It is always interesting to read these giants of the theatre and get their own ideas on theatre, both their own and that of others. It is sometimes tempting to think that everything said by someone who has exhibited genius in a given field will be genius; I have learned to guard against that, to not assume his word is the last, or only, word on a subject, or even that he is correct. Once I reached the point that I could have confidence in not only my own ability to view the world, but on my ability to parse through others views of the world, books like this became much more enjoyable. It can be fun to get inside the mind of a favorite author and find out what makes them tick, and see their plays through their eyes. I am not one of those who believes that what the author thinks a play means is meaningless; in fact, I think it is essential, even if I find something else in it from my own different world of experiences and knowledge. Knowing what they were thinking, what was going on, when they were writing it can open new possibilities for me in grasping a work. This work is less valuable for understanding absurdism as a genre than it is for understanding Ionesco in particular. ( )