Unlike what  Rebecca Mead will tell you "Relatable" is not  problematic. Sure it doesn't have the same meaning as it did during Shakespeare's  time, but it is just another of many words that have their meaning change. She explains how the word was "connected to some other thing" in Shakespeare's time. In modern times we use the term as to see our self in that certain situation. Sure it no longer has the meaning that she might like for the word but words change everyday, such as "slash". Pieces from Shakespeare and modern authors are both relatable when looked at close enough. To ask for something to be made relatable is also not problematic due to the fact that anybody can find something in common and piece if they try. So I disagree when she says that relatable is problematic and is a scourge. Relatablity is what makes novels or plays interesting and hold the attention of the audience. There also isn't anything wrong with trying to see yourself in a certain situation it could help understand the writing better if you do.

The Power of "Relatability"

This day in age, the idea of a work being relatable is what makes said work easier for it's audience to understand. Having the ability to relate to the audience and truly helping viewers to understand how the characters feel is what makes a work ultimately a success. In Rebecca Mead's article,
The Scourge of “Relatability”, she argues the problematic nature of the word "relatable." Although I agree that relatability is indeed problematic, I believe this for different reasons. In my mind, the ability to be relatable is of the upmost importance. Perhaps in Shakespearian time this was not the motive or the drive for entertainment, but in the year 2014 a piece is truly amazing if the audience is left completely haunted by the effects of a work due to the relatable characteristics it contains. While Mead obviously believed the complete opposite and argued that relatability should not be the only quality viewers look for in a work, it should not be abandoned as a vital piece to the formula that results in a successful work of entertainment. Relatability is not as much a problem as it is a necessity, without this quality viewers would be less likely to get the full experience that the directors wished. Mead argues that present-day viewers are unimaginative and un-empathetic, this is a bit of an over exaggeration as the audience is as empathetic and imaginative as a director/writer pushes them to be. While back when Shakespeare wrote plays his motive was obviously much different and for this reason one cannot fairly compare todays writers and audiences to that of the 1500's and expect no change. The power that the word "relatable" contains is staggering, it can cause an audience to change their views on the world, it forces a grown man to cry, the power of this problematic term is so strong that if a film does not contain such a quality it is indeed pushed aside an considered a "flop."  This forces directors to be more in tune with their audience and creates an unofficial bond with those who can truly relate. What sucks isn't the fact that an audience now expects relatability within a work, but that at one point they didn't, thus leaving no connection with the master creating the material of which they devoted so much of their time to. Therefore, yes the term and idea of a piece being "relatable" is problematic, problematic in the comprehensive nature of an audience of which inevitably changes over time along with it's writers.

Which Essay Is More Effective

After reading both "The Scourge of Relatability" by Rebecca Mead, and "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" by Glorida Anzaldúa I believe Anzaldúa creates a more effective argument when explaining the hardships of being a spanish speaker in the USA. She allows the audience to connect with her on a personal level by writing details of her childhood, her family and her experiences when speaking the different types of spanish. While Rebecca Mead makes her claim based upon another person's actions opposed to her own. Mead speaks as a commenter/critic while Anzaldúa speaks from the heart. Also, while reading the introduction of Mead's article it made me feel as those this work of literature was going to be preposterous, because she used words such as "Twitter", "stupid self", "suckiness". This words included in the introduction gave the portrayal that this article was going to be a hyperbole or satirical.
Anzaldúa makes a strong argument because she carefully explains what it's like to live with a language that is "embarrassing", a language that is subtly controlled by English over powering it. Anzaldúa use of strong words and phrases such as "attacks", "impenetrable as a stone"alienation" creates a powerful and vigorous tone through the passage. I believe Anzaldúa captures the audiences attention and makes the readers feel as though they have been hit by the words in order to understand and become involved in the reading.
I also feel that the situation in Mead's article is one that doesn't occur frequently enough to raise a huge concern and hardly anyone would even grasp the problem. Mead's problem is not one that is easily seen in everyday life, it is a problem one would have to really put some thought into to realize that the meaning of "relatable" is a problem. Anzaldúa's struggle is one that is frequent, since hispanic is the largest minority group in North America. Anzaldúa powerfully claims that the conflict of identification between cultures"suffer[ing]" and creates a sense of urgency and sympathy. Anzaldúa essay generates among the readers a want/need for change, she tells us why and how many people such as herself feel isolated, when they just want a sense of belonging.

What's the real problem?

Referring to literature, the word relatable has changed over time.  In Shakespears' time, the word meant it could be told and related to some other thing.  Today, we refer to the word as being related to ourselves and our own lives. Is this problematic? It would depend on which way you look at it.  For someone to classify a work of literature as Ira Glass did in the article based only on "relatability",  is showing themselves to be a shallow-minded person.

I do believe that most people do choose books to read that they can relate to themselves.  Many of the books young adult readers are choosing to read are about the future. These books include Divergent, The Giver and Hunger Games. In each of these books the author writes in a way that is believable up to a point, by creating characters similar to today's young adult readers.  The movie industry has chosen these books to be made into movies because the movie goers can relate to them and that's what sells movies.  But does that mean that other books are not good literature?  Absolutely not.  Over the years many different types of literature has been appreciated by millions of different people. To judge a piece of literature only by if it's relatable or not is ignorant.  Some may always appreciate one type of literature over another.

As the article points out, it's not the word that is problematic; it's the reader who views literature based solely on if it's relatable or not.  It's the reader that's not open to other forms of literature that one may actually have to use it's imagination or mind to understand the work that's problematic.

Relatable Comment

The word relatable has always changed back then it meant that something could be explained even though that is not what it means at all today people use the word in comparing things together. People all the time are using this word when they compare things to other things. For an example if someone was going through a time where their parents got a divorce a friend might not be going through the same type of split up they can say that they are going through something relatable to the other person. The author is correct in some case though if we can compare it to something else we really don't want to deal with it so we just try to pretend that it doesn't exist. Then we totally shun the thing that happens to us and go on with our lives and begin relating things to other things as well. People can also use the word relatable in writing as well when you have to write a paper one something that is relatable to cleaning products you could write the paper on different types of cleaning products that do the same thing as say Windex you just have to stay close to the product that is a glass cleaner. In todays world we use the word relatable a lot more then back then it is in tons of papers because its the word on how they compare things together. So when the word is used more times then not it is being used for the use of comparing things together.

The problematic word

The word "Relatable" is not as problematic as the author makes it seem. She goes on to explain that the word "Relatable" back in Shakespeare's time meant that something was explainable that it wasn't what it means today. In society today we use it as a way to use as an example if thats a way to put it, but we use it as an example by saying that if we do something like go to parties in college or we stay up all night that it is relatable to every other college student. The word itself has a different meaning from when Shakespeare was around it's the natural cycle of society changing things to suit them. Yes, it is a pain sometimes because even today there are words changing meaning and words being created by younger generations but in the end that generation views these changes as being helpful or make it easier to say things or give meaning to things its just the natural cycle of english. So for the author to go and say that it's a problem is crazy because it happens all the time, yes these days if we go through things that we can't relate to we end up rejecting it like the author said but it's the way things are, these days if we can't see things picture perfect or an almost exact picture of what we have gone through we seem to just reject it and that isn't always good but to go and say that the word is problematic is hard to back up because many people are now accustomed to the new meaning and have grown to accept it as the norm. So i disagree with her when she says its problematic because even though it may not be recognized as the true meaning "relatable" has changed whether they like it or not.

Powerful Moment

    Many people simply remember hurricane Katrina as a storm but I remember it as one of the most important times in my life. Not every ten-year-old has experienced the great amount of sympathy and fear that I had when twenty-three strangers camped out in my home for two months. They were my step dads relatives from New Orleans and I had never met any of them before. At the time I lived in a  small three bedroom house in Baton Rouge which is forty-five minutes away from New Orleans. 

    My home resembled a mini New Orleans Saints super-dome in a way because just like the super dome where most of the Katrina evacuees went, my house was also packed with strange people, few resources, and very cluttered. People occupied every room in the house including my own, I ended up sleeping on the couch the whole time they were living with us.  If I had complained about not having my room I'm sure I could have gotten it back but when those around you have been through such a traumatic experience bringing up something so petty just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. At night there was absolutely no room to walk around because people were sleeping on every square inch of my house, besides the kitchen. 

    Six of these strangers were kids my age and had to attend my elementary school towards the end of the school year. It was awkward for them because the school year was almost over and everything was already set in place. I tried to help them out by showing them where  their classes were and by introducing them to new people but things were so different from what they were use to they had a hard time adjusting.  

     I also struggled with getting accustomed to living with so many people. Nothing was ever where I left it, the house was always a mess, and people were not respectful of any of our belongings. My family didn't really own anything anymore, everything basically turned to community property where if someone wanted to use your belongings they just did without permission. Among my presence were murderers, drunkards, and thieves. I found this out as I got older but as a kid some of the stuff I heard and saw just didn't register. 

    Hurricane Katrina was such an eye opening experience for me because I had never lived with so many different types of people. Even though I was fortunate enough to not be  caught in the actual storm, it still was able to change my life. The experiences I had during this time good and bad helped me become a well rounded person and understand things about people that might be harder for others to grasp.  I'm blessed that I was able to help so many people in need.