Krödän is a UNESCO drama that is worthy of examination and reflection from several aspects.

First, from the external aspect: the transformation and change of humans into Krödän, which initially spreads slowly and then rapidly like a pandemic, reaching a crisis point.

Second, from the conceptual aspect: the deeper layer of the story is about people moving away from humanity and degrading to an animalistic state.

And third: the philosophical and profound dialogues of the characters make this drama extremely attractive and readable.

This drama not only presents a thrilling and thought-provoking plot but also reflects on important issues such as human nature, morality, and the meaning of life. It challenges our thinking and makes us question our values and behaviors.

In conclusion, Krödän is a remarkable drama that has left a deep impression on audiences and critics alike. Its exploration of complex themes and its masterful storytelling make it a work of art that will be remembered for a long time.

There are many things that ring
and are forgotten
and then they die
just like the crown and
the royal throne
and there are many other things that
do not take on the color of forgetfulness
and are not forgotten
such as the hat, the cane
and the shoes
of Charlie Chaplin!

This was a poem by Shirko Beks in praise of Chaplin and in fact in praise of art.

But why did I mention Chaplin?
Modern Times, Chaplin's classic directorial work, is one of the masterpieces of cinema and of my own life.

In one scene of the Chaplin film, he is seen caught between the cogwheels, trying to save himself from among all those cogwheels, which are symbols of industry and modernity.

And yet, in his masterpiece The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka portrays a character who is transformed into a helpless and unfortunate insect...

Gregor Samsa, the protagonist of The Metamorphosis, is a traveling salesman who goes to work in the morning and returns home at night...

It was right here that I remembered Chaplin and his famous scene...

Chaplin was also saying the same thing, that a person who gets caught up in modernity and industrialization, an industrialization that he still cannot establish a connection with...

Now we have all become like Chaplin in the famous scene from Modern Times, caught between the cogwheels, trying to save ourselves, but we can't...

And at that moment when he is shrinking and being transformed, whether into a cockroach or a bug or a beetle.

But the beetle...

The beetle was one of the best plays I have ever read about life...

According to Ibsen, it is very可怕 for a person to wake up one day and find that he has turned into a cockroach!

But what is really more可怕 than that is for a person to wake up and find that he has turned into a beetle...

And this will soon happen to us!

The stage had become too narrow for the theater, and what a great choice it was!

Although its theme wasn't very new and it reminded me of a Korean novel. However, reading it was sweet and attractive.

The limited space on the stage presented a challenge, but it also added a certain charm. The story, despite not being overly original, had its own allure. It took me back to the world of that Korean novel, with its familiar elements and emotions.

As I delved into the reading, I found myself drawn in by the sweetness and appeal of the text. It was like a gentle breeze on a warm day, refreshing and pleasant. Even though the subject matter might not have been groundbreaking, it still managed to capture my attention and hold it until the very end.

DUDARD: You seem very sure of yourself. Who can say where the normal stops and the abnormal begins? Can you personally define these conceptions of normality and abnormality? Nobody has solved this problem yet, either medically or philosophically. You ought to know that.

Immensely profound! Ionesco does something truly spectacular here. He effortlessly and perfectly delves into philosophical questions, while simultaneously answering to the demands of absurdist fiction with equal craftsmanship. The idiosyncrasies of the genre prevent the arguments from dragging, and the questions he poses give undeniable significance to the genre. He has written something far more meaningful and complex than even some of the Beckett plays I have read. Although kaleidoscopic meanings and interpretations can be derived from some of Beckett's minimalist worlds, Ionesco, on the other hand, believes in detail. I bet this play must have been a difficult one to stage given all the dust-raising, trumpeting rhinoceroses.

Berenger chooses himself, his individuality over the "collective psychosis" that has taken over his world. The price he must pay for rejecting conformity is, of course, nightmarish loneliness and alienation. While the rest of the world is transforming, he still believes that the human being is far more superior and has greater potential and significance than anything else. The last few lines, albeit slightly tragic, suggest hope, fortitude, and perseverance. His choice of retaining his individuality has left him utterly alone and at a major disadvantage, and one wonders why it costs so much to remain true to oneself.

Dudard's lines were also tremendously significant for me. To believe in yourself and to remain yourself, you must be a little intolerant towards everything else. Dudard, though posing some very thought-provoking questions, was a little too tolerant and succumbed to "the change". Through him, Ionesco questions our collective consciousness of morality and sanity. How do we really define sane and insane? Or what really is right or wrong? Who knows!

Berenger's intolerance, though, saves him. He is presumptuous enough to know that he is right and sticks to it. Those who try to remain objective and inconclusive, on the other hand, are one with everything, agree with everything, and thus, can become anything. I am still not sure, though, whether this play was designed to be a commentary on the concept of individualism itself or everything beside it. Ionesco's plays require much study and research to be properly understood and appreciated, but the little I have understood, I have found brilliant. Those unacquainted with the Theatre of the Absurd are highly, highly recommended to begin reading Ionesco. He is irreplaceable.

You are riders of this unique time

And beside you is erased!

- Aml Donqul

You, your feelings have withered, severed from the lambent, your skins have dried and your hearts have changed - which you neither love nor understand - for centuries proving your ignorance, so you have become - as the pharaoh imagined you - chariots!

\\n  \\n

As for me, I will resist and will not walk in your severance... for you!

I will live truthfully, believing in myself and in the individuality of every human being and will die for a cause and a principle, like a human

I will shout at you and ask you: Have you put aside the skin of your stupidity, wiped away the veil of ignorance from your eyes, removed these centuries of hatred, then risen and turned to the beauty of the universe around you... Revive your humanity.

Behringer struggles in this world. The pressure to perform, the need to function, and all the fears that haunt him are just too much. So, he drinks. To forget - and to be happy.

He manages okay with this strategy, even falls in love a little and just gets by.

But then the people around him suddenly turn into rhinoceroses. A new movement, a trend, perhaps even a disease. One way or another: it's Behringer again who can't keep up, who can't and won't adapt.

But what will become of him and humanity if he is left all alone in the end?

Eugène Ionesco wrote a very thought-provoking, sad, and at the same time extremely comical drama with "Rhinoceros" (published in 1959) that takes up numerous social themes such as racism, depression, and capitalism, which were and are still relevant today.

Above all, however, Ionesco asks the question of how sensible it is to blindly follow new trends and shows what happens to the people who rebel against them.

He allows many possibilities for interpretation, different perspectives, and forces the readers or viewers to think sustainably.

**"Kafka's The Metamorphosis and the Crisis of Modern Subjectivity"**

"The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka is a profound exploration that has taken shape in the new world. It is a cry against the annihilation of humanity in the midst of a noisy crowd of self-proclaimed claimants who have a human form. However, it must be noted that the significance of this work is not only to protest against the created world of hostility but also to what humanity is placed against. It is this confrontation that forms the drama and positions the forces. The Metamorphosis is not just a mourning for the loss of humanity but a dramatic exploration in the midst of the conflicts and contradictions of a world full of disputes that leaves no room for the gathering of forces that seem good.

One of the signs of someone who does not attach importance to the religion of humanity is their indifference to others. In the dialogue between Gregor and his sister, Gregor, who is in the process of transforming into a bug, describes himself as follows: "In fact, I don't hate people. I'm distrustful of them. It's better to say that I'm on guard against them. They have to be careful not to get in my way so that I can be smart." This is the familiar image of the shadowy subject on "the Other" in postmodern literary philosophy. In the 20th century, at the end of the modernist period, the subject has reached the point where anyone other than him must be destroyed, accused of being other than him; unless before annihilation, the subject accepts domination.

When Gregor goes to the bathroom and is completely transformed into a bug, in the first dialogue with his sister, he says: "I remember." For the subject, there is no inherent friendship or enmity. The only thing that exists is "the Other," which if it endangers his interests, turns into an enemy. Gregor also says in that dialogue: "I have a goal and I'm going straight towards it." The subject only thinks of the goal and equips all his powers to move towards that goal. The recognition of the goal and the movement towards it with all powers, based on the calculating rationality that is now called "rationalism," is carried out. Therefore, the subject can only believe in the rules of rational calculation, so the general human ethics and the inherent values of humanity are set aside in the first steps. Therefore, modern rationality acts against humanism.

But the subject does not have only one face, and to understand it, one must pay attention to the root of its formation in the Enlightenment. In the Enlightenment, many values had come together, and many thinkers of it gathered them under the title of "humanism." The subject has taken different forms and is based on multiple pillars. But this very subject in the 20th century, clearly sacrifices those values, the most important of which is the general global ethics. The modern rational belief in the Enlightenment is based on a situation called renewal, which has many values together; including the advocate of "humanism." Therefore, these very enemies of humanism may also be advocates of the "universal principles of humanity" in a large part of their lives.

As long as the majority is not with the bugs, these seemingly rational and humane people are advocates of humanity and think about the methods of controlling the bugs because the majority is still with them, who seemingly have a human form. But when the speed of change becomes so great that the balance of power turns towards the bugs, these very intellectual elites connect with the bugs with interest. There it becomes clear that they are slaves of power and are not committed to the essential value for humanity. Where is the boundary of this change? Where do they understand that the balance of power is changing? With computational science. The golden turning point of change is manifested in the words of the sister when she is in dialogue with Doudar and Dezi; "The matter is moving very fast. There is no time left for calculation." That is, power has gone out of the hands of people and the bugs have become dominant.

The sister resists becoming a subject, but she has no reason for it. Previously, Kafka has staged a debate with the rational man. When there is still no news of the great transformations and only the passage of one bug has been observed, the rational man shows in the dialogue with the old man a demonstration of the ridicule of the basis of rational argument. There it becomes clear that reason does not come to the aid of the discovery of truth and only suffers the pain of fruitless disputes to serve the powerful. This very contradiction of humanism with rationality in "The Metamorphosis" is a sign of the inner crisis of subjectivity that reveals the new life.

Marzieh for Authenticity...

Marzieh is a name that holds a certain charm and significance. It represents a person who values authenticity and truth. In a world filled with false pretenses and façades, Marzieh stands out as a beacon of genuine nature.

Those who know Marzieh can attest to her unwavering commitment to being true to herself and others. She has a unique ability to see through the fluff and get to the heart of the matter. Her honesty and integrity are refreshing and赢得了 the respect and admiration of those around her.

Marzieh's authenticity also extends to her relationships. She forms deep and meaningful connections with people, based on trust and mutual understanding. She is not afraid to show her true emotions and vulnerabilities, which makes her all the more endearing.

In conclusion, Marzieh is a remarkable individual whose authenticity shines through in everything she does. She serves as an inspiration to us all, reminding us to stay true to ourselves and to always strive for authenticity in our lives.

Rhinocéros is truly remarkable. What stands out the most is how closely its characters resemble us in the present day. This is not only due to the simplicity of language that Ionesco uses but also because the modes of thought he criticizes - intellectual cowardice, reality-defying partisanship, and even a fatalism regarding the things we disagree with - are still deeply ingrained in the frameworks of our politics and conversations today. Ionesco, through his many stylized characters, compels us to question whether we are gradually growing horns and transforming into green rhinoceroses - perhaps we have already completed that metamorphosis.

None of this is presented too seriously or, on the other hand, too facetiously. It is earnest when necessary but also quite humorous (with an underlying seriousness) in other parts. My edition comes with a nice dossier that unpacks a lot of dramaturgy and allusions that I probably would have missed otherwise, which is a great advantage.

I give it 5 stars for being a great work that I haven't fully understood yet (that's the mark of a great work - like a late Beethoven string quartet that one can't truly fully comprehend on the first encounter). I will definitely watch the full play on YouTube the next time I have a free moment.

**"Rhinoceros" by Eugène Ionesco: A Deep Dive**

In a small European town, on a Saturday morning, a rhinoceros appears and astonishes and terrifies the people. A virus causes humans to turn into rhinoceroses. At first, everyone desires to become a rhinoceros, but gradually they lose their strength and power. The epidemic of turning into a rhinoceros spreads among the people.

The main character of this play is a man named "Berenger" who works in a publishing house. He loves one of his colleagues named "Daisy" and is in love with her. He also has a very close friend named "Jean" who, for the first time, notice the rhinoceros that is moving towards the center of the town.
In the end, it is Daisy and Berenger who do not turn into rhinoceroses. But Daisy, who is influenced by the virus of change, leaves Berenger alone. Berenger, with great resistance against this change, gains knowledge.
The genre of this play is absurd theatre. Absurd means when there is a contradiction between dreams and reality. A disorder and disproportion between a person's desire and the reality that the person will face. This word was first introduced in the theatre by Martin Esslin.
The characters in the play are diverse. Berenger is the hero who is always upright and finally gains the knowledge to stand up against the rhinoceroses. Jean is a person who thinks he knows everything about others and only engages in criticism and examination. Daisy is a person who finally leaves Berenger and joins the rhinoceroses.
The setting of the story is the square of a small town. The author, Eugène Ionesco, by setting the story in a small town, is able to give the reader a general view of all the people in a region. It is as simple as a sample of the crowd.
The symbols in the play are also significant. The rhinoceroses symbolize fascists and Nazis. The cat symbolizes the disasters that will occur in the near future.
The themes of the story include individuality and fascism, man against nature, judgment and power, and identity. These themes are explored throughout the play and make the reader think about the human condition.
In conclusion, "Rhinoceros" is a thought-provoking play that explores the human condition in a unique and absurd way. It makes the reader question their own identity and the world around them.

Eugène Ionesco

SPOILER ALERT!

A "book" (not just a play) that if it is going to be read in Persian, in my opinion, must and must be read from the "Qatrah" publication version and the translation by "Parisa Saberi", because the translator with his/her expertise has almost brought the book to perfection.

An interview and a question-and-answer session with "UNESCO" that took place in Iran and was conducted by Parisa Saberi (the translator) and Davood Rashidi (radio and television presenter and theater director) has been added before and after the play. Items such as acquaintance with the UNESCO ozone, review of the important events of his life and works, and also a short multiple note of Ionesco with the title "The Horrible Reality of Old Age" (reading which was as enjoyable as the play itself) have made it possible for us to find almost everything we need to know about Ionesco in this book without the need for Google and Wikipedia.

In my opinion, when reading short plays/novels/stories written in a surrealist and absurd style, the interpretations that are written are as important as reading the work itself. At least for me it is like this. Maybe you have not made the right understanding from a part, maybe the interpretation you have made of the book is not what the author intended to convey or for example in the translation it has been reversed in such a way that it reflects a completely different meaning. Maybe you have not been able to make any special interpretation at all and you consider the book weak and meaningless, while this is not the case at all.

All of these make me emphasize again that you should read "The Killer" with Parisa Saberi's translation and from the "Qatrah" publication version.

Regarding the play itself, as Ionesco says in the interview before the play, he has taken many influences from Kafka and his "The Metamorphosis", and to some extent we are faced with a similar story, but in the details there are many differences and especially in the concepts and conclusions. Ionesco says about his difference with Kafka:

"If I had the courage to compare myself with Kafka, I would say that there is a great difference between me and him. In the sense that he deeply felt guilty. He believed that human misfortune is the result of sin. Misfortune because we humans, we humans
Parisa Saberi: have touched the original and first sin and have been expelled from paradise
Ionesco: while I completely do not accept that I have become a sinner and I also have no responsibility for "not having sinned". My feeling is not a feeling of guilt. It is a feeling of surprise and wonder."

To this feeling of surprise and wonder, we should also add the "anguish" that the author has always emphasized a lot. And unlike "The Metamorphosis" which has a very dark, black, closed and suffocating space, the space of "The Killer" is much more open and more than anything else, we can see "anguish", "wonder" and "being between two paths" in it; the dilemma of turning into something that is all-encompassing (here "The Killer") or being faithful to the original. In the final part of the play, when only two characters remain who have not yet turned into The Killer - in fact, perhaps they have not yet wanted to turn into The Killer - we read an important dialogue between them that can be read more directly than anywhere else in the book. The main character - Berenger - and his lover (if we can call her his lover, because in fact she is his colleague) - Daisy - are in an apartment that has come to the enclosure of The Killers and even on the upper floor, their neighbor has turned into The Killer and their feet hitting the floor causes vibrations in the building (a space that causes anguish). "Berenger" tries his best to persuade "Daisy" to remain "human". He even suggests that like the myth of Adam and Eve, they have children from themselves and do not let the human race become extinct and play the role of father and mother for humans, but Daisy cannot give up her temptation of "becoming The Killer" and finally does this. "Berenger", who sees himself alone, loses all the hope he had and mourns for The Killers and becomes desperate. While we all think that "this" last human is also going to turn into The Killer, Berenger in a dramatic turn gets rid of these thoughts of his own and says:

"Alright. I understand. I defend myself against everyone. Where's my gun? Where's my gun? I defend myself against everyone. Against everyone. I'm the last man. And until the end, I'll remain a man. I won't surrender."

And this conclusion - which marks the biggest difference between "The Killer" and "The Metamorphosis". Kafka ends everything as finished and misfortune-ridden, while "Ionesco" leaves a ray of hope and prioritizes human will and defiance in terms of identity and authenticity of action.

There is a lot to say about this play and book, but nothing replaces reading it. I suggest that you put "The Killer" in the priorities of your reading.

According to the famous saying, "The words were said by friends." But I must also add a critical point.

Until the middle of the story, my mind was completely blank about what UNESCO's words really meant.

When I delved deeper, I realized that it might be about people coming together in harmony or blindly following something.

But at the same time, I felt that maybe my mind was forcibly connecting some things to form a pattern or draw a moral from the story.

When I read the English Wikipedia entry for "Craddock" (which I highly recommend you read), I realized that my guess was almost correct, but this was exactly my problem with this work.

Before reading more about it, I really didn't understand the author's words and could only make guesses.

In my opinion, "Craddock" is overly symbolic (maybe I'm not using the right word here), and only when I read more about it did I become aware of the value behind the work and the philosophy behind the characters and dialogues.

Of course, there are many stories where if you don't read about them, you won't notice many of the hidden and valuable points of the work. But my connection as a reader with the author's style of writing is no longer so absolute.

And this, with complete humility, I know is not a negative point about my own intelligence but a negative point about "Craddock" :)