{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"2763114","dateCreated":"1202877844","smartDate":"Feb 12, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"Jennifer0823","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jennifer0823","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/Jennifer0823-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/vahlebchs.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/2763114"},"dateDigested":1532128738,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Relationships","description":"Vahle has said that maybe a question on the AP test could be about relationships so I thought it could be helpful to start a thread about Ros and Guil's relationship:
\n
\nWhat was the purpose of Ros and Guil having such a strong relationship? R and G are so interchangeable, why not make them one? What was the purpose of making them so interchangeable?
\n
\nFrom my understanding of the play, I believe establishing Ros and Guil as interchangeable characters affected the play because it adds to their purposelessness. Also, their relationship is important because their banter provides Stoppard with the ability to relay thoughts combining the childlike innocence and fear of fate that all humans hold. But I\u2019m sure more can be added to that...","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"2768195","body":"I also don't believe that Ros and Guil are related, merely because I have seen this style of relationship used in many other well known pieces. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Harry and Ron from the Harry Potter series, Ponyboy and Johnny from "The Outsiders," and Hamlet and Mercutio from "Romeo and Juliet" are all parallel examples of the same relationship Ros and Guil have. All of these relationships extend much deeper than just a good friendship; they are essential to the story itself. The way these characters interact serves to provide each other with a contrasting opinion that punches holes in how they think or the way they act, and in doing so creates a simple yet effective truth about the human condition. No matter how strong an individual may be, he cannot survive or be as significant of a character without the aid, both negative and positive, of another.","dateCreated":"1202920219","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"schaffer18","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/schaffer18","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2771751","body":"The strong relationship Ros and Guil have seems to affect our perspective on the way we see them characterized. "Despite their similarities, each side of a coin reveals different images, a different perspective, and a different meaning ultimately." (quoted from Alex) I think that the ultimate reason people confuse them is because of the fact that they are always together, not because they are so similar. They are one, like a married couple. Often people say your soul mate or your husband or wife completes you. They complete eachother. Without the other, one is just one part of a puzzle. That one puzzle piece is limited and is in need of the rest of its body. As Jennifer has said, Ros and Guil are interchangeable in order to show their purposelessness. Though the two are confused, and thought to be similar, both have their own entities. Guil is rather smart and very philosophical, as Ros is very innocent and in need of someone to follow. Guil needs someone to hear his thoughts and Ros needs someone to follow and listen to. They complete eachother's needs. I think the purpose of the confusion between the two is to emphasize their very close relationship.","dateCreated":"1202931223","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"hbaek","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hbaek","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781677","body":"I really like the concept Hyeyoung has included that Ros and Guil are in fact not similar, but simply complete each other. I'd like to tie this into the idea of purpose, as one without the other wanders lost in direction. As Ros and Guil take their journey together, they essentially bounce ideas off of each other, completing each other's thoughts. We see this continuously throughout the play as Ros or Guil will begin a sentence and the other will finish it. I observe two completely different characters within Ros and Guil, where Guil seems like the reasonable caretaker of Ros and Ros, the creative thinker anxious for the unknown. With these two distinct characters, Ros and Guil essentially complete each other, helping each other find purpose in life. While their only purpose may have been to escort Hamlet, the journey was taken together and I believe that is why Ros and Guil's relationship is perceived to be important.","dateCreated":"1202962255","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"Yelin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Yelin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781809","body":"While in the discussion of relationships, I'd like to raise up the question of the bond between Ros and Guil, and the players. Throughout the novel, the players ironically appear in significant scenes--following the King's task of searching for Hamlet, the pirates, etc. How do the players lives parallel with Ros and Guil's and what is the significance of their relationship?","dateCreated":"1202962553","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"Yelin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Yelin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781989","body":"I really agree with Alex's observation that Ros and Guil embody the duality theme throughout the novel. I think that while Ros and Guil play off one another with their ideas, I think that they cannot be merged into one character. Without their banter back and forth the play would not go anywhere, except in circles because each repeatedly go back and forth to a particular idea.
\n
\nThier relationship is so unique because while they are quite different from one another they continue to converse and expand ideas. Ros, more of a visual learner, and Guil, the intellectual, work well together because each of their qualities allow them to delve into ideas beyond the surface level, despite the appearance of stupidity. If the characters were indeed interchangeable their discussions would not be able to lead to anything significant. Guil or Ros would pose and intellectual idea and the other would simply accept or ignore it. This is not the case. But rather, Guil poses a theoretical situation and Ros's misunderstanding allows Guil to expand his ideas and realate them to the novel.","dateCreated":"1202963628","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"kaceyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kaceyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782155","body":"In "Hamlet" Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are portrayed as childhood friends who betrayed their old companion, but do you think that after reading RAGD Ros and Guil really had the strong relationship implied in the original with Hamlet? Or, knowing their tendency toward naivety, did they intentionally betray Hamlet? And if not, why then did Hamlet continue to switch the letter?","dateCreated":"1202964715","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"kaceyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kaceyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782319","body":"The games they play with each other, including the probability of the coin landing on heads and the question game, display how easily Ros and Guil can take simple ideas and expand them into a more complex structure, as Kacey previously noted. These are men who, despite differences in their attitudes and thought processes, share a common enjoyment in thinking things through and are not afraid to let loose and have fun as if they were kids. In a lot of ways, Ros and Guil are no different than any other pair of best friends, as they are constantly involved in the same activities and stick to each other's side to death. There is without a doubt a strong sense of loyalty between them, but it is there ability to contrast each other while remaining loyal that makes their friendship unique and consistent.","dateCreated":"1202966073","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"schaffer18","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/schaffer18","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782321","body":"I love Kacey's observation and extension of this analysis. This discussion, through the exploration of another dimension of their characters, adds a lot of depth to my understanding of the play on the whole.
\n
\nIn response to Yelin\u2019s questions, I think that if Ros and Guil are two sides of the same coin, the players are another level of duality: Ros and Guil becoming one side of a coin and the players representing the other side.
\n
\nThe players share the same basic human nature with Ros and Guil: they all show infatuation with death, a need for direction, an interest in blood. They are made of the same material, but they represent opposing viewpoints. The players only survive through the assumption of another\u2019s identity while Ros and Guil struggle to discover their true identities. The players show death while Ros and Guil view it as the absence of being. Ros and Guil do not portray death even when they die, but the players portray it while living. The players always have purpose as Ros and Guil search for meaning. The players have no innocence, killing men on stage, offering inappropriate services, and threatening Ros and Guil. Ros and Guil fail to lose their innocence even when Guil tries to kill the Player. Their duality becomes more polar and deeper than the duality that exists between Ros and Guil. Ros and Guil ask questions and the players answer.
\n
\nPerhaps the players represent the relationship between reality and absurdity.","dateCreated":"1202966074","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"alexneve","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/alexneve","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782461","body":"Response to Yelin
\nRos and Guil live their lives through probability. Whenever something comes up, they either accept or decline the decision they have to make. They don't really make their own plans, but when something, if something, comes up, they just revolve their lives around that one thing. The players are the same way. They hope that as they wander along, they will find someone to act in front of. Their technique of life requires probability just like Ros and Guil. Their lives are similar and the significance of this is the fact that they both live their lives depending on the probability that something will show up to move along their lives. Contrasting to many people, they just live their lives and consequently run into a purpose. Many people would rather make that purpose and then move on with their lives. But remarkably, the players and Ros and Guil wait for something to come along to make a purpose.","dateCreated":"1202967871","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"hbaek","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hbaek","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782467","body":"Kacey, I love your questions! Stoppard's play certainly presents weak history between Hamlet, Ros, and Guil while Shakespeare implies a strong existing connection between them. Considering the gap in socioeconomic classes, would Hamlet have had friends that would eventually become mere messengers? Perhaps they had a loose friendship, being almost acquaintances with Hamlet. A shallow childhood connection might provide a plausible point that both playwrights exaggerated to fit their purposes. Could Shakespeare have exaggerated how deep their bond ran while Stoppard made it more superficial?
\n
\nI think Ros and Guil fear disobedience, a lack of purpose, and action. They may have accepted their role in Hamlet's death without viewing it as outright betrayal because they were afraid to do otherwise. Ros and Guil may hold more innocence because they did not write the letter and they do not fully comprehend reality.
\n
\nI think Hamlet's character is more self-absorbed and less cowardly so his betrayal of Ros and Guil was more a means of furthering his own purpose. He betrayed them for selfish reasons, to save his own life. He wrote the replacement letter with his own hands. Perhaps Hamlet believes his royal position makes his life more valuable than the lives of those of an inferior level of society.","dateCreated":"1202967892","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"alexneve","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/alexneve","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782751","body":"Today my friend Brittany and I counted the number of squares in a roll of toilet paper, then calculated the minimal amount of squares needed per use, and compared this number with average bathroom uses per day all in the hopes of finding how long we could make one roll of TP last. We do this sort of thing all the time.
\n
\nMy point: It doesn't matter what meaningless or absurd things I do with my friends, I'm guaranteed to have a good time simply because of their presence. Just to get us thinking about "the other side of the coin," does it really matter that Ros and Guil's actions are trivial? They genuinely seem to be having a good time when they are flipping coins for ten pages and playing "word tennis" as opposed to the real deal.
\n
\nMaybe Stoppard's point in making the play so humorous is in emphasis of the fact that Ros and Guil are also always having fun in each other's presence. Maybe that they are so interchangeable conveys not that they lack purpose, but that their close relationship in itself gives their lives meaning.
\n
\nI think it's possible that Stoppard's overall theme of relationships (tied to existentialism) is that in a world where there is no inherent meaning we must make and find our own, and while each varies by person, we all share common ground in that we need each other. After all, who would Ros be without Guil? Who would the players be without an audience?","dateCreated":"1202971790","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"KateStrobel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KateStrobel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/KateStrobel-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2794825","body":"I don't know if we can assert that stoppard is emphasizing that we need to find our own meaning or that we need to make one. I think what Stoppard is saying is that we need to find meaning in a meaningless existance, that we need to come to terms with that fact that we aren't anything. I think we are all downplaying the fact that Existentialism is relatively cynical and its not all bunnies and rainbows. Life is relatively anit-climactic. We do all this work and try and try and try, in the end only to die. I think this also goes to say that Ros and Guil's purposeless lives lead to the same conclusion as somebody who claims to have a purpose...death.I see the play through a much more existential cynical lense. But thats just me.
\n
\nHere's Collin's Fun Hypothetical Situation of the day!:
\n
\nIf every physical representation and or shard of evidence was destroyed that proved human existence(for instance the earth being swallowed by the sun), you would be nothing. No cohherent lump of protiens would ever knew you existed, or that you had a purpose in life. In relation to every other particle in the universe, your spirit, cognition, mental processes, beliefs and emotions...would all be gone...and you would amount to exactly nothing.","dateCreated":"1203022690","smartDate":"Feb 14, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"ccbrother444","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ccbrother444","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/ccbrother444-lg.jpg"}}],"more":5}]},{"id":"2544051","dateCreated":"1201735401","smartDate":"Jan 30, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"theindigo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/theindigo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/theindigo-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/vahlebchs.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/2544051"},"dateDigested":1532128740,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"allegorical?","description":"Ms. Vahle told us in class that the novel is supposed to be allegorical, but I still don't understand how. Can someone elaborate?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"2763452","body":"(Spring-boarding off of Jesse's comment)
\nMy discussion group analyzed the motif of feminism and women within the play today, and I would like to hear some other views of this motif in relation to the play.
\nWhere does feminism appear within the play? What is the effect of this? If it does not appear, what is the effect of that?
\nWe discussed Alfred's role as a young boy playing the role of a woman because women were not involved in acting. What does this reveal about the play's setting and how does it tie into _Hamlet_?","dateCreated":"1202880149","smartDate":"Feb 12, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"alexneve","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/alexneve","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2763695","body":"(In response to Kevin\u2019s questions about the cinematic version of the play and Kate\u2019s response)
\nI agree with Kate that the scientific discoveries improve the movie since they contribute a sense of absurdity. Ros\u2019s failure to repeat any of his discoveries for Guil may signify their repeated failure in the discovery of their purposes. This lack of success may represent the inevitability of Fate and their inability to interfere with their destinies.
\n
\nThe intricate settings definitely distorted Stoppard\u2019s \u201cplace without any visible character\u201d (11). The change between the mountain scene and the forest setting create the illusion of movement, progress, and purpose, but Stoppard does not illustrate any of these during the first scene. Assigning well-developed settings detracts from the overall isolation and exile (as Jesse mentioned) of Ros and Guil.
\n
\nThe silent reenactments alter the focus of the play from the two minor characters to the major characters of Shakespeare\u2019s original play. The play emphasizes Ros and Guil\u2019s reactions to the reenactment in the narration; \u201cWhat brings Ros forward is the fact that under their cloaks the two SPIES are wearing coats identical to those worn by Ros and Guil\u2026Ros approaches \u2018his\u2019 SPY doubtfully. He does not quite understand why the coats are familiar. Ros stands close, touches the coat, thoughtfully\u201d (82). The movie focuses more on the entire audience\u2019s response, eliminating the more intimate detail of Ros physically touching the spy\u2019s cloak.
\n
\nThe swirl of papers that precedes the appearance of the players creates a comical foreshadowing within the movie that creates anticipation. On the whole, the casting and characterization of Guil, Ros, and the Player proved impressive and insightful.","dateCreated":"1202881778","smartDate":"Feb 12, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"alexneve","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/alexneve","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2772001","body":"Response to Alex
\n
\nFeminism wasn't a big theme in this play and I think if it was, it would have detracted from the focus on Ros and Guil. I think the only part that had something to do with feminism was with Alfred. Alfred, the little boy, had to play the parts of women. This just comes to show that this play revolves around the seventeenth century where women weren't allowed to do anything but do housework. Feminism in RGAD is subtle, but it is not visible in Hamlet. Because both of the plays completely focus on the main characters of their own plays, issues such as feminism are not significant.","dateCreated":"1202932470","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"hbaek","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hbaek","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2775819","body":"As Hyeyoung has already elaborated upon, feminism doesn't seem to be a major focal point of RGAD. Although Alfred is cast as the female character in the story, this is most likely done in order to retain the gender social structures of the Shakesperean era in which the play is set. What is interesting, however, is that there are simply no female characters within the novel, with the exception of Ophelia's character.
\n
\nAs Ophelia is needed in order to keep the original play intact, why do you think Stoppard does not cast any additional female characters? Most likely not a feministic nor a anti-feministic agenda, what effect does the prominence of males and absence of females create?","dateCreated":"1202942631","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"dkevin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dkevin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781445","body":"In response to Kevin's question, as he was saying, I agree that Alfred is cast as the female character to properly portray the gender structures of Shakespearean era. Likewise, this may be the same reason why Stoppard does not cast any additional female characters. Females in that time period remain insiginificant as they are conceived to be inferior to men. The prominence of males provide insight into the past where the life and destiny of men were ultimately more important. I judge the absence of female characters were not necessarily intentional, but perhaps just unthought of...","dateCreated":"1202960962","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"Yelin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Yelin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781499","body":"In response to Kevin, doesn't the queen also have a small part or two in the play? I also think that you've already answered your question. They are retaining the Shakespearean era in which women had little influence. The public of the time did not want to see plays about women or womens suffrage. They viewed women as something that should be seen and not heard so to have them be more prominent in the play would involve a lot more listening than viewing. If Stoppard had cast more women into the play it would take away from the tie to Hamlet and would just confuse.","dateCreated":"1202961232","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"MaryEMc","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/MaryEMc","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781673","body":"In response to kevin's question: If anyone watched the film interpretation, do you think the play was effectively portrayed? What additions did the director add and how did it change the progression of the plot? The director included many references to the original play, Hamlet, most notably the tradegians' silent reenactments. Does this hinder the focus on Ros and Guil or does it amplify their role in the whole scope of the play?
\n
\nI was really pleased with the film's interpretation. I thought that the film did a good job of moving Ros and Guil from scene to scene with such little scene direction provided by Stoppard. We know that the two characters are inside the castle for most of the play and are moving through the castle, however the director does a great job of naturally moving the characters from room to room as it coincides with the dialouge. A great example of this is the scene where Ros and Guil are playing their question game in the game room. Here, the movie actually added Ros's fascination with gravity, and ultimate wrong conclusion. I think that this addition not only helped to expand the innocence and naivety of Rosencrantz's character, but it also helped create a natural transition from scene to scene. Guil procedes down onto the court in preperation of the game while Ros, who is always a little behind Guil, can help begin the question game.
\n
\nI think that the silence reenactments amplifies their role within the play. It forces the viewer to visually recognize Ros and Guil within the players play and remind the viewer of their death. It also provides dramatic irony because while the audience immediately cathces onto the irony of the situation (we know they will die...i mean, it's in the title!) but both Ros and Guil are unable to place the familiartiy of the players who are acting as Ros and Guil.
\n
\nThis scene added the drowning of Ophelia within the players play. This addition, while not completely necessary, allows for the players play to create a stronger reference to Hamlet the play. With the background knowledge we have, this amplifies the reality of the play, which is ironic because the play, which is supposed to escape reality, actually determines the fate of the characters.","dateCreated":"1202962195","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"kaceyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kaceyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2781891","body":"In response to collin's thoughts about Stoppard's view on death:
\n
\nI disagree with you. I think that RGAD is ambiguous in the fact that it both implies that our destiny is predetermined, but it also conveys the message that while death is our ultimate end, our choices within life create "successful" lives. I think that Ros and Guil, while their death was determined by many different variables, such as the letter, Hamlet's emotional state, pirates, etc., they had chances to say "no". They could have told the Queen and King that they didn't want to take Hamlet to England. They could have not gotten onto the ship. They could have never replied to their summon. They could have apologized and interacted with Hamlet more.
\n
\nIn fact at the end, when Guil says, "There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said--no. But somehow we missed it." I think that here both Guil and Ros are unhappy with how their lives played out. They have both accepted the fact that their cowardice has lead to this outcome, but had they made the choice not to get on the boat, not to ignore Hamlet, not to obey the King and Queen despite their misgivings, is telling that our lives can have purpose and should, despite the fact that death is the ultimate ending for all of us.","dateCreated":"1202963005","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"kaceyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kaceyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782099","body":"I do not think that Ros and Guil are dead becuase that interpretation, like beezybee27 said "changes 'Hamlet'completely...and unjustifiably." I think that the title bluntly states their ultimate ending, but it might also be a metaphor for their inactive lives throughout both Hamlet and RAGD. The never seem to be actively in control of any situation, which can be seen through the bustle of the players moving in and out of their lives as well as the King and Queen. In the movie interpretation, this was empasized with the bathtub scene and the pirate scene when the players magically arrive in front of Ros and Guil, who are in disbelief. The never seek out the players, but it's like a mother's advice if you get lost, "stay in one place and sooner or later you'll be found."
\n
\nI don't think, however, this means that Ros and Guil do not have control over their lives. I think that their inactiveness can be attributed to their cowardness and naivety. Thier inactivense, ultimately led to their death, which is very ironic.","dateCreated":"1202964330","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"kaceyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kaceyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782393","body":"In response to Kacey, I agree with the perpective that Stoppard portrays death as the inevitable end of life and life as the sum of one's choices. Stoppard may be saying that success is defined by our choices and our acceptance of these choices. Success in life is the result when one is content with the way life was lived. We assign meaning to life and therefore we determine success through our choices in life. Stoppard reveals Ros and Guil's regret as they near death that they did not make different choices. Stoppard makes Ros and Guil responsible for their lives in doing so. Stoppard does not, however, make Ros and Guil directly responsible for their deaths. This reveals the predestination concept of death. Stoppard highlights success as a result of one's choices in life while admiting the inevitability of death.","dateCreated":"1202966812","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"alexneve","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/alexneve","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782801","body":"Kacey, I like your point about the title metaphorically representing Ros and Guil's passive and inactive lives-- it's not "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Going to Die;" they are dead from first glance at the play even though they are not literally flatlined until the very last page.
\n
\nI think you also inadvertently pointed out one of the most ironic aspects of the play with the line "there must have been a moment where we could have said no." It makes me think of my Prufrock response of him not being suicidal because that would actually require him to take action, something he is incapable of. I think it's essentially the same for Ros and Guil-- there was no moment where they could have said no because it's just not possible for them to do that. It is this passivity that seals their fate. Everything that happens to them is fated and happens for a reason, the reason being that that simply can't take any preventative action.","dateCreated":"1202973164","smartDate":"Feb 13, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"KateStrobel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KateStrobel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/KateStrobel-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"2782933","body":"...I also forgot to add that I don't think their lack of action results from cowardice, but rather from oblivion. Like we were talking about in class today, Ros and Guil never really leave their state of innocence and, like children, they don't completely understand their environment--leaving them to be more concerned with themselves. I think you have to truly understand your situation before you can fear it or act cowardly, and I don't think Ros and Guil fully grasp theirs.
\n
\nKevin, I think the absence of females exists to further portray Ros and Guil's passive lives as well as their mediocrity. Although a woman wouldn't have been in an acting troupe in this era, I think Ros and Guil would have been more prone to take "action" if Alfred was a woman, and this would contradict their compliant lifestyle as well as their connection to Prufrock--presumably one of Stoppard's influences. Also, if either of them were married or invovled with a woman it would detract from and deemphasize their relationship, one of the main focal points of the play.","dateCreated":"1202976951","smartDate":"Feb 14, 2008","userCreated":{"username":"KateStrobel","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KateStrobel","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1202793136\/KateStrobel-lg.jpg"}}],"more":41}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}