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.
- 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.
21 comments:
On page 66 of our beautiful vintage copies of "Ros et Guil are Dead", I found a particularly intriguing quotation, one which reminded of something we had discussed earlier concerning "Waiting for Godot":
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 though life questioning your situation at every turn.
GUIL: But we don't know what's going on, or what to do with ourselves. We don't know how to ACT.
(please excuse the capitalized words, but this wonderfully constructed "Leave your comment box" only allows one to do so within certain limits, no boundaries, no inhibitions, but limits, certainly)
This section reminded me of two things: First, the conflict in Hamlet between the title character's desire to act, but his apparent inability to do so. Perhaps he, as Ros and Guil, doesn't know how to act. He understands what he wants to do, but is unable to do so, for whatever reason, perhaps because he is unsure of himself or his father or whatever it may be. In any case, I believe that this restriction of action, by which I mean the "thing" that causes the actor to hesitate, could be represented by Godot, whether he be a person, entity, or immortal being. In Ros and Guil's case, their "Godot" is much the same as Vlad and Estra's, mainly being that they don't understand their circumstances, and consequently are too afraid to act lest they make a mistake by way of misinformation. The excerpt I included in this posting compares well to the line in "Godot" when Vlad (I believe) reasons that they ought to continue to wait if only to "see where they stand". This desire for meaning, explanation, and primarily a definiton of life's boundaries could conceivably "Godot". It is also the thing which Ros and Guil often bemoan not having. In such terms, a striking parallel can be drawn between Ros/Guil and Vlad/Estra.
Another Comment (though one will note I dare to not open an additional comment box [aka stickin it to the man])
At the conclusion of Act I in "Godot", as mentioned in class, it ends with the final stage direction: THEY DON"T MOVE. In contrast, the second act of Ros and Guil ends with the direction: THEY GO. Interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge, Vlad/Estra, though they choose (if one has a choice) not to move, survive the scene, while Ros/Guil move onward to ultimately meet their demise. Perhaps there is a commentary on life to be found in this, does acting in life only bring us more swiftly to our end? Are Vlad and Estra better off being alive, even if they do nothing? (Reminds me of the conversation between Ros and Guil about whether it would be better to be alive or dead were one trapped in a box) Would you rather live with no meaning or seek meaning, only to find death, and moreover, even in death, no real meaning, for Ros and Guil, even as they realize they are condemned, have no explanation for life?
A final connection:
Though it may be of little importance, I appreciated the comment by Estragon (I think) following the "Where do we stand..." line, when he says: "Might it be better to strike the iron before it freezes?" I thought this very comparable to the advice that Claudius gives to Laertes in encouraging him to help in arranging Hamlet's death. Though yet also, it might be noted that while Laertes too acts, he also ends up dead. Might it be that the only survivors of this epic non-action vs. action battle may be the immobile tandem of Vladimir and Estragon?
-JamL
Note: I was forced to include the letters of my name up to the "m" because a classmate of mine also starts their name with "ja" and their last with "la"- I in no way think "JamL" is some cool blogging name...
Along with JamL the amazing blogger himself, I too found a connection to "waiting for godot" on the very first page. It was mentioned in class that Vladamir never tells his budy estra. about "Boy" when he returns for the second time and though we never came to a conclusion as to why that is, I think it was significant.
In Ros/Guild we see on page one the two flipping a coin, and Ros takes the roll of Vladamir in the sense that he is cheating and doesnt tell his friend. Now I am aware that Vladamir isnt cheating, and they arent playing a game in Waiting For Godot but he does keep it from his friend and for the sake of a future paper I am trying to connect the 4 characters in some way.
Why is it that when two people only have each other that things would be kept apart. Its not like Ros can go behind Guilds back and say "haha yea I stoll x amount from the guy" cause he has no one. And Vlad not telling Estra about the Boy is equally confusing because having a visitor from Gudot is what it is all about. If not Gudot then a message from him is good enough. Ros cheats Guild for no purpose, and then it says he feels embarressed for taking so much money.
The other thing I wanted to say is on page 20 Guild repeates himself the way estra. does.
Ros:you might well ask
Guild: we better get on
Ros:you might well think
Guild:we better get on
As we have learned from shakespear, form is important to literature like when Hamlet came out of Iambic pentameter. The design of the conversations in Ros/Guild and WFG are also alike.
JamL, aka Mr President made some good points, and I also feel the connection between the characters to a degree.I think we can get some good material on here for some thesis if we make some more connections.
And* Nas@
So, sorry to be annoying, but does anyone else notice that Ros/Guild keep hearing noises sounding like music? Well how many times in WFG do they hear something in the far and bring it up? I recall it from a class or two ago, as well as early on. Another connection maybe for the theory of relationship between books.
by the way page 15 and 20 in Ros/Guild
AN^Y NA!H
I have found some very interesting connections between "Waiting for Godot" and "Ros. and Guil. are dead." The first one is plot based in that Ros. is very forgetful and expresses this to Guil. on page 17. This reminds me of how Estragon is also very forgetful in "Waiting for Godot" in which it has great significance in the importance of the novel. I think that the forgetfulness is based on the fact that they might me in a heavanlike setting where they have to play the same day over and over again, but Ros. and Guil. don't experience this to the fullest extent.
Antoher thing I noticed was the overuse or excessiveness of stage directions. This reminds me "Waiting for Godot," because that was how Beckett wrote as well. The stage directions help the play have a little more umph (?) to it as well as helps the reader understand exactly what is going on. "Hamlet" had very little stage directions and in a way this makes it lessof a deconstructionist play.
Soemthing that makes both "Waiting for Godot" and "Ros. and Guil. are dead" existentialist plays is that the characters have nothing to do and are waiting for some direction in what to do. This appears on pages 41 and 42 in Ros. and Guil. Since they have nothing to do they tend to make up games and contemplate their existence.
Stoddard also seems to use lines from "Hamlet" which suggests that it is a deconstructionist play.
I can see both the deconstructionist and existentialist aspects to "Ros. and Guil. are dead" and I am not quite sure which one will come out in the end more.
Sally
When I first began reading Ros. and Guil. I noticed that there were certain similarities between characters and I first thought that Guil. was a lot like Estragon from Waiting for Godot because of the many questions he asks like "What are we going to do now?" on pg. 17. Ros. reminded me of Vladimir because of the way he gets irritated at Guil's random and repeating questions (pg. 18-19). Through out the play I notice that you could make an argument for them to switch roles because they change sometimes.
There were also many connections between life and death, just like there was in Godot. On pg. 39- GUIL: The only beginning is birth and the only end is death-if you can't count on that, what can you count on?
This reminded me of the whole idea of existentialism and the questioning of what they must do and what is the meaning of their existence, just like in Godot.
One more thing, I also noticed there were constant stage directions towards the audience. We talked in class about how they do that a lot in Godot as well. Stoppard does that a couple times in this play as well (pg. 58 is one example.).
well it seems like everyone is pushing exsistential...anyone want to play devils advocate?
A@DY N!SH
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
alright, here you go, an argument that this work is far more deconstructionist in nature:
What is the main debate raging in Hamlet? Some would say its the choice between life and death (see "to be or not to be..."). I contend that this idea is also an overwhelmingly significant issue in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as well as in Waiting for Godot. My main question is, do we live as a default action, or is it a choice we constantly make? In other words, as one of Mr. Templeton's (in ownership, not authorship) critical essays on Godot, is living simply choosing to not committ suicide? What is the natural action for a human, life or death? I believe in Ros and Guil, one could contend that that Stoppard is answering Hamlet's question regarding life in the scene when Ros and Guil discover that they have been set up. Though they see that they are heading to their demise, instead of acting to change course, they accept this finality as their destiny and end up dead ( although one may say that they are only dead in the "play" not real life). I think by allowing Ros and Guil to die in this manner, Stoppard may be saying that in order to live, humans must make a concious choice to do so and act towards that end. In contrast, drawing a possible rift between Ros and Guil and Waiting for Godot, consider the "world" of the latter work. The only thing that discerns the surroundings of Estra and Vlad from a normal stage is the tree, and how do they view the tree? Not as a means for climbing and looking out, not as a source of resources, but as a means to committ suicide. Perhaps Beckett is commenting that the world offers man only an opportunity to committ suicide, and whether or not a person does is their only true choice in living.
So what do you think, or think that Beckett or Stoppard thinks, or think that our teachers/the government WANTS us to think???
As I was reading Ros. and Guild., I noticed various biblical references--especially ones to the Our Father Prayer:
Guild: Give us this day our daily round (pg 93)
Guild: GIve us this day our daily cue (pg 102)
Guild: Call us this day our daily tune (pg 114)
Guild: Give us this day our daily mask (pg 39)
I think it is significant that Guild. is the one making all of these references because it is in his chanacter to. He is the one who wants to try and understand his purpose in life and why things happen. However, it is ironic that he makes these biblical references in the way he does because the real line of the prayer is "give us this day our daily bread" because there is shortage in the bread and so the bread is given once a day. It is ironic what Guild. says because he is asking for things that are in great supply like the cues, masks, and tunes he recieves plenty of.
-meh
We have been discussing in class about whether we think Ros. and Guild. have been dead the entire play, died at the end of the play, or are not even dead at all. I have a hard time believeing that they were dead the whole time because it seems that that means all of the other chanracters would have to have been dead as well. I have a quote from Guild. that somewhat supports my claim that they were not dead the whole time:
Guild: 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)
This quote somewhat confused me because Guild. said that you can't act death, which would make me think that they were not dead. However, he also said it is just a man failing to reappear which goes along with Waiting for Godot. I did not think Godot was dead but now that I know he did not reappear, I think that he was dead all along. Maybe this does mean that Ros. and Guild. are dead too.
I am probably being confusing, but I don't really know what to think!!
-meh
One thing I find interesting about the Player and the Tragedians is how often they die in scenes of their plays and how little it means to them.
"One day you are going to die...you die so many times; how can you expect them to believe in your death?" (83).
Life and Death is so important in Hamlet, WFG, and R+G as well as the decision that many characters face about their deaths. The players have all died so many deaths that they can almost not tell the difference between living and dying anymore. Guil. is right in this quotation about the fact that when it comes time for them to die, not one will notice and instead they will think it was just another scene. The players are always in costume and always in character and so how are the people around them to know if they are really dead or not. This seems like quite an existentialist point, because life and death are on such equal terms and almost interchangeable to the players. When it comes down to it though, the Player does make a reasonable attempt at dying before Ros. and Guil. and they completely believe him.
Sally
Just following up on my last comment about something that Guil. said about not being able to act death. We talked about this in class today. On page 123, Guil. says again:
Guild: I'm talking about death--and you've never experienced that. And you cannot act it. you die a thousand casual deaths--with none of that intensity which squeezes out life...and no blood runs cold anywhere. Because even as you die you know that you will come back in a different hat. but no one gets up after death--there is no applause--there is only silence and some second-hand clothes, and that's--death---
Again, this is another reason I do not think that Ros. and Guil. were dead the whole time because he talks about it in this way and explains it in such detail that one cannot act it. However, sometimes I feel that they were dead the whole time because when Ors. and Guil. talk to the Player earlier in the play and the Player says that he is always on and he doesn't have to change his costume or anything, that makes me think that they are dead because if they weren't, then the Player would not be able to do those kind of things. Guil. says as you die you know you will come back in a different hat. If they were acting death, the players would come back differently. So I think that they are all either dead the whole time and this is a play basically where everyone is dead or they are all alive, but no one is actually acting death.
Maybe I am all wrong and don't know what I am saying...does anyone have any suggestions?
-meh
So if you read Evan B's post on truth in the other classes blog youll see that he is coming from the point of view that for the most part us as human beings can agree on the fact that we share morals. We may not believe in the hard core facts, but we not right from wrong. You can argue that comes from the good book, if ya know what I mean.
In r/g AD Ros and Guild are watching a play, about themseleves. Ros and Guild are dead is a play in its self that we are watching or reading. So what I beleive the book is getting down to is the straight forward questions on life. We all know about the bible, and whether we agree on it or not, it doesnt matter. As far as R G are dead is concerned, the bible is our play.
If we are watching a play, about people who are watching themselves in a play, then the idea or purpose is to make us think, maybe we are living one big play. Coming from the idea of eternal life, maybe someday we will be able to watch ourselves in action. Maybe we will be able to watch ourselves perform our play...I dunno weirds me out, but just thinking outside the box a little. Ill shut up now.
ANDY NAS
I don't know if anyone else was thinking about this, but through reading these plays, I found myself remembering A Prayer for Owen Meany...mainly because Owen is so persistent to Johnny & co. about his "plan," his reason for living, if you will. Personally, I enjoyed this book much more than these plays because I think as a high school teenager, it's easier to relate to. So...in trying to explain the big "questions of life" that we've been pondering, for me anyways, it's easier to relate what is happening in Waiting for Godot and Ros & Guil are Dead to other novels/songs/quotes etc.
I think similar themes can be seen in all three works.
First, there are the religious references...I won't be redundant (see previous blog comments)
Second, fate/destiny
"NOW MY DREAM HAS SHOWN ME HOW I AM GOING TO DIE. I'M GOING TO BE A HERO! I TRUST THAT GOD WILL HELP ME, BECAUSE WHAT I AM SUPPOSE TO DO LOOKS VERY HARD." PG 416
(yay for all caps again, Owen!)
Connections? I think so...Owen constantly stresses that he is GOD'S INSTRUMENT...but what happens to this instrument?...he dies! He becomes a hero, but isn't able to live the life of hero, because he meets Godot. Yep, assuming that Godot is death, Owen Meany waits day after day for his ultimate fate: death...but of course we have to look at the context-he saves lives. So I think Beckett is commenting on a few different levels...he thinks as humans we wait to play our part...Owen Meany waited to be told what to do (save those children)...Val. & Est.waited to be told what to do by a "Godot"(turning out to be death itself) and Ros & Guil spend their whole lives waiting to be told what to do by the more important characters (i.e. Hamlet, King)
This "waiting" = fate because the characters all believe they have purpose, and I think the authors imply that what happens to them is inevitable. An interesting quote that goes along with this is:
Guil: But for God's sake, what are we supposed to DO?
All of these characters are seeking answers from someone else, taking orders from a higher power (literally, spiritually)...so the social commentary begs the question: Why are we waiting?!!" Although there are religious ties, I think the argument can be made that its not worth living your life wondering what is to come after death, because that's it. You are thrown in a grave, buried 6ft under, and you cease to exist. That’s the bleak reality. The optimistic one: we are given life.
Question to you all: why is everyone so concerned with the finding the answers to what happens after we die? What about before our life began? Where were we? People are so afraid of the “end”…but I think I’d be just as afraid as the beginning…I mean this on a few different levels:
The memory piece is very interesting…we cannot remember being infants…we might have one memory that stands out from when we were two, but most of what happened to us in the beginning of our lives is lost…so I guess this is along the lines of reincarnation…could we have lived previous lives and not remembered them? It’s a thought…
Also, life in general…you hear people talk about when the world is going to end…they march with signs, or analyze with pens…and can stir up hype similar to the whole Y2K flop…but what about before human life started, before dinosaurs roamed around…the beginning seems equally as scary, yet no one seems to think about it…couldn’t the end of this world just as likely be a new beginning?
Anyways, to tie this in with the plays, the characters are overly obsessed with where they are going, rather than where they have been. I just thought it was an interesting point to consider, and it broadens the topic.
Finally, just because I know Mr. Templeton for some strange reason opposes DMB and I happen to very much enjoy their music, I have some lyrics from 2 of their songs:
I can't believe that we would
Lie in our graves
Wondering if we had
Spent our living days well
I can't believe that we would
Lie in our graves
Dreaming of things that we
Might have been.
and
Gravedigger
When you dig my grave
Could you make it shallow
So that I can feel the rain
Gravedigger.
Toodles,
Emma
There are several instances in R&G where Ros reminds me of Hamlet. One of the main things that i picked up on was Ros asking questions about death. On pg 70 he says "do you ever think of yourself as acctually dead, lying in a..." This reminds me of Hamlets questioning whether or not to take his own life. He asks what is his purpose in this world etc..
Another instance involves WFG. Est and Vlad at the end of each day of waiting for Godot question on whether they should hang themselves or not. THis also brings back Hamlet and his own suicidial thoughts.
Brett C
Ok so I was thinking about this the other day because we had also discussed it in class. Temps. brought up the quotation on pg 122...
ROS: They had it in for us, didn't they? Right from the beginning. Who'd have thought that we were so important?
I remembered Ros. saying this, but I never really actually thought what he was saying and I thought it was just along the lines of questioning life and the ideas of existentialism. We were talking in class about how in Hamlet, Ros. and Guil. were portrayed as the smaller characters who did not seem to really matter. In this play though, it is written completely from their point of view so their lives seem to matter a little more, but it is as if they are completely surprised by this. Although the whole story is about them, they still wonder what their purpose in life is and how can all of this be happening to them because they feel as if they still do not matter.
I thought that the idea of wondering what makes you so important compared to everyone else around you and trying to figure out your place in the world was a theme HAMLET, WAITING FOR GODOT, and ROS. and GUIL. ARE DEAD shared. It also was a part of each book that made it possible for others to relate to.
-Jacqui L.
This is a reply to Hamilton's comment on these quotes....
Guild: Give us this day our daily round (pg 93)
Guild: Give us this day our daily cue (pg 102)
Guild: Call us this day our daily tune (pg 114)
Guild: Give us this day our daily mask (pg 39)
I also noticed this and was not quite sure what to think of it, but like you said, the things Guil. talks about are what he has plenty of. I also thought he was talking about things that other have plenty of and maybe not so much himself. When I looked back though Guil. seems to say these things after Ros. was in anguish and fed up and he would ask for something. Ros. would say...
Ros: Consistency is all I ask! (p.39)
Ros: All I ask is a change of ground! (p.93)
Ros: All I ask is our common due! (p.102)
Ros: I thought I heard a band. (in anguish) Plausibility is all I presume! (p.114)
Guil. replies with his repeating lines after Ros. is asking for something that he really wants. It made me think that Guil. is saying how everyone wishes they had certain things in life many times, but they can not always have them. Many of us want what we can not have and some work very hard to get those or work very hard but can never seem to reach that goal. Guil. seems to be saying that it would be much easier and it would be nice to just be able to get certain things we wanted by just simply saying it, as if it would just pop up right there in front of us. Life would be so much easier and less confusing that way.
Meg, that is kind of what I thought when i looked back at those quotes, but I don't know if that makes any sense either....
-Jacqui L.
In response to Emma's comments about not thinking about what comes after death, but instead what happened before we even arrived. I think this is a very interesting way to think about the "waiting" that Ros, Guil, Est, Vlad, Owen, and the rest of the world do. Everyone looks to future to what life has in store for them and only occasionally dwell on the past. Although some people give advice saying this is the good thing to do, I think the reason we study history in the first place is to learn from it. Vlad. and Est. have spent at least their last two days waiting for Godot and at the end of each day have discussed killing themselves. I wonder if maybe they have spent their whole lives waiting for Godot to show and if Godot is truly death, which I believe it is, and then they are wasting away their lives in expectation of their future death. Part of their problem is that they do not remember anything and so they do not recognize their inability to stop waiting. In R+G, Ros. and Guil. have no understanding of the past, just like Vlad. and Est., and so they spent their days receiving and following orders from people higher up on the social scale. In some ways they are waiting for death as well, because when it comes down to it at the end of the day they just want to be dead. At the end Ros. says he is relieved that death has come for him, because he has spent his life to what he thinks is his fullest extent, because he did not know there was anything more. He also says "They'll just have to wait" (125). This final signal that he realizes that he was always waiting to take orders, but now he is telling other people higher than him to wait for their death, because he wants to live a little longer. In the end I think that everyone should look behind them every once in awhile and check to make sure they are still on track.
Sally
My post on temps blog is about a discussion that took place in class on the importance of R & G confusing their names. These quotes demonstrate this…perfectly:
Claudius: Thanks, Rosencrantz (turning to Ros who is caught unprepared, while Guil bows) and gentle Guildenstern (turning to Guil who is bent double).
Gertrude (correcting): Thanks Guildenstern (turning to Ros, who bows as Guil checks upward movement to bow too-both bent double, squinting at each other…(36)
And…
Ros: My name is Guildenstern, and this is Rosencrantz…I’m sorry-his name is Guildenstern and I’m Rosencrantz. (22)
In the tragedy Hamlet, side characters such as Ros and Guil are considered insignificant to the extent that they serve as mere pawns for the King rather than characters with any personal goals, missions etc. By having other characters, confuse the two of them and even themselves confusing one another in R&G are dead, Stoppard exaggerates the ‘insignificance’ brought about of R&G in Hamlet. Consequently, however, by making the main characters R&G for his play, this in turn puts Hamlet into an insignificant role in R&GAD. I believe his intention is to portray how even though side characters may be one-sided in a play, they do have their own literary lives, which is left out by using them as only insignificant characters.
Are R&G in Hamlet as meaningless as we make them out to be in class?
C-Money...umm chris
Im back for more…
This post is more about the player’s comments on death, and the audience’s reactions:
Guil:…you die so many times; how can you expect them to believe in your death.
Player: On the contrary, it’s the only kind they do believe. They’re conditioned to it…
real death wasn’t convincing…
Audiences know what to expect, and that is all that they are prepared to believe in…
In these few quotes the reader, or audience, should get an understanding on how readers, audiences etc. react to a staged death. Here I believe that Stoppard is commenting on how people want a dramatic, played out death sequence. We know this because when the player had a real death on stage the people didn’t believe it; the man cried the whole time, and he wasn’t ‘convincing’ according too the player. The audience doesn’t want a normal death, they want something so tragic, and so over the top, because people have an expectation that death is the most dramatic thing ever.
And for the question: Does anyone think that they would be grouped in with Stoppard’s assumption of the audience.
C-money...chris
For this quote we shall go straight to the beginning…
(on flipping a coin...)
Guil: It must be the law of diminishing returns…I feel the spell about to be broken. (Energizing himself somewhat. He takes out a coin, spins it high, catches it, turns it over on to the back of his other hand, studies the coin-and tosses it to Ros. His energy deflates and he sits.)
I chose this here quote, because not only is it hilarious… I think it speaks to this play as being existentialist in nature. Here our two fascinating lead men R&G are flipping a coin many times, all the results being heads. Guildenstern tries to connect these happenings to life, the universe etc. He seems to turn a not normal but not extraordinary event into a huge debate. While contrastly Ros. is content on what happens, happens. I think this exemplifies existentialism, the debate that is. It does so in another way however, as Guil. tries to determine the meaning of life, he cannot remember why they were sent in the first place. It seems odd to me that one would focus on flipping a coin and its implications on the universe rather paying attention to their duties…
Le Question(s):
Does anyone think this could be just flipping a coin, or is it concretely existentialist?
and
Are you more like ros. Or guil?
c-to the-m
cmm
$XxcmoneyxX$
Post a Comment