The word "Relatable" was deeply
analyzed, in this particular article, by the author Rebecca Mead. She showed the
words evolution in time,
but her motive was to show, or prove, a particular
individual of his wrong doing. This particular individual made a post on twitter
claiming "Shakespeare sucks" also claiming "No stakes, Not relatable." This
statement given must have sparked a fire in this Rebecca Mead because she wrote
a following article declaring her opinion of the situation. She had many
words to say about one word in the quote, "relatable." She seems to think this
word is a enormous problem, while describing Shakespeare. In my opinion the word
is not the problem, the man who posted the tweet is. She used the word in many
different variations showing it used in magazines, talk shows and how it became
very popular at one point. Although the word was poorly used in a certain
individuals opinion does not mean the word is such a big problem. Her tone
throughout the article was in-objective, which made the article more biased. She
boldly stated her point of view of the word but never directly toward the
publisher of the tweet. She feels very strongly about the subject by making the
article personal also. The author states ".. it does not exempt is from the
active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy- is our own
failure." This powerful explanation is an example of the author showing biased
aggression in the article toward "the word" "relatable."
I disagree, I feel she was trying to emphasize the necessity of a new word. She was showing the different uses and definitions of "relatabilty" throughout the course of time and how its constantly changing. I, personally, believe she aroused a new argument as to whether or not we should keep definitions concrete for words or allow them to change just as language does, like we learned last week. Should we create new vocabulary words to maintain the old meaning of "relatable" as it is used in Shakespeare? Or, since it was used in his work and that time first, should it be kept to its original definition and the misuse of the word is just simply incorrect? I believe it is a problematic word as she says it is, but how should we solve the problem I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, She tried to show the different meanings and usage of the word "relatable" since the word was created. I believe that no definitions are concrete and since language is always changing so are the definitions of this word has changed since it was first used. I think she created a new argument by asking if we should always keep the same definitions for that word and never change it. But if that's the case then language would never change or be even more developed if we just keep concrete definitions for words and their meaning. I believe the word "relatable" is a problematic word like she says, but that doesn't mean we should just keep the original definition and every other definitions that we can try and relate to is incorrect. How we solve this we have to be open to all opinions to the definition of the word.
ReplyDelete