Two time periods 180 years apart are spliced together to share one stage and several props. In an aristorcratic household in the early 19th century, teenager Thomasina is on the cusp of a great mathematical discovery well before her time as her witty and amorous tutor Septimus fends off (true) charges of adultury with failed poet Mr. Chater's wife Charity. In the late 20th century, two scholars descend upon the same house in the quest for answers to different questions. Bernard believes that Septimus's friend from university, Lord Byron, has a connection to the house and fought a deadly duel there. Hannah, on the other hand, is concerned with the hermitage built in the graden and the mysterious hermit rumored to have lived there. Their perception of the truth is played against the actual scenes of the past to show how murky the truth can be. But ultimately, history repeats itself, as if it were plotted out from the beginning and following a certain formula. This is Thomasina's discovery, and we see how the forgotten past comes to light again, as if we are not to mourn what we have lost, but look forward to it repeating in the future. ( )

Okay, I know you're probably all relieved, but this review is going to have to be all sorts of short :( I'm tired and I don't have time and I finished reading Arcadia mid last week, only I didn't have computer access, so unfortunately it's not fresh cement in my mind. But it's definitely not hard cement either.

Anyway. A little plot because I almost always forget that part: Arcadia is set in two time periods simultaneously- one era is the early eighteen hundreds and the other is the nineteen nineties. The scenes switch off between the two time periods until the end of the play when they're occurring parallel to one another, although separately. It think the creativity behind this idea is astounding and it just adds to this huge amount of respect that I have for the author, Thomas Stoppard. For me, that's the biggest plot intrigue, but do not fear, Arcadia is amazingly scandalous although, surprisingly, more so in the 1800s than in the present day. I think another interesting point is the commentary the author is making about our reconstruction of the past and of the study of history. I don't think Stoppard is implying criticism, but just a more critical look at exactly what we're doing to the past and how easily misinterpretations can occur. In addition, both parts of the story occur in the same house and (I think) in a solo room throughout the play (like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"). Add to that that the present day is studying the exact story that we're learning about from the past and it makes for a very witty and interesting comparison and I've never read anything quite like it.

Tom Stoppard is an ingenious writer and uses wit, humor, intelligence and gentle commentary in the most easily receipted manners. This is a little embarrassing, but I had to read it through twice for comprehension. I think it's the feel of a lot of plays that everyone's just talking so fast. It's completely different from both a book and a movie which makes it a tricky medium to interpret. I also had to read Arcadia with a dictionary on my lap, the first book that I've ever had to do such with. This just makes me admire Stoppard even more :) My only criticism is a stupid, but I wish it had been written in the 1800s, it would have made it more convincing but the point definitely still gets across.

The bottom line: A great play and definitely worth owning a copy although I would also like to see it preformed; I think that would be great. Four stars! ( )

In an ocean of ashes, islands of order . . .: Though I am very fond of "The Invention of Love," "Jumpers, " "The Real Thing," "The Real Inspector Hound," and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, " this is Stoppard's best play, his most beautiful and most moving. We get the usual Stoppard erudition and the usual Stoppard wit, but these never distract us from the play's structural felicities. Or its emotional force.

Idea-wise, we get order and creation versus chaos and entropy. Something not quite explicable about the arrow of time makes the tea always get colder, never hotter, and the same fate (heat death) awaits the universe and every person in it. Strangely, though, in this seemingly random, ever chillier place we find unexpected beauties, the unexpected "islands of order" that can also be found in Thomasina's equations as surely as they can in Tom S.'s imagination.

The real punch of the play, though, is in the immediate rather than the cosmic. Whether we know about entropy or not, we *have* noticed that things go awry and that eventually we will, too. Even if we are lucky enough to find ourselves in Arcadia, we're still going to die. Even worse, some people are going to die before us, leaving us utterly alone. On the other hand--the pretty hand--"Arcadia" suggests that the fact that neither art nor memory need follow the arrow of time might just offer some sort of escape from futility and grief. Time can overlap with time, as love can overlap with love. Two people can synchronize in time and space in a most uncanny way, and what is this but love or dancing?

I have just seen the current production of "Arcadia" in London and it was love at first sight. The play is fantastically well written and it is fascinating how Stoppard manage to work with two different periods of time on the same scene and give the audience the perfect idea of what is going on. Reading the text itself is great, but this is a play that works much better when seen on stage. ( )

I loved this play right at 'carnal embrace'. The weaving of past and future, fact and fiction are so precise and the humor and drama so well played. This made me want to actually work on algorithms again.