laura

Ahh I remember reading these blogs from the grade above us yesterday…but I promise I will tell y’all everything to know about how to pass this class. Contrary to popular belief, this class isn’t really that bad…and Mrs. Duke does NOT eat babies (only sometimes, JK!). But seriously, don’t be scared because I know that junior year is intimidating enough, and I know how intimidationg Mrs. Duke’s class can be at first. But try to have an open mind because even though there is a lot of work, you will learn a ton and have so much fun as well.

If nothing else, I stress that you do all of your homework! Due to the tremendous amount of points she gives each quarter, you can pretty much afford to not do so hot on a test and still get by. I mean if you read everything she assigns, and BLOG every week (<– I'll be getting to this next) then you will be fine! But see the thing is, if you don't do your homework….than it will be impossible to get by. Also, sparknotes is pretty much not gonna fly…sorry guys I know y'all are bummed:( But if you read, and have a pretty good understanding of it, then you should be fine. Another big thing about Mrs. Duke’s class is that everybody needs to think before they speak and make sure to stay on task! Even though her class is very fun, and sometimes its easy to get carried away…you still have to stick to the topic. On thing that I wish I would have realized earlier is how much participation can affect your grade. Since she puts them in at the end of the quarter they sort of sneak up on you, which is why you really have to make sure that you participate well in her class. Here are some pointers:

1) contribute to the discussion and add ideas/thoughts etc.
2) don’t speak out of line, or off topic
3) don’t exasturbate!! (and if y’all don’t know what this means I’m sure y’all will find out haha)
4) don’t try to fight with her, or talk back orrrrr act like an idiot for no reason
5) and finally, be respectful!

Scene three of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern takes off where the characters were no longer mentioned in Hamlet. At the beginning of the scene, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are in the darknes, in a very non-descript setting. I was sort of confused at this point because there is mention of a ship, but I’m not positive if they are on stage or in an actual boat? This sort of non-descriptness deffinately seems to be one of the major themes of this play, and leaves many details up to the audience for interpretation. Another motif that reappears in this scene is coins! Why do they do that so much? It obviously symbolizes something much more meaningful, though I really do wonder what it is. Though, instead of flipping coins, they are talking about how much money the king gave them. As of right now, coins have a much different role than they did at the beginning of the play. The discussion about the coins causes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to get in a small fight…but then is very quickly resolved. Another thing that stood out to me in this reading was that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern DO serve the roles of the spies mentioned in the reading before. Instead of saying that the spies going to England with Hamlet resemble Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, there is no mention of the spies and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the ones going to England with him.

Throughout this whole scene, there are many references to death. Only on the seconed page does Rosencrantz tell Guildenstern that his leg feels like, “death”. Guildenstern blantantly repeats the word, not only emphasizing it, but also catching the audience’s attention. Another mention is on page 108 when the two are talking about death on a boat. Again, Rosencrantz brings it up by saying that, “We might as well be dead.” He wonders if death could be on a boat, and then declares that he wants to jump off of the side! The allusion to socrates, a philosopher, labels death as an ideological fear. In this paragraph, Guildencrantz states that it is a “release from the burden of life, and a reward”. Comparing this to Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech shows a different take on death. Rather than being skeptical, these characters are optimistic about it.

After it is revealed that the play offended the king, pirates charge the stage and then Hamlet goes missing. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern become increasingly aware what their fates hold for them, and that death is probably near. They agree that they are alright with not surviving, and are content with just “moving on”. This lack of emotion really de-characterizes them because of the lack of control they have over their lives. Furthermore, when they don’t know which one is which, they seem to almost blend together no longer holding seperate personalities. Finally, as they begin to die, their stories come to an end. This ending wraps up all of Tom Stoppard’s ideas, interpretations and creations that Shakespeare left out of Hamlet. I really did enjoy reading this story because it paralleled Hamlet in a very untraditional way. Their purpose is revealed and the audience gets to see completely different perspectives of Hamlet.

This reading seemed to really follow, or mirror the plot of Hamlet. Though, it was a completely different perspective from what we saw through Hamlet. As they practice for the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern give the players stage directions and tell them exactly how to act. Also, the audience is able to determine which characters in the play represent actual characters in Hamlet. For example, Lucianus, who is meant to play Hamlet, is described exactly like him. The character for Claudius resembles him as well, but holds a slightly different perspective. It is really interesting how Tom Stoppard created/elaborated on fictional characters that are meant to attack the conscience of Claudius. As the rehearsal begins, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to have different intentions of the play. Rosencrantz said that he wants “people to be entertained”, where Guildenstern rathers a play to “mirror actual life”.

As the Murder of Gonzago goes on, it is really interesting to see all of the similarities and differences to the story of Hamlet. The king orders Lucianus to England, though he is accompanied by two spies. These spies are dressed in the same exact clothes as Rosencratnz and Guildenstern, which is pretty ironic. Since we do not see all of these details of the play in Hamlet, The Murder of Gonzago is primarily a work of Tom Stoppard. Here he not only interprets, but also shows creativity and a modern twist through this play. Many things do represent Hamlet’s life, but if read closely, the relationships he has with his family members are indeed more elaborated. The killing of the spies can definitely be seen as foreshadowing. Not only do the spies die, but Guildenstern even brings the idea of “death” out of the context of the play. He says that “you cannot act death”. To me, this really stood out because it is almost an acceptance of what is to come from him and Rosencrantz.

I think that this is one of the most interesting scenes that we have read because of all of the detail created by Tom Stoppard. The Murder of Gonzago parallels Hamlet, and really does capture the main events of the story. The interpretation that he adds to it gives this scene a lot of drama, and really does tie the story of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to Hamlet.

This reading for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was similar to the last one, and a little easier to read. I understand it much better, and it was also a little less complex. In the beginning, the three characters are in a dispute about which way the wind blows from. Rosencrantz questions Guildenstern and Hamlet about which way the wind blows. Along with their discussion about the wind, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern think that they have made headway about figuring out Hamlet. Though, they ultimately decide that they do not. Everything that is happening up to this point is very trivial, and doesn’t have much to do with the actual plot of the story. Maybe these pointless conversations is a way of distracting the audience from what is really going on? Though, right after a very short conversation, the players begin to add much more depth to the conversation. They begin to talk about how they are actors, and what types of roles they are about to play. This long speech by the player not only shows a lot about his personality, but also how he feels towards “identity”. To me, he not only serves as an actor in this story, but somewhat of a philospher as well. I wonder if Tom Stoppard made him come across this way to contrast the trivial personalities of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

After the seconded time that the wind came up, I concluded that it meant something more complex. It was at that point in this scene that I realized how clever the player was. He is obviously very wise and wants to give Rosencrantz and Guildenstern some advice. He tells them how to act and what to do, almost acting as a mentor. Right after when Guildenstern said to the player, “we don’t know how to act”, something else hit me! The purpose of the player in this story is NOT ONLY to act. His literally purpose symbolizes actual purpose, which is guiding others on how to act. Obviously a novice on stage, he is also a novice when real life becomes his stage. Calmly reassuring Guildenstern on what to do, and how to act, the audience now sees that his purpose is much more important than first perceived. I really do like how Tom Stoppard elaborated on the player’s character because in Hamlet, the audience sees none of it.

This soliloquy is Hamlet trying to decide exactly how to act. He does not know whether to fight back against Claudius, or continue to suffer in his mind. Though, a little more abstract, Hamlet ponders/wonders about the afterlife and relates it do death. He goes on to talk about dreams, which shows his skepticism even more. This soliloquy basically shows Hamlet’s contemplation, and his inner thoughts that are not shown to the rest of the characters.

1) At this point, Hamlet really needs to figure himself out. Obviously, he is very distraught about his father’s death, and the marriage of his mother and uncle, but defiantly needs to resolve this internal conflict. Ultimately, his confusion and hatred towards his uncle has left him in a quandary. He is filled up with so many emotions that he has no idea what to do with himself or what to think about anything.

2) Hamlet’s primary audience is the ghost of his father/his father. His father’s death is what is causing him to question being alive. This secondary audience is his mother because she is still a living member of his family. These two different people (one dead and one alive) represent the two different sides that Hamlet is deliberating over.

3) The purpose of Hamlet’s speech is not only to explore his inner self, but it poses a question about the validity of existence. Is being alive even worth it? Or is death just an eternal sleep filled with dreams? This question serves as the subconscious mindset of most humans. After deliberating over suicide, he ultimately decides that it is not worth it, and he would rather be alive.

4) He uses appeal to gain support from the audience. He mostly uses Pathos, or appeal to the emotions of the audience. An example of this is when he says, “makes us rather bear those ills we have”, or “for who would bear the whips and scorns of time”. He wants the audience to feel for him and validate whichever decision he makes.

5) Hamlet uses much symbolism, and comparison through simile to convey his purpose. The “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” is a simile for the pain and anger that he is feeling. Also, “a sea of troubles”, describes his internal conflict, and how distraught he is. He uses personification when saying, “the pangs of despised love”, and “the insolence of office”. This really adds to the imagery because his emotions are able to come alive to the audience.

6) As of right now, I feel sorry for Hamlet, though think that he needs to get his emotions in check. It is good that he is not committing suicide, but rather than wanting to kill himself, or the king; he could confront him about it. The fact that he is swinging so hard one way or the other, either not doing anything about it or killing him, shows possibly immaturity on Hamlet’s part.