Maxim Gorky, as a writer, I know less. His dedication to the Soviet regime is completely understandable to me. However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the books written during the era of Soviet realism also have literary value - they, like others, represent the "test of time." Specifically, this play was written in 1902 - a long time before the establishment of the Stalinist terror. He also emphasizes that the attention of such great events is paid, such as Akira Kurosawa, Toshiro Mifune, Jean Renoir, and Jean Gabin. Their transfer to the screen is the doomed fate of those people who were identified by life and given a place on the pedestal.

It is important to note that while Gorky's works were influenced by the political climate of his time, they also contain elements of universal human experience and artistic merit. His plays, in particular, explore themes such as social injustice, class struggle, and the human condition.

By expanding on the original text, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of Gorky's work and its significance. We can also appreciate the complexity of his relationship with the Soviet regime and the challenges he faced as a writer during a time of great political and social change.

It's really rather dumb to give up on finishing an 80-page book, but to be honest, this is a complete mess.

There are just characters suddenly popping out of nowhere. I have no idea how any of them are related to each other. I can't understand the setting at all. I don't see the purpose of half of these characters. It seems like such a waste of my time. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

I was really looking forward to reading this book and getting into the story, but it's just too confusing. I've tried to keep going, but I'm just not enjoying it. Maybe I'll come back to it later and give it another try, but for now, I think I'm going to put it aside and find something else to read.

I like such a variety of characters in Gorky's play "At the Bottom". Each of them has their own story, but they are united by the house in which they live. The arrival of Luke, of course, shook their accustomed life. After all, a sweet lie is better than any bitter truth, because not everyone can cope with such a harsh truth. Not everyone is strong in spirit, they just hope that someone will come and save their lives. Life has hardened them, killed their humanity: they do not grieve for the dead, but on the contrary, they rejoice in this, spend all their savings on games, on drink. Of course, the heroes do not know their purpose, in the pile of problems and sufferings they somehow do not have time to think about their purpose.

Well, the play left a heaviness on my chest, makes me think about life, about truth. I recommend reading it.

Tiyatro oyunu is a fascinating work. As its name implies, it progresses through the dialogues of the people that society has turned its back on. Due to the economic crisis that occurred in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century, many workers and peasants were left without the means to continue their lives. Gorki wrote this play in a period when the effects of this era were still being felt.

In the book, questions such as what is the truth and whether it is valid for the just and the truly poor are discussed. The author often says that these are concepts directed at the rich and the subservient. The hardships experienced by people who used to be barons, workers, and those who earned their bread honorably and lived together with those who had been thieves since childhood, orderly, and liars in a boarding house are beautifully described. They all have a crime that they committed out of necessity and have also suffered the consequences, but now they are forced to live among the upright. The upright are also bothered by their sense of superiority. However, the character of Luka balances both sides and invites everyone to be rational. He is a kind old man. I was a bit surprised to see information about Islam in Gorki's book, which is presented through the character of Tatar Hasan. He also presents the panorama of Russia by using many different types of characters.

I liked the character of Luka the most. Luka comes to this boarding house later and tries to protect those there from wrong and falsehood and to encourage them to be good people by having rational conversations, although many believe that he is lying. There is also a love story to enliven the play, which was also present in "Little Bourgeois." The play ends with a shocking ending in both the third and fourth acts, keeping the audience's interest fresh. I recommend it for easy reading.

"Why does a person who is the master of himself, independent and does not practice hypocrisy need lies? Lies are the religion of slaves and masters... But the truth is the God of the free man!"

"Tell me, old man, is there a God? If you believe, there is; if you don't believe, there isn't... Whatever you believe in exists..."

A beautiful game that can be read in one breath. Gorki Reis, since he also came from the oral tradition, has written the lowest class very beautifully.

This short description gives us a glimpse into the nature of the game and the author's connection to the oral heritage. It makes us curious to know more about the specific details of the game and how Gorki Reis managed to bring the lowest class to life through his writing.

Perhaps the game has elements that are both engaging and thought-provoking, allowing readers to immerse themselves in a different world. And Gorki Reis' ability to write about the lowest class with such beauty and authenticity might stem from his own experiences and understanding of that social stratum.

Overall, this brief statement piques our interest and makes us eager to explore the game and the author's work further.

What initially attracted my attention to this play was the large number of characters. The fact that a nearly modern four-act play has so many characters is something I had seen in Chekhov's works before, and later I noticed that the way of narration is also more or less similar to Chekhov's works.

The relatively large number of characters who discuss ordinary life issues with each other and gradually build the picture that the author wants is what I expect from Chekhov's works. Gorky seemed to have adopted the same style, but in my opinion, with the difference that the characters did not build the picture and were more bearers of the author's message. The character of Luka, who actually seemed to be Gorky himself, and in the end, when Luka left, Satine took his place.

Another thing that Gorky did differently from Chekhov was the social class in the play. Exactly the opposite of Chekhov's plays, where we are dealing with a group of aristocrats, here we have a group of people from the lowest levels of society. Even the character of the baron seemed to be added just to show this contrast. In the preface I read, it was written that Gorky's aim was for his art to include all the strata of society and be able to depict all aspects of Russian life. This was really not what I got from the play.

I feel that in order to show the hardships of life of the lower classes, Gorky exaggerated a certain amount. It's not that society is only composed of aristocrats and the poor. To show the social classes in Russia, it is not necessary to go completely one way or the other.

However, I liked the play. Despite a handful of characters, the clichéd nature of some dialogues, and the religious allusions hidden in it, the conversations of the characters were interesting to me, perhaps because it had the color and flavor of Chekhov's works.

To say that nothing has changed in a hundred years is, in general, not surprising.

Over the course of a century, many aspects of society may seem to have remained stagnant. Technological advancements may have been slow in some areas, or cultural traditions may have persisted with little alteration.

However, it is important to note that this statement is not entirely accurate. While there may be some elements that have endured, there have also been significant changes in other aspects of life.

For example, social attitudes towards issues such as gender equality, race, and sexuality have evolved considerably.

In conclusion, while it may seem that nothing has changed in a hundred years, a closer examination reveals that there have been both continuities and changes.

I have always loved Russian authors, but I only started reading Gorky two years ago. It is never too late to start reading a good writer. I really like him. This drama is very interesting, a little depressive but real. In this drama, we can see Gorky's political views, but that's not all. Gorky wrote the characters very well, they are very interesting and vivid. He also wrote the dialogues very well, they sound natural (I think that's very important in dramas). But, I have a question. Who is Luka? What does he represent? Faith? Religion? Opium? Kindness?

This drama makes us think about many things. Does a rich person need a conscience? What is talent? What is love? What is the meaning of life?

...Bubnov. What for conscience? I'm not rich...
Pepel. That's what I'm saying too: honor and conscience are needed by the rich, yes! And Klesh scolds us: no, he says, we don't have a conscience...

...Actor (sitting, hugging his knees). Education is rubbish, the main thing is talent. I knew an artist... he read roles from piles, but could play heroes so that... the theater cracked and shook with the enthusiasm of the audience...
Satin. Bubnov, give me a nickel!
Bubnov. I only have two kopecks...
Actor. I'm saying - talent, that's what a hero needs. And talent is faith in oneself, in one's strength...
Satin. Give me a nickel, and I'll believe that you're a talent, a hero, a crocodile, a private detective... Klesh, give me a nickel!

Baron. We lived better before... yes! I... used to... wake up in the morning and, lying in bed, drink coffee... coffee! - with cream... yes!
Luka. And all - people! No matter how you pretend, no matter how you swagger, you were born a person and you will die a person... And all, I see, people are becoming smarter, all busier... and although they live - all worse, and they want - all better... stubborn!
Baron. Who are you, old man?.. Where did you come from?
Luka. Me?
Baron. A stranger?
Luka. We are all strangers on earth... They say, - I heard, - that our earth is also a stranger in the sky.

The man! Oh, he is magnificent! His presence sounds so proud! Indeed, the man! We must show him the utmost respect! We should never pity him. Pity would only lower him. It would be far better if we respected him wholeheartedly.

Gorky, the one who endured much bitterness, penned "The Lowlands" in 1902. It was staged in the same year and achieved great success. Fifteen years later, the oppressive tsarism was overthrown.

In all the misery that exists, there is a lack of humanity. Yet, within every poor person, there is a man. And it is undoubtedly Gorky's proper, fair, and close examination that enables us to see a little more clearly in this asylum where all forms of abandonment thrive: alcoholism, unemployment, illness, prostitution, games, violence, religion, and so on. "All souls are gray... Every man wants to put a little paint on it." All it requires is a light, as embodied in the words of old Louka, for souls to rediscover hope. The slums are not a place of true residence but rather a place of aimless wandering. Freedom does not abide there. But fate seems to delight in settling in and making men tell lies.

First and foremost, man must rise from the depths by his will and his will alone.

Men must become conscious of their shipwreck in order to find the strength to reach the shore. This shore represents a vision that constantly calls for awakening.

This is the first experience with Maxim Gorky, and of course it won't be the last. I read that play by chance, and found it in front of me, so I decided to read it although I don't like reading plays and prefer to watch them. However, I really enjoyed that play. The play, as is evident from its name, is extremely tragic. The play is divided into 4 parts, 3 of which take place in one location. It revolves around a not small number of characters, about poverty and the poor. How do values, hope, and even life itself disappear in the mire?

Can't you see that if they try to play with dignity, they will die of hunger in three days?

There is nothing to wait for. For example, I don't wait. I don't wait for anything. Everything will pass, and then what?

Gorky's works often explore the harsh realities of life and the struggles of the working class. This play is no exception. It makes us think about the importance of values and the need to strive for a better life.

Although the story is tragic, it also contains a glimmer of hope. The characters in the play may be facing difficult circumstances, but they still have the strength to persevere and fight for their dignity.

In conclusion, this play by Maxim Gorky is a powerful and thought-provoking work that值得一读. It makes us reflect on our own lives and the world around us.

Chillingly thought-provoking.

This simple phrase holds a profound power that can send shivers down one's spine and stir the deepest recesses of the mind.

It implies a concept or idea that is not only cold and perhaps even disturbing but also has the ability to make us think deeply and question our assumptions.

When we encounter something that is chillingly thought-provoking, it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths or consider perspectives that we may have previously ignored.

It challenges us to step out of our comfort zones and engage with the world in a more meaningful way.

Whether it is a work of art, a piece of literature, or a real-life event, the ability to be chillingly thought-provoking is a rare and valuable quality that can have a lasting impact on our lives.

It makes us more aware of the complexity and mystery of the world around us and encourages us to seek out new knowledge and understanding.

In a world that often seems to be moving at a breakneck pace, it is essential to take the time to停下来 and reflect on those things that are chillingly thought-provoking.

By doing so, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and tragedy of life and become better equipped to navigate its many challenges.

Gorki's drama, without the background of social norms and the rising naturalism, is somewhat difficult to understand. The language is rather simply composed.

We see prostitutes, gamblers, drunkards, lawbreakers, thieves, and both young and old people marked by life living hopelessly in a cave-like asylum. Disputes and disagreements over the concepts of what is good in a person, in life, and in death determine their daily lives.

The characters pity themselves, fantasize about their deaths, and some actually manage to end up there.

Stagnation or flight are their only options, but the will to truly change something is lacking.

The only glimmer of hope is an aging pilgrim who stumbles upon the group and wants to calm and console them. He is the wise man who has seen everything and appeals to the good in people.

In the afterword, this work is very aptly described as a solitude/compassionate care and a poetry-glimmering lament of humanity.

It is an exciting first insight into Gorki's works, but quite difficult to receive.