Talk:Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004-6[edit]

I hate to be nitpicky, but the title is with an "&". I'm looking at my copy of the play right now, and every page where the title is used is with an "&". I don't think naming conventions on Wikipedia (if that's the problem) apply when it's actually in the title. PS: The movie title however, is indeed with an "and", but this article concerns the play.

-Yossarian

I have no opinion on which is the correct way of rendering the title - I do, however, request that any future attempts to rename the article be executed using the "Move this page" function provided (see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page), and not by manually copying the text of the article as at least one person recently did. --Paul A 08:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay...Xinoph...I don't know what the deal is...but...whoa. You were asked not to move pages in the fashion you did. I have no clue what's going on...so: don't do it again. Listen to Paul A. If you have a problem, leave it on the talk. I've moved the page back in the mean time. (BTW: what's with this "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead And So Am I" page? Seriously.)

-Yossarian

Just as a historical footnote: I think the reason the article was originally at "and" rather than "&" is because in older versions of the software it wasn't possible to have ampersands in article titles. --Camembert 01:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a version of the play (faber and faber 2000) that uses "and", not an ampersand, and I've never seen it written with an ampersand except on Wikipedia.

You know the game of questions they play, scored in the tennis system? Is this a real game? I used to play it with friends in school, but we got the idea from the movie. We called it "Questions". I could not find an entry in Wikipedia. --Chinawhitecotton 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the first origins of the game, which is indeed called "Questions", were, but I know it's commonly played by improvisational actors (like the games on the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway?), so it probably predates the play. Improv groups play it for fun, to practice thinking on their feet, and sometimes for an audience. Some actually do keep score like in the play and movie (but even then it's mostly just for fun). Using the tennis scoring system was most likely Stoppard's idea, though. --Sommers 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too know of the game, I know of guys at Hewlett-Packard in Colorado who played it after the movie was released. They called it "Volleying" back then from what I remember, but as far as it's origin it always seems to come back to this delightful movie.--66.203.229.166 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialism? I think not[edit]

This article claims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead displays existentialism. If anything, I think this play would be the very opposite of existentialism. According to Dictionary.com, existentialism is, "A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts." In this play, Ros and Guil accept no responsibility for thier actions and see no point in making any choices, as they see thier fate as predetermined. They do not think of the consequences (of their actions) as a factor of thier existence. A play cannot be both deterministic and existentialist. (Anon, 69.105.80.9)

I agree. Leibniz 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the play is strongly associated with existentialism: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22rosencrantz+and+guildenstern%22+existentialism Robin Johnson 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that it is associated with absurdism, which is related to, but distinct from, existentialism. This is discussed in the link in the article to the lecture by the Canadian professor. A google search is pretty silly to demonstrate something like that. Find actual quotes that call the play existentialist. john k 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the play is probably better described as "existential" rather than "existentialist" - it is concerned with existence and with the debate between free will and determinism - very much so - but is not promoting one view over another, i.e. it doesn't take an existentialist view. That said, my personal observation of the play is that it is simply about the futility of life. R&G wake up, not know where they are, and spend most of the play trying to figure out what they are meant to be doing, having had an incomplete instruction ("glean what afflicts him") from the King. This is perhaps a metaphor for the incomplete and unsatisfactory explanations for existence that all humans get from religion, philosophy, politics or science. In any case, they pursue this instruction faithfully, trying to please both Hamlet and the King, and end up dead. As a great philosopher once said, "It's just life." Indeed, the first reference (to the Independent article) says "existential tragicomedy", hence I have made that change. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant video game reference - bye![edit]

Wouldn't be wikipedia without an irrelevant video game reference at the bottom of the page.

Get rid of it!--Genobeeno 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Yossarian 07:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same about the uncited Anime TV Series reference...195.195.78.21 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"contamination"[edit]

I learned from my english teacher, whom I trust, that the term for literature which includes wholesale text from its parent literature is called--without POV--a "contamination." It also had another italian term, something like "contaminatio." Unfortunately I can't find it in any dictionary. Can anyone verify this term? Citizen Premier 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's smarter?[edit]

At times one appears to be more enlightened than the other; however this position is traded-off throughout the course of the drama.

My recollection (and it's definitely been a while) is that Guildenstern is pretty consistently the smarter one. Can anyone comment? john k 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guildenstern seemed more serious and apt to get frustrated by Rosencrantz' playfulness, but that doesn't mean he was smarter. Citizen Premier 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the play, Guildenstern's monologues are far more frequent and philosophical than Rosencrantz's, and Rosencrantz behaves like a lost child more often than not, whilst Guildenstern comforts him. Guildenstern is the one reasoning things out; Rosencrantz is just watching and making comments - as Guil says, "Why don't you say something original! No wonder the whole thing is so stagnant! You don't take me up on anything - you just repeat it in a different order", to which Ros replies "I can't think of anything original. I'm only good in support".
Yes, exactly. Certainly the idea that one is more enlightened is "traded off" seems insupportable - Guildenstern always seems more enlightened than Rosencrantz, or else they seem equally unenlightened. john k 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... This entire discussion is ridiculous. This is Wikipedia. You're discussing how to properly express subjective viewpoints. There should be no talk of "Who's smarter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.105 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced[edit]

The article is essentially unreferenced. The play itself is a perfectly good citation for the plot but really the claims about themes ought to come from somewhere other than Wikipedians' own views. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag & Blink are Dead[edit]

Just a quick thought, the Dark Horse Comics series Tag and Blink are Dead play obvius homage to this story, as the series focuses on two random background characters in the original Star Wars trilogy. As a side note, that series might take its name from the Blink tag in HTML code which, according to that article, is figuratively dead... - Kevingarcia 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User box[edit]

has anyone created a userbox for fans of the play? Myrockstar 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings[edit]

I don't think this warning is necessary. Reasons for removal comprise in part:

  • its ugliness
  • the way it skews the article. The lead should mention that the title is from the play, that the Stoppard play takes place in the interstices of the Shakespeare play, and that the ending (mentioned in the title) is a foregone conclusion because it is reported in Hamlet.
  • its redundancy. As placed in the article the tag simply follows a section clearly labelled "Synopsis".

I've removed it and this removal has been reverted. I think it should be removed permanently. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for children who don't want to how their favorite cartoon hero escapes a cliff-hanger ending. Readers read articles about a play because they want to know about a play, so they don't need to be warned that they might learn something by reading the article--it's the whole point of reading it. --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed more usefully at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, there's no need to bring it up case-by-case. But easy on the "children's favorite cartoon hero" straw man, there. --McGeddon 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it here because this is a particularly egregious case. The whole article is skewed by the confinement of all discussion of plot to the section behind the scary sign. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern die in Hamlet and they die in this, it's no secret because Stoppard actually decided to put it in a prominent enough place to ensure that this is well known by anyone walking within a hundred yards of the theater.
No straw men here. We don't need to bow and scrape and apologise for presenting information the reader didn't know. That's the whole point of having an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a site with spoilers is "for children who don't want to how their favorite cartoon hero escapes a cliff-hanger ending" is what's known as straw manning - presenting an exaggeratedly weakened version of your opponent's point of view, to make it easier to demolish.
I agree that spoilers are fairly redundant for this article - the synopsis doesn't even mention the characters' deaths, and the plot elements it does give away are trivial - but "if they're said to die in Hamlet then they must actually die in this play, titles of works are always literal, and spoilers are for kids" is a rather incoherent argument to be making. --McGeddon 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sure they die, but how do they die? Same as in Hamlet or will Mr Stoppard introduce some surprises? This question, I would venture to say, is what makes the play interesting. Spoiler tag is just a polite way of saying 'this is a full synopsis so don't accidentally read on until the end if you don't want to know what Mr Stoppard does with the conclusion'. It is utterly harmless. If you think it's ugly, edit the template to make it prettier.Cop 633 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People come to this site because they want to find out about the subject. Preceding parts of the article with a warning that says, in effect, "beware, you might actually learn something here" is at best fatuous.
However notice how it skews the entire article. We don't have anything in the lead saying that the play takes place in the interstices of Hamlet, because that would give the game away. Well this is an encyclopedia and we jolly well should give the game away and we shouldn't be apologetic about it. If the reader is stupid enoug to assume that an encyclopedia doesn't fully discuss a subject, he'll soon learn that he was wrong. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is crap. Almost all articles on theatre in Wikipedia are crap. Why don't you write the article exactly the way you'd like it to be, with the lead exactly the way you want it to be. Then, when you've finished, let me know, and then I'll see if I agree with you that a spoiler tag would destroy all your work. At the moment we're just talking hypothetically, so it's hard for me to judge. Cop 633 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the sound of tumbleweed when a Wikipedian is requested to actually improve an article and make it better... Cop 633 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very, very nasty and cheap trick. I return to this discussion after a day or two and find myself falsely accused of being unwilling to improve Wikipedia. Shame on you. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I have no idea what came over me there. I'm really sorry. Absolutely nothing to do with you and everything to do with me being in a foul mood. Please accept my sincere apologies. Cop 633 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say the Synopsis is very well written. And I don't think a spoiler warning is necessary. The play is called "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead". The very title gives the ending away! -TolkienGeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienGeek (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of "Questions"[edit]

Should the page include the rules for the game? The page says it's "nearly impossible to follow logically" but that's just not true, it's easy to follow.76.201.154.220 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

This article has been renamed from Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - move as per WP:MOS. Keith D (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To return to quite an old subject - the name of the article and the play it is about. I think it was a mistake to move it from the article name with "and" to the current one with "&", because the ampersand was, I believe, just a design element and not an intrinsic part of the playwright's intended title. For evidence, look at Stoppard's bio in his play currently on Broadway - the bio was provided either by Stoppard or his agent or manager, and presumably represents Stoppards official view of what the play is called. Or consider the play's listing on the IBDB or the listing at Samuel French, which handles the performance rights for the play on Stoppard's behalf.

On a more trivial level, Google search with "and" got 149,000 hits, while one with "&" got 71,000.

I think the article should be moved back to the more standard "and", with a redirect from the current name. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

cover picture size[edit]

I can't get the play's cover to shrink to a more normal size; the infobox just isn't accepting my changes. Can someone else help?—ScouterSig 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physics[edit]

Unless I missed it, the article fails to mention the missed discoveries of physical principles, at least in the cinema version. One of the characters will play with a series of clay jugs hung from the ceiling and discover that bouncing the end jug into the next one causes the jug at the opposite end to bounce (just as in the "executive toy" consisting of silver-colored ball bearings suspended by nylon threads). But when he demonstrates this intriguing device to the other, he draws the end jug back too far and it merely breaks, spilling its contents.

Other examples include almost discovering the ancient Greek principle of steam power (the Hero or Heronas archetype of steam blowing against a homemade pinwheel), a scientific experiment in which a ball falls far more quickly than a feather, almost discovering one or more of the laws of gravity when one character is accidentally hit on the head by a falling apple (erroneously supposed to have happened to Newton when a child), and almost having a Eureka moment in the bath when one character notices that a toy boat moves up when he displaces water in the tub (instead of having the Eureka moment, he is distracted by the naked backside of a woman, who turns out to be a man).

Don't all these interesting, comical moments deserve mention in the article? David (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded in several months, I have made the appropriate edit. David (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the physics section (before seeing this comment by David) because it doesn't appear in the play itself. It could be added to the film's article, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Why would it have been added to the movie, and did Tom Stoppard approve? It is very noticeable, and adds pleasure for those of us who catch the references, but, frankly, it has nothing to do with Hamlet except to show that Rosencrantz never paid real attention to Guildenstern. Or is it that Guildenstern never paid real attention to Rosencrantz? David spector (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope Stoppard approved, seeing as he wrote and directed the film version himself. 75.82.40.177 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the film closely, there is little if any speech in the physics experiments. One or other of Ros or Guil performs the actions, and they communicate through a series of facial expressions and shrugs. I've always thought Stoppard added them in to the film simply to use more of the possibilities of that medium over a stage play. But I've made that bit up. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of probability[edit]

The text of the article states: "The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern betting on coin flips. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row. The extreme unlikeliness of this event according to the laws of probability leads Guildenstern to suggest that they may be 'within un-, sub- or supernatural forces'."

Is this correct as a matter of the laws of probability? I had always understood that this was a fallacy and that in fact there is in each new coin flip a 50/50 chance of the coin coming up heads; hence 92 "head" flips in a row would by no means be extremely unlikely.

Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.116.18 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. There's a couple of different questions you can ask here, and it sounds like you're thinking of a different one than the article. If I say "My last ten flips were heads. Is the next one any less likely to be heads?" then the answer is no - as you say, it'll remain 50/50 independent of previous flips. But if I say "I'm about to flip it ten times - how likely is it that they'll all be heads?" then the answer is "pretty unlikely" - 1 in 1024, to be exact. Although each flip has no way to 'know' about the previous ones and adjust itself, the chance of all of them coming up heads at random is still small. With 92 flips it goes from 'pretty' to 'astronomically' unlikely.
Does that make sense?Olaf Davis (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two to the power of ninety is in the thousands of quadrillions. As an exercise in conditional probability, if you flip a coin 90 times and get only heads, the next flip is indeed more likely to be heads -- because it's much more likely that you've found a freak coin with heads on both sides than that the first 90 flips were due to chance. 2.25.111.160 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the coin had a tail. The only sensible answer.--GwydionM (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sensible" isn't exactly what this play is about. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources section; titles[edit]

just wondering, but it seems that the Sources section might have some title error involved. it's unclear whether the original writer was saying that this play has the earlier play R&G (without the 'are dead' in the title) as a source as well- which is possible (though i'm not sure, i've never read or seen that play)- or if they simply didn't bother to write out the full title. i fixed the first of two such instances because it was obviously an error, but this sentence i can't tell if it's an error or intentional:

"The title is taken directly from a passage by an ambassador in the final scene of Hamlet that is quoted in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern."

anyone have any insights on this?

-eristikophiles —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

number of coin flips[edit]

in the summary of act 1 it states that heads is flipped 97 times later it says 92 can someone clarify which is correctCameronpb (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at the article archive for 2006/7 and it was recorded as 92. So I changed it back to that. (To do that look under "View History" then "Revision history search"). I presume it was some undetected vandalism. What for, I can't imagine. Did it make someone's day? I certainly hope so. Spanglej (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed this?[edit]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have much different personalities in RAGAD then in Hamlet.--Johnny 42 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy?[edit]

Is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead a comedy? Or is it something else? (It's funny, but I don't know if that is enough to make it a comedy.) RJFJR (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead describes it as an "existentialist tragicomedy". I'd go with that. Its lifeblood is wit and word play and it seems to me to want to entertain the audience and make them laugh at various points. Are you asking with reference to the article? Span (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

> if i'm not mistaken it's a tragicomedy. (agree with above) -eristikophiles

Why are editors determing the genre? That should be sourced, or else it's just original research. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are given in the article. I was wondering why the original question was posed. Are the sources being queried. Span (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody mentioned in the article or discussion that these characters have Jewish names and are (aren't they?) hired assassins.[edit]

Is that just Mr. Stoppard's poetic muse going crazy in 1966 or so? Or put it the other way around: is the only way to make sense of Israel 1948-present from a US perspective that way that Binyamin Netanyahu described in a home video made at a supporter's home in about 2002: that it's "absurd" the support Israel gets from the US? Am I clashing existentialism and absurdism too much? It's hard to believe that Mr. Stoppard had no purpose or interest at all in the Hamlet plot element itself, such as it is represented in his play. The article should delve into that. A quick Googling discloses no obvious discussions of this point on the internet but also that Mr. Stoppard's four grandparents were Jewish. So again my question: is it irrelevant in the play that they are Jewish (but are they?) and (diplomatic) assassins? When was it that it was illegal for a Jew to spend the night within the city limits in England? An introduction, written in the 1940's or so, perhaps by Humphrey House, perhaps for an Oxford U. Press edition, to "Oliver Twist" (you know, with the "hideous" "Jew"--appparently Dickens stopped calling him "the Jew" half way through, after complaints during the serialization, yes, Fagin, who is chief of the pick-pockets), delved into that history a bit but on the other hand apparently found nothing blameworthy in it. Is that Mr. Stoppard's point? Christopher Hill mentions in his work on Oliver Cromwell that one of the Dictator's uncompleted jobs was to bring back the expelled Jews to England and send them down to Palestine so as to usher in the Second Coming. That was a few decades after Shakespeare's death. First thing last: are they supposed to be Jewish? Wiki says these were both common Scandinavian names--of nobility, no less--in Shakespeare's time. A single (so far--read on) current reference to this point has a commenter asking if there is any reason to believe they are Jewish aside from their names. Did Stoppard assume they were Jewish in Shakespeare's intention, Swedish and Danish noble families aside? Is that Stoppard's point? They are otherwise thoroughly ordinary bourgeois bureaucrats, helping an illegitimate king get rid of the heir apparent while maintaining some degree of plausiable deniability, even to themselves? Are they supposed to be Jewish: to Shakespeare? to Stoppard? Here is some evidence: at http://www.enotes.com/literature-101/discuss/anti-semitism-1607, as follows: So, this question intrigued me so much I had to do some searching. I found a Q&A forum at www.shaksper.net where someone had asked a similar question. Here are some of the answers:

The Jews most likely to be familiar to Shakespeare and his audience were Sephardic, from Spain and Portugal, and have names such as "Lopez." It's not likely that "Rosencrantz" and "Guildenstern" would have "sounded Jewish" in London around 1600.

No, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (in Danish: Rosencranz (rosary) and Gyldenstjerne (golden star)) are probably not intended to be Jewish names. They are in fact well known names of two prominent Danish noble families, whose influence on the council of the realm in Denmark was considerable during both the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and, indeed, later). Shakespeare would have known of the names and their Danish connotations through members of these families coming to England as ambassadors during the reign of Elizabeth. (end) That leaves Stoppard. Did he think they were supposed (by Shakespeare) to be Jewish? Did he think that playgoers in the 1960's would assume they were Jewish? Chrisrushlau (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the biggest hint to this, at least as it applies to any implied Jewishness to the names at the time of Shakespeare's writing: Ashkenazi jews didn't even have last names until the late 18th century when they were forced to take them by the Hohenzollern and Hapsburg bureaucracies. [1] At that time wealthy jews took names like Rosenkrans because of their association with noble lineages. There's simply no way Shakespeare had any intention for naming his characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for any other reason than that they the names of two well known Scandinavian noble houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.217.207 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://jewishcurrents.org/november-12-jews-acquire-family-names-12794

Refs to Mousetrap -- should be Gonzago?[edit]

In the section "metatheatre", dating to 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead&oldid=207887737

There is the statement

In Hamlet, metatheatrical elements include the Player’s speech (2.2), Hamlet’s advice to the Players (3.2), and the meta-play “The Mousetrap” (3.3).

Shouldn't this be The death of Gonzago? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a bad question (though it hasn't been responded to in a while). In Shakespeare's play Prince Hamlet says he is going to add lines to a play called “The Murder of Gonzago”, and then at the performance Hamlet says his adaptation is called “The Mouse-Trap.” DagTruffle (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section on the critical reception of the play? It's my understanding that it was critically acclaimed.96.239.121.160 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Anna (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for something on more recent reception - I mean, the play was written in 1966, which is quite a long time ago. Do critics or the wider public still think it is important or particularly notable? History is full of artists being lauded at the time and then disappearing into oblivion, or at least the 'B' list. --Northtowner (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

Could someone look at the synopsis? It reads as though written by a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.147.149 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead&oldid=1205110531"