Tom Stoppard's Arcadia Analysis

Analysis of Susanne Vees-Vees-Gulani’s “Hidden Order in the ‘Stoppard Set’: Chaos Theory in the Content and Structure of Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia”

In the article, “Hidden Order in the ‘Stoppard Set’: Chaos Theory in the Content and Structure of Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia”, the author Susanne Vees-Vees-Gulani, makes this rather interesting argument: “Using chaos theory in both content and structure, Stoppard also goes beyond these issues and touches on universal questions about the organization and evolution of our world and about place and role within it” (411).This thesis explains Vees-Vees-Gulani’s thought that Stoppard uses the principle of chaos theory to explain various issues within his play as well as universal questions about how the world

has evolved since its creation. This thesis can be viewed as being contradictory at first glance: How can the principles of chaos theory, which is thought to be inherently disorderly, lead to organization? Vees-Gulani uses different writing strategies throughout her article, such as deliberate organization and use of primary and secondary sources to help her establish and explain this thesis.
The subject of chaos theory can be extremely hard to describe to a layperson; however, Vees-Gulani organizes her article in such a way that the average reader would be able to understand such a complex concept.

Vees-Gulani’s article is organized into five sections —each with a heading. These headings allow the reader to quickly see the main focus of that particular section. In addition, these headings can be compared to an ascending tier. With each tier, Vees-Gulani adds more complex information on top of the basic principles and applications of chaos theory that she presented under her first heading. With this organization, Vees-Gulani can thoroughly explain chaos theory without causing the reader to feel bombarded with information. For instance, under her first heading labeled “Chaos Theory”, she describes the principles and applications of chaos theory generically in order to familiarize the reader with the concept. She states that one application, fractals, “offer a better model for some natural structures than do traditional mathematics” (413). After she made this statement, she showed the connection to Arcadia within her second heading, “Chaos Theory in Arcadia”. She states that Thomasina, a main character in the play, understands that regular geometry cannot accurately describes “natural objects” and shapes; she knows that an iterated equation, a fractal, would describe it more accurately (414). Having already outlined fractals within the content of Arcadia, she goes

more in depth within her third heading “Chaos Theory in the Structure of Arcadia”. Here she shows how the content that she outlined within her second article actually structure the play as a whole. Vees-Gulani states in the second article that these self-similar fractals “never repeats themselves exactly nor does it ever truly cross itself…” (416). Then, in her third section, not only does she describe scenarios where the self-similar fractals occur, but she delineates how these fractals differ between the top storylines. She finishes with the last tier—her final section, “The Predictability of the Past and the Future”, by describing how the self-similarity of the fractals that she described within her third section can show “the predictability of future occurrences, [as well as] the possibility of reconstructing historical events” (419).
Vees-Gulani uses the primary subject matter, Arcadia, to add textual evidence to her ideas. It is important to note that her within her second heading, she outlines examples of fractals that can be seen throughout the written dialogue of the play; therefore, Vees-Gulani primarily cites specific character dialogue from the play in that section. However, within her third heading “Chaos Theory in the Structure of Arcadia”, she delves further into other fractals present within the play that can be hard to notice. Vees-Gulani describes how “fractals form [Arcadia’s] structure.” In order to show textual evidence of these fractals in her third section, rather than just citing specific character dialogue, she cites specific scenarios within the two timelines. This textual evidence supports her idea that specific topics mentioned in both of the timelines are self-similar to each other. For instance, she showed how literature has evolved from the past to the present by juxtaposing the timelines. She showed how Bryon, a character from the past, reads his original work to Lady Croom; however, Bernard, a character from the future reads his work, which is critical essay on Byron, to an audience. Bernard is critiquing Bryon’s work, while Byron is reciting his own original poems. This textual evidence supports her thought that “the past is the time of literary production” while the present day is “is the age of analysis” (417).
She uses other primary sources besides Arcadia to add reputable support to each idea that she presents throughout her article.

Specifically, she uses “Stoppard’s major source for his treatment of chaos theory”, Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick, to support the principles and applications that she describes within her first heading. For instance, she describes that “processes [such as weather patterns] that can be labeled as ‘chaotic’ are not random” (412). Then, she adds textual evidence by citing a quote from another primary source, a novel about Chaos Theory written by David Peak and Michael Frame, that states that “Chaos is not chance or randomness” (412). However, Vees-Gulani not only cites direct quotes from primary sources. She also cites visual aid from a primary source. Within her final section, Vees-Gulani cites a line graph created by Peak and Frame to help support her thought that “initial conditions of nonlinear systems can never be reconstructed entirely” (420). She adds two graphs side-by-side that shows the nonlinear progression of chaotic system with multiple pasts on one graph, and the linear progression of an unique past on the other. By juxtaposing these graphs, the reader can see visual aids that supports her statement that “the present state [of a chaotic system] could have developed from not just, but several possible past states”

(420).
Vees-Gulani uses only two secondary sources within her article; these sources served as scholarly textual evidence to support the ideas that she presents. For example, she cites an article by Richard Hornby that explains Stoppard’s fascination with “mathematical or scientific enigmas” is evident within his play, especially Arcadia. (412)
In some cases, Vees-Gulani cites footnotes that she adds at the end of her article. These footnotes offer additional information about primary and secondary sources that Vees-Gulani cites within the actual article. Adding this information into the article may distract the reader from the main topic at hand, or the information could be too complex to explain just within the article itself. For example, Vees-Gulani stressed the phenomenon of “‘sensitive dependence on initial condition[s]’” (413). This phenomenon states that chaotic systems are undergoing constant change due to their surroundings. Essentially, it “becomes increasingly impossible to predict [chaotic system’s] developments” (413). At the end of this sentence, she cites a footnote that she added to the end of the article. This footnote describes examples of this phenomenon. She also cites another primary source within this footnote to add further textual evidence of this phenomenon.
This article has not only changed my thought of Arcadia as whole, but it has changed my perspective of fictional writings in general. Vees-Gulani explains how Stoppard deliberately created fractals surrounding topics such as literature and sex within his two correlating storylines; however, when I first read Arcadia, I did not see this. As I read her article, it thoroughly surprised me at how Stoppard incorporates chaos theory within the content and structure of Arcadia seamlessly. It revealed to me that chaos theory and fractals were not just subjects in Arcadia, but Arcadia itself could be described as a set of fractals. In fact, Vees-Gulani calls Arcadia “The Stoppard Set” (419). This article challenges me, along with other readers, to not just read writings, but to thoroughly analyze writings. By doing so, we may be able to find hidden themes or patterns in works just as she analyzed Arcadia.