"A common reaction to
a script like that of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is
confusion. Where are we? What are the rules of this world we are in? How am I supposed to understand exactly what
is going on and why, when I'm not sure at any particular moment about what's
going on, what sort of reality I'm dealing with, and why characters are
behaving the way they are. Too much of
this seems either incomprehensible or just a silly game, the point of which
escapes me." ~Ian Johnston
Questions? Comments? Comments on others' questions?
Think short, multiple responses for this (at least two). I'd love to see a little back and forth with this one. I'll be checking in daily, and commenting.
So far I have read to page 38. I can honestly say I do not understand what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are trying to tell us in the beginning. So far, it seems Guil talks a lot about reason and logic, while Ros does not seem to care as much about logistics. That's just what I have inferred so far.
ReplyDeleteWhat does everyone think about the reoccurring coin? I am having a hard time understanding what the author is trying to reveal through the coin that keeps getting mentioned.
Lastly, I really liked a certain phrase on page 28. The Player says, "Which is kind of integrity, if you look on every exit being an entrance somewhere else." I can see that at this point, the player is explaining how they don't have a specific job as "actors." They just do whatever is needed at that time to make money. Other than that, I'm not really sure of the relevance this quotation has to the play, but I think it is a good line. It reminds me of how people always say, "when one door closes, another one opens." Maybe once I understand this play, and Hamlet, more, I will be able to understand if this phrase has more meaning. As of right now, I just wanted to point out the cleverness. It is not something I would expect the Player to say, just from what I have read so far. He seems like a strange character. Well that's all I have to say for now.
~Martha
Hey Martha-
DeleteI think the coin scene both represents how Ros and Guil are related in the story as well as introducing the two as characters.
In plays, we expect conflict. With conflict, we see change, interaction and the effects of probability, all of which are lacking as Ros flips the coins. From this we can see that these two are not the main focus of this play, but rather the minor figures we know them to be.
Flipping the coin also reveals Ros' and Guil's main character traits. First, Guil questions why they are getting so many heads in a row. He puts it on supernatural forces. Something is interfering in their activities and has caused the laws of probability to fall by the wayside. He is one to search out answers and will not stop until they are found.
As for Ros, he is perfectly content flipping heads. He doesn't see anything strange in the fact that he has gotten nearly 100 heads in a row, and that is a testament to him as a character. He will go with the flow. Whatever happens, happens, and all will turn out right in the end.
Mr. Mac says: Well, there are certain things in life that we expect to happen. Like a coin flip. Flip it 100 times, and you'll be right close to 50 heads, 50 tails. If you hit exactly 50-50, you'd feel satisfied.
DeleteBut how would you feel if you had 50 straight heads. Wait a minute! What's going on here? And with each increasing head, with each stretching of the odds, how would you feel? 76 straight heads? This can't be happening!
R & G feel tentative in the world, at best. They don't know much (nor do we, really), but there are some things they feel they can rely on. And if all of a sudden, a simple act of probability goes wildly astray, why then -- maybe it time to start to think about panicking!
Thanks Garret and Mr. MacArthur! That makes a more sense to me. I understand the coin scene more now.
DeleteI just finished act one and I have to say that although this play is really confusing, it is also pretty funny and entertaining to read. I love the part where Guildenstern and Rosencrantz paly the question game. They get so competitive with it and they ask so many questions that they end up confusing themselves. I know they are trying to prepare themselves when they talk to Hamlet and figure out what is making him so depressed, but I think they are overthinking, which I can relate to when it come to test I've taken, I usually overthink the situation.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that I really didn't like about the first act was the whole encounter with the Tragedians. I found it really weird and confusing. I understand how the actors are important to the Hamlet plot, I don't understand how it is important to this plot. Maybe I just haven't read far enough yet. The one thing I did like about the encounter was that Guildenstern used the fact that he coin always landed on heads to win the coins from the Player and then tricked them with the whole doubling of the birth date. I thought that was very clever.
Mr. Mac says: As Shakespeare says elsewhere -- "All the world's a stage,/ And all the men women nearly players."
DeleteWe're all players. The question, one of the questions, is: is there anybody watching?
Rebecca, I agree with the fact that Guildenstern overthinks things. This play was a completely new way of looking at the story of Hamlet since it was a comedy with a few tragic scenes, whereas Hamlet was a tragedy with a couple comedic scenes. During Act one, the fascination of coin flipping is the key to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s success with the Player and the Tragedians and is the basis of most of their decisions. It is clear that Guildenstern’s wheels are spinning in his head as he is constantly questioning the outcomes of the coin tossing. He is the actor that is actually thinking and observing. Rosencrantz does not analyze the heads situation as closely, and prefers to just play the game for the fun of it. That’s when the whole trick that you mentioned with the Player comes in about how doubling any number makes it even. I think that is what makes these two men so compelling when paired together. When one gets off track and starts a mini tangent, the other is able to reel them back in.
DeleteI think that the beginning of act one of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was confusing,but as I read on it became clear, as well as interesting an humorous. I enjoyed how the comedy was mixed with serious and philosophical dialogue that really makes a person think. I enjoy the scene when they first meet Alfred and the players. Another very enjoyable scene was the question game, which was amusing.
ReplyDeleteRight now, I’ve read up to page 70, and I’ve met those pages with a mixed reaction. There are questions that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern raise that get me thinking about their roles in Hamlet, as well as my own role in life (especially the comment on the Chinese philosopher who said he could be a butterfly dreaming as a human). However, some of the back and forth conversation between them is giving me headaches. I can usually see where they want to go when they begin to converse, but as I go down the page, I get more and more confused and by the end, they are describing something that I lost a page and a half ago.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I find that a lot of the interactions between Ros and Guil, as well as their conversations with the Player and Tragedians are there to build their respective characters. For example, the coin tossing in the beginning is our first inclination to how the two behave. A remarkably improbable run of 89 heads, yet Guil is the only one questioning it. He wonders if any supernatural force, a God or demon perhaps has intervened in their lives to demonstrate how the laws, i.e. probability, does not apply to these two. On the other hand, Ros is more content with what is happening. It’s like he takes things as they come, and everything will turn up in the end.
But, those are just the exchanges that I don’t get lost in. Are you guys having the same trouble I am with the conversation?
I agree with your assessments of Ros and Guil. It seems that Guil (from what we've seen) is the kind of guy that frequently overanalyzes things. He needs to figure out a reason for everything, or else it doesn't make sense. Ros on the other hand is the exact opposite. Though I'm still not quite sure if he's taking everything as it comes, or if he's just totally oblivious to the oddness of the situation. To me he came off as a bit stupid.
DeleteBut I too had trouble with the conversation between them and the Player, I wasn't quite sure what either party was trying to get out of the conversation.
Mr. Mac says: Confusion -- that's the default state for R & G. And, really, we may think that we have it all figured out. Until all at once, you're ambushed, and you suddenly realize: I don't have a beepin' clue!
DeleteI'm not very far (only about 40 pages in) and I can say that overall I'm having positive feelings about this play.
ReplyDeleteRight from the beginning, I was very pleasantly surprised with the humor in the play The reactions of the two characters to the coin flip scenario is something I could see straight out of a movie (well in this case, a play of course). Guil seemed to be getting a bit flustered at the scenario compared to Ros who thought nothing was out of the ordinary. I especially found it funny when Guil asks Ros how he'd be acting if he were losing all these flips and Ros says something along the lines of "Landing on tails 80 times in a row? Let's not be ridiculous here."
The traveling performers confused me a bit. What I got from it were that they were some form of prostitutes or sexual performers? Or at least that they don't really perform actual scenes and skits much? What I didn't really get was what Ros and Guil were trying to get out of talking from them. Did they ask to have a real scene performed? Did they want to buy Alfred? I had many questions. I also found myself wondering if Guil and Ros were complete idiots. The way the interact with themselves and others, they never seem to pay attention and frequently ask a question that had already been answered (ex: "Where are we going?" "Which way did we come from?" and when they had to totally review how the day began and how they were summoned.)
While they seem to jump around sporatically from topic to topic, I am looking forward to reading more.
Mr. Mac says: The players are mostly actors. They would like to be. But sometimes, you have to. . . uh, "eke out expenses". (This is Tom Stoppard having a little fun with how females in the Elizabethan theater were played by boys. Also, with the idea of "breaking down the fourth wall" -- i.e., "You and I, Alfred -- we could create dramatic precedent here" (or, see page 60).
DeleteR & G are idiots -- but only a slightly exaggerated version of ourselves. I mean -- look at the state of the world?! Is that the work of rational people?
I am only 32 pages into this play and I don’t love it. In the beginning, I thought it was comical how every time Guildenstern flipped a coin, Rosencrantz would call heads and he would get to keep it, but I also found it annoying that for the majority of the time the only word that came out of Ros’s mouth was, “Heads.” I liked how when the Tragedians entered, they also flipped for coins and Guil won almost every time. I guess they really do have luck on their side when they flip. It showed that Guil and Ros have wit and know how to make their money, unlike the Tragedians who were a tragedy because they had no money to pay and I feel like a lot of people don’t care to see them perform. The Tragedians, are they some sort of sexual dancers like Corey said? I got that vibe when they were talking about Alfred putting on a skirt. I hope as I keep reading, the play will get better. Also, did Guil want to participate with the sexual dancers? It hints that he is interested in them and are the Tragedians all male or are there females…it didn’t really specify, but I’m going with it’s all guys.
ReplyDeleteMr. Mac says: See the previous reply.
DeleteAs to your being "annoyed" by the repeated heads: imagine how drawn out that would be on stage! You'd be bored out of your mind. Which is kind of the point.
One central tenant of the Theater of the Absurd is that life is essentially meaningless and pointless. So of course we're bored. There's never anything worth doing!
So far, I’ve actually found Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s banter pretty entertaining. It’s very different from anything else I’ve ever read, and made me think of Lord Byron’s Don Juan with its small side tracks. Yet this play seems to have more sidetracks than actual story, which is confusing and funny at the same time. My favorite scene between the two so far is the question game they were playing in the castle before finding Hamlet. They seem so in synch with each other, like they are connected, and somehow understand the seemingly random and sudden tangents that one will go off of and then play off of each other until you’ve forgotten where they started in the first place. I also like how the writer gave the characters slight differences in personality, with Guildenstern being slightly more thoughtful and on top of things (comparatively, of course) and Rosencrantz seeming a little more silly and distractible. I feel like when writing this play it would be easy to just blend the two characters into each other with their crazy discussions so I appreciated the fact that the two characters each give a slightly different dynamic to the banter, despite the fact that everyone else in the play seems to confuse each for the other.
ReplyDeleteObviously they {italics} have trouble keeping each other straight.
DeleteDan, good point. There seems to be more sidetracks in this play than there is actual plot. I get that the point of the Theater of the Absurd is that life means nothing, but so little plot of actual significance occurs that I can't help but wonder why the author even takes the time to write this at all if the general consensus is that there's no point to it at all.
DeleteDan, I agree that the banter is rather entertaining but I honestly feel like the entire play benefits from being performed rather than read. The banter would be even more entertaining, and maybe even easier to follow, if we could hear it, rather than read it.
DeleteHayley, I think the sidetracks are necessary to show the real Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The two aren't very serious, although Guildenstern tries to come off that way. The tangents they go off on shows how short their attention spans are and that they don't need a plot to entertain. They don't need anyone or anything but themselves and that is the whole story line. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do strange things and they get into little tiffs but they are the definition of best friends. There doesn't need to be a point to the sidetracks and tangents; the point is to entertain.
"Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true."
ReplyDeleteI found this to be one of the most striking quotations in act II. It really made me think about the fact that so much of what people do or say to each other is taken as true because we trust them to say the truth. This is interesting because it shows how people can exhibit a great deal of faith and trust in each other.
It's true (or at least I think it is). If what everybody believes is wrong, but everybody believes it, the -- for all intents and purposes -- it's true.
DeleteSo far I have read the first two acts of the play. A lot of people that I have talked with have really enjoyed this play. I don’t really agree with them though. While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both entertaining characters and a lot of their thought processes are funny and entertaining, I just feel like some of their banters go on too long. Sometimes as I was reading them go back and forth at each other eventually I found myself getting tired and like it was carrying on too long. I feel like seeing them banter like this in person would be pretty funny and entertaining. Like all the questioning they did pretending to be Hamlet was pretty entertaining but then it just became too much in my mind and almost pointless. By reading it I just find it dragging on. Also, at times I find it confusing. I’ll start figuring out what is happening and then it all changes and I’m confused all over again. Granted I have found it interesting to see the story from their side and listen to their conversations and thoughts. I don’t love this play but I don’t hate it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Jackie, that this play is not really one that makes me want to continue reading it. Having been in plays before, I can say that I think seeing this as a production in person would be rather boring. The characters don’t really do much in terms of action that I have understood, and the coin toss in the beginning did drag on. However, I think seeing this performed in person would be easier to understand than reading it because, like basically everyone else, I’ll admit I was completely lost at some points.
DeleteAs for when the men were tossing coins, there was a line that really resonated with me, “Fear! The crack that might flood your brain with light!” Guil was really only referring to the probability of the coin landing a certain way, but that statement has so much more meaning. I know from experience that a fear can do exactly that; shine a light on things one never thought of. It can bring to mind new opportunities and make a person realize something might happen. That sentence made me think.
I agree with both of you. I am still reading the first act and I have to forced myself to keep going. The whole thing just seems to drag on and I wish that it was a little more exciting. I am also very confused on some parts. I didn't really understand the coin tossing they were doing, for example. Overall, I don't think I will add this play to my list of favorites by the time I'm done.
DeleteRachel, I really like the line you pointed out. It does seem like the statement has more meaning than Guildenstern was referring to. After reading your comment, the line got me thinking too.
I can't say this play is a favorite of mine. I found myself in the beginning bored at times, and many of the scenes to be dragging. Especially right in the beginning when all they said was "heads, heads, heads" and Guildenstern went on confusing tangents. I can see that small things amuze the two of them. The two are what I would say "simple-minded" Rosencrantz forgets simple questions, and they are both dazed on where they are. I also didn't understand their conversation about facial hair and fingernails continue to grow even after death.
ReplyDeleteI don't get how they forget so easily, but I will admit it is comical. I thought it was funny when Rosencrantz says he is Guildenstern when introducing himself to the Tragedians. The Player guy was also strange, and sneaky.
I was very glad that we watched, and read Hamlet because while I read the part where they are in Denmark with Gertrude, King Claudius, Polonius, and Ophelia trying to discover the key to Hamlet's madness. When teh Tragedians came to Denmark to present the play to the King and his audience I saw some foreshadowing when the two spies who were acting out Rosencrants and Guildenstern died. The title explains they die, and after watching Hamlet I had knowledge that they would die. If only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern told Hamlet of his planned execution they would hopefully have survived.
-Tori Cronin
"amuze" -- to amaze and amuse at the same time.
DeleteEarly in the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were discussing syllogisms to explain why the coin kept landing on heads. This discussion amused me because I can relate to their discussion since often times, being the science nerd that I am, I try find scientific reasons as to why certain things happen. Living in a house with my dad and two brothers being engineers our dinner conversations can sometimes consist of topics (that my mom doesn't exactly care to follow) like explaining how a car works. I also find myself using syllogisms when I'm with my friends. This past weekend at soccer we were trying to figure out why your stomach gets cold when you exercise. This reminds me of "The Big Bang Theory" and how the nerdy characters like to explain occurrences scientifically at the most complicated levels. While the play is somewhat hard to follow, I was at least able to connect to, and be amused by this part of the story.
ReplyDeleteA couple of lines that struck me in the play were when the player and Guil. were talking about the fate of their meeting:
ReplyDeletePlayer: Or fate [was the reason we met]
Guil: Yours or ours?
Player: It could hardly be one without the other.
I've always believed in fate and everything happening for a reason so I really believe there is truth in the Player's last statement that fate works both ways. If two people mate, it is due to the fate of both of them; the fate of one person does not overpower that of another. It's meant to be for both of them to meet.
Whenever I think about fate it gives me hope that everything will fall into place and there's a purpose for all of us and that every person's time will come.
That's a lot of fates going on. Who's keeping them all straight? Where's the Fate Traffic Control officers? Maybe there's head-ons all the time between various fates. I wouldn't be surprised.
DeleteThat's a good point! I guess just looking at the big picture I believe some things are pre-planned out for us. I do like the idea that even if our fate isn't precisely supposed to run into another's, when their fates do cross it works.
DeleteAfter reading Act 1 was also confused by the coins. At first I thought that it was ways that were introducing the play and the two characters. After reading onward through scene 1, I was surprised at how the coins became a recurring theme and how important they were to the entire story line. Although I realized the importance of the coins and how they affected the two characters and their actions, I was still left pleasantly puzzled. After finishing my reading, I read the blogs and my feelings of confusion were slightly eased by the other responses and explanations. Finally, I did enjoy the tricks used against the Player such as the multiplying the birth year by 2 and always getting an even number.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Act 2, I enjoyed the relationship between this play and the production of Hamlet that we watched during class. I first noticed the repetition of some of the lines that we heard. This helped me a lot and gave me a new viewpoint. It was like watching the movie from a different perspective. I don’t know if it was a purposeful action but I noticed that in both the reading and the movie that death was a key topic. In the movie it was often Hamlet talking of death, but now in the play the main characters (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) discussed death. Also I see a small resemblance in madness or the lack of reality that the people are living in. In the movie Hamlet was almost lost from reality in his madness about seeing the ghost. In the play you can almost see the same thing with the flipping of the coin to see if things have returned to normal with it being a 50/50chance.
ReplyDeleteI like how the play wraps up. I like how it explains what happened in Hamlet to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern which we didn’t see as we watched the movie. The part that I liked the best of this Act was rather small and maybe had very little to do with the play itself. I liked where the two were discussing how much that liked the boats and the feelings that when are on a boat, how calm and contained everything is. I liked this because I honestly feel the same when I’m on a boat and I like boating.
ReplyDeleteArthur-
DeleteI agree with your response to the end of the play. Throughout most of the play you don't feel as though you are reading part of the same story of Hamlet. The characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are well developed and create their own persona. It is not until later in the second act that you start to see everything being tied together. Reading the parts on the boat gave a new perspective to Hamlet and the way that he hurt Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I believe it all ties together well in the end when it brings it back to the death of all the other characters and the final speech from Horatio.
Right from the beginning I can relate to Guildenstern's character. Both of them seem either oblivious or indifferent to where they are and what they are supposed to be doing ( this is apparent by how they don't remember where they are or who sent for them). Guil however, seems more thoughtful. The difference in reaction to the coin flipping is a sign of this because he reacts to the outcome of the tosses, not because he distresses over the financial meaning of it, but because he is really trying to figure out what the results mean and how it is happening. I appreciate not only the willingness in Guil's thoughts, but the fact that he is so determined and that it really gets to him. This happens to me as well because of my strong curiosity so when reading on I thought to keep comparing myself to the both of them and see if I'm consistently similar to Guil.
ReplyDeleteKaty, I really like how you see Ros and Guil's characters as oblivious and indifferent to each other. I was having a hard time thinking of a word that would describe their personalities. That is exactly what I was trying to think of! I also picked up on Guil and how he was fascinated by the coin toss outcome. He is quite curious, and I think that is interesting because Ros does not seem to be that way. Speaking of their characters, I was trying to figure out what their constant arguing and finishing each other's sentences reminded me of. Then it came to me. Does it almost seem like they act like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum from Alice in Wonderland? I could be wrong, but that is what I thought of as they spoke so confusingly to one another. I found it kind of funny.
DeleteI just finished Act II, and there is one line that really got stuck in my head. The player said,"You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn." And in a time in my life where I am standing at a major crossroad where I'm questioning the next step in my life, I have to say that is pretty hard advice to follow.Although there are big decisions that people should question, I do agree that people shouldn't question every little step that they take. I think that is why I have a hard time sympathizing with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, because they are so imcompotnet of making any decision. They are worst than Hamlet was in killing Claudius.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I agree with you here. I understand that the play is intended to be wildly unrealistic and absurd, but with the huge disconnect to reality I had a hard time understanding and appreciating much of what happens in the play. Their whole display of incompetence, with the question game, not keeping straight who is who, discussing where East and West are located, made it tough for me to connect at all to this play. They're just so jumbled up in nonsense that I wanted to scream at them to just figure it out already!
DeleteI agree. I just finished act II and I kept getting frustrated every time they started to question every thing around them. Their incompetence was getting a little confusing as well. I didn't really understand why they were like that, just that they were. I thought that they questioned some strange things and I found it a bit annoying that they couldn't make a decision. I also agree with Hayley, their nonsense made me want to scream as well and maybe knock some sense into them.
DeleteI happen to think this quotation is perfect for our situations. Going off to college is the one that comes to mind and you really can't go through life questioning whether you made the right decision or not. Choosing a college should be a gut feeling as well as thought about but you can't question it once you're there. You have to accept your position. When I visited a college and had an interview with a current student, I asked him whether he believed he made the right decision by attending the school. His response showed that he had questioned his situation. He said, "Well I'm attending UVA for grad school so I got my big school and small school." He questioned whether he made the right decision and that is no true way to live. You can question a little of course, but in the long run, just follow your gut and go with the flow.
DeleteI'm about half way done with the play, and my first reaction was, "what the eff...". I can say without a doubt it is wildy different from anything else I have ever read, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. The numerous small side tracks almost occupy a different dimension of the writing, that is, they are not on the same plane as the plot, but still existing at the same time. I need more time to digest the material and also need to finish the play, but overall I think it has potential to impress me.
ReplyDeleteChance
While there was a lot about this play I didn’t really understand, there were a few parts that really made me stop and think. In the beginning of Act 2 Guil asks Ros what the last think he remembers is. When he doesn’t get a positive response, Guil says, “We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.” This is a beautiful quotation that speaks the truth. What’s done is done, and we are free to leave it in the past to never bring up again. All we’ll be left with is a memory. I also liked how the coin tossing (as boring as I may think it can get), was brought back in this scene.
ReplyDeleteEven though Guil and Ros were the main characters in the play we read, I really liked the part of the Player. It really shows how actors are anyone but themselves. This interested me because I am into theater and would even like to continue to be in plays in college. The Player described actors/performers as “swearing love in wigs and rhymed couplets, killing each other with wooden swords…We’re actors-we’re the opposite of people!” It makes me look at acting differently now, because in a way, this is true. People are real, and when someone is acting, that is not real.
ReplyDeleteLater in the play, Guil says to the Player, that we are only known what we are told and that may not even be true. The Player agrees, but goes further with it, saying that everything must taken on trust, and truth is all that can be taken to be true.
The Player also, on pages 80 and 81, explains the play referring to who does what to who in reference to Hamlet, his uncle, his mother, ect. This helped clear things up as well. While I liked the Player character, I also came to like Ros and Guil by the end.
At the beginning of this play, I found it very hard to follow because of the fact that Rosencrantz barely said anything else but "heads." I actually got a bit irritated, actually. I thought it was quite repetitive and Tom Stoppard might have been able to make the same point in three lines rather than 50 or so. That being said, I liked that he had Guildenstern automatically assume that something strange was happening- like they were in a parallel universe. I think that it is a real testament to the difference of personalities of the characters. Rosencrantz doesn't even blink an eye as he flips the coin to heads over and over again. I wondered why he wouldn't question this. Everyone knows that flipping a coin is a 50-50 chance of it landing on either heads or tails. There is a 0% chance of it landing on heads 80-something times in a row. Personally, after the 6th 'heads' in a row I would be questioning why I'm not flipping a 'tails'. I am more than halfway through the play and I still cant figure Rosencrantz out really so I am looking foreward to seeing if I am able to figure out why his character is like this. I also really like that we watched Hamlet first before reading this play because it makes a whole lot more sense with a background story! When I first started reading the play, we hadn't finished watching Hamlet yet and I find that reading it now, after watching Hamlet, makes the play make more sense.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I just finished reading the 1st Act and I just have to say how much this book has challenged me to pay attention. I do not really know where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are and neither do they but I do know that they have flipped coins 76 times and gotten heads every time. They think they might be in a parallel universe but they still can't figure it out. When the Tragedians entered, I really became clueless. Were they actors or prostitutes? Anyways, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern outwit them with luck in the coins. I can follow what is going on, but every time they argue or have an extraneous dialogue, (like when they talk about cutting toenails and facial hair) I get lost and lose interest. Reading it on paper is definitely not as exciting watching it live or in a movie. When Hamlet and Ophelia enter, then I really start to understand the multiple storylines going on. When I say “start to understand the multiple storylines”, I really mean get more confused, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They are utterly confused to what is happening with Hamlet and they try to figure it out but become more lost. Hopefully this becomes clearer in the next Act.
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteI feel like we are all equally confused by this play! But maybe that was intentionally done by the author. Who knows. Like at the beginning… Where the heck where R&G? I honestly couldn't even picture them anywhere specific, and this just got me so confused that I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was going on with the characters, and then I started to lose interest, too. The beginning was definitely rough to get through, but once I got going, it got a little bit easier. (Not totally easy, but better than it started off!)
-Brianna Ricciardone
Like I usually find with Shakespeare, my not being used to the wordiness makes it difficult to keep up with the story sometimes. The fact that it paralleled "Hamlet" made it much easier to know what was going on. I did like that it was comical in many parts involving Ros and Guil. After reading my perception of these two characters is that Ros isn't very bright and Guil is kind of stuck with him, even though he's smarter. I can compare it to the relationship between many characters on TV, like on "Drake and Josh." Drake is the dumber one who doesn't always know what is going on or the best solution to a problem, and Josh is stuck dealing with his step-brother, often ending up looking at him like, "What are you talking about?!" Although the story wasn't always clear, I was glad I was able to pick up on some of the comic relief of the story making it a bit more of a lighter read.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I also found this play a little bit easier to understand since we had watched "Hamlet." Now that I know the story of Hamlet, I was able to comprehend most of the action going on in this play. Although, I am still questioning Ros and Guil's roles in this play. Is this the story of Hamlet from their perspective? The reason I am a bit confused is because last night I was reading in Act II and got to the part where the Player is either telling Ros and Guil about the play-or he is actually acting it out (I couldn't tell). It was all paralleled to "Hamlet" for a while with the King being poisoned by the uncle, but then the Player started talking about Ros and Guil's characters and how they are sentenced to their death through the letter to the King of England. So I am confused how the Players know about that when Ros and Guil are standing right there and have not gotten to that point in their lives yet... Maybe I'm just missing something.
DeleteMartha, you just asked if this was Hamlet from Rosencrantz's and Guildenstern's perspective, and that's something I wondered throughout the entire play. The two plays are so parallel to each other that it just seems to me to make so much more sense if the plays were intended to be happening at the same time. A reader can't really understand Ros&Guil without knowing Hamlet first. If someone did read it without knowing Hamlet, I'd imagine they'd be several hundred times more confused than we are.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI actually like this play. It is easy to read and mostly interesting. What I like most is that it gives another perspective for Hamlet. We get another point of view which I find pretty cool. We get to follow the story of 2 rather insignificant characters in Hamlet and it makes the whole thing seem more realistic in a way.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning was kind of strange at first, since I had no idea why the coin was relevant. However, once I got into it more, it made more sense. It shows their character traits well and gives a sense of direction for the play. By that I mean, it shows how these two think and how they act to certain things which will remain consistant throughout the remainder of the play.
Now for act 2. It's obvious the actors have an important role here, since they reappear to perform in the palace. Their play perfectly mimics the actual events of Hamlet and seem to perfectly predict the future of Ros and Guild. I don't know how they know what is going to happen though. There are so many references to plays and just accepting what happens in them, because that's just how it is. Plus Guild constantly questions reality. While they are lying on the floor in the same positions as their dead actor counterparts, it seems as if Guild knew they were just characters in a play and was almost predicting the next scene. Mr. Mac is always saying that everything in movies and literature is so for a reason and nothing is by accident, so I'm assuming this has some meaning behind it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough in life, everything happens by accident. (Well, unless you believe in Fate, or a Benevolent Being controlling outcomes.)
DeleteI just finished the play and I have to say I'm not a fan of it. I found it extremely difficult to follow the plot of this play because it didn't really build to anything. The one thing that made the play interesting to read is that the plot of Hamlet was incorperated into it, which made it a little bit easier to figure out where you were in the story.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really confused me was Rosencrantz and Guildentern's reaction to the second letter sentencing them to death. I know that these two character really don't act on anything, but I feel like they should of taken action in the discovery of their end. People usually react in one of two ways to new like that; they do everything in their power to avoid that fate or they do everything they want to do before they die. I just don't get it.
In any case, I prefer a classic play with a true plot and don't really understand the point of this theater of the absurd play.
Rebecca,
DeleteI couldn't agree more with you. I know we are supposed to find this play confusing, because it is part of the whole "Theater of the Absurd"… but I REALLY had difficulties following it. (Maybe because I confuse myself when I read a play to myself? I'd much rather watch the play to understand it better). I just couldn't get into it.
The only parts I understood completely were the parts when Hamlet was introduced in the context of this story. I also found it very clever of Stoppard to write a play in the same setting and story as "Hamlet"… but through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Hamlet's story seems much different through their perspective. The main characters from this play have a much more comical outlook on Hamlet's situation than we saw through Hamlet's eyes while watching "Hamlet." It's interesting to see how everything looks to two characters not really closely related to Hamlet's issues.
-Brianna Ricciardone
Becca, I totally agree. I just finished the play, as well, and now I'm feeling a bit confused. The plot was a bit hard to follow, and many of the things Rosencrantz and Guidenstern did made little sense to me. I'm glad we watched Hamlet before we did this play or I wouldn't have been able to follow much at all.
DeleteI was also really surprised about their reaction to death. If there was ever a time in the play that I thought the two characters would do something other than just question things, that point would have been it. Instead, they still didn't do anything and I wonder if maybe that takes away from the reality of the play because it is such an odd reaction. Hopefully after discussing the play in class, I'll be able to better understand it.
Lasty on to act 3. It was obvious they were to die, since the title of the play says so and we know from having seen Hamlet. Their characters seemed consistant throughout the play, though. The entire time, they were just confused, basically helpless, and never acted upon anything. They could never get themselves to reason anything, which resulted in their constant failure to make a difference. They just acted as dummies to Claudius, even though they seemed to know it. They could have ripped up the letter, saving themselves, but just accepted death. Again the actors appear out of nowhere and "perform". Although their acting on the boat kind of confused me. Rose loved it, even though everyone was "dying". This play showed another point of view for the play Hamlet, which was refreshing. At the same time, it focused on two characters who couldn't make a decision for themselves and couldn't understand forces of nature. Overall it was easy to read and I actually undersood what was happening for the most part, since we watched Hamlet. Other than that, it seemed like a pointless play that didn't explain all that much.
ReplyDeleteI think the main characters of this play are exactly what they are in Hamlet - minor. Their roles really have nothing to do with the larger things going on, they're just some people who showed up on the side of the story and got caught up in it.
DeleteI think we're supposed to pity Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They don't really think for themselves, and when they do, its irrelevant speculation. They end up dead and they really aren't bad people.
I agree, the play didn't seem to have much of a theme or lesson. The two didn't change. I still thought it was an interesting take on Hamlet
Just finished the play yahhhh! I took some notes after Act 1, but I forgot to post them, so I'm gunna do that now.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through about 20 pages, I realized that the author had a very inventive imagination. To develop characters that had such a minor role in the actual play takes alot of creativity.
I found it extremely strange that "heads" came up like 90 or so times before tails. I mean that's statistically possible, but near impossible. There must be some kind of symbolism behind it, or maybe it was just for humor.
The traveling actors were very strange. At first I thought they were just a little strange, but then when they said Ros and Guil could pay a bit extra to join them I realized they were like traveling prostitutes.
In Act 1 there was alot of talk about logic. One thing I remember the most is the conversation about nails and facial hair. Ros says that those two still grow when you are dead. I didn't know that....But I didn't agree with Ros when he said he never remembers cutting his toenails. Mine grow almost a quickly as my fingernails, so not really sure where he was coming from.
*side note- I was watching the Lion King yesterday and looked up the movie on wikipedia to see when it came out and read the the Lion King was inspired and mirrored after Hamlet. Not really sure I see the connection that much but though that was something interesting to share.
Meera-
DeleteI agree with a lot of the times that you had to say about the play. To start I want to address the fact that the coin flip was such an essential part to the beginning of the story. It was hard for me to tell whether the author intended the coin flips to set the scene in a parallel universe or whether they had deeper meaning. It seemed so illogical as to why heads could occur on a coin flip so many times. When they went through the options of why the coin flip could turn up heads so many times I was most fascinated by their answer about how they are frozen in time and it is a single reoccurring instance. I think opening the play with ideas such as these set the stage for the confusion that occurs throughout the play.
I also liked the point you made about the facial hair and nails growing. I don't know why this passage stood out to me, but it was one of the few things that I understood and it latched on. I think they might have been trying to explore the boundaries of death by discussing how certain life does continue after death. That is just my initial thought on the matter though.
Meera & Brenda…
DeleteTo be honest, I totally did not understand the meaning behind the whole toenail/beard thing, so I'm happy to see that you two mentioned it. Brenda, you make a good point with the whole "boundaries of death/ certain life continuing after death." Maybe this is just alluding to life after death, like heavan and such. I don't know how this fits into the play, but I definitely agree with you that Stoppard is trying to say something with that one. I just wish I wasn't so confused with the whole thing!
-Brianna Ricciardone
I am almost done with this play, and I found a quotation I'd like to bring to attention.
ReplyDeleteGuil: "We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all we know it isn't even true."
Player: "For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honored."
Not only did I find this little bit of conversation intriguing, but I also found it a bit ironic as I was typing it into this post. There is a lot of mistrust in "Hamlet." Hamlet kills his girlfriend's father, the king's own brother poisons and kills him, the uncle marries the queen, and Ros and Guil are sent to spy on their "friend." Then Hamlet sends a letter of death sentence for Ros and Guil. It just seems that the whole play is formed over mistrust. Therefore, it is ironic that the Player should mention such things about trust.
I think the statement resonates in the world beyond the play. What do we know for sure? And what we know probably pales in comparison to what we don't know. (There are -- according to Wikipedia -- over 400,000 species of _beetles_ in the world.)
DeleteI finished reading act one last night and I think that this is really a very funny play. The one sided dialogue in the beginning was very humorous. Guildenstern can't believe that the coin flip keeps landing on heads! He speculates that there must be some greater force at work. Rosencrantz takes it as it is - heads, heads, heads. (In reality it is entirely possible, just unexpected.)I think Guildenstern isn't really doubting the likelihood of the coin flip. He's just trying to make his losses seem ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteOkay guys I have a question. What is the significance of Alfred? None of the other players are given a name, so why is he uniquely identified? It just seems odd to me that he's the only one of the Tragedians who gets to have a real name.
ReplyDeleteI find death to be a major concept from Act two to Act three. In Act two, Guildenstern really analyses death and he thinks he knows a lot about it. From all of the death that surrounds Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, it is to be expected. It is simply human nature that when one has the responsibility to do something, like in this case, figure out the cause of Hamlet’s madness, that one overthinks it and goes to great lengths to try to understand it. I feel that is the case here. Ros and Guil cannot come to a conclusion on what they feel is Hamlet’s fate because they (and by they I mean mostly Guil) is overthinking it. This carries over into Act three when Guil tries to justify their indecisiveness by saying that Hamlet might have done something wrong to deserve the death sentence fate. On page 110, Guildenstern wants to “keep things in proportion” as he quotes Socrates saying that if one does not know what death is, that one cannot fear it.
ReplyDeleteThe reader sees a duller, less insane side of Hamlet in this play. I understand that the play does not revolve around Hamlet, but he is an influential character and the readers only really get a sense of him by how Ros and Guil describe him and his actions. I was expecting more dialogue between the three men.
The “play inside a play” structure along with the concept of death for its actors confused me. When the player and Ros are talking about characters’ talents for dying and how “you can’t act death” made my head hurt. I have never acted myself so I don’t know what makes good theater. But according to Player, a good kill and a valiant death makes a production. I guess I don’t understand exactly what the player is trying to say.
Death! Yes. An important topic in this play. Well done, Hannah!
DeleteEnd of Act I: Ros and Guild have a conversation with one another. One pretends to be Hamlet and one pretends to be the other person. While reading it, I thought they were crazy because they were confusing themselves with their conversation, but they actually knew what they were talking about. They guessed that Hamlet was upset because of his uncle marrying his mother so close to his father’s death. I thought it was ironic when Ros and Guild confused their names while play acting and when Hamlet saw them, he confused both their names. Throughout the whole play, it seems they are always wondering who is really who.
ReplyDeleteI only have one question about Act II. Did the Players who put on the show foreshadow what would happen to Guild and Ros? They were wearing the same clothes, but I didn’t understand if Ros and Guild knew what was actually happening…
Act III: like I said before, Ros and Guild didn’t seem to know which one was who and in the end and they died not knowing. After reading this play, it is definitely not on my top ten lists of plays to read. After watching Hamlet, I already knew what happened to Ros and Guild so I didn’t really care to know the underlying details of their lives.
R & G isn't really about plot. I mean, the title kind of gives away what happens. But. . . Say you want to go to San Francisco. You can fly, and be there in a few hours, and be the same person that you were when you left, and you can drive cross country, where things will happen along the way. The destination is the same: the journey quite another thing.
DeleteI just finished Acts 2 and 3 and it turns out that I know about as much as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They do not know what is going on between Hamlet and the other characters and even after they ask questions, Hamlet does not answer them truthfully or clearly. Among the confusion and blur of events going on, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still discuss life and death. They talk about life after death, but are derailed because they have ADHD and can’t concentrate on one topic. Their conversations are interesting but never really amount to anything and take away from the real story. Sometimes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have an active role in Hamlet’s actions and decisions but sometimes, they act like the audience and just watch. I feel like this side story about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is unnecessary but offers another point of view from the outside. I liked the banter between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern because they had some meaningful ideas and added some comic relief in a relatively dry play. The outcome of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s lives was not surprising because we already saw the movie and the last Act was a little too wordy.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this whole play I think that the author wrapped it up very cleverly and it fit the story line well. Even though Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up dead, their death fits how they are as people. Death is a sad topic, but Stoppard almost makes it funny just because that’s the way the characters are. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are very stupid and clueless. So them delivering their death letter to the king is so typical of their personalities. While they don’t know that’s what they are delivering they still go through all the trouble to get it to the king even after they lose Hamlet. Thinking about the title though, I’m not quite sure why the author would choose “Rosencrantz Guildenstern are dead” as the title. That doesn’t seem that significant to me to be the title but I also don’t know what I would put as the title instead.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing. They _do_know_ what's in the letter, and deliver it anyway.
DeleteI just finished reading Act I since I forgot about this assignment until today. One line that really stood out to me was a line from the Player: "For some of us, it is performance, for others, patronage." This reminded me of when Hamlet said some people were pretending to grieve his father's death while he was actually grieving. I know it is not an exact parrallel but that's what it reminded me of.
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand why so many people mix up Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; some times it seems like they don't know themselves who they are. It almost seems like they are one person with two personalities but I don't know if that is too analytical.
I have trouble reading a lot of plays because I forget to read who is speaking a lot of the time, but this play has been enjoyable.
I finished the play today (needed some down times from all the relatives) but I can't say I enjoyed it, nor hated it either. It wasn't hard to read, and the banter between the characters was humorous, but I can't help but feel that there was no 'purpose' to the play. Maybe that is the purpose? What I did get out of the play, that I thought it did well, was tackle the idea or destiny and fate. The two fail to ever act on their desires, they seem simply content to float around, they don't question the world, only accepting what happens as fate. The concept of death is interesting also, especially in the last half of the play. The two don't seem to care that Polonius was killed, rather they just are like "eh, he's dead, that's that". And when they know their own death in coming, on the ship, they don't fear it, they just keep on floating through the current of life, whereas Hamlet steers the oars of his destiny, for example by changing the letter. The comparison between Ros and Guild and Hamlet is striking, and blatantly intentional. Once I learned that the play was an existentialistic work, everything seemed to make more sense. Not something I’d pick up and read on my own, but not something I dreaded either. I’ll stay neutral on the topic, maybe my opinion will change after I digest it more.
ReplyDeleteto add on the death thing there, when they were arguing with the player about what death is, they said it can't really be acted out the way the players are doing it, because it's a state of being, or rather of not being. But the player said that the only type of death that convinces the audience is a dramatic death full of blood, screaming, and general overkill (pardon the pun).
DeleteFinished Act II! Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really are fools, but for fools, they have some very serious questions and thoughts. When they are talking about death, Guildenstern has a very simple, but true point of view about death:"It's just a man failing to reappear." I liked how that is so true because you recover from anything that doesn't kill you but you can't recover from death.
ReplyDeleteI understand how Act I of the Tragedians play was similar to the plot of Hamlet, but why was Act II almost exactly what happened in the rest of Hamlet?
Why didn't Rosencrantz and Guildenstern recognize the similarities when they were asked to take a letter to the king of England?
I am really enjoying how they place quotes from Hamlet into the play especially since the play is fresh in my mind.
Well, now I have finished the play, and I didn't think it was too terrible. In act III, I read the quote: "Life is a gamble, at terrible odds—if it was a bet you wouldn’t take it."- said by The Player. As I read that, the whole coin flip thing made sense! Stoppard is trying to make the point that our fates our random and sometimes unfair- such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dying. It is not right for them to die and it is not right that Rosencrantz can flip heads so many times in a row. To me it the coins were actually a metaphor for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
ReplyDeleteFinished Act III! I really like how they tied in the ending of this play to the final scene of Hamlet. I like how Guildenstern trying to convince himself that death is nothing more than "an absence of presence" when he knows he is going to die. As Kierra said, I think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern didn't try to avoid their death since they knew it was enivitable even though it was against all odds that every attempt of survival would result in thier death.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think this was an excellent play and that it skillfully created a sub plot for two minor characters in a well-known play.
Phoebe! I also liked how he said dead is just an absence of presence". This kind of goes along with the beginning when Ros and Guil are discussing logic. I think they realized that freaking out about dying isn't going to change the fact they they were going to be dead soon.
DeleteThat quotation "dead is just an absence of presence" makes me question if they were dead in the beginning as well. The convoluted time and setting certainly created an absence of presence, as well as the sudden change of scene after their first encounter with the tragedians.
DeleteMaybe that's where all of the logic and reasonable chance(the coins) had abandoned them- after death.
No, and they're not dead now. (They're in the literary present.)
DeleteWell, I finished the play. And I have to say, I was very pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed this play a lot- even moreso than Hamlet itself (though Hamlet objectively speaking is more fundamentally sound). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may be a bit strange and confusing at parts, but the charming interactions between Ros Guil and everyone else in the play provide humor and sometimes even insight into bigger topics of conversation.
ReplyDeleteThe play frequently emphasizes the characteristics of Ros and Guil. Guil always needs to find an answer. He is thoughtful and intelligent, but is also a bit stubborn and very moody. Ros on the other hand more takes things for what they are and accepts them. He is a bit more of a pushover and seems to be a follower.
I enjoyed how specific scenes of Hamlet intertwine with this play. However there was something that confused me overall: Why was there so much interaction with the Player and the Tragedians? they appear for a decent amount of time on 3 or 4 separate occasions in which they have extended conversation with Ros and Guil. For instance, why were they on the ship with the two in Act III? The only reason I can think of is that the Player and Tragedians are a device used to bring out the thoughts of Ros and Guil to reveal their true characters.
Also, I don't see why Ros and Guil seemed to give themselves up in the end. If they knew the letter requested they both by put to death, why didn't they just run away when they got to shore? To me, Ros and Guil are two entertaining, charming fools.
The player seems to be the voice of reason, don't you think? "Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special. Relax. Respond. That's what people do."
DeleteI agree with Corey in that I actually thoroughly enjoyed reading this play, more so than the original play Hamlet. I loved the way it was written that allowed for such casual and silly banter between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It made the play entertaining to read for me. In its own way, I think the style of R&G allowed for deeper understanding and insight than the pretension and over fanciful style of the original play and many works like it. It seems to me that even for those who fully understand the language used by Shakespeare and playwrights like him, the word choice doesn’t so much provide deeper understanding as it is a way for the writer to show off. Not that I’m saying Shakespeare wasn’t a brilliant writer, I respect him but I don’t agree fully with the style in general.
ReplyDeleteThe play R&G seemed to deal a lot with the idea of death, which it often described as the state of not being, of leaving and not coming back. I thought that the actors were a good way of comparing people’s perspective on death to death itself, especially in the scene where the player told of the man that actually died in the play and people found it less credible than all of the “fake” deaths performed. I also thought the scene on the boat when Guildenstern tried to kill the player was very interesting because it blurred the lines between real death and acted death due to the expectation that the player had actually died. I think that this comparison and examination of death was the reason that Tom Stoppard chose to include the tragedians so frequently in the play. All in all, it was a very well done job in my opinion and one of my all-time favorite school assigned readings.
And now for my comments after I finished the play.
ReplyDeleteThe very very ending is very fresh in mind so I'll respond to that first. When I first read it over, I was like "What happened to Ros and Guil" because their deaths weren't "on stage". This was obviously done on purpse by the author so the reader could picture their deaths for themself.
Overall I found this play quite random and scattered at times, though I was able to latch on to the parts that were "Hamlet", so thank goodness I read "Hamlet ahead of time.
I found Ros and Guil to be kinda of amusing at times. The bickering and discussions were interesting to read through. Though there thoughts about logic were kinda "out there", they were somethings about things I've thought of myself. Sometimes when really strange things happen I question whether I'm actually here or in like a dream or parallel universe. I really would think I was in a dream if I flipped heads 90 something times in a row.
Though a good chuck of this play left me thoroughly confused, I applaud the author for his inventive imagination.
*sidenote-when Guil mentions at the beginning about a demension in a demension I thought of Inception. Kinda crazy that the author wrote this play move than 40 years before that movie.
Tom Stoppard is a major contemporary playwright. And for the ending, by having it happen offstage like that, it also makes us wonder -- as many of you have -- so why did they just go along like that?
DeleteWhile finishing up the play I couldn't help but reflect on how much I liked watching the play Hamlet so much more than reading this one. In Hamlet, I got a real sense of Hamlets madness because of his wild behavior and loud volume of speech in addition to his crazed words. Going off of the words in this play however, even though it was the same story line just in a different perspective, I did not get that same sense from Hamlet or how Ros and Guil acted. It's as if I can't just take the authors word for it, no matter what description they give in italics, I just like to see it before my eyes.
ReplyDeleteAlso going off of the fact that it's the same story line, I liked how I almost got a feeling of deja vu from reading this play. Even though its different than Hamlet, once the two stories intertwine, I can visualize the play happening because I've already watched some parts from Hamlet. I posted above that I found a similarity between me and Guil, and I found another way that this is true. In the beginning of Act 2, Guil is saying that their talk with Hamlet went well all things considering, while Ros is trying to convince him that no, it did not in fact go well at all. I've always tried to be positive, and Guil is being quite optimistic about the situation,although it could also be attributed to him being naive(which I am also prone to as well).
The consistency in the personalities of Ros and Guil throughout the play was something I enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteRos was always exceedingly passive and observational, while Guil questioned why things occurred as they did, often rhetorically. For example, when both realize they are sentenced to death, Ros questions "They had it in for us, didn't they? Right from the beginning. Who'd have thought we were so important?" while Guil puts the situation on a grander scheme, asking "Who are we?" before "killing" the player, who can only offer a vague answer.
Both characters represent two extremes and were unchanging in their ways. This may have lead to their eventual demise. Being passive, as well as thinking in circles of questions, leaves room for indecision. Their indecision on how to handle the letter regarding their death lead to their inability to do anything about it. They accept their deaths, for there isn't anything in their personalities instructing them otherwise.
you wrote this at 4:45. i know where you were.
Deleteand i agree about the consistency part, their personalities (albeit ridiculous) were the only things that lasted through the entire play.
I think that going into this knowing it was going to be confusing was helpful. Otherwise I would’ve quickly become frustrated and given up, but this genre of theater is supposed to be annoying, so it wasn’t awful. Watching Hamlet before reading all the way through was even more helpful, because the characters Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet all show up in the story, and without having seen Hamlet, that whole thing would’ve gone over my head.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, this is a play for people with prior knowledge of Hamlet… and those who don’t mind if they don’t know what the hell is going on.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who know _Hamlet_, and those who don't.
DeleteI forgot to post while reading so I'll just go through it all at once.
ReplyDeleteAct 1: The first word that comes to mind to describe Act 1 is tedious. All I can think about is the reoccurring "Heads, heads, heads, heads." Even though Guildenstern explained why it was always turning up as heads, I still didn't understand his reasoning. I couldn't tell if he was making it all up or that he had thought it out and has been taught the reason. Guil's character is pretty much summed up by this: thoughtful, yet maybe to an extreme. Rosencrantz on the other hand was the sweet, gullible friend. He did whatever Guil wanted him to do and hung on to every word he said. I rather liked Ros. He seemed genuine in his actions and was entertaining. The banter between the two best friends was amusing, yet would definitely benefit from being seen and heard rather than just read. Ros and Guil seem to have a bond that leads them to understand every insignificant thought of the other. It shows the true depth of their friendship and I respect that immensely. The players confused me, though. What was Alfred's role exactly? Were they friends or foes to Ros and Guil?
Act II: The question and answer game was my favorite part. I understood the rules and have played a similar game before. It's harder than it sounds. The fact that Hamlet beat them at the game while Ros and Guil were questioning him was funny because I don't even think that Hamlet even knew the rules or that he was playing a game at all. Also, the fact that everyone kept getting Ros and Guil mixed up was amusing. It really proved how great "friends" Hamlet and his family were to the two. What was the significance of finding out which way was East? This is a reoccurring question throughout the second and third acts and I don't really understand why they needed to know. Also, this is the act where the humor is less subtle and more physical. The dropping of Ros's pants demonstrates this clearly.
Act III: When Guil says that there is no point in fearing death because we do not know what comes after it, it really resonated with me. No one knows, hence the reason for Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy in "Hamlet", what there is after we pass away. Is there a heaven or hell? There is belief in these places so it may be true to some. Do we become ghosts? Maybe some do. Do we reincarnate into a new being? Possibly. Will we ever have proof of what happens? Probably not. Again, in this act the humor is a tad more absurd. The entire theater group all climbs out of the barrel and not to mention the pirate attack when Ros and Guil, the players, and Hamlet all hide in barrels and switch somehow. This may be amusing to see on stage, but reading it wasn't as funny. The fact that GUil doesn't remember if he is Guildenstern or Rosencrantz at the end really shows how dependent he is on his friend. Throughout the play, Guil seems to be the strong one, the one who thinks and comes up with ideas, but he can only be Guildenstern when he has Rosencrantz by his side. Without his best friend, who is he?
Overall, I liked the play. Guil and Ros were entertaining and if could have seen the show then I believe that I would have enjoyed it even more.
i thoroughly enjoyed this play, while i definitely did find it a bit confusing, but I think that confusion is important as a way of putting us into the mindset of the rather dopey duo of Rosencrants and Guidenstern
ReplyDeletesorry I was forced to prematurely publish my last comment because it got cut off. Anyway despite the confusion I found this play enjoyable. I like the fact that it was more than just Shakespearean fan fiction. It had its own social commentary. The whole slight homophobia is a bit off putting but it is a fairly clear commentary on the modern bromance.
ReplyDelete