Slut Shaming in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing

If there’s any truth to the idea that Shakespeare may have had a good intuition about the English character and that this in turn is relevant for all English-speaking peoples, then it is important that we analyze his embarrassing portrait of men. This is how the brovolution works. We have to face ourselves to improve ourselves.

Important question: was Shakespeare a brother or a bro?

Jay-Z wrote a song clarifying what he considered to be the difference between a sister and a bitch. The same thing is true with brothers and bros. They are not the same. The bro is a hoe version of a brother. But let’s not slut shame. 

Slut shaming should never have been allowed to happen. If people had read Much Ado About Nothing adequately, the lesson was taught four hundred years ago. Because of a slut-shame-based society, the so-called nobles of the play (the prince himself and his right-hand man) are easily deceived and provoked into emotional tantrums. They are so triggered by what they think is a woman’s promiscuity that they all decide and say that she cannot be allowed to live. Then, they learn that she is innocent. The consequence of their ignorance comes close to murder. A young innocent woman is almost murdered because of the fatal logic of a slut-shame-based society.

It has happened too many times in reality to adequately grieve.

Slut shaming is not a joke. But, because it touches on the taboo, humor is going to be surrounding it. Anything that is repressed is fodder for comedy. 

Truly, the play is a caricature of what it means to attempt to be a man in a world with slut shaming. It makes fun of the idea of manhood through a ridiculous representation of manhood. This is expressed in the song that they sing on the island, “ladies sigh no more” the chorus teaches us that men are never constant, always deceptive with one foot on a boat and one on shore. There is an interesting remedy to the existential situation presented by gendered roles suggested in the lines that say to turn that sadness into something artistic through song and dance. It’s a trippy song to say the least. It’s a kind of therapeutic and pragmatic advice. It shows how men are easily deceived because of their fears and how they project those fears onto women. It instructs women on how to deal with the inconstant nature of men.

In this play, men police women’s sexuality, ordering Claudio’s fiancé to death because they mistakenly think that she has had sex with some random soldier. They are deceived by another man with malicious intent into believing that she has been unfaithful. In this context, sexual promiscuity is punishable by death. Her own father says that death is the only suitable cover for her shame. The urgency to police women’s sexuality leads to poor decision making and reveals a faulty belief system.

Amber Rose started an anti slut-shaming movement during the 20-teens called the Slut Walk. Cardi B made waves during the pandemic of 2020 with her pull no punches video for her song, WAP. The bold and unapologetic expression of women’s sexuality is at an all-time high, today in 2021 with OnlyFans and Instagram models. We should celebrate this movement. It is surely the antidote to the woman hating attitude expressed in Much Ado. The effect that women have on men is wild. Celebrating that power helps to keep it in a healthy balance, where repressing it causes a situation so radically imbalanced that a father could be tricked into killing his daughter.

Shakespeare was a brother, but maybe he was a bro, too. It’s not as though you can’t be both. That is one of the paradoxical outcomes of this gender configuration. It’s another layer of confusion that leads to such consequential misunderstandings. We should stop bro-shaming, too.

In a world where the expression of sexuality is more accepted, the consequences of slut or bro shaming lose a lot of their power. Slut and bro shaming is the equivalent of making drugs illegal: it only empowers the destructive side of the equation.

We need to find a healthy relationship to sexuality in our culture and we can start by letting bros be hoes and hoes be bros.

Standup Podcasters Do Shakespeare in My Wildest Audio Production Dreams

If I had an unlimited budget to produce my own version of Shakespeare’s comedy Much Ado About Nothing, I would do an audio production and cast my favorite standup comedians, who are also my favorite podcasters. Choosing to do an audio version would make it much more doable, from a production standpoint. You could spend the budget on the talent instead of special effects. I want to record the entire process of the production to release all of that in the form of a podcast, but also to edit it down to a normal length of a Shakespeare play.

II hate to blow my own horn, but this is a great idea. I know when I have no idea, I can tell when I have some idea, it feels nice when I have a good idea, but I am absolutely certain when I have a great idea, and this is among the greatest ideas I have ever had. Even if it never happens, just the idea of it happening is amazing. I don’t want there to be a visual component. None. Just strictly audio. Maybe photos of behind the scenes, but I want to focus all of the available resources on making the best possible audio experience.

Let me explain. I’m a photographer. So much of our culture has been driven by looks. Even when it comes to our choice of a president, their physical attractiveness matters a lot. But, we exist in a time when we have audio mediums and lifestyles that maybe have more time for listening than watching. At least mine has. I can’t watch shit. I study photos but work on my own photography more and maybe watch some very short videos, but I listen to a lot of content. I’ve only watched the first ten minutes of Kenneth Branagh’s Much Ado, but I’ve listened to the BBC audio four or five times. I just consume more audio. I want to be doing things. Giving my full attention to someone else’s production by sitting, watching, and listening seems beyond backwards.

What we have done for entertainment over the years speaks to our character. We don’t need to be so submissive. Culture can be more of an accessory than a straight jacket. It can be more of a hike to the summit of a mountain than a roller coaster coated in puke. It can be elevated states achieved through fitness and mental practice instead of drugs and alcohol. It is what we make of it, and the new drug Huey Lewis was asking for in the 80s is here and it is called nutrition, fitness and emotional intelligence.

Because I have been consuming more audio than video for the past however long I have grown to know the work of podcasters more than actors. Stand-up comics have experienced a revolution and a renaissance with the advent of the podcast. It is a better product than an edited film. There is an interesting thing that happens when you listen to a podcast, though. It is such a deeper glimpse into a person’s mind than you get through other media. Because it is conversational and unscripted you have access to how this person thinks and responds to things. Then, if you watch their standup comedy special you have a different appreciation for their craft.

Because the podcast gives creative control to the comic it is an infinitely better product. That is the problem with big budget productions. The higher the risk the harder it is to maintain creative control. At a certain point, the payoff stops being worth the investment. It becomes super expensive junk food. But a couple of comics talking about contemporary culture, discussing their view of their industry, heckling each other and the world, this is a better product. Through listening to them simply talk you gain a much more intimate understanding of who they are. 

Another great thing about this idea is the amount of time it wouldn’t take. To do a visual production, you might need half a year. It is going to be impossible to get that kind of a commitment from comics who want to be on the road working on their standup. Try to get Rogan for 4 months to do a Shakespeare play. Go ahead. But, if it was going to take 8 hours, then that would be a different story. If you could do the entire thing in a weekend, or on a Tuesday and Wednesday then that is a lot more feasible. Great ideas have to live within the realm of the possible. 

For Much Ado, I would want to cast Brian Callen as Don Pedro and Chris D’Elia as Don John. Their famous back and forth would make for fun outtakes and behind the scenes footage. I think that if the play took 2 hours, you would want to break it into two days. Four hours for each act would give you enough time for people to riff and heckle and make jokes that are not in the script. I think that Cheeto Santino might make a great Benedick and Whitney Cummings a nails Beatrice. Ali Macofsky could make a great Hero and Brendan Schaub as a powerful Claudio with Tom Segura as Leonato. Bert Kreischer would crush as Dogberry.

I need to think more about the casting. That is the most important thing. Now that I have had this epiphany, I will be listening to the rest of the comedies with an ear listening for who might be able to play each character the best. This is such an fun idea, it could extend to so many different playwrights and bodies of work. This is an entire industry. It is better than an audio book. It is an audio play. BBC did it, but including podcasters in the mix and having the process of the production also part of the fun of it is new. We don’t need to sit down and buckle up to be entertained and to listen to stories that give us the occasion to start a dialogue about things that matter most. Great literature has the power to lead us, and podcasting comedians are the voices we need to amplify their messages.

The Strange Art of Being Human: Narrative Filters in Much Ado

Of all the things we learn to be, the most basic and central category we all belong to is one that is simply overlooked. We are too close to see it. It is the eye we see with. Seeing can’t see itself. The closest we can come to filling in this blind spot is through reflections, drawings, or photographs. These tools give us an abstract representation of how we appear to other people, but they still fail to reveal much about how we see. For that, we need language. We need stories.

The eyes are directly connected to the brain, so everything we see is already being processed automatic as breathing, but the entire organism is involved in vision. What you feel in your gut when you enter a room will influence what you look for and limit what you can see. If you are experiencing a fight or flight response to something that you perceive to be dangerous, that will direct your vision with tremendous focus. You will be looking to resolve the situation.

It is not only what we encounter when we enter a room that conditions a response that in turn affects what we see. We are preconditioned by the stories we believe. We exercise confirmation bias at every turn. So, if we are under the impression that something malicious and dangerous is happening inside a room, then we will enter with a different awareness. When we enter a room with guns drawn, we are already looking for targets. 

This all too human tendency is illustrated in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. It has biblical roots. The first family of the Old Testament is a story of jealousy and murder. Cain’s negative emotions overwhelm him to the point that he sees red and murders his own brother. In this comedic play, the two brothers are Don Pedro and Don John. We don’t exactly know why Don John feels so envious and melancholy, but in a culture ruled by status and shame his illegitimate status is an obvious emotional starting point. As a bastard in a patriarchal society, he is constantly provoked.

Being an outsider also gives the Don a keen understanding of how the system is unjust and can be manipulated as a weapon. Weaponizing the cultural norms can best be done by someone who has felt the pain and experienced the process of being cast out of respectable society. Born into a shameful status, the toxic effects of an honor-based society are like mother’s milk to the Don. His status is liminal. He has power and at the same time is devoid of value. It is as though he is rich with money that is only good in another country.

After enduring the long-term effects of being illegitimate, or what Foos Gone Wild call “years of abuse,” the Don has just finally had it. He snaps. In this mentality we see a precursor to the mass shooter, someone who extroverts their anguish and takes it out on innocent people. Instead of using direct action to express his violent intentions, the Don uses a psychological technique to attempt to ruin his enemies. In private, he speaks in tones that in no way attempt to hide his hatred, but he uses deception and manipulation to enact his evil plans.

Through representing the feelings of the villain, Shakespeare shows us how the way we view the world is determined by our status, by how we are regarded socially. In a patriarchal society, to have no father is an unresolvable lacuna. The Don undoubtedly is a villain and the plot he enacts would have led to the murder of an innocent woman. In his madness, he cares nothing about their lives, their innocence. His own emotional torment and his liminal status block him from being able to empathize. Instead, he uses his intelligence to create a fiction with fatal consequences. 

By framing the fiancé of his enemy, Don John attempts to deceive his brother and to provoke a murderous response. This is pure and premeditated evil. We see the consequences of a society that is ruled by a kind of arbitrary status. Don John is a born reject, a charismatic outcast, a fictional character with millions of real examples. Charles Manson was a Don John of the 60s.

The way we think influences what we see, and this is given its fullest expression in the scene when Claudio is deceived. Having been told that Hero has been unfaithful and is sleeping with another man, he is then led to a view of her living quarters where he sees one of Hero’s servants getting frisky with a soldier. Because he has been fed a lie and then shown a scene that matches the lie he doesn’t investigate further. He sees a figure that fits the fear stirred up inside of him, even though it isn’t true. The story matches the image and even though both are false they convince Claudio that his worst fears are true. Don John in a contemporary setting would be manipulating media.

Why things never fully escalate into murder is due to two interesting and different influences. On the one hand you have a friar who knows Hero well and has seen her grow up from a little girl to become a young woman. His confidence in her is based on a deep understanding of her character. As a religious figure, he has power within a patriarchal society, but he is not a part of the domestic sphere. His separation, his clout, and his understanding of Hero empower him to save her life and to save her father and Claudio from committing an unimaginable crime.

The other influence that resolves the situation before violence is realized is due to the bumbling work of local law officials. It takes very little intelligence to see what is hidden to those “stuffed with all the virtues.” Much Ado About Nothing can be read and thought about from many different angles, and the way the stories we believe affects what we see which in turn determines how we act is a very important one for our contemporary context. 

Shakespeare and You

Is it true that our fantasies of a happily ever after situation is rooted in the language we speak? Should we study Shakespeare to understand our own desires? The contrast of comedy and tragedy in those plays can teach us a lot about our ideals. Comedies end in marriage; tragedies end in death. 

In Shakespeare’s comedies there are many examples of mistaken identities. Think about the ass in Midsummer Night’s Dream. There is a play within a play, but one of the characters is magically turned into an ass. The consequences of misunderstandings in the comedies is light. The worst that happens is people are revealed to be fools.

In the tragedies, one key difference is the motivation behind the misunderstanding. In the tragedies, the mistakes are due to a malicious design. Characters like Iago show us what it is to be driven by negative emotions, to use manipulation to destroy lives. We see Hamlet’s uncle stealing the power of the throne and sleeping with his mom. His uncle becomes his father through a bloody act of murder. In the tragedies, the intentions are evil and the consequences are fatal.

In the comedies, the characters’ intentions are generally benevolent. There is an innocence to the way the characters view the world. They are situation comedies, the blueprint for the modern form, and the humor comes from a harmless misunderstanding. Mistaken identities lead to hilariously awkward revelations of truth. In the end, though, the forces that have led the plot astray are calmed and the narrative comes to its consummation. 

Through the tragedies, Shakespeare asks existential questions about the nature of good and evil and political power corrupting women and men. They are meditations on the nature of power and its implications in fate. The misunderstandings in tragedies are intentional and malicious and lead to death. In Romeo and Juliet, their mistaken view of the world leads to a double suicide. In Othello it leads to a murder suicide. As an audience we know what they don’t, which is what makes their deaths so tragic. They are unnecessary. They are predicated on a mistake.

Hamlet is the tortured prince. Ophelia is the victim of neglect. Othello is the deceived general. Desdemona is a woman murdered for none of her own doing, a victim of jealous violence. Romeo is the rejected suitor. Juliet is the lovesick martyr. The men are wronged and the women are victimized as a result.

Seeing this pattern in literature can help us to identify it as a kind of cultural myth. We hold to these beliefs. By giving them name, we also open up the space for choice. Knowing the difference between options is the prerequisite to making a good decision. If we see marriage as a metaphor, then we can design our lives to accord with our deep sense of comedy. We can create a valuable part of a larger network. Understanding the forms that misunderstandings take gives us a way to envision our own process of awakening.

This is why writers still matter so much. They are able to create models of human behavior that help us to understand ourselves and in so doing to make decisions based on the outcomes we desire for ourselves and our loved ones. Tragedies are in some ways cautionary tales about the corrupting influence of power. The violence of those narratives is motivated by greed. It is through a psychological failure to achieve a sense of contentment, happiness or peace that the opportunity for malevolence appears.

Shakespeare is a study in good and evil, in the full spectrum of human emotions and motivations. In the resilience of characters overcoming mistaken identities to finally fall in love we find the spirit of a culture attempting to satisfy its public. The marriage is one of culture with the people. Everything is metaphoric and can be read as a reflection of a larger reality. Comedy is a culture coming into harmony without the presence of pure evil.

The tragedies show us how incredibly harmful an evil agent can be within any human arrangement. Since we are so prone to error and to mistaking identity even in the comedies, there is plenty of opportunity for a sociopath to manipulate the misunderstanding in a way that leads to violent confrontation and death. Part of the reason it is important to study literature is because it can help us to come to know what is important for us to be learning and why. 

In our current historical moment, we should learn from Shakespeare and be aware of the potential for tragic outcomes even as we search for a comedic relation to life. If we want to marry ourselves to the fate of the ecosystem, then we will fall in love with the process of sifting through dirt.