Noted psychological composer of satire and comedy, Anton Chekhov uses The Cherry Orchard as a case study of a collection of ridiculous characters united in their inability to transform their behavior or their identity. Each character appears suspended in their individual concerns, each so self-centered that they are rendered ineffective in saving the estate and orchard; the characters seem condemned to remain forever as they are: Trofimov the student, Gaev silences him, Firs the slave, Lyubov the gullible, etc. In contrast, Lopakhin is driven by motivations for action and change: although his father was born a peasant and his grandfather a serf before him, Lopakhin rose above poverty and became even richer than the aristocrats who once owned his family. By this virtue, he represents Russia's new wealth in an increasingly democratic and middle-class society. However, Chekhov reveals that despite his wealth and good looks, Lopakhin remains painfully tied to his identity as a peasant, static despite his role as a major force of action throughout the play. Every aspect of his character is shaped by his peasant mentality, including his pessimism about life, his desire to succeed in business, and his hypocritical attitude toward overcoming class positions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayChekhov wastes no time establishing Lopakhin as a character trapped in the past. In the play's first monologue, Lopakhin displays incredible self-awareness and self-deprecation as he recounts his transformation from a peasant boy whose father had beaten him to a successful businessman dressed in a three-piece suit and fancy shoes. Despite this triumph, he recalls the expression that he is "a silk purse out of a sow's ear" (Act 1, line 29); that is, it reveals the contradiction inherent in its being, namely that it is impossible to make something of true quality from poor materials (for example, an aristocrat from a peasant) . To elaborate on this point, Lopakhin despairs: “I read this whole book and I didn’t understand a word of it” (Act 1, lines 34-35). Despite his wealth, Lopakhin lacks the culture and education to truly rise above his peasantry, openly rejecting the success of his present and future beyond the realm of mere aesthetics. Interestingly, he makes little effort to hide his shame and dismay regarding his origins, an attitude that is reflected in this clear, direct, summative style of speech (from which we draw sharp contrast with the obscure references in the dialogues of other characters). . Aside from a few jokes and remarks, Lopakhin's tangents repeatedly relate to his father or his status as a peasant, suggesting that he is a character with a metaphorical chip on his shoulder who works hard to prove himself even as he he admits that the effort is in vain. his identity stands in stark contrast to his optimistic ambitions in business. Unlike his origins, he has power and control over wealth, seeking to distance himself at least aesthetically from his past through intelligent planning. Because of his talent, he could be considered the potential hero of the piece; he is willing to save the family from their debts, generously lending them $50,000 to begin consolidating the orchard lands into summer homes. He even identifies with the family and takes their fate personally, especially that of Lyubov, who.