Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia is a play that spends a lot of time debating between scepticism/theory and science. This back and forth game includes Bernard, Hannah, and Valentine, who are each at different points of the spectrum between science and literature. Many critics argue that the constant interruptions in the study room, combined with the state of the table-top as the play progresses creates a sense of cognitive entropy and that it disrupts the reading experience, causing the readers to decay into a sense of madness similar to that of the ‘Sidley Park hermit.’
The two articles I chose discuss the role of skepticism throughout the play, whether it is intentional, and if it a good thing. I originally found three articles: an original by Burkhard
…show more content…
Muller-Muth agrees with Niederhoff about the creative purpose of misunderstandings in the play, but says “I part company with Niederhoff when he tries to invalidate sceptical …show more content…
Although the room was designed to be Thomasina’s own, it by no means serves its actual purpose in the play. Then, in the last section, titled “Return to Scepticism(?),” Muller-Muth returns to the original question which caused her to write this article: “Whether Arcadia professes a sceptical attitude towards the pursuit of knowledge or not”(286). She cites several textual examples of unknowns that are left without answers (such as who shot the hare) and the existential comment by Hannah, “It’s wanting to know that makes us matter”(2.7). In closing, Anja Muller-Muth does not try to prove or disprove scepticism in Tom Stoppard’s play, but makes about the overall process of seeking knowledge; the process is much more important than the final answer, even if you don’t ever find it. As Hannah said, sometimes it can be “better to struggle on knowing that failure is final”(2.7).
The second article I chose is “Who Shot the Hare in Stoppard’s Arcadia?” by Burkhard Niederhoff it is a response to Anja Muller-Muth, and therefore gained its title from Muller-Muth’s point that several that are left unknown in the play (including who killed the hare). Niederhoff claims that “the question why Byron left England is hardly more relevant
Major Conflicts in Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun and August Wilson’s Fences: a Comparative Study “An effective way to begin to discuss the play 's significance is to ask about the major conflicts in the play” (Lund, 84) Introduction As the title of this paper suggests, there are major conflicts which somehow frame the thematic scope of both plays. These conflicts revolve around money and race. After reading the two texts and many other paper and electronic references, it becomes clear enough, for me, that Hansberry was aware that if conflicts like these are well managed on both paper and stage, they can serve to reflect the tensions in relations between, either family members with each other, or with the society outside. Talking about this, Darwin T. Turner in Past and Present in Negro American Drama writes that “ in A Raisin in the Sun, Lorraine Hansberry dramatized sympathetically but amusingly the tensions of Negro family, who must fight themselves as well as the white world outside” (26) .
In Stage 2, the epigraph furthers the reader’s understanding by outlining what is supposed to happen in the stage. The relationship between the epigraph and Russell’s development of the girls do not correspond with each other. For stage two,
In the novel The Running Man by Michael Gerard Bauer, the author captures the experiences of a marginalised character, Tom Leyton. The use of the silkworm metaphor invites the audience to uncover the dark secrets of Tom Leyton 's mysterious past. The introduction of the character Joseph Davidson provides the author with a catalyst to open the metaphor of the silkworm and take the reader on a journey to understand the life experiences of Tom Leyton. Joseph Davidson, who is portrayed as someone with poor self esteem is also described as an outsider. The running man is used by the author to reveal the experiences of Joseph Davidson and demonstrate his growth of becoming less marginalised throughout the novel.
In the play Doubt, a Parable written by John Patrick Shanley, it explains how doubt can lead to certainty and how an individual assurance can lead back to doubt. The relationship between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius is a back and forth conflict between certainty and doubt. While Father Flynn knows for a fact that he has not done anything to Donald Muller, Sister Aloysius does not believe that Father Flynn is innocent, and it is her doubt that makes her act out from her position. Throughout the play, Shanley demonstrates how Father Flynn’s sermon’s relates to the relationship between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn. Father Flynn’s sermons talk about doubt, intolerance, and gossip have their own message that illustrate the relationship between
(May, 24). He states that a play practically brain washes the audience, and because of this, they remain unable to think for themselves to discuss or reflect upon the
How can someone be so clueless about what people are telling him and the truth? Then there is putnam who has a history of accusing people of things like witchcraft so that he can buy their land. Throughout the whole play he has been against everyone and is just trying to gain
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard brings forth the conflict between reason and emotion first illustrated in Act I. This tautness presents itself within the first scene of the play when student Thomasina Coverly turns away from her studies, sidetracked, and asks her tutor: “Septimus, what is carnal embrace?”(Stoppard 1). After giving a jokingly answer of "carnal embrace" Hodge insists that Thomasina return to her studies. Thomasina returns to the subject, but a few minutes later asks: "is carnal embrace kissing, / and throwing one's arms around Mrs. Chater?" (3).
The main characters in this play either see logic and reason, or give in their fear of the unknown. The society around these characters feel the need to fit in, therefore they follow those voices that speak louder to them and those surrounding.
By placing the two cherished books into his personal briefcase, Henry Drummond exhibits the importance of both books’ existence. One must be able to question their environment to reach true conclusions for themselves, “The man who has everything figured out is probably a fool… it takes a very smart fella to say “I don’t know the answer”(1 2 414-417). Laying side by side the literature symbolizes the necessity of the contradicting volumes; because the subjects persist debatability and can equally support the argument and remain
In “Trifles,” the men and women have opposing perceptions on how they find and what they consider evidence. The men in the play view things more literal, while the women find a deeper meaning behind
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
Throughout the play, readers can unquestionably witness the
As readers, we must be skeptical of the storyteller’s motives for, as in the nature of storytelling, information is manipulated to convey a certain meaning to the reader; to trust a writer to communicate objectively is dangerous as with explication important information can
Also, the main theme that is underlined by the playwright of Doubt: A Parable is the abuse of the power. Shanley suggested an up-to-date topic, considering several scandals about the Catholic Church’s priests who had had sexual relations with young parishioners. This play with no proofs and it ends with an open-ended. Although in the play Sister Aloysius and Sister James try to judge whether the priest –
In those lines, Hawthorne quickly turns the questions back to Martha as if he knows that he does not have the evidence to support these claims. This is what adds to the hysteria. The court is convicting people of a crime without the proper evidence and they are basing the verdict solely on the statements of others.