{"id":761,"date":"2025-10-25T10:07:21","date_gmt":"2025-10-25T14:07:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/?p=761"},"modified":"2025-11-15T10:19:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T15:19:13","slug":"well-of-all-things-interpreting-ionesco","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/well-of-all-things-interpreting-ionesco\/","title":{"rendered":"“Well, Of All Things!”: Interpreting Ionesco"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

You are going to turn into a rhinoceros. At least, this is what the audience is told in Eugene Ionesco\u2019s Rhinoceros<\/em>, a play often categorized as \u201ctheatre of the absurd\u201d\u2014 plays that, due to their notoriously nonsensical language, require a deep dive into the subtext. At first glance, the plot is ridiculous: an unimpressive everyman in a small French town is forced to reckon with the fact that all of his friends, enemies, and coworkers are transforming into rhinoceroses. The characters grapple with the logic of this epidemic, fighting over the creatures\u2019 origins and physical features, debating over whether they are socially acceptable or even exist, all the while unsuccessfully trying to get work done. However, despite its experimental nature, Rhinoceros<\/em> is not meaningless: it is an allegory for the dangers of groupthink\u2014 the prioritization of conformity as opposed to logic\u2014 particularly referencing the surge in Nazism and bigotry during World War II. In Susan Sontag\u2019s essay \u201cAgainst Interpretation,\u201d she suggests that one should not attempt to force analytical meanings onto art, focusing on \u201cwhat it is\u201d as opposed to \u201cwhat it means\u201d (Sontag 10). When the reader approaches Rhinoceros<\/em> based exclusively on what it says, the very relevant subtext will evade them; it will make no sense and serve no purpose, which seems to be what Sontag, a vocal critic of Ionesco, took from it. Sontag argues that interpreting art academically will take away from its emotional value, but Rhinoceros<\/em> requires this interpretation in order to provide the uncomfortable, impactful messages found under the surface level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Actively interpreting the dialogue in Rhinoceros<\/em> forces the reader to think about the real-world implications, but only focusing only on the literal events will provide them with a play that is largely unreadable. Absurdist theater often appears this way; despite the fact that these plays have deep philosophical messages and, in some cases like Rhinoceros<\/em>, function as direct allegories, it can be tempting to say that they are meaningless. Without analyzing the dialogue, this may be the case\u2014 Sontag indeed refers to Ionesco\u2019s works as \u201ctheater of meaninglessness\u201d (Sontag). Finding the meaning in Rhinoceros<\/em> is not an easy feat. The play opens with what is essentially a fifty-five-page argument with no conclusion: rhinoceroses wreak havoc in a town, the townspeople get so caught up in attempting to follow the situation\u2019s logic that they end up in very much the same place they started, they get nowhere, and there are still rhinoceroses wreaking havoc in the town. To preserve emotional integrity, Sontag argues that one should \u201cleave the work of art alone\u201d (5). However, leaving it alone leaves the audience confused, frustrated, or amused but with no real takeaways. This scene functions to show the viewer how getting caught up in infighting and trivial arguments\u2014 in the context of the play, how many rhinoceroses there are and how many horns they have\u2014 will lead us nowhere, and only distract us from the true problems at hand. Much of the play functions in a similar way, as the characters react to a sudden rhinoceros epidemic exactly how people in real life react to political discourse. With academic interpretation, Rhinoceros<\/em> is a compelling warning against mob mentality and focusing on the wrong aspects of social issues. Without it, the dialogue is incoherent at worst, childish at best. Following Sontag\u2019s advice from \u201cAgainst Interpretation\u201d will inaccurately suggest that this is a play about nothing. To understand and appreciate Rhinoceros<\/em>, the viewer has to intentionally ignore Sontag\u2019s arguments, as well as her clearly expressed disapproval of Ionesco\u2019s writing methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most frequently repeated claims in \u201cAgainst Interpretation\u201d is that being too analytical about a piece of artwork will take away its ability to evoke a true emotional response in the viewer; it will no longer have the \u201ccapacity to make us nervous\u201d (5). However, the audience\u2019s emotional response to Rhinoceros<\/em> will depend on whether they looked for the metaphors and historical context\u2014 its ability to make us uncomfortable lies almost completely in its subtext. Behind the rambling dialogue that seems to both begin and end nowhere, Rhinoceros<\/em> is a play about conformity and groupthink under the rise of fascism. Ionesco based elements of the text off of his own childhood in Romania, where he watched the fascist organization the Iron Guard obtain power, and their harmful ideals slowly began to integrate into his society. The designation of \u201ctheatre of the absurd\u201d stems from a post-war period, and Rhinoceros<\/em> was written both after and about the war. Every character in the play represents some sort of societal reaction to fascism or the Nazi party: people like Jean, who believes he is too strong-willed to be included among the same moral level as others; Daisy, who is ultimately won over by the rhinoceroses\u2019 visible power; Dudard, who sees both sides of every issue to the point of having no true opinions; and Berenger, originally presented as apathetic, but the only character who ends up \u201cfeeling directly concerned,\u201d believing in humanity enough to fight for it (Ionesco 109). These characters are people that anyone can run into at any point in history. Understanding that they are not simply caricatures, but very real representations of reactions to Nazi ideology, makes this play all the more uncomfortable. Understanding Rhinoceros<\/em> as an allegory as opposed to \u201cweak,\u201d \u201cunconvincing,\u201d and \u201cpretentious\u201d elevates it from an absurdist comedy to a thought-provoking warning infused with a constant sense of dread (Sontag). This story, as unbelievable as it may seem, can happen to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sontag\u2019s essay criticizing Ionesco\u2019s writing, titled \u201cIonesco,\u201d provides a similar argument to the one enforced in \u201cAgainst Interpretation\u201d: she dislikes his style because he requires<\/em> you look past the surface level to find any significance, where transparence and \u201cthings being what they are\u201d do not provide the reader with the work\u2019s full meaning (9). Sontag believes that academic interpretation tends to \u201cdestroy\u201d art, forcing meaning where there is none (4). Although it is important to think critically and accurately about our immediate perceptions of artwork, being able to interpret subtext is an extremely valuable skill as well. Learning how to recognize metaphors in artwork will make it easier to recognize real-life dogwhistles and notice hidden biases far more effectively. Ionesco\u2019s characters lose sight of the implications of the rhinoceroses because they are caught up in the surface level, refusing to genuinely consider what the situation could mean for the future\u2014 lack of academic interpretation leading to uninformed mob mentality is a direct parallel to reality. Many characters represent the cautionary tale occurring as a result of Sontag\u2019s arguments, falling victim to conformity instead of actively and accurately interpreting the situation at hand. Ionesco\u2019s writing is not meaningless as Sontag suggests. It instead demands careful perception; it demands interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The metaphorical nature of Rhinoceros<\/em> means that interpretation is critical to understanding the play as a whole\u2014 although Sontag would disapprove, Ionesco\u2019s work requires analysis. Refusing to interpret this piece past the absurdity and comedy actively removes the reader from its relevance and emotional value; it leads us into the same trap that the characters fall into, who repeatedly make the surface-level observation of \u201coh, a rhinoceros!\u201d, unintentionally inhibiting themselves from thinking critically (Ionesco 14). It is far easier to accept what is given as opposed to working to understand the implications, and if this is how the reader chooses to view Rhinoceros<\/em>, they will not see that the characters are falling victim to theShapiro 5 exact same mindset. Berenger, the only character to actively resist the epidemic, is the only character who is truly uncomfortable with what the literal events might figuratively imply. Interpretation did not remove the emotional impact on his end. It heightened it, and it will do the same for the audience. If we accept Sontag\u2019s claims as true and denounce the concept of art imitating reality, we do not gain more from experiencing the art we have; we will lose the value of a massive quantity of artwork, including but not limited to Ionesco\u2019s play. Without interpretation, we will not see the warnings it sends us on every page\u2014 tread carefully around groupthink, do not conform simply because it is easiest, avoid getting caught up in trivial aspects of larger problems\u2014 because we will insist that it is simply art, presenting exactly what it wants us to see and not truly meaning anything. Rhinoceros<\/em> was created with intentional symbolism in mind, and this will typically be the case when it comes to art. Instinctive emotional responses are very valuable, but understanding the work on a deeper, analytical level can make that value all the more impactful. Putting thought into deciphering metaphors, historical context, and intention means that you will not turn into a rhinoceros\u2014 at least, not just yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ionesco, Eugene, and Derek Prouse. Rhinoceros<\/em>. Samuel French, Inc, 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation<\/em>, 1966,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

static1.squarespace.com\/static\/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289\/t\/564b6702e4b02250914078<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3b\/1447782146111\/Sontag-Against+Interpretation.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sontag, Susan. \u201cIonesco: the Theater of the Banal.\u201d The New York Review<\/em>, 9 July 1964.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You are going to turn into a rhinoceros. At least, this is what the audience is told in Eugene Ionesco\u2019s Rhinoceros, a play often categorized…<\/p>\n

Continue Reading“Well, Of All Things!”: Interpreting Ionesco<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":8430,"featured_media":850,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-study-fa25","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1138\/2025\/10\/Rhinoceros-By-Eugene-Ionesco-At-The-Slipper-Room-Limited-Run-1729180517.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8430"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=761"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/761\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":762,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/761\/revisions\/762"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/wrt118\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}