Response to Course Material (3/16)

One of the tasks we focused on was multiple choice practice for the AP test. Unfortunately, that was our last time working on the multiple choice in groups. I think there are both positive and negative effects to working with a group. On one hand, groups provide more minds that can add to understanding in any scenario. But, they also add doubt. At times, working with others can cause me to doubt a correct answer, and I think I caused doubt for my group members as well. Still, I will have to see how I manage the questions alone.

We also talked about Ros. and Guil. more. I particularly liked the discussion of this play, because I think it has so much to explore and there are so many contradictions. Just when someone thinks he/she has a grasp on it, someone else can go, “but what about…”. There are constant issues within the play. I have always thought that one piece of literature can have many different meanings, and Ros. and Guil. are Dead is a prime example of different interpretations.

Speaking of many interpretations of literature, we also looked at critical lenses. It seems like some of the lenses kind of sink into our discussions at times. We never looked at The American Dream in depth from the Feminism lense, but it was still part of our discussion. I am also guilty of looking at literature and media and wondering what the role of women is supposed to be in the work and how that comments on women in society. I do not necessarily only question that one aspect, but it is taken into consideration. Any of the critical lenses can be part of our discussion without us explicitly stating that we are looking at a work from that lense.

I think a whole new meaning can be found in things from a different perspective, which is a concept we touched on when we read an article written about a whole different culture analysing Hamlet differently than the traditional Western perspective.

We spent an entire class period talking about Northrop Frye and his own way to critically analyse works. Under his system, Death of a Salesman would be considered irony. Again, the concept of different perspective comes in. This seems like an interesting time to look at new perspectives. For the first time, we are exploring an unfamiliar culture in Ceremony. The American Dream and Death of a Salesman take place and were written in mid 20th century America. Hamlet takes place in Medieval times, but was written during the Renaissance. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is based off Hamlet and was written in the mid 20th century.

Ceremony is written in a whole new writing style that we are not used to. All the others, are written in traditional Western structure and are pieces that are more common. The idea that we get to explore a new culture and a new writing style is quite interesting. We also get to do so, with more critical lenses in our pocket to draw from.

We have looked at Ceremony some over the past few weeks. The entire idea of perspective and order is throwing me off some. I have read things with changing perspectives and things written out of order before, but it is much harder to get my bearings with the story told out of order. It is hard to get a typical exposition understanding before the plot starts when the exposition happens with plot.

Open Prompt 2 (3/9)

2008. In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.

Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner works to force the bad attributes of Amir through his foil in the character Hassan. The relationship between the two boys is shown to be one-sided with Hassan acting as a friend to Amir, but Amir also forcing to act as a servant. The lack of definition of their relationship causes Amir to display that he cannot act as a true friend because he is jealous and afraid. Hassan, on the other hand, shows that he is truly a good friend and person by treating Amir as a friend even when he does not act like one. Through their relationship, Hosseini displays that redemption can only be found through actions.

Hassan’s admirable attributes only add to Amir’s lack of honorable actions throughout the first half of the book. Amir has more than Hassan in the form of material things, but he can never relate to his father, Baba, like Hassan can. Because of this, Amir channels his jealous into mean quips at Hassan. He tries to push Hassan, asking him if he would let him throw things at him at one point. In reply, Hassan says that Amir would never do that to him. This type of interaction is common as the boys develop their relationship. As time goes on, Amir proves to become more cruel. When Hassan is raped and assaulted trying to defend the kite he won for Amir, Amir runs away and pretends it did not happen. Even after the incident, Amir proves he is not the friend Hassan is, as he tries to push Hassan away. Eventually, he makes it look like Hassan stole his things to try to get him to leave. In his last actions of loyalty, Hassan admits he stole Amir’s things and leaves with his own father. This action shows that Hassan sees Amir as his true friend and Amir is further portrayed as a cowardly character. Though he feels the need to help Hassan, his actions always push Hassan away and make him feel like a servant rather than a friend.

Throughout the remainder of the book, Amir takes actions to make up for what he did to Hassan. At times, Amir conveys that he sees Amir as more than a servant, though he does not ever label him as a friend. Still, towards the end of the book, Amir learns that Hassan is his brother, changing his perspective. The new definition of their relationship makes Amir’s need to make up for his past actions stronger. Though Hassan is dead, he still acts as Amir’s moral compass, steering Amir towards redemption. Many times, Amir seems to show he is sorry for his actions against Hassan, but it is his actions in saving Hassan’s son that redeem Amir. The redefinition of the relationship between Amir and Hassan is the main reason Amir is able to overcome his cowardice and stand up for the relationship he never believed in as a child. Instead of treating Hassan as a servant, he treats him as a brother, and friend, showing that he is no longer a jealous coward, but instead more like the honorable friend Hassan is.

Amir’s growth throughout The Kite Runner is directly defined by the relationship he has with Hassan. At the beginning of the book, Hassan acts as his polar opposite, but by the end, he is the moral guide that Amir follows, leading him towards redemption. Though Amir may feel bad for what he does to Hassan, it is only through his actions that he is truly redeemed. Once he begins to act honorably as Hassan does, he is able to give back to Hassan and prove he is a good friend and brother.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Author: Tom Stoppard, a Czechoslovakian writer. He also wrote the screenplay and directed the movie form of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Setting:  A stage which Ros. and Guil. are confined to

Characters:

Rosencrantz is a character derived from Hamlet. He is generally not very smart. He does not notice when unlikely things happen and he does not seem concerned with understanding life, like his counterpart is. He often wants to play games and usually believes he is supposed to be playing them even when he is not. Many times, his goal is to make Guildenstern happy. At times, he recognizes there is an audience.

Guildenstern is also a characters derived from Hamlet. He is very much concerned with understanding life and has enough knowledge to know that certain things that are happening (like the coin coming up heads over ninety times in a row) should not be happening. He is usually unhappy and sometimes seeks comfort through interaction with Rosencrantz. He seems to know he is in a play various times throughout the piece. Before his death, he shows that he knows the play will restart again.

The Player is a very minor character derived from Hamlet. He seems to be the most aware that they are in a production and are acting. At times he recognizes and refers to the audience. He is also the leader of the Tragedians, a group of actors. Throughout the play, he gives Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hints to their death and explains how all plays must end. He puts on a play (Hamlet) for the king, but it upsets him and he must leave. In the end, Guildenstern tries to kill him, but he just stands up again, displaying he is an actor.

Hamlet is derived from Hamlet. He seems aware that he is an actor and not actually Hamlet.

Also...King, Queen, Tragedians

Summary:

At the beginning, Ros. and Guil. are flipping coins, with the coin coming up heads every time. They realize they were awoken by a messenger to go to Denmark on the king’s orders. Both are still confused about what is happening, but Guil. continually tries to reason out what is happening to them.

Ros. and Guil. meet the Player and the Tragedians while on their journey to Elsinore. The Player offers the tragedians up for a performance (sexual) for money. Eventually Guil. recognizes what is happening and becomes curious, asking the Player questions. Guil makes several bets with the Player that the Player cannot win, and they end up flipping coins again, with the Player keeping his foot on the coin in the last round. The Tragedians leave with the Player and the coin is seen to be tails.

Ros. and Guil. find out that they are meant to figure out what is wrong with Hamlet. To pass time before seeing Hamlet, they play a few question games which Ros. wins most of. Finally they practice asking Hamlet questions, but Ros. just ends up confused and they never practice correctly.

They finally talk to Hamlet, but afterward Ros. claims that they got nothing out of him, claiming that he won the game of questions. Guil. claims they can say they made progress.

The Player and the Tragedians show up at Elsinore and are mad at Ros. and Guil. for leaving them in the woods where they were putting on a play for Ros. and Guil. The Player also drops hints of their fate and the fact that they will never understand life. The tragedians leave to prepare the play Hamlet has asked them to perform.

Ros. and Guil. witness a scene between Ophelia and Hamlet (not in play) before seeing the King and Queen again. They still are not able to understand why Hamlet is so upset.

The Tragedians put on a play (Hamlet) showing two actors dressed as Ros and Guil. dead. Neither Ros. and Guil. grasp that they will die soon too. Instead they are confused adn more conversations hold mixed up language.

Ros. and Guil. find out they must take Hamlet to England. They are unsure what will happen to them if they do take him and worry they will cease to exist/die.

Act 3 starts with Ros. and Guil. on a dark ship. They are unsure of where they are, but they figure out they are delivering a letter from the King and Hamlet to England. Their confusion continues, with the same conversations they have had a few times in the play.

While Ros. and Guil. are asleep, Hamlet switches the letters out. When Ros. and Guil. wake up, they realize that the Tragedians are also on the ship, and they all must hide when the pirates take the ship. Finally, Ros. and Guil. read the letter Hamlet put in the envelope and see they are going to die instead of Hamlet. Guil. is suddenly angry and more confused and tries to kill the Player, but he just pretends to die and then stand up again.

Ros. disappears, claiming he is relieved. Guil. says they will know better next time, displaying that he knows the play will just start over. The play ends with the last words from Hamlet.

Motifs:

death

control (free will/fate/providence)

existentialism

theatre of the absurd

language

art v. reality

games

memory

religion

fourth wall

duality (coin)

intertextuality

life as a stage

identity

homo eroticism

friendship

Theme Statement: Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead conveys that there are questions that not even writers have the answers to.

In the play, Stoppard presents many questions to the audience that he never answers, questions of free will and direction as well as life and death. Stoppard presents many options to these questions, though they all contradict each other.

On one hand:

Though Ros. and Guil. do not have any control over their own actions because they are written into existence, Stoppard emphasizes that art is not life. This distinction allows for the audience to see that in real life, people do have control. Even with control, death is the ultimate outcome that cannot be changed for all. This proposes another question of how much free will people have.

And on the other:

He is emphasizing the similarities in art and life through making the distinctions. If this is true, the people in the audience do not really have control over their actions but instead are just living a life of circumstance, where random things are happening. Then again, it could be that there is some force controlling life, as Stoppard is controlling Ros. and Guil.

Stoppard presents questions to the audience with several answers that cannot all be true, but are all possible conclusions. Still, he emphasizes that he does not have the answers and really no one does.

POV:

Many of the “characters” in the play, like the Player and Hamlet are aware they are in a play and know they are acting. Ros. and Guil. are also aware at times. They recognize the audience and see they are stuck in a script. The recognition of the audience makes parts more uncomfortable.

Tone:

Many parts of the play have a mocking tone, of the audience and Shakespeare/writers in general. Still, other parts focus on the comedy of the piece and are upbeat or are so uncomfortable they are funny. Other parts convey a more tragic tone, with Guil’s need to understand life and the lack of control Ros and Guil have.

Imagery:

Throughout the play, the main forms of imagery come in the mentions of death as well as the mentions of duality through coins. Many times, Ros. specifically postulates on death and what it will be like, once describing laying in a box (coffin) both dead and alive. But, in the end, their deaths are simple and they just disappear.

There are common mention of things (like the audience and performers) being two sides of the same coin. This imagery puts the idea that the audience and performers (Ros/Guil; Death/Life) are the same. The audience is forced to recognize their stake and involvement in selling and buying and see Ros and Guil as one being.

Language:

Both Ros. and Guil. experience a confusion of language where they are not able to articulate what they mean at a given time. They confuse themselves and what they are trying to say. This displays their need for each other as well as their inability to understand their situation entirely. It also displays a Theatre of the Absurd concept that language is an insufficient way to communicate, though it is all we have.

Symbolism:

Coin- displays duality (Ros/Guil; life/death; audience/performers); shows that they are not acting in the confines of the real world (heads so many times in a row)

Boat- representation of life; can we control the boat, move on it? (free will, how much?)

Letter- no control over over death...do not decide when or where or how

Boxes- representation of cultural and personal confines; representation of death with Ros discussion of coffins

Quotes:

“Well, we’ll know better next time” (126)

This is a quote from Guil that comes right before his death. It displays that he is aware he is in a play and knows that they will both come back even though they died. It also conveys a hope that he will understand more the next time, though the audience is aware the play will happen the same way and he will never fully understand, which is what makes the play tragic. Though Guil believes he understands what is happening at the end of the play, he could never fully understand and he will not get to keep that knowledge.

“We are entitled to some direction...I would have thought.” (20)

This is another of Guil’s quotes and comes at the very beginning of the play. The interesting thing is that Ros. and Guil. do have direction from the Player. He tries to explain to them that the play will end in their death no matter what, but they do not catch on. Again, this question is thrown back to the audience. Are we entitled to some direction? How much? What exactly is direction? All the questions are forced upon the audience and they mean different things for Ros. and Guil. At one point in the play, they are contemplating actual directions (NSEW) in a very comical way, showing that they do not even know what direction is for them.