Hey guys.
I know we've started Ros and Guil Are Dead but we haven't really discussed it. I thought this would be a good start to further class discussions, putting up comments and clearing up some confusion.
Speaking of confusion, we see a lot of that in the play. Even at the beginning we get a sense that the characters themselves are confused about themselves and things around them. In fact this confusion, among with other ideas, occur throughout the play. Others include randomness, forgetfulness, references to Hamlet (the actual play), ignorance/stupidity, chance, question of identity, and reality vs. appearance.
The randomness starts right off the play with the random coin toss game. Between that, the question of probability occurs. Guil is the one asking the question. We see throughout the play that while Ros seems to be carefee and oblivious to the world around him, Guil on the other hand is the thinker and makes attempts to figure out the meaning of life. Ros is more 'random' than Guil. For example, he seems to know random facts (such as the nail and beard growing fact after death). He is more of the passive character compared to Guil.
Another thing that I read somewhere and didn't completely agree with was the hint of homosexuality. When the Tragedians come to Ros and Guil they offer to engage in sexual 'scenes' for an extra fee. Guil is the one who opposes this idea. But even in doing so, the reader can see his hesitation (seen a lot in these two characters). He's not even sure of himself-of what he wants. I think he was just trying to make a moral stand. The hesitation, in my opinion, was because he felt that there was something wrong and he was surprised and confused at himself that he saw that while others around him didn't. Remember, he's the one who tries to figure things out in his life. This was one of those 'aha!' moments.
Well, there's a lot more to talk about! Just wanted to open the floor for discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think part of the reason that this is so hard to follow is the identity confusion of Ros and Guil. Claudius does not know who they are; they do not know who they are. It may be easier to see on stage than read. Guil seems to question the purpose of life more than Ros. However, this distinguishing factor pretty much vanishes as the play continues.
This is also difficult to follow because the gratuitous amount of useless dialogue. I am not sure if it all means something, or only part is signifigant. At the beginning, Guil talks and questions, but nothing ever comes of this. I don't know what it means. Help!
When reading the story, I tried to make notes of certain charactoristics to tell them apart. Which one was "smart enough" to win the heads and tales game, which one seems more adventureous, etc. As the story went on though, I kind of figured out that... I couldn't. There's really no way to tell them apart at all. Can anyone find any differing charactoristics?
Ok so here's what I found/think. Taking notes helps! (which I don't have with me right now so I will add them later).
There is definitely the motif of identity/loss of identity. The other characters around Ros and Guil do confuse them a lot along with the two men themselves. There is so much confusion throughout the whole play. There are a lot of other motifs as well (like I said before). For example, the games/role playing, loss of identity, confusion, etc.
There are definitely some differences between the two men as well. Guil is the thinker. He tries to hold on to his identity (when at times he notices/feels that he is losing his own identity) and we can see that struggle at times. He also tries to think things through and figure out his purpose in life. He was the one who felt that it was wrong for The Player to make the actors into prostitutes. He was also the one who tries to figure out the reason behind why the coins were all landing heads. He was the one who questioned fate and probability. He is the more active between the two.
Ros, on the other side, seems to be more of a carefree character. He is distracted easily and when something attracts his attention, he doesn't notice much of anything else around him except that object. He was the one who just kept on picking up the coins and not once wondering why they all landed heads. Even though both men are followers and not leaders in society, Ros is even Guil's follower. He is the passive one.
Both men are exceptionally stupid and ignorant. It takes them a long time to figure the simplest of things or even to remember them. When Claudius and Gertrude tell them to find out what is wrong with Hamlet they also tell them the 'duh' factor. That Hamlet has just lost his father and might be angry at his uncle and mother for getting married so soon. However, once they are on their own, Ros and Guil have to go over this question of what's wrong with Hamlet a lot of times. They even have to role play (Ros acting as Guil and Guil acting as Ros). And even while they do that, they get confused. I mean what's the need for Ros to be Guil? Can't he just be Ros? The things that are obvious to 'normal' people are not so obvious for them. They are what we would call today: visual learners.
They also talk about death quite a few times. That obviously foreshadows their death in the near-future. Also, it shows that they're not completely out of touch with reality. They realize the fact that life has a limit. That they will die just like everything else around them. In fact, Ros is the one who usually brings this subject up- showing that he's still there! They also know that death is something that is feared and they fear it too. But at the same time they question that fear. Why do we die? What happens later? They do think. Just not when you'd expect them to.
Fatima, I disagree with your statement that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern suffer from a loss of identity, because in this story they never had identities to begin with. From the opening scene, neither character knows who he is and what his purpose is. All of their problems seem to stem from this lack of identity: they don't know where they are because they don't know where they come from, they have no memory of the past so they don't even remember what they are told to do, without a purpose, they cannot move forward and take on more active roles, the other characters can't tell them apart because they cannot tell themselves apart. Though the fact that they don't know who they are seems to bother Guildenstern more, it seems to fade away as the play goes on because we, ourselves, have trouble telling them apart.
Without identities, neither character can take on a more active role. They both remind me of Hamlet in their indecisiveness. Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do no know their purposes in life, they cannot make a decision about whether or not they should do anything. They hesitate whenever they are faced with a decision (whether or not they want to pay the Players for a show, whether or not to save Hamlet, etc.) but ultimately make no decision at all.
I found it very interesting that we never actually see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern travel. We first meet them playing the coin toss game at their home and they discuss whether or not they should go to Elsinore. After no indication to what decision they will make, we find them on the road to Elsinore, not actually traveling but having a conversation with the Players. After this interlude, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern find themselves in Elsinore, not realizing that they actually got there. And in the second act, they wake up on the boat with no memory of actually getting on it. This shows how humans are subject to the wills of nature and how, without making a decision, we can find ourselves in some utterly absurd situation.
Theresa, I'm going to attempt to try to answer your question about the excessive use of dialouge. I think Stoppard uses so much dialouge to show us that we spend so much time talking but we never really say anything worthwhile or anything that gives the world any more meaning. We don't use dialouge to create a meaning out of our lives. I also read that Stoppard believed that words are an inefficient mode of communication. Words do no let us effectively say what we really mean. That probably didn't help much...
I liked what Liz said about Roz and Guil's traveling. I think it really adds to their lack of identity and the absurdist idea as a whole. It doesn't matter where they are, simply because scenes don't matter.
I agree with Liz about the identity thing. I'm approaching this play with the assumption that each character has no defining characteristics. It's kinda like Rhinoceros. You might think that all the characters are different, but in the end, they all turn into rhinoceroses. This is why you see Ros and Guil switching roles so often.
Fatima, I think it's kind of unfair for you to call them "exceptionally stupid." I think it'd be better to label them as "emotionally detached." Essentially, they don't care. They try to convince themselves and others that they're trying to figure out what's wrong with Hamlet, but it doesn't really work because they're not into it.
We might've said this in class but I think the coin toss game tells us that we can make explanations for isolated events (a coin landing heads once isn't very remarkable) but once we zoom out to the big picture (a coin landing heads 50+ times is very unusual), it's impossible to provide an explanation. Likewise, it's impossible for us as human beings to explain life as a whole, but once we break it down into isolated and independent events, it's much easier to deal with.
Chew on that xP
Liz,I agree with you. I think I meant that. A better word to replace 'loss' would be 'lack'. It makes it better to understand that way.
Albert, they are stupid.
:)
Post a Comment