Uncritically accepts what I call the "standard interpretation" of the play, which actually wants a great deal of criticism. Whatever the Modern Language Association may have become, for ages literary criticism was élitist and literary critics tended to be social and political conservatives: perhaps friendly to the abstract ideals of republican democracy, but certainly not to its practical extension among the hoi polloi [and, yes, I know that's like saying "the Christ" or "con carne with meat," but hoi polloi functions as a two-word noun in English].

[Briefly, this is the "standard interpretation;" you may find it in virtually any introduction to the play. The plebeians are governed more by their hearts and bellies than by their heads, whereas the opposite obtains for the patricians. (As Mayor "Diamond Joe" Quimby has put it: "I'm sick o' you people! You're nothing but a pack of fickle mush-heads!" or "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?") Politically, the plebeians are allowed no will of their own, or at least none worth the patricians' attention. The patricians, on the other hand, look out for the plebeians in looking out for the best interests of Rome (note particularly how Menenius, who shares many of Coriolanus' opinions of the plebeians, is written as a kindly old man, despite the fact that he tells Coriolanus to lie to the people so he can become Consul, at which time he could break his promises with impunity). It is the people's tribunes, rather, who are portrayed as the self-interested manipulators of the political process, who play for fools the people who chose them, and who cause everyone to suffer because of it. Even where it is conceded that the people have a point, at least initially, the tribunes are nonetheless the ones identified as personally unlikeable, as untrustworthy, and as manipulative.]

And yet: the plebeians always give the patricians the benefit of the doubt. The patricians never give a straight answer; when asked why they let the plebeians starve, they offer non-denial denials: 'why would we do that?' They laugh about the plebeians thinking they're flush with grain, but do they offer to show their empty granaries (as they must be if the patricians are honest)? The patricians fling ad hominem insults upon the plebeians; they plot to be nice only when they want something from the plebeians and then go back to being their everyday jerk-ass selves; they insist upon having their way because they've always had their way; when the plebeians want a voice in government, the patricians refuse to participate in government at all, and then blame the plebeians when things go to hell. And yet, when the patricians insist upon having the most jerk-ass-y patrician of all as the leader of Rome – solely as a reward for victory in battle, not for anything even remotely indicative of political competence – the plebeians are willing to accede if only he'll ask their approval politely. I ask you: which class has the greater nobility of character?

From a strictly literary perspective, however, it's about what you'd expect of a Cliffs-Notes-y thing. ( )