So this last month, we did a lot! We finally finished Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, engaged in a lot of AP practice, and then started Ceremony!
With regards to Ros and Guil, I felt like our discussions were just about as circular as the play itself, an I found myself at times feeling like I had figured something out and then losing my train of thought the next moment. I must say that a work of literature has never left me feeling so divided because I feel like there are two sides that Stoppard takes with this play: on one hand, you could just take it to mean that art is art and has no further meaning because it cannot replicate life, but then it just as easily could mean that we are above the ridiculous fantasy of art, which can only dream of being like life (but then you have meaning!). Really, though. Even with the other Shakespeare that I have experienced, like Hamlet or Macbeth, nothing has really left me as inconclusive as this play. It's almost as if each time I try to lean towards one theory, I feel like the other theory could just as easily come into play. Either way, I guess Stoppard's goal was to get people thinking - it's just what they're intended to think about that gets me! But the postmodern reading of the play did provide me with some further insights with how it fits into the trend and what specific techniques have arisen with the style. Nonetheless, I definitely plan to return to Ros and Guil and see if I can finally make up mind.
On a similar note, I recently had the opportunity to visit an art museum, and found myself caught within two realms. On one hand, there is the pre-1900s art, which exhibits beauty and more aesthetic values, but then comes modern art, which finds meaning in seemingly random collections of strokes. No offense to any connoisseurs out there, but I have never been able to wrap my brain around the concept, which came out to haunt me with the toilet piece in Holmes' critical lens presentation. I can see where one might get ideas about the absurdity of the modern condition from a toilet, but I would much rather spend my days analyzing a painting for meaning instead. I guess I'm sort of an aestheticist at the end of the day.
But, in a total change of gears, we have started reading Ceremony, and Ms. Homes' description of the circular narrative tied together three years of literature classes within one diagram. Having had both Am and Brit Lit, I have read through plenty of packets on archetypes, but seeing the continuum that we drew in class allowed me to understand the concept in a very new light. I'd always sort of seen each genre as distinct and separate, but that showed me how they can easily lead into one another. In addition, we read through a series of articles in preparation for our reading of Ceremony, which I found really interesting since I found a lot of connections to the very short introduction to Native American Lit that I had had in Am Lit. The three "R"s that I learned about in Mrs. Sauer's class even made a semi-cameo in Holmes' presentation! But alongside the insight into the mythos and the cultural values of the Laguna, I have found a lot of connections to the values that I have been able to experience in my own religion and culture. Of course, diversity and acceptance have made it a lot easier, but being Hindu and Indian in a deeply Western and Christian (sorry to generalize, but let's face it) culture has shown me two very different perspectives on the world. So as I have been reading Ceremony, where the hero is placed between these two worlds, I have found a lot of connections between his Laguna culture and my own Indian culture. One example being the use of deep myths that connect to nature, which I constantly learned growing up. This also happens to be our very first novel, which I actually enjoy because I feel like a novel is even easier to visualize as the story lacks the confinements of a stage (and the pre-Ceremony activities helped cultivate my ideas of the setting). As an added bonus, I feel like novels connect even more deeply to the author. Even though Ceremony is in third person, I feel like Silko's writing resonates much more than Stoppard's or Miller's simply because I do not see the distance between playwright and play.
Anyways, there's my two cents, and jeez the AP exam's in two months!!!
I know that we already talked about this a little bit after class, but I just wanted to add that I'm really glad that you found something in the curriculum that deeply speaks to your own values. I hope that most students can find at least one piece to connect with this way--and that they find that the rest of the pieces challenge them in some way.
ReplyDeleteAt one end is Hamlet, which is really a straight-up endorsement of the traditional Western ideal of Christian patriarchy. Then there are a number of pieces in the curriculum that ask critical questions about the dominant culture's values, but of course, they are not in any serious sense offering to undermine the culture itself--they are simply asking for varying kinds of adjustments. (Am. Dream, Salesman, etc.) Rosencrantz goes the farthest in actually posing a genuine postmodern question about the validity of grand narratives. At the opposite end, Ceremony offers a look at a culture with values that in many ways do stand opposed to Western culture's values.
The way I look at it, we have Hamlet for those with traditional Western values, Ceremony for those with values closer to indigenous values, and Rosencrantz for the cynics. =)
Abhijit,
ReplyDeleteLike Ms. Holmes mentioned, its really cool that you were able to have so many connections to Ceremony. I mean the whole point of these blog posts is to make personal connections and not just summarize…so nice job! I really liked how you looked at the works with different lenses. And yeah wow I cannot believe that the AP is so soon! Nice post!
Abhijit,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your sentiment of being torn to two way when it comes to interpreting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (RGAD) and where or not art is just art or more than that (which seems contradictory at first). In my website review research I have been looking at historical context and such of RGAD and find that they are a lot of critics who say that #T $tops was apolitical and apathetic and that his work is nothing more than fancy words on fancy paper (a paraphrase, of course). And that yes, as you said, the goal was to get us thinking, but about what? Or are we supposed to be thinking about what we are supposed to be thinking about? I’m glad that AP Toilet Art has infiltrated your life just like everyone else's so that even when you go to a museum you cannot escape critical lens and RGAD, or just take a moment to self reflect on how it all applies to yourself. Anyway, don’t forget to talk about the not fun things of this class too, like AP exam prep and multiple choice!
Abhijit,
ReplyDeleteI had some of the same feelings about our Rosencrantz and Guildenstern discussions, and I think this may have been one of the reasons that I did not connect with the play as much as a may have liked to. I also felt very divided about the play, and I never fully came to a conclusion in my head as to what the meaning really is. You made some amazing real like connections between ceremony and the Laguna traditions and your life and the Hindu religion, which was very interesting to read.