The first part of this term paper is devoted to structural features of Stoppard’s play like the composition and combination of the plot, the coin metaphor (which is paradigmatic for the structure of “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”) the reciprocal relationship between the audience and the play and the use of metadramatical elements. The main emphasis of the second part is put on the adaptation and inversion of the play’s dramatic predecessors “Hamlet” and “Waiting for Godot”. Furthermore, the different perspectives unfolded shall be compared, contrasted and examined as regards content.
A new form of art can only emerge from an investigation of the old, cultural possessions. Precisely this argument is dramatized in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" by means of comparing different models which try to introduce system and sense into the world, while none of them can claim to be of a general validity. The contradictions that have developed from man’s existential need to understand and adopt a structured world-view must be left standing side by side – a central perspective to dissolve them is not available since every stance is system-immanent and thus relative.
The concept of intertextuality implies the awareness that our ways of thinking and possible writing styles are always and inevitably shaped by the cultural conventions they stem from and also by the medium and the sign structures one has to make use of for the sake of articulation. The author does no longer pretend to be the original creator of an art work because he is well aware that he himself is a “cultural product” and that he has to make use of the literary repertoire, traditional stylistic devices, ideologies and conventions. Nevertheless, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" is neither an obvious intertextual assembly of quotations, a simple patchwork, nor is Stoppard a “theatrical parasite”.
Stoppard’s play evades the traditional genre typology. Because of its midway position between tragedy and comedy, parody and pastiche the play is conservative in taking over whole sequences of Hamlet literally and at the same time revolutionary because the distance towards the previous literary models serves to embed ancient moral concepts and thought into an ironic, postmodern context.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The structure of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead
1) The melting plot
2) The symbol of the coin as a structural metaphor
3) The ambiguous play with the audience
4) Metadramatic elements in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
III. A clash of perspectives: Contradictory world-views in conflict
1) Transformation and affirmation of the Hamlet plot
2) Adaptation and inversion of “Waiting for Godot”
a) Affinities in the characterisation of Ros and Guil to Beckett’s tramps
b) Differences in the dramatic conception of Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead
3) The postmodern attitude of the Player
IV. Final comment
Research Objectives and Themes
This academic paper examines the structural and thematic intersections of Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," specifically analyzing how the play synthesizes elements of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" to explore postmodern existential themes, the nature of reality versus illusion, and the role of the individual within a predetermined narrative.
- Analysis of dramatic structural devices, including the use of coin metaphors and metadrama.
- Examination of intertextual relationships between "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" and its canonical predecessors.
- Deconstruction of the clash between classical tragic worldviews and absurdist existential perspectives.
- Investigation of the "Player" as a mediator between reality, fiction, and the audience.
- Exploration of how the play reflects upon the limitations of human agency and the inevitability of death.
Excerpt from the Book
2) The symbol of the coin as a structural metaphor
The coin tossing is a repeated leitmotif of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and serves as the opening scene of the drama. The impossible run of heads (all in all, if one also counts the continuation of the coin tossing included in the bet against the Player, the coin comes down heads uppermost one-hundred and one consecutive times) has the signalling function to make Ros and Guil aware of the fact that they are about to enter a fictional world in which rules of probability are not valid. What is more important about the coin metaphor is that it can be interpreted to illustrate the counterpointing structure of the play. The form of a coin depicts a paradox: there are always two apparently distinct sides of one and the same thing that are nevertheless bound together. A coin can be seen as a binary object illustrating the dichotomy of two different values, but at the same time those values are identical because they add up to one and the same principle. Both sides can only be defined by means of their opposite, they are strongly interdependent and none of the two positions exists without the other.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: The introduction outlines the play's unique position between tragedy and comedy, defining its postmodern approach to literary inheritance and the intertextual use of Hamlet and the absurdist Godot model.
II. The structure of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead: This chapter analyzes how Stoppard merges dramatic models to form a new plot, explores the coin as a metaphor for binary contradictions, discusses the role of the audience, and defines metadramatic elements.
III. A clash of perspectives: Contradictory world-views in conflict: This section details the transformation of the Hamlet plot, compares the characters to Beckett’s tramps, and examines the Player's role as a moral and ethical relativist within the narrative.
IV. Final comment: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that while the play raises existential questions without providing definitive answers, it challenges the audience to seek personal freedom within the constructs of their own existence.
Keywords
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Tom Stoppard, Hamlet, Waiting for Godot, Intertextuality, Metadrama, Postmodernism, Theatre of the Absurd, Existentialism, Coin Metaphor, Illusion and Reality, Player, Literary Adaptation, Dramatic Structure, Human Agency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural, thematic, and metadramatic elements in Tom Stoppard's play, focusing on its synthesis of Shakespearean and Absurdist models.
What are the central themes explored?
The central themes include the fluidity between reality and fiction, the search for meaning in an absurd universe, the inevitability of fate versus the illusion of free will, and the function of theatre.
What is the research goal?
The objective is to explain how Stoppard utilizes "Hamlet" and "Waiting for Godot" as foundational models to construct a postmodern commentary on existence and the nature of the medium of theatre.
What methodology is applied?
The paper employs a literary-analytical approach, using comparative study to contrast Stoppard's source material with his original text, supported by research in drama theory and postmodern criticism.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main sections cover the construction of the "melting plot," the symbolic function of the coin, the analysis of metadramatic elements, and a detailed comparison of characters and worldviews.
Which keywords best describe the study?
Key terms include Metadrama, Postmodernism, Intertextuality, Absurdism, Stoppard, Hamlet, Godot, and Existentialism.
Why is the "pipe scene" mentioned in the analysis?
The pipe scene is analyzed because its transformation and repositioning in the play demonstrate Stoppard's specific strategy of adapting Shakespearean elements to fit the absurdist rhythm of his own work.
How does the Player function as a character?
The Player serves as an epic mediator, a self-conscious representative of fiction who reflects on the nature of theatre and embodies an ethical relativism that contrasts with the confusion of the protagonists.
- Quote paper
- Agnes Pfaff (Author), 2016, A structural clash of perspectives. Irreconcilable contradictions in Tom Stoppard's drama "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/323861
