These past few weeks have been pretty busy in A.P. Lit. We finished up our Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead discussions. As I did my close reading and talked with the class, I got a better understanding of the play, and came to really like it a lot. Noticing more of the patterns and witty wordplay as well as deeper meaning was super exciting, and I found myself eager to get to class and discuss more. I'm pretty happy with the theme statement our class came up with, especially considering how a week or to earlier I had no idea if we even could come up with a theme statement. I was interested to see that our theme statement had similar ideas to the post modernism article we annotated. The article had some really cool ideas, but I thought the wording could have been a lot more straight forward. It actually sounded kind of pretentious to me. Overall though, I really liked the way we handled R and G, and I'm so glad it was part of our curriculum.
We have also been doing a lot of A.P. test practice, and I was encouraged to see that I have been improving! We split into groups and did some practice multiple choice, and found ourselves getting a lot more of the questions correct. I still think my biggest issue for the multiple choice will be vocabulary, both in the questions and the answer choices. It's not just terms related to rhetoric that I'm having trouble with; those questions just like to use big words in general. But as a literary analyst I am getting better, and all the practice we've been doing in class has helped a lot. We also wrote a practice essay on Cisneros's "Eleven", and with some advice on centering each body paragraph on an idea/ point rather than on a literary technique, I was able to produce an 8- scoring essay, which makes me feel a lot better about the exam. We also studied a poem called "Defending Walt Whitman," as a class. Going through the analysis process together was a good review, and helped me remember how to structure my analysis.
The next big work we are studying is Silko's Ceremony. We started by viewing a presentation on Laguna culture, and reading a few essays on their philosophy and way of life. I found this extremely helpful when I started reading the actual book, and I was so glad I had that background knowledge. It helped me analyze the characters because I had a better idea of what was and was not acceptable in Laguna culture. I have to say I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get to read this work in class, because I've always found it helpful when Ms. Holmes stops us to clear something up, but it's a long work and I understand that time is limited. I am really enjoying Ceremony so far. I love how it sometimes explains things in abstract ways (this kind of reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and it gives both works a surreal effect, which helps the meaning along), and how it jumps around the timeline. This makes it feel like the story is unfolding in pieces, like a puzzle. There's also some really rich symbolism that I'm excited to discuss with the class. We talked about Auntie a lot in class, and I'm noticing more and more how manipulative and complicated her character is. I'm just really excited to get deeper into this book.
Recently, we've been studying the different critical lenses. I've learned a few new ones, such as post colonialism and literary Darwinism. As a class, we looked at The American Dream through several different lenses, and it was cool to see how different the conclusions we came to with each lens were. When we looked at it psychoanalytically, we noticed how troubled Albee must have been when he was writing it, which I hadn't thought about as much before. I think it's cool to look at a single work in so many different ways, and I disagree with people who stick to one lens and think it's the only "correct" way to look at a work.
We also looked at Northop Frye's "Mythoi". When I first looked at the circle printed on the handout Ms. Holmes gave us, I was didn't fully understand it and was pretty skeptical. But when she drew it on the board and explained it more, I understood it better and thought it was pretty fascinating. I found myself thinking about the works we've read, and seeing where they fall on the circle. Death of a Salesman, often considered a tragedy, seems fall more into the "irony" category. I thought it was a really interesting way of studying literature, and I'm excited to get more in depth into some of the other lenses.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
2009. A symbol is an object, action, or event that represents something or that creates a range
of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning,
or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay
analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
In Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the coins act as a symbol of chance. By always landing on heads, they actually demonstrate the lack of chance in Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' world. This lack of chance in the stage world contrast with the real world, clarifying Stoppard's meaning that life is not like a work of art, and people are not bound by the same rules of chance and fate as characters, so they can exercise free will.
Because the outcome of a coin toss is random, it is completely based on chance whether or not the coin will land on heads or tails. This makes the coins that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern toss in the play a symbol of chance. The fact that they always land on heads defies the laws of randomness, showing that there actually is no chance in their world. The outcome of each coin toss is not random, it's predetermined by Stoppard. This idea applies to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's situation as a whole, because none of the events they experience are due to chance. They are determined by what Stoppard wrote.
The lack of chance demonstrated by the coins bring out the differences between the stage and real life. In real life, the laws of randomness apply, and a coin toss's outcome is based on chance. The fact that the coin toss's outcome in the play is not based on chance, shows that characters on the stage are bound by different rules regarding chance and fate.
Stoppard uses an unconventional method of getting meaning across. He's trying to get readers to think about what he's NOT saying about the characters who are bound by the fate that's written for them, and apply that as actual meaning to real people, who have free will. To do so, he needs to make it very clear that his characters and their world are very different from real people. The fact that the coins represent chance contributes to this contrast and subsequently clarifies the meaning, because they demonstrate that the characters' world defies the laws of randomness, showing that their world goes by different logic than the real world. The differences the coins express in the logic of chance and fate on stage vs the real world help readers look at what the story is not saying about characters (especially involving their lack of free will), and apply it to real people.
of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning,
or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay
analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
In Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the coins act as a symbol of chance. By always landing on heads, they actually demonstrate the lack of chance in Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' world. This lack of chance in the stage world contrast with the real world, clarifying Stoppard's meaning that life is not like a work of art, and people are not bound by the same rules of chance and fate as characters, so they can exercise free will.
Because the outcome of a coin toss is random, it is completely based on chance whether or not the coin will land on heads or tails. This makes the coins that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern toss in the play a symbol of chance. The fact that they always land on heads defies the laws of randomness, showing that there actually is no chance in their world. The outcome of each coin toss is not random, it's predetermined by Stoppard. This idea applies to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's situation as a whole, because none of the events they experience are due to chance. They are determined by what Stoppard wrote.
The lack of chance demonstrated by the coins bring out the differences between the stage and real life. In real life, the laws of randomness apply, and a coin toss's outcome is based on chance. The fact that the coin toss's outcome in the play is not based on chance, shows that characters on the stage are bound by different rules regarding chance and fate.
Stoppard uses an unconventional method of getting meaning across. He's trying to get readers to think about what he's NOT saying about the characters who are bound by the fate that's written for them, and apply that as actual meaning to real people, who have free will. To do so, he needs to make it very clear that his characters and their world are very different from real people. The fact that the coins represent chance contributes to this contrast and subsequently clarifies the meaning, because they demonstrate that the characters' world defies the laws of randomness, showing that their world goes by different logic than the real world. The differences the coins express in the logic of chance and fate on stage vs the real world help readers look at what the story is not saying about characters (especially involving their lack of free will), and apply it to real people.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Summary and Analysis
The Basics:
Author: Tom Stoppard (written mid 1960's). This was Stoppard's first really successful play.
Setting: Technically, the setting is the stage, because the characters make several references to the fact that they are on a stage. Within the story, it starts out in a sort of weird nothingness (in the movie it's a forest), until Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are summoned for their lines, and the setting changes to the setting of Hamlet (the castle in Elsinore, Medieval times). The last act takes place on a boat headed for England, still within the time frame of the story of Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern: A man around Hamlet's age, who comes into existence as an adult solely for the purpose of being a plot device in Hamlet. He knows his Hamlet lines but he doesn't know why, and he has little understanding of his situation and the confusing world he's been placed in. In the beginning, he futilely tries to use logic and scientific reasoning to figure things out (often misquoting scientific theories, as well as the Lord's Prayer). He doesn't really have an identity and is often angered by his lack of free will (as a character with his fate written out for him).
Rosencrantz: Guildenstern's companion, who is in the exact same situation as Guildenstern. He is much more emotional than Guildenstern, and somewhat less intelligent. He often just repeats Guildenstern's lines, and rarely comes up with anything original. He also seems less disturbed by the confusion of their situation, and their lack of free will, and doesn't give it as much thought as Guildenstern (although some of his later lines about being in a box and about death reveal show that he is capable of deeper thought as well).
Player King: Also a plot-device character in Hamlet, he is in a similar situation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, although he has a much greater understanding of what's going on. He even knows the story of Hamlet, including Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' deaths, before it has played out (in th current cycle of the book). He toys with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and gives them some hints and even advice on their situation. He is witty and mysterious, and he leads a troupe of actors/prostitutes who specialize in "Blood, love, and rhetoric"(Stoppard). He often angers Guildenstern, who criticizes him and his players for acting out insincere, over dramatic deaths when they have no experience with actual death and its absoluteness.
The other Hamlet characters: Stoppard's play is intertwined with the story of Hamlet. However, we only see the characters (besides Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the players) when they are doing and saying exactly what is written in Hamlet (except for one scene on the boat, which still doesn't reveal much about Hamlet's knowledge of his situation). Therefore, the audience has no insight on any of these characters outside their scenes in Hamlet. Because of this, their level of awareness that they are only characters is unknown to the audience.
Plot:
Act I: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping coins idly, with no apparent goal or purpose. When every single coin ends up being heads, Guildenstern is suspicious and tries to figure it out with logic and reasoning, while Rosencrantz doesn't think much of it. Eventually, the Player king shows up, delighted to have an audience. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not impressed by his group of prostitutes, and make a bet with the player over a coin toss, where if the player wins, he has to put on a show. The player pretends he lost and gets ready to put on a show, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are transported to the Hamlet castle, just in time for the scene when Claudius asks them to talk to Hamlet. They are quite confused by this, and they pass the time by playing pointless games of word tennis, and practicing their anticipated interaction with Hamlet (rehearsing their lines?).
Act II: After their unsuccessful interaction with Hamlet (strictly from the scene in Hamlet), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more confused than ever, and have more absurd, pointless conversations to pass the time. at one point, we see Rosencrantz's deeper side as he tries to talk about death, but he keeps interrupting himself with more absurdity. They watch the player rehearse his play (which is Hamlet, including the ending, which technically hasn't happened yet), and argue with him about death. He gives them some hints about their situation, but it seems more like he's just poking fun at them rather than trying to help them. As the events of Hamlet play out, Claudius informs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they will be escorting Hamlet to England on a boat.
Act III: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern randomly appear on the boats. They contemplate the significance of being on a boat, where they have some free will as long as they stay on the boat. They practice their interactions with the English King, opening the letter in the process and seeing that it condemns Hamlet to death. As they contemplate this and the boat some more, the Player and the Tragedians come out of the barrels. Rosencratz and Guildenstern argue some more with the players, trying to make some sense out of everything, when suddenly, pirates invade the ship and chaos ensues. When everything clears up, Hamlet is gone and their note to the King has been replaced with one ordering their own deaths. Guildenstern, in a desperate and angry attempt to grasp some sort of meaning, stabs the player king, thinking he's killing him for real. It ends up being a fake knife, and the player put on yet another fake death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lament their sealed fates and ask themselves if there was ever a point where they could have said "no". The scene changes to the last scene of Hamlet, when everyone is dead, and the ambassador announces that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead as well.
Narrative Voice:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice, but the author's point of view comes through clearly. Tom Stoppard is Existentialist, and this shows through a lot in his work when he uses the characters' lack of free will to emphasize the fact that actual people do have free will (I will expand on that when I discuss my theme statement). Also, Stoppard's point of view comes out in the commentary on plays and how they are perceived. Through the portrayal of the Player and his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard criticizes how audiences come into theaters with preconceived notions of what to expect, closing their minds to accepting anything different. For example, the player at one point says "Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe in"(Stoppard 84). I really like this quote, and although it addresses one of Stoppard's less major points, it's very well worded, concise, and interesting. We also see Stoppard's criticism through Guildenstern when he scolds the players for putting on over dramatic deaths to please the audiences, without grasping the absoluteness of an actual death.
Tone:
The tone of this play is mostly witty and nonsensical. It's full of word play, and often comical as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's attempts to break from the story of Hamlet fail in humorous ways (e.g. when they try to trap Hamlet using their belts). This cleverness and silliness makes the deeper lines of the play stand out and seem more jarring. For example, near the end, Rosencrantz desperately cries out, "We've done nothing wrong!"(Stoppard 125). This powerful quote reminds readers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really are innocent and had no choice in any of the events they've gone through, invoking sympathy for them. The fact that readers had just been laughing at their misfortune makes it seem even more sad, and possible brings a feeling of guilt to the readers.
Imagery:
There is lots of imagery in this play involving light and color. Stoppard discusses lighting extensively in the stage directions, which brings out the fact that pre-written things such as the lights coming on and off move the play forward and determine when the characters come on and act, rather than the characters themselves, highlighting their lack of control. I have yet to fully understand all of the color imagery, so if anyone has ideas about that, I would love to hear them.
Symbols:
Coins- The coins represent chance. The fact they keep landing on heads defies the laws of randomness. They always land on heads, because Stoppard wrote them too, so there is actually no "chance" in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's world. It's all written out already...nothing is random. This is yet another way Stoppard contrasts the stage with the real world.
Boat- The boat represents life. When boat's journey inevitably will end somewhere, as will life. People have free will within the boat (life), but they can't control the fact that they eventually will die (that the boat will eventually stop).
England- England might represent an afterlife, as it is the boat's final destination. Rosencrantz at one point questions England's existence, bringing an interesting religious aspect to the work.
Theme: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead contrasts the confusion and language of the stage with the audience, commenting that because life is not a work of art we are not limited by the same laws of fate that characters are and can therefore exercise free will.
Stoppard uses many techniques to set the "stage world" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, a lot of which I discussed above. The emphasis on the lighting (discussed in the imagery section) as well as the coins show that characters in a play are completely subject to what is written and planned for them. They have no free will. The general confusion and absurdism of the play also sets it apart from the real world. The breaking of the fourth wall and acknowledgement of the audience defines their differences as well. By emphasizing how different real life and the stage are, Stoppard brings out the point that people, unlike characters, are not bound by the same rules of fate and can exercise free will.
Author: Tom Stoppard (written mid 1960's). This was Stoppard's first really successful play.
Setting: Technically, the setting is the stage, because the characters make several references to the fact that they are on a stage. Within the story, it starts out in a sort of weird nothingness (in the movie it's a forest), until Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are summoned for their lines, and the setting changes to the setting of Hamlet (the castle in Elsinore, Medieval times). The last act takes place on a boat headed for England, still within the time frame of the story of Hamlet.
Characters:
Guildenstern: A man around Hamlet's age, who comes into existence as an adult solely for the purpose of being a plot device in Hamlet. He knows his Hamlet lines but he doesn't know why, and he has little understanding of his situation and the confusing world he's been placed in. In the beginning, he futilely tries to use logic and scientific reasoning to figure things out (often misquoting scientific theories, as well as the Lord's Prayer). He doesn't really have an identity and is often angered by his lack of free will (as a character with his fate written out for him).
Rosencrantz: Guildenstern's companion, who is in the exact same situation as Guildenstern. He is much more emotional than Guildenstern, and somewhat less intelligent. He often just repeats Guildenstern's lines, and rarely comes up with anything original. He also seems less disturbed by the confusion of their situation, and their lack of free will, and doesn't give it as much thought as Guildenstern (although some of his later lines about being in a box and about death reveal show that he is capable of deeper thought as well).
Player King: Also a plot-device character in Hamlet, he is in a similar situation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, although he has a much greater understanding of what's going on. He even knows the story of Hamlet, including Rosencrantz and Guildensterns' deaths, before it has played out (in th current cycle of the book). He toys with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and gives them some hints and even advice on their situation. He is witty and mysterious, and he leads a troupe of actors/prostitutes who specialize in "Blood, love, and rhetoric"(Stoppard). He often angers Guildenstern, who criticizes him and his players for acting out insincere, over dramatic deaths when they have no experience with actual death and its absoluteness.
The other Hamlet characters: Stoppard's play is intertwined with the story of Hamlet. However, we only see the characters (besides Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the players) when they are doing and saying exactly what is written in Hamlet (except for one scene on the boat, which still doesn't reveal much about Hamlet's knowledge of his situation). Therefore, the audience has no insight on any of these characters outside their scenes in Hamlet. Because of this, their level of awareness that they are only characters is unknown to the audience.
Plot:
Act I: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping coins idly, with no apparent goal or purpose. When every single coin ends up being heads, Guildenstern is suspicious and tries to figure it out with logic and reasoning, while Rosencrantz doesn't think much of it. Eventually, the Player king shows up, delighted to have an audience. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not impressed by his group of prostitutes, and make a bet with the player over a coin toss, where if the player wins, he has to put on a show. The player pretends he lost and gets ready to put on a show, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are transported to the Hamlet castle, just in time for the scene when Claudius asks them to talk to Hamlet. They are quite confused by this, and they pass the time by playing pointless games of word tennis, and practicing their anticipated interaction with Hamlet (rehearsing their lines?).
Act II: After their unsuccessful interaction with Hamlet (strictly from the scene in Hamlet), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more confused than ever, and have more absurd, pointless conversations to pass the time. at one point, we see Rosencrantz's deeper side as he tries to talk about death, but he keeps interrupting himself with more absurdity. They watch the player rehearse his play (which is Hamlet, including the ending, which technically hasn't happened yet), and argue with him about death. He gives them some hints about their situation, but it seems more like he's just poking fun at them rather than trying to help them. As the events of Hamlet play out, Claudius informs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they will be escorting Hamlet to England on a boat.
Act III: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern randomly appear on the boats. They contemplate the significance of being on a boat, where they have some free will as long as they stay on the boat. They practice their interactions with the English King, opening the letter in the process and seeing that it condemns Hamlet to death. As they contemplate this and the boat some more, the Player and the Tragedians come out of the barrels. Rosencratz and Guildenstern argue some more with the players, trying to make some sense out of everything, when suddenly, pirates invade the ship and chaos ensues. When everything clears up, Hamlet is gone and their note to the King has been replaced with one ordering their own deaths. Guildenstern, in a desperate and angry attempt to grasp some sort of meaning, stabs the player king, thinking he's killing him for real. It ends up being a fake knife, and the player put on yet another fake death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lament their sealed fates and ask themselves if there was ever a point where they could have said "no". The scene changes to the last scene of Hamlet, when everyone is dead, and the ambassador announces that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead as well.
Narrative Voice:
This is a play, so it doesn't really have a narrative voice, but the author's point of view comes through clearly. Tom Stoppard is Existentialist, and this shows through a lot in his work when he uses the characters' lack of free will to emphasize the fact that actual people do have free will (I will expand on that when I discuss my theme statement). Also, Stoppard's point of view comes out in the commentary on plays and how they are perceived. Through the portrayal of the Player and his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard criticizes how audiences come into theaters with preconceived notions of what to expect, closing their minds to accepting anything different. For example, the player at one point says "Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe in"(Stoppard 84). I really like this quote, and although it addresses one of Stoppard's less major points, it's very well worded, concise, and interesting. We also see Stoppard's criticism through Guildenstern when he scolds the players for putting on over dramatic deaths to please the audiences, without grasping the absoluteness of an actual death.
Tone:
The tone of this play is mostly witty and nonsensical. It's full of word play, and often comical as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's attempts to break from the story of Hamlet fail in humorous ways (e.g. when they try to trap Hamlet using their belts). This cleverness and silliness makes the deeper lines of the play stand out and seem more jarring. For example, near the end, Rosencrantz desperately cries out, "We've done nothing wrong!"(Stoppard 125). This powerful quote reminds readers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really are innocent and had no choice in any of the events they've gone through, invoking sympathy for them. The fact that readers had just been laughing at their misfortune makes it seem even more sad, and possible brings a feeling of guilt to the readers.
Imagery:
There is lots of imagery in this play involving light and color. Stoppard discusses lighting extensively in the stage directions, which brings out the fact that pre-written things such as the lights coming on and off move the play forward and determine when the characters come on and act, rather than the characters themselves, highlighting their lack of control. I have yet to fully understand all of the color imagery, so if anyone has ideas about that, I would love to hear them.
Symbols:
Coins- The coins represent chance. The fact they keep landing on heads defies the laws of randomness. They always land on heads, because Stoppard wrote them too, so there is actually no "chance" in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's world. It's all written out already...nothing is random. This is yet another way Stoppard contrasts the stage with the real world.
Boat- The boat represents life. When boat's journey inevitably will end somewhere, as will life. People have free will within the boat (life), but they can't control the fact that they eventually will die (that the boat will eventually stop).
England- England might represent an afterlife, as it is the boat's final destination. Rosencrantz at one point questions England's existence, bringing an interesting religious aspect to the work.
Theme: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead contrasts the confusion and language of the stage with the audience, commenting that because life is not a work of art we are not limited by the same laws of fate that characters are and can therefore exercise free will.
Stoppard uses many techniques to set the "stage world" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, a lot of which I discussed above. The emphasis on the lighting (discussed in the imagery section) as well as the coins show that characters in a play are completely subject to what is written and planned for them. They have no free will. The general confusion and absurdism of the play also sets it apart from the real world. The breaking of the fourth wall and acknowledgement of the audience defines their differences as well. By emphasizing how different real life and the stage are, Stoppard brings out the point that people, unlike characters, are not bound by the same rules of fate and can exercise free will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)