Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead has been a pleasure for the past few weeks. Amidst AP exam stresses and graduation problems, it’s nice to sit, read an interesting, appreciate its literary brilliance, and genuinely laugh at the Stoppard’s sheer comedic genius. I have to admit that I recently haven’t given the play the analysis or the appreciation that it deserves. However, I acknowledge that its publication was almost revolutionary and hope to be able to delve deeper into the more important elements of the play.

While reading this play, I wonder what absurdist theater really represents. Sure, it has its theoretical definition, which is the lack of meaning in a world of characters that are almost represented by puppets. However, Tom Stoppard must have a specific purpose in creating such a play. Beyond its obvious entertainment value, Stoppard’s portrayal of the two characters as ignorant fools conveys much about the values of our society. The two titular characters are actually complete opposites of Hamlet. While Hamlet is an intelligent, verbose man, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, frankly, a little stupid. They seemingly don’t have any control over their actions and only follow the stage directions given to them. Is Tom Stoppard telling us that the lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern parallel the lives in the modern world? Are we all ignorant fools? On a deeper level, are we guided by an outward force, never in control of our actions? While Tom Stoppard’s questions aren’t unique or new, they are important. Even more, Stoppard presents his old questions in a new way. Perhaps, Tom Stoppard is criticizing modern society, but we can create our own stage directions and end our ignorance. Although I haven’t realized the play’s true message, I look forward to reading more and trying to raise some unanswered and most likely unanswerable questions.

My spell check (almost through fate) propelled me to consider another important issue within the play. When I wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern “are,” the spell check incorrectly prompted me to change the “are” to an “is.” It’s ironic because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are actually almost like one. In class, we discussed distinguishing them, and unlike the characters in other novels, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don’t have distinctive dialogue, and I wouldn’t be able to designate specific characteristics between the two. I think their unity represents a lack of identity especially characteristic in modern times. In fact, Fight Club brought up the same issue of the growing lack of identity. However in Palahniuk’s novel, there is one man composed of two very distinctive personalities. In Stoppard’s play, there are two men composed of one very similar personality. In essence, both works send messages on identity. I think that Tom Stoppard especially wanted to show the degeneration of people into one ignorant mass, represented by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Still, if the two characters are controlled by fate, can they ever really control their lack of identity and growing ignorance? Can we control any ignorance that we have? The play raises so many deep questions that I have a feeling I’m going to be left unsatisfied at the end.