A very interesting article can be found here ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19212514 ) from NPR. It has to do with the important function of imaginative play in children, and the diminishing of children's imaginative space over the last sixty years.
As a teacher, I have believed for some time that young people's self control was not what it used to be when I was in school. But, since this opinion was based on my own memory, I was not sure this was not a glorified memory of the "good old days."
This article seems to bear out my suspicions. In fact, it appears the situation is worse than I had thought. The Tofleresque problem of technology is having a transformative effect on the cognitive development of human beings.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Friday, November 30, 2007
Villain in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Kelsi Smith
Villain is a word often used to describe a devious or scheming person who is the cause of or is involved in causing the ‘evil’ of a play or story, though the villain in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead does not match this definition. Though Claudius’s character, from Shakespeare’s Original Hamlet (The play that Stoppard based his content and characters on) is involved in the play and causes the physical outcome of the play he is not involved in the play’s apparent mood or theme and doesn’t directly cause agony on the play’s leading characters. It seems that Stoppard’s play, a variation of the theatre of the absurd, has only one villain, fate itself within an intermixing of confusion, misunderstanding and theatrical parasitism. Stoppard confuses his audience and leaves them feeling bewildered by the villain that lies inside them all, fate.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern like Didi and Gogo in Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot seem to be plain emotionless characters whose reactions are absurdly expected. Their existence is known because of Hamlet as is their fate; therefore, the audience cannot extend disbelief because they already know the outcome. This odd understanding leaves the audience bewildered; they know Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must die, even the title says so, but they hope internally that the recognizable and pre-destined characters will change; because the audience is familiar with the Hamlet story the fate or villainous ending of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is bewildering and unexplainable like fate itself.
Stoppard’s play’s bland humor or odd comedy about existence and death as well as theatre and the written word is a ‘fond mock’ at society that haunts the audience. The characters seem to float about in the story without meaning or purpose because their outcome is already known. The audience receives similar internal feelings when they read/watch Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar or read historical accounts; they know what is going to happen. Fate is the elephant in the room, the ‘villain’ that creates the unavoidable outcome of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Stoppard, in one of his biographies explained that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was influenced by the sad and hopeless “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock,” a poem written by T.S. Elliot. This poem, Just Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, seems to be protected and dictated by fate. Fate is the enemy of the characters, though unannounced to them. The Characters in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and Elliot’s poem seem to be aware of the ‘villain’ or things taking place but can only watch and wait for them to play out. This struggle is a hard subject for society to comprehend. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to be completely controlled by this outside force; they attempt to make a plan but they are completely tied down my their inertia. This gives the audience the sense that they are completely unable to influence their own fates.
The Theatre of the Absurd was originally designed as a compromise between conflicting ideals but soon developed into a way to artificially display theatre and, inevitably, fate. Most characters in plays associated with this theatrical movement, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, seem to be guided by an unknown, above-all force. The characters and audience are confused but are forced to follow the unavoidable events. The goal of The Theatre of the Absurd is to display the fact that what the audience is watching is, indeed, a play and that the characters and circumstances are not real; though the draw of this field of drama, like the draw to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, is to realize that one can never draw oneself away from fate—it is the ‘villain’ above us all that guides what society does politically, socially and in literature.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is the perfect example of the ideal Theatre of The Absurd play, with it’s looming presence. This presence that guides the entire play is fate. Fate is the ‘villain’. It is the uncontrollable circumstance that guides all of the actions in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and it is the idea that baffles even the brightest scholars. Audiences and Readers alike leave ‘haunted’ by the presence of fate in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by pondering and relating it to life. These thoughts are villainous to humankind, even scary. Viewers flock to experience catharsis and the feeling of knowing an inevitable fate—fate in the sad and confessing story of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and in society.
--- Kelsi-Lyn Smith
A.P. English ‘In-Class Write’
11/20/07
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern like Didi and Gogo in Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot seem to be plain emotionless characters whose reactions are absurdly expected. Their existence is known because of Hamlet as is their fate; therefore, the audience cannot extend disbelief because they already know the outcome. This odd understanding leaves the audience bewildered; they know Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must die, even the title says so, but they hope internally that the recognizable and pre-destined characters will change; because the audience is familiar with the Hamlet story the fate or villainous ending of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is bewildering and unexplainable like fate itself.
Stoppard’s play’s bland humor or odd comedy about existence and death as well as theatre and the written word is a ‘fond mock’ at society that haunts the audience. The characters seem to float about in the story without meaning or purpose because their outcome is already known. The audience receives similar internal feelings when they read/watch Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar or read historical accounts; they know what is going to happen. Fate is the elephant in the room, the ‘villain’ that creates the unavoidable outcome of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Stoppard, in one of his biographies explained that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was influenced by the sad and hopeless “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock,” a poem written by T.S. Elliot. This poem, Just Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, seems to be protected and dictated by fate. Fate is the enemy of the characters, though unannounced to them. The Characters in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and Elliot’s poem seem to be aware of the ‘villain’ or things taking place but can only watch and wait for them to play out. This struggle is a hard subject for society to comprehend. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to be completely controlled by this outside force; they attempt to make a plan but they are completely tied down my their inertia. This gives the audience the sense that they are completely unable to influence their own fates.
The Theatre of the Absurd was originally designed as a compromise between conflicting ideals but soon developed into a way to artificially display theatre and, inevitably, fate. Most characters in plays associated with this theatrical movement, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, seem to be guided by an unknown, above-all force. The characters and audience are confused but are forced to follow the unavoidable events. The goal of The Theatre of the Absurd is to display the fact that what the audience is watching is, indeed, a play and that the characters and circumstances are not real; though the draw of this field of drama, like the draw to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, is to realize that one can never draw oneself away from fate—it is the ‘villain’ above us all that guides what society does politically, socially and in literature.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is the perfect example of the ideal Theatre of The Absurd play, with it’s looming presence. This presence that guides the entire play is fate. Fate is the ‘villain’. It is the uncontrollable circumstance that guides all of the actions in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and it is the idea that baffles even the brightest scholars. Audiences and Readers alike leave ‘haunted’ by the presence of fate in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by pondering and relating it to life. These thoughts are villainous to humankind, even scary. Viewers flock to experience catharsis and the feeling of knowing an inevitable fate—fate in the sad and confessing story of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and in society.
--- Kelsi-Lyn Smith
A.P. English ‘In-Class Write’
11/20/07
Monday, September 17, 2007
When a Character is a Setting
I look forward to long drives with my wife, Marla. Some of our best conversations help to make the miles short as we travel. I have a chance on these trips to dazzle her with my truly radiant intellect, and she has a chance to correct my not infrequent logical miscues.
On a recent return trip from Seattle, I was explaining why I teach my students five fundamental elements of story. By teaching plot, setting, character, point-of-view, and theme, I am able, I explained, to provide students with a common language for discussing and thinking about literature. There is also a sort of literary calculus that operates among these elements leading to deep insights. exploring one element can lead to powerful insights about other elements.
Marla listened politely, and then posed this question, "What happens when a setting is also a character?"
I thought initially that she was referring to a story such as Asimov's "Fantastic Voyage," where the setting is inside an actual human body. My wife, however, insisted that settings, physical locations, were, on occasion actual characters in books.
"Give me an example," I demured. I thought I had heard similar lines of thinking before, but I was not sure she had, so I wanted her fresh take.
"I'll give you three," she said,"Hogwarts, The Matrix, and Gotham City."
Hogwarts, she explained, with its discorporate inhabitants, moving staircases, secret passwords, and Room of Requirement is easily as much a character as a setting; the Matrix, a virtual reality in which inhabitants believe they live when in fact they are enveloped in womblike cauls and serving as human batteries, is a malevolent antagonist; and Gotham City works a strange dark, and arguably purposeful, angst over Bruce Wayne (a.k.a. Batman) and its more nefarious inhabitants.
We spent the next two hours debating the issue and here are some of our talking points:
On a recent return trip from Seattle, I was explaining why I teach my students five fundamental elements of story. By teaching plot, setting, character, point-of-view, and theme, I am able, I explained, to provide students with a common language for discussing and thinking about literature. There is also a sort of literary calculus that operates among these elements leading to deep insights. exploring one element can lead to powerful insights about other elements.
Marla listened politely, and then posed this question, "What happens when a setting is also a character?"
I thought initially that she was referring to a story such as Asimov's "Fantastic Voyage," where the setting is inside an actual human body. My wife, however, insisted that settings, physical locations, were, on occasion actual characters in books.
"Give me an example," I demured. I thought I had heard similar lines of thinking before, but I was not sure she had, so I wanted her fresh take.
"I'll give you three," she said,"Hogwarts, The Matrix, and Gotham City."
Hogwarts, she explained, with its discorporate inhabitants, moving staircases, secret passwords, and Room of Requirement is easily as much a character as a setting; the Matrix, a virtual reality in which inhabitants believe they live when in fact they are enveloped in womblike cauls and serving as human batteries, is a malevolent antagonist; and Gotham City works a strange dark, and arguably purposeful, angst over Bruce Wayne (a.k.a. Batman) and its more nefarious inhabitants.
We spent the next two hours debating the issue and here are some of our talking points:
- What is the definition of character? Is it enough to say it is the people, animals or creatures/entities in a work of fiction? Are the members of a crowd or passerby characters?
- What is the definition of setting?
- What are the functions of these elements on the deepest levels of story?
- If there is a hierarchy of these literary elements, which is of greater significance?
- Finally, can a setting be a character and what are the conditions that should exist in order for this to happen?
I will tell you we spent a lot of time talking about the influences one literary element may have over another. We spent some time on willful versus incidental cause and effect. Finally, we began to think about other fuzzy boundaries in literary thought. All in all, a very satisfying trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)