Response to Course Material

So this month we've finished reading and discussing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I thought it was truly an amazing play, mostly because it seemed to have to much depth to it. There are so many different way to interpret the novel and so many levels on which you can do so. Even though we discussed the novel for quite a few days, I think we could have spent at least another week discussing it and still come to new conclusions each day. Our class never actually even came up with a theme statement, partially because we were so divided on the meaning of the play and partially because we couldn't completely figure it out. Discussing the work was actually kind of funny I think because at times it felt like our conversations were very circular or that we were only asking questions instead of answering them and sometimes people didn't even remember the questions they were trying to answer; it was almost like Stoppard was turning us into Ros and Guil.

After finishing up with that play, we began our first novel of the year: Ceremony. I had never heard of the novel before so I really had no idea what to expect and I was a bit confused when I first started reading. Events and stories are told out of order and there's poetry interspersed throughout the novel. Once I was able to get through the first chunk of reading though, I decided that this is another amazing work. First, no matter how confusing the passage might be, everything is written so poetically - even the prose. I have also learned to like the way the novel is laid out; it doesn't have chapters and it isn't in chronological order, but I find all the quick little stories interesting page-turners. The day our class was supposed to discuss the first third of the novel we only had time to talk for about 10 minutes, so hopefully we'll find more time next time we discuss; I'm excited to hear more about what others have to say about it.

We have also begun discussing different types of literary criticisms and how they apply to all the past works we've read this year. This was actually somewhat difficult for our class to do for various reasons. First of all, almost no one brought their books so it was hard to reference the text, but the main challenge was trying to discuss just one type of criticism until we came to a conclusion. It is so easy to tie many of the criticisms together or to say something that works for multiple criticisms. We started off with Feminism, which wasn't too difficult to dissect, but it was after that when topics started to get confused.

Other things that we've done that aren't quite so confusing is practice for the AP exam. We've done multiple choice and, more recently, practice essay writing. We were given the passage Eleven by Sandra Cisneros and wrote a timed essay during class. Afterwards we discussed the essay in small groups and rewrote it. I really liked the passage and didn't think it was too difficult to dissect, and I really liked that we could talk about our essays afterwards in groups. It allowed me to get different perspectives and ideas about how the essay should be written and what kind of theme statement would be good to use. It's better too, than simply let someone mark up the essay with pen because everyone was able to ask questions, about what was good in their essays and what wasn't, and get immediate feedback.

Overall, we've done a lot in the past month and I cannot wait until we finish Ceremony and begin discussing it more.

Open Prompt 2008 response

2008. In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.

Arthur Miller’s play, Death of a Salesman, is about a family who attempts to live the American Dream. The main character, Willy Loman, is truly the one that drives the family to believe in such a goal.  Willy is driven by the thought of success and wealth. He is starkly contrasted with the character, Charley. Charley believes in honesty and hard work. Charley, unlike Willy, seems to understand that valuing words over actions to achieve success will only lead to self-destruction.

First, Charley greatly values honesty while Willy says what he needs to get by. Nowhere in the play is Charley ever seen lying, and Charley acts as almost a voice of reason. He helps Willy out when Willy needs it, lending Willy money and giving Willy advice, even offering Willy a job. Charley can generally be seen as a virtuous, generous character. Charley’s admirable traits serve to harshly contrast Willy’s lack of them. Willy believes success is money and wants to have both. He borrows money from Charley and gives it to his family, telling them that he earned it at work. He is too proud to admit that business is not going well and too proud to admit that this is not his hard-earned money. For Willy, it is enough for his family to simply believe, or at least pretend to believe, that he actually earned the money. As long as his family is happy and proud of him, they can pretend to be living the American Dream. What Willy does not realize, however, is that simply saying that he is living the American Dream or simply saying that he is successful does not give him anything, except maybe a large pile of debt. He leaves the house everyday, not looking for work or a way to better their lives. His valuing of words over actions slowly destroys himself (his pride) and his family.

 Similarly, Willy seems to think that telling his family that they are great will make them actually become great. He thinks that if he can convince himself and others that his sons are successful, they will become successful. For instance, Willy always talks about how wonderful his son Biff is. Biff is a local sports star and plans on going to the University of Virginia. Willy is so obsessed with the thought of Biff being some kind of amazing prodigy, that he doesn’t see it when Biff starts flunking school. By the time Willy realizes this, it is too late: Biff has already hurt himself so much academically that there really isn’t anything Willy can do about it. Charley, on the other hand, never deceives his son, Bernard in such a way. Charley instills in his son the value of hard work. Consequently, Bernard ends up as a successful lawyer. Willy is shocked when he finds out about this, because no one ever told him just how successful Bernard had become. Willy would have thought that someone would be bragging about Bernard. Willy just cannot seem to comprehend that talking about success gives a person nothing.

Miller’s Death of a Salesman contrasts the two characters, Willy and Charley, to portray the dangers of valuing words over actions. Willy wants people to like him and wants them to think of him as a successful man, so he talks about his successes all the time. Charley understands that talking about success will do nothing for him, so instead he works hard. The result is that Charley actually ends up successful and Willy ends up killing himself. Willy’s search of success through words lead to his ultimate downfall.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Summary and Analysis

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Author: Tom Stoppard, 1964

Setting: Characters are from Elizabethan times. The play begins on a blank stage, but the setting later changes to Elsinore and a boat. 

Characters:

Rosencrantz: Although he and Guildenstern are constantly confused, Ros tends to be the more naive of the two. He is always trying to figure out various natural occurrences, but doesn't care much about trying to figure out the situation into which he and Guil have been put. Ros seems to have a gift for words because even if he doesn't understand the situation or the context, he often is able to say just the right thing. 

Guildenstern: He might be seen as the smarter of the two. He is always trying to figure out why things are the way they are, why he is here, who sent for them, etc. Although he is always thinking and trying to make connections, he has trouble with words and oftentimes cannot think of the right thing to say. 

The Player: He seems to have control of his situation and is able to understand his surroundings. He understands that "it is written" and is able to manipulate Ros and Guil. 

Tragedians: Also known as the players; they often simply do as the Player says.

Hamlet, Claudius, Ophelia, and Polonius: These are not really Stoppard's characters, since he does not add anything to them. These characters' lines are basically the same from Shakespeare's original play, but Stoppard has slightly altered them. 

Plot: 

Act I: R&G are flipping coins and the coins keep on turning up heads, so Ros keeps on winning. They run into the players who try to interest them in a performance. R&G refuse and then are in Elsinore. Much of the plot from Hamlet is used at this point. Once they are out of the play Hamlet, the two play a verbal game of tennis: a cyclical conversation that at first seems to have no meaning. Next, they run into Hamlet.
Act II: R&G try to figure out what's wrong with Hamlet. They can't seem to get anything out of Hamlet even though they asked him many questions, furthering the idea that many questions don't have answers. Next, Hamlet asks the players to preform the Murder of Gonzago. After that, R&G are sent to take Hamlet to England.
Act III: R&G find themselves on a boat but are very confused at first and even think that they might be dead. They find out that Hamlet is also on the boat. They remember that they were sent on the boat and remember the letter they were given. They read the letter and realize that they were sending Hamlet to his death. Hamlet later manages to get a hold of the letter and writes R&G's names in place of his. When R&G read the letter again, they realize that now they're going to die. By this time, Hamlet has already left since pirates took him away. Guil talks about what real death is and criticizes the players for faking death so often. Both R&G disappear from the stage (because they "die) and the play ends with the end of Hamlet.

Quotes:

Guil: "Words, words, they're all we have to go on."
The Player: "Decides? It is written."

Theme Statement: Tom Stoppard writes the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead to suggest that one should aim to develop their own answers about life and identity; obsessing about what one's direction is or looking to others for answers actually prevents a person from ever coming to conclusions. Ros and Guil are constantly asking each other questions and looking for answers. They want direction and think that they are entitled to it. What they do not realize, however, is that in life there are a lot of unanswered questions. They think everything has an answer, but there are so many things that don't. Obsessing over the answers to questions will lead a person in circles (just like many of Ros and Guil's conversations) until they finally decide to accept that there are some questions that one can never answer.