Heads or Tails? Heads.

All of the work that I have done based on existentialism is rooted in post-modern literature, and not theoretical texts. The first extreme dip into existentialist texts was reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, and to this day it remains to be my favorite book. Both characters taken from Shakespeare's Hamlet are characters that never seem to have a particular identity. They are characters that never choose. They are never even defined by facts; in fact, in this play their world transcends facticity and the rules of probability. In particular, the opening scene is the two main characters are playing a coin toss game. The facts that regard a coin is that it has two sides and there is an equal chance that it will land on either of these sides. When they play it always lands on heads. In the same token, their lives in the play follow suit, there is no fact of who either of them are with a problem on their identity and the rules of how the word usually works.

“There must have been a moment, at the beginning, were we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it. ” 

R and G are perfect examples of people who have no freedom and responsibility. They never say "yes" and they never say "no." They just let the course of action follow through and do not ever disturb the flow of the world. This way of living ultimately leads to their death (cue the title) like they were ever "living" in the first place is a good question though. There is a difference between living and existing; the way in which they act upon the world seems as though they are only "existing." Existentialism is a scary thing to go by, because do we ever really want to feel responsible for terrible things happening?