Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead discussion

how necessary is it to read Hamlet prior to reading Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead?

I'd say it's very necessary to read Hamlet before. It'll cause things to make a bit more sense to you, because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead occurs at the same time as Hamlet, just at a different perspective.

I agree with Heather. You won't be able to understand much of the humor without the perspective you gain from reading Hamlet.

you could get away with watching a version of Hamlet rather than reading it - Stoppards play is very readable and funny on the page whereas Hamlet is easier digested when watched - i always found anyway. The Brannagh version is quite a treat to watch, the Gibson version a tad more stodgy but still entertaining

hell, hamlet is always rewarding to see

Very necessary, especially as R+G are Dead takes place within the framework of the larger Hamlet universe. It would be a bit disconcerting not knowing the basic layout of that world. I also think much of the irony and tragedy of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's existence as marginal characters within a fictional world would be lost if one was not familiar with that context.

I would strongly advise to read Hamlet before; it makes "Roz+Guild are dead" even more hilarious and you will have a better insight.

I was familiar with the general plot of Hamlet but not all the details when I read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The play was still understandable and loads of fun. If you weren't aware of the plot of Hamlet at all, it would be nonsensical.

Agree with the consensus. Hamlet first then R&G are Dead. At least that's what i did at school when i was 17.