I like how Boal has traced the development of Theatre through history, crafting a clear vision of how it has adapted with various periods and remained powerful. However, I am skeptical and slightly confused by his concluding examples that refer almost exclusively to Ionesco. He talks about Ionesco creating a new kind of theatre, and that he "overshadows the achievements of all his fellow playwrights in the enormous task of dehumanizing man." Sounds negative to me!

Indeed, Ionesco did work on the cutting edge of absurd theatre, depicting humans rediculously. However, it is no coincidence that he was also writing socially relevant plays. Further, it is no coincidence that these two characteristics of the man's work go hand-in-hand. Indeed, if one wants to make a political statement, it may be best to do so in an artistically radical fashion in order to engender deep emotions and make a strong impression.

Is there a reason that Boal does not mention the social revelance of Rhinoceros, which is far from an attempt at dehumanization? Indeed, the play is largely interpreted as a response to Fascism, Nazism and Communism before WW2, shedding light on individual identity, culture, philosophy and ethics. Maybe I am misinterpreting Boal, but I wonder why he ignores the social importance of his concluding example...