Arcadia - A General Discussion

The young but very intellectent Thomasina captures you as a reader right away because she is like all kids naive and curious. But she shows maturity and understanding as the love affairs seem to unfold around her. And as the play doubles between two time periods, you begin to see how facts can get distorted because some people like Bernard make far fetched accussations when it comes to who the hermit is. And when you go back and forth between the two times, some questions that were asked in the present were answered by going back to the past in the next scene. And this was all just in Act 1!

Act two of Arcadia was so sad. It reminds me of movies where you know what’s going to happen in the end, yet you do not know when to expect it to happen. In an interesting aspect of Arcadia, we received information of when Thomasina is going to die. I liked the fact that Tom Stoppard let us infer exactly what happened with the candle, and how she would die. We also got the opportunity to infer how the others would react to Thomasina dying. It’s ironic, yet bittersweet that Thomasina died from a fire and she assumed that the world would blow up from a fire. I find it interesting that some of the greatest, and most influential people anticipate their deaths, right before they die. In modern time, I would compare Thomasina’s death to the death of American singer, Aaliyah, or rappers TuPac, and Biggie Smalls. Aaliyah anticipated her death when she did an interview stating how she wanted to be remembered when she’s “long and gone”. TuPac and Biggie both made albums with their titles having to do with death. Biggie Smalls titled his last album, “Life After Death”, and a couple of weeks after the album was released, Biggie was shot to death. I try not to anticipate my death because history shows that those who strive for greatness die sooner than expected.

So we have read Arcadia. I see that many people really enjoyed it, as did I, and they are amazed by Stoppard’s writing. The connections made, the way that the play is two stories, and other signs of Stoppard’s genius are clearly greatly appreciated here. But they are appreciated by the British Literature class. Now imagine you never took the class and saw the play. Imagine that Mr. Scotese was not your teacher, and some of the connections would go on unexplained. Are we Stoppard’s target audience?

I am trying to say that Stoppard was bold. He did not make it very intellectually accessible to the general public. I think that the majority who see the play or read it simply do not understand half of what we do about it. Sure, it is funny at times. Yes, it has to do with affection and human nature. I am certain, however, that if I was not a student in this class, I would not find it as great or entertaining. In my opinion, Stoppard disregarded what the public wants out of a play (there are no dogs in the play) and focused on what he wanted to write. I do hope that his boldness was rewarded.

I really don't understand this equation.I mention it now because Mr.Scotese pointed out at the end how the idea of the x's becoming the y's was in the waltz but in terms of everything else, I'm lost. Maybe it is meant to confuse me. But I don't know. Someone help me understand. But from what I do understand, the idea of the "rabbit equation" was that it was the hunter but became the huntee. Is that right? But anyway the game books confused me too. What was thier purpose? Ok, I'm asking a lot of questions. Let me move on. Bernard is really stubborn. He just refused to believe Hanna on Sidley Hermit. But I can understand that because still when people make so many accusations and put so much into them, they won't back down easy when it is contradicted. Even with the hardest evidence, no one wants to look stupid after all of the things they have come up with. The conclusion that Septimus was the hermit at first confused me but when I learned how she died, at how the end ended, I realized he went mad regretting his choice against Thomasina and I think he was trying to complete her work. There was also some Twelfth Night going on with the Love letter to Lady Croom and the confusion.I think this book was very comical, well-transitioned and modern. There were situations that were very relevant to today. Such as the denial of Bernard and the consistency of Hanna to prove him wrong. This is shown now because of our need to stick to our beliefs and prove people wrong. Also, the assumption of the battle led to confusion just how when we think something is going to happen and it doesn't, all the things we did relating to what is happening becomes confusing and wrong.I enjoyed the story and even thought I knew what was going to happen after the ending, I still didn't want it to end.

Well for Act One, I though that the beginning was hilarious with the "carnal embrace" encounter. Thomasina seems too smart for her own good which is how it is today. All these kids are beyond what is expected of their intelligence. I also found it highly amusing the relevance of how "friendly" Mrs.Chater was. The transitions were pretty cool too. A lot of movies actually do that. Bernard seems kind of like a coward because of how he didn't want to confront Hanna even though he wrote that bad review about her. So far, this is hilarious and I am enjoying it.

This is perhaps one of the most interesting and funny piece of literature I’ve read to date. It’s interesting that there are 2 separate timelines and I love the way that the author uses events from the past to affect the future. It sort of reminded me of Back to the Future a bit. I couldn’t stop myself from laughing when Thomasina had trouble figuring out what “carnal embrace” was. It was funny how that was the first thing to come up in the play and then we see quite a bit of it as the play progressed.

There were two aspects of "Arcadia" that I disliked. The first was the development of Septimus and Thomisina. I thought how the author ended both stories was good, but I also felt that their relationship shifted too quickly. They went from "tutor-student" to "passionate lovers" without much development in-between. Apart of me just wanted more story, but I also feel like more time could've been spent working on these characters. Or, perhaps the play could've started in the present. The reason I say this is because usually in non-linear stories, more time is spent in the era that is presented last. But I suppose it is obtuse for me to assume there is only one way to write a genre.
The other thing I disliked was Gus. I enjoy reading books, but I'm probably not the astute reader on the planet. That being said, don't take offense to my opinion that Gus was a totally unnecessary part of the book. If anybody knows, I would appreciate an answer.

Arcadia has ended really greatly. Act II brought a lot of things together in the book that made it really cool. The way the time started to blend together and how you would figure out one mystery from the other time period really made the play a lot more interesting. This play was really great at showing how people are dealing with a lot of the same problems that people were dealing with two hundred years ago. Arcadia was also great at showing how often people misinterpret history and try to interpret it in a way that favors them.

What was really important in this act of the play was the "loss of heat" idea. Once something looses heat it cannot gain the same heat that it lost. This was very true for a lot of the people too. When they lost their love or reputation, it could never be gained back in the same way again. These ideas gave the play a lot more meaning than it already had. This play was definitely one of the better ones we have read all year.

Arcadia is a really great play. Its connections between scenes are well threaded and seamless. I like how it appeals to everyone's personalities. I connect mostly with Bernard who likes to bite the bullet and gets to the point for most of Act 1. Although there are general ideas and themes to grasp there are a lot and I mean a lot of meta-themes. These "meta-themes" are very much weaved into the smallest details. But once mapped together they open up the entire mystery of this play. All in all, I think intellectuals of all kind can enjoy this play.

Aside from the plot, which in itself is exceptionally good, I admire the numerous connections throughout the first act. Some of them may just be one sentence that can relate to a previous statement, and others may be a huge idea that is essential to the story, but all of these connections are very well thought out. The writer constantly includes information from one time period that is relevant to the other time period, which is a much more creative way than simply stating it. By doing this, the reader is also aware of practically everything that is happening, unlike the helpless characters (somewhat like those of Twelfth Night). Finally, these reoccurring links within the play keep the reader on edge, always searching for vital information that may prove to be significant.

So far, I love this play. I think it is very fun, and it really reminds me of Twelfth Night by Shakespeare. They both have a sense of humor and a mystery. They both also share the idea and importance of letters. In Arcadia, Septimus receives letters from Mrs. Chater, a secret lover. In Twelfth Night, Malvolio believes that Olivia is sending him love letters. Both plays also have weird love triangles. In Arcadia, Mrs. Chater is interested in Septimus, but she is married to Mr.Chater; Septimus loves Lady Croom, and Lady Croom loves Lord Byron. In Twelfth Night, Malvolio and Orsino both love Olivia, Olivia loves Sebastian, and Viola loves Orsino.

What I really like about this play is the jumping between the past and present, and how there are little "a-ha" moments all the time connecting the past to the present. It also goes to show how one cannot make such huge speculations on matters that have happened hundreds of years ago, because they can be drastically wrong, and it shows when researching, you have to be so very precise about every little detail. One thing I found odd though was when this is actually performed as a play, things like a coffee mug from the present stays in the past, and vice versa. I think the little moments where there are connections are enough and things like the tortoise Plautus, which is implied to be the same tortoise as Lightning (they can live for hundreds of years) if also sufficient to connect the past and present. Random objects left from different times kind of make the play seen less realistic, for example, leaving the apple isn't necessary to the scene, Tomasina could have picked an apple if she felt like it, and Gus' apple could have just stayed in the present times. Overall I think that this is a really amazing book, and I am happy to have read it.

Arcadia is to me a fascinating play, and definitely my favorite one of the year. The way Stoppard transitions from the past to the present between scenes is a very original and interesting way to tell a story of two time periods. The action that takes place in the story is also more fast-paced and more to my liking than the pacing of Shakespeare of Austen's works. Another positive aspect about this play is the table that holds all of the items used in the play. In my eyes, this would make the play seem more connected and unified if you were viewing it rather than watching it.

Arcadia is a very enjoyable play.The connections that are made are subtle and interesting; if you don't pay close attention, you miss a lot of little information that helps you connect to two worlds, such as the apple and the apple leaf, Thomasina's lesson book, The Book of Eros and the letters inside, and the Tortoise. The hermitage is a huge part of the connection between the two worlds, because it implies that the garden work was done, and tells a bit of a story about how things were in the past. We later find that most of it is validated in the chapters where they look back at the past.

Although I am not a big fan of math, I found it very interesting that Thomasina was using theories and methods way ahead of her time, and they analyze this in the present time of the book. She did not have it fully together, but the fact that they were looking at her work was very interesting, and relevant to how historians look at different evidence in ancient articles today. However, we are lucky enough to see both sides.

I think that one of the most interesting things in Arcadia is the time gap between the two groups of people. I also think that it is interesting that when it comes to the historical group in Arcadia and their story it seems to unfold throughout both time periods. I think it is interesting that they have us learn things about the group of the past by having the people of the present unravel it rather than just show us what happens. The play allows people to unravel the story piece by piece having the reader feel as if they are a detective much like the present group of people probably feel that revealing what happened in the home that they were living in the past. I think it is cool the way that the reader knows when characters are mistaken about what occurred or what will occur because it is more interesting when you know something and wonder how the characters will eventually find out what you know. All the parallels in the play are really fascinating and makes me also wonder if at one point or another there was another person having the same thing going on as I do now. The play also shows how truly similar the past is to the present by showing parallels between the two separate times. I found that the math and science portion is also very interesting in the book and it makes me wonder if there are truly houses so focused on the pursuit of knowledge. I also think it is interesting that similar people stayed at the house at the same time because it makes me wonder if the house is just attractive to the same type of people.

One thing that I really like about this play thus far is Stoppard’s writing style. Unlike most authors who try to beat you over the head with references and metaphors. With Stoppard, he slides in all the crucial ideas in a delicate way. So delicate that it causes it you too read the play as close as you can in order not to miss anything. Then when you factor in the periodic time jumps throughout the play with his delicate writing style a lot of climatic dialogue can be lost but I would rather have to read a play more closely than be constantly bombarded with the same literary techniques (references and metaphors).

This book is a giant 1000 piece puzzle that holds endless connections. You get a little at a time and as you keep reading and searching, you find a piece that connects with another. Soon, you have clumps of partially put together pieces that will eventually form a full picture. By this point, you are so excited, you have to keep reading.

I have to say, I am enjoying this book. My favorite aspect is the unique and interesting parallel between two worlds and the connections that Stoppard so cleverly integrates into his story. I love that we are reading about the past and we soon have knowledge of the future and why things work out the way they do. I particularly enjoyed Hannah's assessment of the Hermit of Sidley Park, knowing that Thomasina was the one who drew him in the book.

This story and its connections through two different times make me think of today and 100 years ago. If people piece together things from the past as Stoppard presents in Arcadia (that is sometimes very different from the truth), what's to say that history we have interpreted is valid? Bernard is certain Byron killed Chater, and much evidence points to that fact, but in reality, he is very far from the truth. Many times people forget that history is anything more than just facts, dates, and records. That is just one part of the story. The other is human emotion, passion, and the complexity of one's brain - we cannot know for sure the intention of every person (as we cannot read minds or time travel . . . yet). Stoppard does a great job of connecting the present to the past and the historian to the history while showing us that not everything is always as it seems.

This is one of the most intriguing plays I have ever read. I have never seen a play able to have two separate stories that are so uniquely intertwined. It is not just about the stories connections but how people so often misread history. A great example of this is how the characters in the future such as Hannah and Bernard are reading a lot of the things about these people all wrong because of assumptions they are making about them. This starts to bring up questions about a lot of the history we talk about today because the history we now know could just have been misread by people assuming how it played out. It also shows how the little things we might be doing now could have a big effect on people in the future.
I also like to see how people were still concerned with the exact same things no matter how many generations apart they were. People still cared mainly about love and their work. It did not matter that they were separated by different societies because in the end it was what was most important to them.
I think that Thomasina and Valentine are my favorite characters at this point because they both bring such unique views of life to the story. Thomasina uses math that is way ahead her time and Valentine has the ability to explain and reason how or why something is happening. They are also both one of the few in the story that are not looking for any sort of glory or profit from what they are trying to discover. They both also play crucial roles in the story, but they are not stars of the story, which makes their dynamic with the characters very interesting because they are not always trying to be the main attraction. They are both characters of reason and they represent the reason that is so very important to both the society then and now.
In conclusion, this play has many layers and ideas that are starting to emerge that make it the masterpiece that it is.

Arcadia is unlike any other play I've read. Its ability to bring the past into the present is superb. The play contains history, drama, romance, mathematics, science, and many other intellectual aspects that can keep anyone interested.
It is full of mystery and allows the reader (or audience member) to make their own connections and put together the pieces of the play for themselves. The mystery surrounding the play resonates directly with its romantic tone - one of the trademarks of the romantic era was a love for the mysterious and unknown.

The character I find most interesting is Thomasina. She is undoubtedly a genius, intelligible beyond her years. She reminds me greatly of Eva from Uncle Tom's Cabin. Both girls are very mature, often superior to the adults around them. They are wise without experience, and have a natural inclination towards understanding the world around them - something the romantics held high in regard.

I really enjoyed how this play and its complex relationship between two time periods questions the certainty of knowledge. If we can't see backwards 200 years, what about 20,000 years? All the game books in the world wouldn't be enough to find a pattern that somehow defined life. As Valentine explains, life can't be drawn out by a mathematical equation because there is so much "noise".

The way Stoppard writes makes Arcadia read more like a mystery than a play at times because it is difficult to stop looking for another connection, another piece of the puzzle. The story is also quite comical and satirizes various time periods and trends during those periods. From the "classical" style of landscaping that Noakes was so fond of to the importance of driving a certain type of car.

What I found most impressive about Arcadia was the story's ability to make a reader think about the story as well as life today.

I absolutely love the way everything connects together in this play. Stoppard does a great job blurring the line between the present and past with the little details he puts in the scenes. The piano playing in the background, the apple leaf, and the math primer especially stand out to me. In a way, it sort of makes me think of how we learned in class that, really, we're not so different from people in the past, and does this by using the same props and items in different scenes about a hundred years apart. The use of humor (all the stuff about 'carnal embrace') had me laughing, but it's honestly a little jarring to even think that people in Victorian England would laugh at stuff like this, but the actual play was written in 1993, so it's understandable for us.
On the actual story, I really want to see how the rest of the play will turn out. The hermit stuff at the end of Act 1 is like a cliffhanger where you can actually sort of piece things together, even if we are going to read it tomorrow. Again, the way Stoppard connects everything in the story between the two time periods really works to his advantage, and the way details are revealed about the hermit are just brilliant.

I absolutely love the way everything connects together in this play. Stoppard does a great job blurring the line between the present and past with the little details he puts in the scenes. The piano playing in the background, the apple leaf, and the math primer especially stand out to me. In a way, it sort of makes me think of how we learned in class that, really, we're not so different from people in the past, and does this by using the same props and items in different scenes about a hundred years apart. The use of humor (all the stuff about 'carnal embrace') had me laughing, but it's honestly a little jarring to even think that people in Victorian England would laugh at stuff like this, but the actual play was written in 1993, so it's understandable for us.
On the actual story, I really want to see how the rest of the play will turn out. The hermit stuff at the end of Act 1 is like a cliffhanger where you can actually sort of piece things together, even if we are going to read it tomorrow. Again, the way Stoppard connects everything in the story between the two time periods really works to his advantage, and the way details are revealed about the hermit are just brilliant.