Response to Course Materials

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are finished! We finally finished reading and analyzing the play... kind of. I don't think our class actually came up with a theme statement for the play, which supports our title as the least-productive class! Overall, I really liked the play. I missed a lot of class over the past couple of weeks, so I think I may have missed quite a bit of class discussion and analysis. This is a real bummer because out of all of the works that we have gone over in class, this one may be the one that we could use the most during the AP exam essay. Like what I said in the previous RCM post, when we were in the middle of our discussion process, R&G really tripped me up. Now I am contemplating the meaning of life during basically every past-time, from long car rides to the boring parts of physics class. Who am I kidding? I contemplate the meaning of life in every part of Physics class. That shit is boring.

The next thing we did on blogger was our peer reviews. I got some interesting comments from some interesting people, which is always fun. I also got some great feedback that I am definitely going to use during my editing session. Last time we got comments, I completely forgot to do my blog revisions on time and it totally came back to bite me! Not happening again, and this time I'll do even better. Just as Jimmy Carter once said, "You can do what you have to do, and sometimes you can do it even better than you think you can."

Frankenstein was also started during this past couple of weeks. I have yet to form an opinion on the book. I also would like to point out that this is the first work that we have read that was not created primarily to be performed on stage!

We also found out through the Kahoots how terrible we actually are at learning on our own. The
whole Critical lenses and literary eras was difficult, but I think I got the jest of it.

Open prompts are getting a LOT easier. The second time around, I kind of had a feel for what I was supposed to be doing. I also think that my essay that I wrote turned out 100x better. I went to Schuler's on a Sunday afternoon (it was surprisingly not busy) and sat in the corner and got to work. I may have gotten too deep on the open prompt, but hey you only live once, right?

Open Prompt Part Two: 2004

2004 Prompt: Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

Open Prompt Part One: 2004 Student Responses

2004 Prompt: Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

N: This essay on the novel, Candide, is very persuasive on the topic of how the main character manages to raise  question, answer it, and not answer it at the same time. Much like the philosopher who wrote the novel in the first place, the author of this essay leaves the answer to the question open to interpretation. I mostly think that this is a good thing. Additionally, I got the feeling that the essay-writer had a list of words that they were going to use on their AP exam. Overall the author lacks originality and is generally repetitive.

J: While the writer makes understanding the novel easy for the reader, he may have dwelled on the plot more than needed, ultimately creating a defect in analysis. Well, to be quite honest, this essay is just like every other one. Too general (due to the lack of time), too vague (due to lack of physical materials during the thought processing), and poorly articulated (due to the fact that it was written by a high schooler). Needs work.

UU: too general not enough plot points. This author is incredibly vague with everything that he brings to the essay. The plot is hardly discussed, which disrupts the reader due to the fact that we are not expected to be familiar with any work that is being brought up in the essays. The theme statement is also vague, in that I have no idea what it actually is. Finally, the relation to answering the prompt is also incredible inadequate because it leaves the question too open. No novel goes without a purpose, and while contemplation is required upon finishing, the resolutions that the reader reaches should be alike in some ways. This essay was also way too short and failed to expand on idea properly.

Summary and Analysis of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard

Author
Tom Stoppard

Setting
1. Traveling along an undistinguished road to Elsinore
2. Elsinore
3. The boat to England
*In reality, the entire play takes place within the theater car*

Characters
Rosencrantz: Gentleman and childhood friend of Hamlet. Simple-minded, content, adventurous and analyzing but remains reserved in expression.
Guildenstern: Gentleman and childhood friend of Hamlet. Tries way too hard to seem educated and powerful. Constantly in battle with, and disconnected to the intellectual concepts of the world.
The Player: Leader of the Tragedians. Constantly in power and in the position of manipulation with the other characters.
Tragedians: Group of traveling actors.

Plot

Act One

1. R & G play a game of coins and banter
2. They realize that they were sent for, but fail to remember what for.
3. The Player and the Tragedians are introduced and offer to perform child pornography. The Player manipulates R & G into allowing them to perform in Elsinore through a bet.
4. Suddenly, they arrive in Elsinore and are thrown into the middle of the first confrontation between Hamlet and Ophelia, the proceed to become involved in the drama of Hamlet. 
5. "off-stage" they try to play the question game but fail, then are reinserted into Hamlet.

Act Two

1. Fade in at the end of their conversation with Hamlet, the one where Hamlet makes complete fools of them. "were you sent for?"
2. Try to figure out where they are again using a train of thought referring to the wind and sun, ultimately getting nowhere.
3. Player has long dialogue about what it means to be an actor
4. Hamlet's play disturbs Elsinore and R & G are asked to look for Polonius' body
5. They "capture" him and are ordered to escort him to England.

Act Three

1. On the boat to England R & G read the letter they were given and discover that they are escorting Hamlet to his death.
2. Hamlet switches out the letters and escape from the ship with a bunch of pirates; The Tragedians appear on the ship
3. Guildenstern kills the Player, but, to G's surprise, it was a fake death with a stage prop (example of how the Player is in control)
4. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead
5. Horatio gives final speech in Hamlet and the lights fall.

Quotes
"Words, words. They're all we have to go on." (41) -Guildenstern
This is something that G says during one of his rambling banters with R. From the reader's perspective, this statement is very true. Everything in the textual version of the play is written out in words, We aren't watching the play, so we have no visual aid other than the literal lettering. This is important because there is so much in this play that can be overlooked and misunderstood because we are not physically watching it, much like how R & G are often left in the dark. Here is a connection between the text-audience and the characters.

Theme
Okay, so here is the thing. We didn't really finish this in our class, so I don't really have anything specific to write about. HOWEVER, the concept of this play's theme is not totally lost because I managed to write my open prompt essay blog post using Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. So, when it comes to AP essay studying time, the sure-fire option for me will be to designate 3-4 hours of staring at a wall and contemplating the meaning of life in accordance to this play. That's basically what I did in class, and I think it did me wonders. Here, ambiguity and disorganization is key.