Her insanity is like a grid, which means her mind is in a state of confusion and chaos.

This chaos often leads those around her to feel a sense of unease and uncertainty. They are constantly chasing after her, trying to understand her actions and thoughts.

However, her mental state makes it difficult for them to do so. She may act unpredictably, say things that don't make sense, or have sudden mood swings.

Despite the challenges, they continue to pursue her, perhaps out of a sense of responsibility or a desire to help. But in the end, they may never truly be able to understand the inner workings of her insane mind.

Rereading Maxim Gorky brings a special kind of feeling, especially after experiencing the classic "The Mother". Gorky has an outstanding ability to illuminate social realities, which forces readers to conduct a critical examination of their own moral positions. This play also delves into profound themes such as truth and lies, respect and pity, and the conflict between right and wrong. By presenting a diverse range of characters from the working class, Gorky provides a novel perspective and rich variety. However, the sheer number of characters can sometimes be overwhelming, and the lack of a strong central plot makes the play somewhat less memorable for me personally.

Despite these drawbacks, Gorky's work still holds great value. His vivid descriptions and incisive portrayals of characters allow us to better understand the social and psychological conditions of the time. Moreover, his exploration of moral and ethical issues remains relevant today. We can learn from his works and reflect on our own actions and values.

In conclusion, although "The Mother" may have some shortcomings, it is still a remarkable piece of literature. It offers us a glimpse into the past and challenges us to think about the present and the future. I highly recommend this play to anyone interested in literature and social issues.

I read this play in a read-aloud group and had the opportunity to "play" the part of Vassilisa. She is essentially the embodiment of evil, which made it really great fun!

However, the most interesting character here is undoubtedly the pilgrim Luka. To me, he seems to proselytize with a slightly bad faith. Luka spends several nights at a shelter, where the entire play is set, and triggers the actions of our characters. These characters are mostly poor and downtrodden, people who have been completely failed by the Russian state.

I find people with bad faith fascinating. They believe, yet they know that it is only their belief that makes it so. Luka is a kind of Pascal, whose wagers are based on values other than truth-value, although he is not necessarily aiming at the afterlife. He believes that life, even in the depths, can be improved by wearing rose-colored glasses. God, human goodness, cures for all our ills and evils, paradise on earth, all exist if we believe in them. He spreads hope where it could be dangerous.

"Why is truth so important to you? Just think! Truth may spell death to you!" he says. "Truth doesn't always heal a wounded soul."

A character asks him if there is a God. "If you have faith, there is; if you haven't, there isn't... whatever you believe in, exists..."

Regarding Vasya, a thief Luka is urging to reform, he says, "Only tell him every now and then that he's a good lad so that he won't forget it—and he'll believe you. Just you keep on telling him 'Vasya, you're a good man—don't you forget it!'"

The prostitute Nastya is talking about a lover who didn't exist, insisting that she was loved once. The other characters try to stop her speeches, but Luka says, "Now, now! Wait, people! Don't interfere! Show a little respect to your neighbors... it isn't the word that matters, but what's in back of the word. That's what matters!" "If you believe you had a real love affair, then you did—yes!" He implores the others to "be nice to her. Being nice to people never does them any harm..."

But in the end, it does cause harm. Real harm. In some cases, the crash after the death of a false hope is too much to bear. Hope, after all, is something we have to keep creating, day by day, especially when reality gives us little to support it. Is it a lie? It's an art, it requires imagination. Hope, like Luka, is a fleeting thing; it passes and then you must find the reserves to create it all over again, sometimes in the face of overwhelming facts.

Maxim Gorky, after writing a play about the townspeople, continued to create drama, now turning to the image of the poor or lumpenproletariat - as it would be more correct to call them. He had written about such people before, and nothing had changed now. The viewer was forced to follow the conversations about the urgent. Every character was taken to reason, reflecting certain opinions. The main ideas remained the same. There was again a call to the need to endure what was happening, because someday everything would fall into place. After all, Gorky could not openly call for a revolution, predict bloody events that were simply bound to follow in response to the domestic policy pursued by the tsarist government. Any attempt to do so would have been doomed to a collision with censorship. And Gorky could not even see as if the revolution would really take place. There were still three years until the first outburst of popular anger - until the end of the war with Japan. Therefore, the viewer followed only the conversations, and nothing more.

It is interesting to note how Gorky's works evolved during this period. His exploration of different social classes and their struggles provided a unique perspective on the society of that time. The limitations imposed by censorship also added an extra layer of complexity to his创作. Despite these challenges, Gorky managed to convey important messages and ideas through his plays, which continue to be relevant and studied today.

(c) Trounin