Five Quotes

Jean: Life is a struggle, it's cowardly not to put up a fight! (p. 20)

• This quote is extremely interesting because it probably shows Ionesco's life approach. It is even more interesting when we realize that it is said by a man who finally goes through the metamorphosis as one of the first ones. Thus we can say that he does not put up any fight at all. By choosing this sentence, Ionesco probably wanted to show that words we say don't often correspond to the state of mind of ours.    

Berenger: Sometimes one does harm without meaning to, or rather one allows it to go unchecked. (p.97)

• As I said before, Ionesco used the play as an allegory for the uprising of fascism in Romania during the 1930s. For sure, he must have been shocked by the behavior of his friends who joined the fascist movement. Moreover, from what I've read, he must have also felt guilty for not doing anything about it. Thus, we may say that this quote reveals his feelings about the cowardly behavior of people who see that something wrong is happening, but do not do anything to change it. 

Daisy: After all, perhaps is we who need saving. Perhaps we are the abnormal ones. (p. 103)

• Daisy says this sentence at the end of the play when she and Berenger are the only human beings left among the rhinos. It is an interesting turnaround in the situation: at first she is against the rhinos and wants to stay normal; after saying this sentence it seems that she starts to doubt her normality and incline to the side of the <previously> abnormal ones. 

Berenger: What is my language? Am I talking French? I can call it French if I want – and nobody can say it isn’t, I am the only one who speaks it.(p. 107)

• Here we can see how brittle the human definitions of things are. We have all agreed that the language Berenger speaks is French, but it is only a name. Ionesco wanted to show that the names we give to things loose their meaning if we cannot use them in a meaningful conversation. 

(by the way, the language is English, as you might have noticed, but it wasn't changed in the book so I must leave it as it is). 

Logician: If you take six paws from the two cats, how many paws are left to each cat? 

Old Gentleman: We could have one cat with 6 paws <and> one cat with no paws at all.

Logician: In that case, one cat would be especially privileged.

Old Gentleman: And one under-privileged cat deprived of all paws. (p. 21-23)

• I chose this quote to show the absurdity of communication between people, which is nicely visible in the whole play. I was trying to find something more grotesque and absurd, but it is actually impossible to present the absurdity in just few sentences. These conversations usually take about 3 pages in the book and I cannot copy the whole thing here. Anyway, here we can see that the Logician, who is supposed to be rational and reasonable, spends his time talking about nonsense. 

Reference: Ionesco, Eugene. Rhinoceros by Ionesco. New York: Evergreen Original, 1960. 141. Print.

I have finished the play...

...and I have realized an important fact. When I firstly read about the plot of the play, I fell in love with the idea of people changing into rhinoceroses. I was delighted to think about the aspects of human behavior, the complicated nature of human mind, the almighty group pressure and the definitions of normality. The play has given me numerous questions that entertained my mind and soul. However, since I have read everything about the masterpiece before reading the masterpiece itself, I wasn't that overwhelmed when I was finally reading it. Doesn't is also spoil your joy from reading, when you know the ending? Well, if the book is nicely written, it doesn't. However, I have never read a nicely written drama. Drama is here to be acted on stage, not to be read for entertainment. I believe it is only the producer who should read it and make it worth watching. Of course, we were supposed to take the role of a producer. Thus, it is only natural that we had to read the play. What I am trying to say is that I admire Ionesco and his motivations, but I cannot praise the way the book is written.
 (the first half of task 9)

TASK 8 (what a lovely title!)

Stockholm Syndrome

Rhinoceros, Eugene Ionesco’s masterpiece about people’s reaction to group pressure and their supposedly strange behavior, is formidable (but not pompous) play which is still up-to-date. Joe Penhall’s review of the play is quite thorough and contains many interesting observations. 

  As it was mentioned several times on this blog, the play itself is full of hopeless interactions between people, the feeling of futility of being and the absurdity of life. Because of this, Penhall compares Rhinoceros to The Plague written by A. Camus, claiming that they are both based on the existentialism. Interestingly, both Camus and Ionesco were against the ‘existentialist’ label and preferred their works to be called absurdist. Nonetheless, it cannot be doubted that the ideas of existentialism appear in their plays more than often. Finally, absurdity is part of existentialism and they cannot be clearly separated in this context.

  In his review, Penhall mentions the Stockholm syndrome, a psychological phenomenon in which the captors are admired by their hostages and the hostages cooperate with them and accept their views and positions. This idea is brilliant in the association with the play. Even though they were the evil creatures at the beginning, everybody finally accepts the rhinos and joins them, which is a nice manifestation of such syndrome. It is somewhat natural, because ‘most children know that the smart thing is to side with the biggest, baddest bully in the playground’ (Penhall). 

  Concerning the relevance of the play, it is true that Ionesco stays quite general, so as to emphasize that the theme of his play is applicable to any society. In the words of the reviewer of this play:  “Perhaps Ionesco deliberately eschewed Camus' specificity and embraced generality in the hope that for all its antic lack of sophistication, bluster, bustle and loquaciousness, Rhinoceros would remain contemporary and universal.” 

REVIEW: 

Penhall, Joe. "Ionesco's Rhinoceros is as relevant as ever."Guardian. (2007). Web. 21 Mar. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2007/oct/03/ionescosrhinocerosisasrele>.

Protagonist and Antagonist

I'd like to describe these two roles as they appear at the end of the play, as their conflict is most visible there. Obviously, Berenger is the protagonist and his primary motivation is to save the human kind. He stands against the group of rhinoceroses, whose behavior has probably no motivation at all. Thinking about the conflict they face, the rhinos are not the ones that should be blamed for it. Deep inside, they are good and they don't mean any harm. It seems that they just want to live normally, without problems. Berenger is actually the only one who feels some kind of tension. He is the one to start the conflict because he feels endangered by the animals.

..A strange thought has just entered my mind... Having considered the fact that Berenger starts the conflict whereas the rhinos live peacefully side by side, shouldn't we say that Berenger is antagonist and the rhinos are protagonists; and not vice versa??

As it is written in the book: "Who can say where the normal starts and the abnormal begins? Can you personally define the conceptions of normality?" (p. 84) And I am asking: Who can say which side is good and which is bad? Can I personally define the conceptions of goodness and badness? Do I say that the human Berenger is the protagonist just because I am human, too? Why do I think that something which is normal is also good? Why do I think the rhinos are antagonists, just because their existence is something I would call 'abnormal'? Finally, maybe they are the heroes of the play!

It's getting too complicated and this article gives more questions than answers... But I am desperate - As I now incline to the rhino side, am I the same as all the other people in the play? Does it indicate that in that situation,  I would also become a rhinoceros?

Somebody help me! Who is the good one and who is the bad one in this play??!!