Rating: 
Summary: Excellent! Read it today!
Review: This was a masterpiece. It was intelligent, witty and compact. I watched the R & G are dead movie because I happened to be studying Hamlet for my GCE A level exams, and I enjoyed it tremendously. However, I knew that there were a lot great lines I missed out by the sheer fact that I was just watching the movie and hence decided to read the play for myself. It is a fabously interesting and absurd play about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who have very minor roles in Hamlet. They constantly have their identities mixed up with each other and sometimes as a reader you tend to forget yourself who is who. But that brings out the theories of existentialism and relativity. A lot of word play and interesting rhetoric (check out the game of Questions in the play! ) is used, but in no way does it slow down the pace. I feel the greatest thing about the book is the use of language and the rhetorical statemtents and absurd things said that ironically make sense. Read the book! It is inspiring and brilliant. I've read Waiting for Godot and I think this book is infinitely more engaging and funny. Its less serious and the lightheartedness of it all makes the reading experience all the better.
Rating:
Summary: Reading It Is Even Better Than Seeing It
Review: Many who have a glancing familiarity with this work (say having tuned into it on Cable TV) might wonder why one would want to read this play. Here's the answer: The brain somewhat tires of the conundrums that are placed before it during the first two thirds, so it's hard to capture all the fierce eloquence of the final third in one sitting. But, boy, does that ever come across in living color when you read it. You can actually stare at a line for awhile and savor it and not miss the next ten lines in the process. There is a lot to like in this play, and much of it is Beyond Clever. Also, this is one book you will read more than once, even if you don't routinely do that with your books. Which makes the purchase of this book a splendid value.
Rating:
Summary: It takes a certain outlook
Review: A previous reviewer condemned this book as being derivative, poorly written, and -- most scandalous of all -- unfunny. This play, however, takes a certain kind of outlook to enjoy. It would be nice if everyone could get the same benefits from the play as everyone else. That's not going to happen, however. One thing we CAN depend on is that the point remains the same. This is the only existentialist play apart from _Waiting For Godot_ that even has pretensions of wit. Since it's a known fact that people learn more when they're laughing, it makes it easier to convey the play's inner message of whether we are free as individuals, whether we are capable of making our own decisions apart from our society, and whether that freedom even matters once a decision has been made by (for?) us. Worth reading, but not everyone will be equally entertained.
Rating:
Summary: A witty forey into litterary Theory incarnate
Review: Seeing the recent trend in philosophical reflection towards litterary theory, nothing tops Stoppard's witty examination of the nature of narrative and characterization through a parody of not only "Hamlet", but philosophy and litterary theory itself. Gloriously executed!
Rating:
Summary: the joy of words
Review: This book showed me how amazingly infatuated I am with words. other than the brilliance of the writing, the philosophy, the references to hamlet -- it is the way Stoppard crafts sentences, phrases, the way he can make literature delicious. A very tasty read.
Rating: 
Summary: Dreadful. An attempt at intelligent playwriting, gone wrong
Review: This play was designed to show a lighter side to Hamlet. The idea of using familiar characters is not exactly original and Stoppard fails in all attempts at humour. The play is muddled and seemingly without direction. This may be an illusion created by Stoppard but it seems to me to show a lack of certainty as to what to do next.
Rating:
Summary: The most hillarious angle on Shakespeare...upside-down!
Review: Take a great Shakespeare tragedy, add Tom Stoppard, throw everything on it's head, and you have Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. Built into the world of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Stoppard's story of two misplaced, misnamed travelers is full of Jack Handy like deep thoughts, riveting laughs, and classic quotable lines. I love this book!!
Rating:
Summary: Did you like this book?
Review: Rhetoric-One/Love! I mean, did you enjoy this book? That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not one can read this book over and over, and catch something new each time, and gain a greater appreciation for Shakespeare (and Stoppard), and practice the game of Questions. It comes up heads every time (97 and counting, which would lead one to question the laws of probability....)
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant.
Review: Stoppard is the greatest playwright of the twentieth century, and this is his greatest play. With the crowd-pleasing humor of a Monty Python and the deft philosophical touches of a Samuel Beckett, R+G is that rarest of commodities: a truly deep philosophical work which everyone can enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Stoppard does what Shakespeare did not
Review: In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are unnecessary characters. Everything they do in the play could have been done by already existing characters. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not individual characters in this play. There is no Rosencrantz; there is no Guildenstern. There is only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Shakespeare put them in to resemble the outside world, not to establish actual characters to add to the depth of the play. Tom Stoppard wrote "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" in order to give the duo their own separate personalities. He, just as Shakespeare did, has them resemble our own world. R&G are modern men in a very modern play. Stoppard contradicts Shakespeare by justifying Hamlet's death just as Shakespeare had Hamlet justify R&G's deaths, "He is a man, he is mortal, death comes to us all, etcetera, and consequently he would have died anyway, sooner or later . . . he's just one man among many" (Stoppard 110). Shakespeare uses the same words only to justify the murderous actions of Hamlet, "Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!" (3.4.32). Through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard tells of the reality of death how "death is . . . not. Death isn't. You take my meaning. Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being" (Stoppard 108). Whereas Shakespeare creates a fantasy about death, as Hamlet says, "To die, to sleep-to sleep, perchance to dream" (6.3.64-65). In direct opposition with Hamlet's "to be or not to be", Stoppard writes, "Rosencrantz: Where's it going to end? Guildenstern: That's the question" (Stoppard 44). The beauty in this writing is found in its existentialistic views, whether or not Stoppard intended his play to portray life in that manner. If you enjoy "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", you will love "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. ~ anthea
| 
