Response to Course Material Blog (2/16)

Finally! We've moved on from Hamlet only to become immersed in the world of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I'll be honest, this is my favorite play that we've read so far. I love all the innuendos, how naive Rosencrantz can be, and how Guildenstern is always trying to be all knowing and philosophical. The craziness and immaturity seen in this play made it extremely entertaining to me and also made it my favorite thing I've read in any Lit class I've taken.

Another great thing about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is what Stoppard has (or hasn't) done with this story. In 2nd hour we were talking about the meaning of this play and if Stoppard was mocking Shakespeare with his play. To me, both questions are tied together in that Stoppard is mocking Shakespeare to a degree. He points out the silliness of some of the elements and Hamlet and ho nonsensical it is (finally someone else who is mocking Shakespeare other than a high school student). But what I think Stoppard was really trying to point out was the difference between fiction/fantasy and real life. There is the undeniable poking fun at Shakespeare and the way everything tied up nicely in the end but Stoppard's doesn't, making it more real. There is no real plot, it's more a series of incidents.

Ms. Holmes really challenged my thinking with this play. Usually teachers have asked, "What is the author trying to say? What is the meaning of x, y, z? What does blue represent?" (thanks for that last question Mr. Crocker). This time I was challenged with "Is there even a meaning to this?" and similar questions. I've looked at this play differently because of these new questions and have come to realize that Stoppard is making fun of the people who are constantly looking for a deeper meaning in plays. With Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead it's almost like Stoppard is saying, "Haha, keep looking for a deeper meaning; there isn't one. And you paid money to come see this, haha, the joke's on you!"

Earlier in the week we got a lesson on how to write intros for our essays. I'll be honest and say that this was not fun and I grumbled a lot through the process. Yes I realize it was necessary. Yes I realize it will help me in the long and short runs. Even with this knowledge I found it difficult for myself to really get into writing these intros. I've never had a teacher focus so much on the intro of the paper before, the thesis perhaps, but never the intro as a whole. This was all to evident to me when we did the mega in-class intro writing assignment, which just about killed me. Having to come up with two prompts and then respond to two others was a lot for me to handle and my brain just wouldn't work fast enough. It didn't help that everything that I've read that could possibly be applicable to the prompts suddenly was forgotten; I even read only books off the AP list last for the independent reading projects in Brit Lit last year so that I would have more to pull from. I know intros are the part I have the most problems with in essays, hopefully I won't struggle with them as much now thanks to the two days devoted to open prompt intro practice.

I can't wait to see where we go when we get back to our Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead discussion. There is so much there that we can dive into and I'm excited to see where it takes us. Hopefully the next Open Prompt part 2 blog that we have to do goes better so that Ms. Holmes does not need to devote more time to teaching us how to write like AP students should.

Open Prompt Blog part 2 (2/9)

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.

      Hamlet is arguably one of William Shakespeare's most iconic plays. Despite being in his 30s, the title character Hamlet has as much angst in his life as most teenagers, more so than some. Now this angst is not unwarranted; tasked with avenging his father's murder, Hamlet must decide on a course of action, one that would change his life and the lives of those around him. Hamlet's struggle to choose his path is inherently tied to a lack of identity and leaves the audience questioning, when will Hamlet decide who he is?

     Throughout the play it is shown that Hamlet is expected to be a replica of his deceased father, Old Hamlet. He doesn't even have his own name! In Hamlet's introductory scene, he asks his uncle (and king) Claudius if he may return to Wittenberg and his schooling rather than stay in Denmark. Immediately his request is shot down; his uncle believes it best for him to stay home and in Elsinor, he's needed there. Hamlet attempted to forge his own path in life but was turned back by a denied request. His refusal to fight for returning to Wittenberg brings in to question how much he wanted it and how easily he can be pushed around. Here, it is shown that despite Hamlet trying to be his own person he is forced back into his predetermined role as a prince.

     Along with the pressure to follow directly in his father's footsteps, Hamlet is tasked with avenging his father's murder. Commanded by the supposed ghost of his father, Hamlet is ordered to kill his Uncle. This is a task that Hamlet really struggles with: morally he doesn't think the murder would be right but who but he feels the weight of his father's command. So the question is, will Hamlet be his father's son and kill his uncle or will he stick to his values and leave everything to providence. As this struggle is established early on in the play it lasts almost the entire play with Hamlet making a few futile attempts at taking Claudius' life. Hamlet's inability to choose a path caused his struggle to to last through almost the entire play.

     The struggle to establish an identity is not a new conflict in literature, even in the time when Hamlet was written. It's a universal theme that is identifiable even within the audience themselves. As the audience can relate to Hamlet's inner struggle a new perspective is gleaned throughout the play. Readers can see the weight of his struggles more, can see the development of his character from not having an identity to when he decides who he is. When his struggle is understood, Hamlet looses some of his perceived arrogance and becomes more human. His story is more understandable and his struggle becomes real; suddenly a story of kings and betrayal is much more universal.

     It is clear that a major part of Hamlet's identity crisis stems from having to choose between being his own person and being his father. Not until Hamlet's epiphany at the sight of Yorick's skull does he decide who he is. With the realization of who was really his father, the jester who raised him vs. his never-there biological father, Hamlet's decision on avenging his father is made. By realizing that Yorick was really his father for all intents and purposes, Hamlet no longer feels the need to avenge Old Hamlet's death. His decision made, things fall into place quickly. Hamlet and Laertes fight and both men, along with Claudius and Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, die.

     "Literature is the question minus the answer". Hamlet poses a great question that is universally applicable, but despite an answer seemingly provided, remains unanswered. Hamlet's turning point is the decision of who his father really is was only the first step in deciding who he was. Events followed so quickly (including Hamlet's death) that he never really got to develop who he was and explore what this new realization meant for him. It can never be known for certain who Hamlet would have become had he lived longer; all that can be said is that he was on his way to deciding who he was.