Rosentcrantz and Guildenstern's Final Act

What stood out to me the most about Act three is how Stoppard ended Ros. and Guil.'s "lives". In the play they do not die. They just fall out of the story and another character merely reports that they were killed. This goes along with the idea that they are completely bound by the story. They were not born- they appeared when they were summoned and they did not die- they merely cease to be once their part has been fulfilled. Aaah, I feel somewhat deep now. I feel as if I should come up with some clever comment about how we are all actors, but alas... I can't think of one. So, I end my blog thusly: I liked the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". It was very interesting from its monkey theorems to gay jokes, but now it is over and the curtain has closed... wait does that mean they are dead again?

Win?

Who won the game this afternoon... What does "win" mean anyway? Lose? Who decided that "win" was good and "lose" was bad? Why do I want to prove that we won? The Heads team could just have easily "Thwipped" or "Habbersnackled" than won or loss. If "win" is "good" and "lose" is "bad", than both Heads and Tails won and lost, because both had positive and negative results from the game. In our scrambling for rules and meaning, both teams won and lost and neither won or lost. The only one that stands neutral is the judge- draw from that whatever you wish.

R&G are Dead: act 2

I really do not know what to write about Act Two... Right now I am drawing a blank. I sort of feel bad for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They don't have any idea what is going on yet they die anyway. I also think it is interesting how Stoppard wrote the play to where R & G do not move and everyone else comes to them. This gives the impression that they are really not in control of what happens to them.
Another thing is the metaphor of being dead in a box. Even if we are actually just marching towards death, I do not understand the point of being "angsistential" and sulking. If we only have so much time- live it up! I guess I'm more of the Seinfeld school of Postmodernism.

Inaug. Blog (sorry it's late)

I found the article interesting. In my opinion, Barack Obama's speech was very inspirational even without his common rhetorical flair.
One part of the article that stood out to me was the reference to Rick Warren. There was a lot of Christians upset with Warren for praying for such a liberal president. The article brought up a good point though. The Bible tells us to pray for those in authority and I think Rick Warren did the right thing. We all need to back up and pray for our president. He may disagree with us and he may cause some changes that make us angry, but that is why we need to pray and be involved rather than back off with our bitter commentary.
On a lighter note, I agreed with the article when referencing the other minister that prayed. Some said the ending of his speech was corny, but I thought it sounded something picketers would cry out in a rally. ( :