I’m excited to be writing my very last blog this year for AP Literature. Just last week, we took the AP Lit exam. I was a little bit flustered in the beginning of the exam, because I had a hard time finding the correct testing location even with the Milton Center programmed into my GPS. I was a minute late, but our class hadn’t started testing yet. Ms. Iton was very concerned. I was glad to find myself in a seat, even if it was behind the air conditioning man, who was banging at something in the wall (The Milton Center is perhaps not the best replacement testing location for St. James, which has comfortable chairs and black Jesus, as opposed to the jailhouse chairs and sweltering heat of the Milton Center).
I began the multiple choice in a stressed state of mind and was unable to read the first passage, so I skipped to an easy prose and soon felt comfortable with the exam. I had done well on the practice multiple choices in class, getting most or all of the questions right. I don’t think I did quite as well as I usually do, despite the fact that the questions on the AP exam were easier than the practice in-class questions, but I think I performed well enough on the multiple choice section to get a 4 and hopefully a 5.
During the break, I ran to the bathroom along with everyone else and had some of a banana that I brought with me. Brain food. Then, the essay section began and I read the prompt. I liked the theme of exile, although I felt that the question had a lot of parts, and I usually struggle to fully answer questions with a lot of different facets. I chose to write about Tess of the D’Urbervilles, because I think the novel fit the theme well. I think I wrote fairly well on the essay about the poem, in which I emphasized the fact that the family’s diversity unified them. I also feel confident in my criticism of the arrogant character in the prose passage.
I’m hopeful that I scored a 4, and possibly a 5 on the AP Lit exam and I’m excited for whatever the future holds.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
Because I was ill on and off, I missed much of the early part of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, and a few sections in the middle. I still need to catch up on what I know to be a very quick and thoroughly entertaining read and plan to do so tonight or tomorrow. But from our readings in class and my brief explorations of the novel, I’ve gained certain insights about the play by Stoppard that have greatly contributed to my enjoyment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.
For one, I know that the format of a play means that there will be fewer physical or personal descriptions of the characters, but it seemed to me that Stopard deliberately refrains from characterizing either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern as individual people. This is referred to directly and humorously when the King can’t bother to tell the difference between the two. I feel that this lack of physical characterization sets up the two as representations of humanity as a whole, which makes their ponderings about life, death, and the meaning of either especially significant.
I also loved the way that the play was weaved throughout its predecessor, Hamlet. Stoppard lifts a few lines and adds his own in a manner that, had another writer attempted it, could have ended disastrously but instead fits in quite well with the rest of the play. The fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spend so much time wandering in a state of confusion creates a cloudy tone and atmosphere in the play that allows for a certain degree of believability, especially in the integration of original Hamlet portions. I found their lack of clarity of mind amusing, especially when we watched the film adaptation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, in which the actors perfectly encapsulated the humor of the play. I thought that the cloudiness of their lives, demonstrated by the scene with coin-tossing that demonstrated how random life is and also by the occasionally unintelligible speeches of some characters, was a darker indication of how random and arguably purposeless our lives are.
It then was a natural move for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to mirror Hamlet’s existential, almost nihilistic point of view and question why they even exist. They question fate, by wondering if it’s possible to throw a peg in fate’s plan (in the play Hamlet’s plan, in this case). I feel that the playwright, through his characters, brings across the point that life and the universe are chaos in which people wander blindly, searching for meaning. Some find their own meaning (and they vary in levels of delusion?) in this mess of randomness and chance and others simply balk at the abyss (just. like. GRENDEL!) and find themselves unable to function with clarity, like Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Hamlet.
I’ve enjoyed the bits of the play I’ve read to an enormous extent, and even thinking about the themes in the play make me excited about reading it more thoroughly as soon as possible. I’m eager to consider the novel’s themes more deeply and also to rent the movie adaptation through Netflix to compare the text with the film adaptation.
For one, I know that the format of a play means that there will be fewer physical or personal descriptions of the characters, but it seemed to me that Stopard deliberately refrains from characterizing either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern as individual people. This is referred to directly and humorously when the King can’t bother to tell the difference between the two. I feel that this lack of physical characterization sets up the two as representations of humanity as a whole, which makes their ponderings about life, death, and the meaning of either especially significant.
I also loved the way that the play was weaved throughout its predecessor, Hamlet. Stoppard lifts a few lines and adds his own in a manner that, had another writer attempted it, could have ended disastrously but instead fits in quite well with the rest of the play. The fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spend so much time wandering in a state of confusion creates a cloudy tone and atmosphere in the play that allows for a certain degree of believability, especially in the integration of original Hamlet portions. I found their lack of clarity of mind amusing, especially when we watched the film adaptation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, in which the actors perfectly encapsulated the humor of the play. I thought that the cloudiness of their lives, demonstrated by the scene with coin-tossing that demonstrated how random life is and also by the occasionally unintelligible speeches of some characters, was a darker indication of how random and arguably purposeless our lives are.
It then was a natural move for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to mirror Hamlet’s existential, almost nihilistic point of view and question why they even exist. They question fate, by wondering if it’s possible to throw a peg in fate’s plan (in the play Hamlet’s plan, in this case). I feel that the playwright, through his characters, brings across the point that life and the universe are chaos in which people wander blindly, searching for meaning. Some find their own meaning (and they vary in levels of delusion?) in this mess of randomness and chance and others simply balk at the abyss (just. like. GRENDEL!) and find themselves unable to function with clarity, like Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Hamlet.
I’ve enjoyed the bits of the play I’ve read to an enormous extent, and even thinking about the themes in the play make me excited about reading it more thoroughly as soon as possible. I’m eager to consider the novel’s themes more deeply and also to rent the movie adaptation through Netflix to compare the text with the film adaptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)