A Doll’s House 5 marks

“You talk like a child. You don't understand the conditions of the
world in which you live.”

Ans: The lines are taken from Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House where a heated argument
takes place between Nora and Torvald and the husband poorly mistreats the wife by saying the
aforementioned dialogues. From his attitude, it is clearly visible that the societal condition of
women was miserable in the Victorian era. Torvald questions Nora’s ability to make moral
judgements and also raises a finger at her sensibility as a human being at all. He thinks that he is the
one who understands the way of the world, and particularly women are not capable of having any
consciousness.
Torvald's dialogues are marked by a deep sense of misogyny, with him comparing his wife to a
child and comparing her lack of interest in orthodox religion to discredit. He believes that religion
should be the foundation of social order, and everyone must follow it with devotion. Nora,
however, disagrees, stating that she is not sure if religion could do miracles but acknowledges that
she is actively learning about the human condition. Torvald is most annoyed by Nora's lack of faith
in law and order, which he condemns as he supports conventional stereotypes of society. Ibsen's
portrayal of Nora's departure from the doll's house conveys Torvald's message of a feminist
rebellion, which is a political and personal message. The personal aspect of the dialogue is a
significant aspect of Torvald's character. (230)

A Good Woman of Szechuan 5 marks

Ans: The lines are taken from the prologue of The Good Woman of Setzuan by Bertolt Brecht.
The lines are spoken by the second god, who defiantly dismisses Shen Te’s view of everything on
earth being so expensive. He readily tells the protagonist that gods do not interfere with mortal
conditions. So, it would be completely futile to complain about something that is not the sphere of
their judgement.
The Good Woman of Setzuan explores the idea that a society's morality is influenced by its
economic systems. The gods, who are followers of Marxism, attempt to capture the essence of
Marx's historical materialism by examining the rise of class societies and the struggle for survival in
a globally capitalistic economic system. The dramatist uses Shen Te as a symbol to justify his
explanation of this crisis, representing the commoners and the gods as the symbols of the reigning
bourgeoisie. This irony blurs the distinction between the morality of "goodness" sought by the gods
and economics, highlighting the struggles faced by people in a globally capitalistic society. (175)
Q. Theme of absurdism in 'The Rhinocerous', Eugene Ionesco

Ans: Martin Esslin first coined the term 'Theatrae of the Absurd' to describe the rise of surrealist
and nonsocial playwrights in the late 1940s and 1950s. These plays were influenced by the
existentialist philosophy of Albert Camus and Sartre, who questioned the logic of existence. The
two world wars, economic depressions, and the rise of dictatorial forms of socialist dreams led to a
questioning of traditional philosophy, religion, traditional morality, and science, with radical
positivism being scrutinized. This era saw a shift in the way we perceive and understand life. All in
all, the illogical became the logic of understanding in a nihilistic world, gaining acceptance in
Western Europe during World War II. Playwrights like Eugene Ionesco adopted this school,
expressing their analogous world view in their works like 'The Rhinocerous', showcasing their
absurdist vision.

The play revolves around the absurd transformation of a city's people into rhinocerous creatures,
revealing the pluralities and irreconcilable worldviews of modern society. The transformation is
similar to the metamorphosis trope used by Ovid in antiquity but becomes unaccounted for and
veritably absurd. The response of the individual to this transformation is crucial, as it gives hope
that existence is absurd but can be faced with individual will and intellect.

Throughout the play, different kinds of responses are elicited by the transformations due to the
nature of the characters themselves. The characters are more like types, symbolizing typical
reactions to their phenomenal existence. Ionesco uses language, particularly philosophical
language, to highlight the absurdity of the play by making the language figurative rather than literal
and using the dialogue of the logician.

The dialogues reveal that the characters do not make any direct, predictable reference to the context
in which they live, highlighting the autonomy of linguistic reality and its dissociation from the
world it supposedly describes and defines. This dissociation highlights that meaning or logical
integrity is more in the realm of linguistic construct than the lived reality outside it, which can be
called the phenomenal world. This is the reason that when something as unpredictable and illogical
as a largescale transformation to rhinocerous occurs, even the most sophisticated linguistic
arrangement for phenomenal definition like that of the logician becomes inadequate to define it, or
signify it by providing it with any form of meaning. (378)
Q. Character of Berenger. 15 Marks

Ans: "The Rhinicerous" is a play by Eugene Inonesco, and Berenger is the protagonist of
the play, who undergoes a moral transformation. Berenger, initially an alienated Everyman, finds
little worth in life except for the beauty of his co-worker Daisy. He is bored by his work and too
lazy to culture himself, questioning if life is a dream or controlled by unconscious desires. Despite
his alcoholism, Berenger holds onto his human identity, never understanding why someone would
want to be anyone else.

Berenger's love for Daisy reveals his emotional desires for another human, even when it seems that
they will be united at the expense of their co-worker Dudard's departure and metamorphosis.
Berenger's decision to save humanity against the tyranny of the rhinoceroses overturns his weak
will and lack of responsibility. His love for Daisy and his willingness to take responsibility for its
fate make him the only human left.

The title of the play symbolizes the lack of humanity brought about by fascist, mass-hysteric, and
totalitarian regimes. The central anti-rhinoceros metaphor highlights the importance of individuality
and not capitulate. Berenger's cowardice, ignorance, and laziness provide protection from the
antagonizing epidemic, as he realizes he cannot discipline himself to anything. His sensibility and
ability to love and feel for the characters around him become the tools for standing alone amidst the
rhinoceroses.

However, despite his romantic and quasi-heroic qualities, Berenger remains a pathetic character. He
wishes to conform but has no knowledge of political slogans or propaganda as tools. This sad state
keeps him from transforming. Berenger did not fit into his old society and cannot fit into this new
society, so he must remain somewhere between, but not of his own will. This makes him, in the
words of critic Maureen Corrigan, the "quintessential modernist hero."

Ultimately, Berenger's humanity, which implies his acknowledgment of suffering and is regarded
as a pathetic state, keeps him away from the herd. Ionesco's anti-play concretely portrays Berenger
as a hero in spite of himself. (330)