Comparing Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead
The spinoff play made by Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, has the readers(audience) follow along the two supporting characters from Shakespeare's classic Hamlet. Stoppard adds humor as well as implementing the philosophy of existentialism to the two friends journey, giving more develop to the characters that wouldn’t have been shown in the original play. Yet there is a less blatant theme in the play which takes some more thought to find. The play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is about the human behavior of questioning the world, seeking impossible answers, through
Argument
It could be apparent that when comparing the two main characters they are completely different. Guildenstern is more logically minded compared to his counterpart Rosencrantz,who though does express some intelligence does not compare to Guildenstern. At the start of the play their intelligence is shown off with Rosencrantz playing a game of Heads or Tails while Guildenstern is observing the phenomena of how he keeps getting Heads. Guildenstern expresses his intelligence by saying ,“A weaker man might be moved to re-examine his faith, if in nothing else at least in the law of probability.” (Stoppard 12). Guild is expressed by Stoppard as the “superior” of the pair with Rosencrantz not seeing the bigger picture of his game. The pair play …show more content…
on two different parts of society, one who question the world around them trying to use reasoning and logic to answer it; the other part is the part that has no care for the questions of the world only caring for the moment.
Rosencrantz shows a form of ignorance is bliss approach to life. A study of how this occurrence is related to big issues was made in The
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2011) ,“participants who felt that the issue was ‘above their heads’ reported an increased desire to adopt an “ignorance is bliss” mentality toward that issue” (Steven Shepherd & Aaron C. Kay, 2011). So Rosencrantz could be very much known to his phenomenon of getting heads, down playing it extreme occurrence in order to keep the amusement of the game going not taking deep thought to it like Guildenstern even making his friends point of a weaker man semi true when Rosencrantz says,”I’ve never known anything like it!”(Stoppard 16) when expressing his fun amusement. The pair truly interpret the human desire for answers from two standpoints. The human want for answers is highly common. This common human behavior was noted back in the 70s by psychologist Jerome Kagan (1972) which he addressed.“That uncertainty resolution was one of the foremost determinants of our behavior. When we can’t immediately gratify our desire to know, we become highly motivated to reach a concrete explanation.” (Kagan, 1972). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have two major instances of questioning one in which starts after Rosencrantz's game where the two question what they are supposed to be doing, struggling to find the answers until later in their conversation (Stoppard 19). The second questioning session occurs after being tasked to visit Hamlet by Claudius. The pair try to come up with questions to ask Hamlet through a game yet after they are done become even more confused with their own purpose (Stoppard 42). People try to find ways to answer everything in any form whether it be a simple verbal answer or an action. A report from The New Yorker by journalist Maria Konnikova reports:
In 1994, Kruglanski and Donna Webster introduced a standard way to measure the need for closure, or N.F.C..Taken together, these elements tell us how high our need for closure is at any given point. Heightened need for cognitive closure can bias our choices, change our preferences, and influence our mood. In our rush for definition, we tend to produce fewer hypotheses and search less thoroughly for information.(The New Yorker, 2013)
This need for closure directly relates to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern want for understanding, even though they are blind to seeing the answer. Yet a third character comes to play, the Player, acts as an outside opinion to Stoppard questioning for answers. The Player during Act 2 speaks with the two who are still questioning what to do putting his input by stating, “You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn” (Stoppard 66) trying to have the pair not question purpose but to act normal without any worry. Stoppard uses the player to add more incite to impossible questioning by having him address Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as well as the reader(audience) that:
For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn’t make any difference so long as it is honoured. (Stoppard 67)
People can always question or accept the world they live in at keep on living.
Discussion
The questioning made by the pair Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is a highly common behavior for most people it could possibly be not what makes this play. The play is fundamentally about the lives of two side characters living in moments where they are not needed trying to find purpose. This idea of human behavior of questioning can be made added by Stoppard use of existentialist philosophy ideals yet that point of the play can address both literature and theatre use of characters, exploring the lives outside of the spotlight.
Conclusion
The argument of made of that human behavior of questioning the world no matter the impossibility is strong. Stoppard use of two side characters questioning their own purpose only making more question than answers displays how society will always in their search for answers will create more questions. His incorporation of outside characters as well as the existentialist ideals help provide more human curiosity in the characters as well as the audience.
Argument
It could be apparent that when comparing the two main characters they are completely different. Guildenstern is more logically minded compared to his counterpart Rosencrantz,who though does express some intelligence does not compare to Guildenstern. At the start of the play their intelligence is shown off with Rosencrantz playing a game of Heads or Tails while Guildenstern is observing the phenomena of how he keeps getting Heads. Guildenstern expresses his intelligence by saying ,“A weaker man might be moved to re-examine his faith, if in nothing else at least in the law of probability.” (Stoppard 12). Guild is expressed by Stoppard as the “superior” of the pair with Rosencrantz not seeing the bigger picture of his game. The pair play …show more content…
on two different parts of society, one who question the world around them trying to use reasoning and logic to answer it; the other part is the part that has no care for the questions of the world only caring for the moment.
Rosencrantz shows a form of ignorance is bliss approach to life. A study of how this occurrence is related to big issues was made in The
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2011) ,“participants who felt that the issue was ‘above their heads’ reported an increased desire to adopt an “ignorance is bliss” mentality toward that issue” (Steven Shepherd & Aaron C. Kay, 2011). So Rosencrantz could be very much known to his phenomenon of getting heads, down playing it extreme occurrence in order to keep the amusement of the game going not taking deep thought to it like Guildenstern even making his friends point of a weaker man semi true when Rosencrantz says,”I’ve never known anything like it!”(Stoppard 16) when expressing his fun amusement. The pair truly interpret the human desire for answers from two standpoints. The human want for answers is highly common. This common human behavior was noted back in the 70s by psychologist Jerome Kagan (1972) which he addressed.“That uncertainty resolution was one of the foremost determinants of our behavior. When we can’t immediately gratify our desire to know, we become highly motivated to reach a concrete explanation.” (Kagan, 1972). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have two major instances of questioning one in which starts after Rosencrantz's game where the two question what they are supposed to be doing, struggling to find the answers until later in their conversation (Stoppard 19). The second questioning session occurs after being tasked to visit Hamlet by Claudius. The pair try to come up with questions to ask Hamlet through a game yet after they are done become even more confused with their own purpose (Stoppard 42). People try to find ways to answer everything in any form whether it be a simple verbal answer or an action. A report from The New Yorker by journalist Maria Konnikova reports:
In 1994, Kruglanski and Donna Webster introduced a standard way to measure the need for closure, or N.F.C..Taken together, these elements tell us how high our need for closure is at any given point. Heightened need for cognitive closure can bias our choices, change our preferences, and influence our mood. In our rush for definition, we tend to produce fewer hypotheses and search less thoroughly for information.(The New Yorker, 2013)
This need for closure directly relates to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern want for understanding, even though they are blind to seeing the answer. Yet a third character comes to play, the Player, acts as an outside opinion to Stoppard questioning for answers. The Player during Act 2 speaks with the two who are still questioning what to do putting his input by stating, “You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn” (Stoppard 66) trying to have the pair not question purpose but to act normal without any worry. Stoppard uses the player to add more incite to impossible questioning by having him address Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as well as the reader(audience) that:
For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn’t make any difference so long as it is honoured. (Stoppard 67)
People can always question or accept the world they live in at keep on living.
Discussion
The questioning made by the pair Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is a highly common behavior for most people it could possibly be not what makes this play. The play is fundamentally about the lives of two side characters living in moments where they are not needed trying to find purpose. This idea of human behavior of questioning can be made added by Stoppard use of existentialist philosophy ideals yet that point of the play can address both literature and theatre use of characters, exploring the lives outside of the spotlight.
Conclusion
The argument of made of that human behavior of questioning the world no matter the impossibility is strong. Stoppard use of two side characters questioning their own purpose only making more question than answers displays how society will always in their search for answers will create more questions. His incorporation of outside characters as well as the existentialist ideals help provide more human curiosity in the characters as well as the audience.