Essay about Anagnorisis and Existence (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)

In this play “Hamlet” written by William Shakespeare, there are many soliloquies that are said by Hamlet to depict various meanings of his thoughts, feelings, and actions that are inside of him. More specifically the soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1, in lines 57-91 starts off with the famous saying known as “To be, or not to be”. Throughout this soliloquy, Hamlet is asking himself the question of whether it is better to live or not to live. In life, we are faced with many situations where we feel the need to give up our life and not face the problems. Only by facing all the troubles, will a person become stronger and more courageous to handle anything in life. By believing in one’s self, can man have the courage to follow what they think is right. Killing yourself or giving up is never a solution in life. This soliloquy reveals Hamlet’s fearful personality by showing that his decision-making process is slow and that he fears risks or uncertainty. These character traits are depicted thoroughly by Hamlet throughout the play.

Based on the play of Hamlet by William Shakespeare, suicide is the most prevalent and important themes in Hamlet. Hamlet always asks himself for the reason to stay alive. Even though he always thinks that there is no reason for him to stay alive, however he always chooses to stay. The first reason Hamlet seems to contemplate suicide is because his life is contaminated by sins and revenge. The other reason he is thinking about suicide is because he is young and immature. Young adults usually look for escapes when they become angry with things. There are many instances where Hamlet contemplating suicide and he treats the idea of suicide morally, religiously, and aesthetically, with particular attention to Hamlet’s two important statements about suicide: the “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt” soliloquy (I.ii.129–158) and the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (III.i.56–88).

The way that Shakespeare portrayed Hamlet’s soliloquy touches on a global issue of suicide. While Hamlet considers his suicidal thoughts it reveals inklings about his character. Hamlet’s soliloquy advances the tone of the play because of

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were present when Hamlet spoke to the head player about adding a few lines to the play "The Murder of Gonzago." They did not actually hear what those lines were to be, but surely they could not help but realize that the king's anger during the play was probably related to the changes Hamlet made. When the king rose in anger and left, he was followed by everyone except Hamlet and Horatio. Hamlet, of course, was not concerned for the king, since he knew the cause of his anger. Horatio's heart was turned toward Hamlet, so he also remained behind. Had Rosencrantz and Guildenstern been loyal to Hamlet, they would have remained behind also, but ambition sent them after the man

There is a complementary structure between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead and Hamlet in the sense that, they are written in different time periods and show different understanding on the subject at hand. In 1602, the time when Hamlet was written, people believed in church and that dead would go to heaven or hell based on their deeds , but Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead was written in 1960’s a time of existentialism, when existence of god and essence of life were questioned.

Next, in one of the most famous soliloquies in the English language, Hamlet again contemplates the subject of suicide, but he does not do so on impulses of emotion. Instead, his contemplation is based on reason. “To be or not to be, that is the question: whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer outrageous fortune…or end them. To die, to sleep- no more- and by a sleep to say we end the heartache…’Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time…who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler

In the end, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are naively loyal to Hamlet, and this becomes their downfall. They know that Hamlet has killed Polonius, and yet, they take no precautions as they accompany Hamlet to England. Their trust in both Claudius and Hamlet gets them killed. Hamlet’s reveals his mistrust of his schoolmates in a conversation with his mother, and refers to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as, "...my two-school fellows, whom I will trust as adders fanged..." 

In this paper I will be analyzing and discussing how these four soliloquies reflect changes in Hamlet’s mental state; his

Hamlets contemplation of ending his life shows an inward conflict within himself. In his first soliloquy, he debates whether he should commit suicide. "To be, or not to be- / that is the question: / whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them" (3.1. lines 64-68 Shakespeare). He questions why he should live with all of this chaos but overcomes this internal conflict because he acknowledges that in his religion suicide is a sin. “O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, / Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, / or that the everlasting had not fixed His canon 'gainst (self-slaughter). O God! God!” (1.2. lines 133-136 Shakespeare). This soliloquy signifies the reality of Hamlet s internal conflict and also shows the reality of his external conflict with the society he is surrounded by. This declamation establishes

In Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, he contemplates for a while whether to commit suicide. Hamlet’s unhappiness is caused by the people around him. His mother’s actions of marrying her brother-in-law made Hamlet extremely frustrated drawing him out of the right mental state. Meanwhile, his view of his father is godlike, but he distrusts the Ghost enough to think about killing himself instead of pursuing the Ghost’s request. In Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, “to be, or not to be;” he contemplates (3.1). “The Everlasting had not fixed, His cannon ‘gainst self-slaughter!” (1.2). He is uncertain if things would be any better in the afterlife if he were to end his life. Hamlet’s hesitancy, especially concerning suicide, is the cause of his realistic and frightened nature. In this situation, his indecisiveness saves his life, but it also does not allow him to find another solution. Concluding, in his soliloquy he would rather

Lastly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead teaches the message of knowing your identity. What were Rosencrantz and Guildenstern missing, above all else? It’s not remembering the past; they could have just worried about the future. It’s not decision making; they could have gotten along fine just following someone else’s lead. It works for most people. What they were really missing was their identities. Neither Rosencrantz nor Guildenstern had fully developed a sense of self. Neither really did anything that made them distinct from the other. In essence, they were the same, and interchangeable. This was made clear throughout the duration of the play, because of several small details. When the two were greeted by people, they often got their names confused. The

Nemesis is defined as being a deserved fate; just punishment for wrong-doing. Nemesis plays a tremendous role in Hamlet. The majority of characters in the tragedy of Hamlet deserved what happened to them in the end. Nemesis and its role in Hamlet create ironic endings for the characters of this tragedy.

When your back is against a wall and it seems that all hope is lost, do not give up. Because if you choose suicide, you will never live to see it get worse, however, you also pass up the chance to see life get better. Suicide is an important, recurring theme in William Shakespeare's, Hamlet, and it is a topic that Hamlet contemplates quite often throughout the play. Hamlet often goes back and forth between to be or not to be, but continues to believe that people although capable of suicide, choose to live. Hamlet is adamant that the unknown, the inconclusiveness of nobility, along with the sin attached to suicide is what ultimately keeps people from taking their own lives.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, written in the 1960s by playwright Tom Stoppard, is a transforation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Stoppard effectively relocates Shakespeare’s play to the 1960s by reassessing and revaluating the themes and characters of Hamlet and considering core values and attitudes of the 1960s- a time significantly different to that of Shakespeare. He relies on the audience’s already established knowledge of Hamlet and transforms a revenge tragedy into an Absurd drama, which shifts the focus from royalty to common man. Within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Stoppard uses a play within a play to blur the line that defines reality, and in doing so creates confusion both onstage- with his characters, and offstage-

Hamlet is undoubtedly one of the most well-studied and remembered tragedies in all of history. Renowned for its compelling soliloquies and thought-provoking discussions about life, death, and love, the play takes a very serious look at the topics it presents. Based on this famous work is another tragedy, known as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. In this work, which is interwoven with the original, the namesake characters bumble about in the immense world, over which they have no control. Without a sense of identity or purpose, the two merely drift to and fro at the whim of the larger forces around them; namely Hamlet, who eventually leads them to death. The twin plays follow the same story and end with the same result – nine deaths.