The Wild Duck and The Cherry Orchard A Comparison

Anton Chekhov was so bored by Ibsens The Wild Duck he remarked that Ibsen does not know life and that Ibsen is no dramatist It might be argued that Chekhov felt Ibsen to be in some ways, as a thinker, too like himself. Ibsen and Chekhov share a number of beliefs: individualism, sincerity, the loathsomeness of tyranny, freedom for women. Tolstoy even condemned the seagull for being like Ibsen: mere verbiage - leading nowhere. But Chekhov employs a different technique to Ibsen to produce a sense of reality in The Cherry Orchard. The orchard, the obvious focal piece of the play, is to be sold a month after Madame Ravenskys arrival. Lopakhin believes that the only way the orchard estate can be saved is by chopping down the†¦show more content†¦Ranyevskaya memories of the orchard as a fantastic playground disallow her to see the truth that the cherry orchard was just her parents business and it is time to change the business because times have changed. Every one of the many characters was carefully planned out to show some purpose in the message conveyed in The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov is able to show that the core of humanity is full of ludicrous emotions and ideas. The importance of the use of comedy in the play conveys with the importance of comedy in our lives. It shows the reader how the most ridiculous moments and decisions are probably the most important ones. The decisions of the characters are full of faults that posses something ludicrous in them which allows this to be considered a comedy. Both characters are made even more human, by their honorable traits, and minor disreputable qualities. Lopakhin and Madame Ravenskys characters are incompatible in the others mind. Madame Ravensky is a member of the falling aristocracy who is a lost romantic trapped in a fantasy world on the orchard while forgetting her troubles in the real world. Contrarily, Lopakhin is money driven, sometimes vulgar, and socially rising individual. Lopakhin is trying to make a future by overcoming his past, but remains genuine and practical in his offering help. Both characters are clashing individuals, but neither are to be judged as either good or bad. There are no heroes