Learning Outcomes

Gain Shakespeare Literacy:
This class has been great in advancing my knowledge of Shakespeare. I feel like we have experienced Shakespeare on so many different levels in this class be it theater, cinema, reading or even composing, these experiences, I feel, have really enhanced my understanding of not only the specific texts that we have studied but also my ability to recognize Shakespearean constructs. An example of this is Shakespeare's use of disguise as a way to add complexity to his plays. Before this class, when I'm not reading many Shakespeare plays consecutively the significance of disguise in his plays would slip through the cracks for me. For me specifically this class afforded a totally different view of Shakespeare's plays. I had taken a Shakespeare class earlier on in my collegiate endeavors and was given a pretty solid foundation in Shakespeare's works. That class had a greater focus on the life of Shakespeare as a man. This class, aside from focusing on completely different plays, showed me a view of Shakespeare that was not historically grounded and allowed me to learn and understand how to analyze and find relevant meaning for myself in today's world. Focusing on things like rhetoric and the significance of plot devices really opened up Shakespeare in a new way for me.
Analyzing Shakespeare Critically: 
The way this class was set up made it impossible not to approach Shakespeare without an analytical mind. I really enjoyed all the awesome conversations I was able to have with classmates. These conversations were really important to me because they, not only allowed me to hear other peoples view points, but also because they really let me talk and figure out my own confused ideas. Because we experienced Shakespeare in so many different mediums it was really easy to compare and contrast them. This natural analytical process was a lot of fun and made it easy to draw out the significance that Shakespeare's writing have in today's society. This was especially true when I began researching Coriolanus for my final paper. As I studied the text and watched the movie and read about different productions I was able to see how my ideas about nature vs. nurture and tragedy were really mattered and how Coriolanus is really a work a head of its time.
Engage Shakespeare Creatively:
Engaging Shakespeare creatively was not as high on the priority list as some of the other learning outcomes but I do feel that, given all the ground we covered this class did a good job and getting creative with Shakespeare.  Obviously this took place in the form of composing a Sonnet. For me, this was kinda difficult. I am by no means a poet and writing in  iambic pentameter for some reason was more difficult than I'd like to admit. However, I was happy with my final product and the experience of composing in iambic pentameter really gave me a better perspective on Shakespeare's genius.  I also think, to a certain degree, attending the children production of Henry V was a creative engagement of Shakespeare.  Being an audience member is an import part of theater and the way that production of Henry V was  the audience was very much involved in the overall artistic value of the play.
Share Shakespeare Meaningfully:
This class, more than any other, has forced me to break out of my shell.  I'm not naturally a social butterfly but with a little encouragement from Professor Burton I ended up having a few cool conversations with people I wouldn't have other wise spoke with about Shakespeare. As I a have already mentioned, the conversations in class and on learning suite were really important to me and I think they qualify this learning outcome as well. There was a great sense of community in this class and I think it was because we all were genuinely interested in what everyone else was researching because we knew that other students research would undoubtedly enhance our understanding and research.
Gain Digital Literacy:
Unfortunately I do not have a cool story about how the people I tracked down online responded to me in a positive way about my paper topic or thesis. The most I ever got was a "sounds cool" from some dude on a Good Reads Shakespeare forum. However, I don't think that is the important part about being digitally literate. The important thing is that I was attempting to cultivate research in a way that would give a whole new kind of legitimacy and depth to my paper. Many of the ways that Professor Burton showed us how to search for information and sources (twitter search, searching teacher syllabus') were a totally new to me. Though I did not have a ton of success through these avenues I feel there is a ton of value in knowing that these avenues exist and that they are legitimate.  There are tons of ways waste time using the internet this class showed me how to avoid that predicament and that there are a ton of cool people out there willing to contribute to my personal research. A big part of my digital literacy came from contributing to the class blog.  This was a completely new experience for me and I was definitely skeptical about having to do it. However now, as I type my final post, I can see that there is a lot of value in using the internet to validate your ideas. Even if it is a class blog that only a few people may ever see, putting something of the internet causes you to think a little harder about what your saying and thus forces you to understand a little better the things you are trying to talk about.

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.

Steve Kesler: "Transcending Tragedy: Shifting Tragedy From the Individual to Society at Large in Shakespeare's Coriolanus"

"Transcending  Tragedy:  Shifting Tragedy From the Individual to Society at Large In Shakespeare’s Coriolanus"

One of the many parameter that Aristotle placed on tragedy when he defined the genre was that it exists only in the individual. The plethora of tragedies that have been written since have largely followed this rule until William Shakespeare.  While many of his tragedies do follow the rules as defined by Aristotle his Roman tragedies, written later in his illustrious career, tend to push the envelope of the genre. Specifically looking at Coriolanus I argue that Shakespeare transcended the classic idea of tragedy that Aristotle established by taking away the emphasis on the individual and placing it on society as a whole.

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.

Commentary for Britton and Lauren R

Britton: I know we talked earlier today but I thought it would be good for me to write down my thoughts on your paper in case you wanted to refer back to them.

My initial reaction to the first few paragraphs was "wow, this kid is a good writer".  You did a great job at articulating your argument and because of that it was easy for me to become engaged in your topic. Throughout the paper it was easy for me, even as an uniformed reader, to follow your ideas. The places where your paper was lacking was its use of the primary text and secondary sources. Now I fully realize that I read a rough draft and that you potentially have source material waiting in the wings so maybe this critique is nothing more than an after thought. In short, your paper is good, your ideas are great and really interesting, but they would benefit through more rigorous analysis of the primary text, and more thorough application of more scholarship.

Lauren: Your paper was a lot of fun to read.  Iago is such an interesting and unique character the fact that paper deals specifically in the dynamics of that character made it really engaging for me. I know we have talked in class we have talked a lot about how to really hone in on the argument for the topic of you have chosen. I have to say that after reading your rough draft I thought your ideas on the complexity of identity and character were really articulated well and made sense. I know at the end of your post you talked about incorporating more scholarship, and I do think that it needs that, but I think your ideas are salient enough that it would not be too difficult to find more research on your topic. One place where I found you paper lacking was the incorporation of the primary text. The paragraph where you do break down Iago's lines was, to me, definitely your strongest. If you had more analysis like that it would really strengthen the "backbone" of your paper. Overall, I think you are heading in the right direction and I'm exited to see the finished product.

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). 

Annotated Bibliography

Using some of the outlets that Professor Burton outlined I had a lot of luck finding some really good source material.

1. Langis, Unhae. Coriolanus: "Inordinate Passions and Powers in Personal and Political Governance"
              Comparative Drama, V. 44.1 (2010). p 27.
--> William Shakespeare's play Coriolanus vividly dramatizes a notion of moderation that is faithful to the Aristotelian ethical theory of the mean as a situational virtue, which incorporates both excessive affect and action. The lack of virtuous moderation in Coriolanus himself, Rome's first citizen, mirrors the collective immoderation of the whole polity

2. Dittman, Joo Young. "Tear him to pieces": De-Suturing Masculinity in "Coriolanus".
              Comparative Drama. V. 90.6 (2006). p653-672
--> The construction and deconstruction of the ideology of masculinity in William Shakespeare's play Coriolanus and early modern culture is examined. The process by which masculinity is constructed as an ideological fiction in early modern England led to its role in socio-symbolic structures as well as subject formations. 

3.Rich, John. War and Society in the Roman World. London: Rutledge. 1993
       Explores the wider social context of war, focusing on the changing relationship between warfare and the Roman citizen body; from the Republic, when war was at the heart of Roman life, to the Late Empire, and the Roman army's eventual failure.

4. Kuzner. James. Unbuilding the City: Coriolanus and the Birth of Republican Rome.  
            Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol 58.2 (2007) pp. 174-99.
    Unbuilding the City" considers the issue of republicanism in Coriolanus criticism and in early modern studies more generally, with special emphasis on how this issue relates to questions about bounded self-hood, thought to be emerging in early modernity. The essay argues against pro republican readings of the play—and against norms associated with the bounded self—by demonstrating the salience to the play of recent theory, particularly that of Giorgio Agamben and Leo Bersani. And although Coriolanus is not a prorepublican or protoliberal document, it is still a politically viable one; if the play exhibits skepticism about bounded selfhood, it also exhibits investment in forms of self-undoing, especially in the representation of Coriolanus himself.

5. Polka, Brayton. Coriolanus and the Roman World of Contradiction: A Paradoxical World 
            Elsewhere. The European Legacy, Vol 15.2 (2010) pp. 171-94.
   This study argues that Shakespeare's aim in Coriolanus is twofold: (1) to depict the ancient world of Rome as dominated by contradiction; and (2) to signal to us moderns, in the biblical tradition, that we can comprehend or, in other words, interpret the contradictory world of the ancients solely on the basis of a paradoxical world elsewhere, beyond contradiction.

6.  Adelman, Janet. "'Anger's My Meat': Feeding, Dependency, and Aggression in Coriolanus," in  
            Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature, edited by David Bevington and Jay L. Halio,
            University of Delaware Press, 1978, pp. 108-24.
     Adelman examines the psychology of Coriolanus in Shakespeare's play of the same name, illuminating his desire for masculine self-sufficiency and dependency on his mother.

7. Alvis, John. Coriolanus and Aristotle's Magnanimous Man Reconsidered. Interpretation: A
          Journal of Political Philosophy,  Vol 7.3 (1978) pp. 4-28.
       Argues for Coriolanus' kinship with the classical ideal of the superlatively honorable man developed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, but concludes that Coriolanus' tragedy resides in his failure to encompass the elusive ideal of the Ethics.

8. Alvarez Faedo, María José."Re-Visions of Volumnia's Motherhood".  Revista alicantina de 
             estudios ingleses. Vol 15 (2002). pp. 23-37.
      Explores the concept of motherhood in Coriolanus from two perspectives: the psychoanalytic and the political.

A closer look at the Primary text: Coriolanus

After returning to my play, and getting lost in it all over again, I reassured myself of my ideas and even found some new quotes to analyze here are a few of them.

At the beginning of the play there is a great piece of dialog that takes place between a few of the citizens about the intentions of Coriolanus.  Breaking down and analyzing this discourse would be a great way to introduce and ground my thesis regarding nature vs. nurture in the text:
-First Citizen

"I say unto you, what he hath done famously, he did it to that end: though soft-conscienced men can be content to say it was for his country he did it to please his mother and to be partly proud; which he is, even till the altitude of his virtue."

Second Citizen 
 "What he cannot help in his nature, you account a vice in him. You must in no way say he is covetous."

As my paper continues and I argue that Coriolanus is a victim of the dangerous nurturing practices of his mother and the Roman society here are a few passages that could help support this idea.

This discourse between his wife and mother reveals the way in which he was raised and, in part how his extreme pride was cultivated.
-Volumnia
To a cruel war I sent him; from whence he returned, his brows bound with oak. I tell thee, daughter, I sprang not more in joy at first hearing he was a man-child than now in first seeing he had proved himself a man.
VIRGILIABut had he died in the business, madam; how then?
 
VOLUMNIA

Then his good report should have been my son; I therein would have found issue. 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.

As my paper progresses I will show how the tragedy lies not in the pride of Coriolanus but in the blind naivete of a society that cultivates its military leaders in such way that they expect hardness from them on the battlefield and prize their victories but off the battlefield they condemn the attitude that is necessary for such victories to be won.
This praise from Coriolanus's commanding officer shows this dynamic.

-COMINIUS If I should tell thee o'er this thy day's work, Thou'ldst not believe thy deeds: but I'll report it Where senators shall mingle tears with smiles, Where great patricians shall attend and shrug, I' the end admire, where ladies shall be frighted, And, gladly quaked, hear more; where the dull tribunes, That, with the fusty plebeians, hate thine honours, Shall say against their hearts 'We thank the gods Our Rome hath such a soldier.' Yet camest thou to a morsel of this feast, Having fully dined before.

Here, this dialog between a friend of Coriolanus and  two tribunes of the people displays this conflict.

MENENIUS The augurer tells me we shall have news to-night.
BRUTUS Good or bad? 
 MENENIUS Not according to the prayer of the people, for they 
love not Marcius.  
SICINIUS Nature teaches beasts to know their friends.
MENENIUS Pray you, who does the wolf love? 
 SICINIUS The lamb.  
MENENIUS Ay, to devour him; as the hungry plebeians would the noble Marcius.  
BRUTUS He's a lamb indeed, that baes like a bear. 
 MENENIUS He's a bear indeed, that lives like a lamb. You two are old men: tell me one thing that I shall ask you. 
 Both Well, sir. 
 MENENIUS In what enormity is Marcius poor in, that you two have not in abundance?  
BRUTUS He's poor in no one fault, but stored with all. 
 SICINIUS   Especially in pride.
MENENIUS Because you talk of pride now,--will you not be angry?
Both Well, well, sir, well.  
MENENIUS Why, 'tis no great matter; for a very little thief of occasion will rob you of a great deal of patience: give your dispositions the reins, and be angry at your pleasures; at the least if you take it as a pleasure to you in being so. You blame Marcius for being proud?

I realize that all these passages are way to long (Sorry for the lengthy post) I would of course cut them down to size and paraphrase when I incorporate them into my paper (I just haven't got that far yet).  There are a few more passages that I could go into detail about but I think these give a decent foundation to my argument and show something of the substance that my paper will consist of. 



 

Who cares about Coriolanus?

I am having somewhat of a difficult time finding an audience for my paper on the aspects of nature vs. nurture in Coriolanus. Coriolanus, compared to Shakespeare's other works, is not his most popular and the Nature vs. Nurture "audience" is about as broad as it gets.  After talking with Professor Burton I came to the conclusion that my audience must be composed simply of Shakespeare aficionados.

I spent a fair amount of time looking through the sources Professor Burton provided for finding outlets for our research and came up somewhat empty handed.  I found a few venues that were interested in Shakespeare's Roman play but the deadline for submission was already a year passed.  I did happen to find a venue that is as broad as my topic here.  This site also calls for guest bloggers as well so that could be another potential avenue.

Basically this process has kind of bummed me out on my paper. I need to find a way to spice it up and make it a little more relevant. I'll definitely be hitting the research hard this weekend and hopefully that will help me get a narrower focus. Meanwhile, any and all ideas would be most welcome. 

Rough Draft

I was really glad the Professor Burton was extra clear about how rough our rough drafts could be, cause guys, let me tell you, this is a rrrrrrrrrouugh Draft!

Steve Kesler
ENG 382
Professor Burton
March 20th, 2013
                                      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 the innate ability and those that abilities that 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 tragedy 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 Caius Martius 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 that is occurs on much broader scale.  Though Coriolanus is commonly seen as a tragedy centered around 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.
    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 with her retort displays her true nature and with it reveals the likely hood that the cultivation of Coriolanus’s extreme pride had been in cultivation 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.).  Seeing how much value was placed on honor and pride and then instilled in Coriolanus throughout his formative years it is easy to ascertain how Coriolanus developed his fatal flaw as well as a rich contempt for those in society who do not share his view.

Wild ideas for Lauren R.

Lauren I love your ideas about character and Im looking forward to talking more about them with you tomorrow.  As I was looking back at your blog posts one of your ideas caught my attention. This is from your "Teaching others to love what I love" post:

" Iago changes so seamlessly from character.  It brings up the question of identity.  Actors dive into their characters, but how does that factor into when those characters dive into a disguise.  How far does it go? Is the character ever lost?  These questions fascinate me and I find that I am looking for a central idea, but I have a point at which to dive off!"

When I read that for some reason I thought of a wild movie written by Charlie Kaufmen called Synecdoche NewYork.  In it, a crazy play write gets insanely lost in a play he is writing and the character he is playing. The boundaries that separate the identity of the actor and the identity of the character are extremely blurred.   If you are still looking for ways to flesh out your thesis watching this film might help to give you some direction. 

Anotated Bibliography. . . . (finally)

Thesis: Though Coriolanus is commonly seen as a tragedy centered around the downfalls of pride in the individual the tragedy actually is found in the faults of a culture and society that cultivates such extreme pride to such extent that it breeds contempt among its people.

Social Graph: 1. My wife, Michelle Kesler.  She is more brilliant then I will ever be so she is a great person to bounce ideas off of when she can find the time away from her own studies to shed some light on the things that I'm doing.  2. My mom, Carla Verschoor.  I love my mom, but she is more of just a yes person for me.  I seek her feedback when I need encouragement.  She is amazing at so many things and I could never hope to be as awesome as her but literary studies are not her strong suit. 3.  My good friend Peter Dangerfield.  Peter graduated from the BYU English program back in 2009 and he knows his stuff pretty darn well.  I have often had him look over my papers in the past and he has never lead me astray with his insight.

New Media: 1. One of the obvious forms of new media I have consulted is the recent Film adaptation of Coriolanus Starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerrard Butler that came out in 2011. (trailer)  This version gives a really great portrayal of the conflict in a modern setting. (the film is great I highly recommend it) 2. http://theshakespeareblog.com/2011/06/shakespeares-fathers-nature-or-nurture/. This blog had some great insight about the nature vs. nurture argument in regards to father figures in some of Shakespeare's plays.

Social Networks: 1. I went ahead and posted my rough thesis on Goodreads.  I am hoping that since Coriolanus is one of the lesser loved Shakespeare plays that maybe that will play to my advantage and my post will bring out all the Coriolanus geeks and I will get a lot of feedback.

Traditional Scholarly Resources:  These are a few articles that I found that I thought could  potentially lend insight and support to my argument.   All of them dealt in some shape or form with the ideas of nature vs. nurture or helped me understand in greater depth the details of the play.                                                                                     

Passion, Prudence, and Virtue in Shakespearean Drama

by Unhae Langis

'There is a world elsewhere': Tragedy and History in Coriolanus. 

Academic Journal

By: Meszaros, Patricia K. Studies in English Literature (Rice). Spring76, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p273. 13p.

Subjects: 

TEXTUAL criticism; CRITICISM; CORIOLANUS (Theatrical production); SHAKESPEARE, William, 1564-1616

Coriolanus and the Roman World of Contradiction: A Paradoxical World Elsewhere. Detail Only AvailableBy: Polka, Brayton. European Legacy. Apr2010, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p171-194. 24p. DOI: 10.1080/10848771003647923.

The Common Good and the Necessity of War: Emergent Republican Ideals in Shakespeare's "Henry V" and "Coriolanus." Full Text AvailableBy: Banerjee, Rita. Comparative Drama. Spring2006, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p29-49. 21p.
Full Text Available