Talk:Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Theatre Portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I hate to be nitpicky, but the title is with an "&". I'm looking at my copy of the play right now, and every page where the title is used is with an "&". I don't think naming conventions on Wikipedia (if that's the problem) apply when it's actually in the title. PS: The movie title however, is indeed with an "and", but this article concerns the play.

-Yossarian

I have no opinion on which is the correct way of rendering the title - I do, however, request that any future attempts to rename the article be executed using the "Move this page" function provided (see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page), and not by manually copying the text of the article as at least one person recently did. --Paul A 08:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay...Xinoph...I don't know what the deal is...but...whoa. You were asked not to move pages in the fashion you did. I have no clue what's going on...so: don't do it again. Listen to Paul A. If you have a problem, leave it on the talk. I've moved the page back in the mean time. (BTW: what's with this "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead And So Am I" page? Seriously.)

-Yossarian

Just as a historical footnote: I think the reason the article was originally at "and" rather than "&" is because in older versions of the software it wasn't possible to have ampersands in article titles. --Camembert 01:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a version of the play (faber and faber 2000) that uses "and", not an ampersand, and I've never seen it written with an ampersand except on Wikipedia.

You know the game of questions they play, scored in the tennis system? Is this a real game? I used to play it with friends in school, but we got the idea from the movie. We called it "Questions". I could not find an entry in Wikipedia. --Chinawhitecotton 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the first origins of the game, which is indeed called "Questions", were, but I know it's commonly played by improvisational actors (like the games on the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway?), so it probably predates the play. Improv groups play it for fun, to practice thinking on their feet, and sometimes for an audience. Some actually do keep score like in the play and movie (but even then it's mostly just for fun). Using the tennis scoring system was most likely Stoppard's idea, though. --Sommers 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I too know of the game, I know of guys at Hewlett-Packard in Colorado who played it after the movie was released. They called it "Volleying" back then from what I remember, but as far as it's origin it always seems to come back to this delightful movie.--66.203.229.166 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existentialism? I think not

This article claims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead displays existentialism. If anything, I think this play would be the very opposite of existentialism. According to Dictionary.com, existentialism is, "A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts." In this play, Ros and Guil accept no responsibility for thier actions and see no point in making any choices, as they see thier fate as predetermined. They do not think of the consequences (of their actions) as a factor of thier existence. A play cannot be both deterministic and existentialist. (Anon, 69.105.80.9)

I agree. Leibniz 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, the play is strongly associated with existentialism: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22rosencrantz+and+guildenstern%22+existentialism Robin Johnson 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that it is associated with absurdism, which is related to, but distinct from, existentialism. This is discussed in the link in the article to the lecture by the Canadian professor. A google search is pretty silly to demonstrate something like that. Find actual quotes that call the play existentialist. john k 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be wikipedia without an irrelevant video game reference at the bottom of the page.

Get rid of it!--Genobeeno 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Done --Yossarian 07:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Same about the uncited Anime TV Series reference...195.195.78.21 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "contamination"

I learned from my english teacher, whom I trust, that the term for literature which includes wholesale text from its parent literature is called--without POV--a "contamination." It also had another italian term, something like "contaminatio." Unfortunately I can't find it in any dictionary. Can anyone verify this term? Citizen Premier 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's smarter?

At times one appears to be more enlightened than the other; however this position is traded-off throughout the course of the drama.

My recollection (and it's definitely been a while) is that Guildenstern is pretty consistently the smarter one. Can anyone comment? john k 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Guildenstern seemed more serious and apt to get frustrated by Rosencrantz' playfulness, but that doesn't mean he was smarter. Citizen Premier 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Having reread the play, Guildenstern's monologues are far more frequent and philosophical than Rosencrantz's, and Rosencrantz behaves like a lost child more often than not, whilst Guildenstern comforts him. Guildenstern is the one reasoning things out; Rosencrantz is just watching and making comments - as Guil says, "Why don't you say something original! No wonder the whole thing is so stagnant! You don't take me up on anything - you just repeat it in a different order", to which Ros replies "I can't think of anything original. I'm only good in support".

Yes, exactly. Certainly the idea that one is more enlightened is "traded off" seems insupportable - Guildenstern always seems more enlightened than Rosencrantz, or else they seem equally unenlightened. john k 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

The article is essentially unreferenced. The play itself is a perfectly good citation for the plot but really the claims about themes ought to come from somewhere other than Wikipedians' own views. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag & Blink are Dead

Just a quick thought, the Dark Horse Comics series Tag and Blink are Dead play obvius homage to this story, as the series focuses on two random background characters in the original Star Wars trilogy. As a side note, that series might take its name from the Blink tag in HTML code which, according to that article, is figuratively dead... - Kevingarcia 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User box

has anyone created a userbox for fans of the play? Myrockstar 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warnings

I don't think this warning is necessary. Reasons for removal comprise in part:

• its ugliness
• the way it skews the article. The lead should mention that the title is from the play, that the Stoppard play takes place in the interstices of the Shakespeare play, and that the ending (mentioned in the title) is a foregone conclusion because it is reported in Hamlet.
• its redundancy. As placed in the article the tag simply follows a section clearly labelled "Synopsis".

I've removed it and this removal has been reverted. I think it should be removed permanently. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for children who don't want to how their favorite cartoon hero escapes a cliff-hanger ending. Readers read articles about a play because they want to know about a play, so they don't need to be warned that they might learn something by reading the article--it's the whole point of reading it. --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed more usefully at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, there's no need to bring it up case-by-case. But easy on the "children's favorite cartoon hero" straw man, there. --McGeddon 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it here because this is a particularly egregious case. The whole article is skewed by the confinement of all discussion of plot to the section behind the scary sign. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern die in Hamlet and they die in this, it's no secret because Stoppard actually decided to put it in a prominent enough place to ensure that this is well known by anyone walking within a hundred yards of the theater.

No straw men here. We don't need to bow and scrape and apologise for presenting information the reader didn't know. That's the whole point of having an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a site with spoilers is "for children who don't want to how their favorite cartoon hero escapes a cliff-hanger ending" is what's known as straw manning - presenting an exaggeratedly weakened version of your opponent's point of view, to make it easier to demolish.

I agree that spoilers are fairly redundant for this article - the synopsis doesn't even mention the characters' deaths, and the plot elements it does give away are trivial - but "if they're said to die in Hamlet then they must actually die in this play, titles of works are always literal, and spoilers are for kids" is a rather incoherent argument to be making. --McGeddon 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Sure they die, but how do they die? Same as in Hamlet or will Mr Stoppard introduce some surprises? This question, I would venture to say, is what makes the play interesting. Spoiler tag is just a polite way of saying 'this is a full synopsis so don't accidentally read on until the end if you don't want to know what Mr Stoppard does with the conclusion'. It is utterly harmless. If you think it's ugly, edit the template to make it prettier.Cop 633 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People come to this site because they want to find out about the subject. Preceding parts of the article with a warning that says, in effect, "beware, you might actually learn something here" is at best fatuous.

However notice how it skews the entire article. We don't have anything in the lead saying that the play takes place in the interstices of Hamlet, because that would give the game away. Well this is an encyclopedia and we jolly well should give the game away and we shouldn't be apologetic about it. If the reader is stupid enoug to assume that an encyclopedia doesn't fully discuss a subject, he'll soon learn that he was wrong. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is crap. Almost all articles on theatre in Wikipedia are crap. Why don't you write the article exactly the way you'd like it to be, with the lead exactly the way you want it to be. Then, when you've finished, let me know, and then I'll see if I agree with you that a spoiler tag would destroy all your work. At the moment we're just talking hypothetically, so it's hard for me to judge. Cop 633 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the sound of tumbleweed when a Wikipedian is requested to actually improve an article and make it better... Cop 633 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very, very nasty and cheap trick. I return to this discussion after a day or two and find myself falsely accused of being unwilling to improve Wikipedia. Shame on you. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I have no idea what came over me there. I'm really sorry. Absolutely nothing to do with you and everything to do with me being in a foul mood. Please accept my sincere apologies. Cop 633 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say the Synopsis is very well written. And I don't think a spoiler warning is necessary. The play is called "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead". The very title gives the ending away! -TolkienGeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienGeek (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of "Questions"

Should the page include the rules for the game? The page says it's "nearly impossible to follow logically" but that's just not true, it's easy to follow.76.201.154.220 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead as the result of a move request.

[edit] cover picture size

I can't get the play's cover to shrink to a more normal size; the infobox just isn't accepting my changes. Can someone else help?—ScouterSig 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)