I think sometimes we need to discuss the line between absurdism and just being weird.

Absurdism is a philosophical concept that explores the meaninglessness and irrationality of life. It often presents situations and ideas that seem paradoxical or contrary to common sense. On the other hand, being weird simply refers to behavior or characteristics that deviate from the norm.

While there may be some overlap between the two, there are also important differences. Absurdism is a more deliberate and conscious exploration of the human condition, while being weird may be more of a random or idiosyncratic trait.

Understanding the line between absurdism and just being weird can help us better appreciate and make sense of the various forms of art, literature, and behavior that exist in our world. It can also help us to better understand our own thoughts and feelings, and to find meaning and purpose in a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable universe.

Absurdism is a philosophical concept that can often seem completely ridiculous at first glance.

It challenges our traditional understanding of meaning and purpose in life.

According to absurdism, the world is inherently irrational and lacks a coherent plan or design.

This leads to a sense of absurdity as we search for meaning in a seemingly meaningless universe.

However, absurdism also offers a unique perspective on life.

It encourages us to embrace the absurdity and find our own meaning and purpose within it.

Instead of trying to fit into a predefined mold or follow a set of rules, absurdism allows us to be creative and free in our pursuit of happiness.

In conclusion, while absurdism may seem completely ridiculous at times, it can also be a liberating and inspiring philosophy that helps us to see the world in a new light.

The Chairs (26/11/2018): 4/5

The chairs in this establishment deserve a solid 4 out of 5 rating. They are not only aesthetically pleasing but also offer a reasonable level of comfort. The design is modern and sleek, fitting well with the overall ambiance of the place. The materials used seem to be of good quality, ensuring durability. However, there is still some room for improvement. For example, the padding could be a bit thicker to provide more support during longer sittings. Additionally, the height adjustment mechanism could be more precise. Despite these minor drawbacks, the chairs are still a great addition to the space and enhance the overall experience for the customers. They are definitely worth considering if you are in the market for new chairs that combine style and functionality.

Rhinoceros

Ionesco's most renowned play, Rhinoceros, may have a surreal concept at its core - people transforming into rhinoceroses. However, he employs this to comment on human nature while simultaneously crafting a drama that is alternately humorous, surprising, and captivating. In the first act, the main characters, Berenger and his friend Jean, are terrorized by the initial rhinoceroses that rampage through the town's streets, causing extensive damage. It is only in the subsequent scene, set in Berenger's office, that we learn people are turning into these animals as one of his colleagues destroys the building's staircase. Then, everyone around Berenger begins to change - Jean, his colleagues, and eventually the girl from his office whom he had a crush on. Finally, Berenger, alone, wonders why he can't change, starts to feel that his lack of a horn makes him ugly, but ultimately defies the idea of changing. Although the play is designed to make the audience think it has an ideological point, like Sartre's existentialist plays, in my view, it doesn't really. The rhinoceroses can be vaguely interpreted as people who have accepted a new totalitarian regime, but this identification is rather tenuous, and it seems more that Ionesco is writing an absurdist version of this kind of drama, so the animals don't necessarily need to have a specific meaning.

The Chairs

Two elderly individuals prepare an auditorium for a lecture. They welcome numerous invisible guests and hold conversations with several of them, including the Emperor. Then, when the lecturer arrives, he turns out to be deaf and dumb, unable to communicate except through sign language and gibberish written on a blackboard. The conversations between the old man and woman and their imaginary guests are reminiscent of Beckett, with a sense of world weariness, even if the wordplay is lacking. It may not be particularly funny on the page, unlike Rhinoceros and The Lesson, but it could come alive on the stage. As with Ionesco's other plays, the question arises as to whether it is meaningful or not, and if so, what that meaning might be. There are several possibilities for the play's theme, if it has one, and the crucial element is what Ionesco intends to convey with the invisible characters. They are unlikely to be merely imaginary, existing only in the minds of the two old people, as the lecturer appears and the fantasy would have to be consistently shared by both of them. The implication is that any meaning the play has is related to the audience's perception of these people or perhaps about their nature as characters in the play.

The Lesson

The Lesson is the only Ionesco play I have witnessed, and it is highly entertaining on the stage. It描绘了一个学生拜访一位只能被描述为疯狂教授的人的情景，这位教授教她奇异的数学和荒谬的语言学，然后用刀攻击她。剧中的数学笑话与 Rhinoceros 中涉及逻辑学家的笑话类似，The Lesson 读起来像是为后来的剧作所做的预备练习，是那部剧较轻松时刻的一个不那么超现实的版本。The Lesson 比这本集子中的其他剧作更轻松，所以与它们不同的是，它似乎并不特别需要赋予一个意义。

Originally published on my blog here, here, and here in October 2001.

I had to perform a scene from the Rhinoceros with 3 classmates for a French class.

It was truly a remarkable introduction to Ionesco's work. This opportunity allowed us to deeply contemplate and vividly embody the scene.

As we delved into it, I found myself falling in love with the unique charm of this absurd play.

I hold a great deal of respect for absurd humour.

It is rather challenging to precisely determine why it functions so effectively when an author or performer successfully executes it.

It demands a particular kind of intelligence.

This intelligence encompasses an understanding of the culture, the capacity to read people accurately, and some other element that I prefer to envision as mysterious.

Perhaps it is this mystery that adds an extra layer of allure to absurd humour, making it both captivating and unforgettable.

Overall, my experience with performing the scene from Rhinoceros has not only deepened my appreciation for Ionesco's work but also for the art of absurd humour.

I look forward to exploring more of such fascinating works in the future.

The Absurd World Is Alive and Well, But Not on the Stage

Back when the avant-garde theatre was dominated by Eugene Ionesco and other European playwrights, Rhinoceros was one of his more accessible plays. It has a simple plot, an anti-hero, and Ionesco's logical conundrums are centered around a few characters, rather than overwhelming the entire play as in Bald Soprano. The play's clichés highlight the limitations of the characters, rather than being the central focus as in Soprano.

Ionesco clearly stated that Rhinoceros shows how totalitarianism takes hold of a country. However, the American production of the play baffled him as the character Jean was turned into a comic figure, and Beringer was made to seem like a tough intellectual instead of the irresolute man he envisioned. Ionesco was also put off by directors adding actions to his script, which he believed was sufficient with his specific stage directions.

The totalitarianism depicted in the play is German fascism, and its roots are in the pre- and post-World War II era. Ionesco's play is an attempt to demystify the rise of totalitarianism and provide an objective description of the growth of fanaticism. He argues that the play should trace and paint the different stages of this phenomenon, but he could never convince the American director to accept this concept.

The play is not about conformism, as even non-conformism can be conformist. Ionesco distrusts intellectuals and believes that an unworkable solution one has found for oneself is more valuable than a ready-made ideology. He also states that a free man should pull himself out of vacuity on his own, through his own efforts.

In the Cahiers du College de Pataphysique, Ionesco interviews himself about the nature and purpose of theatre. He argues that his intent is to break the spell of bourgeois drama and create a play that alienates the audience from the theatrical illusion, allowing them to watch the play with a clear mind and pass judgment on it. However, he also acknowledges that dramatic forms have always revolved around audience identification and participation.

Clearly, the reader or viewer of the play should not expect to find easy answers to the characters' inconsistent behavior or the play's meaning. The stage action is both startling and comical, and the appearance of the rhinoceroses is disturbing and comical at the same time. The manner in which the characters respond to these events can make them either intimidating and sinister or laughable. American theatre is deeply embedded in the basic idea of bourgeois drama, which makes Ionesco's type of play challenging for an American production and likely to appeal only to a limited audience more attuned to European theatrical traditions.

I was initially only interested in this book of plays by Ionesco due to the political theme present in The Rhinoceros. However, I ended up reading/watching The Lesson as well. I firmly believe that Ionesco rejected the Theater of the Absurd, and I would definitely not categorize The Rhinoceros into that group.

Despite all the trappings of absurdity within the play, its core point seems to be deeply rooted in the psychology of believing in the absurd. Specifically, it focuses on the process of coming to believe in rhinos and subsequently transforming into one. What Ionesco truly had in mind was exploring the how and why so many people converted to fascism, communism, German National Socialism, or other such ideologies.

There is a particular scene where the characters, including a logician, engage in an absurd argument about whether the rhino they think they saw has one or two horns, that is, whether it was Asian or African (which is rather meaningless as the Asian rhino can have either one or two horns). It seems to me that since a horn is a weapon, the essence of the matter is that it doesn't really matter which kind of fascism or evil people are confronted with - it's all evil.

The justifications for becoming a rhino are actually not absurd at all. First, there is denial regarding whether they even saw a rhino. Then comes fear, curiosity, and the first conversion by a wife who cannot abandon her husband. Others seem to be bored with their lives, so they choose to become rhinos. And finally, the sentiment that everyone is a rhino and there is nothing else they can do is used as a justification for their transformation.

Symbolizing fascism in the way it was done makes the play even more powerful than if a specific concrete political power had been named. It's a very nice play indeed!

I suppose The Lesson really does belong to the Theater of the Absurd, and I must confess that I simply didn't understand it at all. Nevertheless, it was somewhat humorous.

Totalitarianism, the specter of nuclear war, and the powerful force of ideology all served as catalysts that prompted Ionesco to pen these perplexing and often confounding black comedies.

To truly understand and appreciate these plays in their proper context, I highly recommend that you undertake a review of the history of Europe during and after the Second World War. This historical backdrop is crucial in grasping the deeper meanings and themes that Ionesco was试图 to convey.

Of particular note is the play Rhinoceros. This specific piece of dramatic literature is not only humorous but also stands out as the most accessible of Ionesco's absurdist works. It offers a unique and engaging entry point into the world of his strange and thought-provoking plays.

By delving into the history and exploring this particular play, you will gain a greater understanding and appreciation of Ionesco's contributions to the world of theater and the power of the absurdist genre.

Three remarkable dramatic works by the maestro of absurdity have left an indelible mark. Among them, 'Rhinoceros' stands out as the most triumphant. It presents a thought-provoking scenario where the characters are confronted with the strange and absurd threat of turning into rhinoceroses. The question then arises: when faced with such a preposterous situation, would one choose to hold onto the real world or find it completely nonsensical?

'The Chairs', on the other hand, also has its own charm. It combines elements of humour, melancholia, and nonsense in a unique way. The play explores the human condition and the various emotions that come with it. While it may not reach the same level of success as 'Rhinoceros', it still manages to captivate the audience with its distinct style and themes.

Together, these three works showcase the master's ability to create worlds that are both absurd and deeply meaningful. They challenge our perception of reality and force us to question our own beliefs and values. Whether we find them humorous, melancholic, or simply preposterous, there is no denying the impact that these plays have had on the world of theatre.

The great thing about absurdist cinema, drama, or literature is that sometimes (for me at least), you don't have to truly 'get it' to enjoy it, be appalled, shocked, or creeped out by it, or even be entertained. Ionesco is definitely one of the kingpins of absurd theater.

Rhinoceros is existentialism through and through. The main character is left isolated as the only human in a world that has turned into - you guessed it - rhinoceroses. The herd mentality and the difficulty of the individual to remain one were as significant in the post-war era when this was written as they are today.

The Chairs is even weirder. A senile old couple welcome guests into their home - who are actually invisible - and start babbling incoherently about an important message they want to deliver, but never get around to it. It is then left to an Orator to take over, and when he does, readers (and viewers) are in for a shock.

The Lesson is another example of how Ionesco expertly escalates the absurdity and mania in his plays. It starts with a reticent professor welcoming a bright, confident student for private lessons. However, as the story progresses, the professor begins to manipulate the power of knowledge, and the roles are slowly reversed, building to a creepy ending and an even creepier final revelation. If I had to pick a favorite, it would be this one, but Rhinoceros is a masterpiece in itself. Each of these plays offers a unique and thought-provoking exploration of the human condition and the absurdities of life.

Avant-garde theater of the absurd is truly a remarkable and captivating art form.

It challenges our traditional notions of theater and storytelling, taking us on a journey that is both thought-provoking and entertaining.

The plays in this genre often feature strange and illogical plots, characters that seem to be out of touch with reality, and dialogue that is both humorous and profound.

Despite its unconventional nature, the avant-garde theater of the absurd has the power to move us, make us laugh, and make us think about the world in a new way.

It is a bold and exciting form of theater that continues to push the boundaries of what is possible on stage.

Whether you are a theater lover or simply looking for something different and exciting to experience, the avant-garde theater of the absurd is definitely worth checking out. Damn good indeed!

I borrowed a book about French absurdist theatre from the library. However, after only reading a very little bit, I took it back.

It turns out that I simply wasn't in the mood for this particular genre. I thought I might be interested in exploring the strange and unconventional world of French absurdist theatre, but as I started reading, I found myself unable to engage with the material.

Perhaps it was the complex and often confusing nature of the plays, or maybe it was just that I wasn't in the right frame of mind at that time. Whatever the reason, I decided it was best to return the book and look for something else that would better suit my current interests and mood.

I'm sure there are many people who love French absurdist theatre and find it deeply engaging and thought-provoking, but for me, it just wasn't the right fit at this moment.