Practice IOC

Link to the Practice IOC on Coriolanus

https://soundcloud.com/cedric-schmitz-659850634/practice-ioc-1


(Little belated upload)

Shakespeare's theme of Power in Coriolanus

In the play Coriolanus by William Shakespeare, the reader/audience is faced with the reoccurring theme of power coming in different forms and styles. We are mostly familiarised with this theme by the main character Caius Martius Coriolanus himself, as the whole plot of the story revolves around him.

The story centres around two main conflicts. The conflict between plebeians and patricians, and the Romans fighting the Volsces. Both of these conflicts are vital throughout the story as they drag from beginning to end and really portray different aspects of power within the play.

Coriolanus being the main character, the contrast between battlefield, and city and capital is easily identified. He is what many consider to be a classical battle hero, yet when it comes to the overall picture, many consider him to be a so called anti-hero. By this I mean that he is a ruthless fighter who is essentially a one-man-army. Extremely powerful and strong, and is able to take the city of Coriolis by himself. Contrasting to this, the audience finds his lack of power within the city and capital. Despite his respect as a war hero, he lacks the ability to convince crowds of common people to support him. He is incapable of ruling a country, as his pride always gets in the way of reasonably solving any conflict.

Most other powerful figures found within the play all have different form of power. The other characters like Volumnia, Aufidius, Menenius or the Tribunes all possess the power of manipulation and talking. They would all be beaten by Coriolanus if physical power were to be compared. Each of them are able to reach out to their people and even convince Caius Martius to do things which principally go against his basic set of own rules.

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterisation of Coriolanus in Act I?

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.

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. 

Link to podcast: https://youtu.be/0cj_1FvirRo

Language is the Perfect Instrument of Empire

As is familiar, the Spanish Colonisation started in the 15th century. The Spanish power and reign was forced upon those who lived in the Americas. Religion, culture, and language were inflicted and forced into the natives' daily lives as the spanish and portuguese have started to settle. As much as religion and other aspects played an important role, the spanish renaissance scholar Antonio de Nebrija once stated "Language is the perfect instrument of empire", after publishing a book of spanish grammar. However, what exactly did he mean by this?

This quote closely links to a quote by Max Weinreich, a social linguist, which goes as follows "Language is a dialect that has its army and navy". This essentially states that stronger languages rule over the weaker languages and dialects, almost eliminating them. As discussed in class today, language is a strong factor for the elimination and/or preservation of cultures. This is due to languages sometimes being untranslatable and unique. This may cause problems as the rapid globalisation forces native tribes to adapt to the expanding and developing world, often leaving behind traditions and cultures as a whole.

Now to link all this back to Antonio de Nebrija's quote. The main goal of an empire is to secure economic zones and to spread a nation's power. This becomes a problem when the area a nation is trying to expand on is already inhabited by an inferior power. At this point it was important to the spanish to understand and be able to communicate with the enslaved volks. How was this done? With the help of Antonio's book. It has helped enforce spanish onto the native tribes, rotting their own language and possibly even losing the language as a whole. That is predominantly what the quote describes, using language as a tool to empower an empire, making it the stronger language, and finally using this advantage to yet again expand one's power.

Advertisers Moral Responsibility

I personally believe that advertisers do have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people. Why so? One of the biggest problems, even in today's society and developed stage, stereotyping is a massive problems. The media, with the enormous impact media has on a society nowadays, it should feel the need to respect and treat everyone equally. However, due to the firms only being concerned about maximum revenue, the consequences and impact on the non-targeted audience is often neglected. Even if possibly unintentional - like in the Mountain Dew ads by Tyler the Creator -, they leave an impression on the viewers of how an ethnic group/race/etc. is viewed or is essentially supposed to be viewed. In the case of the Mountain Dew ads, they display all criminals as black people, which is a clear indication of stereotyping, and negative critic is easily justified. Despite the motive wanting to exhibit the product as something great and superior, racial bias should be considered and thought through. This is just one example found in the US. Nevertheless, ads promoting stereotypes happens everywhere on this planet. Multiple examples can be thought off the top of my head (e.g. a watch commercial generalising women as complicated and always late). To conclude, to help eradicate or at least drastically decrease the usage of stereotypes, the media should feel a moral duty and responsibility in portraying everyone as equal and unique.