This event with the Man is really the first and most overt take on the repetition theme in the play. Beyond that though, there are these little intricacies to this event that set up how hollow these echoes really are. The fact that the Man covers all bases by exclaiming both of Booth's possible declarations goes to show how far removed we are from the actual history and the spontaneity of the real incident. The Foundling Father even touches on this by relating how the Man follows the events "By the book." This Man comes in every week to repeat his reenactment of an event that happened in the past, but even he is unsure of how it originally unfolded. As the rest of the play shows, eventually these recreations become distant echoes to a future that is radically different. History is preserved, but is also entangled in this revisionist theater. There is undoubtedly a danger in this idea, that history can be twisted to fulfill someone's specific needs. It also feels like Parks is satirizing the idea of history as entertainment (like the Disney attraction), as the audience for these plays are very far removed from the historical figures originally impacted.

I remember laughing when I came across this line and thinking on how this whole section is reminiscent of the newspaper scenes in The Dumb Waiter. Overall, the line is interesting in that it is a very deliberate joke playing directly into the play's themes towards the repressed roles for women in society. Removing the outlandish part of the sentence (the cheetah groom), the line plays into a very typical line about a woman being taken advantage of within a marriage. Ultimately, the cheetah line sets up the discussion of love feeling like you are being swept off your feet. Much like how the others take in the cheetah divorce as something silly that can be explained away, their definition of love is very rational and simple. Larger than life ideas are shrunken down by these women into logical forms throughout much of the play, as if they would be completely incomprehensible otherwise

I find this reaction from Julia to be an interesting angle of balance that stands out from the rest of the play's definition of that idea. Julia's sarcasm is a response and rebuke of Agnes' ignored monologue on how she is the great supporting balance, holding this family and everything around them up. Agnes presents this role as having a holy purpose, upholding moral order. Agnes is presenting her view of what balance in this world provides and how defending that balance is an important role. Julia then takes Agnes' perception of her role down to size. Julia is attempting to take Agnes down and show her how she has self-aggrandized this role and herself. Albee is purposefully providing the pro and the con to this definition of balance, suggesting that there is no real clear cut answer. Everything, from family dynamics to navigating social circles is fragile requiring a delicate touch, making balance an imperative. However, maybe we are prone to hand holding too much from time to time. I feel like it's Julia's line here that is beginning to show the deeper cracks of maintaining balance in this world.

Tobias' train of thought here is all an attempt for him to rationalize to himself and possibly Agnes as well, why he's resisted speaking with Julia's partners. This story with the cat relays his own fears of being abandoned and why he does not interfere when it appears he is losing someone he cares about. Ultimately, Tobias' take away from this story is that he murdered this cat for her betrayal. There are feelings of grief, shame, and pity all clung to this. Agnes tries to alleviate these feelings, while also belittling them, by dismissing them altogether. Agnes is listening to this rant, but does not appear to be reading the subtext. Claire however, appears able to see the subtext, but finds Tobias' defiant pity to be silly. The language here is all a smokescreen for this subtext. While the other characters may be listening to the actual words, the subtext and the true meaning of what's being said here is being ignored and laughed off.

I enjoyed the play's winking antics between Gus and Ben, particularly how it reveals something personal about each of them. Gus is naive and a little fussy, while Ben is resolute and ignorant. The most interesting turn in the play for me though, was when Pinter allows for Gus' constant questioning to become a full blown interrogation on the order and power structure of this world. The dumb waiter in it of itself serves the purpose of demonstrating Gus and Ben's position in this world. Their scrambling antics to appease this unseen boss from above provides a lot of the comedy for the play, but also reinforces their lowly position. I felt this moment here was particularly compelling as I started to really sympathize for Gus. All of this scrambling begins to bother Gus here, as he lost all he all his food but also his conscience is beginning to weigh on him. Gus' fussing is really a way for him to circumvent his guilt over his job. The dumb waiter is stripping him of the only thing that helped him cope with this job, a belief in himself that he has some power in this situation. Him yelling, "We've got nothing left!" emphasizes him realizing how powerless he is in this situation. He's got no food to give, nothing more for from them to take. He can't even light the stove with the matches this boss gave them, because they don't have any money to pay for the gas. This all sets him up for the ending moment of the play, but Pinter's delicate handling of Gus' behavior beforehand makes the moment truly tragic.

This line in particular is interesting as it reveals information about the power Irma has in her brothel, but it also sheds some light on how the Chief is incredibly mad with power. Throughout this scene, the audience has seen how Irma has been able to spy on all the other rooms in the Balcony. These mirrors show her the fantasies of her influential clientele and allow her to monitor the actions of her subordinates. Irma is able to wield this knowledge as a way to control her influential clientele and keep her own underlings in check. The Chief knowing about Irma's mirrors suggests the connection between the two, but also hints at a larger role the Chief may be playing in the Balcony. On the Chief, he later rants about how he wants his image to be displayed mightily across all the mirrors in the Balcony. Where other characters were coming to the Balcony to see their fantasy selves reflected back to them in the mirror, the Chief wants to see his own image reflected back to him. This image should be reflected back to him in what he thinks is in accurate manner; across many mirrors and in as grand a fashion as possible. Not only has he merged with this fantasy image of himself, he wants this reflection to be the last imprint he leaves on this world. He wants his reflection to celebrate his strength and be the last memory he leaves before passing on.

The increasing movement and growing number of the rhinos underneath the window was already a very humorous moment. The fact that that it is only their heads the audience can "see," highlights the stage-like quality of their appearance. Beyond being a very silly recurring joke, the rhinos under the window serve to highlight how absurd this whole situation is; people are turning into rhinos and their numbers are growing. The simplistic stage work only highlights that fact. There is also the key component of this quote, as Berenger is literally yelling at nothing. The Logician rhino would not be able to understand him anyway, but Berenger is still yelling at him even though he's out of sight. This moment serves only to further the distance between Berenger's desire to be a nonconformist human or join the congregation of rhinos outside.

Whenever the rhinoceroses appear, the townspeople tend to repeat the same exclamation in reaction. Here, it's the repeated phrase, "Oh, a rhinoceros!" Following Daisy's line here, the townspeople will all repeat, "Well of all things," even saying the line together as a whole group. What this does is rob the townspeople of their individuality. How can someone be distinct in this event if they are all sharing the same reaction? Ionesco is even calling attention to their lack of individuality by making them say the later line as a group. This repeating exclamation also makes the characters' noticing of the rhinoceros feel rehearsed and forced. It's as if they were told not to pay attention before, then to say this repeated line on the cue. I highlighted this line in particular because Berenger's line after this ("Oh, Daisy!") goes against these ideas. Berenger is expressing his individuality through his compassion towards Daisy. Even as Ionesco acknowledges the stock quality of his side characters, he does go out of his way to allow a character to express a pure human emotion, as misguided as it may be.

While reading the play, I found the moments where the Old Man and Woman talk to empty chairs quite funny, and I feel like this moment is the natural progression of that same joke. Walking through filled rows of seats and not bumping into anyone is already pretty difficult, but the idea of performing that same task in front of empty chairs full of invisible people is very silly. There is also a tragic undercurrent to that joke, as the Old Man and Woman feel so beholden to these invisible people that they do not want to hit them, even though there may not really be any people sitting in the chairs. All of this politeness and walking on eggshells may be pointless. To imagine that an empty chair is worthy of such attention is somewhat tragic. The humorous moments of the play often come at the expense of this dynamic between the Old Man's and Woman's dedication to the invisible people and the fact they are really just talking to air.

These two lines serve to highlight how Hamm and Clov view nature in entirely different ways. Hamm seems to almost be over-indulging himself in his admiration of nature here as he is willing to fully submit himself to that environment. Whether or not he is implying that he would drown himself, that idea alone marks a very stark turn for nature's role in this play. Throughout the play, the outside world is described as being very desolate and baron. For Hamm, a man who cannot see this new outside world, to conjure up such a powerful image of nature shows how he is holding onto an image of nature from the past. There is certainly a level of awe for Hamm here. On the other side, Clov, who appears to have never seen nature like that, downcasts Hamm's image. For Clov, this image of nature and the power that it would own, does not exist. Clov's frustration and dismay comes through here, as he was born into this new world built off the works of prior generations like Hamm, where images of nature like this do not exist.

This action struck me as being particularly tragic in that Estragon is wounded for helping the emotionally devastated Lucky. There is an interesting reversal in this action, as Estragon was trying to help Lucky, but ended up only being hurt by Lucky. This whole scene also subverts the ideas of recognition as Lucky, a slave, is upset that his owner is selling him. Lucky is either pretending to be this attached to Pozzo, or is so truly tied to his owner that the thought of leaving makes him weep. The idea of a slave being this emotionally devastated at the prospect of departing their owner, in the hopes that the owner will pity them enough to keep them, is tragic enough on its own. Looking at Lucky this way, it's clear that he has no recognition over his position in this world. If he did, he would not be getting this upset over losing his slave owner and would not be hurting the person attempting to soothe him. The two characters in this exchange who are bruised are Lucky and Estragon, all while Pozzo, who admits to owning several people, escapes unscathed. There is no recognition of that fact from any of the wounded party however.

Wilder gives a lot of attention to the Actress playing Sabina's real life, outside the world of the character. In these lines, the toil and emotional grit of this Actress really comes through. She has been waiting incredibly patiently, living somewhat hand to mouth, hoping that she can get an acting job in a respectable play. She is very upset that the play she is finally in is, in her mind, an utter mess. Her disappointment over appearing in this play appears multiple times throughout the play. By giving her meta discontent ample time on the stage, Wilder is saying her disappointment with theater is just as deserving of screen time as everything else in the play. The Actress' real-world disappointment with the state of theater is put on the stage, reflecting the idea that even the emotions of the outside world has a plot that can be put on the stage.

This whole speech is interesting to look as an indicator of just how much time has passed for Joan and the role of nature in this world. In the first and second acts, Joan plays the innocent observer. She is instructed about the fears of this world by Harper and then by Todd, but it is never solidly understood if Joan fully accepts these rules. In this speech, it is made abundantly clear that not only has Joan accepted the fear mongering attitudes of her society but has embraced them. This line of her speech in particular always struck me by just how purely absurd it is as it did make me genuinely laugh. The line itself is humorous, but the mood it creates is dark and offhandedly threatening. Ultimately, the line serves to point out how even the natural environment is seen as a treacherous adversary. At the beginning of the play as well, nature was sold as beautiful. Since nature is unable to speak for itself and solidify its place with this oppressive society, it is seen as an enemy. By the play's end, both Joan and nature have fallen. Joan has fallen in line with the irrational thinking of her surrounding society, while nature has fallen to society's ammunition.