Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Janine]

You're back, Janine. Where did you go off to?

I was back for a time but then disappeared again. Don't worry, I never stray too far.

It's always about the glamor of that first page with you.

I get nervous, when I think it might drift into oblivion and never been seen again. At least being on that first page, makes me feel more secure. Besides I am always hopeful of some newcomers, aren't you, Quark?

I don't remember much being said about the father. He paid for his son's education, went into debt, and then he recedes into the background. Either Alekhin doesn't think he's important to the story, or maybe they just were not very close.

Oh heck, I forgot to go over that part to see if it revealed anything new. I wish Chekhov would provide more information on things like this. Not being Russian, I did not know that would be the case; I just assumed he was gone, dead.

Something I am curious about, though, is the amount of time that elapses in the story. I get the impression that it's about a year from when he meets Anna to the end of his story. If you look back over the story, tell me whether that's right.

That is funny; I got the impression years and years had passed....we think so opposite. Maybe it is youth talking; my being older I see a span of years.

Maybe we are getting a little carried away with the questions, but I think it is important to acknowledge the ambiguities in "About Love". After all, Alekhin sets up his story as the investigation of a "mystery."

Ok, I will buy that. I didn't really see a mystery here though. I felt it was more a thwarted love story than a mystery. I mean, I do get the idea of love being a mystery and unsolvable but I see that more pyschological or philosophical than a mystery being investigated. That is interesting that you think of it so scientifically. I guess I don't have a scientific mind like you. I am more of a romantic.

Anyway, here's the conclusion of the story:


Alekhin finishes his story, and Chekhov briefly describes the reaction of the listeners. Interestingly, Burkin and Ivan first admire Alekhin's estate before they even consider the story. Perhaps their admiration for the farm is a just a disguise for their admiration of Alekhin's virtue and self-sacrifice. Soon, though, their respect changes to pity for this man who's wasted his talents. They admit that Anna must have appeared very attractive, but they don't seem to care about Alekhin's love for her. Like the other two stories in this trilogy, the listeners of the story don't agree with the teller of the story. They place the emphasis on Alekhin's professional life, whereas Alekhin stressed the importance of his private life.

Good points here to bring up. It did seem that they concentrated more on observing the landscape and nature, the estate/farm. I think they are in awe and don't really know what to make of his story. Afterall, being friends with Alekhin for sometime now, they never knew this part of his life; he only now reveals it to them. They probably feel a little stunned. Well, in placing the empahasis on A's professional life, aren't they seeing it typically, as males would, during that time period. Women might look on his story more romantically. I don't mean to be narrow-minded here, but to me a man would not pay so much regard to such a 'unfurfilled love' as Alekhin has expressed in his narrative. A woman might be more sympathetic than a man, in hearing this story.

[Janine]

Quark, this is the second post of yours I am answering. I did them separate so check out my previous one, too.

Those are the early ones. "Sleepy" is probably the latest story from that group--and also the best, I think. The way Chekhov builds to the ending is well done. Each mistaken association leads into the next until the shocking conclusion. Janine, the soon-to-be grandmother, found it disturbing, so we're going to wait to do that story. I do want to do it at some point, though.

Yes, this is true. Grandma says "Please, no killing of puppies, babies or even small children" for awhile. I did not really care for that story, "Sleepy"....I could not realistically see how the family would expect that poor girl to stay awake, like forever and ever. One gets pyschotic, if you are up too many hours. I saw that on TV recently. This would explain her actions, so I feel the story is so dated and don't quite get the point of that story. Sure it is well written, but horrid in the end. I hated that ending image and did not sleep well that night I read that story. Sorry to be opposed to it; it is just temporary, if you really want to discuss it later on.....Quark.

I was going to plug your thread, too, but I thought I would just wait for you to do it. Yes, the Lawrence short story thread is also very good. The discussions are run pretty similarly, and the cast of characters is almost the same--with the addition of Virgil in the Lawrence thread.

I think I've gotten the better end of that deal.

Oh how nice; you were going to speak up and tell A about L, too.
Oh I don't know about your last statement; the L thread has more posts counts so far, so your C thread needs to catch up, anyway. We both seem to be benefiting equally, and we have Virgil in the L thread, although lately, he has not been quite as attentive, as in the past. He usually comes in late to the discussions but that is ok. He contributes much to the thread.

Yeah, I try to keep things as beginner-friendly as I can since most of us are new to Chekhov.

Hey, I guess we are all beginners here and learning, as we go along. I think you, Antiquarian, might know way more, than we do actually. You read so much of Chekhov.
Islandclimber was also in this thread, but I have not seen him lately. He is also in the Lawrence thread, from time to time. I think a new person may be joining us on the next story for the L thread, Symphony; she expressed interest in another thread, so Virgil and I invited her.

[Janine]

Quark, Janine, Dark Muse, thank you for sharing what you've read and the welcome.

So glad you are here, Antiquarian. You should liven up the discussions and add much to this thread. Glad you enjoyed the posts so far.

I'm certainly no Chekhov expert, but it will be fun contributing and learning. I first became interested in Chekhov when I heard the great Irish author, William Trevor, called "the Irish Chekhov." I thought, "If Trevor is like Chekhov, then Chekhov has to be great." Actually Trevor says his tragedy came from reading Thomas Hardy.

Well, none of us are; so what of it? We are just lowly Chekhov students, attempting to reveal the deeper meaning of his work. I love the 'exploration' and it gets exciting the more one reads his short stories and discusses them.

You mentioned Trevor to me and I hope to look his work up soon. I just have been so swamped, with everything lately and overwhelmed. That is certainly interesting, how you found Chekhov's short stories. Did you ever read any of Thomas Hardy's short stories? I recall reading one, and I liked it so much. I forget the name of it now, but will look it up for you. It is in an anthology with various authors.

I was reading "Sleepy" last night, until I read this thread, then I read "Gooseberries." Yes, "Sleepy" was quite disturbing, but I did like the writing style. It seemed almost whimsical when it began. I did not expect such a dark ending.

I thought so too at first, but then it suddenly got so dark and frightening at the end....not quite the type of reading for an expectant grannie, do you think?

I have the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of Chekhov's stories, though I read the Norton Critical Edition of "About Love," as it's not in the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation.

Wow, I have no idea whose translation I am reading. I got it offline and printed it out. I don't have a Chekhov book yet; well that is not entirely true. I have one, but none of the stories that Quark picks are ever in it. Same with my library books; they only offer two of his collected short stories editions, and I miss the right ones everytime.

I did read something about Chekhov's stories, written by Richard Pevear that I thought you might find interesting as I've not seen it in this thread.

Not familiar with him, but probably Mr.Quark knows, or did I quote him? So funny, I did take some quotes from a library book. Maybe, that was from Pevear's book.

In a letter written to his brother, Aleksander, on May 10, 1886, Chekhov, himself stated that the principles of a good story were: (1) Absence of lengthy verbiage of a political-social-economic nature; (2) total objectivity;
(3) truthful descriptions of persons and objects; (4) extreme brevity; (5) audacity and originality; (6) compassion.

Antiquarian, this is so helpful. One can learn so much from letters from these authors. I learn much from Lawrence's letters and he wrote tons of them in his lifetime - 8 full volumes full and some were lost or burned.
I have been wondering how we could better structure these discussions. I would think it would be good to take each of these elements in the story, and discuss that aspect and how it relates to the story (from each point of view). Humm... this seems to be a good outline and really has me thinking now...
Thanks so much for posting that. It is quite interesting.

Now, to review the posts!

I have been writing my posts while you snuck in and posted this one. You are fast, A! Good job, A!

[islandclimber]

hi all... I know I have disappeared recently and now, I may not be around for the next little while as I have some other things in life to take care of.. I am into busy season with the work I do, and by busy I do mean 60-80 hrs per week of work... and then I have a six day, 400 km hike I'm trying to squeeze time in to do... plus, a wedding to go to... and some personal issues regarding the next year (in regard to retirement and other things-- I cannot wait to be done with everything in a year!) that need sorting out... all within the next month and a half... as well I have grown somewhat tired of certain parts of the forum... so anyways, I will be off for a time, not sure how long, but for a while, I will hopefully join you again before too long as I do quite enjoy discussing these stories with you...

so to finish off this story.. I reread it the other day.. and I changed my mind completely on certain parts... I do believe Alekhin did love Anna in some way, but not fully and completely and not boundlessly that is for sure... he speaks of the mysteries of love for he didn't fully understand this love at the time, and certainly doesn't now... If it was really true love, as a a romantic might put it, they would have come together anyways.. but they did not want to sacrifice other things nor sacrifice so called morality... so this love wasn't all that powerful, other things surpassed it by far in importance...

I don't see him as heroic at all, in fact I see him as somewhat weak and indecisive, for he never could decide on the nature of his love for her...was it an infatuation, was it admiration, was it fleeting passion for something new, was it the love of a dear friend, was it true love, endless love.. he was too weak to decide and gave her up in the end due to this primarily.. weakness... and it is good, for obviously neither of them was truly in love with the other, they cared about other things much more so...
the listeners place no importance in the end on this story, and are much more interested in the estate, and his working life, etc... I believe not due to being in awe of the story, nor shocked by it, but due to the fact it is a pointless story.. does this story have any point at all, really.... he tries to glam it all up with an introduction, Alekhin, and say there is no point trying to understand love, and ask questions, but this is all just to hide his shortcomings... it is an entirely pointless story, and is just a way to mask his own failures in my opinion.. and to tell the truth, I am somewhat of a hopeless romantic myself... in this story I see nothing romantic, nothing wonderful, nothing of that deep love that romantic's dream of... he tells a story that could be so many others, and it is quite an ordinary, somewhat boring story that really doesn't illustrate in the slightest why love is hard to understand and why we shouldn't question things with regards to love... I think Chekhov does this on purpose, especially the friend's reactions at the end, to show that this story really did not have much of an effect on them.. but this is all my opinion...

well I will drop in to read the posts from time to time, and may even try to post my thoughts on some of the stories on occasion... I have had a great time discussing these stories with all of you, and have learned a great deal more in reading them, due to the enlightening thoughts and ideas everyone here has shared... so thank you... and good luck with the future stories...

[Quark]

I wasn't expecting this many posts since I left. I don't think I can get to everything, so I'll just limit myself to Anti's comment about Chekhov's writing style and the discussion we're having about the end of "About Love."

First,

I did read something about Chekhov's stories, written by Richard Pevear that I thought you might find interesting as I've not seen it in this thread.

In a letter written to his brother, Aleksander, on May 10, 1886, Chekhov, himself stated that the principles of a good story were: (1) Absence of lengthy verbiage of a political-social-economic nature; (2) total objectivity;
(3) truthful descriptions of persons and objects; (4) extreme brevity; (5) audacity and originality; (6) compassion.

Chekhov did leave behind many letters that discuss his approach to writing. I think I know the letter you're talking about, too. I didn't think it was sent to his brother, though. Didn't it go to a fellow writer? I could be wrong. There are several letters where he says things along this line. He generally harps on a few things: economy of language, avoidance of cliche, and sympathy. These points are usually scattered throughout his letters. It's rare to see them all put forward together as in the letter you're bringing up. I'll have to see whether I can find it. Is it in the back of the Norton edition? I actually have that one.

Okay now the ending,

Good points here to bring up. It did seem that they concentrated more on observing the landscape and nature, the estate/farm. I think they are in awe and don't really know what to make of his story. Afterall, being friends with Alekhin for sometime now, they never knew this part of his life; he only now reveals it to them. They probably feel a little stunned. Well, in placing the empahasis on A's professional life, aren't they seeing it typically, as males would, during that time period. Women might look on his story more romantically. I don't mean to be narrow-minded here, but to me a man would not pay so much regard to such a 'unfurfilled love' as Alekhin has expressed in his narrative. A woman might be more sympathetic than a man, in hearing this story.

You're right, the reaction could say more about the listeners than the speaker. They might react that way because they're male. They might also be reacting in that way because they're caught in the snares that Alekhin finds himself. They're not able to disregard reason and public opinion. Ivan and Burkin may just not be able to accept that love is unquestionable. It could be a failing on their part.

the listeners place no importance in the end on this story, and are much more interested in the estate, and his working life, etc... I believe not due to being in awe of the story, nor shocked by it, but due to the fact it is a pointless story.. does this story have any point at all, really.... he tries to glam it all up with an introduction, Alekhin, and say there is no point trying to understand love, and ask questions, but this is all just to hide his shortcomings... it is an entirely pointless story, and is just a way to mask his own failures in my opinion.. and to tell the truth, I am somewhat of a hopeless romantic myself... in this story I see nothing romantic, nothing wonderful, nothing of that deep love that romantic's dream of... he tells a story that could be so many others, and it is quite an ordinary, somewhat boring story that really doesn't illustrate in the slightest why love is hard to understand and why we shouldn't question things with regards to love... I think Chekhov does this on purpose, especially the friend's reactions at the end, to show that this story really did not have much of an effect on them.. but this is all my opinion...

At the other pole there's this interpretation. Alekhin's story fails to register because his story isn't important. They see through his concept of irrational love, and recognize it as self-serving nonsense. The failing is Alekhin's not the audience's.

I think both these interpretations are reasonable, and you can find text to support either claim. Yet, there is a third option. Maybe Burkin and Ivan function less as receivers of the story and more as society's judgment of the story. As such, they would naturally miss the point of the story. Alekhin's private opinions and emotions would be irrelevant to them. His public appearance wouldn't be, though, and that's what they react to. It's Alekhin's farm--as symbol of his respectability--and Anna attractiveness that they notice. These public, external qualities can be noticed, but not the private content of his story.


Oh, and islandclimber did you say you were retiring? I thought you were in your 20s. Retirement!

[Janine]

I wasn't expecting this many posts since I left. I don't think I can get to everything, so I'll just limit myself to Anti's comment about Chekhov's writing style and the discussion we're having about the end of "About Love."

First,


Chekhov did leave behind many letters that discuss his approach to writing. I think I know the letter you're talking about, too. I didn't think it was sent to his brother, though. Didn't it go to a fellow writer? I could be wrong. There are several letters where he says things along this line. He generally harps on a few things: economy of language, avoidance of cliche, and sympathy. These points are usually scattered throughout his letters. It's rare to see them all put forward together as in the letter you're bringing up. I'll have to see whether I can find it. Is it in the back of the Norton edition? I actually have that one.

Okay now the ending,


You're right, the reaction could say more about the listeners than the speaker. They might react that way because they're male. They might also be reacting in that way because they're caught in the snares that Alekhin finds himself. They're not able to disregard reason and public opinion. Ivan and Burkin may just not be able to accept that love is unquestionable. It could be a failing on their part.



At the other pole there's this interpretation. Alekhin's story fails to register because his story isn't important. They see through his concept of irrational love, and recognize it as self-serving nonsense. The failing is Alekhin's not the audience's.

I think both these interpretations are reasonable, and you can find text to support either claim. Yet, there is a third option. Maybe Burkin and Ivan function less as receivers of the story and more as society's judgment of the story. As such, they would naturally miss the point of the story. Alekhin's private opinions and emotions would be irrelevant to them. His public appearance wouldn't be, though, and that's what they react to. It's Alekhin's farm--as symbol of his respectability--and Anna attractiveness that they notice. These public, external qualities can be noticed, but not the private content of his story.


Oh, and islandclimber did you say you were retiring? I thought you were in your 20s. Retirement!

Thanks Quark, that was a really good post. You looked at all fairly and gave your unbiased assessment. I think this story can be interpretted many ways. I had the thought to read the story one more time - this will probably be my 5th and try and look at it in a different light to begin with - thinking more on terms of non-romanticism and more in terms of the only facts we are presented with and consider they might be biased and slanted. I guess I was reading the story much in the way I read others and believing it to be as the narrator was stating - I am maybe too trusting. Perhaps in writing this story, it is as someone said more about rejecting the romanticised version of Tolstoy's novels such as Anna K. and this story is Chekhov's response or counter opinion on such romantic stories. I don't know. I don't know enough about just how Chekhov things and constructs his stories and what his intentions are ultimately. I am just now learning and wish I could find more commentary on the author to consult. Unfortunately, I have found very little in my library.

[Janine]

hi all... I know I have disappeared recently and now, I may not be around for the next little while as I have some other things in life to take care of..

Gee, islandclimber, I just mention you name and presto - you appear! Yes, where have you been, islandclimber? You have been missed. Sorry to hear you will be running off again so quickly. I guess you will be absent in the L thread, as well. Maybe catch you another month. We did not chose a new story yet, anyway. Pop in anytime.

I am into busy season with the work I do, and by busy I do mean 60-80 hrs per week of work... and then I have a six day, 400 km hike I'm trying to squeeze time in to do... plus, a wedding to go to... and some personal issues regarding the next year (in regard to retirement and other things-- I cannot wait to be done with everything in a year!) that need sorting out... all within the next month and a half... as well I have grown somewhat tired of certain parts of the forum... so anyways, I will be off for a time, not sure how long, but for a while, I will hopefully join you again before too long as I do quite enjoy discussing these stories with you...

Totally understandable. You are young with boundless energy and lots of things planned to do. That 400 km hike sounds grand; you must tell us all about it. Yes, I think you mentioned that retirement from the building trade in your blog. Hey, island, are you marrying an independently wealthy woman? Just kidding, but don't you wish it!
I am really dismayed to hear you have grown tired of some of the parts of the forum. I hope they only include the 'general chat' sections and not the short stories. main novel topics. I would not take any of those threads and comments too personally. It is not worth it, really. One has to pick and choose, on this forum and find threads that give one satisfaction and not aggravation. I was just discussing this fact with a friend today. I know the L short story thread is lagging presently; we are now in-between picking another story. That will be soon. I will suggest it this week. We are pretty much done with the one we discussed this month - it was a short one; not that complicated. I have been reading up trying to pick a good one.
Oh, now I see your last line says you will be back soon...hopefully. I hope so too, because you add a great deal to these discussions, and we have missed you.

so to finish off this story.. I reread it the other day.. and I changed my mind completely on certain parts... I do believe Alekhin did love Anna in some way, but not fully and completely and not boundlessly that is for sure... he speaks of the mysteries of love for he didn't fully understand this love at the time, and certainly doesn't now... If it was really true love, as a a romantic might put it, they would have come together anyways.. but they did not want to sacrifice other things nor sacrifice so called morality... so this love wasn't all that powerful, other things surpassed it by far in importance...

Ok, now I am definitely considering this approach to the story - again I will probably have to read it again with this in-mind. I will try hard to think of it all much differently this time around. I was in a kind of frame of mind that was hard to break out of. It is true he did not understand his love, now did he at the end.

I don't see him as heroic at all, in fact I see him as somewhat weak and indecisive, for he never could decide on the nature of his love for her...was it an infatuation, was it admiration, was it fleeting passion for something new, was it the love of a dear friend, was it true love, endless love.. he was too weak to decide and gave her up in the end due to this primarily.. weakness... and it is good, for obviously neither of them was truly in love with the other, they cared about other things much more so...
the listeners place no importance in the end on this story, and are much more interested in the estate, and his working life, etc... I believe not due to being in awe of the story, nor shocked by it, but due to the fact it is a pointless story.. does this story have any point at all, really.... he tries to glam it all up with an introduction, Alekhin, and say there is no point trying to understand love, and ask questions, but this is all just to hide his shortcomings... it is an entirely pointless story, and is just a way to mask his own failures in my opinion.. and to tell the truth, I am somewhat of a hopeless romantic myself... in this story I see nothing romantic, nothing wonderful, nothing of that deep love that romantic's dream of... he tells a story that could be so many others, and it is quite an ordinary, somewhat boring story that really doesn't illustrate in the slightest why love is hard to understand and why we shouldn't question things with regards to love... I think Chekhov does this on purpose, especially the friend's reactions at the end, to show that this story really did not have much of an effect on them.. but this is all my opinion...

Again I must rethink all this on the next reading. Then I hope I can certainly go onto another story or something new and fresh. I am kind of wearying of this story by now.

well I will drop in to read the posts from time to time, and may even try to post my thoughts on some of the stories on occasion... I have had a great time discussing these stories with all of you, and have learned a great deal more in reading them, due to the enlightening thoughts and ideas everyone here has shared... so thank you... and good luck with the future stories...

That would be great, even if you can't post just then. It would be nice if you could add something, even if a short comment. I am glad you were enlightened by the discussions and learned much. I have been needing a little break myself. It is spring now and there is much to do outside the computer world, in the real world realm. I feel a little pressured right now so I may be slow to post myself, for a time.

[Dark Muse]

I don't think Burkin and Ivan are society's judgment of the story. Just my personal opinion. Chekhov didn't usually write stories in which society made a judgment, did he? And as we've seen, he believed the author should remain totally objective. If he assigned society a judgment, wouldn't that also, by extension, allow the author to judge?

I agree with you on this. I do not see Ivan and Burkin as being figures of judges in this story. I think they are just receivers. The stories really do not seem to be "for them" in some regaurds despite the fact that they are acting as the audience to the story. I beleive it is left open for the reader of the story to judge for themselves. I see this story as being almost a cautinary tale, or being one of those, the moral of this story is.... type of things.

[Janine]

I got that information from the Preface (or Introduction or whatever) to the Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky edition of Chekhov's Short Stories, and Pevear says it was from a letter written to his (Chekhov's) brother, Aleksandr, so I have no choice but to trust that it was. If you find out differently, please let me know, okay? Thanks.

Thanks, Antiquarian, maybe I will find the book and look that up. I like to read intro's. Sometimes you do get insight into the author that way; sometimes the author writes a preliminary intro also which can be vitally helpful.

I don't think Burkin and Ivan are society's judgment of the story. Just my personal opinion. Chekhov didn't usually write stories in which society made a judgment, did he? And as we've seen, he believed the author should remain totally objective. If he assigned society a judgment, wouldn't that also, by extension, allow the author to judge?

I think that definitively trying to state whether Alekhin is indeed in love seems to defeat this purpose of the author; leaving the whole mystery a mystery seems to me more conceivable. As soon as the whole question is solved we totally remove or destroy the idea of love being a mystery. I personally do feel many times love is a mystery and no one can judge exactly how another human being feels. I think this is why we keep coming up with various thoughts on Alekhin's earnestness. I could be all wrong about this but this is just how I view the story, until I can read it again; and maybe once again change my mind.

I don't think Alekhin's story is really important to anyone but Alekhin because I personally see him as self-deluded. I think the story shows the futility of loving someone who doesn't love you. I don't think Anna was in love with him. I think she just gave him a friendly kiss goodbye. But, as I said, I will have to reread the story. I'm always open to new interpretations.

I think that is true....and like I said, how can we fully know what he experienced or felt about Anna; therefore how can we judge him? It may very well have been as you said with Anna - simply a goodbye kiss and nothing more; perhaps she did indeed love her husband and not Alekhin. Alekhin may have been to her as a fleeting dream and not truly real, and she might know this in her heart.

[Janine]

I agree with you on this. I do not see Ivan and Burkin as being figures of judges in this story. I think they are just receivers. The stories really do not seem to be "for them" in some regaurds despite the fact that they are acting as the audience to the story. I beleive it is left open for the reader of the story to judge for themselves. I see this story as being almost a cautinary tale, or being one of those, the moral of this story is.... type of things.

Dark Muse,I wonder if we have to judge really or just form a personal opinion or impression. I don't really know if it feels like a tale with a moral or not or cautionary. To me it is too incomplete to really preach anything or point us in the the direction one should have taken.
I will have to think about his more.


Quote by Antiquarian

Something I just read on the Internet:
Maurice Baring noted in Landmarks of Russian Literature, Chekhov "never underlines his effects, he never nudges the reader's elbow." It is left to us to pick up on the minutiae and appreciate the finer subtleties of his text.

That is interesting, A.

We knew that, of course, I just found it interesting. I like this aspect of Chekhov's writing. I don't like too many italicized words in a story or too many exclamation points. I think it detracts from the writing greatly. I like Chekhov's subtlety, but I do know people who say it drives them nuts.

"I don't like too many italicized words in a story or too many exclamation points." geez - something I am totally guilty of! No, A, you are not offending me one bit... Yeah, it probably drives me nuts that he refrains from his use of this and is so very subtle. I am one of those people. I am just getting used to Chekhov's writing now and I see this is what has bugged me up until now. Thanks, actually, for pointing that out. It will be helpful to me in the future.

One of the major motifs running through all of Chekhov's stories is non-communication. That's another reason I felt Alekhin was self-deluded as far as love was concerned. I may be way off the track, though and another reading may give me a different opinion.

Yes, that is so true! I see what you mean now about how you assessed Alekhin's love as being self-deluded. That makes more sense to me. I don't think you are off the track on that idea.

[Dark Muse]

I feel Anna was in love with her husband, despite how Alekhim characterizes him. It’s Alekhin, himself, who describes how Anna and her husband made coffee together, understood each other at half a word, played a duet together on the piano, etc. Alekhin, in what I term his delusion, interprets that as being comfortable together and used to each other, but not love. He even goes so far as to assume that they are so comfortable with each other that they welcome his company as a diversion, however, I don’t see it that way. I felt they were so comfortable with each other because they loved each other.

I was inclined to beleive that Anna did love and was devoted to her husband, as she never seemed to show any real interest in wanting to be with Alekhin apart from his visists he made to her. She seemed content to stay where she was. And the only doubt we might have about the relationship between Anna and her husband is nothing more than Alekhin's perspective and he really does not offer any evidence to speak of, to support his claim, but in his mind, and perhaps seceretly he hopes, that a woman like Anna would find such a man as her husband to be dull.

Now, contradicting myself yet again, Anna does admit to having been thinking of Alekhin when they meet at the theatre, but then she goes on to not flatter him as a lover might, to tell him he’s not looking well and ask if he’s been ill. Anna even talked to her husband of helping to find a wife for Alekhin.

I feel that Anna's actions tword Alekhin could just as easily be the feeling/actions one might have towrd a good friend they came to care about, but I do not find anything in her to really be unique to the feeling of love. But it could just as easily be only friendship she feels. If they had become good friends, she might miss him and think of him without nessciarly having feelings beyond friendship for him.

I wondered why Alekhin went to another compartment to cry after he and Anna said their goodbyes at the train station. Wouldn’t lovers remain together as long as possible? I suppose some would and some would not.

Though I have always sort of questioned Alekhin's feelings and the true nature of his love for Anna, in some ways I can understand his actions here. He knew that they would never really be together, and so he did not want to prolong the fantasy anymore. He had to accept the reality of the situation. As well I think part of it was not wanting to cry in Anna's pressence.

[Quark]

It took me forever tonight to get to my computer, and not I don't have very much of the night left to write with. So, once again, sorry I can't respond to everything. I will try to catch up tomorrow since it's the weekend, and I'll have more time then. I'll start catching up tonight by replying to Antiquarian's post about the ending.

I don't think Burkin and Ivan are society's judgment of the story. Just my personal opinion. Chekhov didn't usually write stories in which society made a judgment, did he? And as we've seen, he believed the author should remain totally objective. If he assigned society a judgment, wouldn't that also, by extension, allow the author to judge?

Well I think Chekhov did actually include society's judgments and society's interference in many of his stories. In the first story of this trilogy, "The Man in a Case", these feature rather prominently. The downfall of the main character is brought about by his public disgracing. In "The Lady with the Dog" Gurov finds that he's forced to lead two lives because of society's judgment. Chekhov did believe his writing should be objective, but that doesn't mean that his stories are devoid of judgments. After all, "About Love" centers on Alekhin's judgments on love. As we've all noted, though, Alekhin's argument is filled with little ironies, and there's no observable connection between what Alekhin believes and what Chekhov believes. There's certainly judgment hidden in Ivan and Burkin's reaction. They focus on entirely different points of the story than Alekhin. If they were just passive listeners, then they would naturally contemplate the same ideas that Alekhin entertains. Instead, however, they consider the farm and Anna's beauty rather than his love or how Anna was his soulmate. That's why I consider Burkin and Ivan less as listeners and more as judges of the story.

I'm starting to fall asleep, so I don't know whether that made any sense. I'll explain more tomorrow. Good posts everyone! I enjoyed reading over them, and I hope I get a chance to respond to everything tomorrow.

[Quark]

I'll try to keep this post short, but I don't know if I will succeed. We've brought up the one of the big questions of this story again, and I probably should respond to it. So, what was the nature of the relationship between Anna and Alekhin? Anti gives us the two possible answers in one of her earlier posts:

I think the story can be interpreted in two ways, that they loved each other and lost their chance at love (I do not think they were ever, ever physical lovers) or that Alekhin was deluding himself in believing that Anna loved him.

Either we accept Alekhin's story and believe they were genuinely in love, or we dismiss Alekhin's story as deluded ramblings. I've been a little surprised that most of us have decided it's the latter. I'll admit that Alekhin is not a trustworthy character. Much of his story is probably imagined, but that doesn't mean everything he says isn't true. Some parts of the story do support Alekhin's interpretation. If Anna doesn't love Alekhin why does she become irritable as their relationship sours? Anna must be more than interested in conversation if when she has that she becomes discontented. I also wonder how Alekhin could talk so movingly about love if he wasn't actually in love. Here's a section of the story I quoted in another post, but I think I should bring it back up:

at the time, at dinner, it was all perfectly clear to me. I saw a lovely young, good, intelligent, fascinating woman, such as I had never met before; and I felt her at once some one close and already familiar, as though that face, those cordial, intelligent eyes, I had seen somewhere in my childhood, in the album which lay on my mother's chest of drawers.

In my other post I talked about how this part contradicted Alekhin's argument, but this time I want to discuss how it actually supports his point. While the logic of this quote is hard to understand, I think the feeling is very palpable. It's a perfect description of love at first sight. I suppose it makes no sense to say that someone appears both new and familiar to you like Alekhin does; but, at the same time, don't we all know what he means? She gives him hope of a better life and excites him with new possibilities--hence the newness. And, he senses a connection between them or a likeness of mind--hence the familiarity. In my previous post I explained how Alekhin's description of her "cordial, intelligent eyes" showed how superficial his attraction was, but why does it have to be superficial? It could be, but it also could be showing how deep his love is. Alekhin could be thinking of her eyes as the path to the soul. His glance at her might be more penetrating than we originally thought.

Obviously, Alekhin's story has too many holes to be entirely true, but there isn't enough evidence to disprove anything he says either. That means we have to be skeptical, but not cynical. I think the most important statement Alekhin makes is when he says love is a mystery which needs to be individualized. His story is the proof of that claim, and nothing more.

Okay, that wasn't as long of a post as I thought it would end up being. Some parts of it were rather abbreviated, though, so I might have to elaborate more to make things clear.

[Janine]

Quote by Quark

Obviously, Alekhin's story has too many holes to be entirely true, but there isn't enough evidence to disprove anything he says either. That means we have to be skeptical, but not cynical. I think the most important statement Alekhin makes is when he says love is a mystery which needs to be individualized. His story is the proof of that claim, and nothing more.

Quote by Antiquarian

I would agree with most of that, Quark. I think the story is probably about the mysteries of love and how love is, essentially, unknowable or unexplainable to others.

Antiquarian, I liked very much the way you layed out all the points in your long post. It was so well thought out and brought out so many interesting ideas. I will try and address some of that later on but for now, I totally agree with both of you, basically (referring to quotes above). I have been saying this same thing for awhile now, especially after I reread the story and reconsidered the validity of Alekhin's story. I feel love is, as he said is "a mystery". Mysteries cannot always be solved and neither can this story be validified to us or made totally clear.

I like how you stated, Quark, that we can be 'skeptical, but not cynical'. I agree with that.

I think the whole theme of the story is set down, in the very first part of Alekhin's telling us his tale - when he says "this is a great mystery".

This is interesting and has some relationship to the D.H.Lawrence thread and his ideas on love. In one of the stories, or more likely, the novels, Lawrence often stated just this about love and he hated the label - the word 'love'. To him that was not the true essense of the woman/man/relationship/sacred union. It is hard to explain and I will try to get a quote to demontrate his thoughts on this idea. He felt to solve 'the mystery of love' was to deny it, to label it was to deminish it...something like that. This idea embodies a good deal of his thinking, but I am no scholar and only know what I have read in snatches, here and there. I will try and look this up. Please don't quote me, because I am most likely, explaining this without true clarity at this time.

[Quark]

This is interesting and has some relationship to the D.H.Lawrence thread and his ideas on love. In one of the stories, or more likely, the novels, Lawrence often stated just this about love and he hated the label - the word 'love'. To him that was not the true essense of the woman/man/relationship/sacred union. It is hard to explain and I will try to get a quote to demontrate his thoughts on this idea. He felt to solve 'the mystery of love' was to deny it, to label it was to deminish it...something like that. This idea embodies a good deal of his thinking, but I am no scholar and only know what I have read in snatches, here and there. I will try and look this up. Please don't quote me, because I am most likely, explaining this without true clarity at this time.

I think Lawrence was saying that we should keep love a mystery for the reasons Alekhin argues that we can't question love. Understanding love would disrupt the pleasure of the experience. The reader of "About Love", however, is left with a mystery simply because the problem is unsolvable, not because it ruins the experience. We stay away from conclusions, not because of enjoyment, but because we just don't know. When I used the word "mystery" I was using it in a different sense than Lawrence. My mystery is the mystery behind ambiguity. Lawrence's mystery means a resistance to intellect. This puts him in agreement with Alekhin. As we've noticed, though, "About Love" does not entirely agree with Alekhin. There's an acceptance of the possibility of Alekhin's argument, but there's also several questions surrounding his story. It's ambiguous, and that's the mystery that surrounds this story.

I have noticed some similarities between L and Chekhov, though. All this talk of ambiguity reminds me of how the clash of different ideas or moods in Chekhov is like the clash of wills in Lawrence's stories. The fights are initiated and described through many of the same devices, and the stories usually end with the conflict unresolved. Point of view is also something they do very similarly--excluding a few of L's later works maybe. It's predominately third-persons, but it gradually blends into first-person unannounced. L does this to a greater extent than Chekhov, but both writers use this subjective third-person view to tell their stories.