Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı 25/1,2016, Sayfa 74-86
HUMOUR AND FATE IN TOM STOPPARD’S PLAY ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD
Ayça ÜLKER ERKAN∗
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to discuss physical humour arising from the characters’ quest for identity and to depict how the themes of death/ chance/ fate/ reality/ illusion function in the existentialist world of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Humour plays a significant role in the analysis of this tragicomedy. The theatre of the Absurd expresses the senselessness of the human condition, abandons the use of rational devices, reflects man’s tragic sense of loss, and registers the ultimate realities of the human condition, such as the problems of life and death. Thus the audience is confronted with a picture of disintegration. This dissolved reality is discharged through ‘liberating’ laughter which depicts the absurdity of the universe. Stoppard uses verbal wit, humour and farce to turn the most serious subjects into comedy. Humour is created by Guildenstern’s little monologues that touch on the profound but founder on the absurd. The play has varieties of irony, innuendo, confusion, odd events, and straight-up jokes. Stoppard’s use of the ‘play in play’ technique reveals the ultimate fate of the tragicomic characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They confront the mirror image of their future deaths in the metadramatic spectacle performed by the Players. As such, the term “Stoppardian” springs out of his use of style: wit and comedy while addressing philosophical concepts and ideas.
Key Words: The theatre of the Absurd, Humour, Identity confusion, Fate, The theme of death, Wit and comedy. TOM STOPPARD’IN ROSENCRANTZ VE GUILDENSTERN ÖLDÜLER ADLI OYUNUNDA MİZAH VE KADER
Özet
Bu çalışmanın amacı karakterlerin kimlik arayışından kaynaklanan fiziksel mizahı tartışmak ve oyundaki ölüm/şans/kader/gerçeklik/yanılsama gibi temaların Rosencrantz ve Guildenstern’nin varoluşçu hayatlarında nasıl işlediğini göstermektir. Mizah, bu trajikomedinin analiz edilmesinde önemli bir rol oynar. Absürd Tiyatro, insanlık durumundaki saçmalığı ifade eder, rasyonel aygıtların kullanımını terk eder, insanın trajik kaybolmuşluk duygusunu yansıtır ve insanlık durumu olan hayat ve ölümle ilgili insanlık hali sorunlarının nihai gerçekliklerini kaydeder. Böylece, seyirci parçalanmış bir resimle karşılaşır. Bu çözünmüş gerçeklik evrenin absürdlüğünü ortaya koyan ‘özgürleştirici’ kahkaha yoluyla serbest bırakılır. Stoppard, en ciddi konuları bile komediye dönüştürmek için nükte, mizah ve fars kullanır. Mizah, derin ama boşa çıkan absürdlüğe değinen Guildenstern’nin ufak monologları sayesinde ortaya çıkar. Oyun, ironi, ima, karışıklık, tuhaf olaylar ve ciddi şakalarla çeşitlendirilir. Stoppard’ın “oyun içinde oyun tekniği” kullanımı trajikomik karakter olan Rosencrantz ve Guildenstern’nin nihai kaderlerini ortaya çıkarır. Onlar, oyuncular tarafından sahnelenen metadramatik piyesde gelecekteki ölümleri ile karşı karşıya bırakılırlar. Aslında, ‘Stoppardian’ terimi yazarın stil kullanımından ortaya çıkar: Nükte ve komedi filozofik kavramlar ve fikirlere hitap eder.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Absürd tiyatro, Mizah, Kimlik karmaşası, Kader, Ölüm teması, Nükte ve komedi.
∗ Assoc. Dr. Celal Bayar University, Chair of English Language, Literature Department, Manisa. e-mail:[email protected].
74
A.Ülker Erkan Tom Stoppard, the British The purpose of this study is to contemporary post-war playwright, discuss physical humour arising from the developed his craft by exploring various characters’ quest for identity and to depict dramatic modes such as plays for radio, how the themes of death/ chance/ fate/ television, film and stage. Most of his reality/ illusion function in the works are inspired by subjects like existentialist world of Rosencrantz and philosophy to examine a political question, Guildenstern. The identity confusion of human rights, censorship, political Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will be freedom, along with an interest in discussed through modernist perspective, linguistics and philosophy. Stoppard began which emphasizes absurdity and humour in his career by writing short radio plays in the play. According to the modernist 1953–54 and by 1960 he had completed his writing the representation of the self first stage play A Walk on the Water. Kelly appears as diverse, ambiguous, and states that Stoppard’s playwriting was multiple. The play is full of questions of influenced from surprising mentors such as both characters who try to identify Oscar Wilde: “the early stage plays themselves in this absurd universe. develop an ‘inverted’ Wildean aesthetic Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent with an ‘inverted politics’. That is, ambiguous and multiple selves, which Stoppard’s uses of parody to question makes not only the audience and but also dramatic form and language disappoint the other characters like the King and the because they preserve at the center an Queen unable to distinguish both. They insistent construction of individualism in look like the same side of a coin that is conservative political terms” (2001:15). “heads” metaphorically expressing the Stoppard’s plays originally belong to the inseparable situation of both characters. Theatre of the Absurd tradition dealing Stoppard once described them as "two with philosophical issues. He uses verbal halves of the same personality." Stoppard wit, humour and farce to turn the most differentiates the two characters by their serious subjects into comedy: opposite actions like: “Guil sits. Ros stands. Guil spins. Ros studies coin.” . . . Stoppard uses verbal (Stoppard 11) and the audience sees the wit, visual humour and difference between the two because they physical farce to illustrate are acting differently. The playwright lays clearly defined topics: free- great importance to distinguishing these will versus fate; the two characters to emphasize the need of existence of God; the having individuality and unique identity. function of art; the nature of The attempt goes in vain since the freedom and the protagonists are always in search of responsibility of the press; identity. However, it is hard to separate the existential implications those characters from each other that are of modern physics. The perhaps why they are in quest for self virtuoso dialogue of his identity. Stoppard frequently questions the plays and the brilliant notion of identity by creating such inventiveness of their characters which makes it possible to ask theatricality have tended to the philosophical question if human obscure the serious individual is condemned to die at last what intentions underlying his distinguishes one from another. comedy . . . (Innes, 1992: 325)
75
Humour And Fate In Tom Stoppard’s Play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead Stoppard points out the question of their constructed across a ‘lack’ from the place identity, which is multi-layered and of the Other. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern obscure, to emphasize it according to just are unable to develop a social identity as the case of humanbeing’s loss of lacking power as subject position. This identity and powerlessness in the might be one reason when they are having modernist world. This brings out trouble to establish ‘who they are’; thus individuals with a sense of loneliness, one cannot exist without the presence of disintegration, and alienation having no the other. On the other hand, lack of sense of identity and memory. memory throughout the play (they cannot remember anything, even the present Identity is the social sense of that actions) draws attention to having no emerges from contact with others than the entrance to their past in order to establish a self. According to Stuart Hall identities collective history to explain where they “are constructed through, not outside, come from. Therefore, they do not have difference” it can be recognized “through sense of belonging. They are lost and the relation to the Other, the relation to powerless therefore they try to establish a what is not, to precisely what it lacks” new self apart from the power of the King (17). This is the case in the and the Queen. One of the features of characterization of Rosencrantz and modern life which modernism points us is Guildenstern: Rosencrantz is described as the complexity of the modern life pointing what is not Guildenstern and Guildenstern to the senselessness in the lives of both is just vice versa. Although the two characters. This creates absurdity and characters seem identical, the playwright humour in the dialogue of both characters. always emphasizes each character having slight difference. Both characters have The absurdity directs the audience been mixed up by everyone including to laughter focussing on the senselessness themselves. The playwright consistently of the human condition and abandoning points out the difference between the two use of rational devices. The absurd drama, characters even having different views in as Esslin (1965) states, reflects man’s the dying scene. Hall draws attention to the tragic sense of loss, ultimate realities of the fragmentations of identities in the modern human condition, problems of life and times, which depicts the position of death, isolation and communication (353). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who are also The audience is confronted with a picture fragmented and struggle to find answers to of disintegration as the characters their existentialist questions in this modern gradually trying to find out their place in world: “. . . identities are unified and, in this absurd world. People come and go, the late modern times, increasingly absurd conversations along with absurd fragmented and fractured; never singular events happen while those two characters but multiply constructed across different, exist without meaning in the play. At this often intersecting and antagonistic, point the humour of the Theatre of the discourses, practices and positions.” (Hall Absurd is liberating; the dissolved reality 17) The constitution of social identity is discharged through “liberating” laughter seems as an act of power and discourse recognizing the absurdity of the universe. which “interpellate, speak to us or hail us Significant speeches, use of idioms into place as the social subjects of especially the soliloquies undergo comic particular discourses” ((Hall 19). The changes throughout the play. subject position requires being ‘hailed’ and
76
A.Ülker Erkan The play Rosencrantz and GUIL. How long have you Guildenstern are Dead, Tom Stoppard’s suffered from a bad best-known and most produced play, memory? brought him an international recognition in ROS. I can’t remember. 1967. The title characters of this play are schoolmates of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Rosencrantz protests in his dying who are on their way to Elsinore without scene: “We’ve done nothing wrong! We knowing what is expected of them. Apart didn’t harm anyone. Did we?” (Stoppard, from the parodic use of Shakespeare’s 1967:91) demonstrates the inability of Hamlet, most critics point out that those two characters taking up an action. Stoppard is most clearly parodying Samuel Guildenstern still having lack of memory Beckett’s Waiting for Godot whose main even in the last dialogue before he dies: “I characters Vladimir and Estragon play can’t remember” (Stoppard, 1967:91) word games to pass the time for Godot strikingly summarizes the position of two who never arrives. Everything depends on characters. He cannot remember anything his coming, but he never comes. Beckett’s that is why he cannot take up an action to play beginning on a country road isolated save his life. Both characters play the role from the city, echoes Stoppard’s characters they have been given; none of them make a who are described as: “two Elizabethans meaningful step to change their lives, passing time in a place without any visible which would prevent their disaster. character”(1967:1) in the very beginning Stoppard most clearly points out the of the play. The style of Pirendello’s Six monotonous and absurd life of a twentieth Characters in Search of an Author also century man who only questions his place echoes in the sense that characters in the universe taking up no action to make comment on the action and investigate a better life for oneself. The playwright left themselves by asking nihilist questions the characters helpless but humorous by throughout the play. Absurdity of human the use of dramatic irony in order to make condition refers to the humanity’s loss of the audience to ponder his/her position in religious, philosophical and cultural root. the universe through a philosophical Absurdity expresses an existential outlook, outlook. which stresses the lonely, confused individuals trying to find meaning in a Stoppard’s multi-layered identity bewildering universe. Comedy in a form of may be found in his works with an farce comes into question when deliberate expression of his long-term cultural absurdity or nonsense creates physical conflict. Stoppard was born in Zlin in the humour. The characters in the play region of Czechoslovakia in 1937 where he R&GAD try to exist in an absurd world. was forced to flee to Singapore to escape Wittgenstein (1994) points out the lapses the invading Nazis with his family. He of memory and perception which places stayed there for three years when the the characters in the play in an absurd Japanese invasion forced them to move world. According to him, memory is this time to India. He lost his father and needed for access to the past. It is two years later his mother married Kenneth important to note that Guildenstern and Stoppard, a British army major, and the Rosencrantz‘s inability to initiate action family moved to England where Tom stems from the lack of memory. (200) Stoppard got his education in a British school in York Shire. Katherine E. Kelly ROS. Oh. I see. (Pause.) points out that Stoppard “felt an ‘English’ I’ve forgotten the question. self emerge and he embraced the country as a permanent home” (2001:11). 77
Humour And Fate In Tom Stoppard’s Play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead Sense of identity and emotion were complicated creating a cultural conflict. On several occasions, Rosencrantz Paul Delaney sees this multi-layered and Guildenstern point out confusion in identity as a concrete example of “a their own identities: introducing subconscious influence” (2001:25) and the themselves incorrectly as in the above two title characters in R&GAD appear as a quotation like other people frequently do multiple possibility of his confused throughout the play. When Rosencrantz identity. and Guildenstern play the question and My mother married again answer game Guildenstern seizing and my name changed to Rosencrantz violently asks: “WHO DO my stepfather’s when I was YOU THINK YOU ARE?” (Stoppard 44) eight years old. This I didn’t using capitalized letters to emphasize the care one way or the other importance of their identities. According to about; but then it occurred Kelly King, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to me that in practically “confirm that they do not know who they everything I had written are and lament that they do not have the there was something about power to establish who they are people getting each other’s (Shakespeare stole their authority to tell names wrong, usually in a their own story).” (16) The exchange of completely gratuitous way, personality is a problem of identity nothing to do with character however Stoppard treats confusion in or plot. (Stoppard, 1968: 47) identities in a most humorous way. Still, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern become so Tom Stoppard emphasizes this frustrated in an incomprehensive world ambiguity of identity as he reflects it to be therefore they fall into despair. his fictitious characters in R&GAD. The humorous dialogue creates farcical comedy There is question of identity still when both humorous characters mix up not definitively answered. John Fleming their names and identity. Actually the points out the confusion of identity when names are not important since the audience Stoppard raises philosophical questions focus on their dialogue and frequently one unanswered: “Stoppard raises fundamental does not exactly know who is who: philosophical questions about the nature of identity and what constitutes self” (56). ROS. My name is Fleming explains the reason for this Guildenstern, and humorous confusion of identity as follows: this is Rosencrantz. “Stoppard’s use of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is more metaphoric than (GUIL confers briefly with realistic, and their inability to know their him.) names on a consistent basis highlights the (Without embarrassment.) degree to which they are alienated from I’m sorry – his and uncertain about their ontology” name’s Guildenstern, (Fleming, 2001:56). Stoppard draws our and I’m attention to the nature of identity in which Rosencrantz. both characters are alienated even from . . . their own identities creating humour throughout the text. Overall, the play is full ROS. And who are we? of questions from the very beginning until (Stoppard, 1967:16) the end. 78
A.Ülker Erkan Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are There is still absurdity in the statement of always trying to find out answers to the Rosencrantz. In another dialogue between questions, even at the conclusion of the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the play they are dying without knowing the characters are discussing obvious facts reason why. Unanswered questions linked creating rich possibilities for comedy. with the incomprehensive world of Their dialogue directs to absurdity and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern produce they try to pass time by discussing humorous situation. They are frequently in significant truth: the quest of identity. Manfred Draudt points out the comic implications of the Ros: We're on a boat. identity motif as well as its complex (Pause). Dark isn't it? ironies: Guil: Not for night. KING. Thanks, Ros: No, not for night. Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern. Guil: Dark for day. Pause. QUEEN. Thanks Ros: Oh yes, it's dark for Guildenstern and gentle day. Rosencrantz. (Stoppard, Guil: We must have gone 1967:33-4) north, of course. The royal family get Rosencrantz Ros: Off course? and Guildenstern’s names wrong hence the Guil: Land of the midnight playwright “lays stress upon the sun, that is. grotesqueness of the situation” (Draudt, 1981:354-55). The insecurity in the Ros: Of course, (Stoppard, identities emphasizes the two character’s 1967:71) indecision and passivity. This also creates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a comic potential when in the scene the playing a game, starting from "dark" and King Claudius says: “Thanks Rosencrantz leading to the "land of the midnight sun" as (turning to Rosencrantz who is caught Vladamir and Estragon did in Beckett’s unprepared, while Guildenstern bows). play Waiting for Godot. It seems that (Stoppard, 1967:26) The mixing up of their Rosencrantz and Guildenstern trying to identities becomes more hilarious and pass time by discussing facts that never comic when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern change. Inevitably, there is absurdity in the rehearse their future meeting with Hamlet: action. Still in this case, they are trying to GUIL. I don’t think you find out meaning in life and investigate quite understand what we their place in the universe. It is still laid are attempting is a bare, the insistence of the characters on hypothesis in which I discussing obvious facts in itself creating answer for him, while you rich possibilities for comedy. "Dark" is ask me questions. expressed as certain period of time with (Stoppard, 1967:34) which it is associated, "night", and then “dark” is associated with what is not dark: Rosencrantz’s question “Am I “dark for the day”. Dark is also associated pretending to be you, then” carries a with "north" and "the land of the midnight humorous game of confusion in identities. sun".
79
Humour And Fate In Tom Stoppard’s Play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead The sound pattern of "of course" is Ros: Ah! There's life in reflected in "off course", which, at the me yet! same time, might be given for the success Guil: What are you of their expedition. Rosencrantz repeats feeling? and sums up the ingredients of Guildenstern’s statements in a speeded-up Ros: A leg. Yes, it feels succession: like my leg. Ros: I think it's getting Guil: How does it feel? light. Ros: Dead. Guil: Not for night. Guil: Dead? Ros: This far north. Ros (panic): I can't feel Guil: Unless we're off a thing! (Stoppard, 1967:70) course. Rosencrantz is totally unaware of Ros (small pause): Of the fact that he is actually living by stating: course. (Stoppard, 1967:71) “Ah! There’s life in me yet!” The effort of Guildenstern trying to prove Rosencrantz’s In the following passage the verbs existence adds humorous dialogues all denote functions of sensory and other throughout the play. As it is expressed in bodily organs creating humorous diction: this dialogue, farce is characterized by Ros: - I can't see a physical humour, the use of deliberate thing. absurdity or nonsense. Guil: You can still Parody of Shakespeare’s Hamlet think, can't you? appears as a source of Stoppard’s humour because much of Stoppard’s comedy Ros: I think so. comes from his treatment of the Guil: You can still talk. Shakespearean plot, characters and Ros: What should I solemnity distinctly comic and even say? (Stoppard, 1967:63) farcical. Stoppardian world is different from Shakespeare’s world who presents Rosencrantz and Guildenstern feel death as a tragic factor. The death of their existence in the universe in a most Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is not tragic comical dialogue. This depicts absurdity of but “as terrifyingly senseless and unjust” the modern human condition; thus (Innes, 1992:332). Shakespeare’s world is absurdism stresses an existential outlook. solemn and there is high seriousness both They want a proof for their existence, in the subject matter and noble characters. which is absurd. Rosencrantz’s statement Stoppard’s comedy arises from the implicit as he hears he can still talk is most contrast with Shakespearean solemnity. humorous “What should I say?”. There is Although Shakespeare’s play has several no purpose in Rosencrantz’s life he is not moments of rich humour, it is important to even aware of the fact that he is living note that his play Hamlet is basically where Guildenstern proposes proof of serious and tragic. Stoppard’s treatment of sensory such as “seeing”, “thinking” and the source material of Shakespeare’s story “talking”. is different from the original plot Guil: Don't bother. You can feel, can't you? 80
A.Ülker Erkan What Shakespeare takes serious in Hamlet characters “adrift in somebody else’s plot, turns upside down in Stoppard’s play: the just as the Absurdists focussed upon minor characters in Shakespeare’s play modern man’s rudderlessness in a world turns in the major characters and the he cannot control.” (Cohen, 1998:508). central focus in R&FGAD, vice versa Stoppard’s two ordinary men are not to be Hamlet becomes a minor character; the taken as victims in an absurdist world, as plot is placed as secondary importance in Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot are. where characters and their attitudes The inevitability of death is not tragic but a become more important than in natural part of life in a simple world of Shakespeare’s play. Stoppard’s courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. We, human from the very beginning of his play are beings, should accept death as an engaged in trivial activities, they are just unavoidable outcome of life. One should passing time by casually flipping coins and not be scared of death; thus if human speaking in colloquial and informal prose beings may calm their minds from dying, distinct from Shakespearean tragic they will be free from depression and characters and use of verse. It is significant continue their lives in a meaningful and that Stoppard points out the philosophical productive way. This idea is planted in the issues by using humour. The two play as philosophical and humorous even characters in Stoppard’s play frequently in a farcical way. In Stoppardian world, question their place in an unsecure two characters are comically unheroic, as universe. They seek meaning in their small Rosencrantz says, “I want to go home” and world and question death and faith as an Guildenstern puts on a comical attitude inevitable part of life in which they are pretending unconvincingly attempting to both involved. The player they met on the appear in control. Guildenstern draws road points out that one has no control on attention to the cycle of life in a comical fate in an absurd manner with the other way where death seems a natural process: player’s involvement: “The only beginning is birth and the only end is death. If you can’t count on that, PLAYER. Chance? what can you count on?” Stoppard plays GUIL. You found us. with the expectations of spectators by directing them to ponder the philosophical PLAYER. Oh yes. questions. He turns upside down the most GUIL. You were looking? serious subject death within the discussion of his two ordinary characters creating PLAYER. Oh no. humour: GUIL. Chance, then. GUIL. Are you deaf? PLAYER. Or fate. GUIL. Yours or ours? ROS. Am I dead? PLAYER. It could hardly be GUIL. Yes or no? one without the other. ROS. Is there a choice? GUIL. Fate, then. GUIL. Is there a God? PLAYER. Oh, yes. We have no control . . . ROS. Foul! No non As Ruby Cohen emphasizes sequiturs, three-two, one Stoppard’s play demonstrates the two game all.
81
Humour And Fate In Tom Stoppard’s Play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead The repeated death motive in an motifs like death in a most philosophical absurd play like R&GAD surface comic level. As Easterling (1982) points out contexts: “I’m sick of death of it” instead of providing comic relief (Stoppard, 1967:28), “I tell you it’s all Rosencrantz draws attention to the horror stopping to a death” (Stoppard, 1967:27), of death (170). Apart from the idea of “The only beginning is birth and the only “horror of death, the emphasis shall be laid end is death” (Stoppard, 1967:28), “death to the loneliness and alienation of followed by eternity . . . the worst of both individuals with no hope in the twentieth words” (Stoppard, 1967:51), “Stop this century modern life. What is humorous is thing dead in its tracks” (Stoppard, the dialogue between Rosencrantz and 1967:54), “over my dead body” (Stoppard, Guildenstern talking about the most serious 1967:57), “We are dead lucky” (Stoppard, subject of death in a mocking manner: 1967:86). There are more cliché–like expressions in which Rosencrantz, ROS. . . . Not that I'd like to Guildenstern, and the Player confront the sleep in a box, mind you, issue of death at cerebral, comic, and not without any air - you'd philosophical level. Rosencrantz’s ideas on wake up dead, for a start death increase shortly after his first and then where would you meeting with Hamlet at Elsinore. be? Apart from inside a box. Rosencrantz’s long speech about death, as That's the bit I don't like, expressed in Anja Easterling’s dissertation frankly. That's why I don't (1982:170), can be regarded as a think of it... Because you'd counterpart of Hamlet’s most famous be helpless, wouldn't you? speech in English literature: “To be or not Stuffed in a box like that, I to be” soliloquy in Act 3, scene 1, line 56- mean you'd be in there for 88. Stoppard’s Rosencrantz is a twentieth- ever. Even taking into century man who is a representative of the account the fact that you're Absurd Theatre. For this reason dead, it isn't a pleasant Rosencrantz’s view of death is different thought. Especially if you're from Hamlet who is a representative of an dead, really...ask yourself, if Elizabethan age. According to Hamlet, I asked you straight off -I'm death is a sleep free from the idea of “after going to stuff you in this death” and something to be wished for. box now, would you rather Easterling (1982) states that Rosencrantz be alive or dead? Naturally, regards death with aversion and fear by you'd prefer to be alive. Life bringing it to a “brutally concrete level” in a box is better than no life (Stoppard, 1967:170) with his statement: at all. I expect. You'd have a “to sleep in a box without any air” chance at least. You could (Stoppard, 1967:50) and “lying in a box lie there thinking - well, at with a lid on it” (Stoppard, 1967:50) within least I'm not dead! – In a the framework of characterization and minute someone’s going to tradition of the Theatre of Absurd. Farce bang on the lid and tell me and comedy remain part and, as to come out. (Banging on Rosencrantz did, the characters question the floor with his fists.) their place in the universe from an “Hey you, whatsyername! existentialist view. This kind of Come out there!” questioning makes the characters discuss . . .
82
A.Ülker Erkan I wouldn't think about it, if I answers but place questions in the minds of were you. You'd only get human beings by placing his characters in depressed. (Pause). Eternity a most comical manners. As Bull states the is a terrible thought. I mean, dialogues never lead to answers but only where's it going to end? more questions. It is important to note that Two early Christians “Stoppard’s play refuses to present a chanced to meet in Heaven. reliable voice: uncertainty is all” (Bull, (Stoppard, 1967:50-51) 2001:138). The constant confusion in which they find themselves leaves Shortly before the end, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern feeling Guildenstern speaks of death in terms of unable to make any significant choices in "silence" and "second-hand clothes" and their lives. That is why Guildenstern is finally of absolute negation. We find in always trying to give exact definition of most of Guildenstern’s speeches nihilist death throughout the play. Bull (2001) definition of death, which corresponds points out Stoppard’s roots as a playwright, with the “absurd” situation. This shows which is seen as a part of “Anglicization of Stoppard’s indebtedness to Beckett. the ‘absurd’ tradition” (138). There is Stoppard plays with the expectations of the absurdity in the play from the very spectator when Guildenstern snatches a beginning, the two characters, dagger from the player’s belt and stabs it to Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, are already the player. When the tragedians watch the dead as the play’s title illustrates: player die the player stands up. For Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. tragedians, death is a performance that can They actually do not exist, as it is be carried through "heroically, comically, emphasized in the speech of Gertrude ironically, slowly, suddenly, disgustingly, when she first appears in the scene: “He charmingly, or from a great height" hath much talked of you, / And sure I am, (Stoppard, 1967:60). Like Vladamir, two men there is not living / To whom he Guildenstern is searching for rational, more adheres.” The Players illustrate logical explanation of their situation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s fate as an which will end in their own death: outcome when they say: “Decides? It is written . . . We’re tragedians, you see. We GUIL. No. . . no . . . not for follow directions – there is no choice us, not like that. Dying is involved. The bad end unhappily, the good not romantic, and death is unluckily. That is what tragedy means.” not a game which will soon (Stoppard, 1967:59) Stoppard uses the be over . . . Death is not world of stage to represent the real world. anything . . . death is not . . . In other words the concept of fate plays a It's the absence of presence, significant role in the lives of Guildenstern nothing more . . . the and Rosencrantz, as the Players endless time of never emphasized. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz coming back . . . a gap you struggle to find the meaning of life by can't see, and when the wind asking hundreds of questions unanswered. blows through it, it makes Their actions and eventual fate actually no sound. . . (Stoppard, reflect humanbeing’s struggle to find 1967:91) meaning of its existence while being destined to die, which is unavoidable. Stoppard seeks philosophical issues in the theme of death; he does not give
83
Humour And Fate In Tom Stoppard’s Play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead Guildenstern and Rosencrantz title pair’s entrapment in continuously ask question; they even ask their unavoidable deaths. (3) who they are causing identity crisis. This As a conclusion, Stoppard is much may be explained through the questioning interested in the marginal characters that the existence of modern man who try to become the major focus in his plays, as survive in the most modernist world. Innes (1992) emphasizes, “the frame turns In the final act of the play, when out to be central” (346) in which the art of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are on the acting becomes significant. Stoppard’s boat heading to their final destiny to play raises philosophical issues with the England, they discover the letter use of comedy and humorous characters. demanding Hamlet’s death has been Even the most trivial game of flipping coin replaced with that demanding their own becomes the most important factor in the deaths. Guildenstern remarks, “Where we lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It is went wrong was getting on a boat. We can important to note that the coin focuses on move, of course, change direction, rattle major issues: are our lives controlled by about, but our movement is contained chance or by fate? If they are controlled by within a larger one that carries us along as fate, as it appears in the play, is there any inexorably as the wind and current” way of knowing what that fate is? Is there (Stoppard, 1967: 90). Rosencrantz any hope of having free-will? Those answers: “They had is in for us, didn’t questions are put forward in the play they? Right from the beginning. Who’d presented in a most philosophical level. have thought that we were so important?” The coin toss is an example on probability; (Stoppard, 1967: 90). Rosencrantz states either heads or tail will come up. Still, the the inevitability of fate as tragedians law of probability are suspended in the performed this idea throughout the play flipping a coin. In the first scene of the using metatheather. Guildernstern, who is play, the coin comes down heads over one- cleverer than his friend, regrets passivity of hundred times in a row, which seems their action and unable to make a choice impossible. Thus, the tossing of a coin is when it was time to do so. They wait for no longer about chance, but about fate. someone to come and something to Fate subsumes chance. What we call happen, they get lost without an external chance becomes fate as it can be observed manipulation. When they are on their own in the play it is the fate of Guildenstern and they adopt an inaction life and entrapped in Rosencrantz to die at the end of the play. their deaths. Jonsonn puts it in this way: They may not escape their doom in any Stoppard uses the boat as a case since they are the actor on the stage of symbol for life itself. Within a complicated world. certain parameters, we are free to do as we please. When the stage goes dark – However, the destination expressing time to die -- Rosencrantz remains the same no matter begins to question their situation by what our actions within our protesting: “We’ve done nothing wrong! own limited range of choice We didn’t harm anyone. Did we?” and freedom. From the very (Stoppard, 1967:91), before he disappears. beginning of the play, there He desires some justification and is a sense of confinement reasonable explanation for their deaths, as and inescapability, and the Fleming (2001) states, “the desire for an boat perfectly represents the explanation for an
84
A.Ülker Erkan understanding of who they are, what has becomes a reality. Everything turns upside transpired, and why” (63). Rosencrantz down with the announcement of the and Guildenstern passively accept their ambassador telling that Rosencrantz and death sentence as their fate; therefore Guildenstern are dead. Thus, the inaction brings their catastrophe. Instead of playwright plays with the emotions of the trying to alter their fate by destroying the audience leaving them with thousands of letter or escaping, Guildenstern protests the questions in their minds unanswered. The lack of explanation when he attacks the lights are going dim and the music is player. When it is Guildenstern's turn to starting to signify the end of the play. disappear, half-pronounced names and unfinished sentences become the symbolic The open–ended plot signifies a representation of the phrase "here one post modern play attitude in which all minute and gone the next". Guildenstern in questions still left unanswered. The his dying scene realizes the consequences passivity of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of taking no action when it is too late: causes their downfall leaving them apart “there must have been a moment, at the from the subject position. The confusion of beginning, where we could have said- no. identity, existentialist questions But somehow we missed it” (Stoppard, unanswered, inability to take up an action 1967:91). Then, they give up protesting although they had the chance to do so and accept their fate and disappear since it depict humorously the absurdity of modern is their fate to die. What is significant in men who try to survive and find meaning the play is that Rosencrantz and in this bewildering modern world. The Guildenstern do not die on stage, but quest of identity and the powerless disappear. Some of the audience may be situation of both characters represent confused whether Rosencrantz and individuals with a sense of loneliness, Guildenstern are actually dead or they just disintegration, and alienation having no disappeared in the dark. The reality sense of identity and memory in this becomes illusionary, whereas the illusion absurd modern world.
85
REFERENCES Bull, J. (2001). “Tom Stoppard and Politics”, The Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard (Ed: K.E. Kelly), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 136-153. Cohen, R. ed. (1988). Contemporary Dramatists, 4th ed, St James Press, Chicago. Delaney, P. “Exit Tomas Straüssler, Enter Sir Tom Stoppard”, The Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard (Ed: K.E. Kelly), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 25-37. Draudt, M. (1981). “Two Sides of the Same Coin, or the Same Side of the Two Coins an Analysis of Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”, English Studies, Vol. 62, No.4, 248-357. Easterling, A. (1982). “Shakespearean Parallels and Affinities with the Theatre of the Absurd in Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Ph. D Dissertation, University of Umea, Umea. Esslin, M. ed. (1965). Absurd Drama, Penguin Plays, New York. Fleming, J. (2001). Stoppard’s Theatre: Finding Order Amid Chaos, University of Texas Press, Texas. Hall, S. 2004. “Who needs an identity?” Identity: A Reader.(Eds. P.D. Gay, J. Evans, P. Redman), Sage Publications, London. 15-30.
Innes, C. (1992). Modern British Drama: 1890-1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jonsson, A. “Characters in Search of a Purpose: Meaning in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”
Stoppard, T. (1968). “Something to Declare”, Sunday Times, 25 Feb., p.47. - - - . (1967) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Faber and Faber, London. Wittgenstein, L. (1994). Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed, (Trans: G.E. M. Anscombe), Oxford UP., Oxford.
86