R&G Blog Act 3

I sure wouldn't want to be stranded on a boat, and have no idea what was going on. I would probably start hyperventilating. R and G are so used to crazy things happening, that instead of freaking out, they just start to question if they are really there or not.I especially liked Rosencrantz's quote, "Yes, it's lighter than it was. It'll be night soon...I suppose we'll have to go to sleep" (99). What chaos! Night being light! The only type of book in which this line would have any significance is in a postmodern book since it obviously displays disorder and chaos. Then I saw Guildenstern talking to the audience (which is metafiction), "One is free on a boat. For a time. Relatively" (101). I think that G is addressing his belief of life through the metaphor of the boat. There is a short life for us to fool around and do as we please, but it all comes to an end. That is for sure. Also, do we have free will? Is there a God who ultimately has a plan for us? Is there an end?

I liked Guildensterns humorous little lines throughout the book since they are constant and reliable, amidst all these confusing concepts. G says, "Give us this day our daily cue" (102).

I thought that Guildenstern's existentialist quote was significant. He states, "But you dont believe anything till it happens. And it has all happened. Hasnt it? " (108). This is SO existentialist that it blows your socks off. I'm glad to have finally found a clear quote that shows their existentialist point of view of only knowing by experience/happenings.Here we go with the wheel idea again. It rolled on back. Rosencrantz questions the outer force by saying, "I wish I was dead. I could jump over the side. That would put a spoke in their wheel" (108). So is THEIR, the outer force then? He wants to put a damper on his determined/ scripted life which would be out of character. Does life even mean anything to R? I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure if he cares or not. Then we have the omniscient player who thinks "life is a gamble"(115) showing that our life is just a game of chance. Just like the game we played in class. We are all little pawns in the determined world. (my team won btw ) 8D
Rosencrantz figures that the only way to enjoy life is "be happy" (121). He recognizes that he needs to embrace the chaos and live his life how he likes.

To finish, R and G present some life questions:
G: "Who are we?" (122)R: "When did it begin?" (125)

Why My Team Won

Well, for starters, there is no code of morality in postmodernism. The world is chaotic and there are no set standards to live by. That is why Mrs. Kirk gave us the option to create rules.
I believe my team won, not because of the general perception of what makes a winner, but according to my own set of rules. My rules are all that matter . I think that we presented quality information answering Mrs. Kirk's questions: such as our example of the actor actually killing a person displaying hyper reality. I also think that we did a better job accepting the world around us- 'the governing outer force of Mrs. Kirk's guidelines'- instead of constantly questioning it. We dealt with the chaos when the other team churned up the 50 dollar cash idea, and I think that in all fairness, the game wanted us to win. EVEN THOUGH the other team wouldn't let us buy any rules, we were able to roll doubles, twice! How lucky is that! Another factor to point out is this- we are playing a game of chance and money. 1) We had the best luck with the dice 2)We ended up with 670 dollars instead of the mere 550 of the other team.
So there you have it. We stuck to the rules, embraced the chaos, analyzed the text thoughtfully, and mangaged to have luck on our side. I say we WON.

R+G Act 2!!

I don't know about you, but I am sure glad that the world is not as confusing as this book makes it seem. What chaos we'd be in! You know?
When i opened the book to page 57, I liked the way that the act opened with Hamlet chatting it up with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It involved me right away. Something significant that stood out to me is that R and G include Hamlet in their word game without him knowing. They count his rhetorical questions and what not. I find it funny that there are two sides to this. The first is that Hamlet is playing with their minds by using wordplay in order to keep his feelings to himself. The second is that R and G are including Hamlet in their word game questionaire.
This all broadly ties into the theme that they are all merely pawns acting out a BIG game of life.

I also enjoyed the world play and witty banter. The word "rough" is interpreted in many ways on page 58. This adds to the post modern theme because words lose their meanings and are distorted. I liked the following phrases because they show wordplay and attention to concrete senses:

R: "Lick your lips"
G: "Taste your tears"
R: "Your breakfast"
G: "You won't know the difference"
It is important to note page 64, where the players' lives started. When their audience faded away, that is when their mission to go to the king began. Their lives became controlled when the king made a guilty soliloquy, because it gave them purpose. The player also demonstrates the postmodern theme when he says, "Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special"(66) to G.
Remember how in postmodernism, only birth and death are knowable? Well let me give you some great examples of that. On page 70, R goes on about how death makes him depressed since death is certain. On page 72, eternity scares Guildenstern since it is unknowable and confusing. Birth and death are the only concrete things that these two individuals understand.
Humor strikes once again as G says, "Give us this day our daily round" (90) lightening the mood of the play.


Who do you relate to more? Rosencrantz or Guildenstern? When i read this story, i usually agree with Guildenstern and feel more connected to him. I think that's because he likes to see the logical side of things and tries to analyze the world that he lives in. I'm not sure if it was Mrs. Harris or not, but one of the English teachers made the class take a "self test" to see what kind of a person they are. Mine told me that I'm a "concrete sequential" person, meaing that I like logical order and patterns. I guess that explains why I must writes sticky notes to myself, reminding myself to remind myself. :) That's why I have to make a list for the items I am packing for a trip or the food I have to buy at a grocery store. Being sequential also explains why I enjoy very structured essays, because when given a broad category to write about- I freak out! I have no idea where to start. My mind works in an orderly fashion. So there you have it.

I'll leave you with the existentialist( experience is all we know) quote by Guildenstern, "No, no, no! If we can't learn by experience, what else have we got?"(90).

Inaugural Blog

Isn't it fascinating that a man like Michael Gerson has read every single inaugural speech in American History?! I appreciate people, like him, that dedicate themselves to something like that in order to give us a deeper understanding of the speeches.
I remember sitting in Mr. Coffey's class watching the inaugural speech by Obama. I was surprised-as was Gerson- that Obama did not emphasize the progress of the African Americans in America as much as I thought he would. I figured that his entire speech would be a climatical narration of how African Americans used to not have any rights, and how he now stands as the nation's president with the most respected position. Gerson admired Lowery's prayer and that prayer was something that stuck out in my mind as well. Lowery used traditional phrases to point out civil rights. Lauren and i were chuckling at the fact that Lowery had said things like, "When the black comes back, when the yellow is mellow, when the white isnt right" and such.. His expressions were kind of distracting, so I didn't absorb the meaning of the prayer as a whole, but focused on certain elements of it. Our whole class seemed to do the same thing, since we found it quite entertaining. The camera even focused in on Obama himself, who could help but laugh during the prayer.
I thought it was important that Obama stated in his speech that he wanted America to turn back to its original virtues. Michael Gerson points out that most presidents use that theme in their speeches, which i found intersting. I also find it very entertaining that when Obama mentions religion, the nation just "oohs" and "ahhs" in appraisal, yet when Bush states his religious opinions, people think he is trying to go against the constitution. So WHAT IS IT that makes Obama so different? Has anyone got the answer for that yet?

R+G Blog #2

"Oh yes, we have no control"(25) states the Player who is speaking to G about fate. This demonstrates the interchangeability in the book, and it emphasizes the outer force that has control on the characters. Since R+G and the Players are all just actors in the book, they are being controlled by an outside force. This carries a postmodern theme because it is almost metaphysical- but not quite there yet. There is an outer force controlling the characters, but it is not yet revealed. "No control" is also furthered by the actor reassures G's phrase "always in character"(34). This is the same idea that they are always actors in their world since there is a ruling force outside of them.
In class we talked about the indifference to what is true or false (27). This demonstrates a changing, fragmented and chaotic world-as in accord with postmodernism-since there is no standard to measure truth. It constantly changes meaning.
I liked the way that Tom Stoppard changes the scene on page 35. After R states, "It was tails", the entire scene changes to that of Ophelia and Hamlet. The significance? Not concrete yet, but i concluded that R+G's life suddenly becomes purposeful with the "tails" of the coin, as a reversal of the story. This is because a new scene with Ophelia and Hamlet occurs right after the coin changes to tails--after being heads for so long. As if R+G's life did not mean anything until they are able to take part in Hamlet's life. Now whether they are just watching the players act this out, or if they are actually involved with Hamlet is a whole new dealio. I'll just have to keep an open mind as I read this section of the novel.

R+G Blog #1

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are only aware of their existence from the time they are sent for to when they are hanged. There life does not seem very purposeful since they are just being used. I find it interesting that R kept getting heads. I thought that he'd get a tails after at least the tenth turn, but the same pattern kept continuing, as if some other force is controlling them. There seems to be some outer force that has the power over them, just in the way that they only remember being summoned. I found it amusing that R was in his own little world, sort of disconnected from G. Although they are companions, they think differently. R just accepts what is going on, while Guildenstern tries to rationalize it. G comes u with theories like the probability of a probability and divine intervention. And the theory that if opportunity is increased, anything is possible ( infinite monkey).

"Fear! The crack that might flood your brain with light"

Hamlet's philosophical/spiritual development

Hamlet transitioned from mourning life, to devaluing the meaning of life.

On page 853, Hamlet is talking about the fake emotions that the King and Queen are showing towards his father's death. He says , "For they are actions that a man might play. But I have that within which passes show; These but the trappings and suits of woe". Being a protestant, Hamlet views life as valuable and therefore spends his time mourning his father, and being angry at King Claudius and Gertrude for moving on so quickly. He is a "black" character since he is melancholy. On page 854, Hamlet wishes he could commit suicide but knows that God says that is wrong. He states, "Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon gainst self-slaughter! O God, God.". Yet he says "to be or not to be, that is the question" on page 889. Here, his value on life is diminished and the only thing keeping him from not killing himself is the mystery of what happens after death. The unknown. When his father's ghost speaks to him, he is truly tormented. He is Protestant(who dont believe in ghosts) yet he sees this ghost for sure. He does not know whether it is really the ghost of his father, or a demon. He tries to rationalize what the ghost says and tries to figure out if Killing Claudius is God's will or not.
When Hamlet visits Ophelia-weirdly- and looks her up and down, is he really pretending or is his conscious dealing with all of its inner turmoil? He knows that murder is wrong, but he thinks it might be God's will to kill Claudius-thus creating confusion.
His value of life is lessened with the killing of Polonius without emotion, his own criticizement when he lacks passion to kill the king-unlike the passionate actors, and Hamlet talks to Yorick in the graveyard as if life is meaningless. All are born to die. Actions are futile.

And even though Hamlet does not value life anymore, he still thinks that everything is part of God's divine plan.