Are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dead? (1 Viewer)

[snakeoils]

Our class has seems to have become divided over the issue... what do you guys think? Are we meant to believe that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead from the beginning of Tom Stoppard's play?

 

[kini mini]

We can infer from the metatheatrical references in the play that Ros & Guil are not aware that they are in a play that presumably runs again and again every night. It's inevitable that they die because "it is written".

Why would you think they are dead from the beginning? If you are a Star Trek fan, they're in a temporal loop .

 

[snakeoils]

yeah, well, personally i dont think that they are dead from the beginning... but unfortunately, our teacher does - and half the class agrees with her

to clarify, is it fair enough for me to say in an essay that in stoppard's 'R&G' they are alive until they die?

 

[Minai]

Well the play runs basically parallel to Hamlet, so they cant be dead until they are really dead

 

[Kushteeeee]

I think we're the only people that disagree with the statement that theyre dead if the shouting in class is anything to go by ! But Yesss if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were dead at the beginning of the play then why do they die all over again at hte end? and how come the events before their death are in sequence with the events before their death in Hamlet? why would they die so many times? especially when theyre saying death is inevitable and for eternity (dead in a box spiel)...if theyre dead, and then back, theyre saying death is the inevitable endbut then you come back and die all over again. many times. people are trying to get too logical for an absurdist play saying that because it was written almost 400 years after Hamlet then they are dead and it is taking place 400 years later. Anyway...could someone please direct me to some sites where i can read about a lot of the hidden stuff in ros&guil thats too subtle for me to pick up on ...and just learn more about it?? thanks! eternally greatful!!!!!!!

 

[kini mini]

This seems to be only a peripheral issue to me . I don't know why your teacher insists on making such a great fuss about it, whatever her thoughts on the matter are.

 

[Minai]

Yeah, I never considered that issue at all wen I studied it last year. I wouldn't worry too much whether they are dead or not

 

[CHUDYMASTER]

RnG are dead ends with them walking off stage. Why? Because Hamlet (the play) ends with them supposedly dying. The fact that they disappear is mainly due to the ending of their role in Hamlet. Their life has no meaning without the play in which they are playing (Hamlet). They continue to strive for meaning, but in the end, they become what they've always feared - nothingness.

Rather sad really.

BUT ON THE TOPIC OF STAR TREK! What did y'all think of ST: Nemesis? Sure it had its downsides and disappointments, but overall, I liked it.

 

[kini mini]

Originally posted by CHUDYMASTER
RnG are dead ends with them walking off stage

It ends when they vanish I think. Of course this leads us into the heart of the transformations elective, but I'll just pull back from the abyss since no-one's actually asked for my thought on the actual transformation

BUT ON THE TOPIC OF STAR TREK! What did y'all think of ST: Nemesis? Sure it had its downsides and disappointments, but overall, I liked it.

I *still* haven't seen it .

Must go along after uni to the Randwick Ritz and catch it for $5 . I was a Trekkie when I was little