In the past few weeks, we finished up Hamlet. After two-ish months on the play, we started reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which made this girl feel like a catfish out of water. However, before we could delve too deep into the next play, we had to work on our final exam project. My group made a video synthesizing the first three works: The American Dream, Death of a Salesman, and Hamlet. I had a great time making the video and we actually learned some interesting information on the characters in the three plays during our research. I also found some of the other projects pretty cool. Andi's project on "Shakesqueer" was super well-researched and I learned a bunch of stuff I didn't know about queer theory.
After spending three days presenting and discussing the final exam projects, we were able to finish R+G. However, I missed a good deal of the discussion and most of the movie because I was at 7th grade camp, so I don't feel like I have as good of a grasp on this play as the others. One of the big points we discussed was whether or not it can actually be qualified as falling under the Theatre of the Absurd. Because the play goes past the simple "life is meaningless" mantra of typical Theatre of the Absurd works, I don't think it is. Although the play had some funny and meaningful parts, I didn't enjoy it as much as the others. Absurdist writers in general bother me because it seems like they think they know some sort of deep truth about the world that no one else knows. Tom Stoppard especially comes off as very pretentious.
Right now, I'm just excited to finish up discussing R+G and then start Frankenstein.
Hi Alex, good post. A little short like a lot of ours, including mine, and it was unfortunate that you were gone for 7th grade camp: it seems to have taken a noticeable toll on this type of post. I might suggest having a bit more "reaction" in your post rather than just a summary with a small personal touch about Theatre of the Absurd. However, I do agree with you about that topic. I know that Holmes will slaughter me for saying it, but I do think a lot of their message is ridiculous and fairly pompous. The social and "spiritual" anarchy of it becomes too much for me some times, just as the theories of political anarchists may grow and slip to extremes. R&G is not necessarily Theatre of the Absurd, but still contains a strong meaning. Good post and consider adding to it.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteYour post is a little short, but that’s completely understandable considering you were at 7th grade camp and all. I enjoyed your project quite a bit. I haven’t gotten a chance to see Andi’s presentation yet, but I’m definitely going to take a look at it now seeing the praise that you’ve given it. I’m not entirely sure if I agree with you regarding R+G’s placement in the Theater of the Absurd. While Theater of the Absurd tends to have a “life is meaningless” sort of theme, I think the aspects of the dialogue and things like that are what really makes something Theater of the Absurd. Overall, this is a pretty good post, you’re doing a really great job. Keep up the good work!
I would suggest adding more, like Cal suggested, but I don't think there is all that much more to add. Perhaps a bit more of the "reprocessing" that Holmes mentions in the assignment document. I agree that Absurdist writers seem to know some deep truth or something, and come off as pretentious. I don't know if I'm in the minority, however I actually really liked R&G. Reading the play did make me uncomfortable at times, especially at points when Ms. Holmes pointed out that Stoppard had just used the play to accuse the readers/viewers of something. When we laughed at child rape, for example. Or imagining being in an actual theater and hearing Rosencrantz yell "FIRE" and then chastising the audience. I guess mostly I liked the play because it made me feel like Stoppard is a very masterful author, even if he is pretentious.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's just my thoughts. Overall a good post.