Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (Paperback)

by Tom Stoppard (Author) "TWO ELIZABETHANS passing the time in a place without any visible character..." (more)
Key Phrases: middle barrel, small pause, Shakespeare Act

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Acclaimed as a modern dramatic masterpiece, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is the fabulously inventive tale of "Hamlet" as told from the worm's-eye view of the bewildered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two minor characters in Shakespeare's play. In Tom Stoppard's best-known work, this Shakespearean Laurel and Hardy finally get a chance to take the lead role, but do so in a world where echoes of "Waiting for Godot" resound, where reality and illusion intermix, and where fate leads our two heroes to a tragic but inevitable end.

Product Details

• Paperback: 128 pages
• Publisher: Grove Press (January 21, 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802132758
• ISBN-13: 978-0802132758
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (86 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,390 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #2 in	Books > Literature & Fiction > Drama > British & Irish > Modern
  #2 in	Books > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( S ) > Stoppard, Tom

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

107 of 114 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent on Several Levels, February 17, 2001

By	Adam Shah (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars It takes a certain outlook, March 14, 2000

By	Kevin L. Nenstiel "omnivore" (Kearney, Nebraska) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Stoppard does what Shakespeare did not, August 23, 1999

By A Customer

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