August 2010 Discussion: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

[margaine]

If I have the time, I think I will join in, as this is something I've never read and have been curious about (I neither nominated nor voted this month - though as moderator I did suggest the theme).

Discuss away.

[neilgee]

It's a rapid read, Margaine, only 118 pages in my copy, and I read act one in one sitting this morning because there is barely a speech beyond one line long in the whole act.

As most of you will know Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were minor characters in Shakespeare's Hamlet, barely developed as characters by the bard and so seen as interchangeable by Claudius the King (the Queen corrects his mistake when he mixes the two characters up), something that Stoppard gets alot of comedy mileage out of in Act 1.

In Shakespeare the two characters are little more than plot devices, they are bought to court to cheer Hamlet up then they accompany him when he is sent away from court after he kills Polonius, but Stoppard turns all this on it's head as he makes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the central characters with Hamlet and other major characters stepping in and out of the edges of the play and becoming plot devices themselves.

What I had forgotten is that Stoppard actually uses quotes from Hamlet verbatim. He doesn't take any liberties with the original play's text at all, but creates a new play imagining what happens to these two characters when they are offstage. It's an astonishing feat of imagination and the best of its kind that I've ever encountered.

Happy reading everyone.

[margaine]

Thanks for the intro Neilgee!

[neilgee]

I just hope I havn't made anybody think it's too complicated to bother with because of the play being tied in with Hamlet and all. It really isn't like that, it's a fast moving play (something you can't accuse Hamlet of) that can be read in it's own right whether you know the other play or not.

[margaine]

I just hope I havn't made anybody think it's too complicated to bother with because of the play being tied in with Hamlet and all. It really isn't like that, it's a fast moving play (something you can't accuse Hamlet of) that can be read in it's own right whether you know the other play or not.

I was thinking - not because of what you said but just because I know R&G are Dead is connected to Hamlet - that I ought to read Hamlet first for a better appreciation of it. And plus I haven't read Hamlet before, so I should read that anyway.

[neilgee]

I had read Hamlet when I first read R&G about 15 years ago so although I say you don't need to have read Hamlet I was thinking as I gave that assurance "Well how can I know that?"

Just for that reason it would be interesting if somebody came on the thread and said how they find R & G without having read the parent play. I should imagine that it's still pretty entertaining stuff.

[margaine]

I think I'll just go ahead and read R & G, because you're right it will offer a different perspective (and how many people are there on here who are un-Hamlet-spoiled? probably not many!). I'll read Hamlet sometime after (though I've already read the first couple scenes in my initial attempt).

[Winifred]

Bought my copy tonight, and Gizmo is interested in reading it, too. Hope he does, although he is swamped.

[margaine]

I think I'm going to have to give up on the possibility of me reading R&G this month. It is really something I should read, but I'm currently not up for taking out books from the library and having to return them - I've recently discovered the ease of taking e-books out from my library. The library is far away from where I live, and I just have too much going on. sorry guys. discuss away without me.

[Winifred]

I'll go swipe my copy back from Gizmo: he's got too much on his plate right now, as it is.

[neilgee]

I'm giving R&G a quick second read, (well it's meant to be quick, hopefully) and noticed that TS has made G the intelligent one while R is the slow one. I suppose he had to do that to create "suspense" or tension but it's only on reading more closely that this difference becomes apparent.

Some might argue that the play is too clever for it's own good. You can tell it's a play written by a young man, almost too witty, but I can only say that my first impression of this play is that it was highly entertaining and that will maybe apply to other first time readers. A Midsummer Night's Dream was also a show-offy play written by a young man demonstrating his dramatical skills yet people still think that's worth reading!

I saw G&R performed once in the basement of Manchester University, it was so amateurish (an audience of about 30) that I was allowed to wander in as they were doing last minute rehearsals, and yet it was brilliant, just a great night, Hamlet was a Goth in a long black cloak, a night which I'm sure contributes to my tendency to see the best in this play.

[Winifred]

Well, I've finally taken time to read and finish Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Initially, the endless coin tossing was boring, almost didn't continue the book. Onwards, to the weird scene with the tragedians, and I still wasn't hooked. Then, the scene verbatim out of Hamlet, and I'm confused. As Guildenstern says, "What a fine persecution - to be kept intrigued without ever quite being enlightened..." Which, I suppose, is one of the themes of the play. I did end up enjoying the cleverness of the thing: the interplay of on- and off-stage; of real life and stage art; of the ruminations on death, and the intimation that art overcomes death, as when the actors pick themselves up after all the murders in Hamlet. R & G, puppets summoned to play their roles, miss the one time that they can "act" to change the plot - by believing in their unimportance, and the play moves on to its inevitable finish.

I want to rent a copy of the movie, and see how the play looks when it is actually performed.

[neilgee]

Some intriguing and clever responses there from you, Winifred. I particularly like the way you see the play slanting towards keeping the audience as well as the characters 'intrigued without ever quite being enlightened', I've never heard that said before and it's always great to come across fresh ideas.

Makes me glad you got around to reading it - and thanx for keeping your word!:good: