This is the blog -- the electronic home -- for Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition for the class of two-thousand eleven at Gloucester (MA) High School.
I thought this was a wonderful book. I would love to see it performed on stage. There were many parts to it that I had to read and reread to “understand”, if you could call it understanding with this type of play. I love the way Stoppard played with logic, particularly toward the beginning where Guildenstern essentially uses logic and the laws of probability to prove that no un-,sub-, or supernatural forces are at work on Rosencrantz’s 90 consecutive rolls of heads in a coin toss. Throughout Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and in many absurdist dramas, it is common for the characters to use logical reasoning to validate completely illogical and incomprehensible points. There is irony in this “logical” approach to explaining completely absurd situations. Manipulated correctly, logical reasoning can be used to validate just about any argument, and it is part of human nature to try to suit logic to these purposes. Works of absurdism like this book highlight this quirk of human nature by overly-dramatizing it, and creating completely unrealistic situations, that nonetheless create a commentary on human and natural forces.
In the first part of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are flipping coins. At this point in time Rosencrantz is winning all the coins from Guildenstern. As time goes on they begin to try to explain logic using logic. It is interesting how the director writes their parts, because the way they talk it seems as though they are one person. It seems as though the writer wants the reader to view them as one character because on different occasions he has them question if they are in fact Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. Then he establishes the fact that nothing they say can be trusted due to the fact that they have trouble remembering what happens to them throughout the day. I wonder why he made the characters like this. Was it so he could add another layer of humor to their characters? Also, it could have to do with the fact that this is an absurdist play. Since this is an absurdist play it is absurd that they would be able to explain anything logically when in fact they cannot even remember anything about themselves. We also meet the players in this scene. The players are used as foils to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This is because within the first scene the players seem to have more faith in themselves than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have in themselves. Such as when Guildenstern bets that the date of the player’s birth doubled is even. Guildenstern knows that this will always happens which is why he makes the bet, but the player’s confidence in himself makes him bet because he believes he can win it, not because he knows that he can win it. Also there is the fact that the players know where they came from and for the most part where they are going. However Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can only remember vague threads of information of where they came from that morning and are still putting all the pieces together in order to figure out where they are going. As the scene continues Rosencrantz and Guildenstern make it to the castle and are greeted by King Claudius and Queen Gertrude. During the meeting, King Claudius charges them with finding out what is wrong with Hamlet. It seems as though King Claudius does this because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are so close to each other that it seems that they can get into each other’s mind. This is different from the players who are not close to each other and are willing to leave each other if it means a gain for them. I was curious to the fact if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are written intentionally to be interchangeable characters? There is also the fact that they are able to understand each other when neither of them seem to be making sense and therefore it seems that Stoppard creates a logic that is completely Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
In the second scene Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are trying to figure out what is plaguing Hamlet and the players have come to the castle. At this point in time the reader can more easily see how interconnected Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are because they are able to finish each other’s sentences like they can read minds. It is interesting when the players come into the plot again though not really surprising if the reader has read Hamlet. The play scene it self however, is portrayed differently than it is done in Hamlet. The fact that Stoppard adds the acted out death of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz adds a new layer to the play. It seems as though Stoppard does this because it seems to mirror the portrayal of the death of Hamlet’s father. Instead of focusing on the death of the king, Stoppard tells the reader in advance that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to die. Also it seems funny that Stoppard would have the players wearing the exact same clothes as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This is due to the fact that Stoppard uses them as foils and is now making them very similar. Why would Stoppard not use the opposite colors in clothes so that there could still remain that air of difference between the players and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? The part of scene two that seemed to confuse me the most was why they were having so much trouble drawing from Hamlet what was ailing him. Is it due to the fact that they seem to have trouble making plans or that they believe they know each other so much that they assume the other’s next step and that step never seems to happen. Also, it is interesting that they bring up the Chinese philosopher. This I found interesting because I began to wonder if all of their knowledge and logic seems to be influenced by outside forces and none of their ideas are originally their own. Then I wondered if none of their ideas are originally their own if they understand any of the concepts that they talk about. I feel as though for the most part they are confused themselves because they seem to question not only themselves often, but they also question each other. The characters also seem to have little faith in themselves because though they try to accomplish a task, it always fails because they become so flabbergasted when they talk to Hamlet and can no longer seem to think straight or clearly any longer. Then the idea of not being able to act out death appears for the first time in the second scene. It seems to be that they are both really passionate about the conceptual idea of not being able to act out death. I think this is due to the fact that they both seem to fear death yet hold the power to have Hamlet dead in their hands. With this power and this fear they do not want people taking death as a light factor in life, but as a serious one in which no one returns. Also due to the play I also think they know that their death is close and want people to really care about their deaths and that is why they become obsessed with the concept of it.
In the third scene of the book Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are on a ship with Hamlet heading to England in order for them to deliver the letter that marks Hamlet for death. It seems to be that this scene has already been played out by the players in scene two. I am curious why they do not seem to connect these two things. It seems that they should be able to more easily connect these two occurrences when the players seem to show up out of nowhere. However the appearance of the players allows for the third scene to more and more easily connect to thee first two because the philosophical fight about acting out death reemerges. When the players arrive they are also still in costume. Why is it that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern cannot see the parallels between the play Hamlet had them perform and the life they are living at the moment? It seems to be that they are able to explain everything around them logically, but when it comes to explaining themselves and things pertaining to them they cannot explain it logically. Also when Hamlet switches the letter I wonder why they do nothing to get the original letter back. Is it due to the fact that they possibly want to die. It seems to be that they knew they were going to die since the first scene of the play and that is why both of them seem to have a fascination with the idea of death. Another thing that is irking about the ending is why Stoppard brings it back to Denmark to show that Hamlet and the rest are dead, but never explicitly states that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Is it due to the fact that the two characters seem to be vague even when trying to explain something logically? That in order to continue with that motif he wanted to have their deaths remain vague also. In Hamlet the reader knows the reason why Hamlet wants Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dead, which is because they are working for King Claudius, but also because they know to much about what Hamlet is doing. It seems as though Stoppard did not really add this into his play and instead played more with the humorous sides of the two characters instead of the serious side of them that come up a few times in Hamlet. Due to this being an absurdist play I understand the reasoning behind, but could he not have made one more of a serious character and the other more of an absurdist character so that they were foils that complimented each other? I was also curious why so many times Stoppard had Rosencrantz or Guildenstern say, “Give us this our daily...” Is this a bible reference that connects to their fascination with death or is he just trying to add another absurdist quality to the play. At the end it was clear to see how all the scenes of the play worked off of each other in order to create a separate play from a preexisting one. Also it was interesting to see Hamlet played out through the eyes of minor characters and how small details seem to change within the two versions of the play.
The theater of the absurd was started to show the idea that the human existence as basically meaningless. The idea became very popular after world war two. It seems to be because people could not explain why there had to be so much death. Instead of trying to explain it people wanted to show that it could not be explained because something’s were beyond human comprehension and logic could not be used to explain them away. However, I also think that absurdism is also helpful to help reinvent plays that have been written to give people a fresh perspective on it. I also find interesting the fact that traditional theater and Absurdism Theater are foils of each other. It seems to be not only do writers do this in their writing but now they are doing it in their line of work also. It is interesting that they also use similar techniques to describe such opposite ideas. In both versions of plays a reader can easily find metaphors, similes, and personifications. I also found that reading background information on absurdism made it easier to understand what Stoppard was trying to portray in his play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It was easy after reading the background information as to why the characters were so intently focused on the idea of death. It was now clearly seen that it was because it was something that they could do not explain therefore it must be meaningless because they were not able to use logic to explain it. I thought that it seemed reasonable that an absurdist play was used when writing about Hamlet through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I think this is due to the fact that in Hamlet they are the absurdist characters because though they did not have many lines, the lines that they did have could easily have been put into Stoppard’s play. Also due to the fact that they were also minor characters within Hamlet that the portrayal of them was unlimited in which they could use them to show that Hamlet was in fact meaningless which in turn would prove that the human condition was pointless which would incorporate the whole idea of absurdism. I thought it was interesting about how Stoppard presented the absurdist factor within his play. This was interesting due to the fact that it seemed as though not everyone in his play was an absurdist and if they were they all had different ideas on absurdism. For example Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tried endlessly to find meaning in death where none could be found, the players died over and over aging because they knew that death was meaningless along with life, and Hamlet was not an absurdist, but a character that seemed to understand the meaning of life, but always hid the answer completely from the audience.
Jackie, I love that you brought up the connection between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and the way they seem to speak and act as one person. This is an idea pulled directly from Hamlet. One is never present without the other. They travel, speak and act together and there fates are ultimately the same. There is nothing they can do about this. As the Player says, “It is written.” The thing I found interesting was, unlike in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the two characters in Stoppard’s play do not act like the same person. They are actually quite different, but no matter how hard they try, they cannot get the rest of the world to see them as separate. This inability to separate themselves is the cause of their identity crisis. Rosencrantz, specifically, spends most of the play trying to establish a separate identity for himself, but finds he cannot. He responds to both of their names as his own. It infuriates him that he cannot have his own name and his own self, but he cannot, simply because he was written that way. Guildenstern is less concerned with his connectedness with Rosencrantz, and more with making sense of the world around him.
Jackie you ask why they have so much trouble finding out what is wrong with Hamlet. You suggest it has something to do with their inability to create and follow through with plans. I am under the impression they cannot make and follow plans because their plans are already made for them. What happens to them is completely beyond their control. Rosencrantz tries on several occasions to make a decision to go somewhere. Guildenstern responds by pointing out that what will happen will happen, all they need to do it stand still and events will unfold around them. Their helpless, stationary situation is emphasized by the scene on the deck of the ship, where they physically have no place to go. It is a literal representation of their lack of control over their lives. Everything is written and they cannot change it, just as they cannot leave the ship. To get back to the issue of Hamlet; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been instructed to make sense of Hamlet’s apparent madness. The problem is they are trying to find sense and logic where it does not exist. As you pointed out, this is the basis of all absurdist dramas. People are constantly trying to make sense of the world. We are afraid of things that don’t make sense, and respond to it by using logic and sense to explain it away. It is a futile response, because ultimately, the world does not make sense, but that is not something we can comprehend, so we try to pretend it is not true. This quality of human nature is personified in Stoppard’s play by Guildenstern’s struggle with logic and scientific reasoning. The best example of this is in the first act when he attempts to explain away the bizarre 92 consecutive rolls of heads in their coin-toss. He does not want to believe that un-, sub- or supernatural forces are at work because that explanation would not make ‘sense’, so he uses scientific reasoning and the laws of probability to prove in a very roundabout way that only natural forces are at work. It is not a particularly simple or convincing argument, but it is easier that accepting that it simply does not make sense.
I have read up on absurdism in Martin, Esslin’s The Theatre of the Absurd. At first I questioned how a person could effectively write about something like absurdism without going against everything it stands for. How could a person write a ‘definitive work’ on something whose whole purpose is to prove that the world cannot be defined and categorized and made sense of. I think Esslin writes about the theatre of the absurd very effectively without trying to confine it within the parameters of human language and comprehension, as that would be counter to the points being conveyed by absurdist writers. Any attempt at defining and comprehending the universe is futile and, as Guildenstern says, “a defense against the pure emotion of fear” of the incomprehensible. Esslin writes about theatre of the absurd through the scope of some of the biggest names associated with the “movement.” These include names like Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Harold Pinter, and ever Tom Stoppard. Esslin points out, “[…]the dramatists whose work is here discussed do not form part of any self-proclaimed or self-conscious school or movement. One the contrary, each of the writers in question is an individual who regards himself as a lone outsider, cut off and isolated from his private world.” Some of these lone writers are uncomfortable defining their work as absurdist. They have chosen other names for their writing-style, including “anti-theatre.” Samuel Beckett is probably the most famous of the anti-theatre dramatists, writer of the well known play Waiting For Godot. I would like to read Waiting for Godot as a continuation of my study of the absurd, since it seems to be such an influential work in the so-called absurdist movement. Esslin also mentions a series of essays that Beckett co-wrote along with James Joyce, called Our Exagmination Round his Facti-fication for Incamination of Work in Progress, which I would be interested in looking into, though I must say it sound bizarre based on the title. Esslin also mentions that Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead uses structural elements from Waiting for Godot. I would like to read it as a comparison to this first book in my study.
Hey guys sorry for not commenting earlier. Its late for me and I am all lethargic and nutty. I promise you I will post in the noext 14 hours ish. Sorry guys to be the slacking member of the group will make up for it promise.
The play was over all very funny or relatively funny for a script. I feel that the reader misses out on so much of the play because they can't see the choreography or how the actors' use of tone turn the play into a totally different play all together. It must have been an interesting job of the director to figure out all the little nuances of the play. How which actor says what and what physical choreography should be overly done to make a scene more funny. After reading this book I've come to the conclusion that Stoppard believes that life is pointless and he makes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the symbols of humanity's absurdist ventures in seeking a meaning to our very much pointless existence. In one of the scenes Ros and Guil talk among themselves to debate whether one should be dead or alive while trapped in a box. Guildenstern then concludes that is worth being alive because you can be trapped in a box doing nothing but you can at least be satisfied with the fact that you are still alive. This is obviously absurd to us because it brings out in a subtle way that all of life is a box and all we have to justify that existence is that we are still here and alive. I wish I could have the opportunity to watch this play in person because I believe that IK could follow the play more fluently that way. Despite this the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was very much a pleasure to read.
Ethan, Paige, and Jacklyn,
http://www.theatredatabase.com/20th_century/theatre_of_the_absurd.html
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a wonderful book. I would love to see it performed on stage. There were many parts to it that I had to read and reread to “understand”, if you could call it understanding with this type of play. I love the way Stoppard played with logic, particularly toward the beginning where Guildenstern essentially uses logic and the laws of probability to prove that no un-,sub-, or supernatural forces are at work on Rosencrantz’s 90 consecutive rolls of heads in a coin toss. Throughout Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and in many absurdist dramas, it is common for the characters to use logical reasoning to validate completely illogical and incomprehensible points. There is irony in this “logical” approach to explaining completely absurd situations. Manipulated correctly, logical reasoning can be used to validate just about any argument, and it is part of human nature to try to suit logic to these purposes. Works of absurdism like this book highlight this quirk of human nature by overly-dramatizing it, and creating completely unrealistic situations, that nonetheless create a commentary on human and natural forces.
ReplyDeleteJacklyn L.
ReplyDeleteIn the first part of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are flipping coins. At this point in time Rosencrantz is winning all the coins from Guildenstern. As time goes on they begin to try to explain logic using logic. It is interesting how the director writes their parts, because the way they talk it seems as though they are one person. It seems as though the writer wants the reader to view them as one character because on different occasions he has them question if they are in fact Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. Then he establishes the fact that nothing they say can be trusted due to the fact that they have trouble remembering what happens to them throughout the day. I wonder why he made the characters like this. Was it so he could add another layer of humor to their characters? Also, it could have to do with the fact that this is an absurdist play. Since this is an absurdist play it is absurd that they would be able to explain anything logically when in fact they cannot even remember anything about themselves. We also meet the players in this scene. The players are used as foils to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This is because within the first scene the players seem to have more faith in themselves than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have in themselves. Such as when Guildenstern bets that the date of the player’s birth doubled is even. Guildenstern knows that this will always happens which is why he makes the bet, but the player’s confidence in himself makes him bet because he believes he can win it, not because he knows that he can win it. Also there is the fact that the players know where they came from and for the most part where they are going. However Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can only remember vague threads of information of where they came from that morning and are still putting all the pieces together in order to figure out where they are going. As the scene continues Rosencrantz and Guildenstern make it to the castle and are greeted by King Claudius and Queen Gertrude. During the meeting, King Claudius charges them with finding out what is wrong with Hamlet. It seems as though King Claudius does this because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are so close to each other that it seems that they can get into each other’s mind. This is different from the players who are not close to each other and are willing to leave each other if it means a gain for them. I was curious to the fact if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are written intentionally to be interchangeable characters? There is also the fact that they are able to understand each other when neither of them seem to be making sense and therefore it seems that Stoppard creates a logic that is completely Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Jacklyn L.
ReplyDeleteIn the second scene Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are trying to figure out what is plaguing Hamlet and the players have come to the castle. At this point in time the reader can more easily see how interconnected Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are because they are able to finish each other’s sentences like they can read minds. It is interesting when the players come into the plot again though not really surprising if the reader has read Hamlet. The play scene it self however, is portrayed differently than it is done in Hamlet. The fact that Stoppard adds the acted out death of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz adds a new layer to the play. It seems as though Stoppard does this because it seems to mirror the portrayal of the death of Hamlet’s father. Instead of focusing on the death of the king, Stoppard tells the reader in advance that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to die. Also it seems funny that Stoppard would have the players wearing the exact same clothes as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This is due to the fact that Stoppard uses them as foils and is now making them very similar. Why would Stoppard not use the opposite colors in clothes so that there could still remain that air of difference between the players and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? The part of scene two that seemed to confuse me the most was why they were having so much trouble drawing from Hamlet what was ailing him. Is it due to the fact that they seem to have trouble making plans or that they believe they know each other so much that they assume the other’s next step and that step never seems to happen. Also, it is interesting that they bring up the Chinese philosopher. This I found interesting because I began to wonder if all of their knowledge and logic seems to be influenced by outside forces and none of their ideas are originally their own. Then I wondered if none of their ideas are originally their own if they understand any of the concepts that they talk about. I feel as though for the most part they are confused themselves because they seem to question not only themselves often, but they also question each other. The characters also seem to have little faith in themselves because though they try to accomplish a task, it always fails because they become so flabbergasted when they talk to Hamlet and can no longer seem to think straight or clearly any longer. Then the idea of not being able to act out death appears for the first time in the second scene. It seems to be that they are both really passionate about the conceptual idea of not being able to act out death. I think this is due to the fact that they both seem to fear death yet hold the power to have Hamlet dead in their hands. With this power and this fear they do not want people taking death as a light factor in life, but as a serious one in which no one returns. Also due to the play I also think they know that their death is close and want people to really care about their deaths and that is why they become obsessed with the concept of it.
Jacklyn L.
ReplyDeleteIn the third scene of the book Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are on a ship with Hamlet heading to England in order for them to deliver the letter that marks Hamlet for death. It seems to be that this scene has already been played out by the players in scene two. I am curious why they do not seem to connect these two things. It seems that they should be able to more easily connect these two occurrences when the players seem to show up out of nowhere. However the appearance of the players allows for the third scene to more and more easily connect to thee first two because the philosophical fight about acting out death reemerges. When the players arrive they are also still in costume. Why is it that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern cannot see the parallels between the play Hamlet had them perform and the life they are living at the moment? It seems to be that they are able to explain everything around them logically, but when it comes to explaining themselves and things pertaining to them they cannot explain it logically. Also when Hamlet switches the letter I wonder why they do nothing to get the original letter back. Is it due to the fact that they possibly want to die. It seems to be that they knew they were going to die since the first scene of the play and that is why both of them seem to have a fascination with the idea of death. Another thing that is irking about the ending is why Stoppard brings it back to Denmark to show that Hamlet and the rest are dead, but never explicitly states that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Is it due to the fact that the two characters seem to be vague even when trying to explain something logically? That in order to continue with that motif he wanted to have their deaths remain vague also. In Hamlet the reader knows the reason why Hamlet wants Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dead, which is because they are working for King Claudius, but also because they know to much about what Hamlet is doing. It seems as though Stoppard did not really add this into his play and instead played more with the humorous sides of the two characters instead of the serious side of them that come up a few times in Hamlet. Due to this being an absurdist play I understand the reasoning behind, but could he not have made one more of a serious character and the other more of an absurdist character so that they were foils that complimented each other? I was also curious why so many times Stoppard had Rosencrantz or Guildenstern say, “Give us this our daily...” Is this a bible reference that connects to their fascination with death or is he just trying to add another absurdist quality to the play. At the end it was clear to see how all the scenes of the play worked off of each other in order to create a separate play from a preexisting one. Also it was interesting to see Hamlet played out through the eyes of minor characters and how small details seem to change within the two versions of the play.
Jacklyn L.
ReplyDeleteThe theater of the absurd was started to show the idea that the human existence as basically meaningless. The idea became very popular after world war two. It seems to be because people could not explain why there had to be so much death. Instead of trying to explain it people wanted to show that it could not be explained because something’s were beyond human comprehension and logic could not be used to explain them away. However, I also think that absurdism is also helpful to help reinvent plays that have been written to give people a fresh perspective on it. I also find interesting the fact that traditional theater and Absurdism Theater are foils of each other. It seems to be not only do writers do this in their writing but now they are doing it in their line of work also. It is interesting that they also use similar techniques to describe such opposite ideas. In both versions of plays a reader can easily find metaphors, similes, and personifications. I also found that reading background information on absurdism made it easier to understand what Stoppard was trying to portray in his play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It was easy after reading the background information as to why the characters were so intently focused on the idea of death. It was now clearly seen that it was because it was something that they could do not explain therefore it must be meaningless because they were not able to use logic to explain it. I thought that it seemed reasonable that an absurdist play was used when writing about Hamlet through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I think this is due to the fact that in Hamlet they are the absurdist characters because though they did not have many lines, the lines that they did have could easily have been put into Stoppard’s play. Also due to the fact that they were also minor characters within Hamlet that the portrayal of them was unlimited in which they could use them to show that Hamlet was in fact meaningless which in turn would prove that the human condition was pointless which would incorporate the whole idea of absurdism. I thought it was interesting about how Stoppard presented the absurdist factor within his play. This was interesting due to the fact that it seemed as though not everyone in his play was an absurdist and if they were they all had different ideas on absurdism. For example Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tried endlessly to find meaning in death where none could be found, the players died over and over aging because they knew that death was meaningless along with life, and Hamlet was not an absurdist, but a character that seemed to understand the meaning of life, but always hid the answer completely from the audience.
Jackie, I love that you brought up the connection between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and the way they seem to speak and act as one person. This is an idea pulled directly from Hamlet. One is never present without the other. They travel, speak and act together and there fates are ultimately the same. There is nothing they can do about this. As the Player says, “It is written.” The thing I found interesting was, unlike in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the two characters in Stoppard’s play do not act like the same person. They are actually quite different, but no matter how hard they try, they cannot get the rest of the world to see them as separate. This inability to separate themselves is the cause of their identity crisis. Rosencrantz, specifically, spends most of the play trying to establish a separate identity for himself, but finds he cannot. He responds to both of their names as his own. It infuriates him that he cannot have his own name and his own self, but he cannot, simply because he was written that way. Guildenstern is less concerned with his connectedness with Rosencrantz, and more with making sense of the world around him.
ReplyDeleteJackie you ask why they have so much trouble finding out what is wrong with Hamlet. You suggest it has something to do with their inability to create and follow through with plans. I am under the impression they cannot make and follow plans because their plans are already made for them. What happens to them is completely beyond their control. Rosencrantz tries on several occasions to make a decision to go somewhere. Guildenstern responds by pointing out that what will happen will happen, all they need to do it stand still and events will unfold around them. Their helpless, stationary situation is emphasized by the scene on the deck of the ship, where they physically have no place to go. It is a literal representation of their lack of control over their lives. Everything is written and they cannot change it, just as they cannot leave the ship.
ReplyDeleteTo get back to the issue of Hamlet; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been instructed to make sense of Hamlet’s apparent madness. The problem is they are trying to find sense and logic where it does not exist. As you pointed out, this is the basis of all absurdist dramas. People are constantly trying to make sense of the world. We are afraid of things that don’t make sense, and respond to it by using logic and sense to explain it away. It is a futile response, because ultimately, the world does not make sense, but that is not something we can comprehend, so we try to pretend it is not true. This quality of human nature is personified in Stoppard’s play by Guildenstern’s struggle with logic and scientific reasoning. The best example of this is in the first act when he attempts to explain away the bizarre 92 consecutive rolls of heads in their coin-toss. He does not want to believe that un-, sub- or supernatural forces are at work because that explanation would not make ‘sense’, so he uses scientific reasoning and the laws of probability to prove in a very roundabout way that only natural forces are at work. It is not a particularly simple or convincing argument, but it is easier that accepting that it simply does not make sense.
I have read up on absurdism in Martin, Esslin’s The Theatre of the Absurd. At first I questioned how a person could effectively write about something like absurdism without going against everything it stands for. How could a person write a ‘definitive work’ on something whose whole purpose is to prove that the world cannot be defined and categorized and made sense of. I think Esslin writes about the theatre of the absurd very effectively without trying to confine it within the parameters of human language and comprehension, as that would be counter to the points being conveyed by absurdist writers. Any attempt at defining and comprehending the universe is futile and, as Guildenstern says, “a defense against the pure emotion of fear” of the incomprehensible. Esslin writes about theatre of the absurd through the scope of some of the biggest names associated with the “movement.” These include names like Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Harold Pinter, and ever Tom Stoppard. Esslin points out, “[…]the dramatists whose work is here discussed do not form part of any self-proclaimed or self-conscious school or movement. One the contrary, each of the writers in question is an individual who regards himself as a lone outsider, cut off and isolated from his private world.” Some of these lone writers are uncomfortable defining their work as absurdist. They have chosen other names for their writing-style, including “anti-theatre.” Samuel Beckett is probably the most famous of the anti-theatre dramatists, writer of the well known play Waiting For Godot. I would like to read Waiting for Godot as a continuation of my study of the absurd, since it seems to be such an influential work in the so-called absurdist movement. Esslin also mentions a series of essays that Beckett co-wrote along with James Joyce, called Our Exagmination Round his Facti-fication for Incamination of Work in Progress, which I would be interested in looking into, though I must say it sound bizarre based on the title. Esslin also mentions that Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead uses structural elements from Waiting for Godot. I would like to read it as a comparison to this first book in my study.
ReplyDeleteHey guys sorry for not commenting earlier. Its late for me and I am all lethargic and nutty. I promise you I will post in the noext 14 hours ish. Sorry guys to be the slacking member of the group will make up for it promise.
ReplyDeleteThe play was over all very funny or relatively funny for a script. I feel that the reader misses out on so much of the play because they can't see the choreography or how the actors' use of tone turn the play into a totally different play all together. It must have been an interesting job of the director to figure out all the little nuances of the play. How which actor says what and what physical choreography should be overly done to make a scene more funny. After reading this book I've come to the conclusion that Stoppard believes that life is pointless and he makes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the symbols of humanity's absurdist ventures in seeking a meaning to our very much pointless existence. In one of the scenes Ros and Guil talk among themselves to debate whether one should be dead or alive while trapped in a box. Guildenstern then concludes that is worth being alive because you can be trapped in a box doing nothing but you can at least be satisfied with the fact that you are still alive. This is obviously absurd to us because it brings out in a subtle way that all of life is a box and all we have to justify that existence is that we are still here and alive. I wish I could have the opportunity to watch this play in person because I believe that IK could follow the play more fluently that way. Despite this the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was very much a pleasure to read.
ReplyDelete