For absolute power of composition, for faultless balance and blameless rectitude of design, there is unquestionably no creation that

will bare composition with Much Ado To what extent do you agree with Swinburnes statement? For many Much Ado About Nothing is not only considered Shakespeares greatest play, but also one of the greatest literary work in existence, its position in the Cannon justified. It is a play in which Shakespeares style can be seen to have matured, the simple characters cast into a complex, intertwined narrative. However the plays real beauty lies in the balance created; whilst many works can be seen to contrast of the main protagonists Shakespeare manages to encourage comparison of themes and characters emotions without necessarily telling the viewer what to think, blending both comedy and sincerity in a way which is captivating for the audience. Out of all the discerning features that distinguish Much Ado, it is Shakespeares masterful use of opposing ideals to create balance within the piece, therefore allowing the reader to scrutinise the emotions of characters, which really marks it out. By pursuing two different types of love; both typical romantic and what can arguably be seen as unconventional true love, Shakespeare can be seen to cultivate this faultless balance within the play. This balance is facilitated by the viewers constant comparison of these two romantic storylines, both being pursued simultaneously and thus forcing the viewer into examining and questioning the very notion of love as well as inviting an examination of society itself. The purported true love is stimulated by the characters of Beatrice and Benedick, with the more unconventional love being between Claudio and Hero. Both male partners retain similar attitudes and positions in society; despite Claudios quick reversal of his views he never less recognises his previous denunciation of marriage, referencing in Act I Scene I that he had sworn the contrary a clear indication of his previous negative views regarding marriage. Once it has been recognised that there is little difference in the progression of the male characters regarding love, bar the timing of their conversion, it is instead their female counterpart who must be examined if the source and effect of this balance is to be analysed. In terms of comparison the two main female protagonists could not be more different, something enforced by the differing language they use and implicitly in the patterns of their speech. Beatrice is the third character to speak as well as the first female character, her wit evident from the outset, being seen to challenge societal expectations foisted upon her due to her gender. In this bold mocking of Benedick she asks is Signor Mountanto returned from the wars? Mountanto being a fencing term, used by Beatrice to comment sarcastically on Benedicks swordplay ability (or lack of). Contextually for an Edwardian audience this would be extremely shocking; despite Queen Elizabeth being on the throne society at the time was still very much patriarchal and for a female to deride a man would be outrageous for many. However whilst it could be argued that this was simply a jest at Benedicks expense added by Shakespeare for controversy, Beatrices later admission that I know you of old suggests previous emotional involvement with him, therefore supporting the interpretation that this mocking hides an actual concern for his wellbeing. Here the viewer sees the contradictions in Beatrices character; her concern for Benedick masked behind a veil of satire and wit. By contrasting this with Heros position as a subservient, complying female, one controlled by her father with a relative simplicity of character Shakespeare creates a balance, the atypical (Beatrice) being compared to the norm (Hero). Heros desires are presented as simple; once she is sought by Claudio she is easily earned. Furthermore her father exerts a controlling influence the line well nice, I trust you be ruled by your father reiterating this expectation. From an anachronistic view point such an attitude appears disconcerting; the phrase trust however shows this to be the expected obedience from a daughter.

This conceited view of approaching a relationship is present from the start of Heros involvement, this deviating highly from Beatrices experience. A similar exploration of different aspects of love is revealed in On Chesil Beach by McEwan, here McEwan denounces the aforementioned typical romantic love, portrayed as being inseparable and synonymous with the expectations of society (as with Hero), instead revealing the raw desires and emotions that have driven Florence and Edward together (as can be seen to be represented by Beatrice). By entering into free indirect discourse McEwan effectively manages to penetrate the emotions of Florence and Edward in more direct way than that available to Shakespeare, the form of the text as a book allowing this more readily than the soliloquies used by Shakespeare. Most notable is Edwards and Florences contrasting thought processes regarding sex. Describing sex from Florences perspective McEwan choses vocabulary such as 'mucous membranes', 'glans' and 'penetration', words with a medical undertone. This gives the idea a sort of surgical feel, the reader feeling real empathy and acute displeasure considering such a procedure from Florences point of view. It is with this that McEwan can be seen to create a balance of sorts, making the reader switch from a state of self-confessed perpetual excitement on Edwards behalf, to a polarised view verging on horror from Florence, this making us question the love that we take for a given between the two. Whilst it would be disingenuous to argue that the methods that McEwan uses are ineffective in facilitating comparison, McEwan can be seen to rely simply on regurgitating his characters internal thoughts to facilitate a comparison, leaving the reader no freedom in regard of examining the respective characters and little choice in making our own value judgments about their relationship. (As all is revealed through free indirect discourse and as such the novel takes on a moral imperative tone, every comparison between the two characters signposted and forced onto us by the unflinching projection of their most intimate thoughts.) Shakespeare however is able to encourage us into this comparison without at any point explicitly asking, the plays natural flow and paralleling of characters encouraging us to do this. That is the real beauty of the play, its effortless, seamless spontaneity (Tanner, 2012), one in which you cannot see the joint or engine, but whose effect and success in encouraging viewers to come up with their own comparisons is clear. As an extension of this balance the play Much Ado can be seen to be a new kind of world (Tanner, 2012) in regards to its breaking away from typical romantic narrative and stylistics; these aforementioned contrasting forms of love ensuring that the play does not overly indulge in selfinflating Lyricism (Tony Tanner, 2012), instead retaining the atmosphere of a comedy whilst leaving the viewer in no doubt of the sincerity of the characters emotions for each other. In comparison to his other works there is very little in the way of swooning sonnets, as in Romeo and Juliet. Here the focus is shifted away from the praises of beauty, metaphors such as She doth teach the torches to burn bright, a poetic exaggeration where the radiance of Juliet is such that she shines brighter than a torch. This sort is instead the replaced with a sonnet claiming that men were deceivers ever more, serving both as a means to foreshadow Don Johns deceit as well as an ironic device; gone are the extended metaphors regarding beauty as seen in Romeo and Juliet and in their place there can be seen both a realistic and cynical critique of love, this juxtaposed against the romantic love of Claudio and Hero. However to argue that this movement away from romanticism leaves the play lacking in terms of Shakespeares distinctive imagery and metaphorical flair would be disingenuous. This can be clearly seen from the language used by both Benedick and Beatrice, their unconventional approach to courtship mirroring their unconventional relationship (Beatrice even noting we are too wise to woo peaceably), the resulting banter (Tanner, 2012) is rich in humour and metaphor.

Following Beatrices scathing remarks during the masked ball, Benedick describes her as a Harpy and Lady tongue, these being both witty and offensive. He then goes on list impossible feat that he would achieve in order to rid himself of this mocking, a tooth-picker from the furthest inch of Asia and a hair from the Great Chams beard, these imaginings clearly employing humour and imagery. Whilst it is clear that there remains a sense of exaggeration and a distinct stylistic flair in his speech, this is far removed from the aforementioned overblown excessive lyricism; Benedicks speech instead poised as wit, what Rossiter calls an impetuous exuberance driving the play forward. Where there is evidence of this self-inflating lyricism, such as in Benedicks soliloquy, it serves to highlight the irony of the situation, overblown language employed by Shakespeare to highlight the extent of change which he has undergone, being one of the only times in the play that the audience see him explicitly express his feelings for Beatrice. In his description of listing one woman is fair, yet I am wellanother is wise, yet I am well the inversion of gives the piece a feeling similar to that used in Romeo and Juliet, her beauty compared to a listed string of extended metaphors such as a dove her lips two blushing pilgrims. However, this is very much the exception to the rule, Shakespeare employing this stylistic as a subtle technique rather than previously seen as a style in its own right. Contextually this can be seen to be quite abnormal for a play whose focus lies on love, the plays lack of gushing romantic prose even causing the play for a while to be known an Benedick and Beatrice. This can be seen to be a far cry from similar works of literature, whose backbone consists of this romantic imagery. Much Ado benefits greatly from this more revised, conserved style with the language being used more effectively than many other romantic comedies. In conclusion Swinburne is correct in his claim that Shakespeares creation is one of the best literary works ever produced, Much Ado having a certain Hardness (Tanner, 2012) that is not present in many of his other plays, something achieved by a revised use of stylistics. Yet to argue with Tanner that this Hardness is not at the cost of emotional development is entirely justified, the viewer encouraged to peruse their own judgments. Furthermore his juxtaposition of characters is second to none, this affording him a balance lacking in many other works, the characters complimenting each other with their opposing themes.