Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (An Evergreen book) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are put to use (read manipulated) by the King and Queen of Denmark, first to find out what Hamlet is up to, at which they fail, then are asked to retrieve Polonius, body, at which they fail, and then to accompany Hamlet on a boat trip to England carrying a letter ordering Hamlet's execution. At this, too they fail at the cost of their own heads.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern provide serio-comic relief all through the play, but there is nothing comic for them in the results.

That said, I have read all of the other reviews in this section. That they are obviously written by students (probably as an assignment)is obvious. This, in itself is admirable. The fact that almost every one is quoted from web sites on Tom Stoppard is not so admirable. One or two actually quote verbatim from an on site Roger Ebert review of the movie. A great number of these reviews talk of existentialism and make comparisons to WAITING FOR GODOT. These comparisons are also almost word for word from the internet. Do any of you understand the existentialist philosophy, or in what particulars Stoppard's play and Beckett's play are comparable?

ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD is an exceptional work. It deserves thoughtful, original reviews just as it is a thoughtful, original and entertaining piece of theater. Read it again, understand it within your own frame of reference, then review it.

First of all I am not going to slam other reviews, I am simply going to state my opinion of the play. I think that I understand existensialism and its major philosophical trends, therefore I would tend to say that this play definately fits into what has been called the Theater of the Absurd, which in turn owes much to the thinking of Camus. Having said this I have to say that this play has some definate similarities with the works of Beckett, especially Godot, but also that of Harold Pinter's, "The Birthday Party", especially in terms of dialogue, plot direction, and character development.

R & G despite these similarites, and probably because of them seems at times to be conscious of breaking new ground and testing the limits of absurdity and understanding. Symbolism, while not as obvious in this play, seems to be, nonetheless, much more important to the action and meaning of the play than it is in other works of this genre. Whereas Godot seems to stress the repetitiveness of dialogue, R&G is suggestive of just the opposite. It is instead in the lack of confidence of what each character says, and the way that their opinions seem to cahange with the situation, which illustartes the uncertainty of meaning and life. Although all these plays seem to be focused on the nature of existence and its meaning to humanity, the differing ways that it is approached and interpreted make them all vastly unique, puzzleing and intriguing reads.

The thing that is perhaps most different, is the way that Stoppard utilizes the thought of Artaud and his idea of the Theater of Cruelty, to at times completely breakdown the barriers between the audience and the actors. It follows then, that if one wants to get the full effect of this play it has to be seen live. But, then again how many people get that chance, thus, this book is the second best thing. I would only suggest paying very close attention to the stage directions, set and scenery, as they are much more important in this play than they are in others.

Finally, simply read R&G for the fun of it, you certtainly will not be disappointed. In this play Stoppard has gone along way in breaking down the barriers between the writer and the average reader. Because, it is only when the reader is interested and involved that a work will be a success. With originality, humor, and an important theme Stoppard has acheived this goal beautifully, giving us all a realistic glimpse into the complex drama of human life.