Finally, we're done with Hamlet...nope. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, the play we are studying now, is supposed to be some sort of offshoot of Hamlet where we learn what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are thinking (or not thinking). So far, these two buffoons have done nothing in particular, talked about nothing really, and remembered nothing specific. Everything has been vague, at least until we related parts to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Basically, we all know they are going to die because that's what happens in Hamlet and the title says so, so nothing really matters, right? Wrong. When we're done, we still have to annotate the heck out of this play--an absurdist play--whose very definition states that it means nothing. What? That's not to say there was nothing to annotate, because we're supposed to be taking note of techniques. I'm just not sure how I'm going to show how the author "uses literary techniques to create meaning" on the AP exam, should I ever be put in that situation.
Multiple choice was as frustrating as ever. It's always some tiny detail that turns the answer on its head completely because the detail indicates an ironic tone or something of that sort. I suppose that is the reason for our practice, though, so I will, however grudgingly, refuse to complain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNoah,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being one of the hardest plays to annotate this year! Knowing the play of Hamlet well before reading Ros and Guil helped significantly because Stoppard relies on an audience that is familiar with Hamlet to convey his ideas and understand his references. Also, I agree with what you said about the literary techniques, and how they are hard to identify. Literature is so much more subjective than math or science. There isn't a formula or a magical equation that can help you find these literary devices. Only practice!
Noah I agree that it seemed daunting at first to annotate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, however there were so many literary techniques used that it wasn't so bad. Additionally, although the play was absurdist I wouldn't say it had no meaning. I think the meaning of the play is best illustrated by Guildenstern's line, “Words, words. They're all we have to go on". To me this tells me that all their jibberish, confusion, and absurdist techniques are used by Stoppard to illustrate an idea: that the use of words to illustrate ideas effectively is falling apart. I agree that the multiple choice is a struggle. A lot of the answers are meant to trick you to test your true understanding and I find myself falling for the distractors. I can't complain either however because the practice we have done in class has been very helpful to me.
ReplyDelete