Carisse Hamlet Ms.

Stepanian AP English Literature and Composition 16 February 2011 Existential Thought in and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead As per human nature, human civilizations have actively sought out meaning in their existence since the establishment of conscious thought. Despite the religion-fueled popular belief in a predetermined universe, a 19th century Danish philosopher, Sren Aabye Kierkegaard, established a new idea: existentialism. Kierkegaard examined free will the significance of decisions based on feelings, obstacles, and independent situations (Davis). Authors explored existentialism through literature, investigating the individuals plight to significance in his universe. The Theater of the Absurd, a play designation specific to absurd fiction, was often the medium through which playwrights toyed with existential thought. Here, the stage becomes symbolic of the human condition; the play is filled with repetitive, nonsensical dialogue, as the anti-heroes idly pass time until organized action resumes. While the characters are somewhat aware of their existence in a scripted play, they remain unaware of their roles and the significance behind them. Tom Stoppard surveys existentialism with elements of the Theater of the Absurd when he explores the characters sense of identity, communication, and free will in his tragicomedy Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (RG). One key element of an artistic representation of existentialism is an individuals inability to meaningfully identify himself. Purposefully, Stoppard begins his piece with a vague exposition, establishing not only a nondescript setting, but also two nondescript

characters (RG 11). In the plays framing Shakespearian classic, Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius cannot tell Rosencrantz and Guildenstern apart, fusing their identities into a single persona. As Stoppard provides defining traits for neither Rosencrantz nor Guildenstern, it is no surprise that audiences and characters alike regularly confuse the two. Stoppards scarcity of defining traits for either character paints the picture of an everyday man for both, allowing the audience to see themselves reflected in the protagonists. One reason why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are casually mixed up throughout Stoppards play is because the two are always at each others side and seem to be incapable of functioning independently. At most, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two pieces of a single personarguably one character. While the two seem to embody two sides of a single person, neither Rosencrantz nor Guildenstern seems to be able to keep track of who is who. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern encounter the Tragedians en route to perform their play, Rosencrantz introduces himself and his friend: My name is Guildenstern, and this is Rosencrantz. After a stern look from Guildenstern, he hastily corrects his mistake with, (Without embarrassment.) Im Sorry his names Guildenstern, and Im Rosencrantz (RG 22). His lack of embarrassment is central to his lack of identity; Rosencrantz does not care to distinguish himself from his friend, for they share an identity. Similarly, in a game of questions where Guildenstern pretends to be Hamlet while Rosencrantz questions him, the two are unable to keep track of who is playing whom. Rosencrantz cannot act this part because he does not understand who he is before the role-playing begins (RG 47):
GUIL: Address me. ROS: My dear Guildenstern! GUIL (quietly): Youve forgotten havent you! ROS: My dear Rosencrantz!

GUIL (great control): I dont think you quite understand. What we are attempting is a hypothesis in which I answer for him, while you ask me questions.

Rosencrantz is confuses as to his identity and his role, while Guildenstern is frustrated by this lack of personality. This constant journey to self-discovery adds to the Theater of the Absurd. The characters waste time figuring out who they are and whom they represent, while they wait for the action of the scripted Hamlet to resume. This is Stoppards technique to display just how confused the two characters are about their world. Their constant identity-confusion reflects that they are confused on perhaps the most basic levels. As a result, they cannot be expected to be self-aware if they cannot even accurately define self. Stoppard also depicts communicative alienation among the protagonists, as themes of isolation are fundamental for existential literature. In the Theater of the Absurd, incomprehensibility suggests that the universe is so much more profound than any individual that it is impossible to fully understand and predict it. Stoppard showcases the incomprehensibility of the world through constant questions and confusion birthed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. During the question game that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern engage in, the two speak at each other rather than to each other; while they are exchanging words, a coherent conversation never emerges and the exchange becomes quite circular. In their preparation to question Hamlet, the two have a conversation where they talk, yet their exchange is meaningless (RG 46).
GUIL: Didnt you know him? ROS: He didnt know me. GUIL: He didnt see you. ROS: I didnt see him. GUIL: We shall see. I hardly knew him, hes changed. ROS: You could see that? GUIL: Transformed. ROS: How do you know? GUIL: Inside and out.

ROS: I see. GUIL: Hes not himself. ROS: Hes changed. GUIL: I could see that.

Their logic is circular and does not lead to answers, but more questions, reaffirming the existential idea of alienation through misunderstanding. Language and communication are portrayed as insufficient to completely articulate a thought, as there are many meanings that lack words to describe them, and many words that mean the same thing. Wordplay in Stoppards play is best shown in the second act, at the beginning of Rosencrantz and Guildensterns discussion with the Player. After a conversation consisting solely of puns and similes for the Players lack of words, they conclude with Ros: So youve caught on and Guil: So youve caught up (63). Though the difference is a single preposition, Rosencrantzs statement sounds more condescending because it assumes that the Player did not know at all what they were saying, while Guildensterns is more forgiving and assumes that the Player was simply having trouble following their dual dialogue. Although the phrases are identical in meaning, it is the over-complication of language that causes this discrepancy. Stoppard includes this communicative isolation and its absurdity to remove and illusions of significance from Rosencrantz and Guildensterns characters, allowing the audience to comprehend the characters existentialism. The existentialist theory also calls for close examination of the effectiveness of free will in an arguably fated world. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seek to know how many of their actions are actually controlled by them, and how many are predetermined. All the while, the characters are aware that they are following a certain prearranged plan of which they are a part: when Rosencrantz demands to go home, Guildenstern reassures

him that this is his path and he must continue following it. Guildenstern explains, Weve been caught up. Your smallest action sets off another somewhere else, and is set off by it. Keep an eye open, and an ear cocked. Tread warily, follow instructions. Well be all right (RG 39-40). To avoid unexpected consequences, the characters agree to follow their predetermined path of Hamlet. There is a lack of meaningful motivation between both characters as they almost always comply with their scripted path. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continue to dismiss their powers of free will each time they are manipulated. For example, Claudius employs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet and carrying him to his death. Rosencrantzs exclamation Were his friends is immediately doubted by Guildensterns inquiry How do you know? (RG 110). They seem to need clarification that they should be loyal to Hamlet simply because they do not have any orders that suggest loyalty. Not only are the protagonists constant victims of external forces, but they are also lost and purposeless without explicit orders. Stoppard reveals a fruitless opposition against fate on the part of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and unfortunately, the protagonists are losing. However, they do no seem to want to change their circumstances as shown by constant indifference: Ros: All right, then. I dont care. Ive had enough (RG 125). Additionally, Stoppard includes a boat into the story to reflect the experience of living in a universe that is beyond human control. Guildenstern initially reacts favorably to being on the boat, claiming that now he is free of all the decision-making responsibilities. Later, however, he concludes that the boat robs him of all freedom as he is now at the complete mercy of it and the sea (RG 108). While the protagonists believe they are free to do whatever they would like within the boundaries of the boat, they are vastly constricted by those same boundaries. In

Stoppards world, man is a puppet of fate with no significant role in the formation or execution of events. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two nondescript characters that effortlessly reflect everyday man. From start to finish, they appear in places and situations they can neither define nor alter. In this piece, Stoppard makes the conclusion the man is incapable of leaving any meaningful impression on life or the universe with his existence. In an attempt to find significance in the people and situations of the universe Stoppard comes to unsettling conclusions about existentialist thought in his famous tragicomedy. Through elements of the Theater of the Absurd, Stoppard explains that there is a startling lack identity, communication, and free will among all humans.

Works Cited Davis, Ashley S. Existentialism. Paper published by Psychotherapist Ashley Davis, MA, LPC. Boulder, Colorado. Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. New York: Grove, 1967. Print.