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. ( :

Heather's Epic Coin Theory ("R&G are Dead")

Prior to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meeting the players, they had been flipping coins, all of which landed heads. This is impossible and far outside the realm of reality. Also at this time, neither Rosencrantz or Guildenstern can remember past being summoned and neither knows what the heck is going on. Now, right before R & G plunge into the story of Hamlet, Rosencrantz flips the coin for the last time which ends up tails. AHA! I propose that the coin lands heads because they are finally within the realm of their intended story which provides them with meaning and a set of rules. They are no longer wandering around as potential characters, but rather they are real charcters.

Thoughts on "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"

I am reading Waiting for Godot for my January MOR assignment. I the "R&G are Dead" is very similar to it. They both have a pair that have conversations that seem like babble, but at the same time, sound incredibly smart. I don't really get what they are saying, and I wonder if that is the point. Man, Po.Mo. writing is wierd. I am enjoying "R&G are Dead" and I hope that eventually, I will get what the heack they are saying.
As far as the flipping of the coin goes, I think it is amazing how the writer used something so trivial to reveal the characteristics of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (or Guildenstern and Rosencrantz). All of the conversation that flows from the coin flipping is interesting to, especially the infinite monkey theorem.
This is a random thought, but I am going to tack it on anyway. I think the probability of the flipping of the coin goes along with the story of Hamlet because a whole mess of things goes wrong so as to make you think it has to turn around. But it does not, and nothing good happens. Should this surprise us?
Well... that's it...

Hamlet's Philisophical Journey (New and Improved)

In act one, Hamlet finds assurance in faith and God, and this keeps him from killing himself and seeking revenge. "Or that the Everlasting had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter" (1.2.131-132). As he goes on, Hamlet's faith is tested and at one point he says he would kill himself but he does not know "what dreams may come". This makes me think he is questioning God/eternity. Towards the end of the play, Hamlet has regained his assurance in Providence, but now instead of holding him back it is assisting him with his actions. This is shown when Hamlet says to Horatio, "When our deep plots do pall, and that should learn us there's a divinity that shapes our ends" (5.2.9-10). This new attitude also makes him okay with death, becuase he is sure. "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now... let be" (5.2.185-following).