I don't really have much to say on the Theatre of the Absurd right now, but I figured I would get the ball rolling on discussion...
While reading Jerome P. Crabb's essay on the the Theatre of the Absurd (I forget the website url...), I came across a sentence that really stuck with me. Supporters of Absurdist Theatre often claim that "Change is only an illusion." At first, this concept was absolutely mind-blowing to me, but I'm going to try to put it in the context of "Rhinoceros" and see if it makes sense...
Throughout the play, people keep changing into rhinoceroses and Berenger sees this as a change in their characters. However, these characters do not undergo any internal change (which is the main focal point of the story) and by the end of the story they are exactly the same as they started. Berenger is so preoccupied by the other characters' outward changes that he does not see that no inward change has occurred.
However, this model does not hold up for Berenger himself who undergoes a huge metamorphoses from a state of apathy to one of great concern for humanity.
In conclusion, I don't know if my post made any sense. Please feel free to show me how wrong I am or to make a better arguement for what I am trying to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The Theatre of the Absurd confuses me to no end. I found a bit of background information, which just managed to confuse me more.
I came across the same article that Elizabeth read, and got stuck as well. I think that the supporters who beleive that "change is only an illusion" are refering to society as a whole. For the most part, like Liz said, there was no change. Berenger is the exception, and seems to be used as an example to contrast the rest of society with. I'm not sure if that makes sense?
When I was reading through another article (http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm) , I came across a different interesting statement. The article mentions that the Theatre of the Absurd is a reaction to the disappearance of religion in modern life.
The post-modern world is obvioulsy less religious than the decades beforehand. In class, we discussed sense of hopelessness the people felt in the post-modern era, and how beleived they might as well waste their lives away on beer and dancing. I think absurdists believe that we will never really know all the answers (humans don't understand logic - as seen by the logician), but we're looking for a solution in the wrong direction. Rather than look towards God or a higher power, we are looking to waste our lives.
I'm not sure how i feel about this theory. I understand the absurdists disliking the post-modern lifestyle, but I do not see any evidence that shows that they were particularly religious people.
Comments?
You are SO WRONG
kidding :P
I completely agree. The outward changes of a person do not necessitate inward changes. You can tell this is true when Mr. Boeuf cries out to his wife from the bottom of the stairwell. Perhaps this is Ionesco's way of saying that even though they may have turned into monsters, they're still humans. Applying this to the historical context, people who support or simply ignore the nazi occupation of France are still humans, albeit ones with twisted perspectives on the world.
What do you mean though that they're "exactly the same as they started"? They're still rhinoceri, are they not?
It applies to Berenger though because he changes internally. It's sort of an illusion... cause he's still the "same" but different. Just like how the people who turned into rhinoceri are still the same, yet different.
Grr... this stuff is mind boggling.
on Daisy:
Sparknotes says that Daisy isn't a truly loving person simply because she loves someone. Her love must be of humanity to show she is loving, which she obviously isn't. She doesn't trouble herself over how or why there are rhinoceri, but simply accepts their presence, and even is captivated by it.
She is pretty close to how Berenger was in the beginning of the play. The difference between her and Berenger though is that Berenger overcame his apathy and started to truly care.
That's all I can think of right now... having some major mental blocks.
I agree that the theater of the absurd has something to do with the disappearance of religion. But I do not think this is a reflection of the absurdists as being religious or not religious. Rather, religion in the twentieth century tended to reflect the morals of a society. As absurdists distort morals, they must naturally reject religion.
The basis of the theater of the absurd is that there are no answers. Essentially, I understand absurdists to have a rather nihilistic view of the future. It is not only the fact that humans search for answers in the wrong places. Humans look for answers where there are none, and they then attempt to justify their answers with faulty logic which is a product of their own imaginations. More that a little depressing, actually.
I read somewhere (forget exactly at the moment) that Berenger represents Ionesco. As the other characters provide explantations, Berenger continually questions their conclusions. Berenger's friends, such as Jean, seem to be self-assured and successful. Berenger is a lost drunkard, but he admires people like Jean who seem to be so in control. Berenger thinks that he could become cultured like Jean, and this would lead to success. Ironically, Berenger is the only one who remains human. (Is there a moral here somewhere?) I think that this is an interesting theory. Ionesco feels lost and disillusoned in a post-WWII world. This makes sense to me. What do you all think?
@Anisha
The post-modern era is the time after WWII, if I'm not mistaken. You're referring to the roaring 20's, where people started to not care and engage in drinking and partying.
And one doesn't have to be religious in order to pass the judgment that religion is disappearing. As Laz said in class, absurdists thought that God was dead. This is because absurdists were trying to show that there wass no longer hierarchy in society, rather there were people just wandering aimlessly without meaning. Having God as a higher power is opposite of what they were trying to show. A religious hierarchy is established once you put a "leader" in.
Absurdists are not inherently religious.
I think that the disappearance of religion was a reaction to the failure of religion to provide solid answers. As more and more people started to become independent (flappers etc.), free thought started to occur, instead of blind faith into one doctrine. People began to realize that religion doesn't really show the meaning of life.
Ooops, I misnamed the era. I meant the 20's and 30's.
Albert, I understand your comments about religion, however, I'd have to disagree. Let's say the absurdists WERE directly commenting on the disapperance of religion. They are reflecting this by showing how absurd and chaotic the world was getting as a result of this. I think you would have to conclude, then, that these people beleived religion kept things from getting as chaotic.
I have a general question about something we dicussed in class today. We talked about how the absurd theatre shows that life has no meaning, and everything collapses from (relative) order to disorder. If we relate this back to the time period (WWI and WWII), did absurdist writers beleive that the world would always fall back into world war? And that each world war would be worse than the last one (more chaos)? And if this is true, is there any way to fight it?
Anisha, I'm really not sure of the absurdist view of war because I don't think I have a firm grasp on what exactly absurdism or the theater of the absurd is (yet). It seems like the more research I do the more I confuse myself. From what I know so far, it would seem like your idea is right, that absurdists believe the world would just fall back into war, each one more chaotic than the last. This goes along with the concepts of the repetitiveness of life and entropy, like Laz was talking about it class.
What I don't understand is do absurdists believe there is no meaning to be found in life, or that there may be meaning, but humans are just incapable of understanding it? And why does it feel like absurdism is so incredibly pessimistic? I mean, our class discussion was kind of a downer for me, but then I read Albert Camus's quote: "You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life." Isn't that just saying that we should all stop looking for the meaning of life and just LIVE our lives? If we accept that life is absurd, we're freed from the burden of trying to find any meaning. (After reading a little more about Camus I'm not sure if he is more absurdist or existentialist, so I'm not even sure how relevant his ideas are...sorry if they're irrelevant.)
Anyone have any insight into absurdism or the meaning of life (whether or not it exists) that they care to share?
Post a Comment