The friendly, philosophical, interchangeable, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet’s life-long friends, are condemned to death by the very man they thought they could trust. What the Hell, Robert? What the Hell? (Please excuse the Hemingway allusion. It’s for you, Schooner.) Does friendship mean nothing to Hamlet? Or is he merely so concentrated on revenge that he focuses on nothing else? (A la Edmond Dantes of Alexandre Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo) In the course of the play, it is established that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are good friends of the Danish prince. And yet, Hamlet willingly and unflinchingly writes his friends off to death without a second glance. Seriously, Hamlet? It has been argued by many that Rosenstern and Guildencrantz deserved their terrible fate. After all, they sided with the corrupt king to become spies against their friend. They are a symbol of the corrupting power of the court. But really, can we blame them? It’s not like they were doing anything….evil. Or really that terrible at all! They were merely following the orders of the king so that they might uncover the truth behind Hamlet’s madness and, by doing so, help cure their childhood friend. Hamlet suspects the two have “sided” with Claudius from the beginning and, upon realizing his suspicions are true, decides first to write them from his life and then, suddenly, end their lives with a letter! (Hamlet, like a Sith, seems to deal in absolutes.) What does this reveal about Hamlet’s character? In what mental state must a man be to have no regard for the lives of, if not friends, acquaintances? Obviously, not the correct one. We know that Hamlet’s a bit mad, however, that does not excuse him from killing R & G. One might pardon Hamlet for wishing to kill Claudius. One might also even pardon Hamlet for ending Polonius’s life, for he truly did not mean to kill Ophelia’s father. (Even though stabbing might NOT be the best way to discover what’s behind a curtain. I have discovered that simply asking for a name BEFORE stabbing can avert potentially embarrassing murders.) But one can simply not write off Hamlet’s murder of Guildencrantz and Rosenstern. No matter how awesome Hamlet might be, this murder puts a serious spot (Out, damned spot!) on his record.
The fact that the Danish prince ends the lives of two innocent people, people he once called friends, cannot be overlooked in a discussion of his character. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern become merely pawns in Hamlet’s elaborate plan of revenge. They are not with him; they are against him. They must be destroyed. In this way, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are tragic. Their fates are out of their control. They are swept away by actions they don’t understand. And, sadly, they meet their end because of a depressed prince.
RIP Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mr.Tibbs--I like the idea--an etiquette book for dagger-wielders:
"Hello. Who's this behind the arras?"
"Why, it's just I, Polonius."
"Oh, I took thee for the better. But now that I know it's just tedious old Polonius, I shan't stab thee."
Very good. And do you think you would have taken the same notice or felt the same way about R & G if you weren't familiar with Stoppard's play, or is that impossible to answer, since you do know about it?
Post a Comment