Coriolanus Characterization

Looking on how Shakespeare has characterized Coriolanus in Act 1, I find it very interesting when we it’s broken down and specifically looked at in specific detail. This relates to the last lesson we had and looked at how Shakespeare used Gods of ancient Greek history and put some of their characteristics into Coriolanus especially one common thing between them all (THEY DIE). That was one of many ways Shakespeare has shown us who Coriolanus is in Act 1.

Coriolanus in war in my opinion was very complicated and hard to understand as he started of by giving an empowering speech that shows us his leadership as well as him crying while saying it and as well as that he was motivating his soldiers. However, later after the war his mood turned from good to bad as he raged at the soldiers and took away everything good he said to them by pointing out their mistakes and poor performance in the battlefield, this can show the seriousness of Coriolanus as well as him being short tempered. These were all different ways that Shakespeare has used to characterize Coriolanus in the first Act.

Many of these characteristics of Coriolanus has began conflicts with many people especially the public as we have seen that he was the most hated by the public and was protested against more then once, even having one of the citizens expressing the idea of killing him. Adding on to that is the way the protesters were all angry with Coriolanus when he came out and called them names, and offended them, etc. And looking at that specific trait it was one of the main reasons to get him banished out of Rome for good as he disrespected its people and lied to them which is another characteristic that we get introduced to.

In the first Act Shakespeare has given an idea of who Coriolanus is, however he didn’t easily lay out his characteristics at once, he kept them all in different parts in the act so as it progresses the audience understand and know more about the true identity of Coriolanus. Furthermore, as we get to know more about Coriolanus’s characteristics the conflicts can be occurring with that, and we can see more of Coriolanus characteristics during battles, etc. That shows how shakspheare has created an outline that gives us detail and introduces us to Coriolanus as a character and not in one scene but, over a full Act we get to know more and more about Coriolanus.

Cheers Shakespeare, you did well!!

Bell Hooks

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.

This quote can say a lot and show how the use of a specific vernacular (in this case the black vernacular) can be objectified and offended as this is a way of communication to specific people, and the fact that they can't use their own vernacular (accent) to talk and write can affect them. The reason why is that they might not know how to use standardized english and that's not fair for them as their vernacular is different and cannot be controlled by the opposers who create it as way to humiliate and shame, etc.

That shouldn't be the case happening in this situation as this might be seen as racism as a specific vernacular spoken specifically by the black people is being blocked and rejected. However, as the the author (Bell Hooks) has quoted in the passage above, "Using the vernacular means that translation into standard English may be needed if one wishes to reach a more inclusive audience." This shows how black people aren't allowed to use their own vernacular to connect to the audience and that if they want to connect more to the audience they have to use white peoples english in other words "standardized english". 

In my opinion this shouldn't be a common thing to be done, which is having the African Americans forced into using one specific vernacular which isn't theres that they feel comfortable using just to connect with the audience, I don't find that equally fair to those who can't speak it or write it, how will they be able to connect to the audience or should they not? Looking back at what Bell Hooks said, "It has been hardest to integrate black vernacular in writing particularly for academic journals." This shows that even without writing for academic journals Black vernacular is still hard to integrate, even though it doesn't need to be understood by all audiences and understood by a specific audience which do understand black vernacular. It shouldn't and should never have been translated into standard english. Because who said most of the audience could integrate it? (;

Alterity & Subaltern

  As we discussed today in class we looked at post-colonialism methods such as; Hegemony, Diaspora, Essentialism, etc. And we had to link it to the two readings that were recently given to us "Curious George" and "Why My Mother Can't Speak English". These two readings were given as they concentrate on these traits and methods and can easily be linked to them.

The method I decided to use was "Alterity & Subaltern" I found this method to be very interesting as it doesn't only link to the readings but it also links to our society itself. Alterirty & Subaltren means that people are marked by otherness, where difference in skin colour, geography, sex, sexual orientation, and other historical and biological markers of difference are socio-politically discoursed. That was shown in both stories but in my opinion it mostly stood out in "Curious