Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard is our July 2025 Short Story/Novella Read.

This discussion will open on July 1

Beware Short Story Discussions will have Spoilers

Wikipedia: "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is an absurdist, existential tragicomedy by Tom Stoppard, first staged at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1966."

I understand I am not supposed to understand all the details, but.....

What is the point of the repeated religious stories? Are they jokes?

Christians chanced to meet in Heaven. "Saul of Tarsus
yet!" cried one. "What are you doing here?!" ...
''Tarsus-Schmarsus," replied the other, "I'm Paul already."
(He stands up restlessly and flaps his arms.)

Finished.

I am not sure I understood very much. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems kind of dumb and confused, but most of the time they do not speak in a dumb way. For instance they use far too many long works, and sees things abstractly, like “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”, but no actual bridges are involved.

There are some really interesting thoughts: “Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one, a moment, in childhood when it first occurred to you that you don't go on for ever. It must have been shattering-stamped into one's memory. And yet I can't remember it.” That is a really good question. Never though about that before.

Here is a bit from wikipedia that helped my understanding:

“The play is structured as the inverse of Hamlet, in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two minor characters who were childhood friends of the Prince; instead, the duo remains the focus and Hamlet himself is a minor role whose actions occur largely offstage, with the exception of a few short scenes in which the dramatic plays converge.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead explores these events from the perspective of the duo; their actions seem largely nonsensical because they are superseded and, therefore, determined by Hamlet's plot. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencr...

I watched the play made into a movie. It was absurd fun. I watched it with a friend who also had a literary relationship with Shakespeare which made it very. . . . I wish I had time to reread and rewatch.

I felt like this one was a good one to reread certain parts and be well versed with Hamlet and Shakespeare. Still, I felt like some things went over my head but maybe I'll go back and take a look (and I've read Hamlet so many times too). So I can see how it is confusing.

I agree Cynda, that the film added a lot to the play. It gave a lot of visuals to the play as well and made it easier to understand. Very absurdist I agree.

I remember watching the movie many years ago and not getting most of it. Reading the play helped me understand more of what was happening, and I laughed out loud quite a few times

The word play was initially amusing, but soon became tedious. When the other characters appeared, I hoped it would get better, but I got confused. In the end I gave up with it.

It has a strong flavour of Waiting For Godot, so it is good to see some influence of Beckett.

Prior to reading this book, I decided to read Hamlet. I'm glad I did since I was then able to put this particular story in the right context.