Response to Course Materials March 22nd

Over the past month, we finished up Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I didn’t like it very much. It had a few glaring issue that I couldn’t get over. Needless to say, I was pretty excited to move on to our next work.

Following the conclusion of our work on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, we began reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. While we read and discussed the book, we also read quite a few articles pertaining to the novel. Although I didn't really enjoy the book itself, I did like all the different perspectives that the articles provided. The biggest thing that annoys me about the book is that people, especially women, are seen as objects (although this could be done on purpose). For example, Victor talks about how his mother gifted Elizabeth upon him. Pretty much the way that women are talked about through the whole book is pretty gross.

Also during this time, we worked a but on analyzing poetry. Although I've read some poems here and there in other classes, I've never had to analyze them as deeply as we have to for AP Lit. I really enjoyed Percy Shelley's poems and I think it's pretty cool that both Mary and he were authors. Next, we used our new poetry skills to write our first closed prompt. I have to say that it ended up being a lot more difficult than I expected. I had a hard time deciding how to separate the prompt into distinct sections and just answering the question overall.

Open Prompt pt. 2 March 15th

Many works of literature ask a central question. For example, Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead explores identity and existence in order to ask a very imposing question: “What’s the point?” Unlike titles that are solely theatre of the absurd, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern attempts to answer this question to a point. Both Stoppard’s treatment of this question and his attempt to answer it support his theme: that there may be incomprehensible forces shaping our lives, making it impossible to control or understand them.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead asks the audience what the point of it all is. The two main characters do not know what their purpose is. When they are passing time at the beginning by playing coins, the two do not even realize that they have been summoned for something. Every time the pair are left to themselves they immediately question who they are and what they're doing. Another instance is when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern criticize the play for not having enough action, asking what the point of any of the dialogue is. Most of the play is asking what the point of the characters. action, and even the overall play is.

Although the play doesn't fully answer the question, it offers up a couple suggestions. One possibility is to question the world and one's fate. It is very clear throughout the play that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have a path set forth for them. Even the title gives a clue to this (they ARE dead). Although R+G are never able to break their molds, Stoppard is trying to tell the audience that they should attempt what his characters could not. While the two may have a path to follow, we don't. Stoppard wants the audience to be better than his characters.

This question pretty much encapsulates the entire purpose of the play. Stoppard centers his work around the question, although he does not treat it very seriously all the time. For example, he questions simple concepts that are accepted by the general public in order to make his point. When a characters yells "fire" in a crowded audience or taunts them with child rape, Stoppard is in a way questioning the purpose of certain social constructs. These aspects of the play are things we don't think about but control how the play works.

Open Prompt pt. 1 March 8th

2004. ​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.

Response 1:

Right off the bat, the first sentence is a little awkward and unnecessary. Other than that, the introductory paragraph does a pretty good job of answering the prompt. The first body paragraph does a good job of drawing on textual evidence and then connecting it back to the prompt. However, the second body paragraph kind of strays away from the point that the author is trying to make. It's also slightly distracting that the author spelled "lesson" as "lessen" more than once. The conclusion does a nice job of wrapping up the essay and even brings in some new information. Overall, this seems to be a pretty well informed essay and the author does not depend on plot summary too much. This essay deserves the 8 it received. It’s not the best essay ever written, but it’s nowhere near the worst. Good in almost every sense, but not quite great.

Response 2:
After a glance at this essay, it seems as if the writer struggled a little or did not plan sufficiently because there is a lot of crossing out (although the readers are just supposed to ignore that). The intro is pretty lacking and even repeats two forms of the same word in a single sentence (explores and exploring). However, the author did a pretty good job of identifying the central question of the work. The first body paragraph seems pretty unnecessary and merely points to a few plot points. The syntax throughout the essay is a little confusing and often draws away from the point the author is trying to make. There are also a few distracting grammatical errors as well. The author does not even attempt to discuss the question the prompt is asking until the final paragraph in which the author begins to redeem him or herself, but then ruins this by using first person language. Although the author seems to have some understanding of the work, this essay is severely lacking in its analysis.

Response 3:
It seems like this student was running out of time once he or she got to this prompt because the essay is only two longish paragraphs. However, it seems like the author has a relatively good understanding of the prompt and how to answer it. The introduction seems to provide a basis for a quality essay, but the author was not able to follow through. The second paragraph is awkwardly worded and difficult to follow. Since the essay is so short, the author was not able to analyze the extent to which the work offers answers. Overall, this is pretty poor. The author clearly needed more time to write it. This essay is completely deserving of a 3. It has a considerable lack of analysis and just content in general, as it is really short. With more time, it could probably be great, but as it is now, it is not.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Summary and Analysis

Author: Tom Stoppard

Setting, Plot, and Characters: The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (two noble families from Denmark with a vague Jewish sound) playing coins in the forest. Somehow, there has been an unprecedented run of heads. As the two men start to become more nervous, Guildenstern starts to make sense of what's happening. This begins a motif that continues throughout the play in which Guildenstern tries to prove certain laws of physics. After a little, R+G come across a troupe of Tragedians who specialize in a special kind of performance. The Tragedians play a round of coins with R+G. Ros and Guil, believing they have won, allow the Players to pay them back in the form of a performance. Guildenstern taunts the audience when he suggests that the young Alfred and him could set a "dramatic precedent". As the Players leave, it is revealed that R+G did not actually win the coin toss. Having been summoned the Elsinore, Ros and Guil finally arrive in the castle. They are given the task of finding the source of young Hamlet's madness. The two men practice by playing a game of questions, adding to their previous confusion. However, they are not able to detect the reason for Hamlet's behavior. Various scenes of Hamlet interrupt Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's conversations, and they have to switch to a more elevated speech. After Hamlet kills Polonius, R+G are sent to accompany him to England. While on the boat, the two discuss the meaning of life and death, but can never come to a conclusion. When they look at the letter they were sent with, they find that King Claudius is sending Hamlet to his death. As the two sleep, Hamlet switches out the letter to order the execution of R+G instead. In the morning, the Tragedians pop out of some barrels and talk about death some more. R+G, realizing they’re doomed, think about staying on the ship before giving up and dying. The play closes on the final scene of Hamlet as the ambassador tells Horatio that R+G are dead.

Analysis: Stoppard’s voice is generally dry and cynical. While holding true to the absurdist idea that life is meaningless, he also brings in other elements. In addition to saying that life is meaningless, Stoppard tries to figure out what we can use to find meaning in a life without it. He brings up various examples including relationships with others and religion. There is little to no imagery in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, as everything is pretty nondescript. Stoppard seems to be separate from the plot of the play, judging R+G’s actions, and as a result our own. One of the most prevalent symbols in the play was the coin, which represents binary opposition; each side cannot exist without the other. This idea comes up a lot throughout the work: life and death, light and dark, presence and absence. Stoppard adds another level of complexity by setting the play within another play. In the text alone it is unclear whether R+G are participating in an actual production of Hamlet or are actual men living in Denmark.

Cool Quotes:

“Guil: You and I Alfred - we could create a dramatic precedent here” (32)

This is a perfect example of Stoppard taunting the audience. Once Guildenstern says this, the audience begins to feel guilty about laughing about child rape for the last five minutes. Stoppard is constantly testing the limits of traditional theater and in this case, attempting to make the audience feel uncomfortable. 

“Ros: ...ask yourself, if I asked you straight off - I’m going to stuff you in this box now, would you rather be alive or dead? Naturally you’d prefer to be alive.” (71)

Throughout the play, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, the Players, and even Hamlet are questioning life and death. In this case, Stoppard is asserting the Ros and Guil’s lives are essentially like living in a box. Neither of them have a choice about their fates and it is questionable whether or not they have any choice at all. In a box, they would not be able to move very much from their original spot, much like their lives. 

THEME: Stoppard suggests that there may be incomprehensible forces shaping our lives, making it impossible to control or understand them.

Since there is no imagery in the play, Stoppard is trying to say that our mere senses are not enough to understand our lives. R+G are constantly trying to make sense of the world around them, but they are never able to. Stoppard (and the Players), on the other hand, are on the outside of this, judging R+G’s progress. R+G are so confused all of the time because the forces shaping their lives are incomprehensible.