Every time I read an absurdist play, I feel the typical symptoms: confusion, isolation, annoyance, and enlightment. Ionesco did not fail to dissapoint. That is he did not fail to deliver a play in pure absurdist form. Although the absurd structure is not easy to identify, one can always pinpoint it. Reading these play I heard many questions being asked: "how do humans fulfill their essence?", "is it necessary to commit to an ideal in order for life to have meaning?". These questions alone made it easy to distinguish what kind of plays these were about.
Ionesco sets forth plays questioning the appeal of power and beauty and its detrimental effects on human nature, more specifically with "Rhinocerous". I have heard many people say that this play deals mainly with the concept of human conformity, but is it really conformity when humans are drawn to an ideal and desire to portray it. Is power, beauty and love a form of conformity, or human nature? Are the Rhinoceri a representation of human nature in its purest state, or human nature gone awry?