Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead by Stoppard was quite the step away from
Hamlet, and was what took most of the time between this post and the last "Response to Course Materials" post. The witty, fast dialogue was quite refreshing and the ambiguity of the events that unfolded was a step away from what was expected. However, if watching the movie form of this play was to enlighten us about the work, it seemed to fail. The movie version, directed by Stoppard himself, differed from the text to a degree that I don't think it would be fair to use as a tool to interpret the text. Sure, it can be used to enlighten us about what Stoppard wanted us to understand, but that would be completely irrelevant. As Ms Holmes said again and again in class, what the author may want us to derive from a piece of work could be completely different from what the work really means. The text itself. So when we discuss the meaning of
Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead and using textual evidence to back our claims, what use is the movie if we are using
textual evidence, like, what was really written. Again, although I appreciate the different stance the movie brings in to the play, when we analyze the text, it would it not be illogical to use assumptions from a medium that is so different? Should we use one of the many
Frankenstein movies to help interpret
Frankenstein? No.
I am sure that you remember that short series of assignment given to us by Ms Holmes regarding prompts. Although I felt a lot of negative reactions and frustration regarding the assignment, I found it rather useful. I performed better than I had expected, and learned the flaws in my previous style of writing. For example, I am usually a perfectionist when it comes to writing. Even this blog had me gridlocked, constantly creating and then tossing sentences. However, during the AP test we won't have the luxury of time, and thus what we write needs to be efficient and get the job done. Answer all the questions. Concise and devoid of what we would normally want to see in a great essay.
Our discussions about Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead are interesting, nothing to complain about. The direction is fine, the probing is interesting. We are peeling away at the layers of this play. So, nothing to complain about other than the continual lack of input from 50% of the class. I don't know every single reason why people don't say anything, but I know that some people don't contribute because they have nothing worth talking about. Well, how could you know the value of something if you never get it appraised? Everyone is different, so everyone can contribute something.
