Penultimate Blog

The penultimate blog of the year has finally arrived and along with it, the end of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I must say, the end of the play was quite interesting to say the least, especially the views on death that were revealed by both Ros and Guil as well as the various Tragedians. I guess it really does revisit the theme of life being like a play where each one of us gets a chance to walk across the stage and perform, whether it be improvisational or set in stone. Also the tone of the entire third act of the play kind of makes Ros and Guil sympathetic characters to a certain extent. From the very beginning of the play, we know that the final fate of the two main characters will be death because it is mentioned in the title. Despite knowing this however, I really didn’t feel any sympathy at all for the two because of the joking behavior and complete obliviousness the two showed. This only continued in the second act when they have no idea what to do with their lives unless someone tells them what to do. This is plainly evident through the fact that Claudius told the two to capture Hamlet after he killed Polonius and the two blindly do it without thinking of their friends feelings. In the third act however, things take a turn towards the more serious and more philosophical. Instead of plotting capture or some other action ordered by others, the two discuss death in what can be seen as humorous, but is likely much deeper than that. This is shown by Guildenstern’s claim that death is really nothing more than the fulfillment of an inexplicable and unavoidable fate. The fact that we all live a life that leads towards some death that is unavoidable is a concept that is recurring and is presented again near the end of the play. Our lives are like plays in which our acts have been mapped out and written in stone such that there is always someone watching and giving orders. As the end scene continues, more complicated and interesting views on death are given by both the Tragedians and the two main characters. The Player states that death is common and that light vanishes with life. Guildenstern replies that real death is not theatrical but is simply the absence of anything, the state of not existing. It is as if when a person dies, he or she just disappears in time, which is a very interesting concept in the scope of the novel because Tom Stoppard never really shows us when and how Ros and Guil die. Stoppard is holding something from us because from the very beginning, we expect Ros and Guil to die because of the title of the novel. Then when it finally comes time for their deaths, we don’t witness it and instead learn of the deaths of Claudius, Hamlet, Laertes, and Gertrude. I know this response is rather convoluted and doesn’t really have a centralized theme, but it does sufficiently express my confusion at the events that occurred at the end of the novel. Let us just hope an in class discussion can shed some light on the situation.

Ros and Guil and Macbeth

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing." — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 19-28)
It seems that throughout the reading of the absurdist play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, there has been mention of life being a play in which we as humans march across the stage portraying our character to the world. Along with this reading comes the fact that we are all but ordered to do every action we make in life or are at least influenced to do it just as actors are told to do things in a play. I think it is this fact that is highlighted above all else in the play, at least to the place we have read so far. It seems that Ros and Guil need another character, another personality, on stage to have any type of identity for themselves. They are simply lost without others and rely on others for any individuality of their own. This is ironic because of the fact that they need others for individuality, which essentially defeats the purpose of the thing, and the identity they create for themselves is ambiguous within itself. This is no more apparent than in the scene where the two are talking to a Player about Greek tragedies and whether or not one needs an audience to have a purpose. Once the player leaves, Ros and Guil have no idea what to do with themselves. They yell “Next” off stage expecting somebody to come and once again give them their identities. But, despite getting identities from others, Ros and Guil are unable to differentiate between each other almost as if they are two parts to one whole.
You may be wondering why I included the soliloquy from Macbeth in this blog, because I have made no mention of it thus far in the writing. You can either think of it as me leaving the reader in suspense or as me not being able to remember why I typed the soliloquy. One thing we have repeatedly discussed in class though is the connection between the soliloquy and the way Ro and Guil go through their respective lives. Macbeth, in uttering the speech, is rather existentialist in stating that life is “a tale told by an idiot” that signifies “nothing.” It is also in this manner that Ros and Guil go through their lives. They see no meaning in what they are doing and rather go through life as directed by others. Once the direction they have been given is done, they are then “heard no more.” I have just read through what I have written in this blog, and everything is rather convoluted and confusing. I didn’t mean for it to be this way as I am having trouble voicing my opinions on the very confusing way, but when you think about it, the confusing manner of my writing kind of fits with the play as most things seem to happen for no reason. All this said, the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is one of the most interesting plays I have ever read, from the nonsensical happenings to the extremely crude humor that is present, it is a truly entertaining experience.