The Three-Part Play "The Rhinoceros" is one of the most important UNESCO heritage sites and a prominent work in the absurd style. The protagonist of the story is a character named Berenice, who, in addition to "The Rhinoceros", appears in three other works by Ionesco: "The Aerialist", "The King Dies" (in the role of the first King Berenice), and "The Killer Without a Cause" (in the role of a simple hero, Loh). Berenice in "The Rhinoceros" is a two-legged employee in the production department of a legal publishing company (like Ionesco himself). She is in love with one of her colleagues named Daisy, who is very popular among other employees. One Monday morning, Berenice is chatting with her friend Jean when suddenly they see rhinoceroses on the street, engaged in a tussle. Gradually, the number of rhinoceroses increases, and it is then revealed that these are the people of the city who have fallen victim to the disease of "rhinoceros-itis". At the end of the play, only Berenice and Daisy remain human, but Daisy also loses her resistance to the urge to become a rhinoceros and leaves Berenice alone. In the middle of the play, Berenice realizes that becoming a rhinoceros is a voluntary act. Some of the characters in the play choose the thick skin and branched horns of the rhinoceros because they admire the animalistic strength and honesty of the rhinoceros. Some others believe that in order to establish communication with the rhinoceroses and understand their language, they must become like them (a dog from Mazandaran has no fear of a wild boar from Mazandaran). Another group, like Daisy, cannot resist the charm of homogeneity and adaptation and succumb to rhinoceros-itis (if you want to be a traitor, be in harmony with the group). Berenice's situation at the end of the play reminds us of the situation of Gregor Samsa in Kafka's "The Metamorphosis", where normality or naturalness is variable and depends on society. In a place where everyone has become a rhinoceros, being human is an abnormal act (if you want to be in harmony, be a traitor to the group). Berenice also decides to become a rhinoceros at the end of the play but hesitates at the last moment and makes a short speech about the resistance of the last human. This inconsistent and contradictory performance of Berenice is enough to illuminate the entire stage space.

It seems that the association of Ionesco's friends and acquaintances with fascist groups around 1938, such as the Gardiens de la Paix, had a great influence on the writing of this work. He himself says in this regard:

As always, I have returned to my personal impulses. I remember that throughout my life, I have often been struck by what might be called the prevailing ideology. By its sudden development, its power of expansion, and its inevitability. People allow it to suddenly take them under its sway, whether it is a new religion, a new political movement, or a new obsession. In such times, we witness a complete spiritual transformation of all humanity. I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but when the ideas of others are no longer the same as yours, when you can no longer understand yourself through them, a person feels as if he has been confronted by monsters, for example, by rhinoceroses. They are a combination of honesty and wildness, and ultimately, they kill the conscience within you. And history has shown us that in the last quarter of this century, people have not only become different and forgotten us like rhinoceroses, but they have actually become rhinoceroses themselves.

The play "The Rhinoceros" does not convey any moral message because the playwright is not a moral teacher. The artist simply writes plays to make a statement in them (art for art's sake), not to be a teacher and convey a message. According to Ionesco's belief, any ideological work of art is meaningless, inferior to the ideology that inspires it, an ideology that has already been expressed in its own particular language, that is, in a dialectical argument (in contrast to Brecht and Gorky).

Before "The Rhinoceros" is a criticism of conformism and uniformity, it is an attack on petty capitalism, the identification of acceptable ideas and slogans, adaptation to society, the acceptance of slogans by the masses, and the transformation of people into controllable individuals. People who can no longer speak because they can no longer think, and they can no longer think because their emotions are no longer aroused. They can no longer be themselves, they can be anyone, they take on another identity by losing their own, and they replace each other. As at the end of the play, Berenice and Daisy repeat each other's previous dialogues.

In this play, as in other works by Ionesco, visual images of anxiety, horror, restlessness, sadness, and self-abandonment are shown. This reaction is not limited to the actors, and Ionesco has tried to transfer the reaction from the dialogue to the visual elements (such as the stage and décor, objects, and the interrelationship of the elements of the play with each other).

Ionesco, like Beckett, uses a particular pattern for his characters. In Ionesco's works, the complementary role of the hero of the story is a woman who has the role of a protector and a beloved but tormenting figure for the man (like the female servant/master in the play "The Lesson" or Berenice and Daisy in "The Rhinoceros"). The characters, although they live in a unified society (family, office, city), are alone, and the family is also a factor of pressure for adaptation and harmony with society. The main themes of his works are also loneliness and the isolation of the individual, but other important aspects can also be mentioned: the difficulty of human beings in establishing communication with others, the condemnation to bear external and internal pressures, the anxieties resulting from the lack of identity and death.

Ionesco is opposed to the logical and balanced structure of traditional theater. He says in this regard:

The method of the theater should be the introduction of correct and calculated shocks. Reality, the observer's awareness, and the ordinary tool of thinking (language) should be set aside, thrown together, and scattered so that suddenly the observer is faced with a new perception of reality. Therefore, everything is permissible in the play. Not only giving life to the characters but also giving authenticity to their anxieties and inner ghosts. Therefore, the introduction of stage props into the play, giving life to objects, and breathing life into symbols and making them real is not only permissible but also reasonable. Just like the movement of hands and faces in a puppet show, when words are not enough, they take their place, and stage props can also enhance them in turn.

From these statements, it can be concluded that the role of language should be somewhat diminished. In absurd theater, language is not in conflict with the goal but is only one of many elements that the writer can freely deal with, place the reaction against the text, or break the language of the characters into pieces. And this is a means in the service of the pattern of exaggeration that distinguishes Ionesco's theater. By pushing language to the verge of excess, it can be turned into a theatrical material. In order to give it a true measure of theater, a measure that only exists in excess, we must push the words themselves to their ultimate limits. Language must either burst or disappear completely due to its inability to express meanings.

Ionesco's pattern of exaggeration in playwriting is as follows: starting with comedy and gradually moving towards exaggeration and intensification until finally returning to the place where it started (like the play "The Lesson" and "The Bald Soprano"). Exaggeration, acceleration, confusion, multiplication to the point of madness until the psychological tension becomes unbearable, and this itself reminds us of the pattern of orgasm. After orgasm, there must be peace and sadness, and this takes the form of laughter. The reason for the comical nature of Ionesco's plays is also this. Ionesco says in this regard:

As far as I am concerned, I have never been able to understand what creates the difference between comedy and tragedy. Although comedy is a witness to absurdity, in my opinion, it is more a source of despair than tragedy. Comedy does not show a way out. I say it is a source of despair, but in fact, it is beyond despair or hope.

Casual and clear satire makes us aware of the tragic or absurd situation of humanity. This is not only because of our critical spirit but also because satire is our only possibility of detaching ourselves from the tragic-comic human situation and our absurdity, but only after we have overcome it, absorbed it, and understood it. Becoming aware of what is terrifying and laughing at it is to master that terror. Its own logic shows in the illogicality of the absurd thing that we have become aware of. Laughter does not look at any taboos with respect.

However, Ionesco's opponents consider these views a serious threat to realism (especially social realist theater):

The danger arises when this view becomes the gateway to the general acceptance of theater and leads the new world from humanistic faith to the logic and science of the heart and causes the trust in people to disappear forever. (And it should be so.)

Ionesco is a very witnessing writer, and his plays are the embodiment of the special nightmares of his world. The world, from his point of view, has become empty in the metaphysical sense, and man has lost his sense of the mysterious existence of himself, and therefore the possibility of any witnessing from him has been deprived. But the witnessing that Ionesco speaks of is not joyous and hopeful but, on the contrary, full of horror:

We have no hope of being cured or finding peace. We have a common pain. In this case, why do we put these things in the play? What is the use of it? Because with all these things, we cannot reach awareness. A sharper awareness of reality, of the reality of the misfortune of existence (being), of the reality that the human condition is unacceptable.

Ionesco's theater is a poetic theater with the anxiety of transferring the experience of being, which is extremely difficult because of the abstract, general, and obtuse nature of language.

Two films have been adapted from the play "The Rhinoceros": "The Rhinoceros" directed by Tam Aharoni (1974) and "Zombie Strippers" directed by J. Li (a very weak and ridiculous adaptation).

I am tired.

It has been years that I am tired.

I have become sick from carrying the burden of my body.

Every day feels like a struggle, as if I am constantly dragging myself through life.

The weight on my shoulders seems to get heavier with each passing day.

I long for a break, for a moment of peace and rest.

But it seems that such a moment is hard to come by.

I try to push forward, to keep going, but the exhaustion is always there, lurking in the background.

I don't know how much longer I can hold on.

Maybe one day, I will finally break down and give in to the fatigue.

But until then, I will continue to fight, to try and find a way to relieve this overwhelming tiredness.

This play is one of my best recent readings and it is the most inspiring for thinking and reflecting on reality.

The play discusses the emergence of the Martians in the city and finally until all humans turn into Martians except one, our hero, who decides in the end that he will fight the world alone to defend his kind and humanity.

There are 4 main ideas that I feel the author is discussing - and I say feel because I'm not sure if the play really has this depth or if I'm just exaggerating in analyzing its symbolism - and here is a summary of what I've come up with:

1) The nature of man in the modern era in its most common types. Where Randy - the hero - is worried, restless, tired and (afraid), burdened by his existence, not comfortable alone or in society with people. And his friend Jean, who is committed to his work, has a great tendency to accept life as it is, does not accept objections to his philosophy. I think these two types of people are the essential characteristics of our current era and they are the majority if we ignore the extremists, I mean those who are driven by fear to isolation and self-destruction or those who are driven by the ease of life methods to domination and crime.

2) The absolute absurd reality that makes reason and logic unable to explain it. So the small rational being in each human being resorts to philosophy to explain it or justify his existence. He formulates philosophical theories to prove to himself that he still has a solid ground to stand on, even if it is illusory. Because man's complete inability to understand reality or even to master it may drive him to madness, and he pretends that he convinces himself that he is sane and aware. (Look at our current political reality and the lofty terms and initiatives that seem wonderful and brilliant, but despite all this, we are only going from bad to a million worse).

3) People's dealing with change. At first, denying its existence, then feeling the danger, and at this moment, they may not take any position to stop the danger, but rather engage in a violent debate among themselves about who is right - for example, in the play, when the Martians appeared, the characters engaged in a debate about whether it was one century or two centuries! Is it African or Asian! They are confused that the mere existence of it is a danger that they must deal with (do you also feel the similarity between this and our political reality?). And finally, returning to it until the person himself becomes a part of this change, even if he was opposed to it from the beginning, and even if he believes that this change is really wrong, but as long as the majority is like that, why not? The unity of the group - an expression of Professor Mired al-Burghouthi - is really attractive and its loss is not a light matter.

4) The tyranny of the material and the decline of humanity. The language of interest that turns man into an animal, replacing the moral system with the natural laws or the law of the jungle, on the pretext that it is more in line and consistent with nature.

In his famous play, the UNESCO-recognized author transforms the people of the city one after another into gorillas in a completely surreal space!

At first, the presence of the first wild gorilla on the surface of the city seems implausible. The witnesses of the incident are skeptical. A little later, they start discussing whether the gorilla is Asian or African, and gradually not only do they not find the increasing number of animals on the surface of the city strange and unbelievable, but also becoming a gorilla will turn into a completely logical and wavy process for conforming to the group and escaping from being human.

The huge and terrifying gorillas in the most ordinary streets become the norm for the people; no one has a problem with a big branch that turns green on their face; they are not afraid of the green skin and the gorilla's fangs; they are not afraid of the extinction of humanity and not being "human".

Ionesco uses the epidemic of becoming a gorilla to criticize a society that is empty of meaning and purpose, where people, like sleepwalkers with their eyes closed, follow others blindly.

A society that perhaps in those days seemed like an impossible fictional end-of-the-world scenario in its imagination, but today has turned into a bitter and believable reality.

Ionesco's gorilla has no sign of that noble animal that always walks its own way and has no outward appearance of loneliness and isolation. Here, it is a mindless lump of flesh and fur that doesn't know why and what happened that it became a gorilla and what it is chasing. It just walks and tramples everything it encounters along the way under its heavy feet. Everything, even humanity!

Each time I reread "Rhinoceros" (the first time was, many years ago, in the reading room of the Public Central Library of Lamia), I remember "The End of an Era" by Antonis Kokkinos, and each time I see "The End of an Era" again, I keep saying that I must reread "Rhinoceros".

In a less "biographical" and more enlightening approach to the content and symbolism of Ionesco's most important work, one should note its allegorical references to the vulnerability of the modern human being in the face of every form of fashion, mass hysteria, and ideology, and his docile submission to omnipresent totalitarianisms (as Ionesco himself had noted, "Rhinoceros" was an anti-Nazi work, although it could just as easily refer to any unfree environment, then and now).

Many more things could be said about Berenger, his decision not to obey the "rhinoceritis" ("No, you will not succeed in getting me. I will not become like you!") and the ethical conclusion of the human being who resists, but, as it was clear from the outset, the present post is mostly "biographical", so I will be content with much less, such as to confess to you that my (much-loved) "The End of an Era" is already programmed to play on my television. Again.

The combination of "Kore" and "Ibsen" is an interesting and thought-provoking one. "Kore" may refer to a young woman or a maiden, carrying with it connotations of youth, beauty, and potential. On the other hand, "Ibsen" is a renowned playwright known for his deep exploration of human nature, social issues, and complex characters. When we bring these two together, we can imagine a story that delves into the life and experiences of a young woman, perhaps facing the challenges and dilemmas that Ibsen so masterfully portrays in his works. It could be a tale of self-discovery, of grappling with society's expectations, or of finding one's true voice and identity. The combination of "Kore" and "Ibsen" thus opens up a world of possibilities for a rich and engaging narrative.

\\"Petty Bourgeois\\" are contractual people in all human societies who speak according to the given patterns. (From the interview text of the book)

The concept of \\"Petty Bourgeois\\" is an interesting one. They are those individuals who seem to conform to the established norms and patterns in society. They follow the rules and speak in a way that is expected of them. In every community, there are such people who play a certain role. They may not be the ones who lead or innovate, but they are an important part of the social fabric. Their adherence to the given patterns provides a sense of stability and order. However, it can also sometimes lead to a lack of creativity and individuality. Understanding the characteristics and behaviors of the \\"Petty Bourgeois\\" can help us better understand the dynamics of human societies and how different types of people interact and contribute.

Jean:
I tell you it’s not as bad as all that. After all, rhinoceroses are living creatures the same as us. They have as much right to life as we do!

Berenger:
As long as they don’t destroy ours in the process. You must admit the difference in mentality. We humans have complex thoughts and emotions, while rhinoceroses act mainly on instinct.

Jean:
Are you under the impression that our way of life is superior? Just because we have advanced technology and civilization doesn't mean we are better than them in every way. Rhinoceroses have their own unique way of surviving and thriving in the wild.

Berenger:
Well at any rate, we have our own moral standards which I consider incompatible with the standards of these animals. Our moral code dictates how we treat others, both humans and animals. But do rhinoceroses have such a code?

Jean:
Moral standards! I’m sick of moral standards! We need to go beyond moral standards! Maybe it's time for us to look at the world from a different perspective and respect the rights and lives of all living beings, regardless of our moral standards.

This week I finished reading "Rhinoceros" by Ionesco.

The play begins with the unexpected appearance of rhinoceroses on the streets of the city. Where did they come from and what does it all mean? Of course, this is an image that helps to generalize.

Perhaps it is one of the best plays I have read recently. In my understanding, it is about a society that is transforming into a herd (sorry for the word, but it fits perfectly in the context). To follow them or to remain oneself?

Here we can see that even, it would seem, intelligent people can succumb to collective hysteria. Each character symbolizes something of their own: attempts to adhere to logic and philosophy, the need (or rather the desire) to keep up with the times and the attempt to choose one's own reality.

Is it possible to fight the inevitable?

After reading this play, I really wanted to read the book "Copy" again.

Perhaps I can't provide a good analysis of it, but I can say that this book challenged all my choices. Even the tiniest conversations and dialogues that occur seem to be asking me: How much are you advancing towards the truth of your existence? How much have you been loyal to it in front of others?

In general, most of the play, in my opinion, is about the question underlying the story "You don't want to be a rumor-monger, be like the group." It is told in an absurd way.

It is very important that we take a look at our lives and see how much we have participated in creating it and how much courage we have sacrificed to achieve our desires.

This was also the last book of 1402. :)) I'm very happy. Really, this year has passed well for me!

Die Nashörner by Eugène Ionesco, a play from 1957, has been on my radar for a while. It belongs to the genre of absurd theater, and I had a phase where I was into Beckett [Waiting for Godot is still iconic!]. When I randomly found Ionesco's play in the book box of my sports club – and in the French original no less! – I couldn't help but take it. A few days later, I set aside an afternoon and delved into this wonderfully absurd play.

First of all, I want to point out how great it was for me to finally read something in French again after almost a year. I was surprised at how easily the reading went, but actually, I've always had good experiences with French plays in the past. I can follow dialogues much better than prose or poetry. And so I realize once again that I really should read more in French. I always intend to, but it rarely works out. It's really a shame! If you have recommendations for French plays, please share them! So far on my reading list are: Huis clos by Sartre and Les Chaises by Ionesco.

  Oh! un rhinocéros!

Rhinocéros describes in three acts the transformation of an entire town, except for the protagonist Bérenger, into a herd of rhinoceroses. The setting is a medium-sized town in the French province. The action takes place in the summer and spans a few days. The first two acts take place on a Sunday on the church square and the following Monday in the office of the main character and in the apartment of his friend Jean, the third act a few days later in Bérenger's apartment.

The play has many funny moments (\\"B: Ils n'ont pas de langue. / D: Qu'est-ce que tu en sais? Tu n'es pas polyglotte.\\" LMAO), but in my opinion, it drags a bit towards the end. The play is characterized by repetitions and little action, yet I think that Ionesco could have conveyed his message in fewer scenes. I especially liked the scenes where two conversations (by two different groups of people) were held in parallel and the comedy of the scene emerged from that. The conversations couldn't have been more different in content and seriousness – simply brilliant!

Rhinocéros is often interpreted as a critique of all totalitarian regimes (Nazism, Stalinism, and others) and of the behavior of the people who follow without resistance, as a unified mass (hence the image of the rhinoceroses) and out of fear of the regime. Bérenger, whose transformation the viewer follows throughout the play, is at the end the only one who resists the disease, the \\"Rhinocérite\\". His reaction remains the only normal one: \\"Vous ne savez plus ce qui est normal, ce qui ne l'est pas! [...] La folie, c'est la folie, na!\\"

Thus, responsibility, especially the responsibility of a person towards his fellow human beings, is a central theme. Bérenger is the only person in the play who wants to take responsibility for other people. The other characters simply accept the transformation of their friends, spouses, and colleagues into rhinoceroses. Only Bérenger wants to help them. And indeed, he remains the only one who does not capitulate to the rhinoceroses. His last conversation with Daisy (\\"B: Comment veux-tu sauver le monde alors? / D: Pourquoi le sauver?\\") I find particularly exciting because I can also understand Daisy's point of view. If everyone around you has really turned into rhinoceroses, why continue to live? Isn't the interaction with other people what makes our lives worth living? If everyone else gives up and surrenders to rhinocerosity, is it even worth remaining human? Ideally, of course. But in practice? I wouldn't know how I would have decided.

I also found the characterization of Bérenger extremely interesting because Ionesco does not sketch him as a sympathetic hero at all. He is an alcoholic. He is \\"weak\\". He sees little good in life except for the beauty of Daisy. Etc. etc. In his conversation with Jean, however, he seems almost depressive to me. He describes that his body feels as heavy as lead, as if he always has a burden on his back. It is very impressively described. Jean's reaction also fits – he downplays the whole thing and gives his friend the great \\"advice\\": \\"La vie est une lutte, c'est lâche de ne pas combattre.\\" (...aaaalles klar). Depression (especially in men) is often not taken seriously. Unhelpful advice is also on the agenda. I don't know if it was intended by Ionesco, but I found it very interesting that the depressive character, who has actually seen little joy in life, is at the end the only one who holds on to life and being human. Bérenger is the only one who recognizes the value that being human has in itself.

Another scene that positively surprised me because of its feminist character was Daisy's interaction with her boss, who \\"jokes\\" about her. She simply throws out this iconic sentence: \\"Ne mettez pas sur ma figure votre main rugueuse, espèce de pachyderme!\\" (YOU GO, GIRL!) and in the play, Daisy is empowered and her behavior is presented as justified. Actually, it should be a matter of course, but Rhinocéros was still written by a man in the 50s – my expectations were low!

I would like to end the review with my favorite scene because it is so damn funny. It is the scene where Madame Bœuf comes running into Bérenger's office in a panic because she was being chased by a rhinoceros, only to find out on site that the rhinoceros is her husband. The boss then gives her this iconic hint: \\"Si vous voulez divorcer... vous avez maintenant une bonne raison.\\" (ICH STERBE EINFACH.) But the scene then becomes even more absurd aka. even better when Madame Bœuf then decides to remain faithful to her \\"husband\\". He just destroyed the stairs to the 1st floor. Madame Bœuf is not deterred by this and simply jumps to her rhino-husband on the ground floor. I CANNOT.

Dear friends,

This book is an artistic play by "UNESCO", with its own famous style... The unrelated dialogues among the characters in the story are related in a certain way... And of course, a satirical background is also given in the story.

In this play, more than anything, the dialogues and discussions of "Jean" and "Brange" are interesting and readable... Jean is a self-willed, but also law-abiding and orderly person... Brange is an unrestricted and indistinguishable human being who in the middle has fallen in love with his colleague "Dizzy", and in the end, the dialogues and discussions of these two are also interesting.

The theme of the play is also clear from its name... The residents of the city are gradually and successively transformed from humans to crabs.. And of course, they themselves are satisfied with becoming crabs.

In this play, the person who no one thinks about is the only one who finally decides that he will not surrender, will not become a crab, and will remain human.............. It is better for you to read this story yourself and learn about its ending.

---------------------------------------------

I hope that by reading this play, a smile will be drawn on your lips for a while and you will enjoy it.

"Be victorious and be Iranian."