Chandler Friedman
English 231
Dr. Clark Lemons
In the plays The Cherry Orchard by Anton
Chekhov, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, and Galileo by Bertolt Brecht, the
protagonists' mental beliefs combine reality and illusion that both shape the
plot of each respective story. The
ability of the characters to reject or accept an illusion, along with the
foolish pride that motivated their decision, leads to their personal downfall.
In The Cherry Orchard, by Anton Chekhov, Gayev
and Miss Ranevsky, along with the majority of their family, refuse to believe
that their estate is close to bankruptcy.
Instead of accepting the reality of their problem, they continue to live
their lives under the illusion that they are doing well financially. The family continues with its frivolous ways
until there is no money left (the final night they have in the house before it
is auctioned, they throw an extravagant party, laughing in the face of
impending financial ruin) Even when
Lopakhin attempts to rescue the family with ideas that could lead to some of
the estate being retained, they dismiss his ideas under the illusion that the
situation is not so desperate that they need to compromise any of their
dignity.
Lopakhin: As you
know, your cherry orchardŒs being sold to pay your debts. The auction is on the twenty second of
August. But there¹s no need to worry, my
dear. You can sleep soundly. There¹s a way out. Here¹s my plan. Listen carefully, please. Your estate is only about twelve miles from
town, and the railway is not very far away.
Now all you have to do is break up your cherry orchard and the land
along the river into building plots and lease them out for country cottages. You¹ll then have an income of at least
twenty-five thousand a year.
Gayev: I¹m sorry,
but what utter nonsense!
(Later in the
Dialogue)
Mrs. Ranevsky:
Cut down? My dear man, I¹m very sorry
but I don¹t think you know what you¹re talking about....
Lopakhin: If we
can¹t think of anything and if we can¹t come to any decision, it won¹t only be
your cherry orchard, but your whole estate that will be sold at auction on the
twenty-second of August. Make up your
mind. I tell you there is no other way.
(Page 621-622)²
This inability on the behalf of the family to
realize the seriousness of their situation is due to their refusal to accept
reality. If they had recognized the
situation they were in, and dealt with it, (they may have been able to save
some of their money, or even curbed their spending) they could have saved
themselves. Unfortunately, once things
got bad for them financially, they refused to accept that fact that
circumstances had changed, and instead continued to live as though nothing were
wrong.
They adopted this illusion as a savior of their
pride, and the illusion eventually became reality for the family. Their pride wouldn¹t allow for anything
else. They were too proud to accept
that their social status, and financial status was in jeopardy, so they chose
to live a life of illusion. In their
imaginary situation, they were going to be fine. It is easier to believe something when you
really want it to be true.
Unfortunately, outside situations don't change, even if you can fool
yourself into thinking they don't exist.
The illusion that they used to run their lives
became the source of their downfall.
Since they grasped at their illusion so tightly, in vain hopes that it
would replace reality, they failed to deal practically with their problem,
until it got to the point where they had to.
They were kicked out onto the street, and had all of their material
things taken from them. The most
important thing they had -- their status -- was gone.
In A Doll's House, by Henrik Ibsen, property
and status are again destined to be lost.
The illusion is twisted. At the
beginning of the play, Nora leads a life under the illusion that everything was
perfect. She lives for eight years with
the knowledge that she has broken the law, and betrayed her husband. Though it was necessary, the psychological
toll it took on her and the family was hardly worthwhile.
Along with Nora¹s flaws, her husband was also
at fault. He couldn¹t accept what Nora
had done, and wouldn¹t have been able to deal with the extreme changes which
she had undergone. His pride wouldn¹t
let him accept that he needed a woman to help him; that he couldn¹t handle
everything alone without the help of another person (This Œstoic male¹ ideal
has lead to the downfall of many men).
His self-confidence would not have been strong enough to take that kind
of blow to his ego.
If she had forced her husband into handling the
situation, by having him borrow money himself, everything would have turned out
fine. She, instead, took out the loan on
her own, and didn't even clue in her husband.
She tried to avoid having his pride injured by forcing him to borrow
money, even though it was necessary to save his life.
From this experience she grew. She learned about human nature, and about the
value of money, and had even learned a lesson of practicality. Instead of clueing in her husband about what
she had done, (the final step in the maturation process she had undergone --
being able to accept blame) she kept quiet and left him ignorant. She lived her life in an illusion, pretending
to be the old Nora that she was, and not the new and changed woman she had
developed into. She didn't let the
person she had become permeate all the aspects of her life. She let the illusion of the old Nora continue
well after she had become a new person.
Eventually she evolved into a person who couldn¹t stand to be married to
Helmer anymore.
Helmer: Nora, I
would gladly work for you night and day, and endure sorrow and hardship for
your sake. But no man can be expected to
sacrifice his honor, even for the person he loves.
Nora: Millions of
women have done it.
Helmer: Oh, you
think and talk like a stupid child.
Nora: That may
be. But you neither think nor talk like
the man I could share my life with...as I am now, I am no wife for you. (Page 587)
If she had continued to grow, and mature, and
had accepted the kind of person she became, then perhaps she would have gained
the courage to tell her husband what she had done. She would not have had to leave. She could have educated him gradually instead
of immediately surrendering any hope by leaving everything she has ever
known. Nora's failure to accept what she
had really become led to the end of her life with Helmer, and her downfall in
society. It was also Helmer¹s downfall
socially and emotionally.
Galileo, by Berolt Brecht, is rather different
from both of the previously mentioned situations in that the protagonist puts
forth a façade of living with an illusion (that he had truly recanted, and truly
believed his theories to be false), when in reality he didn't believe it. His denial of this illusion led to his
collapse.
Granted, on the exterior, his collapse seems
relatively minimal (he ends up with a popular status among the people of his city,
and throughout Europe), but he is disgusted with himself. The feeling that other people have towards
him does not lead him to believe that he did the right thing. Instead, if he had been steadfast to what he
thought, instead of buckling to the illusions that everyone had of him (that he
was a person who immediately realized he was wrong, and valued the church more
than his theories) he would have been much happier, although he'd be dead
too. He leads the rest of his life
echoing the idea in his head that he was weak and useless.
Galileo: ...At
that particular time, had one man put up a fight, it could have had wide
repercussions. I have come to believe
that I was never in real danger; for some years I was as strong as the
authorities, and I surrendered my knowledge to the powers that be, to use it,
no, not to use it, to abuse it, as it suits their ends. I have betrayed my profession. Any man who does what I have done must not be
tolerated in the ranks of science. (p.809).
Some people look at Galileo as a coward for
what he did, since he did not stand up for what he believed, even though his
life was on the line. I disagree. He is more of a hero for what he did than if
he had let himself become a martyr. He
let the church believe what they wanted to about him, but internally, he
remained the same. He instead lived the
rest of his life supporting a fallacy.
He had to pretend that a fundamental part of his belief system did not
exist. Galileo, being a proud and
stubborn man found this to be the most difficult task of his life.
His pride refused to let him accept the
illusion (that his theory was completely wrong) over reality. If he had, he would have been a happier
person, and the conflict that he lived with every day would be resolved.
He ends up in a better state superficially, but
internally, his refusal to accept an illusion has led to his intense dislike
for himself and his moral base. If he
could have somehow reconciled his beliefs with the life he actually led, he
wouldn't have ended up as bitter or sad a person as he did.
Throughout each of these plays, the main
character (or characters) faced a reality that they cease to accept, and
instead live in an illusion (except in the case of Galileo, in which case the
reverse is true). The refusal to accept
a reality or illusion led to the characters' fall in status and/or emotional
well being.
1703 words
No comments:
Post a Comment