In what ways does this text influence your understanding of Achebe’s use of language and stylistic choices in Things Fall Apart?

The text at hand, despite being chosen for a paper 1 exam, is a solid example for the context of language in Things Fall Apart. 

The author Ngugi structured his writing in 2 distinct topics or sections. The first part being a praise of his language and the ties to the culture and everything that belongs to his language. He discusses about how magical everything felt from creating songs, to education and using it to learn, and the “games [we] played with words through riddles, proverbs, […]”. However, in the last two paragraphs he mentions how “this harmony was broken” with the introduction of English as the language of education. By saying “all others had to bow before it in defence” he clearly states the superiority and might English had over other language, regardless of the fewer english colonists than Kenyans.

This relates to the novel “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe because he exemplifies the importance of language to the Igbo. The constant usage of traditional Igbo words within the text helps the reader understand the significance specific words have in the culture. Along with this, the shared commonality of proverbs in both cultures play a major role in the description of both cultures, as a proverb is a saying which generally holds wisdom and truth. The usage of such proverbs and the extent to which a language can establish such traditional words to create “magical power” assists in determining the intricate structure of the culture and the importance of language within it. Achebe assumably chose to include this because this helps the reader form a connection and better understanding of the Igbo, and the effects colonisation had on them. In addition to this, it gives an insight and plausible excuses for some of the Igbo’s actions in response to the colonial powers settling in their land.

Okonkwo, Tragic Hero

In the novel "Things Fall Apart", the author Chinua Achebe characterises the protagonist Okonkwo as the tragic hero archetype. A tragic hero in the classical sense embodies a hero who "is noble in nature, has a tragic flaw and discovers his fate by his own actions". This is evident throughout the story and there are multiple reasons as to why Chinua Achebe chose to go with this theme.

The portrayal of the tragic hero archetype draws many parallels to the Igbo culture and the progression the story takes. For one, how the story is divided is also how Okonkwo's tale is divided. By this it is meant that the first part of the book establishes Okonkwo and the Igbo culture. The second part is when there is a turning point and Okonkwo is faced with serious trouble as he is exiled and the colonisers begin to spread across Igboland breaking down that culture. The third and last section of the book ventures through the end of Okonkwo as he kills the messenger and the broken Igbo culture does not support him, leading to his demise and also the end of the old Igbo culture. 

However, this is not the only point that can be made. The fact this this man not only impersonates, but also opposes the classical Igbo traditions is also an important factor as to why Achebe chose to characterise him the way he is. In many ways, he is the perfect Igbo man who owns a big farm, has a family, is wealthy and has titles to carry in honour. Nonetheless, his impatience and fear of failure are also his greatest enemy. The fact that he is flawed in this sense keeps the reader hooked onto this character and almost feel pity for him, as all he fights for diminishes in an instant and all of his culture and what he stood for deserts him to end the old ways, and open up to a westernised "new Igboland".

The Royal Colonial Institute Speech

Dear members, dear attendees, dear friends.

Today is a special day, a celebrated day of the year. Today is our annual dinner of the Royal Colonial Institute, of which I am beyond grateful and thankful to be a part of. We celebrate our achievements which we have accumulated throughout this year, and I am here to address a rather tendentious topic. We have colonies all over the world which have brought us where we are today. Nonetheless, there is one colony at hand which I would be honoured to discuss with you on this day.

Let me indulge you on a journey down to North-Western Africa. Just south of the Sahara, we have - yet another - colony. The Igbo culture. Over recent time, I have been informed discomfort with the existing colonialists present in Igboland. These reports did not settle, therefore I decided for myself to personally witness this at hand and draw conclusions from there. The reports did not disappoint.

I have made it my mission to get to know these people, to understand them. And so I did. The Igbo people were few of the kindest, open and accepting people I have ever come across in my lifetime. Yet to see them being mistreated to this extent makes my heart bleed.

How would you feel if - despite your acceptance of a new culture - had your own torn from you? They love their culture, and this intricate culture means everything to them. What do we do? We strip this from them, not even taking into consideration any possible harm we are causing them.

There is one other flaw we have. May I ask who of you knows how many cultures the Igbo consists of? I bet none of you know. In fact, I count on it. The culture consists of many many villages and is one of the most diverse cultures around the world. Each village has their own traditions and ways of living. We're classifying them as one Nigeria. Is thar morally correct in your opinion? Is this just?

I don't expect you to discuss this with me, I do however expect you to take this to heart. Not just to heart, but to think about this too. I ask you to do something about it. They embrace Christianity without a problem, they want to implement ideas, so why forcefully mistreat them to do what we want, instead of helping them fuse our cultures together as one?

Achebe Interview

For the discussion during Wednesday's class, an important take away was mostly the depiction of coloured people in literature of the western societies. To explain this, Achebe describes how africans were used in western literature and were described as savages and weren't given human properties such as a caring personality or being kind. Instead, they were uncaring animals nearly who were not ever given proper character and were mostly antagonised by the likes of Joseph Conrad amongst others.

A general idea the group used as a discussion point was the usage of English as a form of resistance, like discussed previously in Topic 3, Language, Power and Resistance. We had questions such as "Why do you think African's couldn't use English as a form of resistance in literature prior to the midst of the 20th century?". We used arguments to point out the possibility of ever publishing only arising at that point in time and the fact that independencies occurred around that time. In relation to this general idea, we also, again, discussed the idea that English can be used as a form of resistance. One argument for this was that if the suppressed are able to communicate and speak the language of the suppressor, then there is nothing for the suppressors to hold them above the suppressed, nothing that makes them more powerful in a non-violent way. I believe these ideas are quite interesting due to the fact that something as simple and non-physical such as language can have such a massive effect on colonisers and their usage of power.

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.