2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead follows two minor characters from Hamlet, hypothesizing about what happens when the two are not on stage. Throughout the play, the question of whether or not people have control over their own lives is explored. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are shown to have very little control over their fates, but it is also made clear that they are nothing more than characters in a work of literature. In contrast, the audience is made up of real people, all of whom have control over their own lives.
The central question of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is whether people control their own lives or are controlled by their fates. The titular characters are clear examples of the latter -- they have very little free will and are confined almost entirely to the roles they are destined to play. Even the title itself is evidence of this, as by the end of the play the two are indeed sent off to die. They spend most of the play utterly confused by their situation. The only times they know exactly what to say are when they have their lines from Hamlet, which they recite without thinking upon being drawn into a scene. The two are unable to escape their destinies; on one occasion, Rosencrantz considers fleeing by jumping off the side of the boat in which they are trapped but immediately talks himself out of it. When they ask the Player who makes decisions, he tells them that there are no decisions, as "it is written." Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are clear evidence of the idea that people's lives are controlled by a predestined fate.
However, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not real people, they are characters in a play. For them, everything is written. Each piece of dialogue has been decided on for them, so the two have no control over their fates. Stoppard makes it clear that the characters are not real people throughout the play by hinting at the fact that they may be aware of their status. For example, Guildenstern has a tendency to complain about the lack of action in the play as if he were a theater critic. Other characters directly acknowledge the presence of an audience, as Hamlet does when he spits off the stage. Events such as these make it clear to the audience that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not real people.
Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not real people, the events of the play are the opposite of what happens in real life. By showing that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are nothing more than characters, Stoppard creates a clear contrast with the audience. Everyone in the audience is a real live humanbeing rather than a name on a page, and as such each person is free to make their own decisions and control their life.
Hi Emma,
ReplyDeleteNice essay! For such an ambiguous piece your evidence was pretty concrete! You did really good job. Watch your diction, though, like when you say Ros and Guil demonstrate that "people have no control over their fate" but then explain that they aren't people, and people do have control. Call them "characters" instead of "people" if that's your argument. Just to avoid contradiction or confusion.
It also may have been cool to include instances in which they address the audience or refer to them, to reinforce the distinction.
Overall it's a really good essay! Your ability to write concisely about such an enigmatic piece is really impressive!!
Great job on this essay! You start off strong with a clear thesis, perfectly outlining your piece. Each of your points (that Ros and Guil can’t control their destinies, and that they are not real people) are clearly explained without adding a summary of the book into your essay. The one part that I felt was a bit weak was where you wrote about how Stoppard contrasts characters and real people, and how that’s why real people have free will. You mention this in the thesis and in the concluding paragraph, but not anywhere in between. You do write in your second body paragraph that Ros and Guil are not real people, but I think you need to emphasize and explain more how this means that real people have free will. Your concluding paragraph shouldn’t bring in information that has not yet been explained. I still think this is an amazing essay though, and, like Mary said, you do a great job explaining such a confusing aspect of this play.
ReplyDelete