|← "New Adventures of Mother Goose"||The Princess and the Goblins →|
In literature secondary characters are frequently used to build a theme in the story or for development of the plot. For instance, Shakespeare makes use of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to develop the plot of the story and improve the comprehension of their pieces. The two characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern achieve this by being the mechanisms that build the plot, giving an added outlook on central characters so that the person, who reads further, totally recognizes the writer’s point. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both enthusiastically used all through the play as instruments, which are used to enhance the perception of their parallel storylines and increase the viewpoints of the main characters. In the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both called upon by King Claudius from Wittenberg so that they can find out the basis for Hamlet’s eccentric conduct. On presenting themselves to the King, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern offer the King few reports of Hamlet’s madness and compel Claudius to decide that the demise of Hamlet is essential to his achievement as King (Shakespeare, 2.2.59).
In this circumstance, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are channels that give Claudius a profound insight into Hamlet’s personality; nevertheless, this only increases Hamlet’s pretense of lunacy by giving an additional cause that can merely help Claudius believe that his nephew has indeed gone crazy. This equivalent deed of exploitation by both Claudius and Hamlet makes the opponents to have a bigger awareness into each other’s personality; a decision that could not be made exclusive of the means of news, specifically such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Thus, the connection is made that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the mediums that offered a bigger perception into the feelings of the central characters.
Furthermore, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are fundamental to the conception of their writer’s fictional significance. Hamlet is appreciated as a tool that is used to condemn or question the value of these two characters. Shakespeare gets this point across through the flaws of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lessen themselves to individuals lacking ethics of the King by perplexing the destiny of themselves and their ally Hamlet and the ruling for him to be executed. In this practice they also disclose the strategy to Hamlet, who consecutively alters the messages so that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are marked for the death sentence.
These proceedings are overstated from Hamlet to demonstrate the suggestion that no two actual individuals could be so perfectly pawn-like that they would not worry for their personal safety and that it could be in danger. These unreasonable and idealistic qualities become evident in characters that are ridiculous in contradiction of “Hamlet” all together. Shakespeare applies this as his message to ask whether or not the play ought to be thought of as such a symbolic piece, whereas such irrationality is rampant. Even though the messages are diverse, Shakespeare also utilizes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as transmitters for his own thesis. Shakespeare uses them to shed light on his message of outward show vs. realism (Shakespeare, 3.2.75).
All through the play, the only function of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is to work for the King, though they attempt to mislead Hamlet that they are working for him. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern form the facade that they are worried about the welfare of Hamlet, where in actuality they are striving to find out the character of Hamlet’s conduct and report back to the King. This tendency persists since they are employed by the King to carry Hamlet to his demise, where they are intended to be assumed as security men of secure passage. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are portrayed as redeemers to Hamlet, where in truth they are intended to be linked to his death. The two happen to be symbols of the theme of outward look vs. reality, assisting Shakespeare evidently demonstrate his message inside the text.
In “Hamlet”, Shakespeare portrays both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as envoys of humanity, who lack comprehension, certainty, and are in chaos. They are depicted as an emblem for humanity, since their names are befuddled in a way that they lack a distinct character and no clear disconnect from humanity. They are unable to understand the world around them, a fact that exemplified the many scientific discoveries made by Rosencrantz, and none of which is comprehensible. The fear of going astray in the world around them is formed though their countless wanderings throughout the castle, although at times, they happen to be counterproductive. These reactions act as a consequence upon them as an outcome of a muddled world surrounding them. Without being conscious, the comparison between their own lives and the life of a play within a play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sustain their state of disorientation up and during their deaths. To humanity, this is perceived as a metaphor, where devoid of good understanding, death is the only result (2.2.49-51).
In a similar way, Shakespeare applies this concept in consideration to the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Owing to Hamlet’s interference with the letters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are driven to meet their ultimate death in England. Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lacked the knowledge to understand what was contained in the letters, they did not anticipate that Hamlet could tamper with the contents. For that reason, Shakespeare makes use of both Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s deaths as a symbol of evidence that exhibits the end result of a lack of knowledge and certainty towards handling violence and chaos (Wilson, 2005). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a steady means of conveying Shakespeare’s literary messages. Both characters have participated in stimulating of the plot as well as reinforcing the understanding of other characters and basic themes. Both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have proved to be secondary characters that have had great impact on Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.