The cherry orchard comedy or tragedy, with evidence preferably

Written in the background of socio-political changes in Russia, the play "The Cherry Orchard" has been viewed by critics with tragic aspects of an aristocratic family which remains unable to save itself from the loss of its beloved estate, yet the playwright has clearly stated that he meant the play a comedy and farce. In fact, the play may, perhaps, be viewed as a combination of both. We may possibly view the play as a tragi-comedy: "a play that combines the elements of tragedy and comedy, either by providing a happy ending to a potentially tragic story or by some more complex blending of serious and light moods...". The play depicts the fall of Russian aristocracy and the emergence of middle class with the emancipation of the serfs. In the wake of socio-political scenario, prime theme of the play is change. Time demands certain adjustments and changes in the characters which the characters fail to display. The major characters behave in ridiculously stupid manner in their acts. This political and social change is described from a comic and farcical aspect by the author. Though the playwright has provided certain tragic and elements in the play, yet he wishes to take the play in a light hearted manner. The author has successfully blended the two aspects to present the failure of characters in saving their orchard from being taken away. The author has described the realistic significance of the actions of the characters regardless of the intentions and desires of the characters. The outcome of the play is what the characters have been in action and not what they wanted to be. Lyubov Ranevsky , an aristocratic lady, She is one of the main characters of the play. She fails to resolve the problems relating to her estate as well as the issues of her family and herself. She does not act when it is needed to though she claims "I cannot sit motionless". In past, she has been cheated in love. Her son died of drowning. Now, she has been under a cloud. She is under a lot of debt. She has already sold the bungalow. Her estate is due for auction for recovery of the debts. "There is nothing left now". She fails to save anything at all because she is a bit too emotional and she "doesn't seem to understand". She is a sort of indifferent to her family life. She cannot adapt herself to the social change which has taken place. Lopakhin gives her a reasonable solution of avoiding the public auction. But she does nothing to save herself and her family from the disgrace and loss of their pride. She is just an emotional fool that can't control her feelings: "I just can't help myself; I know I am a fool".

the answer is chance

hey, my username is theoneandonly003#9598, add me.