Chinua Achebe Interview

Today, we had a shared discussion about Achebe's interview with An African Voice, where Achebe gives the audience and readers of Things Fall Apart some background and insight into his inspiration and the reason why he wrote the novel and what impact the novel had on his after life
Achebe explains that he 'had no idea' whether Things Fall Apart would be 'accepted or even published'- we all agreed that this shows exactly Nigerian citizens were viewed at the time the British were invading; this is further reinforced with the following quote:
"We realize and recognize that it's not just colonized people whose stories have been suppressed, but a whole range of people across the globe who have not spoken. It's not because they don't have something to say, it simply has to do with the division of power, because storytelling has to do with power. Those who win tell the story; those who are defeated are not heard"
 -- My group agreed that this quote was most definitely one of the most meaningful quotes in the interviewed, this is because it can be seen from different perspectives 
1) Achebe could be challenging this idea that only 'the winners' get to tell theirs story and he wants to speak up and tell his and Nigerian citizen's story
2) Achebe could be attempting to raise awareness for Nigeria's ongoing struggle and how much their culture and country was destroyed 
3) Achebe could try to be gaining power for his hometown by belittling the British 
~ perhaps this is why he decided to move to the Western world- to 'tell the story' ? 

Shared Inquiry Discussion [Questions]- Chinua Achebe interview

Do you believe that colonisation play a key role in shaping a country's history? (e.g. in Africa and Korea) How and why?
- they all grew from that and that made Nigeria what it is today

Does this interview show that Achebe's patriotism? How?

Why do you think Achebe says "I had no idea when I was writing Things Fall Apart whether it would even be accepted or published" 
Africans were viewed as 'lower' and 'less' than the English 

Why do you think people choose to identify with people in literature? Is there a benefit for this?
They might begin to see themselves in the story even if on the surface it's far removed from their situation; they just want to belong 

Do you think that it would've been as easy for Achebe to write about a different culture/country? Why?
No, because he says Maybe I make it sound as if it's impossible for me to write outside of Nigeria. That's really not true. I think what I mean is that it is nourishing for me to be working from Nigeria, there's a kind of nourishment you get there that you cannot get elsewhere. But it doesn't mean you cannot work. You can work, you can always use what's available to you, whether it's memory, hearsay, news items, or imagination. I intend to write a novel in America. When I have done it, perhaps we can discuss the effect of writing a novel from abroad. It's not impossible.

How does Achebe show that he was very effected by the British colonisation? 
He blames everything on them, not directly, but he keeps mentioning them 

How does Achebe show how much Nigeria was effected in this interview + book

Do you think that there were any benefits of the British invading Nigeria (learning English..)?

What do you think Achebe means when he says that that European side said "Okay, we'll stop telling this story, because we see there's another story."
A single story= the only story

 

Paper 1 Commentary- The Pleasure of Books by William Lyon Phelps

This text is a speech that was delivered by American educator, literary critic and author, William Lyon Phelps, on April 6 1933- on a radio broadcast. This speech’s main target is to directly persuade the audience to admire and appreciate the books that ‘belong to you’. While reading through the speech, the reader gains an understanding of Phelps’ passion towards books and his urge for the audience to share the same passion; this can be comprehended by his use of multiple persuasive techniques and his tone.As this speech was delivered during a radio broadcast, it can be implied that Phelps is directing this speech out to and for ‘everyone’; he does not have a specific target audience in mind. This is further reinforced when he states that ‘everyone should begin collecting a private library’; the pronoun ‘everyone’ indicates that the target audience is every and any person who is listening to the broadcast. Moreover, the modal verb ‘should’ indicates a sense of obligation, reinforcing the idea of Phelps’ desire to share his passion for reading with the audience. On a deeper scale, the use of the verb ‘should’ suggests that he is indirectly criticizing people who do not ‘own’ a ‘private library’.William Phelps personifies and humanizes books in his speech to highlight how much he values them; this may be his attempt in convincing the audience how important reading is to him and ‘should’ be to them. In his speech, he is informing the audience that books play a pivotal role in our lives and that “the habit of reading is one of the greatest resources of mankind”, the use of hyperbole with the superlative adjective ‘greatest’ indicates that in Phelps’ eyes, nothing can beat the knowledge and information we are able to receive from books that we may not be able to receive from other humans; this could explain why he chooses to humanize them, as he describes them as the “best and most enduring part of personality” and hence one’s knowledge. Moreover, he states that ‘literature is the immortal part of history’, which may mean that books and the information they hold inside of them will never die; once again reinforcing his idea of how valuable books are to him, perhaps suggesting he chooses books over any other human; this is further reinforced when he states that ‘book-friends have this advantage over living friends’. On one hand, this could be his way of confessing his loneliness. On the other hand, he could be referring to how books are ‘immortal’ and are not ‘living’, therefore they are infinite and will not abandon us, unlike ‘living friends’ will. In addition, Phelps uses the literary device of allusion when he states, “...you can at any moment converse with Socrates or Shakespeare or Carlyle or Dumas or Dickens or Shaw or Barrie or Galsworthy”, this adynaton allows Phelps to engage the audience even further, as it hints to them that with reading such absurd situations are possible.It is quite apparent that throughout the speech, Phelps attempts to form a close relationship with the audience to appeal to them and get his point across to them; this is evident due to his gripping and fascinating use of inclusive language using pronouns such as ‘we’ and ‘us’ in addition to direct address with the use of the pronoun ‘you’. Phelps’ direct message immediately becomes more effective mainly down to his influential and encouraging tone, which not only motivates the audience, but also aids them in gaining a wider interest in the topic of reading. Phelps’ language and enlightened choice of diction engages the audience and ultimately encourages them to ‘own books’ and make ‘use’ of them more, which will perhaps help boost their vocabulary and lead to their language possibly emerging and evolving to become as inventive and compelling as his. Phelps uses extremely intellectual vocabulary which results in the reader being inquisitive and compelled in what reading might bring to one’s mind as well as gaining the ability to ‘look into their innermost heart of heart’.Furthermore, Phelps aims to engage the audience by appealing to their sense of ownership and possession of property by listing the disadvantages of borrowing books and the advantages of books ‘that belong to us’. In the first paragraph, he states that a “borrowed book is like a guest in the house”, the use of this certain simile is a technically superb example of persuasive language, this is because Phelps uses a real-life example and reference to grip the audience, as this comparison is somehow relatable and understandable by almost ‘everyone’. In addition, Phelps uses the literary device of accumulation and anaphora to point out all of the limitations and restraints that come alongside borrowing books; this is done by the repetition of the verb “cannot”.At the end of the paragraph, Phelps discloses that “some day, although this is seldom done, you really ought to return it”, the use of emotive language and pathos appeals to the audience, as it takes away from their right to ‘own’ and be responsible for something of their ‘own’.It can be argued that Phelps’ fascination in books and the ‘pleasure’ he receives from them, resulted in them being his sexual release; reinforcing the idea of him being a lonely individual. The idea of sexual release can be comprehended by the diction he chooses to describe books. Firstly, Phelps’ speech is titled ‘The PLEASURE of Books’; the noun ‘pleasure’ can be defined as something that results in one’s sensual gratification. In addition to that, Phelps uses adjectives such as ‘attractive’ and ‘the best’ to describe how he feels about their designs and presence and he states that they are ‘stimulating’ and that one should ‘treat them with that affectionate intimacy’. The language Phelps uses resembles the language of individual who receives not only mental, but physical ‘pleasure’ from reading.This speech is short in length in comparison to typical speeches that we hear; this precision is a smooth and compelling way for Phelps to get his point through to the audience, who are the broadcast listeners, as people tend to lose interest after a specific amount of time. However, in this case, Phelps’ point is able to reach through to them quickly and effectively. In the last line, he calls out the audience to grip their attention back in, in case it was lost. Phelps directly addresses the audience, ‘you are necessary to them as an audience is to an actor’, the flattery in this quote results in the audience feeling important and prominent.Overall, it can be concluded that Phelps himself is an example of ethos, meaning he has the credibility that no average author does, as he is an educator, literary critic and author who has taught at Yale university, therefore the audience is initially better influenced and encouraged, if the speech is summoned by the authority figure himself.

Coriolanus Practice IOC

https://sites.google.com/site/act1scene1coriolanus/act1scene1coriolanus/Untitled%202.m4a?attredirects=0&d=1

OR

https://soundcloud.com/reem-abusin/act-1-scene-1-coriolanus 

Theme of Power in Coriolanus

In the play Coriolanus, it is very evident that the main theme of the play is power; this is demonstrated but Shakespeare's characterisation of Martius in the opening and throughout the entire play, however as the play goes on, the audience can comprehend that in fact every character is powerful in their own way, even the citizens who are the lowest section of the power hierarchy, however the audience also understands that Volumnia gave all her power to Martius, however never got credit for it (until the end of the play) because of her gender and society at the time.
Some may argue that Shakespeare attempts to empower certain characters for a larger purpose (represent the context of the revolving England and/or Italy).

How are each of the characters powerful? 
Coriolanus: he has the potential to be voted as 'Consul'- which is a very powerful title; he is mostly compared to a 'God'- which suggest he is on top of everyone else
Volumnia: she is the one who gave Coriolanus all of his power and assisted him to get to where he is
Aufidius: he is leader of the Volscian army; he is shown to have the capability to take down the most powerful man in Rome- when no one else (including his mother) could
Citizens: they are the ones who make the decision about who is voted 'Consul'
Tribunes (Brutus & Sicinius): they manage to convince the citizens to change their minds about voting Coriolanus; they feel most powerful in scenes where they are winning over the citizens

Coriolanus [Act 1]

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

Coriolanus was play written by Shakespeare in the 1600s and it deviated from his usual writing genres, as it was mostly a political play written about the Roman leader Caius Martius Coriolanus, it was one of 2 of tragedies he has written. 

In Act 1, Shakespeare introduces, to the audience, all of the main characters and he allows the reader to develop their own opinions on the characters; he mainly allows us to develop our own opinion on Martius in Act 1, when he is not present, however his name very much is. In the first act, the citizens are endlessly complaining about the lack of food and they express their concerns and dislike towards Martius.

In Act 1, Scene 2, Martius enters the play and immediately the reader can note that he is a very direct, self-absorbed and overly confident individual, this is because as soon as he comes face to face with the citizens, he begins to bash them and ignore all of their requests, whereas Menenius actually listened to them.

Perhaps Shakespeare gives the audience a bad first impression of Martius Coriolanus, because he wants the audience to dislike him as much as the citizens do (put themselves in their shoes), however he occasionally reminds the reader of how much of a powerful individual he is, suggesting that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to take him down. We, as the audience, are given the choice to either support the citizens on their hatred towards him or side with him for his power and bravery in the battle against the Volsces. 

In this act, Shakespeare expects the reader to read between the lines and make their own personal judgements on Coriolanus' character, before revealing his hidden identity; one way he does this, is by presenting Menenius and Martius very differently (when both enter the play, the reactions they receive and their attitudes towards the people differ largely).

Many people could argue that Shakespeare's larger purpose of this specific characterisation in the first act is to foreshadow the ending of the play; Martius seems to be eager to get rid of the complaining citizens and he seeks for a war between the Romans and the Volscians so that some of the citizens are 'gone' with the battle, Shakespeare hints that perhaps because Coriolanus was full of hate and bad intentions, he was like one who ended up getting the biggest punishment.