English AS – Write about the ways Fitzgerald tells the story in chapter seven

Write about the ways Fitzgerald tells the story in chapter seven

 

Fitzgerald conveys key events of the narrative in Chapter Seven through a range of methods to foreshadow plotlines, reveal truths and support events. He uses techniques such as strong imagery combined with harsh vocabulary, pathetic fallacy and eyewitness accounts to help convey chapter sevens narrative.

 

Fitzgerald uses methods such as the conflict surrounding the two affairs and Myrtles death within the chapter to foreshadow the ending of the novel through these recent turn of events. We are presented with grotesque imagery to portray Myrtles death used to deliberately shock the reader, especially a contemporary reader whom are naive to such strong vocabulary used by Fitzgerald. Myrtle’s “breast was swinging loose” after her death, the use of this thorough physical description highlights Myrtle’s role within the affair being purely physical and sexual, suggesting Myrtle is a possession used by Tom only for his satisfaction, supported by Tom’s reaction to her death being unemotional and nonchalant, proving his disinterest in Myrtle’s character for any reasons other than the affair. Fitzgerald uses animalistic imagery that “her mouth was wide open and a little ripped at the corners” to dehumanise her character and devastate the reader. Using Myrtle as a corpse “mingled her thick dark blood with dust”, supplies the reader with sympathy for her as she is portrayed in a violent and grotesque manor, which is a complete contrast to her “continually smouldering” character. Fitzgerald refers to the Valley of the Ashes as her blood mingled “with dust”, symbolising that her death reunited her with her home, just as the Valley of the Ashes symbolises death, despair and hope, appropriately fitting Myrtle’s death. Her death also signifies the immorality of New York and the ambiguity which is attached to the place, symbolising hope, whilst also symbolising sin and wrongdoings. This is used to signify Myrtle’s death as sinful, but also the relationship as wrong and inappropriate, therefore, some may argue that Myrtle reaped what she sowed. By Fitzgerald using her death in such a manor, it creates tension within the reader and sets up the novel for the later events in which Gatsby takes the blame for Myrtle’s death, prefiguring even further events in which Gatsby is killed because of her death.

 

Throughout Chapter Seven, the reader is presented with Pathetic Fallacy used by Fitzgerald in order to allow the weather to parallel the mood and tone of the atmosphere. Vocabulary surrounding the heat is used extremely regularly at the beginning of the Chapter “Hot, Hot, Hot”, “Is it hot enough for you”, “The next day was broiling”, “Certainly the warmest day of summer”, “perspired delicately”, “The sun’s getting hotter every year”, “stagnant in the heat” “But it’s so hot” conveying very detailed imagery of a “stifling” day which helps the reader in imaging the atmosphere. Fitzgerald does this in order to create pathetic fallacy as the day is “uncomfortably hot” which parallels the atmosphere being uncomfortable and “intense”, foreshadowing the conflict about to arise regarding the affair and the suspense through our lack of knowledge of the ending as the reader. Fitzgerald uses the heat to create tension as the atmosphere rises and the mood lessens, creating a negative tone in which the reader can understand will symbolise the negative events nearing further into the chapter. Disagreements start to become apparent on a smaller scale such as “but it’s so hot”, signifying that if the weather is paralleling the mood that some disagreements on a larger scale will in turn be revealed. This makes the audience more keen to find out why the weather is conveyed in such a mass and why it is portrayed negatively, foreshadowing the rest of the novel.

The Eye Witness account we receive on Nick’s behalf in Chapter Seven is biased and unreliable as it is a third party source due to Nick’s lacking presence at the scene of the death. Instead Fitzgerald has Nick’s character narrate eye witness events he has viewed from a newspaper “The ‘Death Car’ as the newspapers have called it” proving that this event in the novel may be unreliable and fictitious as this information is third party by the time Nick receives it, so it isn’t the exact happenings which is relayed to the reader disproving the validity of the novel and with this, the reader’s trust within the glorified details of the event. Newspapers have a reputation for sensationalising stories and Myrtle’s death may be the prime example of a fallacious hyped headliner. Newspapers speculate many accounts which would lead the reader in thinking that the falsehood within this story is only to convey the immorality liked with New York, prefiguring Gatsby’s death later in the novel. This makes the reader yearn to know the truth and the legitimacy behind this story, symbolising the ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the novel as a whole due to Nick’s narration and now a third party unreliable source. This makes the reader slightly less naive towards the novel as we are aware that Newspapers signify their tendencies to over exaggerate therefore we are more open minded and not as easily deterred by headlines or other unreliable sources.

 

English AS – Write about some of the ways Hosseini creates the characters in The Kite Runner

Write about some of the ways Hosseini creates the characters in The Kite Runner

 

In the Kite Runner, Hosseini creates the character of Assef as a direct parallel to Hitler, acting as a plot device and the main antagonist. This comparison amplifies his evil through the similarity of Hitler and his hatred of the Jews, and Assef’s hatred of the Hazaras, which is evident as Assef refers to them as vermin ‘they pollute our homeland, dirty our blood’, suggesting that the Hazara race are diseased, unclean and a virus the Pashtuns want to steer clear from. Assef also believes that the Hazaras do not belong in Afghanistan as it is not their home through the use of ‘our homeland’ which proves Assef’s ideas of segregation and discrimination. He thinks that the Hazara blood is different from the Pashtun blood ‘our blood’, showing us that he wants a ‘pure’ Pashtun race, just like Hitler ridding Germany of the Jews. Paralleling Assef to Hitler magnifies his reputation of power and control, as we fear him, just like we feared the malevolent cultural figure, this broadening our pity for Hassan. Hosseini chooses to compare an evil leader of the wars and segregation to his antagonist in the novel as Hitler is well known for his villainous ways, which increases the fear factor of Assef as we question to what extremes he will go, and how racist he will be. Ironically, Assef is not a pure Afghan as his mother is German, just as Hitler wasn’t German but in fact Austrian, suggesting jealousy of both antagonists, wanting to be pure to their homeland so targeting the obvious ‘impure’ characters such as Hassan. Hosseini uses Assef as a plot device, due to the idea that all events that determine Amir’s future depend on Assef, who is only ever presented to us through one view of Amir whom is a biased narrator and we cannot guarantee all information about Assef is reliable especially when we learn that Amir is a writer later in life.  Assef is a character who should be feared by all, pure blood or not, as he is referred to as a ‘sociopath’ and Amir tells us ‘I was afraid of Assef’ which shows us his extreme ways , as does ‘turning the brass knuckles’ as this causes tension, fear and devastation. Overall we not only hate but also fear Assef as his antagonistic actions increase throughout the novel, however there are some whom agree with Assef and his ways as he shows passion and determination for his country and pride in his race, resembling the Taliban’s honour in their country – conveyed in extremities.

Hosseini creates the character of Baba as a hero through the eyes of Amir; however some of his actions may detract this heroic status and even label him as a villain. Baba has many hobbies which are deemed inappropriate and in some cases forbidden in Afghan culture, however this doesn’t stop him carrying out these hobbies anyway.

 

Hosseini presents the character of Baba as a hero through the eyes of Amir, however this hero status could be argued due to various events within the novel. As we hear the characterisation of Baba we begin to paint a picture of a well respected man whom is a large figure in Amir’s life, however we later realise that all the stories Amir hear about Baba, in fact come from Rahim Kahn – his father’s friend. Amir tells us that he dreams about Baba and ‘in those dreams, I could never tell Baba from the bear’ which highlights Baba’s physical appearance being strong, powerful, and intimidating which reflects on his actions in the shop in America. The idea that Amir is dreaming about Baba proves that he is a massive influence on Amir’s life, also showing us the admiration Amir feels towards Baba, however we do not see this admiration be returned in any way and in some respects, Baba acts cold towards Amir and shows a non parental side as ‘he shut the door, leave me wondering why it was always grownups time’. This tells us that Baba does this often as Amir emphasises ‘always’, making us sympathise with Amir as Baba appears to never show Amir affection or even notice him and the use of the declarative ‘shut’ sounds definite, – a metaphor – shutting the door on him paralleling shutting the door on their relationship, leaving Amir lonely. Amir takes this personally and blames himself ‘i think I have saratan’. He believes he is diseased and this is the reason Baba dislikes him and avoids him, however his love for Baba still doesn’t waver and he remains respectful and loving towards his father.  The problem was that ‘Baba saw everything in black and white’ which shows that Amir has noticed his narrow, closed minded, straight forward way of life. This could be why he can’t accept Amir’s differences and wants everything his way, disregarding Amir for a man ‘real men didn’t read poetry, real men, real boys played soccer’ suggesting that Amir is not normal because of his interests being different and not as traditional as Baba’s stereotypically male opinion.

However these negative views only seem apparent towards Amir, as Baba is seen as a well respected figure in society, shown through his fully personal payment and construction of the orphanage, his birthday present for Hassan – the surgeon to fix the hare lip – and his generosity of his wealth in general. However his idea and payment for the surgeon on Hassan’s birthday is seen as a kind and loving thing to do, but could present negativity as Baba is paying to remove an ‘imperfection’, conveying to us that Baba is very conscious of aesthetics and maybe is embarrassed to have a son that has a facial disfigurement which could ruin Baba’s reputation he has gained in society.

Baba is created as a very religious character as he has high morals, however he is rebellious and follows little of the rules he should to be deemed as religious. He drinks and smokes and enjoys these privileges without a worry that he is being unfaithful to the religion, showing many signs of a ‘liberal Muslim’ following the rules to a certain extent. Baba is a character created both to like and dislike at times but I think in total he is shown as a character who that doesn’t have an opinion and lives his life in the ways he wants, not necessarily benevolently or malevolently, he is prnm oud which can be conveyed as passionate but also a flaw.

 

Rahim Kahn is presented in the kite runner as a high status, respected character whom acts as a father figure towards Amir and is the only other narrator in the novel. Rahim Kahn is the first character we are introduced to in chapter one ‘my friend Rahim Kahn’ showing they have a good friendship which is elaborated further to a father, son relationship. Amir tells us ‘I am in his arms, but its Rahim Kahn’s pinky my fingers are curled around’ showing that he may be Baba’s son but Rahim Kahn was his true father figure whom cared for him and was the source of information in which Amir found out all the stories he knew about Baba. He is an aging character as ‘my knees and back were always aching’, ‘with my arthritis, it was getting harder for me to maintain the house’ but he still sustains the caring characteristics he adorned, ‘I did not want your father’s house go to rot’. These kinds of actions are what gains him the respect within the novel and Hosseini chooses to characterise him this way because he is the plot device for which Amir can atone himself and his sins, using Rahim Kahn as a role model and guide to good deeds. Rahim Kahn is the reason Amir tries to harmonies his errors as he tells Amir ‘there is a way to be good again’ which is the motivation Amir needed to carry this task out. Rahim Kahn verifies Hassan’s characters, introduces Sanaubar back to us and tells us things about the Afghan culture and history that Amir can’t possibly know which makes Amir’s narrative have more truth behind it. Rahim Kahn, although being portrayed as a protagonist, may be arguably villainous as he is aware of the fabricated watch plot and the rape of Hassan and chooses not to tell anyone. This could be considered to be in the best interest of Amir and so many audiences may say he was not being selfish and was looking out for Amir, the consequence being that Hassan was ‘the lamb that had to be sacrificed’.

English AS – Fra Lippo Lippy Section Ab Question

Section Aa:

Write about the ways Browning tells the story in lines 1-80 in Fra Lippo Lippi

In the poem Fra Lippo Lippy, Browning uses various methods to convey the narration to us, such as the use of creating a poem in the style of a dramatic monologue. Using this method constructs a first person narrative which helps create a more personal tone, helping us to connect to Fra Lippy more, however it also makes the poem extremely unreliable as we only have one viewpoint from one source, making us question whether Fra Lippi is speaking the truth or not. However Fra Lippi openly admits; “And here you catch me at an alley’s end”, proving he was up to know good, conveying he knows he was doing wrong as he is “caught”, which would be unnecessary if he were doing nothing wrong. The fact that he admits to this crime along with “zooks, sir, flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, makes us believe that this dramatic monologue is rather reliable as he admits to his wrong doings and explains it to us using “zooks” a blasphemous word which is extremely frowned upon in during this time period in Italy, along with the declaration: “flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, acknowledging that he is only human and that he has given in to temptation. Browning has created a blank verse poem as there is no rhyme scheme present within the narration, linking with the comic tone used; together creating a drunken imitated narration conveying Fra Lippi’s drinking hobby. This is also supported through Browning’s use of italics, “If I’ve been merry, what matter who knows?” symbolising a chatty, informal speech reminiscent of a drunken man. Due to the informality of certain parts of the poem, we also see a colloquial tone, again resembling a drunken man with a conversational manner – unusual for a monk who has just been caught doing wrong. There are over twenty exclamatory sentences in lines 1-80 to portray a loud mouthed, chatty, over the top monk, again supporting the idea that he is drunk. This theme is maintained through Browning’s use of hyphens, dashes and ellipsis “Master – a….,  “a monk you say – the stings in that” portraying disjointed speech, mimicking speech from a stereotypical drunken man.

Browning uses the setting “the streets are alive” to draw attention to Fra Lippy’s willpower and present to the audience the pace at which he gives in to temptation. Rhetorical questions are included by Browning to show the monks confidence as he challenges the guards “Who am I?” “You know them and they take you?” “Come what am I a beast for?”, this confidence suggests he is indifferent to his status as a monk and has no feelings towards maintaining this status.

Throughout lines 1-80 we are presented with several semantic fields such as the semantic field of art “I’m the painter since you style me so”, highlighting the subtitle “Florentine Painter 1412-69” prefiguring what Browning is referring to in later events within the poem such as his views on painting and the monasteries views on painting. We are also shown a semantic field of religion as he breaks many of these guidelines “zooks” is used throughout the poem many times, a blasphemous phrase meaning the nails used during the crucifixion – in other words “gods hooks”. This blasphemy is extremely wrong for the status of a monk to use which illustrates his feelings towards the law, religion and his attitude to being a monk on the whole.

English AS – Fra Lippo Lippy Section A Question

Section Aa:

Write about the ways Browning tells the story in lines 1-80 in Fra Lippo Lippi

In the poem Fra Lippo Lippy, Browning uses various methods to convey the narration to us, such as the use of creating a poem in the style of a dramatic monologue. Using this method constructs a first person narrative which helps create a more personal tone, helping us to connect to Fra Lippy more, however it also makes the poem extremely unreliable as we only have one viewpoint from one source, making us question whether Fra Lippi is speaking the truth or not. However Fra Lippi openly admits; “And here you catch me at an alley’s end”, proving he was up to know good, conveying he knows he was doing wrong as he is “caught”, which would be unnecessary if he were doing nothing wrong. The fact that he admits to this crime along with “zooks, sir, flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, makes us believe that this dramatic monologue is rather reliable as he admits to his wrong doings and explains it to us using “zooks” a blasphemous word which is extremely frowned upon in during this time period in Italy, along with the declaration: “flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, acknowledging that he is only human and that he has given in to temptation. Browning has created a blank verse poem as there is no rhyme scheme present within the narration, linking with the comic tone used; together creating a drunken imitated narration conveying Fra Lippi’s drinking hobby. This is also supported through Browning’s use of italics, “If I’ve been merry, what matter who knows?” symbolising a chatty, informal speech reminiscent of a drunken man. Due to the informality of certain parts of the poem, we also see a colloquial tone, again resembling a drunken man with a conversational manner – unusual for a monk who has just been caught doing wrong. There are over twenty exclamatory sentences in lines 1-80 to portray a loud mouthed, chatty, over the top monk, again supporting the idea that he is drunk. This theme is maintained through Browning’s use of hyphens, dashes and ellipsis “Master – a….,  “a monk you say – the stings in that” portraying disjointed speech, mimicking speech from a stereotypical drunken man.

Browning uses the setting “the streets are alive” to draw attention to Fra Lippy’s willpower and present to the audience the pace at which he gives in to temptation. Rhetorical questions are included by Browning to show the monks confidence as he challenges the guards “Who am I?” “You know them and they take you?” “Come what am I a beast for?”, this confidence suggests he is indifferent to his status as a monk and has no feelings towards maintaining this status.

Throughout lines 1-80 we are presented with several semantic fields such as the semantic field of art “I’m the painter since you style me so”, highlighting the subtitle “Florentine Painter 1412-69” prefiguring what Browning is referring to in later events within the poem such as his views on painting and the monasteries views on painting. We are also shown a semantic field of religion as he breaks many of these guidelines “zooks” is used throughout the poem many times, a blasphemous phrase meaning the nails used during the crucifixion – in other words “gods hooks”. This blasphemy is extremely wrong for the status of a monk to use which illustrates his feelings towards the law, religion and his attitude to being a monk on the whole.

English AS – Much Ado About Nothing – Deception

The use of ‘deception’ is a key method by which Much Ado About Nothing is developed as a comedy. Explore how far you agree with this view.

 

Deception is present throughout the majority of “Much Ado about Nothing” as it aids Shakespeare in the production of a romantic comedy featuring large amounts of dramatic irony and lots of conflict. Shakespeare uses deception to both create harmony and to destroy it, leaving the audience with disharmony at intervals of the play, unusual for a romantic comedy. Deception is a key dramatic method which creates the confusion necessary to creating a comedy according to Shakespearian conventions “false clues that lead in the wrong direction”, “overcoming obstacles”, “misunderstandings” and “unbelievable coincidences”. There are different forms of deception which occur regularly throughout the play, all of which contribute to the creation of a comedy.

Though deception is ever-present in “Much Ado About Nothing”, the characters never expect it, however the audience are always aware, creating a sense of dramatic irony, which acts as a method to create comedy within the play.  The play is built on problems caused by deception however the resolution is solved also by deception.

Deception appears as the tool of villains to spread chaos and unhappiness; however deception is also a device used by the male comradery: Don Pedro, Claudio and Leonato in Act 2 scene 3 when they trick Benedick into thinking “that your niece Beatrice was in love with Signor Benedick”. The men do this in order to change Benedick’s stubborn opinion in marriage seen in the protasis that he will “hang my bugle in an invisible baldrick, all women shall pardon me” “I shall live a bachelor”. Benedick states he is against marriage so much that he wants the men to “pick out mine eyes” “and hang me up at the door of a brothel house” which is extreme imagery, highlighting his ‘hatred’ for the themes of love and marriage, which is why the men play to these extreme views, giving Benedick motive to speak of his true feelings, ridding himself of the marriage hating facade. This deception carried out by the men works in the way they had planned as Benedick finds himself revealing “when I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live until I were married”. Benedick is unaware of this deception although it had crossed his mind that it may be unreliable when he counteracts that thought “This can be no trick”, believing the men due to the input from Leonato “wonderful that she should so dote on Signor Benedick” as he is a well respected character being the Governor of Messina, conveying the idea that such a high status figure would avoid the use of deception, making him a reliable and trustworthy source in Benedick’s eyes.

Similarly, the females Hero and her Waiting Women Ursula and Margaret fool Beatrice using the same techniques of deception as their “talk to thee must be how Benedick is sick in love with Beatrice”. This deception is a benevolent form as “this matter is little Cupid’s crafty arrows made, that only wounds by hearsay”, proving that Benedick’s love for her isn’t true but is necessary in creating love.

 

Don Pedro and Claudio devise a plan in Act 1 Scene 1 in order to woo Hero, Don Pedro explains that “I will assume thy part in some disguise and tell fair Hero I am Claudio” “I’ll unclasp my heart”, portraying that Don Pedro will deceive Hero acting as Claudio, for Claudio. This deception is benevolent as it is not intended to harm any characters and has purposes of creating love.

However this plan is overheard by Borachio whom conveys this to Don John “The prince should woo Hero for himself, and having obtained her, give her to count Claudio.” Some characters within the play such as Don John, Borachio and Conrade use deception for no other reason than to create havoc and chaos amongst other characters. Don John uses this new information for his own self gain as it “proves food to my displeasure” creating the semantic field of unhappiness and disharmony, also supporting the idea that Don John effectively ‘feeds’ off of other characters sadness. He acknowledges his malevolency “I am a plain dealing villain” as all he wants is to cause havoc around others. The fact that Don John can admit to himself that he is a “plain dealing villain” suggests that he has never known otherwise and that he is happy that way. Although we think that Don John is just out to deceive everyone, he gives us reason to believe otherwise when he speaks about his bother “If I can cross him in any way, I bless myself in every way” which gives us a whole new view on Don Johns motives. This leads us to believe that Don John’s malicious ways are only for one reason: Don Pedro. Don John is the illegitimate brother, “the bastard” and so it is revealed that he feels unworthy and unwanted, proving that his motives for crossing Don Pedro are purely out of jealousy, envy and with that spite. Don John decides he will tell Claudio that “my brother is in love. He is enamoured on Hero” “I heard him swear his affection”, although this is untrue, Claudio believes this deceit and with that believes that his best friend who is also the Prince would be that selfish and unkind. This creates comedy as we find it humorous that Claudio would trust the “plain dealing villain” who is openly villainous towards most of the characters.

 

In Act 3 Scene 2, Don John professes he has something that “Count Claudio may hear, for what I speak of concerns him”, where he progresses to stir matters by telling Claudio that “The lady is disloyal”, the lady in question being Hero, when in fact Hero is the purest and most faithful character in the play and she is naive to the deceptive lies told about her. This deception in cruel and unnecessary, supporting Don John’s statement that he is “a plain dealing villain”, signifying that his intentions are selfish and prove no cause other than to create disharmony. As Claudio agrees with Don John and declares “I should not marry her” and instead “I will shame her”. This new plan of Claudio’s go’s ahead in Act 4 Scene 1 when he refuses to marry Hero publically, not only refusing to marry her but publically disgracing her “give me not this rotten orange” “behold like a main she blushes there” “to an approved wanton” “her blush is guiltiness not modesty”. Claudio uses cruel vocabulary to shame Hero, conveying her as a prostitute, unfaithful and unworthy of his honour. Don John being the antagonist of the play has succeeded in deceiving Claudio who in turn has cost the reputation of an innocent woman, and almost cost her, her life when Leonato makes matters worse “Hath no man’s dagger here a point of me” as this is the turning point for when “Hero falls”.

 

Claudio has agreed to “marry my brothers daughter” in Act 5 Scene 4 even if “she were an Ethiope” to make up for his sins of ruining and (what he thinks) killing Hero, however what he is unaware of is that he is being deceived by Hero, Leonato and the Friar as they devise a plan in Act 4 Scene 1 “Let her awhile be secretly kept in, and publish it that she is dead indeed” in order for it to “fare with Claudio, when he shall hear she died upon his words”. They will then produce Claudio with “my brother’s daughter” in Act 5 Scene 4 Line 53, who reveals herself to be Hero in Act 5 Scene 4 Line 60 “And when I lived I was your other wife”, uncovering the Friar’s plan and supporting her purity “As I live, I am a maid” . Claudio is oblivious to this deception between Act 4 Scene 1 and Act 5 Scene 4 where as the audience where fully aware of the details from Act 4 Scene 1 creating vast amounts of dramatic irony. This deception is benevolent as it was created in order to portray a faithful Hero’s true purity and innocence. This deception also reunites Hero with Claudio “And when you loved, you were my other husband”, causing Claudio to recognise his sins and properly marry his “Sweet Hero” as Friar planned “This wedding day perhaps is prolonged. Have patience and endure”.

 

I think that deception is a key method used by Shakespeare in “Much Ado About Nothing” in order to create comedy through various different forms. The “merry war” between Beatrice and Benedick is humorous and harmonious, hidden by facades and follies which are uncovered nearing the ending of the play due to the deceit used by other characters in a benevolent way.  Deception helps to present Claudio as a foolish character, who believes in illusory love, and can be mislead by trickery from the main villain of the play which renders the audience in viewing Claudio as a comic unwise character. Although deception is used malevolently by Don John producing disharmonious events the revolution is restored in Act 5 Scene 4, creating harmony, laughter and music –the key conventions of a comedy, conveying that deception is a crucial technique which creates dramatic irony and with that, pleasantry, fitting with the genre of a romantic comedy.

 

 

English AS – How does Hosseini create a sense of hope in the closing of The Kite Runner?

How does Hosseini create a sense of hope in the closing of The Kite Runner?

We are introduced to a strong sense of hope for the future in the closing pages of The Kite Runner as Hosseini uses characterisation, use of time shifts and Amir’s narrative viewpoint.

Throughout the novel, time shifts are used to convey the guilt Amir feels, suggesting events in his childhood which may be capable of changing his future. Hosseini creates a sense of hope through the circular narrative as both his childhood in 1975 and present day 2001 centres around winter and with that snow. In the opening of chapter seven, ‘the streets glistened with fresh snow and the sky was a blameless blue’, giving us some powerful positive imagery whilst using words such as ‘blameless’, prefiguring events which occur later in chapter seven, also being a complete opposite to the key theme within the novel which is Amir’s guilt. This gives us the idea that the guilt Amir feels isn’t present in the opening of chapter seven and arises in the later parts of chapter seven as it completely contrasts the closing of the chapter where ‘tiny drops that fell from between his legs and stained the snow black’ whilst directly paralleling the imagery in the closing pages of The Kite Runner where the ‘park shimmered with snow so fresh, so dazzling white. The portrayal of the snow being ‘fresh’ and ‘white’ symbolises purity and whit that, a sense of hope in atoning Amir’s sins.

We are presented with a link back to the Kite tournament which supports the idea of a circular narrative, ‘the last time I had felt a rush like that was that day in the winter of 1975, just after I had cut the last kite, when I spotted Baba on our rooftop clapping and beaming’. We see that Amir was most happy during the kite competitions as a child so the use of this happy nostalgic event back again shows there is way to relive the past as he uses ‘Hassan’s trick’ telling us he is able to remember the good times as well as the bad.

Spring is referenced towards the closing of the novel which can be depicted as ‘new life’ through both Sorab’s smile and Amir’s new, almost free self as he has recompensed for the guilt he once felt.

The idea that it is set present day shows that the past is behind Amir, he can now look to the future ahead of him which contains uncertainty and because of that, hope.

In The Kite Runner, we are introduced to many places all locating many significant events, some creating a sense of hope and others dismissing this idea. Throughout the novel Hosseini places the characters in many locations which have a range of effects such as Baba in the shop in the USA which is a negative experience and sets the tone as a negative and trapped journey. The fuel tanker shows no sense of hope or survival and back in Afghanistan was unsuitable for them too, however the closing of the novel changes entirely as the USA is shown to be an ‘open’, ‘free’ location where Amir feels ‘alive’ in San Francisco conveying the sense of hope Amir had dreamed of.

We are presented with the narrative voice of Amir throughout the novel using a retrospective narrative. Amir explains his guilt feeling when he remembers the rape and how Hassan was ‘just a child’, however when we hear this we remember that Amir too was ‘just a child’ so how can he be expected to have stopped or even helped Hassan during the rape when he was a powerless child therefore he should not need to atone for his sins and a sense of hope is ahead for him.

The narrative voice is comparable with a circular narrative as Amir finds himself saying ‘for you, a thousand times over’ reminiscent of Hassan, contributing towards atoning himself.

Hosseini also creates a sense of hope through the characterisation of key figures in the novel, playfully subverting the stereotypes seen earlier in the novel. Many parallels are obvious in the closing of the novel such as the ‘boy with the crew cut’ and ‘rebellious t-shirt’ whom parallels Assef’s description, however his characteristics are contrasting to those of Assef’s as ‘he looked at me and smiled. And waved’ – something Assef would have never done, helping Amir feel a sense of closure at the idea that this child may look like him but is very dissimilar in mannerisms, aiding to create a sense of hope and optimism for the future.

Hosseini tells us that Amir is reminded of Hassan through Sorab and his ‘chipped nailed, calloused hands’. This representation is neither good nor bad, just recognition but it does allow the reader to realise that Amir is able to think of the ‘hare lipped boy’ without feeling guilt, just being able to have a memory. The idea that no guilt or shame came from him when thinking of Hassan shows that there is a sense of hope for Amir as he is beginning to atone for what he thinks is his fault. Sorab’s age in present day is almost a direct parallel to Hassan’s age in 1975, supporting the relevance of Sorab and his ever more correlations to Hassan. Sorab’s smile is key to Amir’s atonement as it has been concealed throughout the entirety of the book and only now is it making an appearance, showing that after everything, a smile shows happiness and with Sorab’s happiness comes a future, new life. Amir tells us that Sorab’s smile looks ‘alert, awake, alive’, the use of this tripling has more effect on the audience as it amplifies the complete contrast from the Sorab earlier in the book who seemed diminutive and meek, barely speaking at all. Although Sorab still doesn’t speak, we are introduced to a light as he is ‘alert, awake alive’, acting as a plot device for insight into a light and positive future.

 

I think that Hosseini creates a sense of hope through the circular narrative and the use of Hassan being mirrored in Sorab. We see many parallels direct and contrastingly, all of which help to make Amir realise his atonement and longing for hope. The characterisation of Sorab and the ‘boy with the crew cut’ all help to make Amir feel atoned and with this be able to live his live with a bright future ahead of him, this future carrying with it a sense of hope.

 

English AS – The Great Gatsby chapter 3 presentation

Write about the ways Fitzgerald presents the Gatsby to us in chapter 3 of “The Great Gatsby”?

 

Fitzgerald presents Gatsby to us in chapter 3 using various techniques such as Daisy’s portrayal of his character, Jordan’s narration of Daisy and Gatsby’s past, the rumours and speculation about his character and Nick’s retrospectively framed narrative.

 

Initially Gatsby is revealed through Nick’s vivid description of both his mansion and his lavish party, thus creating a sense of intrigue around his character. Nick uses vocabulary such as “corpse of caterers” in order to emphasise the clear sense of luxury surrounding Gatsby’s character, whilst implying the feelings of mystery encasing his character, “corpse” conveying imagery of a stagnant life, possibly prefiguring Gatsby’s death, or presenting his monetary value as unimportant and lifeless, using alliteration to emphasise these theories. His wealth is evident as Gatsby has “eight servants”, an “orchestra” and “several hundred feet of canvas” enough to cover “Gatsby’s enormous garden”. His influence is apparent as “men and girls came like moths among the whisperings and champagne of the stars” providing a semantic field of fantasy, using an over literary style, presenting us with more wealth and importance imagery such as “champagne” as it is an expensive luxury which Gatsby has access to, along with “a bar with real brass rail was set up, and stocked with gins and liquors”. We are made aware that “on weekends his Rolls Royce became an omnibus, bearing parties”, supporting the idea of his copious amount of money due to his vehicle of choice being a “Rolls Royce” and his over elaborated parties.

 

Fitzgerald uses rumours as a way to present Gatsby to the reader, rendering him as a mysterious, intriguing, almost illusory character. Rumours are speculated about him being “a German spy during the War” said by guests who wish to appear like they know Gatsby creating a sense of mystery. Contrastingly, more rumours spread that Gatsby “was in the American Army during the war” generating confusion and gossip around his character. However these assumption are made into facts later in the chapter when Gatsby tells Nick that he “was in the Sixteenth Infantry” of the War “until June Nineteen Eighteen”, proving that the latter rumour about Gatsby was in fact correct and he was not a “German Spy”. This then makes us believe that the rumour regarding Gatsby being “the nephew to the German Kaiser Wilhelm” is also untrue if he fought the War on the American side; it is unlikely he is from German descent. There are also more descriptive, more vivid rumours “I bet he killed a man” giving us strong imagery as, if this theory is true, changes our outlook on Gatsby. This rumour stereotypically should cause Gatsby to receive a bad reputation as it makes him seem dangerous and unsafe, which could cause his popularity to decrease, however it doesn’t as the audience, along with the characters, are rendered to be intrigued, therefore the mystery as to whether Gatsby really did “kill a man” cause the audience to be more interested in Gatsby and our longing to know the truth increases Gatsby’s reputation rather than decreases it. Most rumours regarding Gatsby are speculating a negative view of him, constructing Gatsby’s facade as the outlook of his character is hidden and obscured by these stories.

 

In chapter 3, Fitzgerald reveals the character of Gatsby through two juxtaposing descriptions via Nick’s narration from his initial meeting with Gatsby being unbiased and non opinionated, compared to the second meet when Gatsby’s identity is exaggeratingly developed. When we are first introduced to Gatsby on page 48 we get a concise description “a man of about my age” formulating that the “man” is irrelevant and unrelated as Nick doesn’t know the name therefore the personality of this “man”. However, on page 49 Gatsby uncovers his identity of whom Nick wasn’t aware, due to the fact that Gatsby openly admits he’s “not a very good host” which is ironic considering the number of parties he hosts and the immense size and responses to them, contradicting his comment about not being “a good host”. Contrastingly, page 49 presents us with dramatic delayed revelation as Gatsby starts the chapter as “a man of about my age” but as soon as Nick is told of Gatsby’s name, we see another side to the “elegant young rough neck, a year or two over thirty”, thus conveying that social status and hierarchy are determined by name and possessions. Nick elaborates on Gatsby’s personality for a total of 14 lines which is not only a complete contrast but also a lot more in depth in description compared to “a man of about my age” which doesn’t even fit a line, Nick tells us all about Gatsby’s “rare smile with a quality of eternal reassurance in it” which is almost comical as we wonder how Nick could possibly know this from the first meeting where Gatsby only says “I’m Gatsby”.  Nick then continues to elaborate on Gatsby’s smile “It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you like you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey”, again strong and powerful imagery is being conveyed about a Gatsby’s smile whom Nick has known for mere minutes. This tell us that in the 1920’s social status was important and hierarchy meant everything, Nick met “a man of about my age” whom until he knew his name was just “a man of about my age”, but as soon as the name was mentioned Gatsby turned into “elegant young rough neck, a year or two over thirty”, which is ironic and pretentious, proving that class and name was the factor that made your dialogue turn into “elaborate formality of speech”.

 

Fitzgerald uses Nick’s indirect and direct observations of Gatsby in order to reveal his true character, his lifestyle and his past to the reader. Nick notices that Gatsby has tendencies to use dialogue, primarily English “old sport” making him an anglophile, a character whom admires England and English people and so uses their dialogue to support his speech. This is evident when they speak about his education and him attending Oxford. We are offered insight into the life of Gatsby through the interpretation of events from the slightly unreliable narrative, composed by Fitzgerald as he uses over literary description of Gatsby “his tanned skin was drawn attractively tight on his face and his short hair looked as though it were trimmed everyday”, highlighting Nicks admiration and adoration for the character of Gatsby, also suggesting hints of envy towards the characters appearance and lifestyle. This idea furthers the literary style and complementary tone of Nick’s narrative, making him a respected but unreliable and invalid narrator. The use of the retrospective narrative implies that Fitzgerald is promoting a bias view on Gatsby that may not be entirely true and leaves us to question our own opinion of Gatsby as the reader

 

Fitzgerald initially presents Gatsby in chapter 3 through his material possessions such as the lavish descriptions of his party and his mansion, progressing to convey the rumours and speculation focusing on Gatsby and his lifestyle choice creating mystery and intrigue centring his character. We are then presented with two completely contrasting descriptions from Nick’s own narrative from his initial meet with Gatsby to his eloquently described introduction with him formulating suspicions around social class and status. Finally we receive Nick’s retrospective narrative which frames the whole narrative, helping the reader observe Gatsby’s surroundings, meetings, guest choice, his own dialogue and Nick’s slowly uncovering feelings for Gatsby producing a sense of envy however idolisation, conveying the true charm of Gatsby’s character.

English AS – How does Bennett want us to view Hector at the end of Act One?

How does Bennett want us to view Hector at the end of Act One?

The discovery of Hector’s motorbike activity (euphemism for the molestation) and the subsequent loss of trust, status and reputation in the headmasters and possibly the audience’s eyes at the end of Act One prepares us for the shared teaching in Act Two, providing us with alternative interpretations assisting us to construct our own view on Hector’s character.

Hector has very strong opinions on education and examinations as he believes “exams are the enemy of education”, continuing on to say that “education is the enemy of education too” proving his dislike and disapproval of them. The use of the metaphor “enemy” illustrates Hector’s hostility and his fight against useless information which he believes is the wrong thing to do in schools. Bennett uses imagery such as “enemy”, causing conflict between other views such as Irwin’s being that “Examinations are a fact of life”, portraying Irwin as a pragmatic, resigned character, accepting that examinations are compulsory and a necessity conveying neither a positive nor a negative view on exams, completely contrasting Hector’s very negative outlook on exams and with them; education.

We see Hector’s usual positive attitude towards life alter “un-kissed, un-rejoicing, un-confessed, and un-embraced”, suggesting that he is unimportant and needs the boys help to stop the deflation of his monotonous life, supporting the idea that “Hector is a man of wasted potential, who is only important to the boys and therefore uses them/ needs them to keep alive any passion he has left for life”. This is highlighted again when we hear that “he is trying to be the sort of teacher pupils will remember”, proving that he would rather be a friend than a teacher towards the boys and using them “to keep any passion he has left” is his way of forming a bond with the boys, henceforth he will be a teacher they remember as he is eccentric and unafraid of the consequences, conveying that he is not all that bothered about the boys education, as long as they enjoy life. We are told that Hector is “a man of wasted potential” as he went to Cambridge but never pursued any further dreams.  Now we are seeing that Hector is advising the boys on making the right choice and not wasting their lives too which does hint towards him caring for their well being, however the fact that he advises they don’t learn the important things shows that he is only really interested in being their favourite teacher and not the most efficient or effective teacher.

 

English AS – The History Boys Essay

Hector is a charismatic and passionate teacher. Yet he is ultimately presented as pitiful and so out of place in a comedy. Explore how far you agree with this view of Hector’s role in “The History Boys”.

 

Hector is a construct of Bennett’s writing, and can arguably viewed in diverging ways, the first supporting the idea that he is a “charismatic” and “passionate” teacher, contrastingly highlighting that he is a “pitiful” being who has achieved no real fulfilment out of life. Some audiences believe that Hector is too “pitiful” to compose a comedy, whereas other audiences have a diverse view that his pity helps to formulate the comedic elements.

 

Hector’s charisma is outlined when Bennett describes him as “a man of studied eccentricity. He wears a bow tie”, conveying that Hector is well educated, later revealing his attendance at Cambridge University. We sense through Bennett’s portrayal of his physical description that Hector is a well respected teacher for both his knowledge and his professional demeanour, maintained during school hours. His knowledge is intensified through his love for poetry and music; for example when Scripps plays “a version of La Vie en Rose”, showing the versatility of his talents proving that Hector’s character is a big influence on the boys lives for them to be skilled enough to play such a unique song, uncommon for musicians of their age. Hector is able to involve the boys in eccentric tasks – supporting Hectors physical description being “eccentric” – such as the French scenes and the content within them. The boys re-enact “a brothel” scene or a “masion de passé” portrays not only the unusual matter at hand but also Hector’s abilities at teaching as the boys know unsuitable but gifted translations into French. This proves that Hector has made an impact on the boys educationally as he has successfully engaged them within the work, whilst making it enjoyable for the boy’s character’s as his teaching methods are dissimilar to other teacher’s character’s methods.

Hector’s role within the comedy is questionable as Bennett presents us with the motorbike scenes involving the molestation of the boys, and in later events; his death, both of which are unlikely appearances within a comedy making us question Bennett’s motives for including him in the play. However, the French scene included in the play is actual comedy, providing humour and supporting the genre of a comedy. The scene rapidly turn into a role play taking place in “a brothel”, using shocking phrases “Voilà votre lit et voice votre prostitutée” translated into “Here is your bed and here is your prostitute”, a phrase you would hope to never find in a classroom. This is humorous as all the boys are involved in numerous ways and Hector corrects not the context of their role play but the content of their translation instead of “I want to stretch out on the bed”, he corrects it to “I would like to stretch out on the bed in the conditional or subjunctive”. This makes us laugh as the character of the teacher is being irresponsible to the boys learning, however when we realise how superior and skilled their French vocabulary is we begin to comprehend that, although this content is inapt, it is to very high quality, proving that Hector’s teaching skills are more than satisfactory and have been beneficial to the boys learning. This French scene is known as a “Farce” within comedy as stated “In theatre a farce is a comedy that aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant or improbable situations disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humour of varying degrees – sophistication which may include word play. Farce is also characterised by physical humour the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense and broadly stylized performances”. We are presented with many of these methods from Bennett like disguise and mistaken identity “I am the chamber maid”, “I am called Simone” which includes “improbable situations” and “deliberate absurdity”, the audience are greeted with extravagance “Ooh la la” which can also be classed as “verbal humour of varying degrees”, especially when we hear two boys say “place your mouth at my breasts and agitate” as the vision of a room full of boys saying these unbelievable phrases is extremely comical. Not only do we see Hector’s contribution towards Bennett’s construction of a comedy, but we also see Bennett’s portrayal of the “passion” Hector exerts towards teaching and the boys education, supplying the audience with verification that the boys respect him and are also willing to learn from him.

 

Although Hector’s eccentricity is respected by the boys, we wonder why his life seems so pitiful. Many audiences contend that his activity on the motorbike in which he molests the boys is completely inappropriate, not just for his character but also in the making of a comedy. I agree with the view that the molestation of the boys is completely unacceptable for the role and status of a teacher, however the boys attitude towards this molestation seems comical as Scripps sighs “I’ll come, sir”, “The things I do for Jesus” making it seem like a chore but accepting it gracefully, contrasting to the shock effect it has on a modern day audience. Hector is presented as a pitiful character as he outlines “un-kissed, un-rejoicing, un-confessed, un-embraced” showing the audience that he has no real fulfilment out of life and nothing important to be passionate about, portraying deflation and “a parody of despair” as Bennett later reveals how his home life is negative “saddish life” and his marriage is uninteresting too “I’m not sure she’d be interested” conveying that the only passion Hector still has for life is for the boys and the motorcycle rides. This amplifies the idea that Hector needs the boys in order to live passionately, generating the audience to come to the conclusion that Hector is too pitiful to make a comedy, therefore questioning Bennett’s ideology.

Hector however is not what he appears as Bennett formulates a facade for his character as we realise that the real Hector is the school Hector, where as the pretend Hector is the home life Hector, showing he lives two contrasting lives as his school life is “appreciated”. This makes us believe that Hector refuses to share lessons with Irwin due to the idea that his character’s time with the boys is precious and valuable and a key role in keeping his character alive. His view on education relates to his lifestyle choice as he believes that “The transmission of knowledge itself is an erotic act” supported through his teaching ways and the activity on the motorbike. Because of this some audiences believe that Hector is not what he appears and is in fact a flawed hero, who is lonely, isolated and pitiful in an empty existence behind the passionate artifice he constructs.

 

I think that Hector’s character is represented as a disguised protagonist who wants to achieve all enjoyment out of life but can only accomplish this with the help of the boys, so he carries out the activities on the motorbike in order to feel this passion again. This makes the audience empathise with his character as he is “a parody of despair” and Bennett conveys that he “cries”, creating a sense of sympathy from the audience towards his character. I disagree that “Hector’s character is so out of place within a comedy”, although he is presented as “pitiful” and lonely I believe that the relationship between himself and the boys is key in order to create the bond we see such as the locking of the door, symbolising the boys and Hector shutting out the world. This helps to elaborate on the volumes in which the boys value Hector as a teacher, which is expanded at the end of the play at his funeral where they celebrate his life and the times they have shared with Hector, resulting in them learning the “game I wanted you to learn”, which was to “pass it on boys”. Clarifying the ideology that Hector’s character has achieved his primary goals; enjoying life and for the boys to “pass it on” proving that whether done in a positive or negative way Hector managed to accomplish the tasks that mattered most to him. Due to this fact I believe that Hector’s pity foreshadows the events leading up to it and eventually his death, making his death a crucial element within the play in order for the boys to celebrate him and outline the good deeds he has attained, therefore, I think that Hector is not “so out of place within a comedy” or “too pitiful” but in fact the complete opposite as I believe these tragic events are necessary in creating the comedic effects throughout sectors of the play.

English AS – Much Ado About Nothing – Aristotle

The use of ‘deception’ is a key method by which Much Ado About Nothing is developed as a comedy. Explore how far you agree with this view.

 

Deception appears as the tool of villains to spread chaos and unhappiness. However deception is also a device used by the male comradery: Don Pedro, Claudio and Leonato in Act 2 Scene 3 when they trick Benedick into thinking “that your niece Beatrice was in love with Signor Benedick”. Shakespeare does this in order to convey that the men are trying to change Benedick’s stubborn opinion about marriage seen in the protasis that he will “hang my bugle in an invisible baldrick, all women shall pardon me” and that “I shall live a bachelor”. Shakespeare has Benedick state that he is strongly against marriage and that he wants the men to “pick out mine eyes” “and hang me up at the door of a brothel house” if he ever fell in love, which is extreme imagery used by Shakespeare, highlighting his ‘hatred’ for the themes of love and marriage, which is why he we see the men deceiving Benedick through extreme views, giving Benedick motive to speak of his true feelings, ridding himself of the marriage hating facade.  Beatrice and Benedick are presented at the beginning of the play, in the midst of a “merry war”, signifying the hostility between the two, and with it, the uncomfortable atmosphere they share “you are a rare parrot-teacher”, suggesting the semantic field of war which surrounds these characters “a bird of my tongue is better than the beast of yours”. Shakespeare uses this semantic field in order to emphasise the feelings Beatrice and Benedick have for one another, supporting the idea of a “merry war” and the tension it symbolises, also using animalistic imagery to convey the resentment the characters feel towards each other, “you always end with a jade’s trick; I know you of old”, this also highlights Beatrice and Benedick’s past relationship, proving that they were once in love, creating a comedy in the sense that they now seem to despise each other, causing a “merry war” and conflict.

This deception carried out by the men works in the way they had planned as Benedick finds himself revealing “when I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live until I were married”. Benedick is unaware of the deception used, proven when he counteracts the thought that he believes that “This can be no trick”, trusting the men due to the input from Leonato “wonderful that she should so dote on Signor Benedick” as he is a well respected character being the Governor of Messina, conveying the idea that such a high status figure would avoid the use of deception, making him a reliable and trustworthy source in Benedick’s eyes.

Similarly, the females, Hero and her Waiting Women, Ursula and Margaret, fool Beatrice using the same techniques of deception as their “talk to thee must be how Benedick is sick in love with Beatrice”. This deception is a benevolent form as “Cupid’s crafty arrows made, only wounds by hearsay”, proving that Benedick’s love for her isn’t true and is just deceit which is necessary in creating what is first seen as illusory love. Beatrice’s character creates a discord in the play as Shakespeare has playfully subverted the stereotypes of women’s behaviour and actions during the Elizabethan period, where they were expected to be subservient towards men and obey their husbands whom they should have obtained at the age of about 12, in order to fulfil their longing for marriage. However Beatrice is adamant that she will not marry or fall in love, proven when the women state that “I know her spirits are as coy and wild as haggard’s of the rock” meaning that Beatrice is an “evasive, untamed mature female who is of unruly and reluctant nature”, showing us that Beatrice does not follow the specific gender roles in which society has allocated, as her character is almost aggressive, creating comedic elements due to her “scornful” behaviour.

Both Benedick and Beatrice convey extreme animosity towards marriage in the opening of the play, which causes disharmony due to the expectations of this society to marry young and be happy, which neither character agrees to, however the audience in the 21^st century can relate to their views as there is no rush for marriage in our society today. Once the deception from both the male and the female friendship groups has occurred, Benedick and Beatrice find themselves professing their love for one another with Benedick stating; “Love me? Why it must be requited”, likewise, Beatrice expresses; “I will requite thee”, this in turn creates harmony and restores order within the society due to the newly announced love which reinstates the stereotypes of the Elizabethan society.

Deception in this form is benevolent as it reveals the truth and reality, proving that this deception is necessary, presenting the audience with humour as harmony is restored. Harmony has now created a union; we question how real the newly found love is due to the immediate reaction and abrupt change in opinion, conveying that the love the two characters feel is illusory, presenting a facade which is created so rapidly it is comedic, proving that the deception is a key method used by Shakespeare to create comedy within the play. By the end of the play we see that the love initially presented to us as illusory, is actually true love when Benedick asks Antonio “Which is Beatrice?” as he exposes his real love for her, in turn Beatrice does the same. This ends the play with harmony and restores the order, as Aristotle said “Deception has the ability to reconcile bitterest enemies”, which is exactly what Shakespeare intended when he created the deceit found within the play. Comedy is created through the harmony which is restored as the play ends with music – a key convention that creates a romantic comedy.

Shakespeare provides the audience with the parallel couple Claudio and Hero whom are conveyed as a complete contrast to Beatrice and Benedick in the sense that they both meet their expected roles, within the society. Claudio’s character proves to be what he seems, creating no illusions or facades, he is described as a “Lion” which elaborates his bravery, power and strength, he is a high status and well respected character who carries war credentials and lots of respect with his name. This provides us with the character of Claudio who could be deemed as perfect and desirable within this society, unlike Benedick, giving him the title of the “romantic hero”. Hero’s character is paralleled through her name as we associate a hero to be the good willed protagonist, which is what Hero can be seen as. She is represented by her beauty, modesty and honesty, along with her high status, supporting the idea that she is well respected, fitting her required gender roles of the Shakespearian society. Hero is characterised to possess these desired traits and upon revelation at the end of the play we realise that Hero is the only character throughout whom remains true and virtuous as she is portrayed at the beginning. Here the harmony is maximised when we realise that Shakespeare has portrayed both characters similarly, both almost perfect and desirable, proving they are a “matched” couple due to “matching” traits, seen initially with Beatrice and Benedick’s “matching” traits subverting stereotypes, breaking required gender codes.

However Shakespeare suggests probable disharmony as Claudio is tentative, uncertain and easy to manipulate, creating a naive characterisation which immediately foreshadows negativity soon to occur, which Claudio is blind to, constructing dramatic irony as the audience are aware of the deception which challenges Claudio’s naivety, revealed further in the play.

Don John, who openly admits he is “a plain dealing villain”, carries out his deception when he tells Claudio; “my brother is in love. He is enamoured on Hero” “I heard him swear his affection”, and although Claudio should know this isn’t true, Shakespeare highlights his vulnerability as he believes Don John, proving he is susceptible to suggestions when regarding his honour being violated. This mediocre malevolent deception prepares us for the main deception of the play where Hero is maligned and suggested impure; “The lady is disloyal”, where Claudio then plans to “not marry her” and “shame her”, without confirmation of the truth. Shakespeare subverts reality creating an illusion, causing disharmony as he presents the audience with the high status characters too naive to see the truth as they are blinded by appearance and what they think they see and not what is really present. This is supported when a vengeful Claudio is unable to see a truthful and virtuous Hero who is so obviously and ironically the only character to be exactly what she appears to be. Here we are presented with a large amount of dramatic irony as the high status of the Aristotle is too blinkered to see the truth.

The only thing that saves the audience from real horror is the Friar’s plan as he can see the truth, providing the audience with dramatic irony as he plans to deceive Claudio using benevolent deception in order to restore the harmony between them. Beatrice and Benedick unite to help restore order, and together they prove themselves to be stronger in order to provide justice and truth along with hope and optimism. These parallel couples provide comedy as they all struggle to see what is real but by the end of the play the harmony is restored and their love for one another is real between both couples.

Although deception is used in Much Ado about Nothing to cause havoc and distress, deception is also used to create harmony and restore order. We are presented with harmony again at the end of the play when the deception is revealed, as with all harmony involving music, laughter and happiness which are the keys to creating a comedy, therefore deception is used in “Much Ado about Nothing” to construct a comedy.