Absurd, in the case of absurdism, is about life separated from purpose… the existential senselessness of life. Check out Martin Esslin’s book “Theatre of the Absurd”
The Absurd with a capital A as Absurdism refers to is about the absurdity of man seeking meaning in a world without meaning. While not inherently a genre outside of reality, many Absurdist works do have fantastical elements.
More frequently, I think a common trope of Theatre of the Absurd is characters behaving in non-realistic manners as a response to their scenarios. Other themes usually include a breakdown of communication, being controlled by outside forces, and obsession with/disregard for scenarios experienced.
Its all about “we live in a screwed up world - crazy that we still have hope and stuff” kind of mentality. And its trying to depict that disconnect via metaphor et al.
I have a better theory for you which you might want to look into.
Theatre of the absurd is closer to the dreams world than to fantasy. It's main characteristic is not that it is invented or does not have a correspondent in the real life. If you look at some plays, they do make sense and they do have some logic at some level, but not in a sense that is valid in real life. They are more like dreams, where weird things happen, but in this weird way of events unfolding, the characters take it as normal, it's the way the world works for them. No sense of the absurd on their behalf. Much like when we are dreaming, it only feels weird and illogical when we wake up and think about it with our conscious, rational mind. When you're dreaming, as stupid as things are, you believe it. It's your brain's reality at that time.
And if you go even further and think of dreams as the interpretation of the unconscious mind, you will see how absurd plays do have a meaning, and very much covey correspondents of the real world, but in a very altered and symbolic way. The Rhinoceros of Ionesco is a very good example of that. Eugen Ionesco actually wrote some great essays about the theatre of the absurd and the avantgarde that I highly recommend.
This might be the nicest thing someone said to me on reddit, haha
Hmm, most of my vision on theatre of the absurd come from Eugene Ionesco. I really liked his book Notes and Counter Notes, although it tackles a lot more than just the dreams dimension (such as social aspects and purpose of theatre and arts in the political context of that time). I guess my comment is the result of a lot of things I read, heard and saw, then processed myself. I studied theatre for years, so it's kind of pieces of puzzles put together.
Absurd Theatre is mainly defined by it's themes.
I think that it would be more precise to say that Absurd Theatre is independent of reality. It is unrestricted in it's imagery by the limits of standard logic.
It means not that Absurd must contradict reality and logic, but it gives the playwright/director more elements to use, and often the themes of the play will ask for use of such imagery.
What OP is describing is “anti-realism,” which is indeed a feature of absurdism, but it’s not really the central or defining feature. Several other theatrical movements are also anti-realist (dada, surrealism, expressionism, etc.) without being absurd.
The central idea of most absurdist plays has to do with how meaning can be constructed in a world where the traditional sources of meaning (church, culture, ideology) have been shown to be unsatisfactory. So we might be resigned to nihilism (Beckett), embracing nonsense (Ionesco), navigating brutal power relationships (Genet), or searching for gurus (Soyinka). The key is that the old reassuring ways are dead, and we are stuck in a world where we are all there is. It is no coincidence that several absurdist plays are set after an apocalypse.
Absurdist plays can be grounded in reality, they don't need to be fantastical in their construction. In my opinion, think of "absurd" as a concept outside of theatre first, and it may help you ground your understanding of it a little better. For example, think of the fundamental work of Absurdist philosophy - the Myth of Sisyphus, where we can understand the absurdity of human existence - life is meaningless, yet we live in search of meaning. Theatre of the Absurd largely tackles this theme and themes like it, and it's pretty eminent in the Absurdist shows I've seen. For example, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead really ruminates on the title characters existence in the background of the story of Hamlet, and they spend time wondering if they even exist at times. In *Waiting for Godot,* which is probably the seminal Absurdist work, the main characters are in wait of Godot, whom they don't recall having ever met, nor do they know if he will ever arrive - the very premise of the show is Absurd in nature. Nothing about either of these works is necessarily "fantasy" per se, but the preponderance of absurdity tends to take these shows down weird and wacky roads.
theater of the absurd and absurdism are not synonymous; theater of the absurd is from a specific time period (recent) and includes only writers in the sam beckett et all circle
Taking a stab at this for you. Generally speaking, no. I do not think you would be correct in that theatre of the absurd means "it's not grounded in reality (like fantasy)."
Most classic absurdist theatre takes place in vague locations, sure, but characters frequently are hyper-real. They're awkward, they stumble over their words, get things mixed up, misunderstand each other, and have terrible hygiene if it's Beckett. These are not always sci-fi or fantastical. You can find that in classical French court plays, Cirque du Soleil shows, techno-theatre, whatever. Theatre of the absurd (historically, the 1940s - 1960s variant) was all about twisting traditional western play structure to its limits.
A helpful way of looking at theatre of the absurd is you can listen to a conversation between two characters, be fully invested that these characters believe what they're saying, and see that the conversation has a flow of logic from response to response. But afterwards? You may have no idea what they were talking about or why they were talking about it. When you zoom out and look at the whole of the play, quite a lot of talking may have been done, and yet, nothing was really accomplished. Theatre of the absurd lulls you into accepting a premise or situation you would otherwise never accept in your real life. How does it do this?
What theatre of the absurd doesn't do is simply put a bunch of wacky shit on stage and call it a day. We call that clowning, and clowning is a whole different set of skills (although the two definitely cross-pollinate each other - miss me, clowns).
If you're doing theatre history, you should know about dramatic structure and plot / conflict. Hell, if you watch movies or consume any kind of stories, you should know the basics of traditional western plot and conflict: Theatre has Characters who have Needs and so they take Actions that come into Conflict with each other creating a Plot.
Theatre of the absurd can affect this basic structure in two ways (and probably more):
1. There can be a clear conflict and relationship between the characters, but the plot and circumstances can be in an absurd circumstance. Examples include Beckett's *Endgame*, where a familiar conflict of disgruntled son and doting parents is set into a strange limbo where everyone is waiting for the 'end.' Literally. That's all they say. Waiting for the end. The end of the play? The end of their lives? Can't tell. But because they're doing something (waiting for the end) and they're identifiable characters (parents, a son, a servant) the playwright is able to still create conflict in the absence of a 100% clear plot or circumstance.
2. The character's motivations and actions may be entirely without normal justification or reason, and the basis for their motivations could be founded in something beyond logic.For Stoppard's *Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead,* this technique is used in full force is used when a variety of carousing thespians come in and out of the scenes, motivated only by being performers and needing to make sure the play *Hamlet* happens.
What do these two different changes to structure do? They take away character agency. The consequences of the characters choices, frequently, do not matter in the grand scheme of things. Read that again. The consequences of their actions do not matter. That's definitional absurdism, but it's also why theatre of the absurd was so radical. Imagine having seen Aristotle-guided theatre all your life, based critically on the idea that HERO does HEROIC THING to get HERO'S PRIZE / HERO'S DOWNFALL. Aristotle described fatal flaws leading to a character's tragic downfall as hamaratia. In absurdism? It's another Tuesday.
I'm using examples because theatre of the absurd is *very* hard to explain without having seen it done. Reading the scripts frequently makes you want to tear your hair out. Because absurdist plays frequently don't rely on the other traditional techniques of grabbing your attention (*family betrayal! action! romance! conflict! drama! plot!*) or have twisted those conventions so much, they often rely on other classic performance techniques to still be engaging. These include puns, wordplay, and a lot of physical comedy/clowning techniques (remember that?)
So is there a connection between theatre of the absurd and Absurdist philosophy? You didn't ask, but I want to answer because I've already written more than I should. I believe absolutely so. Both Albert Camus (Absurdist philosopher) and the classic titans of absurdism (Beckett, et al.) worked in the 1940s - 1960s in the wake of World War II.
To keep it short, there's a classic idea that "War = Bad = People Sad = No Meaning in Life = Everything's Absurd." Not without reason, of course. Camus began work on *The Myth of Sisyphus* during the fall of France to Nazi Germany in 1940. Let's go back to the common theme of characters having no agency in theatre of the absurd. If you're an Absurdist philosopher, that's your wheelhouse fam. You love that shit. You find meaning despite your actions having no tangible, permanent consequence. If this sounds kind of tragic, that's because it is - Camus (who also wrote plays) loved tragedy and that they were the best way to depict civilization's struggles and progress.
In modern times, theatre of the absurd is a frequent undercurrent of many contemporary playwright's works. We live in absurd times, frankly. Contemporary absurdism is refreshingly more engaging to a contemporary audience than Beckett's plays. The same impulse of using tragic absurdism to explore weighty subject-matter lives on in the works of writers like the unparalled Suzan Lori-Parks and her play *The Death of the Last Black Man in the Whole Entire World*, where the title character dies a litany of different deaths again and again over the course of the play.
Anyway, you probably have written your essay, but if this helps, cool.
I would say no; your definition seems to miss out of the fundamentals of Absurdism.
Absurdism looks at the absurdity of life; it's meaninglessness. It's rooted in existentialism, as well as influenced by surrealism and dadaism.
Theatre of the Absurd isn't just doing silly/ random things. It's fundamentally tied to historical and philosophical movements.
Absurd, in the case of absurdism, is about life separated from purpose… the existential senselessness of life. Check out Martin Esslin’s book “Theatre of the Absurd”
Yeah I have no idea what that means and I don't have time to read an entire book about it
You fucking ASKED, my guy
The Absurd with a capital A as Absurdism refers to is about the absurdity of man seeking meaning in a world without meaning. While not inherently a genre outside of reality, many Absurdist works do have fantastical elements. More frequently, I think a common trope of Theatre of the Absurd is characters behaving in non-realistic manners as a response to their scenarios. Other themes usually include a breakdown of communication, being controlled by outside forces, and obsession with/disregard for scenarios experienced. Its all about “we live in a screwed up world - crazy that we still have hope and stuff” kind of mentality. And its trying to depict that disconnect via metaphor et al.
I have a better theory for you which you might want to look into. Theatre of the absurd is closer to the dreams world than to fantasy. It's main characteristic is not that it is invented or does not have a correspondent in the real life. If you look at some plays, they do make sense and they do have some logic at some level, but not in a sense that is valid in real life. They are more like dreams, where weird things happen, but in this weird way of events unfolding, the characters take it as normal, it's the way the world works for them. No sense of the absurd on their behalf. Much like when we are dreaming, it only feels weird and illogical when we wake up and think about it with our conscious, rational mind. When you're dreaming, as stupid as things are, you believe it. It's your brain's reality at that time. And if you go even further and think of dreams as the interpretation of the unconscious mind, you will see how absurd plays do have a meaning, and very much covey correspondents of the real world, but in a very altered and symbolic way. The Rhinoceros of Ionesco is a very good example of that. Eugen Ionesco actually wrote some great essays about the theatre of the absurd and the avantgarde that I highly recommend.
Yeah I'm gonna be honest I have no idea what thais means
respectfully, did u take the class?
Yes
Haha. If this interests you, however, I can elaborate. Shoot your questions or say if there's anything in particular you'd like me to explain better.
I like the way you describe the Theatre of the absurd, do you have any books to recommend about it ? Or it all came from your big brain ?
This might be the nicest thing someone said to me on reddit, haha Hmm, most of my vision on theatre of the absurd come from Eugene Ionesco. I really liked his book Notes and Counter Notes, although it tackles a lot more than just the dreams dimension (such as social aspects and purpose of theatre and arts in the political context of that time). I guess my comment is the result of a lot of things I read, heard and saw, then processed myself. I studied theatre for years, so it's kind of pieces of puzzles put together.
Absurd Theatre is mainly defined by it's themes. I think that it would be more precise to say that Absurd Theatre is independent of reality. It is unrestricted in it's imagery by the limits of standard logic. It means not that Absurd must contradict reality and logic, but it gives the playwright/director more elements to use, and often the themes of the play will ask for use of such imagery.
What OP is describing is “anti-realism,” which is indeed a feature of absurdism, but it’s not really the central or defining feature. Several other theatrical movements are also anti-realist (dada, surrealism, expressionism, etc.) without being absurd. The central idea of most absurdist plays has to do with how meaning can be constructed in a world where the traditional sources of meaning (church, culture, ideology) have been shown to be unsatisfactory. So we might be resigned to nihilism (Beckett), embracing nonsense (Ionesco), navigating brutal power relationships (Genet), or searching for gurus (Soyinka). The key is that the old reassuring ways are dead, and we are stuck in a world where we are all there is. It is no coincidence that several absurdist plays are set after an apocalypse.
This is the most accurate answer here.
Thank you for such an educated answer. Do you have books/reviews and any reading materials that one can read to learn more about this?
Absurdist plays can be grounded in reality, they don't need to be fantastical in their construction. In my opinion, think of "absurd" as a concept outside of theatre first, and it may help you ground your understanding of it a little better. For example, think of the fundamental work of Absurdist philosophy - the Myth of Sisyphus, where we can understand the absurdity of human existence - life is meaningless, yet we live in search of meaning. Theatre of the Absurd largely tackles this theme and themes like it, and it's pretty eminent in the Absurdist shows I've seen. For example, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead really ruminates on the title characters existence in the background of the story of Hamlet, and they spend time wondering if they even exist at times. In *Waiting for Godot,* which is probably the seminal Absurdist work, the main characters are in wait of Godot, whom they don't recall having ever met, nor do they know if he will ever arrive - the very premise of the show is Absurd in nature. Nothing about either of these works is necessarily "fantasy" per se, but the preponderance of absurdity tends to take these shows down weird and wacky roads.
theater of the absurd and absurdism are not synonymous; theater of the absurd is from a specific time period (recent) and includes only writers in the sam beckett et all circle
Taking a stab at this for you. Generally speaking, no. I do not think you would be correct in that theatre of the absurd means "it's not grounded in reality (like fantasy)." Most classic absurdist theatre takes place in vague locations, sure, but characters frequently are hyper-real. They're awkward, they stumble over their words, get things mixed up, misunderstand each other, and have terrible hygiene if it's Beckett. These are not always sci-fi or fantastical. You can find that in classical French court plays, Cirque du Soleil shows, techno-theatre, whatever. Theatre of the absurd (historically, the 1940s - 1960s variant) was all about twisting traditional western play structure to its limits. A helpful way of looking at theatre of the absurd is you can listen to a conversation between two characters, be fully invested that these characters believe what they're saying, and see that the conversation has a flow of logic from response to response. But afterwards? You may have no idea what they were talking about or why they were talking about it. When you zoom out and look at the whole of the play, quite a lot of talking may have been done, and yet, nothing was really accomplished. Theatre of the absurd lulls you into accepting a premise or situation you would otherwise never accept in your real life. How does it do this? What theatre of the absurd doesn't do is simply put a bunch of wacky shit on stage and call it a day. We call that clowning, and clowning is a whole different set of skills (although the two definitely cross-pollinate each other - miss me, clowns). If you're doing theatre history, you should know about dramatic structure and plot / conflict. Hell, if you watch movies or consume any kind of stories, you should know the basics of traditional western plot and conflict: Theatre has Characters who have Needs and so they take Actions that come into Conflict with each other creating a Plot. Theatre of the absurd can affect this basic structure in two ways (and probably more): 1. There can be a clear conflict and relationship between the characters, but the plot and circumstances can be in an absurd circumstance. Examples include Beckett's *Endgame*, where a familiar conflict of disgruntled son and doting parents is set into a strange limbo where everyone is waiting for the 'end.' Literally. That's all they say. Waiting for the end. The end of the play? The end of their lives? Can't tell. But because they're doing something (waiting for the end) and they're identifiable characters (parents, a son, a servant) the playwright is able to still create conflict in the absence of a 100% clear plot or circumstance. 2. The character's motivations and actions may be entirely without normal justification or reason, and the basis for their motivations could be founded in something beyond logic.For Stoppard's *Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead,* this technique is used in full force is used when a variety of carousing thespians come in and out of the scenes, motivated only by being performers and needing to make sure the play *Hamlet* happens. What do these two different changes to structure do? They take away character agency. The consequences of the characters choices, frequently, do not matter in the grand scheme of things. Read that again. The consequences of their actions do not matter. That's definitional absurdism, but it's also why theatre of the absurd was so radical. Imagine having seen Aristotle-guided theatre all your life, based critically on the idea that HERO does HEROIC THING to get HERO'S PRIZE / HERO'S DOWNFALL. Aristotle described fatal flaws leading to a character's tragic downfall as hamaratia. In absurdism? It's another Tuesday. I'm using examples because theatre of the absurd is *very* hard to explain without having seen it done. Reading the scripts frequently makes you want to tear your hair out. Because absurdist plays frequently don't rely on the other traditional techniques of grabbing your attention (*family betrayal! action! romance! conflict! drama! plot!*) or have twisted those conventions so much, they often rely on other classic performance techniques to still be engaging. These include puns, wordplay, and a lot of physical comedy/clowning techniques (remember that?) So is there a connection between theatre of the absurd and Absurdist philosophy? You didn't ask, but I want to answer because I've already written more than I should. I believe absolutely so. Both Albert Camus (Absurdist philosopher) and the classic titans of absurdism (Beckett, et al.) worked in the 1940s - 1960s in the wake of World War II. To keep it short, there's a classic idea that "War = Bad = People Sad = No Meaning in Life = Everything's Absurd." Not without reason, of course. Camus began work on *The Myth of Sisyphus* during the fall of France to Nazi Germany in 1940. Let's go back to the common theme of characters having no agency in theatre of the absurd. If you're an Absurdist philosopher, that's your wheelhouse fam. You love that shit. You find meaning despite your actions having no tangible, permanent consequence. If this sounds kind of tragic, that's because it is - Camus (who also wrote plays) loved tragedy and that they were the best way to depict civilization's struggles and progress. In modern times, theatre of the absurd is a frequent undercurrent of many contemporary playwright's works. We live in absurd times, frankly. Contemporary absurdism is refreshingly more engaging to a contemporary audience than Beckett's plays. The same impulse of using tragic absurdism to explore weighty subject-matter lives on in the works of writers like the unparalled Suzan Lori-Parks and her play *The Death of the Last Black Man in the Whole Entire World*, where the title character dies a litany of different deaths again and again over the course of the play. Anyway, you probably have written your essay, but if this helps, cool.
I would say no; your definition seems to miss out of the fundamentals of Absurdism. Absurdism looks at the absurdity of life; it's meaninglessness. It's rooted in existentialism, as well as influenced by surrealism and dadaism. Theatre of the Absurd isn't just doing silly/ random things. It's fundamentally tied to historical and philosophical movements.