I never feel fully qualified to review books of this caliber with any hope to encompass everything they stand for. But Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is approachable and easy and terribly difficult to spell, as far as a book can be classified as approachable. And I feel like saying a few words on it won't result in a lynch mob.

When we are taught to look at a known scene with fresh eyes / from a fresh perspective in Creative Writing classes, it's commonplace to immediately leap to inanimate objects and personify abstract concepts. This out of the box approach to creativity has become so thoroughly canvassed that it fits into the box quite nicely now. But maybe, just maybe, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is the end result one actually seeks in those exercises - a novel approach to a known plot, and one which brings quite a bit of new to the old. Part of this novelty that it brings obviously has to do with it having been written in 1966. The influences in this book are decidedly modern, and the writing doesn't bother to hide it. But the other part of the novelty might just lie in the reimagining - in bringing secondary characters to the forefront and having their ruminations and their (very good) jokes narrate the entire story.

Having said all this, I did feel at times that the book trod a dangerous line between being reminiscent of Waiting for Godot and of being Waiting for Godot.

I really looooved this play the first time around and I am quite bummed out that it didn't work out upon my reread. I absolutely adored the first act, which I thought was awfully cleverly written and had some amazing one-liners and (gay!) banter that would have made Oscar Wilde envious, but the rest of the play seemed lazily plotted-through and ultimately fell flat. The hilarious dynamic between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that was set up in the first act, didn't quite make its way into the second and third act. Their story seemed to go nowhere ... which, I know, is the purpose of the play, but I cannot help but wonder if you couldn't have gotten a more satisfying resolution for them?

Anyways, I will leave you with my favorite quote that I (re)discovered when reading this:

Ros Fire!
Guil jumps up.
Guil Where?
Ros It's all right – I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech. To prove that it exists.

I settled for a 4-star rating, since it was 5 stars the first time around and 3 stars now. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. ;)

Original Review (September, 2018):
What is life? What even is this play? Why am I trash for this???? I will say it time and time again but plays really are my thang. I know a lot of people struggle with them but they are among my favorite literary pieces: The Importance of Being Earnest, Waiting for Godot, A Raisin in the Sun, The Merry Wives of Windsor and now: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

n  Life is a gamble, at terrible odds. If it were a bet you wouldn’t take it.n

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters in William Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet. They are childhood friends of Hamlet, summoned by King Claudius to distract the prince from his apparent madness and if possible to ascertain the cause of it. When Hamlet kills Polonius, Claudius recruits Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to escort Hamlet to England, providing them with a letter for the King of England instructing him to have Hamlet killed. (They are apparently unaware of what is in the letter, though Shakespeare never explicitly says so.)

Along the journey, the distrustful Hamlet finds and rewrites the letter, instructing the executioner to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead. When their ship is attacked by pirates, Hamlet returns to Denmark, leaving Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to die; he comments in Act V, Scene 2 that "They are not near my conscience; their defeat / Does by their own insinuation grow”. Ambassadors returning later report that "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.”

And that’s where Tom Stoppard comes into play. (No pun intended.) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is an absurdist, existential tragicomedy by Tom Stoppard, first staged at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1966.

The action of Stoppard's play takes place mainly "in the wings" of Shakespeare’s, with brief appearances of major characters from Hamlet who enact fragments of the original's scenes. Between these episodes the two protagonists seem confused by the events of Hamlet and seem unaware of their role in the larger drama. The play is primarily a comedy, but they often stumble upon deep philosophical truths through their nonsensical ramblings.

n  We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.n

Stoppard also littered his play with jokes that refer to the common thespian tendency to swap Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the midst of the play because the characters are basically identical. He does this by making Rosencrantz and Guildenstern unsure of who is who, as well as having the other players (Claudius, Hamlet, Gertrude) refer to them frequently by the wrong names.

Because of the play's similarity to Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Rosencrantz is sometimes compared to Estragon (one of the tramps who wait for Godot), and who shares his dim perception of reality, while Guildenstern parallels Vladimir, who shares his analytical perception. Many plot features are similar as well: the characters pass time by playing Questions, impersonating other characters, and interrupting each other or remaining silent for long periods of time.

The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern betting on coin flips. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row. The extreme unlikeliness of this event according to the laws of probability leads Guildenstern to suggest that they may be "within un-, sub- or supernatural forces". The audience learns why they are where they are: the King has sent for them. Guildenstern theorizes on the nature of reality, focusing on how an event becomes increasingly real as more people witness it.

n  We do on stage things that are supposed to happen off. Which is a kind of integrity, if you look on every exit as being an entrance somewhere else.n

Metatheatre is a central structural element of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Scenes that are staged as plays, dumb shows, or commentaries on dramatic theory and practice, are prominent in both Stoppard's play and Shakespeare's original tragedy Hamlet. In Hamlet, metatheatrical elements include the Player's speech (2.2), Hamlet's advice to the Players (3.2), and the meta-play "The Mousetrap" (3.3). Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters from Hamlet itself, Stoppard's entire play can be considered a piece of metatheatre.

Personally, I loved every bit of this play. Its charm. Its wit. Its social commentary. I was laughing out loud several times and took our two protagonists immediately to heart. I mean, those misfits. I cannot deal. Tom Stoppard is a literary genius. The fact that he always found the right words to set the scene and hit the mark is mind-boggling to me. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is, in my humble opinion, one of the best plays of the English language.

n  Rosencrantz: I don't believe in it anyway.
Guildenstern: What?
Rosencrantz: England.
Guildenstern: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?n

And so I will end with one of the biggest compliments I could ever give: Oscar would’ve loved this!

rosencrantz and guildenstern often mistake themselves for the other exactly like it happened for my friends dan and phil

It's absolute genius!
The play is just funny and ironic and absurd and it's so entertaining to read...
Just a bit difficult to stick with the repentine change of character and situations and the dialogues can be difficult but it is a very enjoyable read none the less. I wish I could see it live in theatres in Italy.

there is quite literally no plot and is a waste of 100 pages. every character in this play is annoying and insane as hell

Reading Shakespeare’s Hamlet first made it easier for me to connect to this play. The title of this play is one of the last lines in Hamlet. Stoppard knows that we know how it ends for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. So, with this title Stoppard’s not making any pretence of a surprise ending.

Compared to the darkness to Hamlet this was light with its antics and comedy.

Reading this, Stoppard reminds me it is possible to laugh, even at the serious stuff.

A worm's eye view of Hamlet. Two minor characters from Shakespeare's tragedy make their way through the story with only partial information and their own observances. Laugh out loud funny.

This has been my favourite play since I first studied it for English Lit 'A' Level waaaaayyy back in 1993. I've returned to it again and again over the years and it still blows me away every time. This is as close to written perfection as I've ever read. I absolutely love every line.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I've just got back from watching this performed by Daniel Radcliffe, Joshua McGuire and David Haig. What a fantastic production! They really did it justice. The supporting cast were also excellent. What a great night!

Ma ei suuda otsustada, kas Stoppard on matemaatika bitch või matemaatika on Stoppardi bitch

The best way to go about this book is by going blind. The surprise that arrives in terms of characters introduced in the second act is enough to put bring out the giggle fest.

Narrated by two characters from the play Hamlet, the story isn't much of a story but the existential crisis the two of them (and some!) face. They spend time playing games: tossing coin to word games and watching a "performance" to being part of a "performance". The two "Ros" and "Guil" explore the themes Shakespeare himself went back to: fate, destiny, betrayal, life etc. The characters often exchange names. Stoppard doesn't provide a moment of reprieve when his characters purposely become obtuse and heavy on the narrative.

The ending comes with Shakespearean style again when a character questions their motive, moral and consequences of decisions. Often hilarious and generally profound, this play unravels many of its layers with each read. I read it twice back to back; the first time without any background and the second time, with knowledge of what to expect. Only that the second time the puns Stoppard pulls out of nowhere have an edge of sadness and the running theme of existence a tad sadder.

This play may have a fantastic adaptation on the screen. But the word play can only be savored when read. I wonder how it would be to share a train ride with "Ros" and "Guil".

I see no difference between these “absurdist” characters and you and me. Hmu if you want to reenact the play

Effortlessly brilliant and hilarious. Equal to any of Beckett's stuff, I think.