InaugBlog

It's interesting that in preparation for speech writing for George W. Bush, Michael Gerson "studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history" (ChristianityToday.com). This makes me trust his opinion because his background and merit are established, something that is very important for any author. I definitely agree with Gerson's observation that Obama's rhetoric was ineffective and cliché. I had noticed myself that the speech seemed particularly "flat," to use Gerson's word, although I thought that's how politician's speeches were supposed to be! They really should not only present poignant ideas, but present them in a way that is memorable, intriguing, and stimulating. Gerson noted that Obama's inaugural speech "could have literally been given by any president in American history" and "wasn't equal to the moment." I think that as PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, he should definitely have risen to the occasion. Every detail, including his diction, syntax, delivery, language, etc. should be meticulously planned and held to a very high standard.

R&G Are Dead - My Thoughts #2

I notice a lot of witty banter throughout the play, which really makes it interesting to read through - it keeps the reader/audience on their toes and is a key element in the rhetoric of humor. This play sure knows how to strike the funny bone in all sorts of ways. We laugh at disorder and misunderstanding (Postmodernism and establishment of superiority/laughing at the misfortune of others); we laugh at gay jokes (low comedy); we laugh at repetition and slap stick and ambiguity. I always consider an author more successful when they get me to chuckle with them. It makes me feel like we have an inside joke, and I love being able to imagine how much fun Tom Stoppard had writing this clever piece. What a blast that would have been for him to see it performed. I really want to see it performed live; I'm glad we get to see the movie.
I like the significance Stoppard places on certain elements also, like the coins. He uses the turning point line "It was tails" to transition into a different part of the story - the part where R&G meet with the king and queen and we begin to see those familiar Hamlet lines.
I flagged Guildenstern's quote, "The only beginning is birth and the only end is death - if you can't count on that, what can you count on?" This shows naturalism (focusing only on the physical and saying nothing else matters). It's also postmodern in the sense that we can't know any truth about our lives, and that all we know is birth and death. Truth isn't knowable or expressible.
Oh, and I found a typo on page 44.

R&G are Dead - My Thoughts #1

The beginning of Rosencrantz's and Guildenstern's existence in Shakespeare's play Hamlet is the first moment they are mentioned - when the King and Queen summon them. The question to keep in mind is, "Why center a play around these minor characters?" Another interesting thought to consider is, "does it really matter who's who?" They are introduced with specific "character notes," but in Hamlet, the characters are referred to interchangeably (The queen can't even tell them apart). In regards to the coin-flipping, Rosencrantz seems ok with the oddity of the situation - perhaps because it is in favor of him because they are betting and he is winning every time. Guildenstern, on the other hand, is perturbed by the absurd, unnatural phenomenon. Maybe he is questioning it because it's not going well for him. Why ask why if life's just peachy? One frequent postmodern aspect in the play thus far is the use of wordplay, such as in the exchange about the word "afraid." ROS: "I'm afraid---" GUIL: "So am I." ROS: "I'm afraid it isn't your day." Guildenstern tries to soothe himself by reasoning away the strange situation. He uses several syllogisms (If a=b and b=c, then a=c) to do this. His lengthy, confusing syllogism is a perfect example of deconstruction. It's interesting to note that the two characters recognize that a messenger "woke them up." This phrase is intended to refer to bringing them to life in the story of Hamlet, for it is the messenger sent to retrieve them that awakens them into the plot.