Story of my paper

The story of my paper all began on a boring, run of the mill, Saturday night. My wife and I were just hanging out and decided to watch a movie at home. This naturally lead us into the Netflix trap. After spending a sizable amount of time just trying to choose a movie we both could agree on we finally settled on a little known Shakespeare adaptation starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler. After watching this adaptation of Coriolanus I became really intrigued.  The movie was so great I couldn't figure out why this particular Shakespeare play didn't receive as much attention as the others.  Because of this, and my own unfamiliarity with the play, I decided it would be a fun and interesting play to research.

After deciding on my play I really didn't have any idea what particular aspect I wanted to research. Initially, I thought looking into and breaking down the theme of 'exile' but that idea fizzled out pretty fast. Struggling with research ideas actually turned out to be a really helpful process because it caused me to really read between the lines of the primary text. Coriolanus was always on my mind. I was constantly trying to correlate the play to whatever it was I was occupying myself with. Eventually this payed off one night as I was watching T.V. and John Hughes' classic "The Breakfast Club" came on. All of the sudden the lessons I had taken from Coriolanus were being reflected back at me through the character of Andrew. My Breakfast club post goes into greater detail about these ideas. I began to get great feed back from the class about these parallels and I began to explore Coriolanus as the basis of T.V. tropes. I didn't end up following through with these ideas very long as I became more interested in the Nature vs. Nurture aspects of the play.

As I looked at what was causing me to draw comparisons of Coriolanus and other popular T.V. and movie character I found that it was similar nurturing factors in their characters that drew me to them.  As I did more research of the primary text as well as outside research I found that there was a lot of material to support my claim that the tragedy of Coriolanus was the fault of the peoples cultivation of his pride. However, the more I researched the more I felt that my idea was lacking something. Getting some great feedback from Lauren R. and Britton and a meeting from Professor Burton helped me to refine my ideas one last time.  Through their outside perspective I was able to direct my paper more towards the innovations that Shakespeare was doing with the genre of tragedy. Bringing in my research on Nature vs. Nurture as well as applying Aristotle's definition of tragedy. I argued that Shakespeare was transcending the classic ideals of tragedy being defined within the individual by applying the tragedy to society as a whole.

I really appreciated the way this class was set up and how it facilitated the refinement of my paper. Though I didn't have any great enlightening experiences with social media I did have some great enlightening moments with many of my fellow class mates and I feel that made all the difference with the way my paper turned out.

Progress

So I got some really great feedback from some really great writers (Thanks, Britton, Kaylee, and Lauren). 
Receiving all of this great feedback has really given me a second wind to finish off this paper. Many of the areas where I received criticism were already on my radar to fix and seeing that others saw those flaws as well was really validating in a way.

For now I am going back through my paper and trying to incorporate the criticism that I received by adding more of the back story of Coriolanus, and rephrasing a lot of my awkward sentence structure. One of the main things that I am working through is how to articulate in a clearer way the out come of my argument.  Britton and I talked about the societal paradox that exists in Coriolanus that my paper addresses to degree. This paradox explains how a society can simultaneously build up and revere a leader and at the same time relish in said leaders flaws and call for that leaders demise. I am attempting to show how the nurturing aspects of society are the root of this fatal paradox. Basically I have a ton of work to do but feel like I have the tools to do it.

Better late than never.... updated rough draft

Unfortunately this is only an "updated rough draft" and not a "completed rough draft".  Somehow the past few days have been easily the craziest of the semester. For this reason my draft is a little incomplete. However, looking on the bright side, the ideas that have been able to articulate thus far have really allowed me to refine my overall idea for this paper (in my mind it all makes sense at least) and I feel a lot of confidence that the finished product is going to be something I can be proud of.   So without further adieu.....

 

Steve Kesler

ENG 382

Professor Burton

March 20th, 2013

The Coriolanus Effect: Nature vs. Nurture in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus

            One of times oldest paradox is that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

Though this idea has some comedic aspects the complexity that it conveys can be compared to

age old literary debate of nature vs. nurture. Differing from the facetious chicken and egg

argument, which doesn’t pose any real value the argument of nature vs. nurture, on the contrary,

holds enormous worth. The ability to distinguish between innate ability and those that abilities

that are fostered and bread into society allows humankind to better understand the human

relationship that is inherently shared by everyone. Ideally, the importance that this kind

of comprehension would garner is a larger capacity for humankind to relate to one another and

recognize the unavoidable differences that often lead to conflict. (Quote: The importance of

understanding Nature vs. Nurture). In William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Coriolanus these

ideas are portrayed and explored. Set in a burgeoning Roman empire the play takes place after

the fall of Tarquin and is semi historical in that aspect. Much of the conflict that is portrayed in

Coriolanus takes place between the different Roman classes, the plebeians and the patricians,

during the transition of the Roman government from monarchy to republic. It is in this setting

that the audience follows the decisions of Coriolanus and witnesses the enormous downfalls that

accompany that characters unrelenting pride. It is specifically through the portrayal of pride that

Shakespeare explores the debate of nature vs. nurture calling into question the origination,

necessity and reason for such a human trait. In doing this Shakespeare constructs a tragedy that

appears to be a warning of the hazards of pride however, a closer examination of the text will

reveal that the tragedy is not wholly the fault of Coriolanus, but occurs on much broader scale.

Though Coriolanus is commonly seen as a tragedy centered on the downfalls of pride in the

individual the tragedy actually is found in the faults of a culture and society that cultivates and

relies on such extreme pride to the extent that it breeds contempt among its people. At the onset of the play it would be easy for one to view the pride of Coriolanus as a trait that is entirely his own. This idea can be grounded in the vicious contempt that he displays towards the plebeians as he bitterly condemns them as useless and famously refers to them as “fragments” (l.). However, a more compelling view on this idea can be seen looking through the eyes of the plebeians themselves. As the play opens the reader is exposed to the ideas of a group of citizens voicing their disapproval of Coriolanus, in this dialogue the vices of Coriolanus are detailed and it appears that Shakespeare is attempting to typify his main character. In doing this, chief among the people’s complaints is the pride that their countries most feared warrior appears to extol: “Consider you what service he has done for his country? /Very well; and could be content to give him good/ report fort, but that he pays himself with being proud/ . . . What he cannot help in his nature, you account a/ vice in him. You must in no way say he is covetous” (ll.). Clearly the people do not take kindly to the antipathy that comes as a result of Coriolanus’s pride and they certainly do not look to themselves as guilty of planting the seed in his heart. Because these lines are foremost within the text they are likely to convey and establish the identity of Coriolanus as someone who innately possesses the fatal flaw of pride. If the play stopped here this interpretation could very likely be true however, as the play progresses it becomes readily apparent that there exists a flaw with the value system that the Roman republic applies to its leaders and that perhaps the pride that consumes Coriolanus was not solely developed by him alone. Katherine Stockholder alludes to this destructive kind of nurturing when she conjectures that Coriolanus is merely playing the part that the people themselves thrust upon him: “So great is Coriolanus’ need to maintain the image, reflected in hatred or admiration, of autonomous patriot and warrior . . . that he ironically becomes braggart, traitor, and boy”(229). With this idea in mind it is easily seen how the disdain with which the plebeians regard Coriolanus is actually the root of their own problem as they create the vicious circle that ultimately leads to Coriolanus’ downfall and nearly their own.

             One of the first instances that Shakespeare gives the audience that Coriolanus’s overbearing pride cannot be wholly prescribed as a trait that is innate to his unique person is when his wife, Virgilia, and his mother, Volumnia, are discussing, with excitement, the return of

Coriolanus from battle with the Roman nemesis the Volscians. Volumnia, showing an immense

pride of her own, reveals to Virgilia that even when Coriolanus was young she held the traits of

honor and pride in higher esteem than even the life of her child. After hearing her mother-in-

law’s extreme point of view Virgilia exclaims: “But had he died in the business, madam; how

then?” (l.) Volumnia, through her retort displays her true nature and with it reveals the likelihood

that the cultivation of Coriolanus’s extreme pride had been in developmental process for the

duration of his life: “Hear me profess/sincerely: had I a dozen sons, each in my love/ alike and

none less dear than thine and my good/ Marcius, I had rather had eleven die nobly for their/

country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action/” (ll.). As revealing as this scenario already is

as to the way with which Volumnia raised her son, she takes these notions even further,

dispelling all doubt that she did not have a large hand in shaping the tragic flaw that encumbers

her son when, to Virgilia’s horror at the prospect of her husband being wounded, she exclaims

“Away, you fool! It more becomes a man/ Than gilt his trophy; the breasts of Hecuba,/ When

she did suckle Hector, look’d not lovelier than Hector’s forehead when it spit forth blood/ At

Grecian sword” (ll.). Commenting directly on this aspect of the effects of motherly nurturing

Coppelia Kahn asserts that that Volumnia: “By thrusting him from dependency and thrusting

onto him a warrior self of her own devising, Volumnia effectively murdered the babe in

Coriolanus, the loving and vulnerable self within him” (172). Seeing how much value was

placed on honor and pride and then instilled in Coriolanus throughout his formative years it is

obvious to ascertain how Coriolanus developed his fatal flaw as well as a rich contempt for those

in society who do not share his view.

            While the adverse effects resulting from the intimate relationship that is common

amongst a mother and son are easily seen as influential in nurturing the prideful disposition of Coriolanus another destructive relationship can be found in Coriolanus’ relationship to other leaders within the Roman republic. All of these leaders show an almost sacred reverie for Coriolanus, building up his pride to unknown heights all the while unknowingly cultivating in him contempt for the lower Roman classes. It is in this conflict that the paradox of Roman society exists which allows the tragedy of Coriolanus to come to fruition.  These relationships show the broader nurturing aspects that Roman society had in its role in cultivating the tragic pride that is Coriolanus’ downfall and ultimately reveal the real tragedy of the play as they portray a society that is heavily reliant on the extreme pride and dominance of its warriors, yet rejects and condemns the affects that often come, hand in hand, with such traits. An example of this tragic process can be followed in the play when Coriolanus, after displaying exemplary bravery in battle is called to the floor of the senate to be recognized and praised for his valor:

“he stopp’d the fliers;/ And by his rare example made the coward/ Turn terror into sport . . . / his sword, death’s stamp,/ Where it did mark, it took. . ./ alone he enter’d/ The mortal gate of the city, which he painted/ With shunless destiny; aidless came off,/ And with a sudden reinforcement struck/ Corioli like a planet: now all’s his:/” (ll. )

This high amount of praise, though merited, causes an adverse effect on Coriolanus which is shown through his contempt for all that he deems is beneath him, which, because of excess praise, is not just a few people. Later in the when the senate decides to make him a consul to the people and Coriolanus goes, begrudgingly, to seek the approval of the masses he is unable to hide the contempt that is a result of his built up pride: “What must I say?/ ‘I Pray, sir’ –Plague upon’t! I cannot bring/ My tongue to such a pace: -- ‘Look, sir, my wounds!/ I got them in my country’s service, when/ Some certain of your brethren roar’d and ran/ From the noise of our own drums.’” (ll. ).  This display of antipathy on the part of Coriolanus completes paradox that causes the people to disdain their great war hero even though he performs a very necessary service to their country in, through the shedding of his blood, he preserves their peace.  As the people are brought to a realization of the scorn with which they were treated they are quickly incited to reject the man who defends their liberty. Brayton Polka takes illuminates this paradox even further in his article about contradiction in the Roman world, in it he takes a somewhat fatalistic view of the Roman way of life suggesting that the paradox that has just been analyzed is only part of a far greater contradiction: “They do not know what renders their lives contradictory. The Romans know no escape from the contradictory (because finite) one, as both patricians and plebeians, in their endless opposition to each other, claim oneness with Rome. . . . But the tragedy of Coriolanus, the tragedy of Rome, is that there is no world elsewhere, beyond Rome, for the Romans” (n.page).