RTCM I've lost count

    We started out this month finishing Frankenstein. I feel like we spent plenty of time on that little novel. It was an interesting book but the writing style really made it for me- if you were to choose any sentence in that book and actually speak it, it'd come out as the most pretentious sounding garbage anyone's heard. But in writing, all that is excusable and makes a classic, so why not.

     We also went through critical lenses. That section was more confusing and complicated than any book we've read so far but I suppose it had to be done. How much of it I remember come exam time is a hazy question. If the quiz we took was any indication of my learning ability, we're looking at a weak 2 on this AP test. 

     Next, Fifth Business. I know a lot of people I talked to about it enjoyed it, and I can see why but I don't feel the same. It wa an interesting book and it offered some surprising ideas. The fact that it was an actual novel and not a play or poem was also a nice reprieve but I didn't find it as profound or though-provoking as others. Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong or maybe we just have different opinions. It was and is bearable but I really hope Ms. Holmes points at some big Ah-Ha! that makes this book more thoughtful to me. 

     These blogs continue, weekly and I think when I do them they help. Open Prompts are starting to come more naturally and flow more smoothly and Closed Prompts are also becoming less of a pain. I absolutely do not consider myself prepared for the AP exam but I'm sure by the time it rolls around there will be a little mre confidence somewhere. 

Open Prompt 3, Part 2

2005. In Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess

“That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions.” In a novel or play that

you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly.

Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and

inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard, Guildenstern displays an almost desperate need for understanding, questioning everything while complying with the play as it is written. Guildenstern's attempts to rationalize every situation exemplify the effectiveness of confusion, frustration, and the impracticality of questioning predetermined fate.

Guildenstern's efforts at understanding seemingly impossible situations contribute largely to his confusion. Take, for example, the coin toss Rosencrantz and Guildenstern use to pass time. Every time they flip a certain coin, it lands heads up. Guildenstern ponders the probabilities of such an event, and even considers the idea that the coin or they may have been placed in an alternate universe- he questions the remarkability of the coin's loyalty and brings up several lines of thought on the matter. However, unable to see any ideas through to the end, Guildenstern gives up, and is only left confused with the entire situation. This is a recurring cycle- remarkable event, questioning, surrender, confusion. Guildenstern never manages to draw a conclusive thought, confusing his character.

Following this confusion, occasionally Guildenstern is frustrated. Even noting that he and Rosencrantz are simply cogs in the machine of fate, thusly obeying the written word to a letter. Yet all the while Guildenstern is attempting to understand strange events. Near the end, he even discovers his fate yet recognizes his powerlessness to influence it. Frustrating as this may be, neither Guildenstern or Rosencrantz have the ability to take control. They are set into a much larger, yet very similar cycle- Remarkable event, acceptance/surrender- over and over (how many times is undetermined and undeterminable). Impractical and pointless, this inward questioning and quest for understanding helps Guildenstern achieve nothing and change nothing.

Stoppard uses Guildenstern to force readers to question their own beliefs- are our lives laid before us in a cycle that we have and will continue to run through forever? Is questioning our individual roles fruitless, or do we have control of our fates?

Open Prompt 3, Part 1

It's against my religion to do this on Easter sorry

RTCM..........................eh.

Last month was possibly the most exciting month we've had yet. I mean we annotated the bejesus out of some ridiculously long (and a couple pleasantly succinct) packets that talked about like Frankenstein n stuff, somehow got to talking about Lord Byron's friend's wife, analyzed some nifty poetry (old school dirty rhymes) and annotated the actual book, Frankenstein. Or, rather didn't. Sorry Ms. Holmes, we've got another short one here. It's about 10:00 and I haven't started yet. Um... Is there a movie we watch soon? I could use a few more free days. I guess we did have a few already, and while I didn't get my annotations done I did use that time wisely. I'm happy to report that my Clash of Clans account is thriving (I've gotten much better at attacking the last couple weeks) and I am a nonillionaire on AdVenture Capitalist (hmu ladiez). But enough about me. How was your month? Leave some tips for the greater good (of this blog not like all humanity duh)!
Also are Villanova and Kansas really killin anyone else's bracket? Like just win. How hard can it be.

Open Prompt 2, Part 2

2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead offers up many more questions than answers. As more of a philosophical work and less of a conclusive one, this makes sense. The play offers two big questions. Is there an end to the role people play in the lives of others and is there a point to their existence.
This work certainly exemplifies the prompt of asking questions without providing answers. The first question is answerable on an individual level, drawing on the reader's religious, social and philosophical knowledge and ideas. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern obviously play a role in Hamlet, but outside of that do they have free will or options other than their repeating roles? This play raises the question and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. Throughout the play the only real significance R and G have is when they are performing in Elsinore, up until the very end where readers are left to decide what really happens to the two. Their lives end in darkness and it's likely that they begin again at the start, but that is up to the reader to decide.
The next question is supported by the first. Is there a point to their existence? Is there a point to our existence? R and G seem to have a purpose in being on call for Hamlet, but is that really their only purpose? Of all the activities they do while offstage and an all the conversations they have questioning things, is there a point to any of it. What significance do they have in the lives of the Tragedians, the Player, each others'. Also, do they serve a purpose in the lives of readers, other than asking unanswerable questions?
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to simply exist with no purpose, but maybe their only purpose is to ask the questions Stoppard wants to know the answers to- or maybe, in the arrogant fashion of a true philosopher, he expects readers to find his answers in the questions of R and G.

Open Prompt 2, Part 1

2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

N
The author offered an interesting question but failed to resolve it. In the spirit of the prompt, this student's work has no answer. They chose a complicated piece- Candide, by Voltaire. Voltaire, as a philosopher, would have certainly offered a question or two in this book. He probably answered it as well but he wouldn't have made it easy to see these two things. I think the student may have bitten off a little more than they could chew with this book though they put up a semi-respectable fight.
J
This response makes it easy for readers unfamiliar with the novel to understand what the author is trying to say, but it's important to balance plot summary and original thought. The author makes excuses for what is clearly a homoerotic relationship that crosses race, economic and traditional patriarchal lines (not that I have anything against any of these) with a flimsy, half cooked semblance of a thought. Forget this essay, I say we do the world a favor and cut this student off from any form of literature indefinitely. Defile an American classic and you're defiling America. Go back to Tripoli or the mental hospital, whichever suits you better.
UU
This incredibly short essay cut the wrong pieces in their efforts to be concise. They stuck to the vague and obscure, possibly hoping the reader would draw their own conclusions. That's not the point. Again with balance, this respondent focused too much on one side of the plot summary and analysis points, offering little summary and weak points. Thesis was missing or incomplete and content didn't quite answer the prompt.

When do we get to read 50 Shades of Grey?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Analysis

Characters

Rosencrantz- Carefree and creative, but insecure or instinctively fearful/dissatisfied with fate.

Guildenstern- Thinks he gets it but doesn't. Thoughtful in nature but less observant than Ros.

Player- Knows more than we think (it seems) also appears to be one of the few that recognizes and accepts his fate.

Hamlet-  Nephew of the king actively seeking revenge for his father's murder. Confusing to Ros and Guil.

Summary

Guil flips a coin and loses money to Ros. Heads comes up remarkably often, leading the two to a brief argument on probability and chance. Guil speculates about why heads is on such a streak while Ros just takes his money without questioning it. Guildenstern starts philosophizing and Ros taps out. They remember that they were called upon but don't know where they're supposed to go. They hear music and follow it into the woods. They come upon the Tragedians and it gets kind of sexual. The player and Guil enter into a round of betting that ends up with Guil winning a performance off the tragedians.

Ros and Guil appear in Elsinore, thrusting the audience right into Hamlet. Clausius asks for their assistance in finding what Hamlet is up to. They agree and decide to question him, warming up for this little interrogation with a game called Questions. Hamlet comes and talks to them but by now they all seem to be  confused as to which is Ros and which is Guil. 

Tragedians arrive at Elsinore, Ros and Guil get nothing from Hamlet. Player discusses Hamlet with Ros and Guil then leaves to prepare. Guil voices his curiosities about death.

The tragedians perform The Murder of Gonzago which happens to be pretty much exactly what happened at Elsinore. Two spies appear that remind Ros and Guil of someone but neither the spies nor Ros/Guil can place eachother. The players finish rehearsing and all exit. 

Nexxt Ros and Guil discover that Hamlet haas killed Polonius. They decide to trap him but fail and instead try to glean where Polonius' body is. Hamlet sneaks away but is caught by the guards and presented to Claudius to be sent to England.
Ros and Guil wake up on a boat with Hamlet and a letter. Ros annoys Guil. The two read the letter out loud, overheard by Hamlet. Hamlet blows out a lantern, ending the scene. Hamlet follows up by replacing the letter with one of his own making.
The next day Hamlet makes an appearance and Ross and Guil discover the tragedians on board. Pirates attack and Hamlet is 'taken' by them. The players perform a final time as Ros and Guil discover and accept their fate. The play ends with horatio's monologue. 

RTCM # ah screw it.

We started this section of course materials back in December so there might be a little more to cover than usual. but it's second semester so Ima take a bye on this one and maybe do some serious writing later but probably not I've had about enough of this maybe I'll retire my career as a writer early idk. Lit makes me think more than most other classes and that's about it so let me think.

Later blog

Open Prompt 1, Part 2

2003 Prompt:

According to critic Northrop Frye, “Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightning.” Select a novel or play in which a tragic figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of the work as a whole.

Countless figures in countless written works can be described as having had suffering brought down upon them and thusly affected the nature of the work, slanting it toward tragedy. William Shakespeare's Hamlet is the perfect example of such a work. Hamlet, the main character, is the instrument of tragedy in this tragedy, bringing and spreading his personal suffering and ultimately turning the path of the play to this.

Right from the start of Hamlet, Hamlet's mental state reflects the events swirling around Elsinore. Feigned madness masking intelligence and betrayal... Hamlet's obvious madness may be pretended by underneath the poor guy is under a lot of stress. His dad just stopped by as a ghost, his uncle is a murderer and his mother and uncle are both adulterers. That's a lot for one guy to take, but Hamlet does it. The audience sees him quietly withdraw from Elsinore into himself and go a little insane even under his facade. In his resolution to kill his uncle and avenge his father, Hamlet must turn his back on the values taught to him by both his mother and God. His suffering under these conditions produces interactions with other characters like Gertrude and Ophelia that only drive further the point of their own suffering.

There are more examples of Hamlet's own suffering spreading through the castle than this response can hold but in particular, Ophelia's suicide, Polonius' murder and Hamlet's own death warrant explanations. Hamlet's recent abuse of Ophelia (a result of his own suffering) coupled with her father's death and brother's absence set her over the edge and she kills herself. Hamlet was the trigger there. Hamlet's suffering actually directly drove him to killing Polonius, ruse that it may have been. Polonius' murder came out of Hamlet's grief and impulsiveness.Lastly, Hamlet drove his uncle to desiring his death and actually taking steps toward that goal. The little showdown that took place in the last pages of the play was a result of Hamlet's suffering driving everyone around him away and eventually together again, a little closer than any of them may have preferred.
Hamlet's suffering is an epitome of suffering directing the nature of a work to tragedy. His own suffering lead to the ultimate suffering of literally every other character in the play.

Open Prompt 1, Part 1

2003 Prompt:

According to critic Northrop Frye, “Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightning.” Select a novel or play in which a tragic figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of the work as a whole.

LLLL:

This sample was a coherent, well-thought-out and focused response. The author wrote clear thoughts that proved how Fitzgerald's book fitted the prompt.The author's analysis of scenes (the scene in which Gatsby is introduced, for example) is presented well and followed with a description that persuades one to believe that this particular scene could have been written to specifically describe the torture of Gatsby and later Daisy are two contributors to the tragic vision of the novel in its entirety. The author uses quotes to further their response's integrity and show real familiarity with the work at the same time. The only problem I can see with this response is the lack of a statement addressing the prompt directly. Of course they respond to the prompt but it is more subtle than I believe would be recommended.

C:
This response, unlike the other, did address the prompt in its response. The author could have explained their examples more clearly. The examples they used could be considered as responses to the prompt and the writer did manage to explain them as relevant but those scenes could have had been described more in-detail, not assuming the reader has also analyzed these passages. All-in-all, I think it was a good-not-great response that could have been written a lot more simply and concisely.

FF:
I never read Cuckoo's Nest, only watched the movie. And I'm not exactly convinced the writer of this response didn't do the same. The provided examples and analysis were dumbed down quite a bit more than I expected to see in an AP essay response. I wouldn't have come to this work being a terrific example to respond to this prompt in the first place, but maybe that's because I only saw Nicholson's McMurphy. not Kesey's. The author has trouble breaking their monotonous voice and actually surprising the reader. Like the first response, this one could use a little more concision by getting rid of the irrelevant fluff and sticking with what they are trying to support their choice with.

Hamlet Analysis

I think I remember hearing about Shakespeare once before. He was some writer from like Canada or England or something. The only important part is that he's married to Anne Hathaway. Um he did write Hamlet (that's the story (play? I didn't get too far into it..) this blog is on).
Hamlet was written by Shakespeare. It takes place in Elsinore (Denmark). Significant characters are as follows:
Hamlet- Prince/Protagonist, son of the late Hamlet I and Gertrude. Been away at University. Thoughtful but also passionate and rash and indecisive.
Claudius- Hamlet I's brother. Murdered Hamlet I, married his adulterous wife. One of the main antagonists. Cold but human, and intelligent.
Horatio- Hamlet's closest friend, a fellow scholar. One of the few survivors.
Kenneth Branagh- Hamlet. Jesus. So much more.
Ophelia- Booty call. Hamlet's girlfriend-ish SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BEAUTIFUL seems pretty dependent. Kills herself. Polonius' daughter.
Rosencrantz/Guildenstern- Clueless but loyal. Poor guys I hope Shakespeare felt bad.
Polonius- Advisor, father to Ophelia/Laertes.

Summary:
Hamlet I's ghost appears on the walls of Elsinore. Horatio is consulted, who immediately calls for Hamlet. Hamlet I's ghost visits again, talks to Hamlet, and reveals that he was murdered by his brother, Claudius, for the love of his wife, Gertrude. Hamlet is shocked and vows to slay his uncle. Hamlet pretends madness and the new king and old queen (Claudius and Gertrude) assign Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to watch him. Polonius and Claudius spy on Hamlet and Ophelia, following Polonius' suggestion that Hamlet's apparent madness might be caused by his love for Ophelia. Hamlet still seems mad enough, but it looks like he loves Ophelia less. A group of actors stops by and Hamlet implores them to act out a scene remarkable similar to what may have occurred at Elsinore. At the climax, Claudius exits the room, proving his guilt to Hamlet. Hamlet goes to kill Claudius but finds hi praying and refrains, thinking that Claudius may go to Heaven. Hamlet then goes to his mother's chamber and kills Polonius (sort of on accident but eh). Claudius decides that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will escort Hamlet to England where his death awaits him. Ophelia drowns herself for many reasons. Laertes comes home and Claudius convinces him that Hamlet is the only villain there. Hamlet's ship is attacked by pirates and he returns to Denmark in time for Ophelia's funeral- where he meets Laertes and the two agree to fence. Claudius poisons Laertes' foil to be sure that Hamlet is killed. Claudius also decides to poison a goblet with pearls, for Hamlet to drink while fencing. Gertrude drink the wine instead. Hamlet and Laertes are both touched by the poisoned blade. They make their peace. Laertes dies. Hamlet stabs Claudius then forces him to drink the remaining poison. Claudius dies, Hamlet dies. Fortinbras arrives. Horatio tells Fortinbras the story. Fortinbras assumes command. End. 

Motifs:
Revenge- Too much revenge. People die. Revenge is fighting fire with fire- the bad things people do is punished with the bad things other people do in retaliation. 
Religion- People took that a little too seriously (or maybe not, sorry) and bad things happened because of it. 
Acting- Pretending to be something got all these characters killed. Or it certainly didn't help them live longer. 
Isolation- Isolated characters are/were more likely to make reckless/impulsive decisions than other characters. 

Theme:
Moral confusion and isolation can lead to paranoia and corruption and the upset of the natural order. 
If people stop figuring the difference between right and wrong and/or are isolated, they can be more easily corrupted (or already have been) and will mess with fate and all that nonsense. 

Quotes:
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" - applies to most characters and a lot of the situations. 
"That is should come to this!" - pretty much. Everyone took everything a little further than was really necessary.