"Never tell your problems to anyone...20% don't care and the other 80% are glad you have them."-- Lou Holtz

Well, I´ve finally found someone online who could tell me what is the task 5!

Actually, it is kind of difficult to identify the major theme of this book. I was thinking what is Ionesco trying to say by this play as soon as I´ve finished it. I´ve described the strange ending in the article for task 3. Actually, I´ve partially completed task 5 in article that was published 15 February. However, for those who did not read it I´ll repeat the strange climax of this book.

At the beginning of the book both families agreed that it is crucial to preserve the white race by breeding. There was a whole scene where family of Jacques was convincing Jacques about the importance of reproducing as well as did family of Roberta. Both Jacques and Roberta agreed to begin the reproducing process. I don´t know what I was actually expecting but for sure I have not expected that they will reproduce like hens.

In this play Roberta takes a role of a rooster and Jacques is a hen. To make it more clear Roberta is making sounds like a rooster, nothing else, there is no intercourse in this scenario. What I enjoy in this part is that MEN take the roles of females. How? Easy to guess. If Roberta is the rooster then it is up to Jacques to lay EGGS.

When the labour is done than the whole family starts to argue what will come out from these eggs. There is about two pages of no dialogue; characters are just shouting random professions and social classes. As far as I can remember it started with the sentence that they need some of those eggs for omelets and they followed words like bankers, proletarians, etc. According to me this is supposed to be the climax.

I don´t see any deep thoughts in this part but I think that Ionesco is trying to say that we never know what will come out of our descendants. However, there can be seen a metaphor. Maybe this whole egg-thing is not concerning only descendants but it may implicate to all our feats. Starting with cooking a stupid omelet that can be infected by some salmonella disease and we will suffer after eating it. To more intricate decision-making like what university are we going to apply or what job we are going to take. It is like a lottery--You eat the omelet to appease your hunger even though you know about the possibility to get sick, or you stay hungry and incur different type of digestive problems.

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." -- Oscar Wilde

Hi, 

due to the briefness of my play it is impossible for me to complete task 4. I´ve already read whole play and written everything about it except the conclusion on which I´m going to work in task 5. I´ĺl just leave you today with the quote of Oscar Wilde. Hopefully, the amazing article will come on Friday. 

Good night 

"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." (Kurt Vonnegut)

Hi,

for today´s assessment  I´ll just simply answer the given questions, and I thing it even would not hurt me. :P

OK, so the first question: "How is the time period in which is the piece set important to understanding the scenario?"

The time period, actually time at all is completely irrelevant in my play. Ionesco doesn´t specify the time period nor the place. As I said thousand times before he is just focusing on the absurdity of its plot.

Answer for the third question (because it´s easier):


I feel like repeating same things all over again. I think that I was talking about the relevance of this play in the first or the second article. So, again, YES, this play IS relevant and I think it´ll be relevant always. Our conversation topics is not going to change nor the answers and by reading absurd drama we´re going to realise the insanity of ourselves.

While talking about insanity, I´ve found out that actually I don´t know how to answer the second question. I´ve already finished whole play and it was really, really insane at the end. I was thinking about it a lot but I still doesn´t have a good theory what exactly is the end trying to suggest. However, it explains why is the book called The Future is in Eggs or It take all sorts to make a world.

You remember about the couple I´ve talked about in the previous article, Jaques and Roberta? So, they are having offspring at the end of the book. Jaques lays 3 eggs and Roberta is doing sounds like a rooster while he is laying them. Then one member of family asks what are they going to do with those offspring. So, they start shouting things out loud. Things like sausage meat, some eggs for omelets, knitting wool, proletariats, nationalists ... and so one.

If anyone of you has any cool idea about what is that supposed to mean, SHARE IT with me!!! I would be really grateful. :)

It takes all sorts to make an article!

Hi my regular and irregular readers.

At the beginning it is important to inform you that The Future is in Eggs is a part of an absurd trilogy. As you may have noticed in the previous article I thought that Future Eggs has a sequel but the truth is that it  is a sequel by itself. Actually, this big absurd trilogy started by the book Jacques or Obedience then Future is in Eggs were written and whole story was finished by Jacques or Submission.  I have to say that I put a great effort to find the "Jacques plays" in PDF (or any other) version but sadly I did not succeed in my mission. Even though I would really love to read the whole trilogy.

Names of the connected plays might have suggested to you that one of the main characters is called Jacques, and that´s actually right! Even more there is not only him who´s carrying that name but his whole family does. To imagine, their names are Mother-Jacques, Father-Jacques, Grandmother-Jacques, Grandfather-Jacques, and with a bit of originality his sister Jacqueline. There is the partner of Jacques called Roberta and you can easily guess names of her parents (very similar to those of Jacques´ family). Those two (Jacques and Roberta) probably got together in Jacques or Obedience and it was not by accident--their marriage was arranged by their families. To me it seems that these families are there more important than Jacques and Roberta because those two are just doing whatever they want.

The fact that it is an absurd play is visible from the first exchange of interjections (I can´t call it a dialogue). So that you could understand there are first lines of the play :

Jacques: Puss...Puss...
Roberta:Puss...Puss...
Jacques: Puss...Puss...
Roberta:Puss...Pus...
Jacques: Puss...Puuusss...
Roberta:Puuuss...Puuuuuuuuuuss...

Happily, just after that the Mothers and Fathers enter, those lovely dialogues of the couple are ended.

As you know from the lessons of Czech where we studied absurd theatre, the plot is not very complex (in comparison with Shakespeare not at all). Basically, in this play, family decides and children act as they say. During those scenes the dialogues are repeating, the characters are shouting and screaming (just like in real life). So far (after 10 pages of reading), it seems that family need to convince the couple to breed (I use this word in purpose, because it is described like something they need to do, not like something they would enjoy). As Father-Jacques claims "We must assure the continuation of our race." Even though the plot is not worth describing (actually, impossible to describe), I´ve noticed that Ionesco is supposedly expressing his attitudes towards the whole Nazism thing. I´ll see how the play continues next time I´ll read, probably tomorow, and then I´ll share.

Bye

Blah, blah...It´s FREEZING today...blah, blah...Yeah, you´re so right!...blah, blah...

Hi again my fellow followers! :)

Today, I´ve found an interesting information about "my play" on the blog which name I cannot publish because Google security claims it is infected. However some guy wrote there an article about his fascination with Ionesco. It is a long article where he compares two Ionesco´s plays  (The Leader, and The Future is in Eggs). While I was reading it, I´ve found that the play Future is in Eggs has a SEQUEL!!!

Firstly, the play I´ve chosen is situated in some unspecified place (characters are just standing on the theatre stage). And with the placing comes the interesting point that the guy has found out--"my play" is a directly connected with the book Jacques, or the Submission. Actually, it is so closely related that when Ionesco finished his play The Future is in Eggs in 1951 he literally FROZE his characters for 3 years until he published the sequel in 1954 and those characters could finally finish their pointless dialogues and absurd acts in Jacques, or the Submission.

I have to say that it is difficult to write something about Ionesco after reading Adela´s first article, that was btw. excellent, and not repeating her words. So, I´ve decided to leave the part where I would describe all those amazing things that he promoted and present him in my own eyes.

I think that Eugene Ionesco was a little fool. Come on, it isn´t normal to take dictionary phrases and made a play from it (The Bald Soprano)! But if you´re the type of the reader who´s able to think about what he reads, you find out that his plays have a deep and intelligent meaning that can be applied to our society. We know it from our own life... You don´t know what to talk about? So you say "It´s cold today, isn´t it?", and your dear friend replies "It isn´t very warm, that´s right." Every body does that, including me, but isn´t that conversation a little meaningless? Ionesco was an expert on showing the absurdity of our society. But I think that in his time, and even nowadays he is slightly undervalued. (Have you seen at least one of his plays in Ostrava´s theatres in last couple of years?). In my opinion, Eugene Ionesco is the only human between billions of rhinoceros.