Insensitivity

Two characters struck me to be very insensitive. First is Lopakhin. He is very pushy toward Madame Ranevsky to sell the cherry orchard to be used to build villas. He doesn't seem to understand her feelings about the cherry orchard and jumps on her the second returns home even though she hasn't been home for years. He just doesn't seem very considerate of her. The second character that seems to be very insensitive is Trophimof. He is especially insensitive when it comes to the subject of Madame Renevsky's son whom he tutored that drowned several years ago. You would think that he would still be shaken by a memory of the event, but instead he offers a very superficial remark on page 32. He just says, "You know I sympathize with all my heart." He just doesn't seem very sincere. Are these characters just meant to come across as insensitive or is there a deeper meaning and reason for the way that they act?1204587956

I do not have a concrete answer as to why the characters are often insensitive, but I, too, have recognized this theme as prominent throughout the play. For example, as others have mentioned before, the characters seem to talk //at// each other often, rather than //to// each other. And I see Charlotte as insensitive, as well: "When mama and papa died an old German lady adopted me and educated me. Good! When I grew up I became a governess. But where I come from and who I am, I haven't a notion . . . . [//A pause.//] I long to talk so, and I have no one to talk to, I have no friends or relations" (17). She then proceeds to make fun of and to criticize the other characters whom she is with, and in front of them! I found this quite rude. But the question is //why?// I think a deeper meaning into Charlotte's attitude is apparent; she is lost in her identity, only thinking that she should be "upperclass." Ultimately, this actually separates her and most likely makes her more lonely. Possibly Chekhov is criticizing her for this. In fact, several of the characters seem to have their own problems that distract them, like Madame Ranevsky who mourns over her lost son. This, of course, is understandable, but it also relates to the theme that this group of people have trouble with change and optimism in face of it. Maybe all this has something to do with the class tensions going on with the Liberation and the loss of the prestige and cherry orchard.1204594149

I agree that some of the characters may seem insensitive, however, I do not think that they are. For example, I think that Lopakhin is just being practical. Of course, he cannot understand the emotional attachment that Ranevsky has to the orchard, but he does understand that it is important to her and he is doing all that he can to try to at least keep the orchard in her family's possesion. I think that he becomes frustrated when Ranevsky ignores him and changes the subject when he is talking about his plan.

Charlotte, on the other hand, struck me as just being uneducated. She is our way of seeing what the lowerclass was like. She does not even know if her parents were married or not. I think she has trouble fitting in with the other higher class characters and that is why she makes fun of them. The making fun is her way of fitting in.1204718695

Lopakhin's insensitivity hit me the most after he bought the cherry orchard and came back and bragged about it on and on through the other character's obvious disappointment. Even in the final act, he brings out champagne to celebrate what is a completely somber day for almost all the other characters. At times, I was so shocked how arrogant and proud he was in front of all the other characters, especially Madam Ranevsky. I also noticed what Sfa mentioned about how the characters seemed to talk at each other instead of to each other. Each character seems to be very self-focused. Each character seems to be thinking about themselves and their own problems before anything else. Although this may be expected in many people in real life, I think it is especially exaggerated in this play. At times, the dialogue jumps from subject to subject because the speaking characters are each taking it their own way. They all appear to be disconnected. Is Chekhov trying to say something about people in general? 1204753390

I thought almost all the characters were absorbed in their own interests and concerns. But there is something very human about this selfishness. Each one of us has been insensitive to someone else's problems before. I can admit that when a problem doesn't affect me, it's not very difficult to ignore it. I think Chekhov is exaggerating this very human aspect on purpose. I don't think we are meant to be offended by it, rather to recognize that this self-centered attitude is a flaw in our society. In the end of the play, Firs is left behind to die in the house because of the other characters' self-interest. They ask about Firs, but not one person actually acts upon it. They are all too busy looking for luggage, worrying about marriage proposals, and crying over the cut down cherry orchard. I think Chekhov is making a statement about society with the insensitivity of the characters. 1204852502

I think one of the reasons that Lopahkin is so insensitive to Madame Renevsky is because he was formally a serf under her, and I would imagine being a serf did not necessarily entail the greatest lifestyle. A good part of his childhood was wasted working for her for no money; also, his father and mother had to spend their entire lives working for her for very little until the Liberation. That type of treatment will make anyone bitter towards their previous owners. Also, I believe that the characters' insensitivity is present because it adds a kind of dark humor to the play. Whenever Yasha or anyone abuses Firs, Gayef, and Trophimof it was funny because the way in which they were insenstive is comical. The insensitivity also satirizes the upper class with their fomalities; Lopahkin expresses his so-called grievances because it is the proper and polite thing to do even if it is not sincere.1205250036

The insensitivity of lophakin and trophimof point to a deeper meaning than them just being jerks. Both of these characters represent flawed types of people in our own lives. Both are so rapped up in themselves and their things that they do not care for anything else around them. Lophakin, the great rich land owner, is more concerned with money and stature and looking out for himself than preserving any place that may have meaning or history to other people. Trophimof, the perpetual student, is too rapped up in filling his mind with knowledge and study to actually put his education to good use. He seems to just want to feel better than others. At one point in the play he said he was "above love." This should give you an idea of how highly he thinks of himself. These two characters serve as examples for how we can neglect the world and people around us if we become to concerned with ourselves and our things.1205428855

I think their insensitivity was so obvious because it was juxtaposed with Ranevsky's extreme emotional attachement. The others, such as Lopakhin and Trophimof seemed horribly uncaring because they were not of the same attachments as the family and not as expressive of their feelings. I'm sure Lopakhin was compassionate to Ranevsky's situation, but he also had his own agenda in mind. He knew that it would be difficult for them, but he also knew that they needed the money and he wanted the land. He saw it working out for every one in the end, and it did, even though it was somewhat emotional for the family to lose their cherry orchard so stooped in memories. Trophimof was maybe more insensitive than Lopakhin; he wasn't especially connected with the family. Although Lopakhin had grown up around them, Trophimof was a helper, the tutor. And while he taught Grisha, he probably didn't feel connected to the family or the boy because of his position. He wasn't part of the family, or a friend really, and he thought so highly of himself that he probably wouldn't want ot be associated with them anyway just because they got themselves into such a financial bind. I think he was somewhat insensitive because he felt above emotions; as MKo pointed out, he thought he was above love. That just shows that an open show of emotion is not characteristic to him, so even if he was sad about Grisha, it seems that he probably wouldn't express his feelings. 1205440948

I sort of agree with the previous post, but I certainly don't agree with everything. I believe Lopakhin is somewhat insensitive for he started cutting down the orchard before the family even left, but he was also extremely caring in the beginning. He is the one who devised the plan to save the orchard, and he was the one who offered to loan the Ranevskys money to pay for the estate. I don't know how anyone can call that mean or rude. That is being a friendly, compassionate neighbor. Madame Ranevsky was the insensitive fake. She said that her memories of the orchard were so fond that she couldn't possibly cut it down. Ok then one why didn't she try to save it, and two why hadn't she strolled in the orchards or lived in the estate in a long, long time? Apparently she loved her daughters so much yet she hadn't been living with them for years, and she abannoned them at the end for her lover. Who's insensitive and selfish now? 1205445792

I noticed that characters were always ignoring other characters when they were talking. Nobody seemed to care at all what Firs had to say, and other characters would be talking about their love interests, and their engagements, and the people that they were talking to would not even answer them and continue to talk about some trivial problems. It seemed like a lot of the characters were rude to one another, but I suppose that this could just be because many of the characters never had much of importance to say. 1205447893

Well with Lopakhin we may be seeing some sort of criticism of the new Russian order that came about because of the freeing of the surfs. Lopakhin is the type of person that people like Firs hate. They should be peasants but instead they deal with members of the upperclass in ways that would have never been accpetable years ago especially since the upper class member that he is dealing with happened to be his former owner. The fact that he is so rude and insinsere could be the fact that maybe he is trying to outrun the fact that he was once a slave by a diferent name and now he is on top and those who have enlaved him before are in trouble. So there could be a revenge motive here that allows him to justify to himself the buying out and dismanteling of the orchard that Ranevsky dearly loved. However, there is that line in the beginning of the play that tells of a time when Ranevsky actually helped him after his father had beaten him which may explain why he was trying to help her by keeping the family estate alive by selling off the orchard and his being insensitive at the same time since although she had helped him she was part of the family that had kept him tied to the land in a harsh childhood. Finally he is able to put all of that behind him and prove to himself that this type of stuff dosnt matter anymore by buying out the orchard and cutting it down to make money for himself. user:DGr-c

Well, I'd say that T is insensitive as you say because he's blind. Really, he might be a student trying to learn and see, but you wonder why he's been a student for so long? Cuz he's utterly blind in some respects in which he aughtn't be. He's got no sense of love or beauty, and that's why he's so blunt at one point. And L isn't too far off. He's the one with real issues there. He's been abused as a child, and is now pondering what to do, now that he has more money it seems than his father's former owners. He's been raised to be notoriously direct and materialistic, and although he has some feelings of right, of love, and of loyalty withing him, he's drowning these out by being so adamant about the payments because he sees these and is panicking that no one else cares. 1205469909