Stranger than Fiction

I have to agree with the title, life is certainly stranger than fiction as we see in the life of Harold Crick. At the same time its ironic because Harold Crick is actually fictional. Ultimately it is the director of the movie that determines Harold's fate, not Karin Eiffel..... metafiction?
Stranger than Fiction fits a postmodern worldview in its view of the controller of the universe. Karin Eiffel not only narrates Harold's life, but controls it when she types her book. She is detached from him and sees him as a character whose imminent doom she plots. Harold cannot make sense of what is going on when he hears her narration and tries to figure it out. When he finally reaches an answer all that he is given is news of his upcoming death. This spurs him to pursue all his dreams in a short time. This is postmodern because it is saying that we don't know what are fate is or if anyone's controlling it or if they will do with it so we might as well make the most of everyday and make our lives what we want them to be because all we know is that eventually we will die.

I definitley enjoyed watching this movie more with an AP English audience. One thing still is fuzzy to me though, why didn't he notice the voice earlier in his life?

R&G act 3

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead and without any answers.
"Dying is not a game which will soon be over... Death is not anything... death is not... It's the absence of presence, nothing more... the endless time of never coming back... a gap you can't see, and when the wind blows through it, it makes no sound..." (124).
The motif of the wind found as they examined their coming into existence is found again as they examine their leaving of existence. Wind must come from a direction. The first time they mention wind is the "wind of a windless day". The last time they mention it the wind "makes no sound". In the beginning they cannot find any direction and at the end they believe there is some sort of direction but it is unknown to them. Although they play around with all possible meanings for their lives I believe Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are at the mercy of the apathetic author who wrote them into existence. They are mere actors in his play, nothing else.
I think its interesting that as Guildenstern realizes that his time is up he remarks that "we'll know better next time." (126). This metafiction seems to me a reminder that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are different from real people because they are characters. As characters they come to life every time someone reads their story... so in a way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are as eternal as people make them. They are actors. They exist as long as there is an audience watching.

what is a winner?

What is a winner?
According to dictionary.com a winner is "a person or thing that wins; victor." Our local narrative's authority says it- a winner is a thing, like toast.
What are we? we are beings -"living things".
So if a winner is a thing and we are things, in the spirit of elementary school optimism-
WE ARE ALL WINNERS!
... or
since everything is a winner, winner no longer has any meaning at all. A winner is a word we created to enhance our existence. It makes us feel good and gives us purpose. No one really wins no one loses we just exist, we just try to play the game as long as we can. We make up rules to reduce the chaos.

As truth is relative, I choose to go with the first option- we are all winners. Our rules never stated what a winner was or that there could only be one winner.

R&G Act 2

Rosencrantz randomly brings up the idea of death and how it is like lying in a box. He plays with the irony of being dead but having the ability to know you are dead and in a box. Death is a heavy thing to deal with especially if you believe that death is the ceasing of existence. We don't know what it is like to not exist, having no thoughts, no feeling, nothing around us but the box. This is why Stoppard talks about death in a humorous way. It's too hard to contemplate being in utter nothingness for eternity. It would be much better to know that you were in something, even a box, with the hope of entering into something more meaningful than to have no awareness of anything. Fortunately, as a Christian I don't have to try so hard to wrap my understanding around the concept of not existing because I know that death is just the beginning of a greater existence.

the inaguration speech of "flat rhetoric but interesting ideology"

I haven't listened to Obama's speech myself so I can't completely agree or disagree with Mr. Gerson. He said that the speech was "rhetorically flat" but I'm still not sure what he meant by that. I agree with his comment that the instances of cliches and not-so-perfect phrasing didn't make "much difference to the two million people on the Mall — [who] were into the moment." I think it's better that he focused more on his ideology than his rhetoric ; what you're actually eating is more important than its presentation (although presentation does help). He gave good content and people seemed satisfied with what they got. Obama has proven his eloquence in previous speeches. This one showed that he cares about substance. Gerson also talked about how Obama didn't trace America's history to show how historical the moment truly was. I think that's jussomething he expected Obama to do and was personally disappointed when he did not. It was a huge moment in US history and showing the country's progress more would have been cool, but i think it's a good thing that historic-ness wasn't the heart of his speech. Although he is different from any other before him he has the same duty to lead the country and uphold the Constitution just like any other president. Talking about his ideology with a just few references to the past tells me that he is focusing on the future wellfare of our country rather than on his achievement. It is intersting to analyze a presidential speech from a literary perspective, but in the grand scheme of things picking out how a speech wasn't perfect is pretty trivial.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Estan Muertos

Well, looking closely at this book together in class has definitely helped me get more out of it. If I was reading it on my own I would overlook many of the subtle details and  allusions that bring in extra layers of humor and philosophy. Also knowing that this is a Postmodern piece of work and being able to identify the Postmodernities that it is so full of has made it even more enjoyable and interesting.  The idea of existing only as one is summoned is rather intriguing.  It seems to indicate that everyone's existence has a purpose.  If you have not already left an effect, in the process of leaving an effect, or are going to leave an effect, there would be no purpose for your existence. No one can have a meaningless existence even if it is a short one. A baby who is born and dies shortly after or even a miscarried baby makes an effect upon at least the mother.  R & G who come into being as they are exist because Shakespeare has a purpose for them to fulfill even though they don't know it yet. Everything must exist to serve some purpose from the most isolated pebble in an unexplored cave in to MLK Jr. Although it makes me wonder wether a cave which no living thing will ever come in contact with would really exist. I suppose the answer would be yes because something else has given it existence such as water or it is a factor in a chain of events.