Voyage Act II

One thing that struck me from the very beginning of Act II was that the author goes back in time and add a side to each event. We now get to see things that were only mentioned in passing previously, in depth. I found it interesting to learn of what Michael and his liberal friends had been up to during his absence in the house and I think that Stoppard changed so that there would be a different location for the new act. The Second act seemed like a revision of the first act but from a different angle so that we get to know new characters and situations or what really happens. The change in each character's personality becomes more evident in the second act compared to the first. Alexander becomes less and less liberal, always trying to silence his son and shunning his work. He constantly encourages Michael to switch to agriculture because it is a more accepted profession. Also in the first act the characters mentioned the Beyers but only in the second do we get to know them and their relationship to the family. At the very beginning of the first scene we see Mrs. Beyer with Liubov and Varvara but it automatically switches to men having their own conversation, I don't understand why the author included this snip of conversation between the women because it is such a small introduction.

In the first act it is made to seem like it was Michael who just arrived at his house with all of his crazy, liberal ideas but in the second act we are shown that from the very beginning before his father's disapproval emerged he was associating with those kind of people. "Ah! You noticed. Because France is the flower of civilisation, and also the home of revolution which will lop off the head of the flower." This quote, said by one of Michael's friends shows how much they want to make themselves a part of other cultures instead of the Russian one. I think that Michael associates with them because he too resents the conservative and controlling Russian government and this is what causes so much friction between him and his father. From our point of view he just seems like a very rebellious character that is just causing problems for his family and putting strange and unusual ideas into his sister's heads. In reality he was one of the only characters that was realizing the state of oppression he and his family were living in, they just accepted the facts as they were, today people would be planning a revolution in a heartbeat. The author effectively shows how oblivious the family is to the evils of the present situation but Michael and his friends see the need for change. This is a matter of time period and our opinion compared the the opinion over a century ago spurs two very different reactions but Michael is the first to try to stand up to this authoritarian, unjust society. He perseveres even though his own family even shuts him out at times, this shows how politics greatly influence relationships as well.

In the end I don't feel a sense of conclusion, the play finishes with Alexander pretending to still be able to see even though he lost his vision it seem rather inconclusive. I think that maybe Stoppard concludes with Alexander being blind because this could show how he may be blind but still think he can see, he will never let go of his ideas or perceptions on life with or without sight and he proves this with Alexander being convinced he can see the sunset. Alexander changes political positions but then becomes extremely stubborn and self absorbed and he continues to disapprove of his son. This is an example of how even with evidence some men never learn. I think that in the end the people's surroundings in the play evolve much more than they do and this may be Stoppard's way of trying to explain why Russia is still backwards in some of its ideas. It's old traditions don't die because of the people's dependence on them and they remain the same according to their past and don't let the present circumstances change or affect them. This play shows that this may make a person feel safer since they stick to the same conviction all their life but it can also be inconvenient since it causes conflict between the new and the old. The new liberalism and old conservatism is what caused big issues between the people and since they both believe they are right the issue escalates and is very difficult to solve. So Stoppard is trying to show that we have to have a balance, we don't have to become our opponent we just have to accept some of it.