A disaster waiting to happen?

Harold Bloom argues, "Notoriously the victim of his dominating and devouring mother, Coriolanus is an overgrown child.  Anywhere except on the battlefield, he is, at best, a disaster waiting to happen."  Bloom also contends Coriolanus is more his own enemy than he is the crowd's enemy, and his tragedy is not the consequence of the crowd's fear and anger, but of his own nature and nurture.

Do you agree or disagree with Bloom?  Provide at least three well-thought out examples from the text in your argument.  This is an opportunity to intellectually argue and defend your position regarding Bloom's criticism of the play.  As always, to exceed expectations you need to thoughtfully comment on two others' posts.

Momma's boy?

After reading Act III, reflect on the following critical argument:  "Coriolanus's mother wants him to be more like her.  Like Lady Macbeth, she is frustrated by the lack of opportunity for advancement given exclusively to men in her culture, and resolves, by way of revenge, to control and destroy through a man she can manipulate: her son."  Do you agree?  Why or why not?  (Looking for some intellectual calories being burned in your response). 

As always, to exceed expectations you need to respond to two others' posts.

Aristotle's take on politics...

After reading Aristotle's piece on revolution in politics, reflect on how Aristotle's argument is reflected in the first two acts of Coriolanus.  As always, you need to respond to two others' posts to exceed expectations.

Henry V's mirror has two faces?

If the three conspirators/traitors were indeed the very closest of friends (as Henry's speech in 2.3 suggests that they were) and if he were as emotionally hurt as he describes, isn't it rather odd that he could condemn them to death without any lingering emotional effect?

As always, you must respond to two others' posts to exceed expectations.  I'm also looking for "beyond the obvious" answers and responses.  You must also cite the play up through Act II to support your argument.

My Own Private Idaho...

How does the the director, Gus Van Sant, use the binary opposition between high and low culture to reveal the vitality of Shakespearean text to an American context?

As always, you need to respond to two others' texts to exceed expectations.

Bevington's essay, "Full of Strange Oaths and Bearded Like the Pard: The Coming-of-Age of the Male."

What are three significant arguments Bevington makes in his essay?  Do you agree or disagree with each of the arguments?  Why or why not?  (In your rationales use the article, plays, and the BBC film we've seen to date.)  As always, you must respond to at least two others' posts to exceed expectations.

By the way, I'm looking for some burned intellectual calories in your responses.  Go beyond the obvious.