In the summer of 1958, Kenneth Tynan, the dramatic critic for the London Observer, launched an attack against Eugene Ionesco and his "anti-theatre." A self-appointed protector of realism in the theatre, Tynan warned his readers that Ionesco might become the "messiah" of the enemies of realism. Although he admitted that Ionesco presented a valid personal vision, Tynan reprimanded him for his recurring thesis that words were meaningless and communication between human beings was impossible. He cautioned that, were Ionesco's comedies to be emulated by other writers, the theatre would be headed towards a very bleak future. The debate that followed ranks among the most interesting discussions of realism versus anti-realism ever conducted. Ionesco himself responded that he did not believe communication between human beings was impossible -- only that it was difficult. He insisted that his effort to break down the language of society, which was after all "nothing but clichés, empty formulas, and slogans" was actually an attempt to improve the lines of communication, to re-examine the "congealed language," to split it apart in order to uncover the "living sap beneath." Other writers and critics joined the fray, some coming to Ionesco's defense, others siding with Tynan. Although no winner could be declared in such a debate, the controversy proved that Ionesco was not, as he had so often been characterized, merely the author of hilarious nonsense plays, but rather a serious artist consciously exploring the depths of the human condition.