Lopakhin

I just finished reading this play, and I really enjoyed it, though I thought the ending was rather said. I disliked Lopakhin and thought he was a cad who only cared about himself and what he wanted. I thought it was quite wrong the way in which he bought the orchid to do with it the very thing her knew the family was against and than rubbed it in their faces. He was completely insensitive to their wishes and could not understand their feelings at all. He could only think about himself. I was glad in the end when he did not marry Barbara, but I think his relationship with her was another example of how he cannot understand how anyone else might feel about anything.

Lopakhin really isn't that endearing of a character, but I don't see him as that much of a villain, either. He does buy the orchard, but he believes he's actually doing the family a favor. It's not a malicious impulse which makes him buy the land. It's his materialism which causes him to act, and it blinds him to the way others might consider this. Also, the family could have stopped him, but instead they do nothing. The family's inability to change causes their downfall as much as Lopakhin.

It's a confusing play, though. There are no heroes or villains. Each character has represents a view which draws both affection and revulsion from audience. When the curtain falls it's difficult to know what to think.

Well it is not difficult for me to know how I feel about Lopakhin. And though he might not have oringally done it to be malecious, the family was quite adamant about how they felt but becasue of his greed and peronsal wishes he did not care how anyone else felt. And I did feel he was being rather mean when they got back from the acution, the way he was acting and treating everyone was not very courtirous or generous.

And I really do not see how the family had any real power over the situation. They had no money. If Lopakhin really cared about the family he would have persevered the orchird.

I agree that it is something of a confusing play without real heroes or villains. But one has to feel sympathy for Lyubov, above all others. At least I did. I'm aware that she was probably a symbol of the old, dying Russian aristocracy, but Chekhov writes her as a genuinely sympathetic character, I think.

Yes I agree she is a very sympathic character, and that is a good point, about the representation of the decaying arisocracy. I found the end scene with Fris being forgotten and listening to the cherry trees being cut down to have been quite touching.

I think that is part of my dislike of Lopakhin. I found the cutting down of the trees quite sad, not just becasue of how it affected the family but becasue I dislike any descturtion of nature for modern invention.

Lyubov is easy to sympathize with, but she isn't really included in the conflict over the orchard. At least, it isn't her decision. The conflict is actually between the mother (whose name eludes me) and Lopakhin; and, while Lopakhin does something incredibly insensitive, he doesn't realize he's hurting the family. Even after he sees how the family reacts, he still maintains this impervious optimism about the whole affair. His outlook is so incompatible with the other characters that he can't even feel the minimum of sympathy with them. I suppose one could say that's what makes him so terrible, but I can't bring myself to fault him for being ignorant.

I do not see it as ignorance, I see it as pure and simple self-absorption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I do not see it as ignorance, I see it as pure and simple self-absorption

---

I don't know. That may be a little harsh, but I haven't read the play in a while. Maybe I would see differently now.

Anyway, what did you think of the long-time student and his theories?

I thought he was interesting, but it confused me. Becasue first the people kept saying how old he was and how much he was aging, but than later it said he was young. So I guess they were just making fun of him.

Though honestly off the top of my head I do not remeber all of his therories, I did like him, and I agreed with some of the things he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I thought he was interesting, but it confused me. Becasue first the people kept saying how old he was and how much he was aging, but than later it said he was young. So I guess they were just making fun of him.

---

Wait, I thought he was old--at least middle aged. Wasn't he something like forty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Though honestly off the top of my head I do not remeber all of his therories, I did like him, and I agreed with some of the things he said.

---

I'll have to dig up some of his rants. The best was from the scene in the orchard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Wait, I thought he was old--at least middle aged. Wasn't he something like forty?

---

That is what I orignally thought but I remeber in a one or two places where it made it sound like he was younger, I will have to go back over it and find the quotes

Here are some of the quotes that made me question his age:

Quote:

---

Trophimof: Belive what I say Anya; belive what I say. I am not thrit yet; I am still young

---

Quote:

---

Madame Ranevsky: but tell me Peter, isn't that because you're young, because you have never solved any questions of your own as yet by suffering?

---

Quote:

---

Madame Ranevsky: You're twenty-six or twenty-seven, and you're still a Lower School boy!

---

When the play first showed in Russia, the audience cheered when the cherry orchard starts being hacked down. I think audiences at the time may have liked Lopakhin.