“Woe from Wit” is a multifaceted work. In it you can see a social parody, and criticism of the regime, and a historical sketch of morals. Not the last place in the book is love affair. Chatsky’s attitude to Sophia, their feelings - that core, which serves as the basis of the plot, fills him with life and emotions.
Characters through the eyes of schoolchildren
You can analyze “Woe from Wit” endlessly. View individual storylines
moves with a magnifying glass, compare quotes with the memories of contemporaries and biographies of alleged prototypes. But this is the approach of a professional analyst, literary critic. At school lessons, the work is read in a completely different way. And analyze in accordance with the recommendations of methodological publications.
There is a certain type of topic that the Ministry of Education regularly offers students to comprehend and subsequently write essays: “Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky’s love?”, “Was Karenina right when deciding on a divorce?”, “Description of the actions of Prince Myshkin”. It is not clear what the education system wants to achieve with this. Such an analysis has nothing to do with literature itself. Rather, it’s a grandmother’s monologue at the entrance, discussing whether Klava was right from the third apartment when she drove Vaska the alcoholic out or not.
Yes, and the life experience of a 9th grade student is unlikely to judge how the character needed to act. It is unlikely that he will be able to understand what annoys Sophia in Chatsky and why. Except, of course, the obvious things - those about which the heroine herself speaks.
Features of the perception of the play
Traditional
the interpretation of the play “Woe from Wit” looks as
follows. Chatsky - principled, noble and uncompromising. Surrounding people are low, narrow-minded and conservative, who do not understand and do not accept the advanced, innovative ideology of the protagonist. Chatsky broadcasts, convicts and mockes, spreads the vices of society in a word, and society writhes from well-aimed hits, is angry and indignant.
It is difficult to say whether this effect was achieved by Griboedov. There is just the opposite version, explaining the construction of the play with endless monologues-proclamations of the protagonist just by the fact that the author parodied the image of a liberal who speaks a lot and has nothing to do. And the characterization of Sophia and Chatsky is largely determined precisely by how the reader perceives the work. In the first case, he sees the idealist hero and the bourgeois who didn’t appreciate his impulses, in the second case, the demagogue’s talker and ... still, the bourgeois who didn’t appreciate his impulses. Is it so?
Details of plot conflicts
Who are Chatsky and Sophia? He is twenty-one, she is seventeen. Three years apart
back. Chatsky left as soon as he reached adulthood, left the guardian's house and returned to the family estate. He didn’t come, he didn’t write. Just picked up and disappeared. For what reasons - not so important. But what should a fourteen-year-old girl feel when a person whom she considers her lover, her future bridegroom, just picks up and leaves like that? Not for a week, not for a month. For three years. Even at thirty this is a long time. And at fourteen - eternity. What has he been doing all this time? Who was thinking about? Can she be sure that love is still alive?
At fourteen, with teenage maximalism, with teenage emotionality. Critics make demands on the girl, which not every adult woman meets. But Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia is far from an obvious moment. It is enough to imagine the situation through the eyes of a girl, and not the omniscient reader, to whom Griboedov told everything. Isn’t it more logical to ask: should Sophia at all maintain at least some feelings for Chatsky? And if so, why? He is not her husband, not the groom. He is a romantic admirer, one fine moment fluttering like a moth from a clearing for three whole years. He had a rush of soul. Feelings. Offended dignity. What about her? She shouldn’t feel insult, bewilderment, anger in such a situation? Disappointment finally? Penelope, of course, waited for Odysseus much longer - but the situation was completely different. Chatsky is far from the Odyssey.
Sophia close up
But all this remains behind the scenes. Yes, an attentive reader will understand everything himself if
ponder, but the situation is still served by hints, snatches of conversations, memories. Therefore, it may well slip away from a person who is used to seeing only the main storyline of a work. But what is there?
Chatsky suddenly returns to the guardian's house, where he has not been for three years. He is excited, he is in anticipation, he is happy. Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia remained the same. But she already loves another. The first, still childish, love is forgotten. She is passionate about Molchalin. Alas, the chosen one is very bad. Objectively - he is poor, lower class, this is an obvious misalliance. And subjectively, he is a weak-tempered sneak, flatterer and insignificant. Although, it should be noted, his prospects are pretty good. Molchalin has already begun his career and is doing a good job. It can be assumed that the new chosen one Sophia will go far
At the same time, the young man himself is not at all in love, he is simply afraid to admit it. Yes, and the prospect of a profitable marriage, too, for sure, is very attractive to him. Often it is this bad choice that blames the girl, answering the question, is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love? I traded an eagle for a plucked sparrow, stupid.
And who is Sophia? A girl who grew up without a mother, locked up, almost without leaving the threshold of the house. Her social circle is her father, who has no idea about raising children in general, and daughters in particular, and a maid. What can Sophia know about men? Where did she get any experience? The only source of information is books. Ladies' French novels that her dad allows her to read. How could such a girl discern the insincerity of a person who had confidence in much older and more experienced people? This is simply unrealistic.
Sophia is very young, she is naive, romantic and inexperienced. Molchalin is the only young man she sees almost every day. He is poor, honest, unhappy, timid and charming. Everything is the same as in the novels that Sofia reads every day. Of course, she just could not help but fall in love.
But what about Chatsky?
The same close attention deserves the personality of Chatsky. Is there such a mistake
Does Sophia do? If you look at the situation objectively - is there a big loss in her life for this marriage?
Chatsky is twenty-one. He did not find a place for himself. Tried there, tried here. But .... And the position that would correspond to his requests still does not come across. On what means does Chatsky live? He has an estate. And, of course, serfs. This is the main source of income for the young liberal. The very one who fervently and sincerely condemns serfdom calls him barbarism and savagery. Such a funny problem.
Does Chatsky have any prospects? He will not make a career, this is obvious. Neither military - he is not a dumb soldier. Neither financial - he is not a trader. Neither political - he will not betray ideals. He also did not become another Demidov - the grasp is not the same. Chatsky is one of those who speak, and not of those who do.
His reputation has already been spoiled, society is fleeing from him, like a plague. It is very likely that Chatsky will spend his whole life in his family name, occasionally leaving for resorts and the capital. What annoys Sophia in Chatsky already now will only progress; with age, he will become even more caustic and cynical, embittered by constant failures and disappointments. Can a marriage with such a person be considered a successful party? And will Sophia be happy with him - just humanly happy? Even if Chatsky really loves her and keeps this love? Unlikely. Perhaps the denouement of the play is tragic only for the main character. Sophia was just lucky. Cheap off.
And about the question
Although, when Chatsky’s attitude to Sophia is discussed in the vein: whether she is worthy of such great love or not, it’s strange in itself. Unethical. How can you be worthy of love? Is that a bonus? Promotion? Compliance with the position held? Love not for something, love just like that. Because this particular person is needed, and no one else. This is life. And no love obliges its object to experience reciprocal feelings. Alas. The question itself is incorrect. You can not do it this way. Love is not a potato in the bazaar to say whether it is worth what is being asked for. And even schoolchildren should be clearly aware of this, not to mention older people.