. It does give Hero more depth.


Parvathi Rupa Hero's going back to Claudio was something I always felt strange, especially after his unpardonable doubts and insults. But I think Shakespeare is just trying to prove a point here- the inferior status of women in Elizabethan England. Else he would never have written a play that went against his cherished notions of true love ("Love is not true love which alters when it alteration finds or bends with the remover to remove") . Certainly, I felt sympathy for Hero. Claudio's jealousy makes Petruchio's pranks just a good-intentioned joke.


APerkins Shari wrote: "....Kate in "Taming of the Shrew" has a much more difficult switcheroo. I had more trouble with that one."

I saw a lovely production of "Taming of the Shrew" that played it where it was love at first sight on Petruchio's part, and he was essentially showing Kate how to play the world's game - people will leave you alone if you tell them what they want to hear and then you can do or be whatever you want.

One argument I've heard to support that interpretation is that Kate's speech about how important it is for a woman to be silent is the longest speech anyone has in the entire play :-)


Shari Shattuck It's almost a moot point. I've played many of Shakespeare's leading ladies, I'm playing Beatrice right now in a production in L.A. and it's often difficult to justify why the women switch so quickly, so here's the answer, "The play's the thing!" She goes back to him because it pleases the audience, that's what Shakespeare did best. His audiences couldn't read or write, this was a time of big, silly comedy. Kate in "Taming of the Shrew" has a much more difficult switcheroo. I had more trouble with that one.


Mike Jensen Geez, why would anybody bring 21st century psychology to an old story. The point is behind you, people. You missed it.


Candace This was exactly my thought as well. I understood that he was reacting because he was tricked, but he didn't have to shame her in front of everyone on the wedding day. I'm guessing that the way the story is told was realistic for the time period but I think it says a lot about how far women have come that many people would see this differently now. It definitely rubbed me the wrong way when he did that and then was going to marry someone else like the very next day and she was still pleased to have him back. It kept me from really enjoying the happy ending. Altogether though I loved the play!


Alsjem This is my sisters favourite Shakespeare play and consequently I have seen it performed many, many times.

I have always really struggled with the Hero / Claudio relationship and have come to the conclusion that it was a different time so I just can't possibly understand.

I love the idea that one day I will go to a production where Hero surprises the audience by not taking him back!!!


Paul Harmon Claudio was fooled as well. He raged against being made a fool and cheated on. Anyone who's ever been disgraced that way can understand his fury and need for "revenge" (embarrassing her on her wedding day). If Hero cared for him going back to him was understandable. They were both victims who then could stand strong together.


Annemarie Donahue I understand the social pressures and constructs that mandated that Hero take Claudio back, but honestly I think I would have just punched him in the dick.


Chloe In my opinion, that really depends on the production. I think the big thing is how far Claudio goes. If he just sort of storms in, yells a bit, and storms out, then I think his apologies and eulogy for her kind of make up for his actions enough for her to consider taking him back. If the production involves him hitting her, then I don't think she should take him back (even though she inevitably will).


message 2: by Lady (new)

Lady Hero Hi Emma,

I just finished performing in a production of Much Ado, and I played Hero. Since Shakespeare didn't write very many stage directions...I was able to play with Hero's character a little. So, on the topic of Hero returning to Claudio after he disgraced her, what I did is at the last wedding right after Claudio says "Another Hero!" I slapped him accross the face. (a stage slap, don't worry) Then, after contemplating the idea with Beatrice and sobbing, I returned to Claudio. (Since I had to for the play to work) But, especially since we left the play in Elzabethan times, this would have been a huge step for a young lady like Hero, and brodcasts to the audience that she is strong and is not just a puppet.

So, since you asked the question, I thought you would like to hear my take on this. In our production, Hero does get her revenge!


Emma I get that in Elizabethen times that the father chose the husband for his daughter but surely Leonato should of decided that it was better to of not allowed his daughter to go back to a man who disgraced her on her own wedding day.
What do you think?


back to top
all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

Much Ado About Nothing (other topics)