Why would anyone say this? Who would say it? And why? The world’s grown honest? When has that ever been true? No disrespect to the world but it seems that honesty and deception are as cyclical as night and day or the seasons. Or perhaps are as intertwined as oxygen and carbon dioxide and perhaps as much the air we breathe.

Is there a period of history any more honest than another? What can Rosencrantz be trying to do with this line? Is he trying to deflect his own deception by claiming that the whole world is more honest and therefore he is with it? It is a very curious thing to say to anyone, particularly one’s friend you’ve been sent to spy on.

Not the button on her cap, nor the soles of her shoes, not the ribbon on her neck, nor the cuffs of her sleeves, not the stays of her corset, nor the lining of her petticoats, not the seam of her stockings, nor the pin in her hair, not even her belt. We are no part of fortune’s fashion.

Has anyone written this sci fi novel yet? The Indifferent Children of the Earth would seem to be a big hit in the right circles. It’s probably a Dystopian story – one in which the children of Earth, at first indifferent to their mother, then become quite careless with her and then, with neglect and destructive behaviors, destroy her altogether. This is a story we read almost every day in newspapers and magazines. It is our latest narrative –the one of us, the indifferent children of the earth. It is such a popular story that many children actual children, you know, who play with toys and are cute and stuff. These actual children believe that this story is inevitable, that our indifference is inevitable, that the ultimate destruction of our planet is a foregone conclusion. And so dystopian sci fi turns to predictive text, almost non-fiction.

Do we have to be indifferent? Does Rosencrantz? It’s a weird position to take.

Rosencrantz would seem to trump Guildenstern in greetings, “Most dear” seeming much more affectionate than “honored.” Has anyone ever played these two as competitors? They seem always to be just bland indistinguishable friends of Hamlet.
What if they are pushing past each other in the manner of vaudevillians? What if they are not only stumbling over the duplicity of their task but also each other?

Good old God. He doesn’t save anyone in the end. Not from death. I guess the idea is that he’ll save your soul and take you to heaven. I guess that’s what God saving you is really about. But people are often saying God takes little children because he needs more angels in heaven. So by that logic, the people whose lives he saves til the very last, the ones who dodge bullet after bullet, who make it to the end of a century and get a foot into the next one, these must be the people that God doesn’t need for his angels. They must be the worst. Except I’ve met a few and they are definitely not the worst. But I guess this whole God thing really isn’t about logic. And this line isn’t really about God.

Way to cut through all the politics there, Rosencrantz. Just slice right through all the decoration and elaboration, the nicey nice, the attempts to suggest future fortunes – Rosencrantz just calls it out.
You don’t need to persuade us. We’re duty bound to do whatever you say.
There’s no need for this pretense of us doing you a favor, and you potentially rewarding us with profit.
Sometimes I wish I could be this direct when someone is pretending that I’m not obligated to do something that I am actually obligated to do if I want to keep my job. I’d like to call out those dread pleasures as the commands they are.