The absurd situation in the plays Bald soprano and Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco

Almost a decay passes by between the writing of the plays Bald soprano (1950) and
Rhinoceros (1958) by Eugene Ionesco. Both texts are similar as far as they are a part of the
heritage of the dramaturgy of absurd, which characteristics are irrationality, lack of sense in
the speech, attitude and actions of the characters. What differs both plays are the usage and
the function of absurd. Its place in texts is used in different levels.
In most of his plays Ionesco pays special attention to the place of actions and its
specifics. Bald soprano and Rhinoceros are a good example for this. The stage directions
are especially detailed and situate the action in a realistic environment. In Bald soprano the
actions take place in the living room of Smiths. It is quite ordinary, even too traditional, too
English, as Ionesco himself underlines. (A middle-class English interior, with English
armchairs. An English evening) In this particular evening, after dinner, the Smiths have
started their usual activities he reads a newspaper, while she is daring. In an atmosphere like
this Mrs. Smith starts her neverending monologue, which is a detailed examination of just
finished dinner. She turns every little specific into an incredible fact and this makes her
speech annoying and weird. (The fish was fresh. It made my mouth water. I had two
helpings. No, three helpings. That made me got to the w.c.) When Mr. Smiths starts
speaking, the conversation gradually progresses from nonsense to actual absurd.
Mrs. Smith: He is a good doctor. One can trust him Before operating on Parker, he
had his own liver operated first, although he was not the least bit ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Smith: Which Bobby Watson do you mean?
Mrs. Smith: Why Bobby Watson the son of old Bobby Watson, the late Bobby
Watsons other uncle.
Mr. Smith: No, its not that one. Its someone else. Its Bobby Watson the son of old
Bobby Watson, the late Bobby Watsons aunt.
Mrs. Smith: Are you referring to Bobby Watson the commercial traveler?
Mr. Smith: All the Bobby Watsons are commercial travelers.
Their conversation remains a game, in which one has to make a statement and other
has to extend it to a new one. Despite that the statements exclude one another afterwards. This
game reminds some kind of surreal brainstorming. The husbands talk a lot, but actually
dont say a thing. Just some words, thrown away with no purpose.

The dialogue between the Martins also seems like a game. But in their situation the
memory has been deleted and their aim is to reconstruct their owns and the connection
between them. Who are they and what are they for each other
Mr. Martin:.Since coming to London, I have resided in Bromfield Street, my dear
lady.
Mrs. Martin: How curious that is, how bizarre! I, too, since coming to London, I have
resided in Bromfield Street, my dear sir.
Mr. Martin: How curious that is, well then, well then, perhaps we have seen each other
in Bromfield Street, my dear lady.
Except for the strange conversations and the nonsense, Ionescos stage directions
about the wall clock are also extraordinary. The clock strikes incoherently and even not
existing hours. It is like the time has changed its dimensions and follows a new logic already
which has nothing to do with the old principles. A few pages forward the absurd in the play
starts to nuance, especially after the appearance of the Fire Chief. What is more, after he
leaves the culminations starts and the situation escalates into a shouting and fast talking. This
time the words really dont matter and no one listens. The fourth just need to shout to get the
energy out of them.
Mrs. Martin: Silly gobblegobblers, silly gobblegobblers.
Mr. Martin: Marieta spot the pot.
Mrs. Smith: Krichnamurti, Krichnamurti, Krichnamurti.
Mr. Smith: The pope elopes! The popes got no horoscope. The horoscope bespoke.
Ionesco puts the play into a cyclic frame. The final scene is the same as the first one,
but the couples have changed. This decision leaves the sense of endlessness and fullness of
the absurd state.
In Bald soprano the source of the absurd is mainly the lines. It could be said that the
level of absurd increases and this happens thanks to the contrast between the ordinary place
and the content of the play, but also thanks to the inner construction of the scenes.
In Rhinoceros Ionesco pays even more attention the description of the place of
actions. Act one is set in the main square of a small town. This play in comparison with Bald
soprano has much more characters and the author creates a specific image of the society in a
town like this and in the world at all. This image is really important because it supply the
absurd aspects. In the beginning the meeting between the two totally different friends Jean
and Berenger happens in the atmosphere of a lazy Sunday afternoon. While they are

discussing the Berengers problem with alcohol and his incapability of handling the everyday
life, across the square a rhinoceros passes by. And later on the absurd in the play is built in
two directions the appearance of the rhinoceros and the reaction of the characters about it.
The first appearance of the animal provokes a short bustle, but soon everyone is back their
business. Jean is the one who is most shocked, while Berenger is slightly touched by the
accident.
What comes next is a great built comedy scene, which follows the conversations
between Jean and Berenger on one side and The Logician and the Old Gentlemen on another.
While the first couple discusses the sense of the existence, the other two practice the
principles of syllogism with absurd examples. They even use the same phrases and this way
the contrast is even greater, much more comic and absurd.
The second appearance of rhinoceros is way more impressive than the first one. The
Housewifes cat is smashed. For a while the Housewife is the centre of attention and
everybody try to calm her down. But suddenly the fight between Jean and Berenger about the
origin of rhinoceros seems more interesting for them and they leave the Housewife. The scene
with their argument about the African and Asian rhinoceros and the desire of the people to
join in it is a proof of their lost ability to feel what is important and meaning. The absurd
comes from the fact that no one think about the appearance of the rhinoceros.
In Act two when the colleagues of Mr. Beouf find out that he has turned into a
rhinoceros, they are not at all surprised. Their minds are occupied by other tasks how they
will get out of the building, how they will find a new employ, the report that has to be written
and etc.
The fact that people turning into rhinoceros is a metaphor and has a double function.
On one hand, it expresses the idea that people have lost their humanity and are turning back
into the animals roots. And on the other hand, this fact is the absurd element of the play.
The stunted humanity is proved one more time act four, the last one, only then
Berenger starts to realize the serious situation. He needed so much time to become aware, but
still he is the only one who sees the problem. According to Dudard what happens shouldnt be
disturbing. One more absurd is that by the end of the play (according to the stage directions)
rhinoceros start to look good and beautiful in comparison with humans.
The usage of the speech in the two plays has a different function. In Bald soprano it
is completely senseless and absurd (Mr. Smith: Heres a thing I dont understand. In the
newspaper they always give the age of the deceased persons but never the age of the newly

born. That doesnt make sense.), but in Rhinoceros most of the topics of conversations are
superficial and dont correspond with the strangeness of the situation.
Each play gives a different clue for reading and entering in the world of the absurd.
This that they are not similar is one of the reasons why these two plays are so valuable and
significant examples of the dramaturgy of absurd.