Both the short story “The Rhinoceros,” by Eugene Ionesco, and the poem “And Yet the Books” by Czeslaw Milosz are works that are critical of the rise of facism and the Nazi party in Europe in the early part of the 20th century. Though their themes may be similar, the writings reflect very different styles and approaches. Which of the two works do you like better or that you think is the most effective? Write a five paragraph essay that briefly summarizes and comments on the writings and explains your view toward them. Be sure to include textual evidence to support your analysis. Using quotes and make sure to use R.A.C.E
Both “The Rhinoceros” by Eugene Ionesco and “And Yet the Books” by Czeslaw Milosz are thought-provoking works that critically explore the rise of fascism and the Nazi party in Europe during the early 20th century. While both pieces share similar themes, their differences in style and approach make it difficult to compare them directly. Personally, I find Milosz’s poem to be the more effective piece, as it skillfully and succinctly captures the power of books as a resistance against the spread of fascism.
In “The Rhinoceros,” Ionesco uses absurdist theatre to depict the transformation of people into rhinoceroses symbolizing the rise of fascism. The play is filled with dark humor and absurd situations, highlighting the irrationality and destructive nature of this ideology. The characters, such as Berenger, struggle to resist conforming to the herd mentality and retain their individuality. However, the play’s predominantly existentialist tone can be confusing and hard to follow at times. For instance, the repetitive dialogue and absurd actions may hinder the audience’s ability to fully engage with the play’s message. Nevertheless, Ionesco’s use of metaphor and symbolism effectively conveys the dangers of fascism by portraying its consequences on both a personal and societal level.
On the other hand, Milosz’s poem “And Yet the Books” powerfully communicates the importance of literature in times of political turmoil. The poet recognizes that books are vulnerable to destruction and censorship and that they hold the power to awaken people to the truth. Milosz writes, “inscriptions in the ancient cuneiform script / Speak too of truth and justice.” These lines emphasize how ancient texts still hold relevance today, reminding readers of the timeless battle against oppression. Milosz’s language is concise but rich in meaning, and his metaphors paint a vivid picture of the world being torn apart by fascism. The poem’s hopeful tone, with phrases like “that sprouts forth, unceasingly, out of itself” suggests that books hold the power to regenerate and inspire resistance against fascist ideologies.
While both works effectively critique fascism, Milosz’s poem resonates with me more due to its succinctness and impactful imagery. I find it easier to connect with his words, as they directly resonate with the significant role books played in shaping history and the ongoing struggle against oppressive regimes. Unlike “The Rhinoceros,” which relies on the performance and visual elements of a play to convey its message, Milosz’s poem can be appreciated individually, making it accessible to a wider audience.
In conclusion, both “The Rhinoceros” and “And Yet the Books” provide valuable insights into the rise of fascism in Europe. I personally find Czeslaw Milosz's poem to be more effective, given its concise language, powerful imagery, and its focus on the enduring power of books as a form of resistance. However, it is important to acknowledge the distinct styles and approaches of both works and appreciate their unique contributions to the examination of this dark chapter in history.