The differences help to distinguish each character and his personality. The character of Claudio is written to be impulsive. His actions are not supported by a profundity in thought and are therefore rash and impetuous. Claudio falls in love with Hero without having so much as a conversation with her. He then falls quickly out of love when he believes her to be cheating on him. If Claudio truly loved Hero, he would cherish her as a human being rather than as that which he coveted. If his love for her was consistent with my definition, his trust in her would have caused him to doubt even his own eyes upon seeing her with another man. It would also cause him to seek out the truth, no matter how obvious it might seem. He should have had difficulty in believing that someone with whom he shared a piece of his soul could so easily deceive him. Instead of confronting Hero privately (which to me would have been the rational thing to do), he chooses to publicly humiliate her and bring shame to her father. Albeit these are not the actions of a rational person, they are necessary to convey the absurdity of the plot. I doubt Shakespeare was trying to achieve sincerity in any of his characters. If he had, Much Ado About Nothing would simply not have been funny.The role of women in the time at which the play was written differs from that of today. As the submissive of the sexes, women were expected to do what men told them and not ask questions. Love allows a woman today to be an avid pursuer and to choose her partner. Hero is the epitome of the acquiescent woman. When her father, Leonato, tells her she is to marry Don Pedro, she agrees. When Leonato tells her she is to marry Claudio, she agrees. Hero seems to have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. In her case, it appears that love plays no role in marriage. The exaggeration of her character is also unreal, which furthers the comic absurdity of the play.Arguably the most compelling of Shakespeare...
