Truth and Pain from Multiple Perspectives
Comedy is a way of understanding important issues that more often than not are considered “taboo” without the heavy emotion often attached to these topics that often trigger denial. It’s often used to make a statement about current political or social issues in order to reach a wider audience of people. Ionesco’s Rhinoceros and Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five engage us with laughter while forcing us to think critically about social and political issues. Slaughterhouse-Five was written about the post-WWII era but was published during the Vietnam era, and so Vonnegut points out many parallels between the two time periods and the inevitability of our past repeating itself. Rhinoceros hit European theaters in the 60s and commented on the widespread ideals of Nazism and Fascism in Europe during WWII.
Ionesco’s Rhinoceros traces the growth and development of the main character Berenger. At the beginning of the play, it is clear that Berenger is going through an existential crisis when he shows up late to a meeting with his friend Jean. “I feel out of place in life… and so I take to drink,” says Berenger, at odds with purpose in his life. Jean on the other hand doesn’t understand this existentialist mindset and chides him to get his life together when he says, “Your clothes are all crumpled, they’re a disgrace! Your shirt is downright filthy, and your shoes… Your shoes haven’t been touched. What a mess you’re in! And look at your shoulders…” Jean is the uptight character who keeps his life extremely busy as to set the illusion for himself that he has a purpose. He has a clean cut view of what life should be, and so when the rhinoceroses stampeded that view was shattered. Since he isn’t firm enough in his beliefs of what his purpose in life should be, he constantly tries to convince himself that the rhinoceros stampede wasn’t a normal part of life with comments like, “what did you think of that,” and “but you must admit it’s extraordinary.”
“But you must see it’s fantastic! A rhinoceros loose in the town, and you don’t bat an eyelid! It shouldn’t be allowed!” Jean’s immediate reaction to seeing a rhinoceros out loose in the town square I wasn’t confusion as much as denial as shown when he said “it shouldn’t be allowed.” He is trying to make sense out of what just happened and reassure himself that it is in fact out of the ordinary. Berenger, on the other hand, is apathetic at the beginning and doesn’t think much of the rhinoceroses stampeding in on the town. At that point in his emotional growth, he accepted the absurdity of the moment as if it was just something that happened every day. However, his apathetic shroud is lifted from the moment we see him lay eyes on Daisy, and his feelings for her are immediately evident. This was the start of his emotional growth because we see Berenger lifted out of his existentialist despair, even if only momentarily.
As the novel continues, not only do the rhinoceroses continue to appear but the citizens of this village start turning into rhinoceroses themselves. This serves as an allegory to Fascism and Nazism and how easy it was during the World War II era for people to fall submissive to different realms of thinking. All the characters that were established as strong-minded and sure of themselves all end up succumbing to the social norm over time, and turning into just another nameless face in the back. This attitude can be seen by Botard when he says, “I hold the key to all these happenings, an infallible system of interpretation.” He has to believe he knows exactly what’s going on because he’s scared of the unknown. Or in other words, he’s in denial of the absurd. The same can be said about Dudard when he says, “you must learn to be more detached and… see the funny side of things.” Like Botard, Dudard is in denial of the absurdity of the rhinoceroses but goes about dealing with it by ignoring the gravity of the situation and attempting to laugh it off instead. Dudard lets this shift in society confuse him and scramble his morals, which comes across when he says, “The evil! That’s just a phrase! Who knows what is evil and what is good?” It’s when a paradigm shift occurs in society that one is able to distinguish those who have their own moral code and stick to it versus those that just blindly follow the “accepted norm” of the time. The notions of good and bad can become so perverted in one’s mind that they have to adopt a completely different moral code, one more in line with the current society, just as Dudard did as he turned into a Rhinoceros and said, “It’s my duty to stick by them; I have to do my duty.”
At the end of the day, Berenger was the only one able to resist turning into a rhinoceros and stay away from mob mentality because he stayed true to himself. Above all, he believed that he had the free will to choose what he wanted out of life and his existential beliefs of choosing his own purpose lead him away from mob mentality, even after the one person that seemed to be the only thing keeping him grounded, Daisy, left.
While Rhinoceros has a heavy emphasis on existentialism and choosing your own path, Slaughterhouse-Five places more emphasis on fatalism, the idea that your future is already written for you. The novel was structured by Vonnegut as an anti-war novel that essentially had the point that there was no point. That like glaciers, war was inevitable so what was the point in trying to stop it?
The purpose of the novel was originally supposed to be an anti-war message about the bombing of Dresden. However, his eyes were opened up to the realities of war which is a lot like the social commentary Ionesco wrote in Rhinoceros about mob mentality, about how all the soldiers were like chickens running around with their heads cut off, blindly following orders.
The novel is told from the perspective of Billy Pilgrim, through whom we learn about Vonnegut’s experiences in World War II and the ways of the Tralfamadorians, the aliens that supposedly kidnapped Billy Pilgrim. In the Tralfamadorian mindset all time is all time, all moments exist at once and you exist all moments at once. You can know the past, the future, and the present, but that’s it. You can’t do anything to change it. Because every moment will continue happen the way it has always happened. Because that’s the way that moment was structured. This mindset is an allegory to the fact that we as a society constantly look back in our history and try to make sure that we don’t repeat it. We try to stop war and we strive for world peace. But at the end of the day, those things are inevitable. They will happen the way they always have. People will get greedy and people will break promises. And people will get revenge. Therefore, there’s no point in writing an anti-war novel with the purpose of inciting people to stop war. According to Vonnegut, free will is just an illusion. People believe in free will so that they feel like they have control over their lives and they can do whatever they want. But as a fatalist, he has the perspective that whatever happens will happen.
“Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?… Well here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why” (Vonnegut 76). This embodies the fatalist perspective taught by the Tralfamadorians, that each moment is preserved, stuck in amber and even though we may know exactly what’s going to happen there is nothing we can do to change it. This idea is also brought across when Billy asks,
‘If you know this,’ said Billy, ‘isn’t there some way you can prevent it? Can’t you keep the pilot from pressing the button?’
‘He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way” (117).
Through this quote, Vonnegut is showing the hopelessness in his novel as an anti-war book because there always will be war. It goes hand in hand with the social commentary on how we are always doomed to repeat history and there’s nothing we can do about that. We can’t change the past or the future. We just have to accept it.
Throughout their satirical literary works, Ionesco and Vonnegut had a similar social and political message, and that was the idea of how easy it is to succumb to mob mentality. As seen in Rhinoceros, most people were quick to accept that following this supposed “trend” was just the new social norm and so went along with it, except for Berenger who firmly believed in creating his own purpose. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut’s fatalist perspective leaves no room to free will which means we all just succumb to the makings of society. Another common trend we see between the two pieces are that the main character seems to go through a pit of depression and somewhat of an existential crisis before truly becoming solid in their beliefs. For example, in Rhinoceros, Berenger finds his life devoid of meaning and drinks himself into oblivion. At the end he is able to stay strong to his beliefs in free will and mankind. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy returns home from war with severe PTSD unable to be a good husband or father. But his time on Tralfamadore helps him accept the fatalistic perspective that things happen just because they happen and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Where these two literary works conflict is the realm of belief that the two main characters settle with. Berenger, a true existentialist, believes in free will and the power to choose your own purpose while Billy, a fatalist, believes that no matter what you do your fate is already chosen for you. At the end of the day, it is the two different circumstances of these characters that lead them to such conflicting beliefs.
Individually, both of these authors leave us with different messages. Ionesco wants us to keep in mind that individuality is hard and being your own person can leave you alone at times but it is worth it to follow your convictions. Don’t just be another soul lost in the mob of rhinoceroses because that’s what everyone else did. You have free will, so exercise it. Vonnegut wants us to keep in mind that everything that happens to us is just another moment in our lives, and wants us to believe that no matter how hard we try, some things, like war and glaciers, and just inevitable. We can keep fighting the fight as long as we want but at the end of the day, there are some things that we just can’t change. Most things are up to fate, and just aren’t in your control, and so sometimes you just have to get up and move on.
Taking these two messages together shows that people have different beliefs in the world depending on circumstance. Berenger started off depressed feeling like he was useless and his life had no meaning until he found a connection with Daisy. This connection reaffirmed his love and belief in the human race, even towards those who betrayed him. Staying strong in these beliefs is what kept Berenger human at the end. In the case of Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut, for someone who went through something as traumatic and utterly hopeless as being at the front lines of WWII, belief in fatalism might seem like a happy escape. So many devastating things happened these veterans would always be haunted by thoughts like “what could I have done differently?” By believing in fatalism, it helps one reassure themselves that there really is nothing they could have done. It happened because it was meant to happen. It is what it is.