Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead Reviews

• Excellent on Several Levels

  
  By AEJ31WGHJ59C on 2001-02-17
  R&G Are Dead has much to recommend it. It is the story of two of the bit players from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. If you haven't read or seen Hamlet, the book will probably not be of much interest, but, in a nutshell, R&G are Hamlet's school chums who are called to Denmark by Hamlet's uncle, the King of Denmark, given the task of cheering him up and, when this fails, and the King realizes that Hamlet is a threat to his life, are given the task of sending Hamlet to his death. Hamlet turns the tables on this plot and has R&G killed instead.

  R&G, although bit players, are actually in a surprising number of scenes (most of which are cut out from stage and film productions of Hamlet) and this play, interweaving these scenes with others, produces a rich picture of these two characters, entirely missing from Shakespeare's epic play.

  The most obviously interesting part of this work is its attempt to explain why these characters die. When you learn at the end of Hamlet that R&G have died, you are left with a nagging sensation that something is wrong. This play fleshes this out. All of Shakespeare's tragedies are, by definition, bloody (as the Players in this work make evidently clear) but R&G's deaths are not demanded by the plot or by the passions of any of the characters.

  We do not dwell on R&G's deaths in Hamlet because more important and tragic events consume us. This book makes us focus on the gratuitousness of R&G's deaths. In addition, it makes their deaths as tragic as those of the main characters in Hamlet by putting them the center of the story. Of course, we do not get any real answers as to why these characters die. Other than by changing the story of Hamlet, there can be no answer to this question. However, simply dwelling for a longer time on these characters' fate at least gives their deaths importance, if not meaning.

  On another level, this book deals with themes of fate and luck. R&G have been swept up in events beyond their understanding and/or control. This book takes a philosophical approach to these issues (and definitely is reminiscent of Waiting For Godot). Since we can all identify with this to some extent, R&G's deaths become compelling and as tragic as Hamlet's death.

  Finally, much of this work is comedic. R&G do provide comic relief at various points in Hamlet, so this play does well to play up the comedic aspects of their lives. Even if you have no interest in the deeper meanings of this work, you will enjoy it for the comedy.
  
  

• A Tale of Two Bunglers

  
  By AAKXTL7Z3K91A on 2000-06-09
  Stoppard has taken two minor, but important characters from HAMLET and woven a new play that meshes perfectly with Shakespeare's Hamlet without missing a beat.

  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.
  
  

• It takes a certain outlook

  
  By A3ICDLUQ3V2QY2 on 2000-03-14
  A previous reviewer condemned this book as being derivative, poorly written, and -- most scandalous of all -- unfunny. This play, however, takes a certain kind of outlook to enjoy. It would be nice if everyone could get the same benefits from the play as everyone else. That's not going to happen, however. One thing we CAN depend on is that the point remains the same. This is the only existentialist play apart from _Waiting For Godot_ that even has pretensions of wit. Since it's a known fact that people learn more when they're laughing, it makes it easier to convey the play's inner message of whether we are free as individuals, whether we are capable of making our own decisions apart from our society, and whether that freedom even matters once a decision has been made by (for?) us. Worth reading, but not everyone will be equally entertained.
  
  

• Stoppard does what Shakespeare did not

  
  By on 1999-08-24
  In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are unnecessary characters. Everything they do in the play could have been done by already existing characters. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not individual characters in this play. There is no Rosencrantz; there is no Guildenstern. There is only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Shakespeare put them in to resemble the outside world, not to establish actual characters to add to the depth of the play. Tom Stoppard wrote "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" in order to give the duo their own separate personalities. He, just as Shakespeare did, has them resemble our own world. R&G are modern men in a very modern play. Stoppard contradicts Shakespeare by justifying Hamlet's death just as Shakespeare had Hamlet justify R&G's deaths, "He is a man, he is mortal, death comes to us all, etcetera, and consequently he would have died anyway, sooner or later . . . he's just one man among many" (Stoppard 110). Shakespeare uses the same words only to justify the murderous actions of Hamlet, "Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!" (3.4.32). Through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard tells of the reality of death how "death is . . . not. Death isn't. You take my meaning. Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being" (Stoppard 108). Whereas Shakespeare creates a fantasy about death, as Hamlet says, "To die, to sleep-to sleep, perchance to dream" (6.3.64-65). In direct opposition with Hamlet's "to be or not to be", Stoppard writes, "Rosencrantz: Where's it going to end? Guildenstern: That's the question" (Stoppard 44). The beauty in this writing is found in its existentialistic views, whether or not Stoppard intended his play to portray life in that manner. If you enjoy "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", you will love "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. ~ anthea
  
  

• A witty forey into litterary Theory incarnate

  
  By A2PTL1OJNON460 on 2000-01-13
  Seeing the recent trend in philosophical reflection towards litterary theory, nothing tops Stoppard's witty examination of the nature of narrative and characterization through a parody of not only "Hamlet", but philosophy and litterary theory itself. Gloriously executed!
  
  
• The most hillarious angle on Shakespeare...upside-down!
  By on 1999-09-29
  Take a great Shakespeare tragedy, add Tom Stoppard, throw everything on it's head, and you have Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. Built into the world of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Stoppard's story of two misplaced, misnamed travelers is full of Jack Handy like deep thoughts, riveting laughs, and classic quotable lines. I love this book!!
  
  
• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Very Much Alive, Actually
  By A12X0SVSMHXOSV on 2002-09-15
  From the uncomparable genius of Tom Stoppard comes a quotable masterpiece about two friends lost in someone else's story. While the rest of Shakespeare's characters remain true to their original script, Ros and Guil step out of the box to explore a variety of topics ranging from the metaphysical to the downright comical. As the title suggests, the story is, ultimately, a tradegy -- but as the reader gets to know the two stars, it becomes a tragedy on multiple levels. One feels that their deaths are preordained, and even the moments of sidesplitting hilarity are laced with the bittersweet knowledge that it WILL end. The story is made still more touching as the characters' early realization of their fate battles with their unquenchable hope. Stoppard has captured in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern a sense of innocence that endures despite the chaos around them in a world where it seems even the laws of physics have suddenly ceased to apply. A perfect mixture of comedy and tragedy with a philosophical overtone attainable only by Stoppard, this is a play you will want to read, re-read, and act out with your friends in daily conversations.
  
  
• Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
  By A2IF89ADHDK96G on 2001-10-22
  I'm not even going to pretend to be a pseudo-intellectual here. I'm no grad student, just a dumb kid with a taste for literature. That said, this play is incredible. Stoppard's poetic voice is comperable to Shakespeare's in "Hamlet"; the association ends there. Unlike the unfortunate Prince of Denmark, "R&G" exist in a surrealistic world also found in works such as Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five", Gabriel Garcia-Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude", and J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", all must-reads as well. Lines such as "The colours red, blue, and green are real. The colour yellow is a mystical experience shared by everyone," carry such force they nearly upstage the play's deeper meanings. Every time I read this play (and that's been about fifteen times) a different thought or ideal of Stoppard's hits me and yet the underlying tone and meaning remain the same: We are all on a boat sailing for England without the necessary papers to present the king.
  If you read this play for a class, read it again. If you missed the trees for the forrest the first time, read it again. If you enjoyed this play immensely and reccomended it to all your friends, read it again. It's just keeps coming up heads.
  
  
• Sometimes the Pawns can be Kings
  By A1977ZR4KQYZ4J on 2002-06-23
  In this play Tom Stoppard has pulled two minor characters from Hamlet and given us a glimpse of what may lay behind the mundane exteriors of everyday life and more importantly the limits of possibility of meaning contained in the world of literature. What is important about this is that Stoppard is showing us that the lives of common people and minor characters can also make for some great literature too.
  
  Philosophically, I would tend to say that this play is securely grounded in the genre that has been called the Theater of the Absurd, which in turn owes much to the thinking of Albert Camus. Having said this, I have to say that this play has some definite 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. So if you like the work of these playwrights you would certainly enjoy this, which would also be of great interest to Shakespeare students/fans as well as anyone interested in the ideas of existentialist thought.
  
  Despite these similarities R&G and at the same time because of them, this work seems at times to be conscious of breaking new ground and testing the limits of absurdity and interaction with the audience. The symbolism, for example, seems to be much more important to the action and meaning of this 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--the seemingly endless play of meaning implicit in each uttered word. This comes out through the characters lack of confidence in what they struggle to say, and the way that their views seem to change with each situation, which illustrates the uncertainty of meaning and life. Although many of the plays of this period seem to be focused on the nature of existence and its meaning to humanity, the discursive ways through which it is approached and interpreted make them all vastly unique, puzzling and vastly entertaining reads.

  The thing that is, perhaps, most original in R&G's creation, 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 certainly will not be disappointed. In this play Stoppard has gone along way in breaking down the barriers between the writer and the average reader. With originality, humor, and an important theme, Stoppard has achieved his goal beautifully, giving us all a realistic glimpse into the complex drama of human life, literature and the mystery of existence.
  Also check out the movie version with Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfus, which is faithful to the production and a joy to watch.
  
  

• Waiting for Godot meets Abbot & Costello
  By A3SO4SZPDNW0S3 on 2003-08-28
  I've always thought you had to be in a very peculiar mood to truly enjoy and appreciate Waiting for Godot. It's such a fine balance between tragedy and comedy, it's easy to sway one way or the other, either laughing at them and not caring about them or caring about them too much to laugh at them.

  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is the same type of play, but much easier on the reader. There are truly funny, funny scenes in this play, many of them, scenes worthy of Abbott & Costello. Perhaps as a result, it is easier to care about the characters, even as you're laughing at their haplessness, and to echo their philosophic cries into the darkness.

  So I think this play outdoes the play it copies. I would rather watch it, or read it, anyway.

  A word about the Shakespeare -- sure, it adds to the play to know something about Hamlet, but it's probably not necessary. And I don't really think this "logically follows" after Hamlet, like some kind of sequel. They are very, very different plays. The jumping off point is simply that in Hamlet, "R & G" die deaths that don't really make any sense -- and no one really cares. Perfect philosopical place to start an absurdist play.
  
  

• The mechanics of absurd melodrama
  By A3UDYY6L2NH3JS on 2001-11-10
  We all know Hamlet from Hamlet's or Shakespeare's point of view. We identify with the hero and his lot is a pure tragedy. Tom Stoppard looks at the same story from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's point of view. Everything becomes fuzzy and more or less insignificant. No identification is possible. We enter an absurd melodrama, absurd because we cannot find our place in it, and we are left with the « mechanics of cheap melodrama ». So we have all the deaths necessary for Hamlet to be himself but from the point of view of two totally useless and aimless characters. We are even glad they are dead at the end of the play.

  Then fate or life or predestination is reduced to a disrupted game of hazard, a hazardous game since the players will die, but in which all rules are inefficient, even probability rules. « Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark » and they see it but cannot in anyway identify it. « All your life, your live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye ». And truth cannot be seen by them, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. We can, maybe, see it, but the play folows the wrong line for it to come out clearly. Hamlet is not a victim of anything, but just a ruthless and uncontrollable violent and crazy person who kills for reasons that are unknown to everyone.

  This play was crucial in the history of drama because it corresponded in American history to the very moment when the consciousness of Americans started to shift from the logical imperialistic violence of Korea, to the absurd and unjustifiable violence of Vietnam. After this moment, this play, Americans will never be the same and they will always be tempted to look at the world from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's point of view, that is to say from a pointless and meaningless perspective.

  Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
  
  

• Bitingly funny, fun for scholars and nonscholars alike
  By A25ACLV5KPB4W on 2005-03-07
  This is a hilarious second take on the action in Shakespeare's Hamlet, from the point of view of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the two unsavory nobles who think they are escorting Hamlet to his death via a distant king.
  
  In this play, the two titular characters are fleshed out to be absurdly, and comically, inept in some ways, and very human and sympathetic in others. They play at deep thought, and this play is meant to lead the audience into musings that aren't necessarily articulated on the stage.
  
  The humor is very off the wall, reminiscent of both Waiting for Godot, to which its often compared, and certain parts of Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy.
  
  The showdown between logic and the absurd is always, thankfully, entertaining, and this is as much fun to read as it is to see on stage. In fact, it might be a better read than it is a play, as the slow, thoughtful pace may give some audiences too much time for checking their watches.
  
  
  
• Funny Twist on a Historic Play
  By A3UKH1SX0PKEZ8 on 2000-12-12
  In this vaude-ville style tragic comedy, by Tom Stoppard, two very insignificant characters taken from one of William Shakespeare's most famous plays, "Hamlet", witness the tragic story of the Prince of Denmark in a fly-on-the-wall perspective. The book is surprisingly humorous and simplistically funny. The naive and idiotic antics of Rosencrantz and the insightful and intellectual personality of Guildenstern make for a uniquely comic portrayal of the two characters that are doomed to an undeniable fate. This short play presents a great twist on the historic play inviting new personalities, new scenes and new perspectives on the tragic story. Readers end up meeting the "players", who have a fairly small role in the original Hamlet play, and get to know their comical and perverse personalities that make the play interesting and intriguing. Overall, this was a wonderful story, with unique twists and humorous dialogue rounding out two fo Shakespeare's most flat characters.
  
  
• absurdly fun
  By A2ECKCKT1Y7EZ3 on 2004-08-19
  This play was my introduction to the theatre of the absurd, and I was astonished at the clarity of the ideas presented through ridiculous situations. Good plays echo experiences and pull the audience into the story with a certain intensity. In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," that intensity draws mostly from Ros's and Guil's utter confusion. Of course, they may simply be dolts, but what can explain the strange things that happen to them? We begin to identify with their confusion--are they, and we, all sane, but reflected in an insane world? The most revered literature addresses a "crazy-world"--much of Shakespeare's work does, and the New York Times bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" does. Even Bible stories address a crazy-world and how to overcome it. I can think of no better example than Job.
  
  "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is not only intended to be the other side of the Shakespearean classic "Hamlet," but also a supplement to the questions posited by Hamlet's tragic existence. However, it is not necessary to have read "Hamlet" in order to enjoy "Ros and Guil," although it will augment your appreciation of the latter. All in all, "Ros and Guil" is good literature by its own merit. I strongly recommend it.
  
  
• Sheer brilliance
  By AZ3GLR9B6AQ3N on 2006-08-12
  I've seen a few reviews here that say "read it, but don't go see it." Most of the time, I would probably agree, because most people who do the play don't get it; they think it's a straightforward comedy, and it is almost anything but.
  
  R&G is all about pace; except for a couple of spots, if the pace isn't almost franticly precise, the end loses its entire effect. The beginning of the second act
  
  "Hmmm?"
  "Yes?"
  "What?"
  "I thought you..."
  "No."
  "Ahh."
  
  takes a lot of work to get right; someone missing a beat is almost as bad as someone walking through the invisible fourth wall.
  
  Guildenstern has the first real line in the play: "There's an art to the building up of suspense." If you aren't on the edge of your seat when the penultimate scene begins, then the director and the actors have missed the boat.
  
  Unfortunately, nothing Mr Stoppard has done since is quite as good. His plays are good, especially if you like the Pinteresque types, but just not quite as good.
  
  
• Creatively crafted with an existential twist, brilliant.
  By on 1998-12-27
  Stoppard's R&G is an excellent work crafted out of sheer creative genius. Evidence of this is the fact that other than an expertise in crafting a philosophy sometimes existential in nature, anyone could have written this. Anyone who has read Hamlet could have come up with this play, only Stoppard has beaten us all to it. Hilarious and often striking a sensitive nerve in the reader's mind, this play is as much about two insignificant characters in Hamlet as it is about human beings and their purpose for being on whatever boat they're on in life. Well done.
  
  
• Did you like this book?
  By on 1999-09-15
  Rhetoric-One/Love! I mean, did you enjoy this book? That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not one can read this book over and over, and catch something new each time, and gain a greater appreciation for Shakespeare (and Stoppard), and practice the game of Questions. It comes up heads every time (97 and counting, which would lead one to question the laws of probability....)
  
  
• Stoppard & Shakespeare
  By A9M5582F4I9SZ on 2006-01-18
  All my life I was taught to revere Shakespeare as poet and genius and to treat his work with reverence and pious respect. Then, I read Stoppard's work and I have never looked back! RGAD broke down so many bariers that had been fortified for ages in my mind. Stoppard was able to show me like no one else that Shakespeare was an entertainer. He was one of the greatest of his age, but he was just a man like any other. He would have sacraficed iambic pentameter for a laugh or a piognant pregnant pause if it meant his work had more impact in a moment.
  
  
• Excellent! Read it today!
  By on 2000-05-14
  This was a masterpiece.

  It was intelligent, witty and compact.

  I watched the R & G are dead movie because I happened to be studying Hamlet for my GCE A level exams, and I enjoyed it tremendously. However, I knew that there were a lot great lines I missed out by the sheer fact that I was just watching the movie and hence decided to read the play for myself.

  It is a fabously interesting and absurd play about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who have very minor roles in Hamlet. They constantly have their identities mixed up with each other and sometimes as a reader you tend to forget yourself who is who. But that brings out the theories of existentialism and relativity.

  A lot of word play and interesting rhetoric (check out the game of Questions in the play! ) is used, but in no way does it slow down the pace. I feel the greatest thing about the book is the use of language and the rhetorical statemtents and absurd things said that ironically make sense.

  Read the book! It is inspiring and brilliant.

  I've read Waiting for Godot and I think this book is infinitely more engaging and funny. Its less serious and the lightheartedness of it all makes the reading experience all the better.
  
  

• Dreadful. An attempt at intelligent playwriting, gone wrong
  By on 1999-10-30
  This play was designed to show a lighter side to Hamlet. The idea of using familiar characters is not exactly original and Stoppard fails in all attempts at humour. The play is muddled and seemingly without direction. This may be an illusion created by Stoppard but it seems to me to show a lack of certainty as to what to do next.
  
  
• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is soooooooo cool.
  By on 1999-03-24
  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is the phatest book on da' block. The battle between free will and determinism is as good as the one between L.L. Cool J and Canibus. I think, like, everyone should read this book. It's da' bomb!
  
  
• the joy of words
  By A23DVZ7HMFEKWQ on 1999-11-23
  This book showed me how amazingly infatuated I am with words.

  other than the brilliance of the writing, the philosophy, the references to hamlet -- it is the way Stoppard crafts sentences, phrases, the way he can make literature delicious.

  A very tasty read.
  
  

• Stoppard at his Best
  By ASPBU1YRQC1L1 on 2000-09-02
  Despite the many Stoppard plays that have read this remains my favorite. Like Waiting for Godot, R & G are Dead depicts two characters who feel trapped within their own fate. This feeling of entrapment makes powerful statements concerning the struggle between fate and self determination. What separates this play from Godot is Stoppard's wit and cleverness. While Godot was a powerful play that made important points concerning the helplessness of a life defined by external forces, it sometimes seemed to drag. While this might at first seem unnavoidable given the need for repetition for which this theme calls, Stoppard manages to avoid this pitfall admirably. His characters have a self awareness that Gogo and Didi lacked. They seem aware of their helplessness, but unnable, or unwilling, to do anything about it. This makes their characters more interesting, and, ultimately, makes the plays statement all the more powerful. Thus, Stoppard creates a script that is as interesting as a piece of entertainment as it is as a piece of literature. For this reason it is worthy of the Shakepearean ply that frames it.
  
  
• interesting, funny, poignant, thoughtful
  By A28T1XYAGKQWZC on 2000-12-23
  I just really loved this play. The way Stoppard manages to use the classic Hamlet as a foundation of his own, unique work of art is amazing and masterful. The play is funny and uses humor as a vehicle for some serious themes about fate vs. free will, death, life, and chance. This book isn't the type where one could just sit back and passively take in-it is engaging and forces the reader to think. So if you enjoy witty phrases but also intellectually stimulating ideas, buy a copy and read it! It is well worth the time.
  
  
• A side-splitting yet haunting materpiece of modern theater.
  By A1AR8HYZ17T5H7 on 2001-09-22
  A long time ago, an English playwright named William Shakespeare wrote a play called "Hamlet", which eventually grew into his most popular and respected play. In this century, a man named Tom Stoppard wrote a play called "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", which was based on "Hamlet" and probably became Stoppard's most recognized and popular play.

  The play takes place through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (R&G), which were two minor characters in "Hamlet". You'd think that a play through the eys of such minor characters would be boring, but Stoppard proves this to be far from the truth. What Stoppard doesn't do is give R&G strong personalities; in fact, they are almost as empty and flat as they were in "Hamlet", which is exactly what they're supposed to be. If a viewer of this play read or saw "Hamlet", he recognizes that R&G basically do in "R&G Are Dead" only what they do in "Hamlet". And even though they have the possibility to alter the future, they choose not to, which ends in their inevitable deaths. The humor found in the play is funny and teriffic, but in the end it's haunting, filled with Stoppard's subliminal philosophy.

  To fully appreciate "R&G Are Dead", I really suggest reading "Hamlet" first. That way, the reader will fully understand what happens in "R&G Are Dead", and why this play is so beautiful yet so eerie.
  
  

• Samual Beckett Made Humorous
  By A1D3K6AD0OJ7T6 on 2002-10-03
  Tom Stoppard presents a fantastic surrealist/absurdist take on the timeless (NOT tireless) classic Hamlet, throwing a new twist on an old plot. Here is the story of that rotten state of Denmark as told through the eyes of two of the most minor characters in the play: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Written in the same style as "Waiting for Godot," Stoppard weaves a web of questions, symbolism, humor, and oddities to be relished by any reader, especially a fan of Beckett. A must-have for anyone who considers him/herself a fan of the theatre.
  
  
• Absolutely Amazing Work of Literature
  By A39TS21RXZWHKR on 2002-10-11
  Before reading "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" I highly reccomend that you pick up a copy of "Hamlet" and familiarize yourself with the storyline and characters. With that prerequisite, dive right into R&GAD and don't make any plans for the next hour or two. Every page of this book is smacking with halirity and satire; from the situations to the dialogue, Tom Stoppard keeps the reader blissfully entertained.

  The Hamlet story, as told from the perspectives of previously minor roles, turns into a brilliant tragicomic splendor that you won't want to put down. Not many books make me laugh out loud more than once, but R&GAD had me in stiches almost constantly.

  Add this book to your "must read" list right now!
  
  

• If you can't get enough of Hamlet...
  By AI37YX1U4KB1L on 2003-03-29
  For those of us, yours included, who absolutely enjoy and revere Hamlet, this is the next logical sequence after reading Hamlet. Although not on the level of Hamlet by any means - but, then again, what is? - Ros and Guil(as called in the play) are Dead proves to be a witty and fun play, nonetheless. With all of the carnage and gratuitous death witnessed in Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern prove undoubtedly the most undeserving victims, and undeniably the most inscrutable and ambiguous characters who face their deaths.

  They know virtually nothing of the circumstances and we, in turn, know virtually nothing about them as well. Are they friends of Hamlet at Elsinore to help the troubled Prince in his time of despair while half-heartedly serving the King? Or, conversely, are they conniving duplicitous informers who know about Hamlet's seemingly impending death in England? Stoppard gives intriguing and clever dialogue between our two clueless and unsuspecting heroes. A fun play with a genuine and authentic melange of comedy and intensity. Recommended for all Hamlet enthusiasts - just don't expect the greatness of Shakespeare.
  
  

• Brilliance in Modern Theatre and Traditional Existentialism
  By A347SF6ICWOUZI on 2003-07-29
  There is a clear charm to existentialism that can only be defined as nothingness. One could hardly be faulted for finding the theology and writing style to be dry and repetitive--it is. And that is where its charm lies. The truthfulness and revelation of the human thought pattern is captured by existentialism as no other writing style. While most of the best existentialist pieces are in the form of plays, they are notably more enjoyable to read than to watch. Within this realm of thinking, one of the greatest works is Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a piece derived from the two wayward and tragic messengers of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The entire work seems to be inspired by the scant appearances of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two of Hamlet's trusted friends. At one point during the play, a single line stands out vividly: "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead." In the certainty with which this line is delivered, it is not surprising that it was singled out as the inspiration of another playwright.

  The play is the story of how the two men fall into trouble after trouble as they try to complete their errand. It also shows their struggle with their good friend's declining sanity. At the same time, they explore the nature of man through several word games and trials of chance. Throughout the book, scenes of maddeningly circling dialogue is interrupted by "sensible" dialogue from Shakespeare's original. This combination of not only communication styles, but language usage helps to add a confusing effect to the flying dialogue. There are several lines that almost come at you like a pesky bug--"Heads."--and no matter how you swat at them, they stay, and multiply. This very point is indicative of Stoppard's investigation of human nature.

  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a great piece for someone who already has a firm enjoyment of running in circles and bouncing off one brick wall only to hit another. Though it universally gathers the very essence of life together and displays it in an open forum, it is not something to read/view on a empty stomach. At least a beginning knowledge of existentialism is nearly essential if you hope to be awake by the end of the third page.

  Another wonderful play for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern fans is Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett.
  
  

• it's a winner
  By AQOUH5HIGYRL1 on 2004-10-17
  This play nearly comes from the same place as "Waiting for Godot." It's absolutely deliciously absurd and tragically funny.
  
  However, unlike "Godot," the characters of "R & G" are more given to emotional outbursts, especially Guildenstern. "Godot" is more abstract, an examination wtih a sense of detachment. "R & G" is tinged with both a sense of bitterness and acceptance, nicely showcased by the two characters.
  
  "R & G" also does an incredibly good job at wordplay, paying homage to the "Hamlet" of Shakespeare.
  
  All in all, it's a great book, and Guildenstern has some very memorable lines.
  
  

• Hamlet (The New Folger Library Shakespeare)
• Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two Acts
• Heart of Darkness (Dover Thrift Editions)
• Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
• The Stranger