And the winner is...

I really have no idea where to start. I guess I feel like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who enter the world completely clueless *(yet ignorant of the fact that they are clueless) and try to figure out the meaning of life. In the same way, I was thrust into this game of Thendywamps thinking that I knew what was going on, but in reality I am completely clueless as well. So i'll start at the same place my good literary friends did - with the facts.

Today in Mrs. Kirk's A.P. English class, we played a game. The game involved two dice, THENDYWAMPS, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, two teams identified only by two words on the white board and separated by 10 feet of carpet and desks, 5 stacks of monopoly money, a list of rather ambiguous rules that could be changed by luck or choice, and an absolute judge outside of all rules and logic.

The only reason I know we played this game is because Charis took a picture of the rules on the board. Afterwards, the board was erased, the money was returned, the dice were stowed, and the teams blended together in a scurry to get out of the room. The rules alone prove that we played the game.

But the winner! I'm supposed to decide the winner! Then again who is the winner? You say, "you were about to answer that." But what I mean is, what constitutes the winner? Even aside from this game, what does it mean to win? If it is the team who got the most money, then let the heads team win, but if it is based on how many people on the team have names that start with B, C, or M, then let the tails team win. If it is based on the individual mastery of the concepts rather than the team as a whole, then heads should take the victory. On the other hand, if it was based on who had the most fun, the win should obviously go to Mrs. Kirk (assuming she can take out her fustration on the punching bag she has at home with Blaine and Ben's heads on it - or does it have their tales?)

We must accept the ambiguity and also the fact that as much as we can postulate who wins, only the judge (fate) can decide. Determinism is negligible in the matter as it is impossible to make decisions towards a goal without knowing what the goal is. Both teams inferred that the purpose of the game was to obtain as much money as possible, yet how do we know this is the case? The fact is... we don't. We are completely at the mercy of the envelope and the judge. So who knows who will win?

We might as well just accept the ambiguity as it comes our way. There can be more than one right, and really no wrong - only actions and consequences. Life happens. That's all we know.

The proverbial coin is hidden beneath both hands.


{ i just hope the annoyingness of the teams isn't factored into the decision of who wins :) }