For extra credit, please write a comment in response to this posting. Your comment should:
- include a quotation
- include your ideas about it
- include stunningly intriguing questions for your classmates to consider
You may also respond to posts for extra credit.
For each posting (comment/response), you can receive 10 points of extra credit. The most extra credit you may receive is 30 points (as in 30/30 on an extra grade). Feel free to post more than three times, though, because this could be very cool.
Remember the posting rules, please: no full names, and be nice to each other.
27 comments:
I started the book today, and I thought it was hilarious. I was surprised to see the parallels between "Waiting for Godet" and "Hamlet." I'll be sure to post something cool later on tonight or tomorrow. I would love to chat/respond to your ideas as well.
-Pete V.
There are some interesting parallels between "Waiting for Godot" and "Rosencrantz and Guil.." The stage directions also add a lot to the play. It is easier to read than "Hamlet" was because of the directions, it also adds more to the experience. It kind of spices things up and helps you to paint a better picture. I think Guildenstern is more like Estragon because of his crazy rants about things that oddly enough pertain to what is going on, but those rants also remind me of Lucky's blurb in Godot. How do you guys think the characters relate?
-Tom M.
"We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all we know it isn't even true. For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured." (pg. 67)
I'm amazed at this quote because in a few sentences Stoppard articulates what i have been trying to profess all my life. I'm not asking anyone to change their minds or relinquish their ideals but just think about it: The only reason why any of us have our opinions is because we have been brought up to assume they are right. Sure, you have formed them and shaped them through experiences and thoughts but in reailty, our morals are pretty much the same. Why is it that just because someone contradicts another's opinions they are labeled "wrong." Why is it that killing is wrong and crimnals are labeled as, well, criminals? Why is that word adequate to someone who is just like you and I only they have made a few poor decisions. All I'm asking is for my classmates to look outside the box a little..go beyond your comfort zone and realize that everything you have ever lived, everything you have ever thought or believed in, could be all a lie. Make your own convictions. Create your very own opinions and don't ever let anyone tell you that you are wrong, because whose to say what really is wrong or right?
Did anyone notice the prayer references to the prayer "Our Father"?...."Give us this day our daily mask."(pg.39), "Give us this day our daily cue."(pg.102), and also "Call us this day our daily tune."(pg.114)
Does anyone have any ideas to why these are in there and their importance? They usually come at times when a rhyming word is said in the sentence before, but I can't figure out their importance. The only thing i can think of is that Ros and Guil are religious and they follow the bible to the extent that they think God has a destiny for them possibly so they use references of the bible to describe their life.
OK, so I know what you're talking about Evan and I have no clue, because I noticed that too. Did you notice that it's always Guil. who says it too? Although I just thought that maybe in the context of which the conversation is taking place it could be talking about something they want or are just being sarcastic. Like on page 39 they are arguing about looking stupid and whatnot and Ros. wants Guil. to stop making him look ridiculous and Guil. responds by saying "Give us this day our daily mask". And he could be saying something to the effect of consistency being a mask and that's what Ros. wants Guil. to put on or perhaps Guil. if making fun of Ros. by saying he's no fun or is always on Guil.'s case about something. I think that on page 114 it's easier to explain. I was thinking that since Ros. said he heard a band Guil. was talking in reference to the band that Ros. supposedly heard and he may have just being sarcastic. I don't know, I was just trying something out here. :-)
I also noticed all of the parallels between R&G and Waiting for Godot and all that...
One quote I found interesting was on page 66:
Player: Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special.
Guil: But for God's sake what are we supposed to do?!
Player: Relax. Respond. That's what people do. You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn.
I thought that this was interesting because I agree with the Player's last line about not being able to go through life always questioning everything you do or say or think. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow and that's what the Player is telling Guil. because he's flipping out about not having anything to do. Everyone has their own uncertainties, its not just Guil. and Ros. which is what the Player is trying to get through Guil.'s thick head. Sometimes what you're supposed to do isn't written out for you. You have to be the one who chooses your destiny much of the times, other times, things just happen and you have to go along with them, which Guil. and Ros. obviously have a problem with.
-Rachel L.
Back again. It's a bit random but I just wanted to point one part of R&G that I can totally relate to.
On page 38:
Guil:...Has it ever happened to you that all of a sudden and for no reason at all you haven't the faintest idea how to spell the word--"wife"-- or "house"-- because when you write it down you just can't remember ever having seen those letters in that order before...?
I just have to say that even though throughout most of the play this guy annoys me and is a weirdo at times, I agree with him. Like last week I had to make a heading and I had the same phrase on Microsoft word repeated in different fonts so I could see how it looked. One of the words was "coach" and by the time I was done with it, coach did not look like it should be spelled that way. So I just thought I'd throw that out there and now everyone will know that I agree with a semi-crazy man.
-Crazy Lady(Rachel L.) :-)
I also liked that quote Rachel was talking about on page 38.
Guil:...Has it ever happened to you that all of a sudden and for no reason at all you haven't the faintest idea how to spell the word--"wife"-- or "house"-- because when you write it down you just can't remember ever having seen those letters in that order before...?
I thought that was a really interesting existential statement in the text. It seemed to really be questioning truth. Why is w-i-f-e wife? What is it that gives that word meaning if it's just letters in a random order. Relating to that a couple pages later...
Guil: Words, words. They're all we have to go on.
Ros: Shouldn't we be doing something constructive? (41)
Not only is Guildenstern's commentary on language interesting but I find Rosencrantz's response absolutely perfect. Guildenstern repeats this idea that language is merely an illusion that has a false meaning given by people who have no power to give meaning. I love the use of the word constructive in Rosencrantz's comment. Alluding to the uselessness of speech. It gives the impression that what they are doing, which is trying to decide what the king's word is worth is the opposite of constructive, destructive. That in trying to find meaning in meaningless things, they are destroying the essence of what the words are trying to portray.
Maybe I'm stretching this a little.
You know Rachel i think your explanations make perfect sense. Especially the one about the mask. Guil seems to be pointing out that they live their lives behind this mask. They are simple men, guards of the king who live their lives through the king instead of for themselves, and therefore might have to put up fronts. When they finally act like themselves, whether it be ridiculous as Ros said they were acting, they feel the need to put on a mask and hide their foolishness because it has no place in their social class. The mask might be representative of the stereotypical guard; the life they should lead according to the king. Good point Rach.
Emily, that was h-a-w-t! or hott, oh wait hot. That was an awesome close-reading analysis. I enjoyed it and I totally agree with your argument.
Hey you guys, going back a bit...
Evan, you spoke nicely about how the Player's statement on p. 67 opens up a powerfully different frame of thought away from moral certainty. However, I have a little bit of a different take on it. Bear with me. Agreed: People are products of their parents, their environment, etc. and are influenced by them to the point that things like morals, values, (language...for y'all who posted later) are based upon. But where I diverge from you is the "right or wrong"/"truth or lie" part. I see this as very much an existential quotation because of its uncertainty, and also a statement of relativity outside of standard measuring blocks like good and bad.
Like: "...reality, the name we give to the common experience...."(21) So the real question is not so much "Is what I have been taught good/true?" but more "Is what I perceive the same that others perceive?" This question brings up even more mind blowing questions like "If my perceptions are different than others...who's perception is reality?" and then "What is reality?" and then "Does reality exist?" and then "Do I exist?" and so forth until the end of time.
Nay?
Um, that last post was me. Elliott J. Seriously. I'm no post-stealer.
Guil: Words, words. They're all we have to go on.
Ros: Shouldn't we be doing something constructive? (41)
"We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all we know it isn't even true. For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured." (pg. 67)
Player: Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special.
Guil: But for God's sake what are we supposed to do?!
Player: Relax. Respond. That's what people do. You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn.
These were quotes dropped in period 5ers discussion and we need them in ours...okay now check it out. This book and WFG parallel each other and they are both existential. They always question why or how and correct me if Im wrong but that is what existentialism is all about. If you look up above, although Guil has a more serious spin on the things he says, Ros is still existential in his words. He instead of being deep always asks what they should be doing, or where should they be.
Someone argue or support...I think this whole paper thing is coming together for me
&NDY $ASH
so ya period 5, ignore what i said, its late...that was to get copied and pasted into our chat. MY BAD!! by the way, hot stuff!
Now, I want to talk about language. I'm bummed I didn't get into the fray as it happened...after the fact will have to suffice.
Emily - nice...constructive vs. deconstructive arguement. I like. "Guildenstern repeats this idea that language is merely an illusion that has a false meaning given by people who have no power to give meaning"(M-O). Ok, so, language is an example of something that is given FALSE meaning because it is commonly accepted by people without the authority to give it meaning. Out of curiosity, who or what does have the power to give meaning? Or does anyone? Or do we all, but only if it is collective? Or is it individual? Perhaps this quotation can relate:
"A Chinaman of the T'ang Dynasty...dreamed he was a butterfly, and from that moment he was never quite sure that he was not a butterfly dreaming it was a Chinese philosopher. Envy him; in his two-fold security"(60).
All by himself, this Chinaman has decided it is possible that he is in fact a butterfly who dreams about being a Chinaman. This is all upon his own authority. But is it false? Can you prove it either way? It looks to me that theres no ultimate authority to determine reality, including common thinking, because common thinking is impossible to truly confirm. The most intriguing part of that quotation is "Envy him; in his two-fold security." I think that what Ros. is saying is that the Chinaman is capable of creating more than one reality for himself, all alone, and with two possibilities, he has twice the chance of finding truth. Although I'm not sure if this can fit with his previous statement that you so nicely close-read. Anyone?
-Elliott J.
Hey guys, this is Brietta. Now I know how you feel Elliott, about not being in the fray as it happens, but I'll try to post something anyways.
Going back to Evan's first post, I have to say that I completely agree with him. Everything we have been taught could be wrong, because no one seems to know what the real truth is. The funny thing is that I think that religion and existentialism have this thing in common. Okay, bear with me, this is where it gets a little weird.
In almost any religion, you have to accept that you, as a human being, don't know everything. That's where faith comes in, believing in something without physical evidence or any actual proof. "Everything has to be taken on trust... It's the currency of living." No one can say that what we believe is wrong, because no one really knows what is right. Okay, maybe that was a little too deep, but there it is. Here's my question for all of you: Is there such a thing as natural instinct, a gut feeling that tells you what is wrong or right and is untainted by human existence or outside forces? If so, can we trust it? Thoughts? Comments?
Hey everyone, its Bri. You guys are doing a great job! Those are some cool questions and answers.
So now for Brietta's question.
If no one knows for sure what is right or what is wrong, then how is one so sure that there is a right and wrong? What if actions are not right or wrong, but are simply there to spark reactions that may or may not be classified as good or bad? Furthermore, if there is no right or wrong, there may not be good or bad either.
A lot of people have discusssed the first part of the quote on pg. 66 but i am interested in the last part. "One acts on assuptions. What do you assume?" (66) When I reread that, it just floored me. I was just flabbergasted by the weight of the last question "What do you assume?". I thought of everything I know: all the facts, theories, ideas, everything! I think that goes beyond existentialism and even questions it because one could say that existentialists assume that they exist, but do they actually exist? What is existence?
So my question comes right from the text: "What do you assume?"
I'm making an attempt to actually get some extra credit on this post (finally.) Ok, I like the biblical allusions in Rosencrantz and guildenstern. "That great baby you see there in not yet out of his swaddling clouts" (55) This quote has the words "baby" and "swaddling" which is a reference to Jesus as a baby in his swaddling clothes! Through the book the Lord's Prayer is mentioned. Evan touched on the subject earlier. I find it especially interesting how the last word is changed to sort of go along with what they are doing at the moment of the quote. This religious insertion creates an undertone that questions religion from an existential point of view. It is used (ironically) in times where they are in need of something or in trouble or what not because they never received help/advice from a higher being. This supports the atheist aspect of existentialism because it teaches people not to rely on other people (higher being or not) in times of need. In a sense I disagree with Evan's interpretation because I think overall, there's a negative connotation due to the lack of response from a higher being, which in my opinion mocks faith and other religious beliefs. Sorry if you think this is lame or a stretch on the anaylsis part.
That was Peter V. who posted that last remark. I would also like to respond the Evan's post in regards to life. He stated that morals are acquired through life experience and because we are "told" they are right. I will try to refute that statement in a friendly non-biased way. I am not trying to attack Evan or any individual in this argument. There is a reason why the human race has similar views in regards to morality. Rosencrantz states: "We must be born with an intuition of morality. Before we know the words for it, before we know that there are words, out we come, bloodied and squalling with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there's only one direction..." This is a powerful statement. If morality is instilled upon man, somebody must have done this "instilling." Through this statement, Rosencranzt is alluding to the fact that maybe a God exists, if we possess this natural disposition to be "good." In the Bible, Jesus states that any sin is equal in the eyes of God, which basically means that murdering someone is just as bad as using the Lord's name in vein. So if we interpret this literally, nothing separates a criminal from anyone else, because everyone sins. In the world today, people would beg to differ, as a murderer is far "worse" than someone who says "Oh, my God." Anyways, I think the morality that exists today is correct for several reasons. I believe that God instills this morality upon man. Generally, people do nice things because they are pleasant. They do nice things to feel good about themselves. People who are true Christians (Christians with compassion, integrity, honor and respect) act they way they do to please God. Morality only exists because a God does. It would be rather depressing to live only to exist, because then one's life really "doesn't matter" or have an overwhelming affect on anything. A mind setting such as this is demoralizing to martyrs because it says that their effect has no meaning. On the other hand, it says that people such as Hitler have no effect on history if morals do not exist. Basically, if there is no higher being, our existance is essentially useless because there is nothing to live for except simply to exist. I choose to be optimistic and hold these aka sensible views, but do I just so I can feel good about myself at the end of the day? No, I choose to have faith in that someday my values, ideas and morality pay off when judgement day happens. Even if you're right and there is no God, there is no point being so ignorant and stubborn to the point where you end up in hell. Sorry this turned out to be biased, but maybe it will spark thought in others. I would absolutely love a response to agree or disagree with me!
-Peter V.
Allright so Pete wanted me to respond with opposition, and I have just that in a hopefully non-judgemental way. I'll try and touch on everything Pete..but first and foremost, what sticks in my head is when you said
"Morality only exists because a God does." Now hold on a second, I dont do drugs or drink or kill people, which i would assume are things you would agree are immoral acts to commit, yet i dont believe there is a God either. So, accoriding to you, I'm not moral regardless of the fact that i dont do those things, but simply becuase i dont believe in god. I think this is going to be really hard for not only you, Pete, but everyone to grasp becuase its just too different, but another thing that struck me as odd is that you said "Even if you're right and there is no God, there is no point being so ignorant and stubborn to the point where you end up in hell." Why am i stubborn and ignorant because i dont believe in the "norm?" Why is it that your ideals and values supercede mine and are therefore moral and not stubborn? Whose is to say that i am wrong and you are right or visa versa? I understand this isnt a personal attack on me, i get it, but honestly, lets break that sentence down even furthur. NOw this could be a stereotype, but I'm under the impression that if you believe in God, you believe in heaven and therefore there must be a hell as a reciprocal to heaven, which you stated in that statement. For a second i was proud, becuase you admitted "even if there isn't a god..." but you followed that with "why be so ignorant that you go to hell." Well if i dont believe in god, and i dont believe in heaven, logic would have it that i dont believe in hell either. BUt it inadvertantly came out of you in a sentence that could otheriwise be claimed a sentence where you stepped outside your boundaries by saying there was no god. You fell outside your comfort zone, but fell back inside it so quickly that you assumed stubborn(bad/sinners) people go to hell which is a stereotypical christian idealogy. And i think you had a great point about people being born with this "unrealized" morals and values..that makes sense to some extent. But as a kid, you dont learn that hitting is wrong until you are disciplined, and you dont learn to treat others with respect until you are taught. I find it hard to believe that humans are born knowing that killing is wrong, without otherwise being told so. And if that be the case, most importantly what i want you to take away from my seemingly stubborn and immoral rants is the understanding of well maybe things dont have to be wrong and we have been living a lie. I'm not saying that i could go out and kill someone and think its right, but i do believe we overvalue life. Why is it so important to live and see others live, whom we have never met before. Why do we "have" to care about who dies in wars and what they fought for, when i cant even handle my only friggin problems. Life's tough, its not a stroll in the park. So when did it become "moral" to help others when you cant even help yourself. you commented on HItler and people otherwise associated with affecting history and making a difference. Difference. That word must mean something different to me than it does you. Difference means still having an affect today, but we hope that its a positive difference when it comes to history. Sure i have been taught everything about the tragedies of hitler and people of his kind. And?...Do i look any different? Do i seem to have taken something crucial away from this knowledge? The world still fights Pete, and i think it would be safe to say that we are worse off because of the "changes" Hitler made. NOTHING EVER GETS RESOLVED. And there's where peoples stubborness comes in. You just simply refuse to believe it.
Hey, its Pete...I'm going to rephrase my argument tonight. I'd love to hear from others (wait until tonight to see the updated version!)
I was thinking about one of the topics that we touched on in class today about entering and exiting, and how we seem to label a lot of things in life according to starting something by leaving something else, And how death is the final exit and one that we don't get to choose because it happens to everyone. "Everyone is marked for death", no matter how important or unimportant they might be.
Guil: No,no,no... you've got it all wrong... you can't act death. The fact of it is nothing to do with seeing it happen-it's not gasps and blood and falling about- that isn't what makes it death. It's just a man failing to reappear, that's all-now you see him, now you don't, that's the only thing that's real: here one minute and gone the next and never coming back-an exit unobtrusive and unannounced, a disappearance gathering weight as it goes on, until, finally, it is heavy with death". (pg. 84)
I think that Guildenstern becomes overwhelmed with what death is here while trying to defend it against how the tragedians portray it. Guil sees death as simple, "just a man failing to reappear". The tragedians use death as an occasion within their shows, something that they know the audience is looking foreward to, instead of the unannounced disappearance that Guild states. Does anyone have any ideas why Guild is so persistent about death having "nothing to do with seeing"?
Hey, its Pete again… I’m going to try and rephrase my argument, and try to resolve some issues that Evan is proposing. When I said, “Morality only exists because a God does,” I meant for it to be more general. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether one believes in a God, but rather, morality exists because a God has created them. Nothing exists without a reason, and nothing happens without consequence. Few things are coincidental. I’d like to state right now that I used the words “ignorant” and “stubborn” purely to spark argument because they are offensive and extreme. I wanted to get a genuine reaction from people. I don’t believe that other people’s thoughts are wrong, in fact, I actually share some of the ideas you have. I don’t believe my ideas are superior compared to yours! Not even close. I don’t think that you are stubborn because you don’t believe in the norm, I just think it is risky to put your fate on the line. Eternity is a long time, so if in fact an afterlife exists it would be nice to spend that time pleasantly (in heaven.) Because there is no proof either way, it is hard for people to be certain in their ideas. Even though I have my doubts every once in a while, it simply makes sense to “play it safe” and not formulate my own ideas because I don’t think I have the life experience and knowledge to do so. Now, to touch on morality again, you could be right about kids not knowing to “be nice” until they are told. Either way, its not important because morality exists today, and the origins don’t exactly matter. When you said that people shouldn’t be involved in others lives in reference to war, you make a valid point. Although maybe your thoughts would be different if you were forced to participate in one. I can barely manage my own life as well. Life is crappy sometimes, but the reality is, shat happens. Terrible, nasty things will always happen in this world, and everyone will face trials that seem inconceivably pointless to you. In my opinion these things that “don’t and wont ever be resolved” occur and exist because Satan reins on this earth as much as God does. It’s a spiritual battle to will continue to happen. I don’t want to be cliché-ish, but the good things in life wouldn’t be so nice if bad things didn’t happen. Every exit is another entrance as life is a continuous journey through good and bad things. This is why nothing seems to get resolved. It has to do with the stubbornness of the human race. World peace will never happen, and I don’t expect it to. Tragedies and debacles will always happen, and morals will never override the evil on earth. Based on this statement, it doesn’t give the human race an excuse to dismiss morals and be agnostic, atheistic or existentialist. Nobody said it would be easy, but faith can help people through this jagged, seemingly unfair world. If you can look past all this, maybe Jesus is “the way the truth and the light” and then again, maybe there is no God, which would make man a pointless, depressing, miserable and gloomy blog of meaningless existence. We might as well be slugs. Do they have a purpose?
This is Jessica E. and I'm not in your class, but I just wanted to say that I found your discussions much more interesting than those of my class. Evan, I am happy that you have finally found a name for your views. I alos absolutly LOVE the first quote that you posted! It seems to make my life much clearer.
You guys are doing great!
I am very interested in what Farah had to say about death although I am not able to answer her question about why Guildenstern says that death has nothing to do with seeing. The quotation you chose was one of my favorites in the play, "I'm talking about death-and you've never experienced that. You cannot act it... noone gets up after death-there is not applause-there is only silence and some second-hand clothes, and that's -death" (123). I found it especially interesting during the scene when the players arranged from someone to be hanged,for real, during their performance, but yet afterwards they said it was not real enough(although I am unable to find the page). I think that what Guildenstern is getting at is that death does not have to do with seeing because "death is not anything..a gap you can't see, and when the wind blows through it, it makes no sound" (124). Guildenstern is having trouble explaining what death is because death is the absence of life, how is one able to describe the "absense of presence". I think what the player says, "light goes with life and in the winter of your years the dark comes early" (124). I think this has a meaning related not only to life, with death being the darkness but also I think there is a double meaning on the word "winter". "Winter" meaning coldness and hard times of life that come sooner than you think. Anyone have any thoughts?
I am just throwing close readings out here to see if anyone sees any other things to say about these quotations.
Ros:..We've done nothing wrong! We didn't harm anyone. Did we?
Guil:I can't remember.
Ros:All right, then. I don't care. I've had enough. To tell you the truth, I'm relieved. (Disappears without Guil noticing)
Guil:..There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said-no. But somehow we missed it. Rosen-? Guil-? We will know better next time. (Disappears) (125-126).
We touched about this in class and I thought it was very interesting, that Ros and Guil could not remember if they did anything wrong. It relates to the fact that maybe the past and future do not matter and everything is just a matter of what is happening in the moment. The fact that if they did something horrible in the past does not matter, could be the reason why they can not remember if they did something wrong.
Stoppard uses humor when Guil says "there must have been a moment...but somehow we missed it." This is irony because this whole play has been packed with signs for Ros and Guil but yet they missed every single one of them. For example: when the two spies were wearing the same outfits as Ros and Guil "No wait a minute, don't tell me-it's a long time since-where was it?..I know you, don't I?"(82). I think that is also related to the players line about how some people are "marked for death". If the player is right then, the fact that Ros and Guil missed all of the signs was because they are "marked for death" and that is the way it should be. The fact that Guil says "we will know better next time" is also interesting because it implies that there will be a next time, meaning reincarnation or something of the sort. I thought that was espically interesting compared to what he said "It's just failing to reappear, that's all-now you see him, now you don't, that's the only thing that's real:here one minute and gone the next and never coming back-an exit, unobtrusive, and unannounced." (84) Compared to before when Guil said there would be a next time, in this quotation he is saying that once you die you are never coming back. I guess I do not understand the mixed messages that Guil is saying. The other interesting thing about this quotation is that Guil description of what death is, was exactly what both his and Ros deaths were like. They both just disappeared "unobtrusive and unannounced."
Another close reading...
"Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one, a moment, in childhood when it first occurred to you that you don't go on for ever...I can't remember it. It never occurred to me at all... Before we know the words for it, before we know that there are words, out we come, bloodied and squalling with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there's only one direction, and time is its only measure." (72) I think this is one of the few times in the play when Ros's attention is brought to "signs" everywhere else in the play, it seems that Ros just lives his life without questioning it and Guil is the one who was making all of the assumes and questions about life. Ros makes a great point about there only being one direction in life, death, and the only measurement of that is time. The only way your life can be measured is by time, it can not be measured by your accomplishments in life or how intelligent you are because none of that really matters because your life is just about existance, and I think that is what Ros is trying to say by this quotation.
Another quotation that interests me is... "Ros: Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with a lid on it?" (70). Do you think that throughout this entire play, it is possible that Ros and Guil were already dead. That this play was written about their life after they were dead. Any comments?
Post a Comment