Reasons - a fan fic (yes, I'm going there)

Reasons - This is a cute little slash fic that is fairly well written.  The author has a good sense of the characters and doesn't feel the need to pad out the story with cutesy references. Though its two chapters, this is a short quick read.  It brought a smile to my face and isn't particularly graphic.
I think a non-slasher would enjoy the story for its little character moments, though the harder core slasher might gulp a bit at the teaser ending.

Favorite lines: For just a moment, Rosencrantz became the giggly child again. Guildenstern cast his mind about for a weighty matter to pull Rosencrantz out of it. "Can you swim?" he asked as they left the room.

We Haven’t Got There Yet (a story by Harry Turtledove)

We Haven't Got There Yet is not a work of fan fiction.  At least not in the sense of it using the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to create a new story about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  Its clear, however this work is written with some love to both Hamlet, Shakespeare, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and Stoppard. The concept is great: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is performed before an Elizabethan audience (Shakespeare included) by actors that have somehow been sent back in time.  Give me a moment here.... BWAHAHAHHA. Okay.
Because I like them here are some sketches from the image at the top of the story, one of them is radically different and in some ways I like it more... but its a less comprehensible image than the final one.
I think the idea behind this story is great - and while the story has a lot of fun tidbits to chew on (like nutmeats at a play) the back and forth of describing several bits of Stoppards play does get tiresome. And I did throughly enjoy Shakespeare's breakthrough when he finally realized what the play was really about. I'm not going to complain too much about a free story, particularly one by a legitimately published author.
Realistically, I don't think an Elizabethan audience (or Shakespeare) would be receptive to the style of R&G are Dead or modern style acting, but the conceit is too cute to complain about. My main complaint is that I don't care for how the actors were portrayed backstage.  I would think they would at least try to speak more formally to fit in their surroundings.
A cute little story for Shakespeare and Stoppard fans both. My favorite part is that (being the legitimate author he is) he actually got permission to use parts of Stoppards play in the story.  Awesome.

Stoppard didn't write the first well-known Rosencrantz and Guildenstern play...

 The first Rosencrantz and Guildenstern play was Rosencrantz and Guildenstern by W.S. Gilbert. If you want to check it out yourself before reading on check out this site by a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. I'll still be here when you're done.

Its a pretty clever skewering of the parts of Hamlet that have bothered all of us who have thought about Hamlet more than anyone should, and it is even more than a bit meta, mentioning Hamlet's "constantly changing appearance" and the fact that he dresses more like an Elizabethan than an 10th Century Dane. It makes fun of that awful play within a play (the only productions I've seen where the play within a play is even watchable are the ones where its played for laughs... really, would you even want to see more of it?) and Hamlets famous advice to the players.  Its even a bit ahead of its time in showing up Hamlet as the first emo kid, who might talk a good game about death and suicide, but when really faced with it screams like a girl and hides.

But enough about Hamlet, lets get to the characters we really care about: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

It amuses me that Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan chose to write a piece about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Because if there's any name that sounds strange without the "and" more than Rosencrantz, its Gilbert. The timeline of when this play was written is a bit confused on the site I'm using as a source (one article say 1874 which would have been at the beginning of Gilbert and Sullivan's famous partnership, another say 1884 which would have been in the middle of many works they were doing together), but it would be even funnier if Gilbert had some awareness of the irony - of the fact that he too will mainly be known as an "and". If he had done it before their partnership maybe he cursed himself.


Gilbert does us the great favor of telling us that they are known to the court because they are related to Polonius.  Now, I'm not sure if Gilbert forgot that Polonius was Ophelia's father (its possible, but unlikely - cousin loving was common in this time period) but I'd like to take a moment to go eeeewwwwww. If you didn't read the play, go back and read it (like I told you to in the beginning) and you'll see why.  For some reason there seems to be a tendency to make Rosencrantz the one who has a thing for Ophelia (there is a somewhat bad sequel to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Better Next Time where Rosencrantz develops a romanticish relationship with Ophelia - I have no reason to believe that author is familiar with Gilbert's play).

So the main romantic plot that drives this play is an attempt to get Hamlet out of the way so that Rosencrantz can have some cousin loving. Fair enough, though to get rid of your crown prince and risk death or exile for a girl who you last met as a baby seems more than a little silly.  I think its hilarious that P.G. Wodehouse played Guildenstern in an amateur production, especially considering how often he used  "I'll move heaven and earth to be married to this girl I had just one conversation with" as a plot point.  Anyway, its intended to be a vaudeville/burlesque style piece so any actual consequences shouldn't be considered too closely.  That doesn't stop it from bothering me, but I'm a dick about things like that.

I guess the first thought that comes to mind is, "Poor Guildenstern." He gets put onto the sidelines all by himself in this one.  He's  the one who suggests that they put on a play that could get them all put to death just for mentioning. That's something that has some really sucky consequences to help a situation he has nothing to do with. When the queen tells them to stop Hamlet from soliloquizing, Rosencrantz turns to him and says "Now, Guildenstern, apply thee to this task." I cannot figure out why that line is there.  Its not finishing a rhyme - maybe it completes the rhythm in some manner? Is Rosencrantz trying to avoid dealing with his rival? But he's the first to speak. In the end, Rosencrantz gets his cousin and what does Guildenstern get? Nothing, even though he came up with the main idea that enables Rosencrantz and Ophelia to be together.  Even though, he's the one who gets Hamlet's attention on the play in question.  He doesn't even have lines in the last tableau.  Bros before hos, Rosencrantz.

Just reading this, there is little question in my mind that Stoppard had at least passing knowledge of this play. The riddling play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have when they tear apart Hamlet's "To be or not to be" should remove any nagging doubts, and the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was originally Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Meet King Lear a one act in iambic pentameter... well.... Stoppard knew this play. There's probably some interview or something where he says something about it explicitly that someones going to point out to me like I'm an idiot, but I'll go by my judgement in the meantime.

The night that changed my life.

I still remember the night I saw Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It was eleven years ago last November.... November 27th, I think... I always have been bad with dates. I had just read it for school. Read it during my lunch break, actually. I thought it was cute... I got the impression that the Players sort of sucked them into the text of Hamlet... almost as if they needed them for the roles.
My mom was reading the entertainment section out loud to me (she often did) and just happened to mention that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was playing at the nearby theater. I agreed to go, imagining telling my teacher that I not only read but saw the play assigned for that weekend.... I was such a little suckup... or show-off. Maybe both.
I looked at the back of the paper, where they had a picture of the actors in costume -- I thought they looked horribly made up in poorly created costumes. Both actors were, but my judgement "ugly". The one playing Guildenstern had a funny look on his face.
We got lost on the way there and had to ask for directions from a student for where the theater was. Luckily we left early. And got seats right in the front row. The way this theater was arranged, the front row was floor level with the stage. The actors were directly in front of me. Luckily neither were as ugly as photographed. But the Moment was the unicorn speech. I remember, the actor playing Guildenstern stood in front of me... and I realized that he didn't know what he was saying meant. But he was saying it because it was beautiful and he recognized that much. And I recognized that much too. And I might never fully understand it, but I wanted to be the kind of person who made that sort of beauty. The kind of person who writes words that other people drop out of their mouths like coins. Coins that all land on heads.
I realized then that I wanted to remember every moment of this, that this was special. It was the ending that got me.
I cried all the way home. I cried all night. I cried the next day. I wanted to see it again the next day, but I was a new driver and I was scared I would get lost. Remember, this was before cell phones were in common use. I did get to see it again the day after that.
Those performances have stayed with me for eleven years. Wow, that's a long time. For eleven years I have been obsessed with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The Play, not the movie. Though the movie is nice. Very pretty...
When I went to class, no one in class understood the play. One girl couldn't figure out if they were "supposed to be talking to the king in the forest or what".
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have more than become a part of my personal mythology, they have become the cornerstones of it, right up there with the Chronicles of Narnia and DH Lawrence.
What I write, when I write Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will not be fan fiction. It is as an art of its own as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, or at the very least as WS Gilbert's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Not as much as Hamlet, though... that would be awesome.

Why are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet?

That's the question, I suppose. Hamlet has been performed with them completely removed, and supposedly "no one knew the difference".
I'm an English Lit major, and I was told that everything in a great work of literature is there for a reason. I've read authors write about writing and written myself since then, and now I suspect that's bullshit. You write what works and sometimes, by chance, something beautiful and symmetrical comes of it. Of course, I'm a hack and terrible writer, and they could have lied. I suspect the answer is probably in-between... great works of literature work because there is so much to find in them, but it wasn't necessarily put there by design...
So, maybe there is a bit of that English Lit major in the question: Why did Shakespeare feel it necessary to create Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Were they just just a knife and fork to feed Hamlet his lines?
The answer might depend on the interpretation of Hamlet's relationship with them you (or the version of Hamlet you see) choose. In AP English class I was told they were aquaintances, sort of like kids Hamlet was in the same class in school with. I saw and see no textual evidence for that. Nor do I see any textual evidence that they were even necessarily going to Wittenburg with Hamlet (though I might be misremembering). Based on what the king and queen say to them, I'd say their parents were probably favorites of the old king Hamlet. They were brought up at court together, playing together as children often do with others of the same age who happen to be around. Not best friends, but not just "in the same class".
There are varying readings of his initial greeting of them as well... some seeing genuine affection in the greeting, other seeing him treating them like shit from the get-go. Its a tossup really, but for the sake of argument, lets say Hamlet is genuine with them until he gets suspicious.

Now lets back up for a moment. Think of how he treats Ophelia. I recently read a criticism that suggested that his ill-treatment of Ophelia was triggered by his anger at his mother. We don't really believe that Ophelia is a gussied up trollop, do we? He was angry at his mother and by extension all women... Staying with me here?
Why was he angry? He was a being a bitch to be around before he saw his fathers ghost, and the feelings he expresses are echoed in his madness (pretended or real). His father died and life went on. His mother remarried, and the people accepted a new king. A double blow.
Both should have shown more resistance by Hamlet's estimation.

And now, his childhood friends, whose fathers were his beloved father's favorites are being toadies to the new king. As if nothing was wrong. Just as they were his friends because their affinity to his father, now they are his enemies because of their affinity to his uncle. And as far as Hamlet is concerned, they deserve what they get because they should have chosen their king more carefully. Just as his mother should have chosen her new husband more carefully.
Nevermind that they didn't personally choose him, they are obviously taking his side. Just like Ophelia.

In case I'm not being clear (and I might not be, I'm getting myself riled up), I'm suggesting that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are to the courtiers/people as a whole, as Ophelia is to womankind as a whole in Hamlet's eyes. That his actions towards Ophelia and RosnGuil are parallel of the same kind of anger that his uncle was accepted as a substitute for the great man that the old King Hamlet was.

How dare she? How dare they? He can't whip himself into a frenzy at his mother, so he does to Ophelia. He can't berate the court as a whole, but he can his friends.

Not a perfect theory, but its one I've never read anyone else postulate... though I'm sure someone somewhere has put it much more eloquently, with neat little footnotes and citations.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are stoners (thats okay, Shakespeare got down)

From the Observer (UK):

No lighting up - but Class A drugs are OK Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are coke heads - thanks to the city's unbendable ban on smoking
Lorna Martin, Scotland editor
Sunday August 13, 2006

The director of a Fringe play has turned one of its famous characters into a cocaine addict because Scotland's smoking ban prevents him lighting up on stage. Ben Waring, director of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, said the play had to be 'modernised' because smoking was a key characteristic of one of its lead roles.
Critics of Scotland's smoking ban have said it is suppressing artistic freedom and spoiling some productions in which smoking is an integral part.
In Waring's version of the Tom Stoppard play, one of the main characters, Rosencrantz, will now be snorting the Class A drug to explain his erratic behaviour, previously put down to his persistent habit of smoking cannabis.
The move comes after a series of high-profile actors and directors have threatened to ignore the ban on smoking in public places. Last week, council officials threatened to shut down the Assembly Rooms if actor Mel Smith, playing Winston Churchill in Allegiance, lit up one of his character's famous cigars on stage.
Smith, who is a cigar-smoker off-stage, criticised the law saying: 'It would have delighted Adolf Hitler. Congratulations, Scotland.'
Waring, whose production is being staged at C Venues, said it was disappointing that the original version had to be changed. He said: 'The scene is a speech which contemplates what death would be like. Rosencrantz rambles on about this as his mind wanders and Guildenstern has to keep stopping him.
'For this performance we modernised the play, just as Hamlet has been modified many times. We basically thought that Rosencrantz's behaviour was very much like the behaviour of a stoner, so when we performed the play in England we had Rosencrantz smoking a joint.'
For the Edinburgh Fringe performance, it has been turned into a 'coke-addled rant'.
Waring said that, although it was a small part of the play, it was disappointing that it had to be changed. 'It is the loss of liberty that is the most disappointing part.' He has, however, inserted a joke into the play about the ban.
Rosencrantz attempts to roll a joint, but is told by Guildenstern that smoking is banned. Rosencrantz's response is to throw down the joint he has just rolled in disgust.
He picks up his powder box and delivers the same speech as a cocaine-induced rant.
The independent MSP Brian Monteith has said the ban was making Scotland the laughing stock of the artistic community.
He said: 'The purpose of the smoking ban, particularly as it affects stage plays, is not based on any measurable health risk but it seeks to de-normalise and ostracise smokers. 'All this does is make Scotland less free than North Korea or Cuba, and it makes us the laughing stock of the artistic community.'

You know, I can really see it. I always thought that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were prime stoner material -- no short term memory, easily confused, randomly philosophical. I can even see making Rosencrantz specifically a stoner. I have to admit that the mental image of Rosencrantz rolling a joint before delivering the "Life in a Box" speech is quite amusing.
But, at the same time, modernizing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead seems to kind of be missing the point. I'm not saying it couldn't work -- Guildenstern's lame attempts to impress the Player with Shakespearian language would probably be even funnier in modern dress.
At the same time... I don't know. A lot of the poignancy and humor is in the dissonance between their overstarched Elizabethan dress and their modern/casual manner of speaking.
Its odd, how the play so often has lines added to it. I know it happens in performance, particularly a play thats been around so long. But Stoppard is so infamously picky... I mean, in the performance edition he fucking BRACKETS cuts of his own choosing.
Maybe he doesn't care anymore, it has been over 35 years.
I just love how many weird versions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead there are. I'd have to re-find the links -- but there was one where Claudius was played by an Elvis impersonator, Gertrude by a Marilyn Monroe (don't remember who Hamlet was) on a multilevel stage that was open so that you could see them getting dressed and madeup to go onstage again during the action of the play. There was one that was in a moving stage, where you walked with the characters from area to area (not really clear on how that worked).
My favorite was a cross-version with a weird Hamlet interpretation. The Hamlet version was based on Alice in Wonderland, with Hamlet as the Mad Hatter, Ophelia as Alice, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum... Maybe Horatio was the March Hare or something... I don't know. And there was a huge red box in the middle of the stage for no apparant reason. And they made a cross Rosencrantz and Guildenstern version with the same actors costumes and sets. Hamlet was the only holdout. In cross version, Hamlet always seems to be the holdout. Asshole.
Well, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern didn't wear the Tweedle dee and dum costumes, but everything else was the same. And somehow, that makes it much better. I would love to have seen that version.
And there was one version (maybe the same as the one above, I get hazy sometimes) where the players came out of a clown car.
Man, I would love to have a tape of a performance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead -- its always so fun to see the different interpretations. I've seen it three times and each version was different. Its wonderful.

Stick Figure Hamlet

Stick Figure Hamlet is a wonderful web comic. At first, I thought it was going to be sort of a joke. But its actually the text of Hamlet in webcomic form with (surprise surprise) stick figures.
As near as I can tell, it sticks pretty strongly to what most of us would consider the complete text of Hamlet. In fact, the format makes some things that I wasn't too clear on make more sense, leaving in political aspects usually cut out of productions (for time and audience interest).
I do have a few problems. For example, Claudius and Laertes are always drawn looking angry. I guess when you're drawing stick figures you have to show as many differences as possible, but I think they'd be easy enough to tell from the other characters without looking constantly ::evil::.
Claudius in particular bothers me, because it always makes me (mentally) read his words in an angry tone, and I've always preferred the "pleasant Claudius" interpretation. Hamlet does say you can "smile and smile and still be a villain." and supposedly that's in reference to current king. I always sort of thought that Claudius should seem like a nice guy, "I sure wouldn't mind him being my king"-- you know, even though he's a murderer.
I don't care for the Queen's constant docility of expression, but it does match up with Hamlet's disgust with her. Maybe she is supposed to be the one who "smiles and smiles" and is still a villain.
Of course, when I first came onto the site, I immediately went to Act II Scene ii to see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's entrance... and he had them flipping coins. ::loves:: I'd have to pull up a copy of Hamlet to be sure, but I think he mixes up their lines (ie, who says what). I'm assuming if he did, it was on purpose... like he doesn't know which is supposed to be which. And I have to give him props for making them look like Bert and Ernie, because Bert and Ernie are the bomb.
There are many small moments of humor in the comic (as there are in any good production of Hamlet), and he usually does a pretty good job at spacing and blocking each page so that it ends on a humorous or important note.
This comic seems pretty well geared towards the person who enjoys Shakespeare and is familiar with Hamlet, but I think there is probably some enjoyment to be found for those who find Shakespeare dense and incomprehensible. It is much easier to comprehend Hamlet in highly visual bite sized pieces.
While I do have a few small problems with it, I can't wait until its done -- its such a fun read! (but I'm a literary nerd, for what that matters)