So. I'm not really sure that there is going to be much substance to this post. Mostly, what we've been doing is reading and watching the movie Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.
Besides Reading R-crantz andG-stern are dead, we have done some essay practice. Actually, quite a bit of essay practice. Mainly Intros. A whole day was dedicated to writing essays and promps. Although it was probably one of the most painful things I will ever do, it did prove useful. I feel like I can now create a somewhat decent intro. It takes a while though. I think more essay practice would be useful, preferably one that didn't give me a panic attack. I think the first day of the essay practice was more beneficial, Because we got the dirty details of what the essay readers are looking for, and what offends them to their core. Both of which I didn't know.
Besides that we did read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. I think I might like this play better than the American Dream (which previously held the #1 spot in my heart.) I think there is some really deep stuff in this play, and it really bothers me that I don't know what most of it means.
I think this will by far be the most difficult piece to annotate due to the fact that most of it is one liners, and there aren't many big chunks of dialogue.
Another point that irritates me is the movie. I really liked it, I think it did a decent job of recreating the play, but I am really intrigued as to what Stoppard meant by changing the movie. We barely scratched the surface in class, and then moved on. That really bothers me, because I have soooo many more questions about what he meant to say by making the player darker, making Alfred more of a sexual character, and what the heck was up with Guildenstern discovering physics all over the darn place!? I was hoping that the article we annotated would clear up some of the confusion, but it just added on.
That darn article/ lecture. I cant handle it. I was reading through it. I was feeling the vibes, agreeing (mostly) to what he had to offer, and then the last page, he basically ripped my heart out of my rib cage and threw it to the ground. He raised most of my main questions, and I got so excited to hear how he was going to answer them, and then he took the easy way out and said that the play was just Stoppard's way of having fun. To put it plainly, I disagreed. To the fullest extent that one human can. On one hand, I'm glad that we read it, because I have to realize that I'm not going to agree with what people say 100% of the time, but on the other hand, why on earth would we read an article saying that a play has no meaning, in a class that all we do is find the meaning of plays?? just saying.
So far, that's all I can think of, that's basically all we have done (not that the days are wasted, but they kinda run into each other after a while.
Hey RAaaY RAaaY,
ReplyDeleteBecause of the more casual tone of this post I decided to address you in a more laid back tone, hence your hood name. Just a warning that this comment is going to be opinionated and although I think you will agree I don't know. Now onto your essay. I think you are completely right about the essays. The intros helped me to see my mistakes before the exam which is looming in the distance. I found out that you have to directly tell the readers what you are trying to say (a.k.a. shout out what didls you are using by name). This surprised me because I thought that you are suppose to hint at them and not yell it out but I was mistaken. Anyway back to your essay (sorry) I found nothing that I disagreed on as you know from our multiple out of classroom discussions on this book. It has made me question so much I am amazed. The movie was good and my class thought that Rosencrantz was testing the stage like Guildenstern did in the play. Well I was delighted to hear you share my ideas I hope you are not too upset about my random rants!
Sincerely,
Ana
Rachel, I completely agree with the misery of doing the in class intro practice…It was awful indeed, but like you said it was beneficial. I also agree that the first practice was more beneficial because we were able to gather the true meaning of the piece before working, but obliviously we won’t have the advantage of class discussion before we sit down to write the AP essay, but still, that was nice. Also, I am surprised R & G is possibly your new favorite piece we’ve read this year! What has drawn you so much to it? Annotating it was indeed a bit of a struggle, however after we did and further discussed it I think it helped a lot. There were many things I missed the first time. I also agree that reading the article was a bit frustrating, it conveyed many good points but like you said came to no conclusions. Ros and Guild has been very fun and interesting to read, however I am looking forward to a piece that stays among the lines of reality a bit more.
ReplyDeleteHi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI think you reflected very nicely on the material we had covered by this post. I liked how you made this about how you felt about the material as opposed to just the material. However, I think it would be nice for you to give some specific examples/experiences that show me what you mean when you're frustrated. Why was that day of practice so painful to you? Why did you panic? I also did not really find a lot of synthesis in your post. Does the R & G movie/book remind you of some other novel you've read? And what do you mean that the days run into each other after a while?