I remember enjoying this when I read it in high school, assigned by our English teacher on the heels of reading, analyzing, and discussing Hamlet. I haven't read Hamlet since then, but still enjoyed the re-read of this farcical play. A few times I wished I'd better remembered some of the details of what it is set around, but it didn't detract from my reading too much.

These two bit characters who were sent to spy on Hamlet are now the focal point, while Hamlet, the king, queen, and others of that ilk merely intrude upon Rosencrantz & Guildenstern's musings. The quick wit, back and forth, and the foreshadowing of the event that the very title lends knowledge to, make this a fun, snappy read. It's also very meta from time to time, and doesn't take itself too seriously. I'm sure some of it went over my head, and if I'd read Hamlet more recently, I may have gotten more out of it. But I am still glad I read it again and refreshed my memory of why I think of this book fondly. ( )

I haven't read any plays since high school, and I think we only read The Glass Menagerie and Macbeth. I also don't go to the theatre often (musical theatre, yes, plays...very seldom). That's to say I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to plays.

But I was thinking about Shakespeare, recently, as one does—or, perhaps, just Hamlet—and remembering I had a copy of this (Goodreads tells me I've had it for ten years) decided it was high time I read it! It's a bit of an anomaly in my book collection as one of only two plays (well, I have an unread collected works of Shakespeare knocking about the place somewhere, which has a great many plays in it) but the film adaptation is one of my favourite pieces of Shakespeare fanfiction (ahem) so I picked the play up at an op-shop, at some point, apparently around a decade ago.

Right, so. Absurdist existential comedy! What's not to like? And what's left for me to say that hasn't been said before? Not really sure why I feel compelled to say anything but I guess I'm using this as a bit of a diary, or something.

Anyway, of course this is just brilliant. The snappiest dialogue that ever did snap, and Guil and Ros's offstage story is cleverly woven into the original narrative.

Reading plays is a little bit weird if you're not used to it (maybe it's weird even when you are) but this was a breeze and had me laughing out loud more than once. I would kill to see a stage production of it. ( )

Just as good as I remembered it being! ( )

Once again, I thought that I should redress my education and read some of the famous modern playwrights. Tom Stoppard was high on my list because I'd attended a performance of his "Travesties" and been very impressed. (In fact, it might have been watching this play that inspired me to try my own hand at playwriting....and I did have a play produced). But I'm not sure that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern really live up to their fame. I've heard a lot about this play. I think it might have been designated for study by High School students. Hence the fame. But I found it, overall, a little disappointing. Sure, the idea of a play about a play with a play inserted in the original being duplicated in the current play ......gives it a certain complexity and layering. But, for me, anyway, it is a bit of a cheat....just using Shakespeare's plot and super-imposing on it extra lines. Yes the introduction of the idea of probability into the plot was a new twist. and yes, there are some great lines there....such as the (wry, gentle...to Alfred) "Thank you we'll let you know". And: "no one gets up after death--there is no applause----there is only silence and some second hand clothes, and that's death". And, another from Rozencrantz...."Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all."
So, yes, some good lines, and some good material with the players imitating life...but more so in imitating death. And this line from the Player: "Don't you see? We're actors---we're the opposite of people". Yes...it does make me think occasionally but, overall, I was underwhelmed. A lot of tricky stuff there from the super-imposition of R&G on Shakespeare's Hamlet. But maybe too much reliance on Shakespeare's ideas. I give it just three stars ...it was going to be two but as I've written this review, I realise that maybe there is a bit more in it than I originally thought. ( )

Very amusing and very confusing at the same time. A perfect example of absurdist literature. ( )