So it goes. Kurt Vonnegut’s most memorable commentary on death in his novel “Slaughterhouse Five” is strikingly simple, accepting of death, and characteristically humorous. The unlikely protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, repeats this mantra each time he encounters death, a theme prominent throughout the novel. In Tom Stoppard’s play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, the titular duo is marked for death from the very beginning. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two characters whose identities are uncertain and never clearly revealed, stumble through the events of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. They encounter death, onstage and offstage, while simultaneously blurring the line between the two. Upon initial comparison of the two works, one cannot fail to notice the most glaring similarity: the theme of death. Both postmodern masterpieces in their own right, the works of Vonnegut and Stoppard minimize and dismiss death to convey the utter absurdity of life, in true postmodern fashion.

Death in Postmodernism

At the turn of the 20th century, technological and societal progress made life easier, healthier, and longer for the majority of the world. It seemed as though humankind was at the peak of civilization and progress. In this climate, the modern man gave little thought to death and instead reserved his attention for contemplations of life. “Death was a threat that welfare could deprive man” and death became a matter of science, rather than philosophy (Shariatinia, 2015). Modernity dictated that death was foreseeable and able to be mastered.

At the height of civilization and sophistication, devastation such as the World Wars revealed that barbarity was still present. The destruction that came with World War II in particular brought the notion of death back into the mainstream consciousness, where it would remain. In the decades following the war, post-modernism was born. People began to acknowledge death, since it became impossible not to when surrounded with it. Martin Heidegger stated that humans “dwell in the nearness of death”, which is to say that one is defined by their mortality (Kóvacs, 2002).

Unstuck In Time: Deconstructing Structure

Billy Pilgrim, the tragic anti-hero of Vonnegut’s novel, survives the bombing of Dresden by hiding out in a meat locker. He and his fellow soldiers are then tasked with retrieving the corpses of the ruined city. Dresden is captured by Russian forces shortly after, and Pilgrim and the other soldiers are liberated. Billy Pilgrim’s experiences in the war cause him to become “unstuck in time”, where he experiences the past and future in fragments. He is apparently abducted by aliens known as the Tralfamadorians, who teach him about the nonlinear nature of time. These experiences can be interpreted as a manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder due to Pilgrim’s experiences in the war, which contributes to both Pilgrim’s “anti-war book” the “Children’s Crusade” as well as Vonnegut’s own message regarding his personal experiences in Dresden (“Slaughterhouse Five”, p. 5). This also incorporates elements of metafiction, which includes prominent self-insertions on Vonnegut’s part. Similar to in “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Billy Pilgrim is “in a constant state of stage fright, (he says), because he never knows what part of his life he is going to have to act in next” (“Slaughterhouse Five”, p. 23). During Pilgrim’s time with the Tralfamadorians, he adopts some of their philosophy on death. Time for the Tralfamadorians is neither linear nor ephemeral, so death is, as all other events are, only temporary. One could argue, of course, that all events would be permanent, but that is beside the point. Billy Pilgrim believes this and reacts to death as the Tralfamadorians do, repeating the line, “so it goes” (“Slaughterhouse Five”, p. 27). Through this device, Vonnegut dismisses death. When recalling the death in Dresden, of his wife, the plane crash, and many other deaths, Pilgrim simply says, “so it goes”. This not only accepts death, but emphasizes the absurdity of life, war, violence, and ultimately death. Billy Pilgrim’s time skipping episodes do more than just convey this message, however. Readers experience the events of the novel in the way that Pilgrim does time, in fragments. In this way, Vonnegut injects temporal distortion into the novel, through breaking down structure and metafiction, in a way that is not simply a literary technique but an incorporation of the plot and an alteration of nature of the novel itself.

Stoppard also heavily uses structure to convey the central theme of death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, from the beginning of the play, skipping between different settings. The two are unsure of where and who they are and even what and why they are doing. This confusion and uncertainty primarily serves to illustrate the absurdity of life. The play is full of absurdity, from the coin flip in Act I to the letter that orders the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Act III (“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”). The use of temporal distortion, a truly postmodern device, creates while also emphasizing the implausible happenings of the play. “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” also includes metafiction. The work in itself is a play set within William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. Within that is another play, “The Murder of Gonzago” meant to reveal Claudius’ guilt, which in turn has the play “The Mousetrap” within it. These many layers of delicately crafted metatheater create absurdity, while breaking down structure, just as Vonnegut does in “Slaughterhouse Five”. The audience is often uncertain as to what is reality and what is a play. Similarly, the line between the stage and reality is also muddled. In Act II, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern watch the Tragedians rehearse a play in which the two Spies are dressed as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and are sent to be executed by the English king (“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act II, p. 74). The audience knows that this will be the true Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s fates, as it is revealed by the title and Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. This incredible, almost farcical foreshadowing, which the duo is oblivious to, conflates the stage with real life. In this way, death onstage and death offstage is also ambiguous. The Player’s death in Act III is the best example of this. Guildenstern takes a dagger from the Player and exclaims that death cannot be acted or portrayed, then stabs the Player. He collapses to the ground, then lies still. It is silent, then the Tragedians begin to applaud and praise the Player. He stands and reveals that the dagger is a prop (“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act III, p. 115). This ironically proves Guildenstern’s proclamation wrong. The Player’s death not only creates ambiguity between life and the stage but also belittles death. Throughout the play, the many characters die onstage and off, and even see their own deaths foretold in the meta-plays. This ultimately detracts from the solemnity of death, which stems from its uncertainty and finality. Stoppard does this to open the audience’s eyes to the inane, nonsensical events in the play, just as in life.

A Fellow Existence: Identity and Death

“The end of the world – is death. The ‘end’ that belongs to existence limits and defines the whole of Existence … death is just a fellow Existence.” (Shariatinia, 2015). In postmodern thought, the importance of death to meaning in life is heavily emphasized. In the same vein, the question of identity is one often tackled in both “Slaughterhouse Five” and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern”. Interestingly, the protagonists in both works have identities that are uncertain and not clearly defined.

In “Slaughterhouse Five”, Billy Pilgrim “goes to sleep a widower and awakens on his wedding day”. In Pilgrim’s case, he is himself throughout the novel, but is uncertain which Billy Pilgrim he is. This can be attributed to his PTSD, of course, but also shows the significance of death to identity. Billy Pilgrim has “seen his birth and death many times” and seems to no longer fear or even care about death (“Slaughterhouse Five”, p. 23). Vonnegut expresses the postmodern notion of a life given meaning by death through depicting Pilgrim’s identity in the absence of, or rather disbelief in, death. In a post-war world where death is ubiquitous but many are desensitized, Vonnegut looks to bring attention to the significance and gravity of death by showing it trivialized.

In Stoppard’s “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, the audience and even the protagonists themselves are unsure of who is Rosencrantz and who is Guildenstern.

ROS. We were sent for.

GUIL. Yes.

ROS. That’s why we’re here. (He looks round, seems doubtful, then the explanation.) Traveling.

GUIL. Yes.

ROS. (dramatically) It was urgent — a matter of extreme urgency, a royal summon, his very words: official business and no questions asked — lights in the stablemates, saddle up and off headlong and hot got across the land, our guides outstripped in breakneck pursuit of our duty! Fearful lest we come too late!! (Small pause.)

GUIL. Too late for what?

ROS. How do I know! We haven’t got there yet.

GUIL. Then what are we doing here, I ask myself.

ROS. You might well ask.

(“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act I, pg. 10).

In this excerpt, it is clear that the pair is unsure why they are on this journey and where they are going.

They (Tragedians) all flourish and bow, raggedly.

PLAYER. Tragedians, at your command.

Ros and Guil have got to their feet.

ROS. My name is Guildenstern, and this is Rosencrantz.

(Guil confers briefly with him.)

(without embarrassment) I’m sorry — his name’s Guildenstern, and I’m Rosencrantz.

(“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act I, pg. 13).

The two, evidently, are also uncertain about which one of them is which.

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 movements to bow too —both bent double, squinting at each other.) …and gentle Rosencrantz. (Turning to Guil, both straightening up — Guil checks again and bows again.)

(“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act I, pg. 28).

Other characters are also uncertain about their identities. This remains the same throughout the play. As the Player says, “Uncertainty is the normal state. You’re nobody special.” (“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act II, pg. 58). This deliberate choice to keep the pair’s identity ambiguous and only identify them together conveys a similar message as “Slaughterhouse Five”, that death is the only guarantee and gives meaning and significance to life. In death, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern remain anonymous.

Poo-Tee-Weet?: The End

And somewhere in there was springtime. The corpse mines were closed down. The soldiers all left to fight the Russians. In the suburbs, the women and children dug rifle pits. Billy and the rest of his group were locked up in the stable in the suburbs And then, one morning, they got up to discover that the door was unlocked. World War Two in Europe was over.

Billy and the rest wandered out onto the shady street. The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin-shaped.

Birds were talking.

One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-tee-weet?”.

(“Slaughterhouse Five”, p. 215)

ROS. That’s it, then is it? (No answer, he looks out front.) The sun’s going down. Or the earth’s coming up, as the fashionable theory has it. (Small pause.) Not that it makes any difference. (Pause.) What was it all about? When did it begin? (Pause, no answer.) Couldn't we just stay put? I mean no one is going to come on and drag us off… They'll just have to wait. We’re still young…fit…we’ve got years…(Pause. No answer.) (A cry) We’ve done nothing wrong! We didn't harm anyone. Did we?

GUIL. I can’t remember.

Ros pulls himself together.

ROS. All right then. I don’t care. I’ve had enough. To tell you the truth, I’m relieved.

And he disappears from view.

Guil does not notice.

GUIL. Our names shouted in a certain dawn…a message…a summons…there must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said —no. But somehow we missed it. (He looks round and sees he is alone.) Rosen — ? Guil — ? (He gathers himself.) Well, we’ll know better next time. Now you see me, now you —

And disappears.

Immediately the whole stage is lit up, revealing, upstage, arranged in the approximate positions last held by the dead Tragedians, the tableau of court and corpses which is the last scene of Hamlet.

That is The King, Queen, Laertes and Hamlet all dead. Horario holds Hamlet. Fortinbras is there.

So are two AMBASSADORS from England.

AMBASSADOR. The sight is dismal;

And our affairs from England come too late.

The ears are senseless that should give us hearing

To tell him his commandment is fulfilled,

That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.

Where should we have our thanks?

(“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, Act III, pg.116-117).

The endings from both “Slaughterhouse Five” and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” seem extremely anticlimactic in contrast to the rest of their respective works. Billy Pilgrim comes unstuck in time again, and travels to Dresden in 1945. He is retrieving the bodies out of the rubble and the war is, abruptly, over. The novel ends with, “Poo-tee-weet?”, which is both ironically humorous while at the same time insightful, because it is utterly nonsensical. There seems to be just a glimmer of hope, however. It is springtime and the war is over. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die at the end of the play, just as anticipated. Their deaths are without violence or drama. They are simply no longer onstage. The ending of the two works also serve to underscore the profound difference between the protagonists, however. Billy Pilgrim has accepted his death, which occurred in Chapter 6 (“Slaughterhouse Five”, pg. 142-143). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern desperately lament their deaths and deny that it will soon happen. Through the differences in which the protagonists of the two pieces grapple with death, the audience and readers realize thatThe endings of both works are rather abrupt and feel, in a way, incomplete. This is deliberate, of course; death is abrupt and life is always left incomplete, unfinished.

In both “Slaughterhouse Five” and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, death is often dismissed, made insignificant, and even poked fun at. Such a heavy topic is trivialized throughout the two pieces, which has the effect of emphasizing the complete absurdity of the events that transpire in the stories. Both Vonnegut and Stoppard utilize black humor, irony, and structure, or lack thereof, to create true postmodern tragicomedies. Vonnegut and Stoppard are constantly toying with their audience’s, as well as the characters themselves’, expectations and use this element of surprise to force one to confront their own mortality. The dismantling of structure throughout both pieces creates not only a sense of absurdity but an experience of immersion within the story. “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.” (“As You Like It”, Act II, Scene VII, Line 139). The improbable coin toss at the beginning of “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” is a fitting analogy. Each time, the coin lands on heads, just as each time death always triumphs. But turn to the Act I, to the first bead on the string, the first moment, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are alive again and Billy Pilgrim is in Dresden, Tralfamadore, or Ilium once more. Death is the only guarantee amongst the many uncertainties and absurdities in life, but it is also what gives life meaning; so “farewell, hello, farewell, hello”.