Ros and Guil still not dead!

       This is one of the most confusing stories I have ever read.  Not even the characters in the story understand what is happening.  One minute, everyone is positive that a coin will end up heads, but just when you think you know what will happen, it lands on tails.  Nothing stays constant.  Plus, the whole metafiction aspect is so strange to me.  I think of everything as black and white.  So, to me, Ros and Guil are either watching the players acting out Hamlet, or they magically appear in Hamlet's court and are in the other play.  They cannot be both, but apparently, in postmodern writing, anything can happen.  Both could be happening at the same time.  That makes me get a headache just trying to understand, but at the same time, it is really funny.  Despite all the time I spend trying to get what exactly is going on, I cannot help but laugh at their ridiculous, confused conversations.  In a way, all the confusion is worth it because the word play is so entertaining that I end up enjoying the story anyways. My favorite line from Act I is on page 41.  

Ros: "Shouldn't we be doing something- constructive?"

Guil:"What did you have in mind?... A short, blunt human pyramid...?"

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not dead yet!

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems to be pure banter between the two characters.  They make ambiguous statements (an aspect of postmodernism) like the "I'm afraid-" comment.  Also, Hamlet is continuously alluded to which is understandable since it is based on the play.  I love Rosencrantz's ignorance while Guildenstern contemplates and thinks everything through.  The characters seem like complete opposites. Guildenstern comes off as the more intelligent of the two as shown with his allusion to the six monkeys, his continual lists, and long explanations with syllogisms.

"To be, or not to be? That is the question-"

       Hamlet is one of the most complex, crazy characters I have ever heard of.  He is in love one minute and then telling his girlfriend to go be a nun the next.  He goes mad trying to decide whether to kill his stepfather/uncle, is practically in love with his mother, and talks to a skull in a graveyard.  To me, that adds up to one strange prince.  Plus, throughout the entire play, he changes his whole outlook on life and religion.  

        In the beginning, Hamlet is supposed to have some Protestant beliefs.  This assumption comes from the fact that he goes to school at Wittenberg, the place where Martin Luther nailed his theses.  Also, Protestants wouldn't believe in ghosts which is how Hamlet feels when Horatio tells him of his father's ghost.  The only reason that Hamlet has a reason to believe Horatio is that his friend has the same beliefs, and if Horatio believes that the ghost is real, then it must be real.  Then, while Hamlet is talking about his depression, he says "Oh that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, or that the Everlasting had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter" (Act 1, Scene 2).  This shows that he believes in a God that punishes, and if he sins, he will not go to Heaven.  However, he later talks about the "dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).  This shows a change in Hamlet's outlook on God.  He doesn't show a definite belief in a heaven anymore.  Also, as the story goes on, he cares less and less about his life and the punishment he would receive if he killed Claudius.  He also shows little regret over killing Polonius, something that could keep him out of Heaven.  Although Hamlet shows Protestant and some Catholic beliefs, he gives up on caring about a God or Heaven and Hell.

       Hamlet's philosophies on life change throughout the play, too.  When he is talking to his father's ghost, Hamlet says that he wants to know who the murderer so "with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love, may sweep to [his] revenge" ( Act 1, Scene 5).  However, Hamlet's readiness to take revenge on Claudius quickly fades as he says that he is "pigeon-livered and lack[s] gall" (Act 2, Scene 2).  Hamlet's view on murdering his uncle changes.  He does not want him to have any chance of going to Heaven and must thing of a more conniving way of getting revenge instead of what the ghost asked of him.  Also, his view of life grows more cynical as the story goes on.  When talking to Polonius, he says "You can't take anything from me that I care less about- except my life, except my life, except my life" (Act 2, Scene 2).  Already, Hamlet shows no regard for his life and wants to die.  Then, in Act 5, Scene 1, when Hamlet talks to Yorick's skull, he realizes that life means nothing because no matter what you do in life, everyone dies rots in the dirt.  His outlook on life in general grows darker to the point where he could care less about life and what he does.  Hamlet's views change throughout this story as he hates himself more and more.

Class Tragedies

       I think that the main thing I learned from creating our own tragedies is how many dark truths there are in Christianity.  Christians screw up all the time even though we are supposed to be the example for others.  Specifically when writing my group's story, I realized how much I do think that God can fix everything when I mess it up.  I do not have extreme problems like an abortion to deal with, but I definitely forget that God is in control sometimes.  

       In the story that talked about the shelter, I think that it seemed the most realistic problem that would happen to a Christian around our age.  I think that as Christians, we sometimes think of ourselves as being better than everyone or that we have better morals, but when we let this self righteousness take over, we turn people away from God's love instead of towards it.  

        Also, in the story about the married couple with the runaway son, I definitely learned how we can act one way in front of one person and be totally different with another.  Like I said before, Christians screw up.  We are so far from perfect, and everyone just expects us to be a certain way.  The most important thing I think we need to remember is that we are representing God and our faith in the way we treat each other.  I think that one of the darkest parts of Christianity is not acting the way we tell everyone else to. How can we expect others to follow our example and want to know God if all they see are two-faced people who claim to believe one thing but do not follow through?

         Even though this exercise was meant to help us understand dramatic structure, I think that it also taught us some of the hard things that we face as Christians and the wrong way to deal with those situations.  As depressing as it was to concentrate on sadness for that long, I think that it was a really good way to help us learn more about our faith and how hard it is sometimes.

Senior Quote

"Sing like you know the words, dance like no one's watching, and love like it's never going to hurt." -Anonymous

Evangelizing the Text: Oedipus Rex

      First of all, from Oedipus we can see that humans are not in control of their own lives.  In the story, it was the gods or Fate that controlled people.  In reality, God is in control.  Even though we have free will in our decisions, God still has control over what happens in our lives and what we decide.  He already has a plan for our lives.

       Another theme in this story is that sin cannot go unpunished.  Oedipus had to face the consequences of killing his father and marrying his mother by leaving the city he was once king of.  When we sin, it separates us from God because of His holiness.  However, Christ died to cleanse us of those sins.  Christ took the punishment for us so that we do not have to spend eternity in Hell, but someone did have to be punished for our imperfection.

        Also, as seen from this story, we choose to sin.  Even though it was "the prophecy's fault" that Oedipus killed his father and married his mother, he had a chance to stop that and so did his parents.  Instead of facing what could happen in the future, Jocasta, Oedipus's mother and wife, sent the baby with a shepherd to be put on a hill to die.  By being willing to kill her own child, the prophecy eventually came true as a consequence for her action.  Then, when Oedipus met King Laius on the road, he did not have to kill him.  As a result of his pride and bad temper, he killed his own father trying to escape the very crime he committed.  He chose to kill that man in the coach even though he could have walked away.  We do the same thing even as Christians.  Even though we may not always realize it, we choose to sin.  I don't have to be angry at someone.  I could let it go, but as humans we are flawed and instead of doing what we know is right, we stay mad and in doing so we are "murdering."  We choose to be mad or lie or talk bad about someone.  We know when we sin, and even though we know it is wrong, we still choose to do it.

Reaction to Dostoevsky Lecture

       I thought that the lecture today was really interesting.  It made me think about a lot of stuff that I never would have gotten before, and it made the book seem more interesting.  After hearing more about Dostoevsky and Crime and Punishment, I would like to go back and read it again now that I understand the characters and their roles more.

       One topic that the pastor discussed today that I thought was interesting was the concept of existentialism.  It makes a lot more sense why it was so easy to get caught up in Raskolnikov's feelings and tortured soul.  I had never thought of bringing the reader into his character's mind as being Dostoevsky's goal in writing this book, and it explains why it was so easy to get into the story.

        I thought that one of the coolest things that the speaker talked about today was murder.  In the story, I disliked Raskolnikov because he murdered another human being and felt justified in doing so.  However, according to God, we murder all the time.  When the pastor said that Jesus considered murder as having anger toward another human being, it made me realize that I have done it too.  I get angry at people and think nothing of it, but in doing so, I am a murderer.  It is definitely an example of how problems that Dostoevsky addresses in his books can reflect the problems that we have now.