Much Ado About Nothing: Love’s Labor’s Won?

Last month, the Royal Shakespeare Company opened a duet of plays, Love’s Labor’s Lost and Much Ado About Nothing. Only the RSC isn’t promoting the two plays as that bill. Instead, they are presenting Much Ado as Love’s Labor’s Won.

Now for those who don’t remember, Love’s Labor’s Won is a play referenced in 1598 in a book that mentions both Lost and Won as being by Shakespeare. Its text has never been found, though. Many consider it a lost play, while some critics have claimed it is an alternate title for another play (much like how some critics believe the original performance title of Richard III was Buckingham, and the subtitle of Twelfth Night is “What You Will”), with the most popular suspects being Troilus and Cressida, The Taming of the Shrew, and–you guessed it–Much Ado About Nothing.

Continue reading “Much Ado About Nothing: Love’s Labor’s Won?”

Much Ado About… the Title



In the histories and tragedies, they’re pretty simple: Who is the play about? Who ends up in a body bag at the end? Sure, it’s an over-simplification, but when character names are in the title, it’s pretty straightforward.

[of course, the words are barely on the page before re-evaluation begins… next month’s play, Julius Caesar, takes that little proposition and does a little jig on it. still, you get what I mean…]

In the comedies, dark comedies (the so-called problem plays) and tragicomedies (romances), titles can get a little dicey. There are some straightforward ones: The Tempest, The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and The Merry Wives of Windsor. Then there are the ones that seem more like tone-setters: The Comedy of Errors, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, even Love’s Labor’s Lost.

And then there are the “whaaaa? titles. You know, the ones that are on par with Bob Dylan’s “Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35,” Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog,” and the Who’s “Baba O’Riley”: All’s Well that Ends Well, Twelfth Night, and

Much Ado About Nothing.

Now, we’ve spent much (pun, get it?) of the last week or so breaking down words that tie in with the title.

Nothing, and its homophone (at least contemporarily), noting.

So the title means…

A great deal of fuss or trouble about

  • (in regards to noting): listening or paying attention
  • (in regards to nothing): sex
  •  (in regards to nothing): something of no importance

If it’s the first one, then the title is either ironic or a misnomer; it’s really much ado about not paying attention or listening (because if the characters were more observant, then much of the plot would be moot).

If it’s the middle argument–sex–then this play is reduced to hinging on the sexual act. But this isn’t the case. The only sex in the play, between Borachio and Margaret, happens off-stage.

So then we find ourselves at the end.

A great fuss over something of little importance. And it does make sense:

  • Does the Beatrice/Benedick romance have any great consequence? Not really.
  • While Much Ado may have more references to “fashion” than any other play, in the world of the play, what is commonly seen as fashion–style–is looked upon with relative dismissiveness.
  • Even the war that precedes the action of the play doesn’t seem to have much consequence; none of any name (value) have been lost, and even the losers are reconciled with the victors (rather than being imprisoned or executed).

And yet…

There are life-and-death stakes involved, stemming from the out-sized reaction of the prince and Claudio to what they believe is Hero’s pre-nuptial nooky.

Life and death. That would be great fuss or trouble. But the nooky? We had ruled that earlier. So am I ready to amend my thinking about sweet nothings? No.

I know this is a purely twentieth century viewpoint (look, I’m old, but certainly not as old-school as the Elizabethan worldview), however, maybe what’s of no importance is the obsession on female chastity. It’s the root of so much hand-wringing and obsession in the play. The worst wedding ever. The horns-on-the-brain fixation by the male characters on becoming a cuckold. Even the women are reduced seeing pre-marital sex as bad (remember Margaret’s “heavier” commentary before the wedding).

I’m not saying all women should be or are promiscuous. But maybe what’s good for the gander is good for the goose. There doesn’t seem to be an issue with the male characters making use of prostitutes in the world of this play (and others), so male sexuality seems to be just fine, thank you very much.

It’s female sexuality that’s scary.

So maybe it is nothing. Not the sex, mind you, but the naught, the zero, the hole, that’s of no importance, even if it is the cause of all this fuss.

Much Ado About… Listening

When we last wrote about Much Ado About Nothing, we were using the concordance in our discussion of the concept of “noting” or pointing out something or taking notice.

You know, listening.

Which got me to thinking: is the use of other listening terms (list, listen, hear) as pervasive here as it was with “note”?

The answer is pretty much “yes.”

Continue reading “Much Ado About… Listening”

Much Ado About… Noting (and no that’s not a typo)

Yesterday, we took a look at nothing. At least the meanings and number of uses of the word “nothing” in Much Ado About Nothing. And “nothing” was pretty interesting.

But here’s the thing: there’s more to it than “nothing.”

Hear me out.

Continue reading “Much Ado About… Noting (and no that’s not a typo)”

Much Ado About… a concord dance around “nothing”

OK, so it’s called Much Ado About Nothing. A great fuss or trouble (“ado, n.; 2 and 3” OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 15 October 2014.) about nothing.

But what is “nothing”?

And how important is it to the play?

Continue reading “Much Ado About… a concord dance around “nothing””

Much Ado About … Fashion

Yesterday, we started to talk about the large number of references to clothing and apparel in Much Ado About Nothing, and I alluded to a couple of things that I didn’t discuss in detail before calling it a night. So when we left off, I had just mentioned that the word “fashion” is used more in Much Ado than in any other play in the Canon.

So how many more?

Continue reading “Much Ado About … Fashion”

Much Ado About … Clothes?

As I’m reading through Much Ado About Nothing again, I’m catching more and more references to clothing and fashion. So much so that I started to look for it in particular:

Continue reading “Much Ado About … Clothes?”

Aragon Family Dynamics: Weak Villain, Weaker Prince?

A couple of days back, we took a look at the family dynamics of the family of Leonato, the Governor of Messina, our central family of Much Ado About Nothing. Today, let’s take a look at the other family unit, the dysfunctional fraternity that is Don Pedro of Aragon and his (half-) brother, Don John the Bastard.

Continue reading “Aragon Family Dynamics: Weak Villain, Weaker Prince?”

Messina Family Dynamics: Links to the Past

So we have one major setting of Much Ado About Nothing: the home of the governor of Messina, Leonato, and the surrounding grounds. We do have a few scenes in the town (and on the streets) of Messina, but mostly we’re in the family home of Leonato.

And what of this family unit?

Continue reading “Messina Family Dynamics: Links to the Past”

Podcast 86: Much Ado About… Bawdiness


WARNING: as it concerns the bawdiness of Much Ado About Nothing, the following podcast contains mature subject matter, adult language, and adolescent humor… if you’re quickly offended or blush too easily… just stop listening now. No. Really, this one isn’t for you.

This week’s podcast continues our two month-long discussion of Much Ado About Nothing, with a deep, oh so deep dive, thrusting as it were, into the well of bawdy in the play.

Continue reading “Podcast 86: Much Ado About… Bawdiness”