Arcadia (Faber Drama)

Arcadia is a masterpiece!Only Stoppard could weave modern physics, classical literature, piercing wit, sensuous history, astounding absurdities, and sparkling innocence into a web so fresh, so complex, so deeply touching as to open a doorway into the hidden engine-rooms under the world.I say none of this lightly. I have read many plays and none have succeeded in moving me--mind, body, and soul--the way Arcadia has. Let the intellectual acrobatics wash over you if that is not your cup of tea, but read it, nonetheless.

I've been trying to get away from the sort of highbrow self-referential philosophical literature that one thinks of when they hear the name Stoppard, but after reading Arcadia I found that this reputation proved to be only half the story.Don't get me wrong-- Arcadia is an intellectual work of drama. It can be read and analyzed for symbolism and layering and all the fun that one typically associates with "Great Literature". Stoppard demands elementary knowledge of thermodynamics (entropy), modern mathematics (iterations and chaos theory), gardening history (Classic/Romantic), and literary history (Byron, Romanticism, etc.) There is tons of symbolism and contrast and notions about human nature. But despite all the intellectual games and word play, Arcadia manages to retain a profound sense of humanness.The characters are vibrant and full of desire. They are not merely facades through which Stoppard can show off his literary prowess. Arcadia is simply a wonderful story. In the end, one cares about the characters and this is what redeems the play from mere intellectual showmanship. The plot moves and weaves and twists and if you can follow it, the play is truly rewarding. My only misgiving is that I never got to see Arcadia in production. The last scene incorporates two different time periods on the same stage as they couples dance side by side in almost mirror image. I would have loved to see it done on stage and I'm eagerly awaiting an Arcadia revival.

A widely-acknowledged master of his craft, Tom Stoppard again displays his genius in "Arcadia". Although many tend to concentrate on the brilliant ways in which he includes science, mathematics, literature, history, and philosophy in the text, what most strikes me is the complicated, fascinating way in which he tells a story and creates characters, lest we forget that this is still a play that strives to entertain as well as enlighten.Probably the most interesting aspect of "Arcadia" is the use of a double plot structure, in which two disparate plots unfurl in the same room at the same time, but in completely different eras in history. It would perhaps be more conducive to an understanding of the play to see it, rather than merely read it, yet a thorough read reveals many of the witty remarks, nuances of character, and subtext not entirely apparent in a performance, at least the first time around. What you realize further in a close reading of the play is the ingenious way in which Stoppard structures plot and character. Each character has a complicated, interesting relationship with each of the other characters, and each subplot plays itself out masterfully by the play's conclusion. Stoppard has created complex, inspired, real characters with human wants, needs, desires, and motivations, and they enthrall the reader/audience. Infused with wit, wisdom, and wonder, "Arcadia" is a must-read, must-see work of art.

What can you say about Stoppard that hasn't already been said?It's a shame how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gets the vast majority of the press for Stoppard. Arcadia, though while far more intellectual, is a much superior work. Stoppard is able to work in the two time periods equally well and deftly weaves them together by small threads. As usual, his characterization is excellent, Septimus Hodge especially stands out for me as a complex and very endearing character. The real question is, How much do you have to know about the background topics discussed. Well, a working knowledge of Newtonian physics and Victorian poetry will certainly add to the enjoyment of the work, but as with Stoppard, is not a must. Why they have not given this man the Nobel Prize yet is beyond me. I would highly reccomend picking this book up and giving it a read, Stoppard does not dissapoint

I just recently attended a performance of this play by a local theater group. During the intermission, I overheard many people talking about how badly this play was written and how it was completely unrepresentative of Stoppard, and it wasn't even funny at all. I thought about explaining the concept of "thoughtful laughter" to these people, but refrained, because my age is approximately one-third to one-fourth of theirs. I don't agree. I found this play exceedingly entertaining, if I listened only for the puns, jokes, double entendres, and other language manipulations. On a level beyond that, the stories of the characters themselves can be wittily playful one minute and poignantly touching the next. Deeper still were the philosophical implications of what Stoppard said, how the intellectual and the emotional have to meet (as they did, in one character).Basically, the play is about two groups of people, one in 1809, and one in the present. Those in 1809 are dealing with scandals, schoolwork, and sitting rooms, while those in the present are researching the characters that appear in the other part. It is nice to know a bit about chaos theory, thermodynamics, Lord Byron, and botany (can you recognize a dahlia on sight?) when reading or seeing this play, but it's not necessary. (I.E., if you've read Jurassic Park, that's all you need to know about chaos theory. If you know what a reversible equation is, then you're fine there, and, well, Lord Byron was a English Romantic poet.)The person with whom I attended this play made a very cogent comment about the play: "If you only get one joke in five, then that's enough to think it's funny." But if you're one of those lucky people like me who understood a lot more than that, then this is a witty, poignant, suspenseful, and intelligent play, quite like _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. It is, in my opinion, neither unrepresentative of Stoppard nor badly written. Go see it!