The play of “Marriage proposals ” by Chekhov shows that an interesting comedy approach was followed for the show. Marriage is ancient customs and traditions that define nations and peoples and still exist to this day. Marriage is still the great event that is the hallmark of one’s life. Marriage is an ancient tradition, and both men and women must adhere to it. In my opinion, although Chekhov’s play is a comedy, it cleanses the reality of what is happening in our real life. For me, marriage is more than just an imaginary show. Before you think about marriage, you must think about your goals, your future, your work, your family, your money, your livelihood, your residence, and you must overcome them before.
In Alice Dunbar Nelson’s play “My Eyes Have Never Seen ,” I believe that Nelson’s play was written to depict immoral citizen behavior such as racism, crime, racism, intolerance, and corruption. They suffered from it, and that patriotism represents progress and hides corruption. It also shows the cruelty that was between people, and the reason is the color of the skin.
I think Nelson’s play shows how cruel people are to each other in societies. In this play, it shows all the corruption and facts. The play also shows that even though their lives weren’t great, he wanted his brother Chris to join the army and serve his country. He felt he shouldn’t risk himself to defend a country that have never defended him or his family.
Symbolic gendering is a method stereotyping people based of suggested role in society in the play “the marriage proposal “we see flips this stereotype by making the male character complain and whine throughout the plot while the female character is very aggressive and assertive during their confrontation a lot of newly released tv shows and movies’ targeted to teenagers also flip gender roles to show their audience that gender shouldn’t be a deciding facto on how one acts we see this a lot in marvel movies. the play isn’t necessarily outdated as it does show in today society how over complicated and celebrated a proposal is a made into a big event
Increasingly, in the new age of social media, marriage proposals have become more about the people watching the couple than the couple themselves. People have become hyper-fixated on getting the perfect photo to share to all their friends and family. The pressures that have been placed on people by social media may make people feel as though their lives must look “perfect” at all times. This translates to all aspects of like, including relationships. As Kitchener mentions, many times couples will have conversations about marriage prior to engagement to retain the element of surprise needed to execute a perfect romantic moment worthy of a proposal in today’s day and age. This begs the question of wether or not the proposal is even necessary.
“Symbolic gendering”, mentioned by Kitchener, also plays a large role in why heterosexual couples feel the need to plan elaborate proposals. The ideas Kitchener discusses in her article directly translate to Chekov’s play. The couple in the play are very obviously not well suited to each other, yet end up engaged to be married by the end of the story. Their adversity is ultimately overshadowed by Natalya’s excitement at being proposed to. One can image the expectations that are placed in young women’s minds about a such an event from the time they are children. This prompts Natalya to beg her father to make Ivan return to the house to ask for her hand, regardless of the hurtful things that had been said prior. The drama of the perfect proposal is seemingly more important to the couple than the reality of what it will mean to be married.
“Mine Eyes Have Seen” holds a mirror up to the injustices that minority groups have faced through history. It, however, shows characters reacting to these injustices in a virtuous way. The reaction of the characters to the news of Chris’ draft is meant to uplift society and encourage citizens to look toward a brighter future instead of the dark past.
After finding out that his number was called, Chris laments at the past hardships that he and his people have faced in his country. He feels that he should not have to put his life on the line to defend a country that has never defended him or his family, as explained by Dan in the beginning of the play. The other characters explain that he has a duty to serve his country, regardless of if his country is serving him. Those around Chris who have been especially persecuted, Dan, Jake, and Ms. O’Neill, seem to be the loudest proponents of him fulfilling his duty to his country. I believe that, in Plato’s view, this story and its lessons would be in favor of his republic.
Marriage proposal is how people want to propose. Everyone does it differently. Some guys go way overboard when they propose to their loved one. Some guys just ask the question straight up. Getting married is a big step in every person’s life, when you decide if you want to spend the rest of your life with that one person, grow together, and start a family together. In the play “The Marriage Proposal” by Anton Chekov, Lomov went to ask permission from the father Chubukov, for his daughter Natalya marriage proposal. The father said yes. The only reason Lomov is asking for her hand is because he thinks he is getting old. Lomov came to their home and started talking to Natalya, but they ended up arguing about the Oxen Meadow, who did it really belong to. Then they started to argue about whose dogs are better too. The father got involved and told them to kiss and to hurry up and get married. Nowadays social media plays a big part in people’s lives. People like to post their life on social media, especially marriage and how they got a proposal. Marriage proposal is up to how the person wants to ask their loved one to get married.
In the play, ‘The Proposal, ‘ Chekov shows how easily fights and hostility can destroy a couple’s relationship. He tries to pass the message that couples must learn to reign in their wrath to keep their relationship healthy. Arguing over little matters is counterproductive and destructive. Just like modern time proposals, in the play, we see Ivan going to propose to Natalya. Ivan asks for permission to marry Natalya, he approaches Natalya’s father and asks him to permit him to marry her daughter, and he accepts the proposal (Chekov). The play fits into the performative aspect of proposals because Ivan uses word of mouth to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage.
Chekov’s play shows that people are given specific roles, ways of acting, and expectations based on their gender. There are ideas behind symbolic gendering in the play. A good example is when Ivan says he wants to marry Natalya because he believes she can be a good housekeeper because of her gender (Chekov). Even now, this same idea is still shown in today’s media, and it is an excellent way to remember that marriage proposals can be about power, gender roles, and expectations. We find that men desire to marry women who will be more submissive, while men are supposed to be more powerful and the head of families after marriage.
The marriage proposal is still reflected in gender today. People still value the idea of marriage proposals. The wedding is an important event in a person’s life; thus, to make it charming and lovely, a marriage proposal is significant since it establishes a harmonious and meaningful relationship between the man and the woman. A marriage proposal is the easiest way to determine how committed your partner is to the relationship and how much they want to make it stronger and more stable.
Moral criticism evaluates literature and art based on their ability to teach piety and virtue. This approach to criticism was first proposed by Plato, who believed that art should be used to educate and uplift society. In his view, art should be used to teach moral lessons and promote virtuous behavior rather than depicting immoral or corrupting scenes.
One work of literature that can be evaluated using moral criticism is Alice Dunbar-Nelson’s play “Mine Eyes Have Seen.” This play is a historical drama about a group of enslaved Africans brought to the United States in the 1800s(Dunbar-Nelson). The play follows the struggles and triumphs of these characters as they navigate their new lives in the harsh and unforgiving world of slavery.
When evaluating this play using moral criticism, one might ask whether it teaches piety and virtue, as Plato envisioned. On the one hand, some might argue that the play promotes virtuous behavior. The characters in the play face numerous challenges and obstacles, but they always try to do what is right and moral, even in the face of great adversity. They show courage, compassion, and resilience in the face of unimaginable suffering and never give up hope. This is a clear example of the kind of moral instruction that Plato had in mind.
On the other hand, others might argue that the play does not exemplify moral criticism. In their view, the play does not depict virtuous behavior or teach moral lessons but shows the lowest strata of human behavior. The play’s characters are enslaved people subjected to unimaginable cruelty and violence. They are forced to work long hours in the fields and are punished harshly if they do not obey their masters. The play does not show the characters behaving virtuously but rather shows them being mistreated and oppressed.
Additionally, some might argue that the play is corrupting to its audience rather than uplifting. The play shows the brutal and degrading realities of slavery, and some might say this could damage the viewer. They might argue that the play does not promote virtuous behaviour but shows the worst aspects of human nature.
In conclusion, whether or not “Mine Eyes Have Seen” exemplifies moral criticism is a matter of interpretation. Some might argue that the play teaches piety and virtue, while others might say that it depicts the lowest strata of human behavior and is corrupting to its audience. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the play as a moral instruction tool can be debated and discussed.
Lomov visits Chubukov at Chubukov’s country house. Chubukov asks why Lomov is dressed up. As an aside to the audience Chubukov wonders if Lomov has come to borrow money.
Lomov finally says he has come to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage. Chubukov says he is overjoyed. He embraces Lomov and says he will call Natalya. Lomov asks if he can count on her consent. Chubukov says of course, she’s like “a love-sick cat.” He exits.
Lomov talks to the audience. He says he is very nervous. He’s not in love, but he is 35 and it’s time to get married. Natalya is a good housekeeper, not bad looking, well educated. He talks more to let the audience know that he is a neurotic type.
Natalya comes in, offers lunch and smokes, talks about cutting hay. She is surprised that Lomov is dressed up.
Lomov begins to talk about their two families and their lands—specifically, the Oxen Meadows Natalya interrupts and says the Oxen Meadows are theirs, not his.
An argument takes place that is comical. Both Natalya and Lomov insist that the land is theirs. They go back and forth with “Ours,” “Mine,” “Ours,” “Mine.”
Chubukov enters and asks about the shouting. Natalya asks who Oxen Meadows belongs to, and he says, “They’re ours.” There are more arguments, and Chubukov calls Lomov “a grabber.” Chubukov and Natalya say Lomov’s family has lunacy and drunkenness in the background. Lomov says Chubukov’s mother was hump-backed and his grandfather was tried for embezzlement.
Lomov leaves, saying he thinks he’s having a heart attack. Chubukov tells Natalya that Lomov came with the intention of proposing to her. Natalya falls back in hysterics, saying, “Bring him back. Fetch him.”
Lomov returns, complaining about his heart, his foot, etc. Natalya says Oxen Meadows are his. She says to change the subject. So they start talking about hunting dogs.
Once again, they argue. It’s the same as arguing about the land. Lomov says his heart is palpitating, and tells Natalya to shut up. Natalya says she shan’t shut up.
Chubukov enters and asks what’s the matter. Natalya asks whose dog is better—their Squeezer or his Guess. Chubukov gets involved in the argument.
Lomov complains about his heart and says his foot has gone to sleep. Natalya insults Lomov, says he’s not a hunter. Chubukov says Lomov should sit at home with his palpitations.
Lomov and Chubukov go back and forth. Lomov says, “Intriguer!” Chubukov says, “Boy! Pup!” Lomov sats, “Old rat! Jesuit!”
Lomov faints, says his heart has burst. Natalya screams, “He’s dead!”
Lomov comes around. Chubukov says, “Hurry up and get married—she’s willing!” Natalya says, “He’s alive—yes, I’m willing.”
Natalya and Lomov say they’re happy. They kiss.
Then they fight about the dogs some more.
They drink champagne.
Analyze the play using gender theory in literary criticism:
It’s hard to analyze a play from more than a century ago using gender theory. The play “The Proposal” is a satire about the upper -lass Russian custom of marrying couples off to bring together neighboring land holdings.
In this case, Lomov asks Chubukov for Natalya’s hand. Chubukov at least says he will ask Natalya, but tells Lomov that he is happy to be asked. When Lomov asks if Natalya will say yes, Chubukov says of course, that she is like “a love-sick cat.” This is not very feminist, to say the least.
But then, when Natalya enters and she and Lomov start their comedy routine, things become more equal. Natalya shows herself more than the equal of Lomov in their funny bickering.
Chubukov is the first one to say, “Hurry up and get married—she’s willing.” But then Natalya is the first one to say yes.
Apply the Elements of Drama to the play:
Audience: The audience would have a common experience at this play, which is so funny and fast-moving.
Dialogue: The dialogue is witty and humorous. It moves quickly. It deals with the business of the play, which is moving the characters toward (or away from) agreement with each other about whether or not to merge their households.
Plot: The plot in this one-act play is minimal. It takes place on a single day in a single place. Only one thing is supposedly happening, which is Lomov going to Chubukov’s country house to ask for Natalya’s hand in marriage. Of course, there is lots of funny dialogue that happens around this theme. There is plenty of irony, when the plan keeps getting derailed by arguments. And there certainly is open conflict.
Convention: This is a realistic drama, in keeping with the late 19th Century.
Genre: This is a comedy
Characterization: I wouldn’t say that any of these characters are protagonists or antagonists—they’re all just kind of silly.
Analysis of Audio Book Version:
For me, the Audio Book version of the play isn’t as funny as the written version. And I’m sure it isn’t as funny as the version performed on the stage.
That’s because it lacks stagecraft, of course, and an audience. But I also think the dialogue does not come across as being as witty as it seems on the page, and as comical as it would be on the stage. This is a farce, which is defined as using buffoonery and horseplay, and it’s hard to convey that in an audio version. But the lines are also read in a way that is sort of flat, and not a comedic as it could be. The characterization could be better. The characters are not played for their comic potential.
Analysis of the play in light of the Atlantic Montly article on contemporary proposals:
Really, when you think about it, contemporary proposals aren’t all that different from the one in the Chekhov play “The Proposal.” Though the article in the Atlantic didn’t mention it, it’s still quite common for a man to ask a woman’s father for permission before proposing to her. And then, just like in “The Proposal,” it’s the man who usually proposes.
Of course, contemporary proposals tend to be more between the two people involved, whatever their gender. But it’s not unusual to have family members hiding and watching, even if they’re not directly involved. And as the article points out, even if the person being proposed to has doubts, it’s can be hard to resist pressure and say anything but “yes.”
Marriage proposals are big moments in people’s lives but can be loosely used. People are often blinded by the emotions that come with first getting to know somebody that forget that they do not fully know them enough to spend the rest of their lives together. In the case of “The marriage proposal” by Chekov, the Lomov wants to propose to a woman that he clearly does not agree with. Not only do they not agree but the women he wants to propose to clearly has no regard for his heart condition. While he is weeping in pain, she continues to argue with him knowing that the stress of the argument is triggering his pain. It makes you question why he is so excited to propose to her when he knows that she does not care for him. The other character, Natayla also knows that she cannot get along with someone who is allegedly calling her a lair but when she hears word of him wanting to propose she quickly is regretting her statements towards him so he can continue with the proposal. This play shows that proposals can be theatrical with no true meaning or desire behind the intent of marriage. Proposals like this are still present in today’s times. People propose from pressure, fear, and validations of one’s ego.