Jk... it is also pomo in the way that the author just assumes we are educated people and have read Hamlet, therefore understanding all of the allusions.
It's postmodern in that it deconstructs previous assumptions and hierarchies, creating an ambiguity where once we had set notions. Stoppard begins the very play by deconstructing the rules of logic and chance with the coin toss; with the players, he goes on to deconstruct the idea of fiction and reality... he blends the line between the two, and we never can tell if the action on stage is "real" or "fiction." He deconstructs free will by having Rosencrantz and Guildenstern move between free actions and fated actions-- they act on their own except when they are caught in the motion of Hamlet-- they die, in the end, trapped in Shakespeare's set fates. Finally, Stoppard deconstructs fiction itself, and Shakespeare's ideas themselves, by focusing his play not on the traditional lead (Hamlet) but on two very minor characters-- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They demand recognition; they command our attention. They think and feel aloud, and we find ourselves caught in the sweep of their struggles and lives and fates. By the end, we almost feel-- at least, I almost felt-- as if Stoppard had finally done this fictional-real characters-people justice by giving them their due, their stage time, their action-- even if it inevitably had to fall back into Shakespeare's.
I enjoyed the coin toss scene because it does question reality and assumed probability. There are not many aspects of pomo that I honestly enjoy, but I do enjoy this becaue as a society we should always be questioning our reality and assumptions regardless of the mystical aspect.
7 comments:
I guess you could say it was Pomo in the way that it challenges people to question it??.....
Jk... it is also pomo in the way that the author just assumes we are educated people and have read Hamlet, therefore understanding all of the allusions.
It's postmodern in that it deconstructs previous assumptions and hierarchies, creating an ambiguity where once we had set notions. Stoppard begins the very play by deconstructing the rules of logic and chance with the coin toss; with the players, he goes on to deconstruct the idea of fiction and reality... he blends the line between the two, and we never can tell if the action on stage is "real" or "fiction." He deconstructs free will by having Rosencrantz and Guildenstern move between free actions and fated actions-- they act on their own except when they are caught in the motion of Hamlet-- they die, in the end, trapped in Shakespeare's set fates. Finally, Stoppard deconstructs fiction itself, and Shakespeare's ideas themselves, by focusing his play not on the traditional lead (Hamlet) but on two very minor characters-- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They demand recognition; they command our attention. They think and feel aloud, and we find ourselves caught in the sweep of their struggles and lives and fates. By the end, we almost feel-- at least, I almost felt-- as if Stoppard had finally done this fictional-real characters-people justice by giving them their due, their stage time, their action-- even if it inevitably had to fall back into Shakespeare's.
It's also postmodern, I think, in that it uses a lot of wordplay. It's playful, it's humorous, it dares to be trite-- that's very pomo.
That was one of the most beautiful things I've ever read, Michelle. For that... I thank you. And I agree with everything she said.
taylor, you're compliment of michelle's comment is one of the sweetest ones i've ever read. and i agree.
I enjoyed the coin toss scene because it does question reality and assumed probability. There are not many aspects of pomo that I honestly enjoy, but I do enjoy this becaue as a society we should always be questioning our reality and assumptions regardless of the mystical aspect.
Post a Comment