Well, this is another topic that I might have fun with. I guess might is the key word though, I bet this will turn out pretty boring. Anyway, those of you who know probably know that well, I think stereotypes are very accurate. And they are. They had to come from somewhere and be based on some truths and nowadays, most subjects seem to a do a fairly good job of supporting their stereotypes. No further comment.
Annnnyway, back to business. Shakespeare does seem to work quite a few stereotypes into his literature, mostly centered on class differences. Obviously, Shakespeare himself belonged to the middle or upper class for at least the latter part of his life and this most likely gave him strong opinions, valid or not, on the lower classes. In Much Ado about nothing he portrays the lower class as something to be made fun of, to mocked, and possibly to be ignored. The prime example of this is the character Dogberry. He is, well, an ass. From the first moment we hear him we can tell that he is not quite as mentally adept as all of the other characters based on a couple of things. First of all, he continually repeats himself (and others), whether it is necessary or not. This makes him seem like he is trying to get attention or just trying to sound informed. In addition, his dialogue make very little sense. For instance, when he is trying to tell Leonato about Borachio and Margaret, he uses the word tedious as if it is a good thing, a godly thing. It, of course, isn't and Leonato knows this. But he doesn't say anything. This brings up another point, showing how the upper class in the novel looks down upon the lower. He just kind of blows off Dogberry, assuming he could have nothing important to say, and tries to escape as soon as possible.
But there also seems to be a slight stereotype on the upper class. All of them are portrayed as decent, educated people that always have their wits about them. But Shakespeare contrasts this by making all of these characters engage in relatively pointless pursuits of love and similar. This suggests that the life of the aristocracy was like a rococo painting, playful, happy, and utterly useless.
And, quickly, one more thing seems to stick out to me. There is a lack of stereotypes towards women. This was written in a time where women were just thought to be child factories and sex objects but the women in this (Beatrice at the very least) are portrayed as smart and independent. This is quite opposite to the belief of the time and suggests that maybe Shakespeare was 200 years ahead of the game.
5 comments:
SAY WHAT??!?!? Did I just hear (er, I mean, read) what I thought I heard (read)????? Do you really think that most stereotypes ARE accurate? For example, I'm asian so I must be smart. She is blonde so she must be stupid. He is black so he is good at dancing. I must disagree that most stereotypes are accurate. You can indeed say something like that AFTER getting to know an asian, a blonde, or a black person, but before then, I don't think people have any right to consider that stereotype as being correct. Yet I must agree on your opinions for your second paragraph. I guess the way Shakespeare portrays upper and lower class people in his play does indeed give out the message of superiority, and inferiority. (are those words?) Perhaps it is the large difference of time eras (now and back then) that causes this conflict of whether stereotypes can be accurate or not...
~hailey
Although I agree wholeheartedly with Hailey, I do see your point in paragraph one. Though I belive stereotypes are wrong, they are unfortunatly proven to be true by many of their subjects in our culture (as well as media portrayal too, come to think about it...). However, that's not enough to say they're correct. You need better justifacation than "they had to come from somewhere and be based on some truths..." That kind of thinking got us into Iraq, my friend ; ) Anywho, about your Shakespeare bit, well done. You used a great amount of examples to back up your points, and your voice is evident throughout (I love your statement on Dogsberry, "He is, well, and ass." Hahahahaha! Nice work!). Great analysis of how women are portrayed too, but keep in mind Beatrice was only one character out of at least three that the gender stereotype didn't affect. But yea, well done...AAAGGGHHH, TEEEETTHH!!!!!!! ; )
Well since Chris's comment pretty much brings us back to the group debates we had for our scene group, I feel I might as well chime in. Now I agree with Teddy, stereo types are often wrong, but unfortunatley they are often true too. I think that both Hailey and chris are looking at the extremes. While not all asian people are smart, there are a lot of smart asian people. It's the same with blondes, etc. There are those who fit the stereo type and those who don't. The reason we notice the stereo types is because they stand out much more. If we see someone whos is smart and happens to be blond we don't question it and ask how a blond can be smart, we just accept it as normal. If we see someone who is blond and dumb though, this stands out to us and we think, typical. unfortunatley society has accepted stereo types because they stand out so much but if we really stand back and look at the picture as a whole, even Chris may realize that stereo types aren't always true.
O and good job on the rest of your post.
Yeah, man. since you commented on my blog it would be only fair to spread my valuable word onto yours. So, I liked your thoughts on Dogberry. (they were like mine!) And i seem to realize now that there were few sterotypes on women in this play which is odd because of the time. Great thoughts! They were candy for my mind. Oh and kyle is and always will be wrong.
Very nice job Greeno. I completly agree with your view on Dogberry. We was uneducated so Leonato did not feel that he could have any impact on his own life. Now that you have mentioned it I can kind of see the stereotype that is portrayed about the women in the play. Well Done!
Post a Comment