Not to contradict Ninwa or anything, but teachers at our school (ex-exam markers, at that) have basically "put it out there" that the chances of you scoring 10/10 without a 1000+ word essay aren't so high. Quality over quantity for sure, but quantity of quality is also important. When you've got schools that encourage high achieving students to write 1200+ word, 7 paragraph essays, you need that extra edge to stand out.
In regards to writing well, I basically like to put it this way; if you re-read it to yourself and it sounds nice, then it's nice. The other important aspect that is easy to get down is to write good conclusions - often, the marker will read the intro in-depth (and maybe the first body paragraph), skim the rest and then read the conclusion thoroughly as well. It also helps because having a good conclusion lands you a nice lasting impression - try and use funky endings that have a certain ring to them.
How do they fit 7 paragraphs into 1200 words? Do they only have ~100 word introductions and conclusions?
By funky do you mean abstract and unusual? And when you say "lasting impression" would you achieve this by finishing on a rhetorical question or quote, or challenging a widely accepted idea whose contradiction was made plausible by your essay?
Also, how does everyone open their introductions? A quote? Because my tutor recommends to write a decent chunk on the text itself and then gently introduce the topic... Or does a blunt opening, as with a quote, produce a superior effect?
Thanks
By 7 paragraphs, I mean 5 body paragraphs, an intro and a conclusion.
RE: Intros, what Ninwa says is pretty much right. NEVER start with a quote - briefly contextualise the topic (like, within half a sentence) and then go into the main part of the topic.
RE: Conclusions, read the last sentences of basically all of my paragraphs in this essay, and you'll get what I mean. (sorry for spamming my work around these parts...T_T)
“We go through life not knowing what our role is, our purpose in existing, and the harder we look the more we’re forced to give up and let things happen around us.”
Discuss in terms of the views and values of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.Tom Stoppard’s absurdist comedy
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead satirises the state of human existence, bringing to the fore an examination of life’s lack of meaning. Through the metaphorical narrative, Stoppard portrays any attempt the eponymous protagonists make to find purpose as futile; indeed, as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are brought closer and closer to their demise, it seems as if life is simply to be guided along by fate. This notion is further purported by the introduction of the Players, whose insistence on “performing” to create a meaningful life characterises existentialism as merely a method of avoiding the reality of mankind’s insignificance. In its entirety then, the world of humanity appears hollow; rather than any eventual epiphany,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead presents mankind’s search for its own intrinsic glory as merely another branch on a pathway to self-destruction and death.
A discussion of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead would be impossible without recognising the surreal postmodernism which perpetuates the entirety of the play. Immediately as the play begins Stoppard establishes that the universe which he is writing is contrary to what should be natural; Rosencrantz’s continual cries of “Heads” whilst flipping coins suggests that the laws of probability, an expected force of nature, are all but powerless, a fact which causes Guildenstern to suggest that “A weaker man might be moved to re-examine his faith”. Along with creating a sense of the absurd, the peculiarity of this scene introduces a notion recurrent throughout the play’s entirety; it seems as though the world is one devoid of any cohesion, a mess of random occurrences which cannot be brought together to form any real meaning. This inverted reality is further developed through the characterisation of the protagonists, who in their more slapstick moments (such as the case of “join[ing] the two belts” to block Hamlet) reveal a theatre – and a universe - which in its entirety refuses to be taken seriously.
Relating this absurdity in narrative to a more thematic level, the continual mishaps of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern elucidate another aspect of life’s essential lack of meaning through their existential crisis. Along with their continual bumbling, dialogue reveals the two eponymous protagonists to be seemingly directionless and confused by their surroundings; the only thing they seem to know initially is that they “were sent for”, and it is worthwhile to note that throughout the play’s entirety purpose only arrives for the duo in the form of more requirements of their role in the narrative of “Hamlet”. Whilst intentionally humorous, this insecurity reveals another aspect of human nature; by the commencement of the play’s denouement, the desperation in phrases such as “Nothing will be resolved without him…”, coupled with stage directions of the protagonists being “near tears”, heightens the sense that by the time a life is ending matters will not resolve themselves as the characters – and mankind - would wish. Hence, humanity’s continual pleas towards existentialism for life’s essential meaning seem merely a call for a hollow construct within this context; Stoppard, through presenting the struggles of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, encapsulates an uncaring universe unwilling to relinquish purpose to its pleading subjects.
Instead, all that seems to be offered is an unyielding causal nexus, an underlying notion of fate which drives the two protagonists towards their eventual destruction. On a meta-narrative level, the audience themselves seem aware of this; the play is written with the knowledge of the narrative of “Hamlet” in mind, and throughout the action of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead there never seems any doubt that the eponymous figures will in fact die. Coupled with Guildenstern’s comments that “wheels have been set in motion”, it seems throughout the play that both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are simply puppets, clueless specimens of a humanity unable to escape its destiny. The philosophical description of how “We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us” is further embedded into the text by Stoppard to suggest a discontinuity in existence; rather than spiritual entities, all that mankind appears to be in this light is a manifestation of physicality, lacking in a presence which can bring it more meaning than what the harsh causality of reality can offer.
Of course, when considering what the play has to offer, the Players in their numerous appearances offer another perspective on the precise “role” of humanity within the context
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Unlike the two primary figures of the play, the Players are driven in their existence by a singular force; whilst the main Player admits “We have no control”, he finds meaning through “[doing] on stage the things that are supposed to happen off”. Whilst not exactly an existentialist answer, the Player’s perpetual acting provokes the notion that life may be akin to a simple performance; indeed, like William Shakespeare’s continual references to the world simply being a stage, there seems an attraction in the notion that humanity is merely acting out a semblance of meaningful existence in order to fit in within the grander scope of reality. Of course, this does not grant life itself any intrinsic meaning; as the Player proclaims, actors are “the opposite of people”, and a verisimilitude created simply to appease mankind’s thirst for purpose achieves in its reality nothing other than satisfaction for the deprived. Even in this attempt to create purpose then, the harsh view of Stoppard appears to be one cynical of humanity’s ability to ultimately find existential satisfaction; at best, one can hope to be like the Players, merely acting to preserve their sanity in the world.
Regarding the eponymous figures again, this lack of any real control over reality leads to a relatively nihilistic view of human existence and what it amounts towards in its end. From the audience’s perspective, witnessing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s eventual doom grows increasingly eerie as the play’s events unfold. This leads to a most important realisation; as the play reaches its final act and the protagonists are not even capable of deciphering their own identities, questioning “which is which”, it seems that the overwhelming forces of fate not only manipulate mankind, but destroy it. There is no salvation for the two, and as the Player relates, “most things end in death”; with both eponymous figures drawn to a timely demise, the audience realises that they have ultimately achieved nothing, and it is this sad fact which parallels the basest principle of what mankind’s own existence means within the construction of the cosmos. Reflected in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern then are the most horrific aspects of what humanity is allowed in its state of being; breathing their last words, asking “What was it all about? When did it begin?”, the sad nature of all that comprises the universe is unravelled.
So with the titular characters disappearing,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead suggests humanity is fundamentally a lost entity; in the search for meaning, the two protagonists’ journey is only a struggle against a gaping darkness, a torturous reality which torments and then consumes. Against the glory presented in the parallel world of “Hamlet”, wherein Horatio hints towards a vision of magnificent and resplendence in his account of Hamlet’s story, the fading stage of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead can only provide a contrasting despair, a reflection of nihilism and darkness. With regards to humanity, the latter appears to be the quintessential case for reality; amidst man’s delusions of grandeur, the only salvation in this empty world is death.
Home
Help
Search
Login
