Coriolanus is a very interesting character in the sense that he very much follows the "classical hero", yet later on in the play is able to be portrayed as a "villain". It is important to remember that this is a political play. Shakespeare takes a decently clear stance at his main character in the first act, establishing him on two fronts; the battleground, and the city and capitol building. Depending on where the scene takes place, we, the audience, get a clear understanding about his character and how he reacts and deals with certain situations he must face.
The first bit of information the reader receives about him is his unfairness towards the commoners and citizens. He steps out and it is easily recognisable that he does not completely know how to deal with the situation at hand. He is arrogant and angered easily. With further development of Act 1, the audience sees him fighting in battle. At this point, clear indications of his character protrude. He is a fierce and brave fighter. He motivates all his comrades in battle and is willing to do anything for victory. It appears that he is nearly unstoppable, which can be identified by his many battle wounds, yet still taking down enemies and coming out victorious.
On the other hand, the reader comes across Coriolanus's other self in the city. The communicational problems between Marcius and the civilians are extend and are more easily noticed. The reader comes to terms that he is fairly incapable of coming to terms with the citizens. Going into rage fits fairly often, the readers are introduced to the main conflict of the play.
Coriolanus being unable to come to terms with the civilians makes himself the enemy of the city. The people feel unfairly treated, and he quite frankly could not care any less. This causes him to be the enemy in the public eye, even though he is the hero on the battle field.
Monday 27 February 2017
Saturday 11 February 2017
Text type(s) for specific quote
3. It has been hardest to integrate black vernacular in writing, particularly for academic journals. When I first began to incorporate black vernacular in critical essays, editors would send the work back to me in standard English. Using the vernacular means that translation into standard English may be needed if one wishes to reach a more inclusive audience.
I find this quote to be the most interesting out of the 8 we have been given. Not only does this clearly indicate what type of texts to use, but I also agree with it a lot, judging from experience. Whenever we have been given a text in class which is written in "African American Vernacular English", or AAVE, I have come to notice that a lot of classmates struggle to make sense of the text. Even someone like me who has grown up with exposure to numerous accents has trouble reading it sometimes. The heavy oppression of AAVE is likely the cause of this.
We have all likely come across the spoken usage of AAVE, and to most, it is clearly understandable. However, putting this dialect into a written form can be a challenge, especially when trying to reach a broader audience. For this exact reason, there are three different text types which could be of great use to help analyse the quote. The three text types of choice are a speech, a songtext, and possibly a poem. Each are normally translated into prestige english when written down, for everyone to understand. This does not create the full meaning of the text though. A text type meant to represent a culture should be both written and spoken in that language, and if this is AAVE, it should be kept exactly the same, written and spoken. Both songs texts and poems using vernacular English are usually translated to prestige English online, making it more difficult to find the original copies.
One could use these texts to argue that even though they exist, other dialects other than prestige English isn't accepted in today's society. Even though they had such an impact on the majority of people, the language used to get the spoken into written English were mostly "translated" and not helping to integrate AAVE.
I find this quote to be the most interesting out of the 8 we have been given. Not only does this clearly indicate what type of texts to use, but I also agree with it a lot, judging from experience. Whenever we have been given a text in class which is written in "African American Vernacular English", or AAVE, I have come to notice that a lot of classmates struggle to make sense of the text. Even someone like me who has grown up with exposure to numerous accents has trouble reading it sometimes. The heavy oppression of AAVE is likely the cause of this.
We have all likely come across the spoken usage of AAVE, and to most, it is clearly understandable. However, putting this dialect into a written form can be a challenge, especially when trying to reach a broader audience. For this exact reason, there are three different text types which could be of great use to help analyse the quote. The three text types of choice are a speech, a songtext, and possibly a poem. Each are normally translated into prestige english when written down, for everyone to understand. This does not create the full meaning of the text though. A text type meant to represent a culture should be both written and spoken in that language, and if this is AAVE, it should be kept exactly the same, written and spoken. Both songs texts and poems using vernacular English are usually translated to prestige English online, making it more difficult to find the original copies.
One could use these texts to argue that even though they exist, other dialects other than prestige English isn't accepted in today's society. Even though they had such an impact on the majority of people, the language used to get the spoken into written English were mostly "translated" and not helping to integrate AAVE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)