Where do your sympathies lie? Part 2: Performativity and Protagonists

At the risk of oversimplification, tragedy occurs when the disrupted status quo, at the start of the narrative, cannot be regained and the characters end in a worse situation than they began. The opposite is comedy, where there is a disrupted status quo, but the status quo is either regained or a better situation replaces the old.

In short, either things end poorly or things end well.

Lopahin and Ranevsky follow different dramatic trajectories. Lopahin's is comedic. He may not get married or start a family, but he begins the play as a successful merchant and ends as a property owner, with a sizable estate his ancestors had been legally tied to as serfs, and he can use to increase his wealth.

Ranevsky's is tragic. She begins the play returning from France where she has squandered her wealth on a lover. She's in debt, but either refuses or is unable to acknowledge it. She longs to see her ancestral home and pines for tradition and is glad to have her home. She ends, however, ousted from her ancestral home to pay her debts. Her home, her heritage, her tradition, all lost.

And then there's the fact we're dealing with a play. Unlike poems and stories, plays are a public affair, with actors, a live audiences, and carefully designed sets and stages. A play is a communal experience in a large room filled with people. Even film was like this until the advent of television, VHS, and home entertainment.

People who have time and money attend the theater. Even today if you're going to see a professional play, you're going to spend upwards of a hundred dollars. Compare this to a feudal society where being a serf (like Lopahin's ancestors) belonged to the land and no land belonged to them. The lower classes never had the means to go see a play. It wouldn't be until serfdom was illegal and social mobility possible that someone other than the upper class, like the landowning gentry Ranevsky, could go attend the theater. While I can't confirm it, I like to think the audience of this pre-revolutionary play were mixed. Some traditional gentry on their way out, and some up and coming middle class. Those who had lived their lives with the theater and others whose parents had never had the chance to sit and watch actors and actresses play their parts.

Which characters, then, would this diverse audience have sympathized with? The distinction is hopefully an easy one to make:

The rising middle class would have sympathized with Lopahin, feeling for his rise from poverty, ingenuity, and his success in securing an estate. For them, the play is a comedy as they would have empathized with his personal struggles and successes, seeing a version of themselves and their own aspirations embodied in him.

The old aristocracy would have sympathized with Ranvesky. They would have seen the noblesse oblige embodied by Ranevsky in her parties and charities, and feeling for her as they see her succumb to the loss of her estate, which they would have all considered a tragic loss.

Whether or not Chekov intended it, and whether or not directors structure it accordingly, The Cherry Orchard can be a divisive play as it sends its characters in different trajectories. The play shows the delicate balance between comedy and tragedy with the play looking one way and then another as Ranevsky and Lopahin engage with one another, their situations, and the rest of the cast. It has the potential to remind us that happy endings are not so clean cut as we like them to be, and that our happy ending may be someone's sad ending.

But there’s another side to this issue. The play and its themes are deeply rooted in a different time and place from modern audiences. As a teacher, it is interesting not just to discuss where the sympathies of contemporaries would have been, but also to deconstruct our own reactions to this play charged with social commentary.

Where do your sympathies lie? Part 1: Tragedy and Comedy in Chekov's The Cherry Orchard

Anton Chekov, Russian author and playwright, worked at a time of social change in Russia. Karl Marx was dead, his philosophies taking root, and signs of the Bolshevik revolution were starting to appear. Serfdom had been outlawed, and a middle class was rising. His play The Cherry Orchard finds itself at a cultural crossroads, a time when the old was on its way out, being replaced by new ideas still finding their footing.

During this time Chekov wanted to write a comedy. His director made it a tragedy.

A century later, it still proves an interesting read. It shows the breakdown of an old social hierarchy through a Russian aristocratic family that loses their land to the son of former serfs turned successful merchant. It literally depicts the tearing down of the old and replacing it with the new. This social change makes the comedy-tragedy distinction a very interesting one, especially with a cast of characters who, true to the expectations of Russian literature, don’t rely on a single protagonist. The question is then a matter of where one's sympathies lie: which character do you associate with?

The play becomes a subtle social battlefield. Madame Ranevsky versus Yermolay Alexeyevitch.

Madame Ranevsky represents the old aristocracy. She is a landowner and it is her beloved cherry orchard that gives the play its name. She is popular, and generous, almost, or perhaps intentionally, to the point of being cartoonish. She has wasted her money abroad, having spent the last few years in France, and does not accept help where it is offered. She is sentimental, wishing to keep her home, and her beloved cherry orchard, the way she remembers it. Only when it is too late does she face the fact that, to pay off her debts, her beloved cherry orchard is to be auctioned off right from under her.

Yermolay Alexeyevitch, or Lopahin, represents the rising middle class. He is a merchant descended of serfs, a self-made man with money enough he can enjoy comforts that were unknown to his parents. And he too is generous: he offers to help Madame Ranevsky, suggesting she replace the orchard with cottages to be rented out to supplement their income and pay off her debts. He is well off, successful, but not represented as greedy; he is supportive and friendly. He is frustrated by his unheeded advice, and ultimately takes his own advice, buys the estate, and chops down the cherry orchard.

There are, of course, a range of other characters: servants, a governess, and other aristocrats, collapsing the social strata so everyone interacts with everyone else while each character is keenly aware of their status and situation. There is some griping from the aristocracy about the days when they had generals and dignitaries at their parties, but there is no conflict over the mixing of the clearly defined social spheres. The conflict itself revolves around the fate of the cherry orchard. A conflict Lopahin, juggling the roles of businessman and friend, knows all too well, while Ranevsky doesn’t even acknowledge, let alone, face it.

But there's still the issue of comedy and tragedy. Chekov wrote a comedy, and yet his director made something else. When you consider the public, performative nature of drama, you can see how the thin line between comedy and tragedy can be, and how easily it can be crossed based on which character you sympathize with. In the case of The Cherry Orchard, do you sympathize with Lopahin, the self made man who is rising up from a difficult past by virtue of his own wit, intelligence, and skill? Or Madame Ranevsky, whose way of life, heritage, family land, and culture are being threatened and ultimately taken from her?

As we’ll see in future posts, this isn’t as simple of a question as it seems.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Works Cited

Chekov, Anton. The Cherry Orchard. The Norton Introduction to Literature. 11th ed. Ed. Kelly J. Mays. W.W. Norton, 2013. 2066-2104. Print.

Themes and Motifs - What’s the Difference?

The terms “theme” and “motif” are related concepts, so related that they frequently get lumped together. I don't like to do that. The way I see it, while they are certainly related and similar, even co-dependent concepts, they are not the same.

When we read a story, we deal with something that doesn't exist but we imagine it as if it were: characters are like real people, imaginary worlds are as real as our own, and we measure them in ways similar to how we measure real people and the real world. This means we engage with stories as if they are genuine, if not possible. This is the level of reading that says...

• Elizabeth Bennett misinterpreted Mr. Darcy.
• Intelligent raccoons and trees can be partners in crime.
• Firemen burn books.
• And a long time ago, there was a galaxy far far away...

We tend to refer to this as the “story world”; we conceptualize a world wherein these people, places, and events exist and interact.

But literature is able to operate in more than just making something that didn't or couldn’t happen seem as if it could. In addition to the story world, there's also the thematic or symbolic level of a text. This is where, as readers, we recognize patterns in a story and across other stories so we can identify the themes. If something appears multiple times and in different forms in a story, it probably has some thematic significance. Themes don't exist within a story world any more than they exist in real life, but an author will focus on specific details and describe them to highlight these themes.

So, there's the story world, and then there's themes. The two are separate, and it's motifs that bring them together. Motifs are the parts of the story world that generate themes. Similar to symbolism, motifs and themes unite the concrete with the abstract.

A motif is an element of a story world that recurs in the same story and in other stories. We are able to recognize motifs because we encounter them frequently. In a way, stories are merely collections of motifs. The more motifs we encounter, the clearer the pattern they develop becomes, and the clearer the themes of the story become. The theme is the abstract concept invoked by the motifs.

For example, in my post on “Babylon Revisited” I referenced the “ghosts” and old friends who reappear and cause conflict in the narrative. These old friends, aided by Fitzgerald’s florid style, bring the theme of a regrettable past to the front. Similarly, in my post on “The Yellow Wallpaper,” the details that suggest the narrator is imprisoned are motifs for this theme: the locked door, the bars on the windows, the room being a former nursery, etc. And even though the bars are the only bars in the narrative, they reappear whenever the narrator tells us they are there.

One of the powerful traits that themes have, though, is that they go beyond individual narratives. I addressed this in my introduction to theme, discussing how Robinson Crusoe and Life of Pi are both narratives that are very different but they share the same theme of survival. It’s their differences and how they treat this theme that makes them interesting. The relationship between themes and motifs is still quite complicated, because while different stories will share themes, they will still present them with different motifs, treat the themes differently, and will juxtapose different themes. Robinson Crusoe has themes about middle-class pride and industry absent from Life of Pi, which takes a more dour look at a more dangerous situation.

Looking for themes can be one of the first exercises undertaken when analyzing a story or a poem. It gives the piece unity and meaning. It helps us make otherwise incomprehensible pieces fascinating and pieces that are centuries or millennia old significant and relevant. It helps us understand how stories are similar and different. If, when reading a narrative and anything recurs, odds are, the author is trying to invoke a certain theme. Themes and motifs are quite distinct, but one begets the other. They are inseparable.

Consider paisley. Paisley is a pattern, recognizable by its droplet or leaf-like patterns and intricate designs. Not every instance of paisley will be the same, but we can recognize it. The elements, its designs and shape, that make it recognizable can be considered its motifs: the shape, the intricate designs. Remove the designs, and it won't be paisley. Make it a square instead of a droplet but keep the designs, it won't be paisley. The theme? The fact that we can name and categorize it as such gives it its theme: its theme is paisley. The same themes will reappear, but every instance will be unique.