Tyler Adams

Dr. Butler
ENGL 3319
4/28/15
Much Ado About Nothing
As a writer, Shakespeare is capable of crafting vivid images and interesting and
unexpected characters. Through his writing he makes commentaries upon the nature of society
and social structure, and he frequently explores the motivation of the actions of an individual. In
his comedy, Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare writes two particularly interesting and
contrasting characters, Claudio and Don John. While they may fit roughly into the mould of the
young lover and the dastardly villain, it can be argued that there are unexpected qualities about
these two characters that make them appear unorthodox. Using the Arden Shakespeare of Much
Ado About Nothing, edited by college professor Claire McEachern, we can explore the nature of
these characters and by combining several assumptions made with evidence in the actual text of
the play itself one can determine one method of best portraying these characters on the stage.
Consider first the character of Don John. On the surface he appears to be nothing more
than the traditional villain. Perhaps this is from the late revelation in the play that Don John is a
bastard son, and not really worthy of a title of prince. It could be due to his bitterness at having
no legitimate claim to royalty that he seeks to ruin the happiness of Claudio and Hero. However,
if his bitterness is due to his status as a bastard, why target the young lovers, who have nothing to
do with his status? Claire McEachern makes a possible claim on this, citing the fact that perhaps
his status as a bastard has everything to do with the people he choses to make the victims of his
plot. That the villain of a play concerned with sexual fidelity is an actual bastard seemingly
rationalizes its emphasis on the importance of social legitimacy by producing evidence of the
unpleasant consequences of violating it. (McEachern, 18). Not only does the author assert the

notion that Don John is victimizing Claudio and Hero due to his own internalized feelings of
inadequacy from the nature of his birth, but also that his actions help to drive the play as a whole
and bring home the message that Shakespeare himself is trying to portray with the character. Due
to the overarching plot, and the importance put upon the notion of chastity, Don Johns role as a
bastard and a villain helps to amplify the notion that sexual promiscuity can lead to strife; ...he
is a kind of walking impersonation of the way in which illegitimate sexual activity can produce
social malconducts. Claire McEachern adds, rounding out the argument.
However, in spite of this notion, there is another more predominant idea that can lead to
an entirely different portrayal of Don Johns character. While it may seem obvious to say that he
is a bitter character, and to play him as such seems like a no-brainer, it can also be argued that
perhaps he is evil merely for the sake of being evil. In the Arden Shakespeare analysis,
McEachern talks about the frequency of love sabotage in literature, and how it is often due to
jealousy; Don Johns malignity, however, is motiveless writes the author (McEachern 18).
There is little textual evidence that can point to Don John being infatuated with Hero, therefore
we can rule out the notion that he committed his crime due to a desire to be with her. This means
that Don John is a malicious character simply for the sake of being malicious. This sort of ideal
is shadowed in the melodrama style of theater where the villain cackles, curling his mustache as
he ties a screaming damsel to railroad tracks. It is clear these characters do not seek to be with
these ladies or they wouldnt be tying them up to be hit by a train they seem to merely
wish to cause pain. If we draw a parallel between Don John and a traditional melodrama villain
(in spite of their times on the stage being centuries apart), the notion of playing the bastard
brother of the prince as a character who merely wants to bring ruin with no ulterior motives
becomes more of a believable performance ideal.

If we move away from Don John, a character who, in spite of having two very real and
interesting interpretations on the stage, remains to be nothing more than a villain with no
redeemable qualities, we can look at a character who has qualities both good and bad that are
shown throughout the play. Although he is a protagonistic character, Claudio has been written by
Shakespeare to be well rounded through his mistakes and growth throughout the play. Unlike the
traditional archetype of the young-lover character, Claudio is not as pure as to be expected, and
writer Clare McEachern points this out in her analysis of the play: Shakespeare goes out of his
way to give us a suitor who is morally faint of heart and faith, at a disadvantage in the lists of
love and friendship. (20). While this can easily be seen as true, the why remains confusing?
What is the point of writing a hero if they are anything but heroic? What can Shakespeares
intent be in creating a character that is so initially flawed in his concepts of love? McEachern
makes two more powerful points in her writing, noting how Claudio, after hearing the allegations
of Heros infidelity, proves himself to be easily swayed in his decisions even by someone who
has previously proved themselves to be untrustworthy (Don John). Claudio doesnt even
personally see the act, and instead views it afar off in the orchard (3.3.131). Claudio responds
to the mere allegation of Heros infidelity with a ready plan of public vengeance (McEachern
19). Even before he has a chance to see the truth for himself, Claudio knows how he is going to
punish Hero. Unlike what should be expected of a pure hearted character, he doesnt even go to
his lover in order to seek her side of things against these allegations. With evidence that is like
sand between the fingertips, Claudio immediately makes a scene and publicly shames Hero
before everyone.
At the very climax of the play, one of the protagonist characters becomes almost as hated
as Don John himself. Why write a character like this? Shakespeare values contrast. He contrasts

characters, he contrasts morals, and he even contrasts a character with themselves. The character
of Claudio at the beginning of Much Ado About Nothing is young, bold, hot-headed, fleeting, and
vain. He has not spoken a word to Hero and yet, at the end of the very first scene of the play, he
seems to have fallen madly in love with her simply because of her looks. These mistakes help to
make the contrast of his character by the end of the play more prominent. After learning of the
innocence of Hero, and vowing to do anything to make up for it, Claudio changes his ways in the
most dramatic way possible. Where in the beginning he judged Hero based purely on her looks,
and fell in love with her for these reasons, Claudio, having grown as a character, does the
complete opposite and promises to marry a girl without even seeing her face. This growth is
made more impressive by the initial naivety of the character in the first four acts of the play.
Therefore, the best way to play this character is as a highly dynamic character who grows
drastically throughout the play.
Whereas Don John is a malicious and one sided character the sort of character one can
always trust will do the most evil thing in each situation Claudio grows and changes, and his
actions at the beginning of the play are very different from his actions at the end. This style of
writing shows how Shakespeare can not only take stock characters and use them to great effect,
but he can also add an interesting spin on things to make them different and intriguing to read
about and analyze.

Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. Much Ado about Nothing. London: Arden
Shakespeare, 2006. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Greenblatt. The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford
Edition. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.