A good book with a very bad translation by Jalal-aga!

Here are some samples:

“Oh yes, I can; I can predict things all right.”

“Of course I can. I make predictions. I do.”

“The more I know you the better you seem.”

“The more you get to know you, the better it is with you.”

“What does that prove?”

“This doesn't prove anything.”

“You keep saying the same thing, my dear.”

“Why do you keep repeating yourself, my dear mother?”

This story seemed excellent to me, and I felt that it was read at a very appropriate time; a time when you wonder if you are on the right path? Are you not? Will you not get tired?

The story is about the clones of humans. These are the people who have become trapped in their daily lives and in a world of ignorance and blindness, they are following the false-promising people who despise them.

"Remember that you yourself stated that the best way to defend against the situation is to have the will."

"He said: 'We should have started earlier.' This was the last word of the humanoid's period."

"So we have the right to live. We even have a duty towards ourselves to be happy independent of all people."

"Listen, Dezi. There are still things slipping out of our hands. We become parents; our children also become parents, and it is true that it takes a long time; but with this very thing, we can give new life and strength to the humanoid race."

This was truly hilarious!

I really relished this piece of absurdist theatre.

It was a unique blend of cleverness and silliness.

The way the story unfolded was both unexpected and entertaining.

The characters and their actions were completely out of the ordinary, yet they managed to draw me in and keep me engaged throughout.

The use of荒诞的情节and夸张的表演added to the overall charm of the production.

I found myself laughing out loud at many of the scenes, and at the same time, I was also impressed by the creativity and imagination that went into creating this piece of theatre.

It was a truly unforgettable experience, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good laugh and something a little bit different.

Jalal Al-e-Ahmad is truly amazing in whatever he writes! His works are like a burst of creativity and inspiration. Each word he pen is filled with passion and depth, captivating the readers from the very first page. Whether it's a novel, a poem, or an essay, his writing style is unique and engaging. He has the ability to transport the readers to different worlds and make them experience a wide range of emotions. His works are not just words on paper, but a reflection of his thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Jalal Al-e-Ahmad's writing is a gift to the literary world, and it continues to inspire generations of readers and writers alike.

A Libertarian Manifesto of Sorts

A libertarian manifesto, in a sense; not in the strictly political sense, nor in the philosophical sense of free will versus determinism, but in the broader sense of one who values personal liberty and freedom above all else, whether in or out of the political arena. I recently witnessed a remarkable performance of a play by the theater troupe at the high school where my wife teaches. I was initially skeptical that they could successfully stage a play that requires such a high level of skill from its actors and director. However, they not only pulled it off but did so with great finesse. The lead actor, portraying Berenger, masterfully depicted the transformation of Berenger from a vacillating, uncertain drunk to the morally certain yet crushingly alone last-man-standing, as the inhabitants of his town gradually choose to turn into rhinoceroses.

After the performance, having been on the periphery of the audience and having had one of the "rhinoceroses" brush against me (they roam among the audience for much of the play), I commented to my wife that I felt the absurdist (and strongly existentialist) play was like an audience-participation episode of the Twilight Zone. Since TZ is my all-time favorite television show, this was the highest praise I could bestow upon it. Reading the play may not convey the same intensity, as it was written "for the stage, not for the page" (as my daughter often characterized Shakespeare when she was a child). Nevertheless, the blueprint is there, and a well-directed group of actors can truly immerse the audience in the midst of the angst.

The central theme贯穿始终 is that of individualism versus conformity. Although the play is often cited as being "anti-Nazi," Ionesco states:

"Rhinoceros is certainly an anti-Nazi play, yet it is also and mainly an attack on collective hysteria and the epidemics that lurk beneath the surface of reason and ideas but are nonetheless serious collective diseases passed off as ideologies."

The play delves much deeper than a simple invective against one group. Instead, it questions all groups and the human need to belong in relation to the need for human individuation. Ionesco is careful to make Berenger a complex character who grapples with the decision of whether or not to become a rhinoceros, thus avoiding a didactic imposition on the audience to hate the rhinoceroses. This is not a propaganda piece that ignores the psychological subtleties behind such a difficult choice. The situations presented evoke feelings of tolerance, perhaps even sympathy, for those who succumb to the allure of the crowd. One must ask, "What would I do in this situation, given all that is presented to me?" The question of who the rhinoceroses are is entirely irrelevant:

"People always wish me to spell out whether I mean the rhinos to be fascists or communists. Rhinoceritis is not an illness of the Right or the Left: it cannot be contained within geo-political borders. Nor is it characteristic of a social class. It is the malady of conformity which knows no bounds, no boundaries."

There are no easy answers: Tolerate the crowd, accept them, become one of them and embrace their sociality, or resist them, become intolerant, and remain firmly individual, and alone? Before you answer, think about it. Read or see this play, then think about it. This isn't a decision you'll want to make hastily.

This work, which Ionesco was inspired by the reaction of the writer Dino Buzzati against Hitler, should be taught in schools. Resistance is the only way. Sampato also said it in his同名 book.

Ionesco's work holds great significance and value. It reflects the writer's strong stance and opposition to the atrocities and evil of Hitler. By teaching this work in schools, students can gain a deeper understanding of history, the importance of resistance, and the power of literature to convey powerful messages.

The idea that resistance is the only way is a powerful and relevant one. It reminds us that we should not remain silent in the face of injustice and oppression. We should have the courage to stand up and fight for what is right. Sampato's words in his同名 book further emphasize this point.

In conclusion, teaching Ionesco's work in schools can help to educate and inspire students to become active and engaged citizens, who are willing to resist injustice and work towards a better world.

ΝΤΕΖΗ: Perhaps... the mistake is ours, ours the blame!

ΜΠΕΡΑΝΖΕ: Of course not. If they all took it, were negligent, went crazy, if the world is sick, if they are all sick, that's their problem.

It is a work that shows how difficult it is to remain -consciously- in the minority when the majority around you is transforming. Not into a cockroach, but into beings with brute force and herd behavior.

Mperanze is an ordinary man who shares his life between the office and the coffee shop, yet he has antibodies of humanity against the epidemic. Along with an unease with the podiums.

Ionesco's choice to describe the transformation of society not into something likely - into Zoroastrian followers, let's say - but into something absurd, which however gradually becomes acceptable (and orthologized) due to the attraction that the safety of the flock exerts, is idiosyncratic.

"Rhinoceros" refers serially to the excellent life-story of Hans Fallada: “Stranger in My Own Country: A Diary of Captivity 1944”

Talking Heads: Crosseyed and Painless - YouTube

Comedy is terrifying.
Comedy is painful.
I write to give an answer to myself.
Who are we and why are we here?

This is the second play I am reading by Eugène Ionesco. Like his other work "The Bald Soprano", it deals with the "identity" of humans today, but this time in a broader way: the inner authenticity of humans in contrast to the anonymity we witness in modern society.

In our urban and mechanical world, humans get lost under the mask of work. They are forever labeled as a writer, a doctor, or someone else. Even in sleep.

The way of choosing:
We live in a society where most of the time we are forced to conform. As a result, questions arise such as what influence does society have on our choices? How much does our conscience play a role in our decisions? And how free is a human in his choices?

...Eugène Ionesco: "It's better for a person to think badly, to think wrongly."
!Precious Sabry: "But he should think for himself."
Eugène Ionesco: "Yes, he should think for himself! He should be himself. That's why a human needs solitude. That's why the common goal prevents this solitude. Amazingly, each person is the center of the world. A mysterious phenomenon. About three billion people live on the planet Earth. But each of us individually touches the fundamental thresholds with soft hands: the threshold of dying, the threshold of living."

In one of the scenes of the play, the writer names himself as the one whom most people come to watch his plays. And he encourages his friends to go and see it. He mocks these people who only watch his plays because of following the trend.

Ionesco believes that the social system has turned society into a mob.
People in such a society are anonymous and this is really terrifying. It was this thoughtlessness and lack of individuality that made most Germans follow Hitler and commit genocide against millions of people.

The becoming of a rhinoceros or remaining human:
Berenger, the main character of the story, is a person whose identity is important to him and even before the rhinoceroses are found, he feels like a stranger in society and cannot get used to it like the others.

Berenger: "I don't like that drink so much. But if I don't drink it, my head won't be right. Just like when I'm scared. Then I always drink until I'm not scared anymore."
Jean: "What are you afraid of?"
Berenger: "I don't really know myself. It's a kind of threshold that's hard to describe. I feel uncomfortable with myself in life, among people. Then I drink a glass of that drink. It makes me feel good. It calms my nerves, and I forget."

He remains true to himself when the whole society turns into rhinoceroses. Because he easily understands that a human who becomes a rhinoceros lives thousands of years of civilization behind him and returns to his wild and primitive nature.

Berenger: "Have you ever considered the difference in the way of thinking?"
Jean: "Do you think our way of thinking is better?"
Berenger: "Anyway, we have our own moral standards which, in my opinion, are completely different from the morals of animals."
Jean: "Morals. Imagine. Put the morals in the water and drink it. Now the morals have brought in kufr."
Berenger: "Now what will replace the morals?
Nature. Nature?"
Jean: "Nature has its own laws. Morals are against nature."
Berenger: "If I understand correctly, you want to replace the moral standards with the laws of the jungle."
Jean: "I live in this jungle. Life. We must pour our way of life again. We must return to that original purity."
Berenger: "But wait a minute and think. You know we have a philosophy that these animals don't have. Centuries of human civilization have created it."

Ionesco shows in an interesting way that if we say that becoming a rhinoceros is natural, then death is also natural. That is, when we choose to become a rhinoceros because of its naturalness, we should also choose death instead of life.

Berenger: "So in your opinion, this matter is natural?"
Dudar: "What is more natural than a rhinoceros?"

Berenger: "Living something is unnatural."
Jean: "On the contrary, it is very natural. The reason is that all people live."
Berenger: "The dead are much more than the living. Their number is increasing every day. The living are few."

He doesn't have much of a reputation, nor has he read many books, nor has he gone to see a play; but he is himself and is worthy of being human and because of this he is condemned to solitude.

Berenger: "Woe to the era of someone who wants to preserve his authenticity."

But Berenger, like the mythical Sisyphus, is unyielding. Just as beautifully said that "the real human may disappear but will never be defeated."

Berenger: "Okay. Understood. I defend myself against everyone. Where is my gun? Where is my gun?
I defend myself against everyone. Against everyone. I am the last human. And I will remain human until the end. I will not surrender."

Eugène Ionesco and some of his ideas:
Some critics accuse me of being a friend of a certain kind of people and a pure human. Humans are nowhere prosperous! While I am a supporter of humans everywhere being prosperous! Both friend and enemy. A human who is understandable and tangible. The pure human belongs to the dreamers and the visionaries, a human who has no reality. The necessary condition for the world of humanity and the human being anywhere is not his existence. It is his being in "Mila". When I talk about death, everyone understands me. Death is neither bourgeois nor socialist. It comes from the deep anxiety within that is acceptable to all and is popular.

I deeply believe that we have a destiny ahead of us and this destiny is extremely beneficial to us.
These absurdities that we witness in the world are manifestations of our lack, inability, and limited perception. Later, we will gain knowledge of everything.

I think it is unacceptable that nothing is acceptable, that life is unacceptable. Against the laws, nothing is made by our enemies, but we can rebel against them. All of humanity should rebel against the laws. What makes me suffer as much as my old age, as much as my pains, is my lack of courage.

What worries me about today's youth is their mental old age and their sick stoicism about the bitter and unforgettable experiences of history.

I will never prevent anyone from speaking or making a commitment or writing a "committed work". But my heart wants them to also respect my freedom and let me express the issues as I see them from my point of view.

Ionesco and the name of the Theater of the Absurd:
Ionesco is so worthy of the authenticity of thought that he does not even accept the common name "Theater of the Absurd" or "Theater of the Absurd" for his works. In fact, this work is very close to the school of Surrealism and he also calls it Surreal Realism and prefers the name Theater of the Surprising: "My first play had such a meaning for me. "The Wonder of the World", the world in which I live, the problems that happen around me, the things that I see and understand or don't understand. The world is a wonder to me. To write "The Bald Soprano", I tried to distance myself from myself. To get away from the daily worries. To look at the world from a distance. With distance. When I looked at it with distance, I realized that all the things that people do are incomprehensible."

**A Message to All the Herd Followers**

Dear all herd followers, I do not follow you, and I do not understand your words. I will remain as I am, a human being!

There is a rising wave, a unified movement, a movement of herdism. A current that has brought along all the factions of society, from the intellectuals to the protesters, from the communist firebrands to the enlightened thinkers. Each for their own specific reasons, some see more power in the herd, some find them more beautiful, some believe in giving the right to the majority, and some simply lack sufficient philosophical and moral reasons to reject herdism.

In the midst of all this, there is only one who wishes to preserve his individuality and does not understand why people have lost their minds and are not willing to connect with this movement. Perhaps it is because of his humanity and not being a machine.

However, all of this is just a small part of the show, and it does not show the spirit of satire and surrealism of the show. The enjoyable part of this show, because of its satirical surrealism, made me take a breath one day.

All the evils do not come to harm. Tim has excluded me from the world for eighteen days and only today can I post a comment on the most famous work of Ionesco, at least for me who jealously guards it from the distant 1968: then it was absolutely “in”, just to stay on the theme of homologation of the not really absurd comedy. Homologation is democratic. It strikes on the right and on the left. I was on the left.

I had already written, before the blackout: “Published in '59 and staged in '61, it had to be the metaphor of the origin of the consensus of the masses to totalitarianisms, masses anesthetized rather than domesticated by the absurd and contentless language of propaganda that from today to tomorrow fills them behind a rotating piper.”

On Sunday 27 October, the elections for the president of the region of Umbria were held. I would not like to update and therefore trivialize the work, making this my comment ridiculous on a rereading when the event will be dead and buried by who knows what other rubble. Nor do I allow myself to think that I am up to handling a metaphor like the master.

Rather, it occurs to me to use Umbria as Allen does with Thalberg, the fictional name of a small town in Turingia, to show us how Germany became Nazi. Two days before the “happy event”, we look out in astonishment at the screens and see the faces of the Umbrians happy to have turned into rhinoceroses. They pass in front of us and only from small signs do we recognize Jean, the old man and the philosopher, the woman with the shopping bag, the waitress in the bar and Berenger's lover, all characters of Ionesco but who could just as easily be the people we had seen in the flesh in some interviews at the polling stations.

The maître à penser now want to convince us that, given the social and political processes underway, it could not have been otherwise. However, in us begins to insinuate the suspicion that if the right importance had been given “to the small, banal, boring, repetitive and irritating facts”, we would not be here to take note of the catastrophic metamorphosis. What were we doing, what were we thinking when the first rhinoceros appeared, like a meteor, in the square where we were sipping a soft drink in the Sunday relaxation?

Marathon talk shows are served to us on all channels, with and without a fee, hosted by the highly acclaimed journalist who fires at the guests: “Who saw it? And who says they saw it looked carefully? Did it really pass or is it just a hallucination because what is a rhinoceros doing in Umbria? And then, fundamental: does it have one horn or two? African or Asian?” More than analysis and research for solutions, they are a repetition of those four things that the Berengers who survived the mass metamorphosis, but only just, ask themselves waiting for answers and solutions before the worm of homologation pervades them.

Someone, turning off the screen, will look in the mirror and, like Berenger, will start to shout and cry: “No, I'm not beautiful, I'm not beautiful at all! They are the beautiful ones! I was wrong! Ah, I would like to be like them! I have nothing in my head, not even a horn! How ugly my forehead is so flat, smooth… it would need one or two horns, so that my features would stand out better… Who knows, maybe they will sprout, and then I won't feel so humiliated anymore, I can go and join them… But no… the horns don't sprout… My hands are sweaty… how disgusting! Who knows if they will become big, rough… I have all flabby skin. Ah, this white and hairy body! How I would like to have rough skin, and that magnificent dark green color… how I would like to have a decent bare body, without hair, like theirs! … How I feel guilty! I should have followed them when I still had time! Too late, now! It's over, I'm a monster! I'm a monster! I will never become a rhinoceros again, never, never, never! I can't change anymore. I would so much like to, but I can't, I can't! And I can't stand myself anymore, I disgust myself, I'm ashamed of myself! How ugly I am! Woe to him who wants to preserve his originality! And then, so much the worse! I will defend myself against everyone! My rifle, my rifle! I will defend myself against all of them, against all of them! I am the last man, and I will remain so until the end! I will not give in! I will not give in!”

I already do not give in: and who believes it anymore?

Oh, woe to the era when someone wants to preserve their authenticity.

An exhibition about how all individuals in society are involved in an ideology and accept it without thinking and delving into it!

Since the exhibition was written after World War II, perhaps the exhibition can be regarded in its essence as Nazism and Fascism, to which most people adhered thoughtlessly and superficially.

Overall, the author's idea was interesting, and the outstanding character was a symbol of individuals who were firm in their ideas in the face of society.

A theatrical work with a thousand expansions, relevant in every era, relevant then and relevant now, as much as ever, and tomorrow, surely tomorrow.

At first, I felt great joy when I picked up this text again in my hands for the second time after 18 years (oh my, how restless time is), when as a student I was taking French lessons and would be examined on it. My acquaintance with the theater of the absurd at that time was a lightning love. I had been enthusiastic about the notation of the work, the endless discussions it generated. It had seemed possible like a glass jar, brittle like the knife that Bergerac brandished in Daisie in a hopeless attempt to transfer to her the energy and power that she had begun to admire so much in the animals, the rhinoceroses, that surrounded them.

And now, picking it up again, I was dizzied by the successive, absurd dialogues, in an incredibly disturbing, cabbage-like rhythm, like a psychological roller coaster that you finally want to end and end well, to come out unharmed, intact, to remain HUMAN.

The "rhinoceros" (rhinocérite) for Ionesco can have many faces: it is present in every kind of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, in every form of fanaticism and mass psychology. He avoids it and is vigilant not to "stick" to it, as it has the characteristics of an epidemic. Ionesco saw his father, his friends and his homeland, Romania, being dragged by a new ideology from which he himself had to escape at all costs (Nazism). After World War II, a large part of Europe fell under the yoke of Moscow. Since then, he has been afraid for France - where he now lived - that the propaganda, the ideological struggle, the wooden language of the communist party that was politically and economically supported by the Soviet Union and that was making wonders, would lead to the establishment of a dictatorship. Under these circumstances, the Rhinoceros makes its appearance as a precaution, a warning cry against the blinders that lead to the irreversible. Quite deliberately, he went against the current, with the slogan inside him "Dare not to think like the others", knowing full well that "To think against the current is heroism, to express it is madness."

I entered a great maze of thoughts, simple and more complex, about the theater of the absurd that we are partakers - and accomplices - of every day, whether we realize it or not. Something simple and seemingly innocent: I work in a public building where since 2014 when I found myself there, no employee smokes in any office, room, corridor etc. (However, there is an invisible space in the common area, on a floor, where anyone can smoke.) After the last update of the anti-smoking law, there was a raid on all floors by the employees of the municipal police where they entered every office and stuck plasticized A4 sheets banning cigarettes, with a graphic of the worst aesthetic and analysis print (anyway..), on every empty wall, on every column, with blatant exaggeration, the employee stuck them without hesitation, as if performing the highest duty, as if it were the supreme act for the fight against smoking in a building that has not been "smoking" for many years now and in a public service where the last damn problem is the cigarette (bureaucracy, a REAL damn problem PIXI). I would not be surprised if I saw it stuck on the toilet bowl. And when one day I said to my colleague "You don't have any of these to bring us yet, we're missing some", she replied that when she finds she WILL BRING ME, she didn't get it RE FRIEND that I couldn't possibly mean it. Am I exaggerating? No, I'm not. My antennas become more sensitive willingly, deliberately. Every, BUT EVERY ACTION is political and has a weight, small or large, but it has.

Calculated tricks and subtle irony run through the work and if one perceives them, one's understanding of it rises even higher, for example the choice of the name Botard = botte (boot > army > military march) and the ending -ard which usually refers to something fine, the first thing that comes to mind is conard (idiot).

Or the clever advice of the high-ranking Jean to the simple -presumably his friend- Berenger who finds pleasure in drinking: "Go to the theater to be educated instead of spending your money on drink (=vice, alcoholic). Do you know the avant-garde theater that everyone is talking about? Have you seen Ionesco's works? One is playing at the moment. Take advantage." This is a delightful, crushing, clever, witty interjection.

Berenger feels the evil, the epidemic dimension of the "rhinocerite", but he is unable to express it correctly, with the right words, the right terms. However, he feels it "instinctively" but since the word instinct refers to our animal nature and thus to the rhinoceros that he is so afraid of not transforming into, he hastens to correct it to "sensitively", in a belated attempt to separate his human essence from that of the animal that does not have ethical boundaries.

Regularity, this whip, this word that leaves no room for deviations from the line, from the rhythmic march of the many and the uniform, leaves no room to stand proud and calm in your uniqueness, but spreads the fear of not belonging, stigmatizes those who want to resist and remain human with all their human characteristics, intact and faithful to themselves. Those who, against all odds, will defend themselves. And if they are the last humans in the world, they will remain until the end. They will not surrender.

For me, a shocking, witty, multi-dimensional work with many implications that touches on fundamental issues that concern all thinking humans, without exception.