In “The Scourge of Relatability” by Rebecca Mead, the validity
of the word “relatability” is argued, brought up by radio talk show host, Ira
Glass, when he criticizes Shakespeare’s work because it was not “relatable”. After
reading this post, I realized that Mead was trying to say that the meaning of
the word relatable has changed from back when it used to mean something was able
to be told, to now when it means “that it could be connected to some other
thing”. I, personally, think that the meaning of the word has not changed, much
rather, the way that it’s being used has changed. The word is used as a way to link
yourself with another object in some way, but Mead mentions that using it in
that way would just be a form for the reader or audience to flatter themselves
in the same way that a the perfect “selfie” would. For example, when I’m
watching a movie and the main character feels a certain way that I have felt
before, I say that I can “relate” to the character, and that moment was “relatable”
for me, but I do not do it as a confirmation that I am solipsistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment