Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Janine]

Quark, Ok, thanks for the pep talk!
Here is where I stand now. I extracted all the posts (since you announced the story) and I pasted them into my Word program...something like I did today, in the L thread. I just was getting too confused in both. Ok, so then I went over them and cut out all the junk - well, just mostly our silly banter, etc. I will read over these past posts offline, after I read the story again - that is my new plan. I am afraid that reading the two stories together messed me up. I told you, I am bad enough with Russian names! I mixed up everything in my feeble little mind. I have to stay 'systematic', or forget it.

Good, now I can see that these excerpts from the story are in the beginning of the text. However, in my text I am following, the paragraph begins like this:
"How love is born," said Alehin, "why Pelagea does not love somebody more like herself in her spiritual and external qualities, and why she fell in love with Nikanor, that ugly snout -- we all call him 'The Snout' -- how far questions of personal happiness are of consequence in love -- all that is known; one can take what view one likes of it.

I hate to be critical, but you started it at "How far and 'How' was not captalized, but part of a longer sentence....." no wonder I could not locate the text.

Ok, now I know where we are and you are right; so far we are not too advanced and I should be able to catch up. This is helpful - thanks!

[Dark Muse]

How far questions of personal happiness are of consequence in love -- all that is known; one can take what view one likes of it. So far only one incontestable truth has been uttered about love: 'This is a great mystery.' Everything else that has been written or said about love is not a conclusion, but only a statement of questions which have remained unanswered.

I really liked this passage, and I think that it is quite true. Not to sound cheesy, but love is eternal as they say, so there never can be a conclusion of it. And I think that there is much mystery in just how it works or why.


The explanation which would seem to fit one case does not apply in a dozen others, and the very best thing, to my mind, would be to explain every case individually without attempting to generalize. We ought, as the doctors say, to individualize each case."

Though we have discussed this idea of "individualizing" love, there was a new thought supporting this idea, which had occurred to me. As not only can love and relationships be different from couple to couple, but one person never has the same relationship twice. It is always a completely new experience when someone engages in a relationship with a different person.


whether it is honourable or dishonourable, sensible or stupid, what this love is leading up to, and so on. Whether it is a good thing or not I don't know, but that it is in the way, unsatisfactory, and irritating, I do know

I think that this is true to some extent, when one is in love, I do think that they often are given to question it, and I think this sets up the argument he presents within his story.

Because he was plagued with these questions Alekhin misses out on the potential happiness he might have had. Because he was worried about the rightness and wrongness of his love, they waited until it was too late to pronounce themselves to each other.

[Janine]

Dark Muse, Good post; even though I am not commenting, at this time, I am reading and absorbing what is said. Everything you are saying here, makes a lot of sense to me and I agree.

[Janine]

Ok, last night I read first 'About Love' again and have that straight in my head now. Then I read the story 'Gooseberries', which I am glad I read, because it gave me a little background, insight into Alekhin, who is telling his story in 'About Love' which is the one we are discussing now. So now I am all caught up; except, I want to review the posts I extracted yesteday, up till this point, and see what has been said by everyone so far. Then I will try and post some text and comments, hopefully something intelligent. hahaha.

Yeah! I am back on-track!

[Dark Muse]

Hehe, glad to here it, look forward to seeing what you have to say. Glad you do not feel so lost now.

[Janine]

Hehe, glad to here it, look forward to seeing what you have to say. Glad you do not feel so lost now.

Thanks, me too! It will have to be much later - going out now and will be out for awhile this evening.

[islandclimber]

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but do you agree with Alekhin here? He portrays love as this mysterious, unnameable force. On the other hand, he considers questions of meaning frivolous. When he talks about the Russian penchant for "questions that remain unanswered," we know he's really talking about the urge that people get for idle philosophizing. Later in the story we'll realize that this idle philosophizing is what leads to Alekhin's agonizing moral decision to leave Anna. It's easy to see why he would be telling us of the dangers then of pursuing these questions. But, does anyone really agree with him? Couldn't this speech just be more idle questioning? Alekhin wondering about what could have been with Anna?

I think Alekhin is far too involved in this idle philosophizing and questioning himself.. rather than really living life he seems to just sit back and question it, think about it, an armchair mountaineer... would rather think about, or read about climbing a mountain, than go out and do it... And I think the same can be said for his relationship with Anna.. he is content, and I think it is very evident, he is content with not doing anything about it, just thinking about it, and making excuses for the path he took... and saying it is in the nature of love, and therefore he could not help but do as he did... but even immmorality, impropriety, what would society think.. he is to caught up in what society will think to enjoy his life... and therefore is now content to sit idle, philosophizing on love, of which he knows very little as he never gave it a chance...

his stating that love is a great mystery, yes that is true... but what of it... does it matter that you can make that statement, what relevance does it have to anything... but he makes the statement as an intro to explaining why he chose to walk away and abandon love... because it is a mystery, he fell in love with a married woman.. and because it is a mystery, they both in the end.. tossed it aside... and humans don't grow that way, don't learn, certainly don't love...


by DM I really liked this passage, and I think that it is quite true. Not to sound cheesy, but love is eternal as they say, so there never can be a conclusion of it. And I think that there is much mystery in just how it works or why.


Doesn't sound cheesy to me... but, though I am not necessarily in disagreement on the point.. why do you say love is eternal? humans can't have a real comprehension or understanding of eternal, infinite, timeless... for it necessarily destroys all definitions... including the very words we use to describe these things... eternal has no end.. which means it is outside of time, which means all existence is but a single point that is everything and nothing... so the fact that the idea of human love has to fall apart in the face of this, just as do all other human definitions, (because they are created in time and space, in finite form),... love can be said to be a mystery, but eternal??? It can only be said to be eternal, if it is the base essence of everything in existence, the timeless, infinite essence...

and now away from random philosophizing... :p


By DM Though we have discussed this idea of "individualizing" love, there was a new thought supporting this idea, which had occurred to me. As not only can love and relationships be different from couple to couple, but one person never has the same relationship twice. It is always a completely new experience when someone engages in a relationship with a different person.


yes all instances of love can be individualized, but only on a human level, with human definition.. all love is necessarily the same if put on an infinite, timeless, eternal level... cuz on that level everything is one, of necessity...
but I will agree when thinking of human relationships, each one is different, each one is essentially different... we live subjectively, not objectively...


by DM I think that this is true to some extent, when one is in love, I do think that they often are given to question it, and I think this sets up the argument he presents within his story.

Because he was plagued with these questions Alekhin misses out on the potential happiness he might have had. Because he was worried about the rightness and wrongness of his love, they waited until it was too late to pronounce themselves to each other.

I agree to an extent, that humans by nature question everything that occurs to them, all feelings and emotions... love especially... Alekhin, though, not only misses out because of these questions, he then uses them to define love, and then to make an excuse for himself, for why he did not grasp love...

[Dark Muse]

Doesn't sound cheesy to me... but, though I am not necessarily in disagreement on the point.. why do you say love is eternal? humans can't have a real comprehension or understanding of eternal, infinite, timeless... for it necessarily destroys all definitions... including the very words we use to describe these things... eternal has no end.. which means it is outside of time, which means all existence is but a single point that is everything and nothing... so the fact that the idea of human love has to fall apart in the face of this, just as do all other human definitions, (because they are created in time and space, in finite form),... love can be said to be a mystery, but eternal??? It can only be said to be eternal, if it is the base essence of everything in existence, the timeless, infinite essence....

I think love is eternal because I think it has exhibited sense man has exisisted and will continue to exists ever after. It has always been there, and I think that it will always be. Even in the animal kingdom examples of love can be seen. Though a human relationship might end, the feelings of love, and the idea of love in itself still continue, and does not end. As well love can exists on many different levels, not always just in the romantic sense of the word.

As well I do not think man can truly comprehend or understand love, though they often try, and when trying to descibe love, words always fall short, one person can never make another person understand completely just how they feel when they are in love.

[islandclimber]

i do agree with you, but just to play the opposite side... What about relationships where love turns to hate? or is that love only an illusion, and it never was real love... for alot of people claim to feel love, but don't really...

[Quark]

Well there's no surprises so far. The young people all agree with the romantic Alekhin. It is Alekhin's story, so you have to feel for him. But, I don't know if that means you have to agree with him. I'm a little more mixed about what Alekhin says. I'll explain.

For the most part, I think along similar lines with Alekhin, too. While perhaps the capacity to love is universal and undifferentiated, the actual grounds on which a particular affection is founded are almost always different. When Alekhin says that we need to "individualize", I probably do agree. I only fear that this philosophy, if too liberally applied, could lead to selfishness. If everyone claims that their desires are unique and can't be judged, wouldn't that lead to complete self-indulgence? Sometimes sacrifice is noble. Even in this story, it's possible to see Alekhin's moves as the right ones. He, himself, realizes that their relationship would go nowhere and that it would only disrupt Anna's family. The other disagreement I have with Alekhin's argument is that it doesn't take into account that some desires are baseless. In his own story we wonder why exactly he loves Anna so much. Is this genuine love? Or is Anna simply part of an aristocratic lifestyle that he hunger for? Does he like Anna or just the life that surround Anna? In Alekhin's argument, we can't ask these questions.

So I don't know. I sort of agree and sort of think this is just an excuse for mindless self-gratification.

[islandclimber]

Quark... I don't think I said I agreed with Alekhin.. in fact my post was meant to show that I think Alekhin's whole introduction is just a glammed up excuse... a way to shove off the entire failure of his love, and his affair, to put the blame on the very nature of love itself... and I, also, wonder, whether his was a genuine love, or a lustful love that is just for self gratification, lusting after something you know you can't have, for that reason alone and then deeming it love... I think he was in love with the idea of love by the end, and in love with the idea of suffering from love, and a moral and righteous decision, accroding to him, to do as society insists...

again, I don't think my previous post is agreeing with Alekhin on anything but the statement that love is a mystery, which it is, so to speak... it can come of nothing, out of nowhere, and where least expected... but the rest of his speech, is just a glammed up, and in my opinion, well rehearsed in his head, excuse for mindless self-gratification, for throwing away the supposed love, for putting the blame on the very shoulders of the nature of love, etc... I think it is vanity and egotism on his part here, whether this is evident or not, I think it is a cynical undertone, as though when done making these excuses for himself, he wants to be told he did the right thing, as though he is a martyr of love, sacrificing himself for morality and righteousness... or so I find...

[Quark]

Quark... I don't think I said I agreed with Alekhin..

Oh, I thought you were agreeing with his argument, but saying that his actions didn't live up to his ideas.

[Dark Muse]

i do agree with you, but just to play the opposite side... What about relationships where love turns to hate? or is that love only an illusion, and it never was real love... for alot of people claim to feel love, but don't really...

When I speak of love being eternal I am speaking on a broad scale, of love in general, while the love within one person might die, love in itself will still exist.

That is, even if one relationship fails, there is another somewhere else that is succeeding.

So love is ever present, though it might just be as a brief candle flame within an individual, the greater fire never goes out, it will just reignite elsewhere.

[Janine]

Ok, I been reviewing everyone's posts and trying to make sense of what is being debated and argued - mostly about concepts of love. This discussion has gotten so 'philosophical', that sitting back, from my perspective and observing what is being said I can only come up with one observation, so far. Everyone here has a different concept of love and it seems to me the word 'love' is many things described and debated, and mused upon, but no one's definition is truly definitive or can be. So who is to say that Alekhin does not truly love Anna?
I know I must go over everything that all of you have posted; I have stored that in my Word program, cutting it down to the basics. I will try to print out and go over those posts, this weekend. For now, I feel that everyone saw this story a little differently, am I right?

Two things stand out to me. First, I read in a commentary book on Chekhov's short stories, from my library, that two of the stories of the three, in what the author does refer as 'a triology', have indirect connections or references, to ideas/concepts in Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" and also one short story - Gooseberries is directly related to T's story 'about how much land a man should own'. The two connected to Anna K, both use Anna as the love interest/woman's name. When I first read this short story, I was very much reminded of Anna K. First off, she was a married woman, had children, and was still devoted to her husband, second she fell in love with another man and third the last scene takes place with broken hearts for the lovers, at the train station; in this case, in the actual train compartment. Both are 'no-win' situations and doomed from the start. Whereas, in AK the protaganists act on their impulses and consumate their affair commiting adultry, in Chekhov's story the protaganists don't act on their impulses, and end by feeling their lives have been futile, accept their parting, knowing they missed their chance at true happiness. I found the parallels of the two stories interesting, and wondered what Chekhov was trying to say, by writing these two stories, in obvious opposition to Tolstoy's similiar ideas/themes. This story "About Love" also reminds me of Thomas Hardy's stories, where often there are missed opportunities and the two lovers do not get a chance to enter into a physical or emotional consumation of their true love.

[Quark]

For now, I feel that everyone saw this story a little differently, am I right?

I suppose that's how it normally is.


that two of the stories of the three, in what the author does refer as 'a triology', have indirect connections or references, to ideas/concepts in Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" and also one short story - Gooseberries is directly related to T's story 'about how much land a man should own'.

I didn't know Chekhov was referring to Tolstoy here. Is that something he revealed in a letter or something? In his youth, Chekhov was a huge Tolstoy fan so it's no surprise that he would use some of Tolstoy's ideas in his stories. I hadn't heard that before, though. Thanks for bringing it up.


The two connected to Anna K, both use Anna as the love interest/woman's name. When I first read this short story, I was very much reminded of Anna K. First off, she was a married woman, had children, and was still devoted to her husband, second she fell in love with another man and third the last scene takes place with broken hearts for the lovers, at the train station; in this case, in the actual train compartment. Both are 'no-win' situations and doomed from the start.

The parallels are definitely there. Infidelity is used similarly in both stories as a device to drive the plot to crisis.


Whereas, in AK the protaganists act on their impulses and consumate their affair commiting adultry, in Chekhov's story the protaganists don't act on their impulses, and end by feeling their lives have been futile, accept their parting, knowing they missed their chance at true happiness. I found the parallels of the two stories interesting, and wondered what Chekhov was trying to say, by writing these two stories, in obvious opposition to Tolstoy's similiar ideas/themes. This story "About Love" also reminds me of Thomas Hardy's stories, where often there are missed opportunities and the two lovers do not get a chance to enter into a physical or emotional consumation of their true love.

Yeah, Alekhin is not really a Vronsky. He doesn't have the nerve to go through with what Vronsky does so casually. Alekhin is much more like Levin: contemplative and above all moral.

The Thomas Hardy comparison may be more of a stretch. Usually in Hardy novels the characters are willing to gratify their own desires, but it's outside influence which prevent them from doing so. In "About Love" Alekhin and Anna put a stop to it themselves without appealing to society's judgment.

I'll think about the Tolstoy parallels later. Right now I'm watching a movie.

[Janine]

I suppose that's how it normally is.

True enough.


I didn't know Chekhov was referring to Tolstoy here. Is that something he revealed in a letter or something? In his youth, Chekhov was a huge Tolstoy fan so it's no surprise that he would use some of Tolstoy's ideas in his stories. I hadn't heard that before, though. Thanks for bringing it up.

Well, I renewed the book and there is quite a few pages of good commentary. I will try to scan that part and post some of what this critic has to say about it and how he came up with his comparisons and information. He said more than I did in my post above.


The parallels are definitely there. Infidelity is used similarly in both stories as a device to drive the plot to crisis.

Yeah, Quark, it made sense to me when I read the commentary on this story and the others in the 'trilogy'. He had more to say about that also and how the stories developed and related. I will read it over again this weekend and try to post something more specific on Monday.


Yeah, Alekhin is not really a Vronsky. He doesn't have the nerve to go through with what Vronsky does so casually. Alekhin is much more like Levin: contemplative and above all moral.

Yes, I could see that distinction right away - the book points this out I believe.



The Thomas Hardy comparison may be more of a stretch. Usually in Hardy novels the characters are willing to gratify their own desires, but it's outside influence which prevent them from doing so. In "About Love" Alekhin and Anna put a stop to it themselves without appealing to society's judgment.

I didn't say the same, but just similar in some respects, or something about the stories and the sad tone of them at the end. I feel some Hardy work would lend to this idea, but not hardly all. I was thinking more of "The Woodlanders" and some of the lesser known novels, perhaps. I will have to think more on that. I think Hardy was more into the idea of a person's 'fate' determining the outcome of their life and loves, and not simply free choice, free will.


I'll think about the Tolstoy parallels later. Right now I'm watching a movie.

Enjoy your movie! I am going to go watch a film, I started last night. Can't wait to see how it ends. Take you time answering this and checking out the Tolstoy parallels.

[Dark Muse]

Ok, I been reviewing everyone's posts and trying to make sense of what is being debated and argued - mostly about concepts of love. This discussion has gotten so 'philosophical', that sitting back, from my perspective and observing what is being said I can only come up with one observation, so far. Everyone here has a different concept of love and it seems to me the word 'love' is many things described and debated, and mused upon, but no one's definition is truly definitive or can be. So who is to say that Alekhin does not truly love Anna?


Hehe yes we have gotten a bit philosophical here in the discussion of love. Unless I have misread or misinterpreted something, I do not think anyone has thus far questioned Alekhin's love for Anna, but rather his approach on the subject. His own philosophy about love, as an explanation for the way things had come to end between him and Anna, is what is being put to question.

[Quark]

Hehe yes we have gotten a bit philosophical here in the discussion of love. Unless I have misread or misinterpreted something, I do not think anyone has thus far questioned Alekhin's love for Anna, but rather his approach on the subject. His own philosophy about love, as an explanation for the way things had come to end between him and Anna, is what is being put to question.

Yeah, Alekhin's motives for giving his argument are what's suspect here. Later on in the story we might get more into the actual love between Anna and Alekhin. I do think there is some question about why they're in love and if there in love, but that doesn't come out initially in the story. That doubt emerges when we start to notice the distance Alekhin's narration is from what probably really happened.


Well, I renewed the book and there is quite a few pages of good commentary. I will try to scan that part and post some of what this critic has to say about it and how he came up with his comparisons and information. He said more than I did in my post above.

I'm interested in what your commentary has to say, but I don't know about everyone else. If you haven't read Anna Karenina it might not mean much. I'll make a point about the connection, but I'll try to stay brief so as not to make anyone read Tolstoy's giant novel. After you guys went out and read all three stories in this trilogy, I'm real nervous about introducing other stories. Seriously, don't go out and read Anna Karenina.


Yeah, Quark, it made sense to me when I read the commentary on this story and the others in the 'trilogy'. He had more to say about that also and how the stories developed and related. I will read it over again this weekend and try to post something more specific on Monday.

After thinking about it last night I realized that "About Love" is actually an ironic retelling of Anna Karenina. Alekhin wants to believe that his love for Anna was like the affair in Tolstoy's masterpiece, and that Anna is madly in love with him. But, in reality, it's nothing like that. Anna doesn't throw herself in front of train. She remains quite cool. There are two other ironic parallels that come to mind, as well.

The first is that Alekhin would like to believe he's like Vronsky who's capable of wooing his Anna and having an illicit affair. But, the Alekhin we know is a frustrated intellectual who can't admit to loving someone until the very end.

The other ironic parallel is in the husbands. Both Anna's have spouses who are mindless bores, but in "About Love" there's nothing to indicate that this Anna wants to separate from her husband. Alekhin just wants to believe that she's trapped in a dreadfully stifling relationship.

Chekhov has copied Tolstoy's formula in Anna Karenina, but he's inserted it into the narrative of a hopelessly confused character. To many of Chekhov's readers the irony must have been pretty noticeable.


I didn't say the same, but just similar in some respects, or something about the stories and the sad tone of them at the end. I feel some Hardy work would lend to this idea, but not hardly all. I was thinking more of "The Woodlanders" and some of the lesser known novels, perhaps. I will have to think more on that. I think Hardy was more into the idea of a person's 'fate' determining the outcome of their life and loves, and not simply free choice, free will.

Oh I just knew you would refer to one the novels I haven't read. I can't make any arguments about The Woodlanders, but I will make a point about Jude the Obscure. The end of that novel is quite depressing. Jude slowly dies while reciting the book of Job. He finally becomes aware of how singularly cursed his life has been and dies in self-pity. Alekhin's introductory and closing arguments about love are filled with the same kind of self-pity, but there's a difference between how we interpret the two characters. Jude is Hardy's hero who he represents as an intellegent but humble character. Alekhin, however, is prone to overstatement and confusion. His telling of his own story shows how out of touch he is. His character is ultimately ironic, so when he reaches the higher pitches of self-pity we're not sure whether to believe him. Jude the Obscure ends with deep pathos focused on a single tragedy, but the ending of "About Love" is a lot more mixed and uncertain. There's pathos, but we don't know where it's coming from.

[Janine]

Quark, I read your post but I can't answer it all right, now.
I will later tonight; I'm making you wait, like you are making me wait in the L thread! :lol:

I have the book propped up and open to this page to copy this out now about the trilogy and the stories thematic connections:

From: Chekhov and his prose by Thomas Winner:


In 1898, the journal Russian Thought published three storis by Chekhov which, because of their close thematic and structural relationship, we consider to compose a trilogy. "The Man in a Shell", "Gooseberries", and "About Love", were first conceived as the opening group of a series of stories which were to compose a longer prose form. Such plans are mentioned by Chekhov in a letter to A.F. Marx, the publisher of this Collected Works, in which he protested publication of the three stories in the book form before the series was completed. But Chekhov was never to add to this group of stories, although later works show some thematic links to this cycle.

These exemplary tales, each illustrative of a special kind of constricted life, are united by the persons of their narrators who relate the tales to each other as was traditional in the genre of frame stories (Rahmenerzahlung). The protagonists suffer from the insularity of their lives -- from isolation and an inability to feel alive. The theme of dedication to too narrow a segment of life, which has been observed as one of the unifying themes of the "searching stories" , appears now to be only one aspect of the more general problem of man's pervading limitation of spirit. The phrase from "Gooseberries", a reference to Tolstoy's story, "How Much Land Does a Man need?", quoted as an epigraph to this chaper, states a theme of the trilogy. "A man needs not six feet of soil,...but all of nature, where unhindered he can display all his capabilities...of his free spirit." The chief protagonists of the stories are constrained by a shell, a mental "six feet of soil", which prevents each from living a full and satisfactory life.

I will post more of this commentary later on after you have absorbed this part.

[Quark]

I was going to post the next chunk of the story, but I think I should wait and give everyone a chance to catch up. DM is ailing, islandclimber is absent, and Janine is just caught up. It's probably best to just wait until tomorrow. See everyone then.

[Janine]

I was going to post the next chunk of the story, but I think I should wait and give everyone a chance to catch up. DM is ailing, islandclimber is absent, and Janine is just caught up. It's probably best to just wait until tomorrow. See everyone then.

Good, I am tied up (not literally :lol:), but I am tied up with other matters, presently. I did just peak in on the L thread and read the posts. Will comment tomorrow. Right now I should be in bed - it is almost 4 PM! what am I doing up still???

[Quark]

Hopefully I'm not moving too fast, but there's still four more sections of the story left and only so many days in the month. Besides, I made everyone read those other two stories, and we haven't commented on them at all yet. Dark Muse said something interesting about the three stories as a unit; and, if we're to get to that, I have to keep pushing everyone along. This story may go longer than a month, but I'd hate for it to take more than two months. So let's try to get to as much as we can. I say there's four sections of the story, and I divide them like this. From the beginning of Alekhin's story to the conclusion of "About Love", there's Alekhin's narrative up to the point he meets Anna, Anna and Alekhin's relationship, the conclusion of their relationship, and then the break away from Alekhin's narrative back to his argument and the visitor's reaction. The first chunk of the story, Alekhin's narrative up to meeting Anna, looks like this on a computer screen:


"I have lived at Sofino and been farming for a long time," Alehin began, "ever since I left the University. I am an idle gentleman by education, a studious person by disposition; but there was a big debt owing on the estate when I came here, and as my father was in debt partly because he had spent so much on my education, I resolved not to go away, but to work till I paid off the debt. I made up my mind to this and set to work, not, I must confess, without some repugnance. The land here does not yield much, and if one is not to farm at a loss one must employ serf labour or hired labourers, which is almost the same thing, or put it on a peasant footing -- that is, work the fields oneself and with one's family. There is no middle path. But in those days I did not go into such subtleties. I did not leave a clod of earth unturned; I gathered together all the peasants, men and women, from the neighbouring villages; the work went on at a tremendous pace. I myself ploughed and sowed and reaped, and was bored doing it, and frowned with disgust, like a village cat driven by hunger to eat cucumbers in the kitchen-garden. My body ached, and I slept as I walked. At first it seemed to me that I could easily reconcile this life of toil with my cultured habits; to do so, I thought, all that is necessary is to maintain a certain external order in life. I established myself upstairs here in the best rooms, and ordered them to bring me there coffee and liquor after lunch and dinner, and when I went to bed I read every night the Yyesnik Evropi. But one day our priest, Father Ivan, came and drank up all my liquor at one sitting; and the Yyesnik Evropi went to the priest's daughters; as in the summer, especially at the haymaking, I did not succeed in getting to my bed at all, and slept in the sledge in the barn, or somewhere in the forester's lodge, what chance was there of reading? Little by little I moved downstairs, began dining in the servants' kitchen, and of my former luxury nothing is left but the servants who were in my father's service, and whom it would be painful to turn away.

"In the first years I was elected here an honourary justice of the peace. I used to have to go to the town and take part in the sessions of the congress and of the circuit court, and this was a pleasant change for me. When you live here for two or three months without a break, especially in the winter, you begin at last to pine for a black coat. And in the circuit court there were frock-coats, and uniforms, and dress-coats, too, all lawyers, men who have received a general education; I had some one to talk to. After sleeping in the sledge and dining in the kitchen, to sit in an arm-chair in clean linen, in thin boots, with a chain on one's waistcoat, is such luxury!

"I received a warm welcome in the town. I made friends eagerly. And of all my acquaintanceships the most intimate and, to tell the truth, the most agreeable to me was my acquaintance with Luganovitch, the vice-president of the circuit court. You both know him: a most charming personality. It all happened just after a celebrated case of incendiarism; the preliminary investigation lasted two days; we were exhausted. Luganovitch looked at me and said:

" 'Look here, come round to dinner with me.'

Two things:

islandclimber has already suggested that Alekhin story may just be told for egotistical reasons, and there's certainly evidence here for that claim. After Alehin's diatribe about the dangers of idle pondering, he immediately admits that he was an "idle gentleman by education, a studious person by disposition." Nothing in "About Love" makes us think he's changed, too. Why would he be arguing for action when that's the very thing he doesn't want to do? It's similar to the end of "Gooseberries" when Ivan argues that everyone should act virtuously, but then claims he's too old to do it. Alehin gives a lesson that he, himself, cannot possibly follow--and perhaps doesn't believe in. Alehin, of course, frames this as the tragedy: that he's incapable of ignoring reason and public opinion. Does anyone believe that's true, though? Is the tragedy that he's incapable or is it that he's deluded himself with this egotistical explanation of love?

This passage also makes me suspicious of Alehin's reasons for loving Anna. He despises his life in the country, and finds his escapes into the city very enjoyable. His relationship with Anna seems to just naturally grow out of his need for escape. Love for Anna could just be love for the lifestyle she represents and that Alehin can lead with her. In the Lawrence thread, we're discussing a story where a wife worries about the husband becoming common and boring, and I notice a similar fear here. It's difficult to tell whether Alehin's affection for Anna is genuine or just relief from this fear.

Those are my two things. There's more, but I don't want to drag on. I'm curious to see what other people think of this part. I'll be back to respond tonight.


it is almost 4 PM! what am I doing up still???

And when do you get up in the morning? Or is it the afternoon? That's funny Janine. You must not sleep with anyone, or else they'd put a stop to that.

[Dark Muse]

Well I had typed out a post in reponse to this, and than when I hit submit, it did not go through for some reason, and now I have to go, so when I get back, I will retype out my post.

[Janine]

Hopefully I'm not moving too fast, but there's still four more sections of the story left and only so many days in the month. Besides, I made everyone read those other two stories, and we haven't commented on them at all yet. Dark Muse said something interesting about the three stories as a unit; and, if we're to get to that, I have to keep pushing everyone along. This story may go longer than a month, but I'd hate for it to take more than two months. So let's try to get to as much as we can. I say there's four sections of the story, and I divide them like this. From the beginning of Alekhin's story to the conclusion of "About Love", there's Alekhin's narrative up to the point he meets Anna, Anna and Alekhin's relationship, the conclusion of their relationship, and then the break away from Alekhin's narrative back to his argument and the visitor's reaction.

Did anyone read the short commentary I posted (post #269) on the three stories being definitely linked in a trilogy? Chekhov apparently planned even more stories to this set but never achieved it.

Quark, thanks for posting the next part of the text. I like the way you have divided the story into four sections. (you're starting to think like me. ;) )

As to discussing the three stories in this trilogy, I would agree with that idea. However, I would do each in each month. I can't really handle doing all of them this month; I will consider all three, in two months time. We have time on this current story; it is only the 6th and we should finish by May. I can't see that there would be a problem with that, even though I know I am lagging behind a bit; it could not be helped....other duties were beckoning me. It is that way sometimes. I have read mostly all the posts and copied them to an offline file. I read the story several times now. I am not a total failure yet.

I have some additional commentary to post on this story specifically; I just hope everyone will read it, if I take the time to type it out.

I will try and comment also on the passages you posted today. Thanks again.

Yes, I am on the night-shift! no one here cares anymore - they all know me. I get up in the afternoon - yes, well I need 7,8 hours sleep, don't I? Last night was extreme - the birds were singing when I finally fell asleep. After shutting down the computer, I finished the book I was reading. I definitely am doing way too much right now. Go see my mega post in the L thread and you better read it after I typed all of that twice!

[Dark Muse]

islandclimber has already suggested that Alekhin story may just be told for egotistical reasons, and there's certainly evidence here for that claim. After Alehin's diatribe about the dangers of idle pondering, he immediately admits that he was an "idle gentleman by education, a studious person by disposition." Nothing in "About Love" makes us think he's changed, too. Why would he be arguing for action when that's the very thing he doesn't want to do? It's similar to the end of "Gooseberries" when Ivan argues that everyone should act virtuously, but then claims he's too old to do it. Alehin gives a lesson that he, himself, cannot possibly follow--and perhaps doesn't believe in. Alehin, of course, frames this as the tragedy: that he's incapable of ignoring reason and public opinion. Does anyone believe that's true, though? Is the tragedy that he's incapable or is it that he's deluded himself with this egotistical explanation of love?

It is true that we have no reason to suspect that he has changed in anyway, though it is possible that after his experience, he wishes to spare others from making the same mistakes that he himself had made, and that he is indeed regretful over his own choices, and perhaps feels it is too late for him now, but this story is meant to be a lesson to others not to do as he did.

Though it does seem to me he suffers from a bit of egotism. I think in a way he almost likes to paint himself as the "martyr" he can feel as if the sacrifices he made were noble, and that in his suffering he is the "hero" in some regards.

As in the beginning he mentions that he is now working his father's farm because his father had gone into debt on account of Alehin's education, though we know nothing about his father or his father's motives, it seems unlikely that he had given so much to give his son a good education just so Alehin can come to spend his time working on his father's farms.

It seems that Alehin really does not like to take risks for himself, but instead finds excuses for him to stay locked within some routine, which he can than feel as if he is in someway being heroic in his actions, but not actually trying to break free for himself. He uses the excuse of not wanting to disrupt Anna's home life as a way to make himself look better.



This passage also makes me suspicious of Alehin's reasons for loving Anna. He despises his life in the country, and finds his escapes into the city very enjoyable. His relationship with Anna seems to just naturally grow out of his need for escape. Love for Anna could just be love for the lifestyle she represents and that Alehin can lead with her. In the Lawrence thread, we're discussing a story where a wife worries about the husband becoming common and boring, and I notice a similar fear here. It's difficult to tell whether Alehin's affection for Anna is genuine or just relief from this fear.

It is questionable if Anna and Alehin truly did love each other, as in some ways there does seem to be a lack of certain passion between them in their relations with each other. I think perhaps the fact that they are both two young people whom might have similar interests, and each provide the other with a certain escape or break in their usual routine and lives, they might have developed an infatuation with each other that they mistake as actual love.

As already mentioned, Anna, for Alehin represents an escape from his dull country life, and she stands for the lifestyle he might really wish to have for himself.

While Alehin, for Anna represents an escape from her day to day home life, as well as the opportunity to have a lively conversation with someone of intellect and wit.

I think it is the "newness" of each of them to each other which first attracts them, but I think in some ways, they feel safe in the fact that there is this barrier between them, and that is what allows them to carry on with their relationship. In the end I do not think they truly desired to actually be together, because in doing this, that would ruin the one thing each one can offer the other.

I think this is also way they cannot truly account for their attraction to each other, because they are not so much in love with one another for who they are, but perhaps more for what they are, and what they symbolize to the other.

[islandclimber]

Hi everyone, sorry I disappeared for awhile here... I've just been really busy with work... and it looks as though that will continue this week.. so please don't wait up, I have been reading all the posts and following along I just haven't really found time to make a substantial and meaningful post myself...

But on the intro to this new section of the story... great job Quark... I agree with your two points and how you made them...

and DarkMuse... wow... fantastic post... :) I agree with everything you put there... he does seem to have a bit of a martyr complex... in that he wants to appear noble in his actions, as we see, first with the farm, and working to pay off his father's debts... and then with Anna and society and so called morality... It's funny, I've been reading Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" for a second time, and Nietzsche argues against these so called Judeo-Christian moralities so convincingly... and this story could be a case in point... haha... but I also agree the reality, the truth of their love seems to be more in infatuation with something new and fresh, something offered to one another, that has been terribly lacking up to that point... Anna's husband is made out to be quite dull, though it is only from the protagonist, Alekhin, that we hear this, and he may be quite biased... and Alekhin's life on the farm is lonely, dull, devoid of intellectual stimulation.... each offers a remedy to the other, but I think part of it may be due to the moderation of time spent together and because they have the other aspects to hold in contrast too... I agree they seem to have more fallen in love with the idea of the other, and what the other symbolizes for them, than the solely the self, and who they are...


Janine ... every time I type your name I think of the David Bowie song now... jeez louise :p ... post 269 was great... very interesting... i am particularly interested in the idea that these stories were meant to be a small part of a larger group of connected stories.. . I think he may have found the type and idea behind these stories somewhat exhausted by the three he finished though... though there are other stories of his that fall into similar ideas... I like how your quote comments on the narrow aspect of life Chekhov was writing on in these stories, yet at the same time, looking deeper one sees the stories encompass a whole number of questions on life and existence... that is one of the things I enjoy about Chekhov, how he can appear to be so simple outwardly, yet his stories are so rich and full of underlying meaning... I also find it interesting the similarity to Tolstoy here... my problem is, there are two kinds of russian lit enthusiasts.. those who love tolstoy, and those who love dostoevsky, and a small group that overlap haha... I fall into the second group, those who love D... Tolstoy's characters are always so shallow and dull in my opinion.. I have gone through most of his works, and I just find them so dreadfully dry.... but I see the parallels between Tolstoy and these stories.. though Chekhov seems to right this story, not so much as a parallel to AK, but as a reaction, the characters behaving int eh opposite manner to a degree in this one...

I also see some of Hardy, in "The Woodlanders" in these stories... also "The Return of the Native" I find glimpses of similarity here, and much of Hardy's short works which are frightfully undervalued... As I stated before I find Hardy and Chekhov quite similar in style, setting and content... That is just my opinion... I may try to look into giving more examples of this if I can find the time to reread some Hardy short stories... especially in relation to these stories... but Hardy and Chekhov are both of the pastoral, simple, poetic, writing style... that alone makes them similar...

cheers all.. I will be back again as soon as I can be...

[Dark Muse]

DarkMuse... wow... fantastic post... :) I agree with everything you put there... he does seem to have a bit of a martyr complex... in that he wants to appear noble in his actions, as we see, first with the farm, and working to pay off his father's debts... and then with Anna and society and so called morality... It's funny, I've been reading Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" for a second time, and Nietzsche argues against these so called Judeo-Christian moralities so convincingly... and this story could be a case in point... haha... but I also agree the reality, the truth of their love seems to be more in infatuation with something new and fresh, something offered to one another, that has been terribly lacking up to that point... Anna's husband is made out to be quite dull, though it is only from the protagonist, Alekhin, that we hear this, and he may be quite biased... and Alekhin's life on the farm is lonely, dull, devoid of intellectual stimulation.... each offers a remedy to the other, but I think part of it may be due to the moderation of time spent together and because they have the other aspects to hold in contrast too... I agree they seem to have more fallen in love with the idea of the other, and what the other symbolizes for them, than the solely the self, and who they are...

Thank you, and that must be interesting, reading Nietzsche beside this story.

Yes that is very true, as Alekhin can be seen as the husbands "rival" we do not truly know what Anna actually felt for her husband, only what Alekhin tells us though we could question his own opinion of the matter considering how personally he is involved in the situation, and how it would serve him to paint the husband as being such.

I also found it interesting, that most of their interaction together seemed to be done "safely" that is they did not even seem to try to make many opportunities for themselves to be intimate with each other, so they could carry on this affection for each other without truly being confronted by it or having to commit to it, as Alekin's visits to Anna were most often quite in the open, and while the husband was there at the house.

It does not appear as if they really shared many private moments together but often when he is speaking of his time with Anna, he always refers to "they" as both her and her husband being present. Or the Anna's children being there.

It was almost as if their relationship was really more in their head than anything, as outwardly they did not really engage romantically, they enjoyed each other's company, but did not physically act in a way that could be seen as inappropriate.

[islandclimber]

Thank you, and that must be interesting, reading Nietzsche beside this story.

Yes that is very true, as Alekhin can be seen as the husbands "rival" we do not truly know what Anna actually felt for her husband, only what Alekhin tells us though we could question his own opinion of the matter considering how personally he is involved in the situation, and how it would serve him to paint the husband as being such.

I also found it interesting, that most of their interaction together seemed to be done "safely" that is they did not even seem to try to make many opportunities for themselves to be intimate with each other, so they could carry on this affection for each other without truly being confronted by it or having to commit to it, as Alekin's visits to Anna were most often quite in the open, and while the husband was there at the house.

It does not appear as if they really shared many private moments together but often when he is speaking of his time with Anna, he always refers to "they" as both her and her husband being present. Or the Anna's children being there.

It was almost as if their relationship was really more in their head than anything, as outwardly they did not really engage romantically, they enjoyed each other's company, but did not physically act in a way that could be seen as inappropriate.

agreed... I think it was more of an intellectual relationship... which is what they were both looking for, some sort of intellectual stimulation and engagement.. and that appears to be why they did not try to expand upon their relationship into more intimacy.. they always seemed content with not finding time to be completely alone... as you say they had few private moments together, and maintained their relationship quite safely, without attempting to become more intimate...

[Janine]

I have been reading all of your posts and glad you did read my quoted text. Thanks islandclimber, I haven't had time either to post many of my own thoughts on the story. Sorry everyone. Hope I can do so next week.
It is so funny about my name :lol: Does the tune jangle around in your head?:lol:


I just wanted to post this additional commentary on the story, found in the same book as the other excerpt:


In "About Love," Alekhin tells of his love for Anna, the beautiful wife of the judge of the district town, He feels that his life of rural provincialism is unworthy of Anna. "Where could I take her?" he says.

...it would be different if I led a beautiful interesting life; if, for instance, I fought for the liberation of my country, or if I were a well known scholar, musiscian or an artist. Bit as it isI would just have taken her from one dull, ordinary life to another.

While Belkin's life is destroyed by fear and Nikolay Invanych's by the pettiness of his aims, Alekhin's limitations are more elusive. Unlike the earlier protagonists of the trilogy, Alekhin vaguely realizes his own failure, but he is prevented from action by a lack of elan, by a feeling of inertia. As he bids farewell to Anna for the last time, the strength of their mutual feelings forces both into a declaration of love. But it is too late. Life and love have passed them both by. Alekhin understands this as he reasons:

I understood that if you love you must, in your thinking about that love, begin from the highest kind of feeling, from feelings which are more important than happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their common meaning. Or you must not think at all.

I find this part especially interesting in that we know that he had two choices and he chose to
'not think at all' throughout the story.

Some final comments on the story:

"About Love" is united to the preceeding story by the figure of Alekhin who has appeared as so sensuously enjoying life in the introductory scene to "Gooseberries." The contrast of that picture to the one of Alekhin as the story ends is strong. But Alekhin's experience leaves only nostalgic feelings, and his life is unchanged. He continues "rushing around his huge estate like a squirrel in a cage." His approach to life is only a sweet memory.

[Quark]

Did anyone read the short commentary I posted (post #269) on the three stories being definitely linked in a trilogy? Chekhov apparently planned even more stories to this set but never achieved it.

I'm curious to know why he didn't finish the series, and what the plans were for the other stories. I imagine that his short deadlines had something to do with it. Chekhov once complained to a friend, "I like to delve into things and putter around. But what can I do? I begin a story September 10th with the knowledge that I must finish it by October 5th at the latest. If I delay it I break my promise and go without money." I don't know the actual reason why he abandoned the series, but time-constraints may have had something to do with it. It sounded like the details were sketchy, but did the book say anything about why he stopped? There are a few other stories with a similar theme. "The Betrothed" comes to mind.


As to discussing the three stories in this trilogy, I would agree with that idea. However, I would do each in each month. I can't really handle doing all of them this month; I will consider all three, in two months time.

My plan is to work through this story, and then discuss the other two in relation to this one. If I sense a lot of interest or if we get stuck talking about one of the other two stories, we might take time and just do that one by itself. I don't want to get stuck on these stories for an inordinate amount of time--say three months. It's best to keep rotating stories to keep things new and interesting. Don't worry, though. I'm sure to pick a short one to make it easy on everyone after this month's long reading.


I have some additional commentary to post on this story specifically; I just hope everyone will read it, if I take the time to type it out.

Share your research, Janine. The two sections you've posted from that commentary have been helpful.


It is true that we have no reason to suspect that he has changed in anyway, though it is possible that after his experience, he wishes to spare others from making the same mistakes that he himself had made, and that he is indeed regretful over his own choices, and perhaps feels it is too late for him now, but this story is meant to be a lesson to others not to do as he did.

That's true. Chekhov doesn't discount the possibility that Alehin really is sincere, that he wishes he could overcome reason and public opinion. He could be trying to instruct, but the details of his story often contradict the point he's trying to make. When he rails against Russian gentlemen who spend their time overthinking but then is represented as being exactly that, it makes it difficult to know what to think.


Though it does seem to me he suffers from a bit of egotism. I think in a way he almost likes to paint himself as the "martyr"


I agree with everything you put there... he does seem to have a bit of a martyr complex

I agree that he there's an egotistical motive behind Alehin's story, but I don't think he paints himself as a martyr or as noble. It seems like he wants to be pitied more than he wants to be respected. Instead of portraying his actions as serving a higher good, Alehin calls his decision a mistake. If he were aiming for martyrdom, I would think he would want to interpret his decision as the right one. He does the opposite and claims he broke off the relationship because out of weakness. The reaction he's wants seems more like pity or commiseration.


though we know nothing about his father or his father's motives, it seems unlikely that he had given so much to give his son a good education just so Alehin can come to spend his time working on his father's farms.

Do you doubt that Alehin got the education he claims, or that Alehin would bound to return to the farm?


It is questionable if Anna and Alehin truly did love each other

Questionable is probably the safest word you could use to describe their relationship. There's a lot of ambiguity surrounding who felt what for whom and why. I have a good theory, but I'm going to wait and put it in a post by itself so I have room for everything.


Hi everyone, sorry I disappeared for awhile here... I've just been really busy with work...

I was wondering where you went. Sorry about work.


Anna's husband is made out to be quite dull, though it is only from the protagonist, Alekhin, that we hear this, and he may be quite biased... and Alekhin's life on the farm is lonely, dull, devoid of intellectual stimulation.... each offers a remedy to the other, but I think part of it may be due to the moderation of time spent together and because they have the other aspects to hold in contrast too... I agree they seem to have more fallen in love with the idea of the other, and what the other symbolizes for them, than the solely the self, and who they are...

Alehin believes the husband is a bore; but, he doesn't show any evidence that Anna agrees with him, nor does he show any marital problems between the two. Dark Muse made a observation below which also speaks to Alehin's bias. Alehin constantly describes Anna as a wife and mother. He repeatedly refers to the Luganovitchs, too. The manner of talking about husband and wife makes it seem like their a tight family unit, and not the unhappy couple Alehin would like to believe.


there are two kinds of russian lit enthusiasts.. those who love tolstoy, and those who love dostoevsky

Yeah, I'd have to opt for the later also.

[Janine]

I'm curious to know why he didn't finish the series, and what the plans were for the other stories. I imagine that his short deadlines had something to do with it. Chekhov once complained to a friend, "I like to delve into things and putter around. But what can I do? I begin a story September 10th with the knowledge that I must finish it by October 5th at the latest. If I delay it I break my promise and go without money." I don't know the actual reason why he abandoned the series, but time-constraints may have had something to do with it. It sounded like the details were sketchy, but did the book say anything about why he stopped? There are a few other stories with a similar theme. "The Betrothed" comes to mind.

This book only says this: "But Chekhov was never to add to this group of stories, although later works show some thematic links to this cycle."
Prior to this, the commentator says that Chekhov tried to hold up publication of the three stories, until he added to them. There is a footnote to that, so I will try and track down some more information on ithis subject, or in the other book, I took back to my library. I go back there tomorrow night. It later mentions that a few other stories, that surface later on did, indeed, relate 'in theme' to these stories.
I would probably have to read this whole commentary book, to see just why Chekhov sometimes abandoned work or his proposed projects. You should buy this book, Quark, it is very good or maybe your library would have it. It is called: Chekhov and his prose by Thomas Winner. I saw it on Amazon quite reasonaly priced. It would be a great one to own, you being such a Chekhov enthusiast. Chapters are broken down thematically. I long to read this whole book, but not sure I will have the time currently.



My plan is to work through this story, and then discuss the other two in relation to this one. If I sense a lot of interest or if we get stuck talking about one of the other two stories, we might take time and just do that one by itself. I don't want to get stuck on these stories for an inordinate amount of time--say three months. It's best to keep rotating stories to keep things new and interesting. Don't worry, though. I'm sure to pick a short one to make it easy on everyone after this month's long reading.

Sounds ok, but not in only one month. Two might be workable for me. I can understand now wanting to get stuck on these 3 stories but I don't see anyone complaining - we all seem to be into them now. I like the idea of them all relating and wish we had taken them in order.



[QUOTE]Share your research, Janine. The two sections you've posted from that commentary have been helpful.

Always, I just love research! But it can get truly exhausting, especially the typing or scanning.



That's true. Chekhov doesn't discount the possibility that Alehin really is sincere, that he wishes he could overcome reason and public opinion. He could be trying to instruct, but the details of his story often contradict the point he's trying to make. When he rails against Russian gentlemen who spend their time overthinking but then is represented as being exactly that, it makes it difficult to know what to think.

That is an irony. I agree with the rest, you point out here, prior to your last statement - the irony or double standard.


I agree that he there's an egotistical motive behind Alehin's story, but I don't think he paints himself as a martyr or as noble. It seems like he wants to be pitied more than he wants to be respected. Instead of portraying his actions as serving a higher good, Alehin calls his decision a mistake. If he were aiming for martyrdom, I would think he would want to interpret his decision as the right one. He does the opposite and claims he broke off the relationship because out of weakness. The reaction he's wants seems more like pity or commiseration.

I agree. I think martyr is going a little to far. I didn't see it that way when he broke down in the train compartment and weep. I felt that was truly sincere. I like the idea of 'weakness' preventing him from making the right decision in the end. Apparently at the end of his story, in looking back, he feels he did not make the right decision, am I right?


Do you doubt that Alehin got the education he claims, or that Alehin would bound to return to the farm?

I found that curious. I felt he got the education, but then chose to stay on the farm and work the land, because he truly enjoyed that lifestyle and did feel a part of it and felt responsible for it.


Questionable is probably the safest word you could use to describe their relationship. There's a lot of ambiguity surrounding who felt what for whom and why. I have a good theory, but I'm going to wait and put it in a post by itself so I have room for everything.

Yes, 'questionable' is a good word for their true feelings and relationship or possible love. Will we ever know for sure? There is so much ambiguity surrounding the whole interaction between them. I will wait to hear your good theory, Quark. ;)

I will let someone else answer the rest of your post. Good post, Quark!

[Dark Muse]

Do you doubt that Alehin got the education he claims, or that Alehin would bound to return to the farm?

I do not question that he recivied the education, but rather what he choose to do with it, which is sort of where I brought in the martyr complex.

Usually when a parent makes a sacrifice for thier childern's education it is so they can better themselves not just follow in thier parents footsteps.

Alehin, does not seem to really do anything with his education, and he useses his need to work off his father's debts, on his account, to stay upon the farm and work it, though I do not think that is what his father had in mind for him when he put his son through school.

[Janine]

Dark Muse, Are we on a short break here? I could sure use a break, with the two SS threads being so active. I am so tired out from posting and catching up on emails. A few days would help out. Where did islandclimber and Quark run off to, anyway? I am not complaining, since I want to go and watch a movie right now and relax. I am maxed out on this computer and my brain is, too!

[Dark Muse]

Hehe I am not sure where they are off too.

[islandclimber]

yooohooo.... helloooooooo... I am here!!! I never run that far... welll besides when I have nightmarish type creatures chasing me... :p ...

anyways getting back to the story...

Yes, I do agree martyr might be too strong a term... but I still do see Alekhin as quite egotistical.... so I would say you put it right with pity and sympathy and commiseration... but there is almost something more, I just keep feeling in reading the story... just due to the way he introduces the story... it seems like there is some motive beyond just asking for pity and commiseration... as though while wanting pity and sympathy, at the same time he wants to be recognized as having done the right thing... and whether he broke down and cried at the end, he still seems to be somewhat with ulterior motive in how he tells the story.. just the introduction is leading me to that.. maybe not martyrdom... but I think he does want to be praised for his noble action, the virtue of his action of letting her go...

Janine, I don't think he does feel he made the wrong choice, there is some evidence for that from the tearshedding on the train, but that is completely overruled by the intro to the story.,.. and just the way he describes there relationship throughout... I think it is somewhat ambiguous, but I think it leans towards him wanting to show how he was selfless and noble and sacrificed his own happiness for the good of her husband and her children and out of respect for society's moral code.... or so I think.. maybe in his heart he feels sad and that he should have made a different choice, but in his mind he has convinced himself that he did the right and noble thing....

you know that new film "Moliere"... it has a similar love story... similar choice to make... it is quite interesting...

I have to say I myself would say damn society and morality.. but that is just me... hahah.. love is more important than ridiculous societal impositions... :D

[Quark]

I went to post last night, but was interrupted by my sporadic internet access. It would flicker on and off, making it impossible to load a page before the connection timed out. After a couple of frustrated tries I just gave it a rest and waited for tonight. Now I have to catch up.


You should buy this book, Quark, it is very good or maybe your library would have it. It is called: Chekhov and his prose by Thomas Winner. I saw it on Amazon quite reasonaly priced.

That's sound like a good book, yet I don't think my library would have it. They're a little low books of criticism. They have a great selection of fiction, but books of criticism are few and far between. Luckily I still have JSTOR which is great for research.


Sounds ok, but not in only one month.

I don't foresee us getting through these stories that quickly.


That is an irony. I agree with the rest, you point out here, prior to your last statement - the irony or double standard.

You don't think he contradicts himself when he says that? It's possible that he can't break out of his idle, aristocratic habits but wishes to. I leave room for that, but still it makes you wonder about the applicability of the lesson he's trying to teach when he himself cannot follow it.


Apparently at the end of his story, in looking back, he feels he did not make the right decision, am I right?

Yeah, the decision he comes to at the end is that he should be with Anna. That why he admits to her his love. Alekhin recalls his frame of mind at that points as, "with a burning pain in my heart I realized how unnecessary, how petty, and how deceptive all that had hindered us from loving was. I understood that when you love you must either, in your reasonings about that love, start from what is highest, from what is more important than happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their accepted meaning, or you must not reason at all." Alekhin believes this is the important lesson to take away from the story. Interestingly enough, the visitors disagree. It's Alekhin's failure to make anything of himself professionally that they see as the greater tragedy.


I do not question that he recivied the education, but rather what he choose to do with it, which is sort of where I brought in the martyr complex.

Alehin, does not seem to really do anything with his education, and he useses his need to work off his father's debts, on his account, to stay upon the farm and work it, though I do not think that is what his father had in mind for him when he put his son through school.

It is odd that he would willfully choose to work the farm. The main reason he returns to the farm is because his father, who's paid for his education, has fallen into debt. He doesn't want to feel guilty by taking advantage of something his father paid for. To determine whether this constitute a martyr complex I think you have to ask whether he's doing this out of weakness or whether he's doing this from nobility. His thinking in other parts of the story makes me want to call this more weakness than nobility. Alekhin tends to let things happen.


yooohooo.... helloooooooo... I am here!!!

That's quite the ecstatic greeting. I'll just say hi.


just due to the way he introduces the story... it seems like there is some motive beyond just asking for pity and commiseration... as though while wanting pity and sympathy, at the same time he wants to be recognized as having done the right thing...

He may believe that he did the moral, "right" thing to do, but where do you see him reveling in that? What part of the story makes you think he want that kind of recognition? He certainly doesn't get it. Of course, who knows? All three of the storytellers fail to make the impression they want.


Janine, I don't think he does feel he made the wrong choice

The end of Alekhin's story makes it sound like he does regret having done the right thing. I quoted some of it above.


you know that new film "Moliere"... it has a similar love story... similar choice to make... it is quite interesting...

Is the movie about Moliere the playwright? I haven't seen any commercials for it.


I have to say I myself would say damn society and morality.. but that is just me... hahah.. love is more important than ridiculous societal impositions... :D

I'm all for damning society, but the whole "don't think about it" aspect of his argument loses me. Introspection is a good idea sometimes.

[Janine]

Sorry, everyone. I got in late and now I am fading. I read all your additional posts - yours, islandclimber's and yours, Quark's....so don't feel neglected. It is me and I kind of need a break for now. I am sorry for it, I am behind in several aspects of the computer.

Actually, Quark, my computer and especially my service (or so it seems) has been running very slowly. I don't know what it is. I worked on the computer maintanance last night and then I got 8 updates from online installed automatically today. In fact, as we speak I am updating my Internet Explorer to version 7...I hope I did the right thing accepting it. I have been putting that update off for sometime now.
For one thing, I noticed that new ad, at the top of the pages on this forum, messes me up; I have to wait for it to stop snowing, but generally speaking, it has been very, very slow. Has anyone else noticed this problem with this 'snowing ad' ?

For now I can't stay on long. I probably will be required to shut down after this update. I hope it does not change many things on my computer. I hate doing these updates!

[Dark Muse]

It is odd that he would willfully choose to work the farm. The main reason he returns to the farm is because his father, who's paid for his education, has fallen into debt. He doesn't want to feel guilty by taking advantage of something his father paid for. To determine whether this constitute a martyr complex I think you have to ask whether he's doing this out of weakness or whether he's doing this from nobility. His thinking in other parts of the story makes me want to call this more weakness than nobility. Alekhin tends to let things happen.

I think it does show a pattern in his behavior though, for him doing things which make him unhappy, for reasons that could be seen as "noble" as well as making a point than of explaining that he is doing these things to others, and his reasons for why he is doing them.

In the way he speaks, and tells his stories, he makes his actions about some greater cause than just what he wants.

And though he does not "brag" per sea, to me he does not come off as being particularly humble either.

It is almost as if he is trying to get people to pitty him, becasue he is suffering, on account of doing the "right" thing.

[Quark]

I have to wait for it to stop snowing, but generally speaking, it has been very, very slow. Has anyone else noticed this problem with this 'snowing ad' ?

No, I don't get a snowing ad. I do get one that beeps repeatedly. It's particularly annoying when I'm listening to music that's soft so I have to turn up the volume. When the ad comes up it emits this 2000 decibel screaming beep. Sometimes it completely catches me off guard and surprises me so much I tumble backwards over my chair comically.


And though he does not "brag" per sea, to me he does not come off as being particularly humble either.

Isn't he, though? By the end of his story he admits that he isn't much better than Anna's husband, who he had derided earlier. Talking about Anna, he says "It would have been a different matter if I had had a beautiful, interesting life -- if, for instance, I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country, or had been a celebrated man of science, an artist or a painter; but as it was it would mean taking her from one everyday humdrum life to another as humdrum or perhaps more so." He finds himself just as boring as the husband. Earlier he said this of the husband:


I tried to understand the mystery of a beautiful, intelligent young woman's marrying some one so uninteresting, almost an old man (her husband was over forty), and having children by him; to understand the mystery of this uninteresting, good, simple-hearted man, who argued with such wearisome good sense, at balls and evening parties kept near the more solid people, looking listless and superfluous, with a submissive, uninterested expression, as though he had been brought there for sale, who yet believed in his right to be happy, to have children by her

The ending is the salient part here. Alekhin thinks that the husband's uninteresting nature makes him unworthy of happiness. When Alekhin compares himself to the husband, isn't he really saying that he's unfit for happiness?

There is something to be said about Alekhin's need to appear "right." One of the questions he asks about his relationship with Anna is "Would it be honorable?" Clearly, he does care about how he appears in the eyes of others. Yet, I don't think we should confuse this desire for the motivation for telling this story, or for why he returns to the farm. His personal weakness drive him to working the farm, and his story is a lament for those weaknesses.

Maybe we shouldn't harp so much on this, though. I'm curious what you thought of Anna and Alekhin. I'll have to introduce that part of the story tonight.

[Janine]

No, I don't get a snowing ad. I do get one that beeps repeatedly. It's particularly annoying when I'm listening to music that's soft so I have to turn up the volume. When the ad comes up it emits this 2000 decibel screaming beep. Sometimes it completely catches me off guard and surprises me so much I tumble backwards over my chair comically.

Hi Quark, how strange; that sounds horrid! You might blow out your eardrums :eek: ; better be careful. I hate shrill noises; especially directly in my ears. Also, when falling off your chair you could hurt your back....you silly person, you...
:( The snowy ad is still there and seems to slow me up on search. Also, I regret that I upgraded internet explorer to version 7 and sorry I did it. It kept bugging me day after day to do so, and I thought, this update must be important. Now I think the new version was totally optional; so I go ahead and install and now notice it gobbled up more of my HD memory - like I need this now. I was trying to cut down on the memory on my computer, deleting and taking stuff off since it was running slowly before.


Isn't he, though? By the end of his story he admits that he isn't much better than Anna's husband, who he had derided earlier. Talking about Anna, he says "It would have been a different matter if I had had a beautiful, interesting life -- if, for instance, I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country, or had been a celebrated man of science, an artist or a painter; but as it was it would mean taking her from one everyday humdrum life to another as humdrum or perhaps more so." He finds himself just as boring as the husband. Earlier he said this of the husband:

I kind of laughed about the first comparison, Alekhin saying "..if I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country,..."; I kept thinking - 'yeah, right, then you might be killed and what good would you do Anna then?' And an artist or a painter - usually artists were 'starving artists' and struggling along in their own self-centered and liberated, carefree lifestyle. How would this free lifestyle be right for Anna, too? I guess he is really dreaming here and just musing without thinking too logically.
I also, did not quite see what was so 'humdrum' about Anna's life. She had her children, her husband, who obviously thought highly of her and loved her, and was good to her, and it was mentioned they had another estate in the country, asside from a lovely house and estate. I just don't know how miserable this poor Anna truly was. I have some questions about that in my mind, after re-reading this story last night (this may now be my 4th reading!).


The ending is the salient part here. Alekhin thinks that the husband's uninteresting nature makes him unworthy of happiness. When Alekhin compares himself to the husband, isn't he really saying that he's unfit for happiness?

Exactly, he does see himself as a more appealing person for Anna, but is he? I think this phrase 'unworthy of happiness' is actually in the text, but the opposite - the husband feels he is 'worthy of her happiness'; See this quote describing her husband:


...;to understand this mystery of this uninteresting, good, simple-minded man, who argues with such wearisome good sense, at balls and evening parties kept near the more solid people, looking listless and superfluous, with a submissive, uninterested expression, as though he had been brought there for sale, who yet believed in his right to be happy, to have children by her; and kept I kept trying to understand why she had met him first and not me, and why such a terrible mistake in our lives need have happened.

This clearly shows that Alekhin does think the husband feels he has the right to be happy with his wife. Yet all the adjectives that Alekhin seem to use, describing the husband, are negative and imply he is a boring person or not one who Anna would truly find to love, so why did she? I think this paragraph is clearly, all from the viewpoint of Alekhin and not of Anna herself or even her husband. Who knows what the true story was, or the true picture of the couple. This is only Alekhin's perception. It all depends on where a person is standing.

The last statement by Alekhin is also an assumption on his part. Who is to say that honestly the way things were or fate ordained them to be, was not the right way? Had Anna meet up with Alekhin first, he might have provided her with a miserable existence, had they actually lived together, sharing not just choice moments in their lives, but every aspect of married life together.

It seems to me now, after reading this story a 4th time, that Alekhin's view is very 'fairytalish' and it does feel like a direct take-off or his take-off of the Anna Karinena story by Tolstoy; as if Chekhov is showing what would have occurred, had neither woman or man taken the initiative to have an affair outside of a marriage, this being in opposition to the Tolstoy story...which everyone knows, ends tragically. So, which story is the more tragic? I would think this one sad, but the other much more devastating. I think that yes, Alekhin is playing a more herioc part in this story, but I think natually one would do so, having not been able to consumate one's deepest desires and finding some solace in thinking that way about oneself and their lost love. I think when criticising him, everyone has been a bit harsh. He could not help his intense feelings towards Anna, but I don't see them as truly realistic. I do feel he bend his tale, in order to fit his own fairytale images and fantasies about his story.


There is something to be said about Alekhin's need to appear "right." One of the questions he asks about his relationship with Anna is "Would it be honorable?" Clearly, he does care about how he appears in the eyes of others. Yet, I don't think we should confuse this desire for the motivation for telling this story, or for why he returns to the farm. His personal weakness drive him to working the farm, and his story is a lament for those weaknesses.

Is that so wrong though - for Alekhin to appear 'right' or 'noble'? In "A Tale of Two Cites" we see Sidney Carton much like Alekhin, who has open access to the couple's home and can come and go at will, being considered almost a part of the family and a good friend. Lucie knows that Carton loves her, he has professed it to her in a 'noble' manner. He sys he wants nothing in return (feeling he is unworthy of her fine love), but to be able to see her from time to time and be a part of her family, much like Alekhin is doing here. It so reminded me of the situation in that story. Now, as most know, the ending sees Carton giving the ultimate sacrifice for Lucie, her husband, her father and child - all that she loves; is it wrong that Sidney should feel noble or 'fine' about that? I see here, in this story, that Alekhin feels he did 'right' at the time of the parting; but living on and years later, he now questions it and the idea of love,as well. Is that not merely being human?


Maybe we shouldn't harp so much on this, though. I'm curious what you thought of Anna and Alekhin. I'll have to introduce that part of the story tonight.

I don't think we should keep harping on this one aspect of the story. I feel we have missed much and should move on. Why not take a look at Anna and also, her husband. It seems the story is a sort of triangle and we have not discussed those two characters in much detail. Of course, there again, we only have the limited perspective of Alekhin to go by, and must assume much about the couple from the few hints in his narrative.

But, by all means, Quark, do post parts of the story for us to examine.

Also, I am going to go back over the text and underline some parts and I have some specific questions.

[Quark]

I don't think we should keep harping on this one aspect of the story. I feel we have missed much and should move on...

But, by all means, Quark, do post parts of the story for us to examine.

Good idea. Let's move on and talk about Anna Alekseevna. We're introduced to her here:


And here it was my lot to meet Anna Alexyevna, Luganovitch's wife. At that time she was still very young, not more than twenty-two, and her first baby had been born just six months before. It is all a thing of the past; and now I should find it difficult to define what there was so exceptional in her, what it was in her attracted me so much; 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.

Alekhin recounts love at first sight, but he doesn't remember why he was so infatuated with her. That should already draw questions from the reader: "Has he really forgotten or does he just not want to say? Or did he ever know?" Alekhin tries to make his feeling clearer, but he only obscures the matter further. Even though Alekhin's knowledge of Anna could only be superficial at this point, he immediately describes a sense of familiarity with Anna. The only substantial observation Alekhin has made so far is of her "cordial, intelligent eyes" which makes me even more suspicious of Alekhin's crush. He's been longing to get back to his refined lifestyle of courteous manners and intelligent conversation, and the woman he's infatuated with just happens to possess features that bespeak cordiality and intelligence. Alekhin may be cloaking his longing for culture and refinement inside a romantic infatuation with a woman who embodies those virtues.

Of course, who's to say that this wasn't genuine love? Alekhin's feelings are quite touching, and it's possible that bad memory could be causing the discrepancies in his story-telling. Looking further ahead might help us come to a better conclusion. Let's look at some scenes where they interact more. First, this one at the theatre:


"In the late autumn there was a theatrical performance for some charitable object in the town. I went into the governor's box (I was invited to go there in the interval); I looked, and there was Anna Alexyevna sitting beside the governor's wife; and again the same irresistible, thrilling impression of beauty and sweet, caressing eyes, and again the same feeling of nearness. We sat side by side, then went to the foyer.

" 'You've grown thinner,' she said; 'have you been ill?'

" 'Yes, I've had rheumatism in my shoulder, and in rainy weather I can't sleep.'

" 'You look dispirited. In the spring, when you came to dinner, you were younger, more confident. You were full of eagerness, and talked a great deal then; you were very interesting, and I really must confess I was a little carried away by you. For some reason you often came back to my memory during the summer, and when I was getting ready for the theatre today I thought I should see you.'

"And she laughed.

" 'But you look dispirited today,' she repeated; 'it makes you seem older.'

And this description of Alekhin's place in the Lugovitch's home:


"Her eyes, the elegant refined hand she gave me, her indoor dress, the way she did her hair, her voice, her step, always produced the same impression on me of something new and extraordinary in my life, and very important. We talked together for hours, were silent, thinking each our own thoughts, or she played for hours to me on the piano. If there were no one at home I stayed and waited, talked to the nurse, played with the child, or lay on the sofa in the study and read; and when Anna Alexyevna came back I met her in the hall, took all her parcels from her, and for some reason I carried those parcels every time with as much love, with as much solemnity, as a boy.

The byplay in the first passage shows some more of what each of them mean to one another. Oddly enough, I find little in either of them that makes me think Anna is madly in love with him. Compassion and some slight interest in his conversation are what Anna shows him at the theater. Alekhin believes that she's hiding her true feelings under this more polite manner, but why does he think that?

The second part I quoted has Alekhin once again describing Anna very superficially. It's her elegance, the way she does her hair, and her step that attract him. Their interaction doesn't give him much satisfaction. They remain silent during their walks, and he's practically her servant in the household. We get the image of Alekhin doting on her for unknown reasons, and Anna not returning his feelings. Alekhin will later refer to his affection as a "sad love", and it starting to become clear why.

The more I read this story the less I believe Alekhin. While there's nothing to indicate that he's deliberately avoiding the truth, he's so out of touch with everything that it makes it impossible to agree with him. I still think it's possible that he's being truthful. After all, the story wouldn't work if you weren't moved at least a little by what Alekhin says. But, the holes in his story create a space where a second explanation of their relationship arises--one where Alekhin is deceived about Anna. The more I look over things the more I tend to agree with that second one.


Janine, I'll respond to the rest of your post when I start talking about the husband.

[Dark Muse]

In a previous post, I have addressed a lot of what you bring up here reguarding the relationship between Anna and Alekhin, so I will just requote the points I made, though some of it has already been dicussed to a degree some of it I think light have also been overlocked when we got involved in the disucssion of Alekhin's movites for lack of a better word.


It is questionable if Anna and Alehin truly did love each other, as in some ways there does seem to be a lack of certain passion between them in their relations with each other. I think perhaps the fact that they are both two young people whom might have similar interests, and each provide the other with a certain escape or break in their usual routine and lives, they might have developed an infatuation with each other that they mistake as actual love.

As already mentioned, Anna, for Alehin represents an escape from his dull country life, and she stands for the lifestyle he might really wish to have for himself.

While Alehin, for Anna represents an escape from her day to day home life, as well as the opportunity to have a lively conversation with someone of intellect and wit.

I think it is the "newness" of each of them to each other which first attracts them, but I think in some ways, they feel safe in the fact that there is this barrier between them, and that is what allows them to carry on with their relationship. In the end I do not think they truly desired to actually be together, because in doing this, that would ruin the one thing each one can offer the other.

I think this is also way they cannot truly account for their attraction to each other, because they are not so much in love with one another for who they are, but perhaps more for what they are, and what they symbolize to the other.



I also found it interesting, that most of their interaction together seemed to be done "safely" that is they did not even seem to try to make many opportunities for themselves to be intimate with each other, so they could carry on this affection for each other without truly being confronted by it or having to commit to it, as Alekin's visits to Anna were most often quite in the open, and while the husband was there at the house.

It does not appear as if they really shared many private moments together but often when he is speaking of his time with Anna, he always refers to "they" as both her and her husband being present. Or the Anna's children being there.

It was almost as if their relationship was really more in their head than anything, as outwardly they did not really engage romantically, they enjoyed each other's company, but did not physically act in a way that could be seen as inappropriate.

[Quark]

In a previous post, I have addressed a lot of what you bring up here reguarding the relationship between Anna and Alekhin,

Yes and I was drawing on a lot of what you were saying earlier when I posted above. I know we agree on this point, but I sense that Janine and islandclimber may have a different opinion. If I find that everyone's arguing the same side of this question, though, I might switch and talk about the evidence that supports Alekhin's claims.


so I will just requote the points I made, though some of it has already been dicussed to a degree some of it I think light have also been overlocked when we got involved in the disucssion of Alekhin's movites for lack of a better word.

Well there are some things going on in these passages that are beyond just a rehash of what we were talking about earlier. For example, what do you make of the mother-child references that come up. Alekhin gives Anna a very maternal aspect in his story, and he refers to himself as a boy in the last section of the story I quoted. What's up with that?

[Dark Muse]

Reading over those passages, it is very intersting, and though we do not really know anything about his mother, or even when she died within his life. I do not think that is mentioned anywhere, it only talks of his father as far as I can recall.


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.


and when Anna Alexyevna came back I met her in the hall, took all her parcels from her, and for some reason I carried those parcels every time with as much love, with as much solemnity, as a boy.

These passages do make it seem like he is acutally looking for more of a mother figure than a true lover. Or perhaps that is where his true infacutation with Anna comes from, he just does not fully realize it. That she acutally reminds him of his mother or childhood in someway, and that is why he comes to be drawn to her in such a way which he could not understand.

[Quark]

Reading over those passages, it is very intersting, and though we do not really know anything about his mother, or even when she died within his life. I do not think that is mentioned anywhere, it only talks of his father as far as I can recall.

No, he never does mention his mother, nor does he really talk about what kind of a mother Anna is. When he's connecting Anna to maternity, he must be doing it in a general, abstract way, and not linking her to anything in his actual childhood.


These passages do make it seem like he is acutally looking for more of a mother figure than a true lover. Or perhaps that is where his true infacutation with Anna comes from, he just does not fully realize it. That she acutally reminds him of his mother or childhood in someway, and that is why he comes to be drawn to her in such a way which he could not understand.

Anna does act as a mother for Alekhin in some ways. She's very comforting and sympathizing. We've already brought up the idea of Alekhin being pity-seeking--although I don't know if we ever agreed on that point. I think that Alekhin may be attracted to Anna as a giver of pity, like a mother. He's also comforted in the Lugovitch's home, and he becomes childlike in their domestic life.

Also, the mother-child language makes their relationship appear more platonic than sensual or sexual. This could be another warning thrown in by Chekhov that Alekhin doesn't understand his own story.

[Dark Muse]

Though he does mention his father, we really do not know what kind of realationship they had, other than it seemed his father cared for him becasue of what he sacrificed for his son's education, but we do not know how close they might have acutally been.

In someways, it seems he does almost seek more of a family/home life with Anna and her husband, but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

And it is true their relationship is not seemingly very sensual, and no indication of physcial intimacy is given. And most the time he spends with Anna, is in the realm of the household, often with the husband present.

In someways he does seem to be found of the husband, even if he does discount him as being dull when speaking of Anna's relationship to him.

He does not act very much like a typical lover.

[Quark]

Though he does mention his father, we really do not know what kind of realationship they had, other than it seemed his father cared for him becasue of what he sacrificed for his son's education, but we do not know how close they might have acutally been.

I don't think they were very close at all. Alekhin hardly mentions him at all during the story even though he's taking care of his father's estate. You would think the father would drop in or send a letter, but we hear nothing of his existence other than that he fell into debt. Alekhin does try to help his father, yet this isn't because of love or kinship. No, it's because he feels indebted to him for paying for college. Money and estates are the basis are their relationship. It doesn't seem like there's anything personal going on between them.


but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

It's starting to sound like you're even more hard on Alekhin than I am. My most recent reading of the story has made me a little more suspicious of Alekhin, but I think there's still a lot in Alekhin's story that makes sense. For example, why does Anna suddenly become depressed if she doesn't love him anyway? Alekhin's explanation of her irritability, while perhaps not being verifiable, at least makes sense. And, when Alekhin admits that he loves her she doesn't push him away or reject anything he's saying. She actually puts her head on his shoulder and cries. Some part of what Alekhin was saying must have gotten to her. Some part of what he's saying gets to me too. There are enough contradictions in his story to make you question what he's saying, but there never is enough to disprove it. I think the story is one big loop from when he says "love is a great mystery." He tries to answer the questions raised about love, but he's never able to.


As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

Are you saying that he isn't looking for comfort, or that he isn't interested in appearing noble?


In someways he does seem to be found of the husband, even if he does discount him as being dull when speaking of Anna's relationship to him.

I'm not actually sure what the friendship between the two of them is like. They are colleagues, right? I think Lugovitch is some court official too. Alekhin must have liked him at some point if he accepted an invitation to his house. The husband is certainly polite and accommodating. After all, he's constantly feeding him and giving him gifts. At the same time, though, I don't think Alekhin respects him at all. He may be like the husband for his hospitality, but he doesn't really care for his opinions.

[Janine]

I don't think they were very close at all. Alekhin hardly mentions him at all during the story even though he's taking care of his father's estate. You would think the father would drop in or send a letter, but we hear nothing of his existence other than that he fell into debt. Alekhin does try to help his father, yet this isn't because of love or kinship. No, it's because he feels indebted to him for paying for college. Money and estates are the basis are their relationship. It doesn't seem like there's anything personal going on between them.

Am I missing something here? All along now I have thought the father had died. Don't tell me I have to read this story a 5th time. Since he was never mentioned, I just naturally, felt he had left the debts and his estates/the farm to his son, and now the son felt ablidged to carry on with his father's property. Boy, am I confused. Where did the father run off to then?


It's starting to sound like you're even more hard on Alekhin than I am.

Yeah, I agree and I am not sure if I get his about our discussion so far. I keep feeling like everyone is concentrating on whether the man's story is plausible, or if he truly was in love with Anna. I still can't see why he could not have been in a silent way. It keeps being brought up, that he is not acting, or he is inert, or doesn't take inniative. Afterall, this is the late 19th century, and the woman is married with children. I can't understand why everyone is so hard on poor Alekhin. Any person speaking of a lost love or unrequitted love, will naturally color the story with their own impressions. I think in many ways, we are just over-analysising this thought, and why he did not act on his impulses. Is it always the right thing to act on impulse? Perhaps the man felt honor to her and respect, and did not wish to cross that line in her life, and cause her grief and unhappiness. He may have seen it this way clearly, when he was young and felt it his right not to act on his impulses. This man, Alekhin, is shown to be a 'fair' and 'honest' thinking person and upstanding, in other respects. He works hard on the farm, accepting his responsibility to his father and his debtors; he may not always like it or he may truly hate it, but he accepts it as his fate and his responsibility. He was part of the courts system of justice, showing he thinks logically and fairly. I don't see Alekhin as a bad person or a lame person, at all. I see him heroic in my own eyes. One may question this, but then I just don't see the point of this story, to be honest with you. I felt something deeper for him at the end, when he finally held Anna and confessed his love to her; then they parted and he sat alone and cried in his solace. What is wrong with his pathos and sadness, and also his questioning of 'love' throughout the story?



My most recent reading of the story has made me a little more suspicious of Alekhin, but I think there's still a lot in Alekhin's story that makes sense. For example, why does Anna suddenly become depressed if she doesn't love him anyway? Alekhin's explanation of her irritability, while perhaps not being verifiable, at least makes sense. And, when Alekhin admits that he loves her she doesn't push him away or reject anything he's saying. She actually puts her head on his shoulder and cries. Some part of what Alekhin was saying must have gotten to her. Some part of what he's saying gets to me too. There are enough contradictions in his story to make you question what he's saying, but there never is enough to disprove it. I think the story is one big loop from when he says "love is a great mystery." He tries to answer the questions raised about love, but he's never able to.

Yes, I though it clued us into the fact that Anna was finally showing her own feelings by her depression. But of course, the depression could have been from some other source or origin. Chekhov really does not provide the information to make a sound judgement on the cause; but then with her professing her love to Alekhin at the end, we can pretty much surmise the depression was born from her unrequitted love for him.


Are you saying that he isn't looking for comfort, or that he isn't interested in appearing noble?

Yes, I don't understand your remark here, Dark Muse, either.


I'm not actually sure what the friendship between the two of them is like. They are colleagues, right? I think Lugovitch is some court official too. Alekhin must have liked him at some point if he accepted an invitation to his house. The husband is certainly polite and accommodating. After all, he's constantly feeding him and giving him gifts. At the same time, though, I don't think Alekhin respects him at all. He may be like the husband for his hospitality, but he doesn't really care for his opinions.

I agree with all of this.

Quote by Dark Muse

In someways, it seems he does almost seek more of a family/home life with Anna and her husband, but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

I think he likes being part of a family life, but I don't think he 'confuses' his feeling for those of love; I think his love feelings are 'genuine'. One cannot always explain why one falls in love with some certain person. I don't understand why we are questioning him, when he said he could not exactly explain why he felt as he did for her, even from the start.


As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

What affair with his wife? They never have an affair throughout the story - at least not to my knowledge. It appears as just a close friendship in action. Why shouldn't he play with the child/children?

[Dark Muse]

Yes, I don't understand your remark here, Dark Muse, either.

What I was trying to say, is that I think this image of him playing with Anna's and her husbands child makes the idea of a passionate romantic relationship between Anna and Alekhin hard to beleive. Considering how concerned he is with his noblity and doing the right thing



What affair with his wife? They never have an affair throughout the story - at least not to my knowledge. It appears as just a close friendship in action. Why shouldn't he play with the child/children?

Well that is kind of my point. He is trying to tell this story as if he were truly in love with this woman, and yet thier relationship together was really a platonic one. There is nothing in thier actions which suggest they were turly passionate about each other or intimate. They were only two-like minds that established a close bound. But it does not seem they are truly in love.

[Janine]

What I was trying to say, is that I think this image of him playing with Anna's and her husbands child makes the idea of a passionate romantic relationship between Anna and Alekhin hard to beleive. Considering how concerned he is with his noblity and doing the right thing

I don't agree. If you read Anna K, I believe the husband liked her child and showed attention to him. Why wouldn't he? Lawrence fell in love with a married woman, and he played with her children when he visited her house. At first, it was just a strong attraction and eventually, they fell in-love, they ran off and eloped. I didn't find it strange at all, that Alekhin played with Anna's child. Why would he ignore the existence of the child? Wouldn't that make Anna hate him? If he bonded with her, it was only natural he would bond with the child, as well. Maybe in the end he cared more about the family staying together, partly for the child's sake, than leaving with Anna and tearing them appart. That is exactly what happens in Anna K, Tolstoy's story, and the outcome is tragic for all, especially her child. Also, in those days, the wife was not given any priviledges with the child or children, that she left behind. Had Anna in this story run off with Alekhin, no doubt she, too, would have been barred from seeing her child, who she loved dearly. Who would wish this for a loved one? For mother and child to be torn appart is a horrendous thing, unthinkable. This was the case in the 1900's with Frieda, she barely was alowed to see her own three beloved children. It took it's toll. It even took a toll on Lawrence. I am sure he felt badly and even guilty about it, at times. Later the children grew up and had a choice. The one girl remained faithful to her mother, Barbara, but the boy, Monty, rejected her I believe. For a mother, that would be a hard pill to swallow. It would leave a lifetime scar, not just on the mother, but children as well.



Well that is kind of my point. He is trying to tell this story as if he were truly in love with this woman, and yet thier relationship together was really a platonic one. There is nothing in thier actions which suggest they were turly passionate about each other or intimate. They were only two-like minds that established a close bound. But it does not seem they are truly in love.

Well, believe what you will about the story; I personally do believe Alekhin was very much in-love with Anna. We all love differently and who is to say if you don't show a deep passion or intimacy, you don't truly love. One can love from afar, and I still believe it can very much be love. Chekhov never gives us much to go by here. Who is to say their times together were not felt intimately by each? In "A Tale of Two Cities" I have no doubts in my mind that Sidney Carton did indeed love Lucy, even though he did not act on his impulses and try to obtain her. In the end he proved his love and it was far more noble, than if he had stolen her away from the other man in her life. In the end of that novel, Lucy knew just how much Sidney did love her and how far he would go for her sake. What is wrong with 'unconditional' love?

[Dark Muse]

It seems to me that thier love, was really just more of an infactuation between the two of them. If he did truly love her, than I do not think he would have doubted what his future with her would have been like.

And I personally find it hard to belive that two young people whom truly are in love with each other, would not express any acutal passion for one another when they are together, nor make any attempts to see each other privately. Whenever he is with her, it is always in the pressence of her husband or within her husbands household. They never try and sneak away together.

As far as the child goes. I would just think that a man of Alekhin's mortal standing would feel conflicted about playing such a role in the life of Anna's child knowing what he we was doing. It seems kind of odd to me, to have your lover play a role in your child's life.

[Janine]

It seems to me that thier love, was really just more of an infactuation between the two of them. If he did truly love her, than I do not think he would have doubted what his future with her would have been like.

I don't really know what to say. I feel this type of viewpoint is truly limited. Love exceeds certain boundaries, at least for me. I guess it is all in your interpretation, of exactly what 'true love' or 'genuine love' is. I think this is what Alekhin is asking throughout his story. I think, the doubt he has was born from his deep love for her. He was thinking of her and whether he could provide the quality of life, she was used to living, or if by taking her away, he might drag her down and daily life miserable in the end.


And I personally find it hard to belive that two young people whom truly are in love with each other, would not express any acutal passion for one another when they are together, nor make any attempts to see each other privately. Whenever he is with her, it is always in the pressence of her husband or within her husbands household. They never try and sneak away together.

No one is saying that would be easy to do, but we are not in their situation and so how can we judge what they will do or should do. Everyone is individual, different in how they react to situations like this, and because Alekhin does not take the steps to show Anna the passion he has in his heart, which would then break through and undermine her marriage and her settled secure life, it not to say they did not feel a deep passion, for each other inwardly. And is 'passion' the only true ingredient in love? I think consciously, staying around her family was purposeful, in that in this way they could not slip and become impassioned with each other; it was the safe route. If they did sneak away and meet privately, that would open up a whole new world to them and this would not necessarily mean, it would end in happiness, probably to the contrary.

Did you read "Ethan Frome", Dark Muse? In that story, the husband is very passionate in his thinking for the woman, the cousin who comes to care for his invalid wife. And yet they don't act on their impulses until later and the outcome is not favorable. His reasoning for not breaking loose and taking her away from the trap that she is in, is the fact he believes he does not have the means to support her or to give her a good life. Therefore, he suffers inertia throughout the story; but there is no doubt that he does adore and love her. There are zillions of stories of unrequitted or unconsumated love in Literature and most of those are the finest stories ever written.



As far as the child goes. I would just think that a man of Alekhin's mortal standing would feel conflicted about playing such a role in the life of Anna's child knowing what he we was doing. It seems kind of odd to me, to have your lover play a role in your child's life.

Don't understand this part of your thinking, at all. I don't know how Alekhin could simply ignore the child. The child must have loved him, as well, and therefore, why would he shun or ignore the child?

Alekhin is not Anna's lover - where do you see he is? He has put or kept himself in the position of being her close friend, not her lover.

[Dark Muse]

But if he is only a close frined to her, and not a lover, than they are not truely in love with each other. They may care for each other, but if they are only friends, than thier relationship is not a romantic one.

I do not see how you can keep confluding that they are only friends to each other, but still at the same time deeply in love with each other.

[Janine]

But if he is only a close frined to her, and not a lover, than they are not truely in love with each other. They may care for each other, but if they are only friends, than thier relationship is not a romantic one.

I do not see how you can keep confluding that they are only friends to each other, but still at the same time deeply in love with each other.

Because apparently, we have different definitions of what the word 'lover' means. I take it to mean they are physically intimate and therefore lovers. I didn't not see any physical consumation in their relationship. Friends can be lovers also and lovers should be one's best friend, for true love to exist. That is my concept of 'love'. Therefore I do think they loved each other very deeply and very much so. Just because they did not act on it physically does not dispute their love for each other. What, friends can't love also?

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that could be. For me lover does not have to mean only having physcial contact. When I use the word lover, I mean both the possiblity of having physical reltations, as well as using it for two people whom are in a romantic relationship I will refer to as "lovers" even if they may not have nessciarly been physically intimate with each other.

[Quark]

Am I missing something here? All along now I have thought the father had died. Don't tell me I have to read this story a 5th time. Since he was never mentioned, I just naturally, felt he had left the debts and his estates/the farm to his son, and now the son felt ablidged to carry on with his father's property. Boy, am I confused. Where did the father run off to then?

It doesn't mention the father dying. I would assume he's still living--just not on the farm. This was a common arrangement in nineteenth century Russia. Wealthy landowners would take a house near/in a city while they would employ bailiffs and others to run their estate. Pretty sweet deal, right? Live where ever, do no work, and get paid exorbitant amounts of cash. The son has to work the farm because the father has run into debt--probably because the farm isn't making enough money to support itself. The dad is still living, I would guess, just not on the estate.


Yeah, I agree and I am not sure if I get his about our discussion so far. I keep feeling like everyone is concentrating on whether the man's story is plausible, or if he truly was in love with Anna. I still can't see why he could not have been in a silent way. It keeps being brought up, that he is not acting, or he is inert, or doesn't take inniative.

Well maybe we haven't been wording our objections properly. I don't think it's so much a question of whether he loves her. No, it's more of a question of what's the basis of that love. Alekhin's believes that they should have run away together; and, since we all admit that there's downsides to that plan, we have to put scrutiny on the upsides. Would they have been happy together? Much of the story makes it seem like they wouldn't have been. We can say with some certainty that Alekhin loves Anna now, but we don't know whether Anna really loved him or just found him charming and took pity on him. We don't know whether Alekhin loved Anna because she was Anna or because she represented an escape from his dull life. Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love, but maybe they should spoil their relationship if they were never going to be happy.


I see him heroic in my own eyes. One may question this, but then I just don't see the point of this story, to be honest with you. I felt something deeper for him at the end, when he finally held Anna and confessed his love to her; then they parted and he sat alone and cried in his solace. What is wrong with his pathos and sadness, and also his questioning of 'love' throughout the story?

I'm a little unclear on something. Do you agree with his decision not to pursue a relationship with Anna?

[Janine]

Yes, that could be. For me lover does not have to mean only having physcial contact. When I use the word lover, I mean both the possiblity of having physical reltations, as well as using it for two people whom are in a romantic relationship I will refer to as "lovers" even if they may not have nessciarly been physically intimate with each other.

Yes, I would agree with that Dark Muse; however to me, concerning these two particular people, I would not have considered 'lovers', unless they had verbally expressed this to each other during the span of the story. Only at the end, does this become a truth, when they confess their mutal love to each other. So I didn't feel they were lovers most of their lives, nor did I feel that they were at the end either, actually; I feel this way because they chose not to become lovers. They never followed out their feelings to that extend. If they did not act on their impulses, I do not feel they were 'lovers'. Therefore, I don't see why Alekhin should have felt any guilt in playing with Anna's children.

[Janine]

It doesn't mention the father dying. I would assume he's still living--just not on the farm. This was a common arrangement in nineteenth century Russia. Wealthy landowners would take a house near/in a city while they would employ bailiffs and others to run their estate. Pretty sweet deal, right? Live where ever, do no work, and get paid exorbitant amounts of cash. The son has to work the farm because the father has run into debt--probably because the farm isn't making enough money to support itself. The dad is still living, I would guess, just not on the estate.

I didn't know that about Russian life. I didn't really get the impression the father still was alive, but I will look over that part of the story again and see if it reveals anything. I have been on a mini-vacation! :lol: At least these posts might bring this thread back into the first page listings.;)



Well maybe we haven't been wording our objections properly. I don't think it's so much a question of whether he loves her. No, it's more of a question of what's the basis of that love. Alekhin's believes that they should have run away together; and, since we all admit that there's downsides to that plan, we have to put scrutiny on the upsides. Would they have been happy together? Much of the story makes it seem like they wouldn't have been. We can say with some certainty that Alekhin loves Anna now, but we don't know whether Anna really loved him or just found him charming and took pity on him. We don't know whether Alekhin loved Anna because she was Anna or because she represented an escape from his dull life. Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love, but maybe they should spoil their relationship if they were never going to be happy.

"Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love,"...well, maybe at this point, too much questioning - as to whether it was 'true love', might spoil this story for us altogether. I liked the story, thinking it was just as he said and that he did love her and she him. I guess I am a "hopless romantic"!


I'm a little unclear on something. Do you agree with his decision not to pursue a relationship with Anna?

I think I do, because he felt (at the time) it was the 'right' thing to do. Who will ever know if it was. We would have to be given more information and I don't see that it is possible to evaluate if they would have been happy, had they acted on their impulses.

[Quark]

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


At least these posts might bring this thread back into the first page listings.;)

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


I didn't know that about Russian life. I didn't really get the impression the father still was alive, but I will look over that part of the story again and see if it reveals anything.

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.

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.


"Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love,"...well, maybe at this point, too much questioning - as to whether it was 'true love', might spoil this story for us altogether. I liked the story, thinking it was just as he said and that he did love her and she him. I guess I am a "hopless romantic"!

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."

Anyway, here's the conclusion of the story:


While Alehin was telling his story, the rain left off and the sun came out. Burkin and Ivan Ivanovitch went out on the balcony, from which there was a beautiful view over the garden and the mill-pond, which was shining now in the sunshine like a mirror. They admired it, and at the same time they were sorry that this man with the kind, clever eyes, who had told them this story with such genuine feeling, should be rushing round and round this huge estate like a squirrel on a wheel instead of devoting himself to science or something else which would have made his life more pleasant; and they thought what a sorrowful face Anna Alexyevna must have had when he said good-bye to her in the railway-carriage and kissed her face and shoulders. Both of them had met her in the town, and Burkin knew her and thought her beautiful.

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.

[Quark]

Oh, dear! I thought you were discussing "Gooseberries!" LOL My mistake.

We had talked about "Gooseberries" earlier, and I was afraid it might mislead some people--sorry about that. There is connection between the two stories, though. "Gooseberries" and "About Love" are the second and third stories in a trilogy Chekhov wrote. The first is "The Man in a Case." We're doing "About Love" because it's the best of the three, I think, and you don't need to know the other stories to understand it by itself.


I'll have to go read "About Love." I want to get involved in some of the more productive discussions. :)

You should have time to catch up since the story is only about nine pages.

[Janine]

Oh, dear! I thought you were discussing "Gooseberries!" LOL My mistake.

I'll have to go read "About Love." I want to get involved in some of the more productive discussions. :)

Antiquarian, it is really cool seeing you here. Welcome.:) This story is online. I put it into my Word program and reduced the font size and it came down to about 7 pages. I printed all three stories and have read them all. Maybe we can do "Gooseberries" next? What do you think, Quark. I take it you have read it, A? Glad you are joining in. It is only the 17th so you will have time to read "About Love" and make comments. We could use some more opinions on the story.

Quark, I did not mean to ignore your post. I will answer it tonight. I have to go out today and will be back later. Sorry for the delay.

[Quark]

I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him

What have you read so far? Anything good?


he can be so, so subtle.

Yeah, subtlety and understatement are common with Chekhov. I've found that multiple readings often raise my appreciation for the ambiguities that he creates in these stories. In the "About Love" discussion this month we've talked about three different ambiguities surrounding each of the main characters; and, each of us seems to have a slightly different interpretation. It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.

[Janine]

"Gooseberries," LOL and now "About Love." "The Huntsman," "Easter Night," "Vanka," "Sleepy," "Small Fry," "The Malefactor," "Panikhida," "Anyuta," those are some. I was reading them in order, I think, so I think these are the early ones, correct?

I read "About Love" this afternoon, but I'd like to read it again. It's so short and will only take me a little time.

This is very interesting thread. Hopefully, I can contribute as well as learn.

Antiquarian, we, participants in this thread, are also active in our otherthread - "Lawrence short stories". Quark and I made a trade-off; if I supported his thread, he would come and support mine. You are more than welcome in that thread, also. We have so much fun in each thread and we learn a lot about the two authors. Both author's stories are fascinating. We sort of pop back and forth between them, really keeps the mind stimulated. I think you would like both very much.


The posts (from all of you) looked very in depth and intimidating. I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him and he can be so, so subtle.

Oh Antiquarian, don't be silly; don't feel the least bit intimidated. I don't know that much about Chekhov. Whatever, I have written I really 'winged it' and struggled with my posts. I am better versed in Lawrence, but sometimes his stories throw me, too...like certain elements in the last one "Two Blue Birds"; things I can't seem to explain or quite understand definitively. He, too, can be subtle and also enigmatic, which actually sets up more of a challenge, I think....makes the two authors more interesting to study/discuss.


Of the Chekhov's (I am fairly new to Chekhov) I have read 'Lady and the Lapdog', 'Rothchild's Violin' and these three stories in the trilogy. I also listened to the complete 3 disc CD set, recently - it was great. I listed which ones were in this set, in one of my posts. Oh, and I also read 'The Student' and 'Sleepy'...I did request we not do 'Sleepy' presently, since it involves a baby being smothered. I also requested no harm to animals, small children and babies, at least for a few months. I am too close to becoming a grandmother and I found 'Sleepy' a bit disturbing, even though it is a good story.

[Dark Muse]

The posts (from all of you) looked very in depth and intimidating. I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him and he can be so, so subtle

As Janine said you really have nothing to worry about here. I know virtually nothing about Checkhov, the story About Love is my first time in participating in this thread, and I have only just started reading him.

Other than About Love, all I have read are Gooseberries and The Man in the Case, becasue I heard they were releated to About Love, and than I read Rothchild's Fiddle.

[Quark]

"Gooseberries," LOL and now "About Love." "The Huntsman," "Easter Night," "Vanka," "Sleepy," "Small Fry," "The Malefactor," "Panikhida," "Anyuta," those are some. I was reading them in order, I think, so I think these are the early ones, correct?

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.


Antiquarian, we, participants in this thread, are also active in our otherthread - "Lawrence short stories".

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.


Quark and I made a trade-off;

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


Oh Antiquarian, don't be silly; don't feel the least bit intimidated.

As Janine said you really have nothing to worry about here.

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

[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.

:lol: 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. :bawling:



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

[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. :thumbs_up 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? :lol: 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.

:lol: "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...:lol: 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.

[Janine]

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.

Quark, ok, I am with you up until here. Not sure of the next part. I agree so far, though.:D


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.

Ok, now I understand - you are referring to the reader of the story and not Alekhin. That makes sense so far....


When I used the word "mystery" I was using it in a different sense than Lawrence. My mystery is the mystery behind ambiguity.

I see what you are getting at.



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.

This part I find a little confusing. What do you mean by " 'About Love' does not entirely agree with Alekhin" exactly? So are you saying in your last statement that 'the ambiguity is the mystery'?


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.

That is a fair assessment. I would have to agree with that basically. Interesting that we are all involved in both threads, isn't it? I like going from one to the other and it does make one see some parellels do exist. I would not have thought of this before.

[Quark]

This part I find a little confusing. What do you mean by " 'About Love' does not entirely agree with Alekhin" exactly? So are you saying in your last statement that 'the ambiguity is the mystery'?

I knew this would be hard to explain. Well, it's not so hard to explain as it is hard to explain concisely. The clause " 'About Love' does not entirely agree with Alekhin" is not a good one, so let's scrap it and start over. What I meant was that Alekhin's story is filled with irony and things that make the reader question his story. We never know whether he loves Anna or just appreciates her lifestyle. We never know whether Anna loves him or just finds his conversation pleasant. These unsolved questions cast a general ambiguity over the story. I used the word "mystery" to refer to this ambiguity. Lawrence uses the word, too, but in a much different sense. I think Lawrence does know what love is, and he wouldn't bother with the questions this story raises. He argues that love should be mysterious, not because it's ambiguous, but because it shouldn't be intellectualized. It's sort of like in Apocalypse when he talks about how science has ruined the way we look at the sun and the constellations. Lawrence isn't suggesting that they're ambiguous. He's just arguing that our understanding shouldn't be so intellectual; instead, it should be more--I don't know--spiritual.


That is a fair assessment. I would have to agree with that basically. Interesting that we are all involved in both threads, isn't it? I like going from one to the other and it does make one see some parellels do exist. I would not have thought of this before.

Yeah, I often find myself drawing parallels, but sometimes I wonder whether these likenesses are real. Often, I think, I'm more conflating than comparing. Since the conversations we have are so similar, I start thinking that the stories we're reading are similar.

[Janine]

I knew this would be hard to explain. Well, it's not so hard to explain as it is hard to explain concisely. The clause " 'About Love' does not entirely agree with Alekhin" is not a good one, so let's scrap it and start over. What I meant was that Alekhin's story is filled with irony and things that make the reader question his story. We never know whether he loves Anna or just appreciates her lifestyle. We never know whether Anna loves him or just finds his conversation pleasant. These unsolved questions cast a general ambiguity over the story. I used the word "mystery" to refer to this ambiguity. Lawrence uses the word, too, but in a much different sense. I think Lawrence does know what love is, and he wouldn't bother with the questions this story raises. He argues that love should be mysterious, not because it's ambiguous, but because it shouldn't be intellectualized. It's sort of like in Apocalypse when he talks about how science has ruined the way we look at the sun and the constellations. Lawrence isn't suggesting that they're ambiguous. He's just arguing that our understanding shouldn't be so intellectual; instead, it should be more--I don't know--spiritual.

Yes, Quark, that makes more sense. You new comparison is much clearer to me.
I am interested now if you read "Apocalypse" by Lawrence? I read it about 6 months ago; found a great deal of it quite fascinating.


Yeah, I often find myself drawing parallels, but sometimes I wonder whether these likenesses are real. Often, I think, I'm more conflating than comparing. Since the conversations we have are so similar, I start thinking that the stories we're reading are similar.

Not sure - will have to think about all this. I guess, if it were two other authors ,we might also find parellels; who knows? Still I find it interesting that the same people are doing both threads. We are quite the book club intellectuals, aren't we? ;) :lol:

[Quark]

Yes, Quark, that makes more sense. You new comparison is much clearer to me.
I am interested now if you read "Apocalypse" by Lawrence? I read it about 6 months ago; found a great deal of it quite fascinating.

I read part of Apocalypse at my bookstore here in town. It was interesting, and sometimes even charming. When I started reading, I was anticipating a bitter diatribe, but the tone was much more genial than I thought it would be. I laughed at his joyless first encounters with the bible, and I enjoyed how his prose mixed the everyday and the abstruse together. The ideas were somewhat interesting, but nothing that was unexpected. Occasionally I groaned when his argument got a little too New Age-ish. Even when you recoil from Lawrence intellectually, though, you can still admire the style of his writing. I'll probably finish the book next time I go to the bookstore.


Still I find it interesting that the same people are doing both threads. We are quite the book club intellectuals, aren't we? ;) :lol:

I like to think that's because once people join the conversation they're just hooked by how exciting we are.

[Janine]

I read part of Apocalypse at my bookstore here in town. It was interesting, and sometimes even charming. When I started reading, I was anticipating a bitter diatribe, but the tone was much more genial than I thought it would be. I laughed at his joyless first encounters with the bible, and I enjoyed how his prose mixed the everyday and the abstruse together. The ideas were somewhat interesting, but nothing that was unexpected. Occasionally I groaned when his argument got a little too New Age-ish. Even when you recoil from Lawrence intellectually, though, you can still admire the style of his writing. I'll probably finish the book next time I go to the bookstore.

How funny... and interesting. I found the book at my library, in the religious/spiritual section, no less. I was safe there since they don't serve coffee, so there was no danger of me spilling any on it. They still let you into that bookstore, huh?
Anyway, I agree with all you wrote above. That is a good way of describing the parts, where you said L gets a 'little too New Age-ish'...yes, and yet, I found some of his 'way-out', 'crazy' theories, had some shred of feasibily to them, which did fascinate me. I actually decided to buy the book so I could read it again someday. By the time I would get around to it, no doubt my library will send their current volume on it's way. I wonder just how popular it is and how many people have checked it out in the past years.


I like to think that's because once people join the conversation they're just hooked by how exciting we are.

Absolutely and aren't we though? I am hooked....can't seem to leave this computer alone for an hour's time, especially the two short story threads. I am truly obsessed!

Hey, Quark, I saw this funny film called (now don't groan) - "The Jane Austen Book Club". It was about this mix of ladies (mostly middle-aged, a few younger ones, too) forming a weekly book club to discuss each Jane Austen novel, one a month. Ok, first off the oldest lady said 'no men allowed; they always hog the show and dominate the discussion group'..hahaha....Unaware of her remark, another of the women members invites this cute young guy, she happens to met at her library. How funny, since he is basically a science-fiction reader and really has his eye on this older attractive woman, so he will do anything to see her. Ok, he says he will be happy to try Jane Austen novels, even though he has never read them before; he asks to join the club and she submits.
Oh by gosh, first meeting at the local Starbucks (and they were drinking coffee), he shows up in a tight spandex biking suit, with his bike wheel in his left hand and a huge book (size of a dictionary) in his right hand. So, all their mouths drop open and they look questioningly at each other; the woman explains and then they look at the big book and also question him with their expressions. He says he did not know which novel would be picked first, so he got the complete works in one volume! It was really laughable and then he proceeds to say, that he thought that they would read them in order. The lady who invited him said quietly, "eh, well...they are not sequels."...get it? He was thinking like a science-fiction reader. It was a cute film and made me wonder how different would be the case, if we all discussed these stories 'in-person' and not via cyberspace. At least we would have coffee! ;) :lol:

[Dark Muse]

I have to say I saw a preivew for that movie, and it made me not even want to read the book which I had picked up becasue I am a Jane Austen fan. But the movie looked just a little too cheesy for my personal tastes.

[Dark Muse]

After the preivew for the movie I am having the books screened LOL. I gave my copy to my mom to read, and after she reads it, she is going to tell me if she thinks it is something I would acutally like or not.

[Janine]

It wasn't great literature, but I do remember it being rather fun. It was light, but I thought it was well written.

I don't have a burning desire to read the book, but the film I got a kick out of just because of discussing things here with guys and gals all the time. I thought it was pretty funny and something light to look at between heavier movies. Besides, the guy in it is just the cutest thing - Hugh Dancy, I think that is his name. He was adorable. So it is a girly film and a little 'cheesy'; I was in the mood that night for something light and fun, and it fit the bill. It had a point to it and was not mere comedy. It had a serious side. My friend in Michigan loved the book; she reads all sort of novels from Joyce's Ulyses to modern day authors and she said it was fun.

[Quark]

I don't have a burning desire to read the book, but the film I got a kick out of just because of discussing things here with guys and gals all the time.

Oh my god, the thread is becoming a chick-flick! I'll have to put a stop to this: no more women with tattered lives getting a fresh start, no more awkwardly charming males, and certainly no more sentimental montages. I knew this would happen when we lost islandclimber, the only other guy in the conversation.


After the preivew for the movie I am having the books screened LOL. I gave my copy to my mom to read, and after she reads it, she is going to tell me if she thinks it is something I would acutally like or not.

I wouldn't trust any of my relatives to be my screener. If anything, they themselves are what I need to be screened from.

[Dark Muse]

LOL don't worry, though I might not by a guy, I am about as far away from a chick-flick as you can get. Does the fact that I am a tom boy nature brat count for anything? And a lot of times when I am online people think I am a guy.

[Quark]

LOL don't worry, though I might not by a guy, I am about as far away from a chick-flick as you can get. Does the fact that I am a tom boy nature brat count for anything?

Well that's reassuring, at least. I have a feeling if Janine and Anti got together it would be like a little girl's tea party.


And a lot of times when I am online people think I am a guy.

Even with your avatar? I would think that would give you away.

[Dark Muse]

LOL on one forum, my user name was that of a Goddess from mythology, and someone still called me a dude.

[Quark]

LOL on one forum, my user name was that of a Goddess from mythology, and someone still called me a dude.

Okay, what can I say? Some of us on these forums are a little dense. Which goddess did they mistake for a dude?


Ha ha, Quark. I'm not a tomboy, but I am athletic. I'm not really into "chick flick" films, either. I'm more into classic films and period pieces, but I do like green tea. ;) And scones.

I'm not opposed to chick-flicks, or tea, or scones; but, when they threaten to invade the thread, I get a little defensive. I'll have to see this movie, and check it for similarities to our discussions.

[Dark Muse]

Okay, what can I say? Some of us on these forums are a little dense. Which goddess did they mistake for a dude?

Hehe, it was Ishtar, an ancient Goddess of the Moon

[Janine]

Oh my god, the thread is becoming a chick-flick! I'll have to put a stop to this: no more women with tattered lives getting a fresh start, no more awkwardly charming males, and certainly no more sentimental montages. I knew this would happen when we lost islandclimber, the only other guy in the conversation.

:lol: Checking in late, between my watching of another one of those chick-flicks:lol: No, I don't think this one is quite that, but still it does have that same goreously adorable actor, Hugh Dancy....he is in a much more serious role in this film called "Evening". Who has tattered lives here? We three women all have it together. Look to yourself, Q. What sentimental montages....?:lol: :lol: :lol: You writing style sure makes me laugh, Quark!


I wouldn't trust any of my relatives to be my screener. If anything, they themselves are what I need to be screened from.

That is for sure! My own mother won't read anything I give her with any bit of depth, without commenting that 'that book was really sort of heavy, don't you think?; She also, only likes happy endings. I would not even trust my best friends to recommend a good book to me, unless it was a classic that I already heard was good.

To the rest of the posts, I will have to reply tomorrow. Back to my adorable young actor and the conclusion of the film!

[Janine]

"Evening?" Based on the book by Susan Minot? If so, I have that book as well. It's good, but the structure is odd.

Now, my mother and I often shared books. We had the same taste.

Edited to say I looked it up, and yes, it is based on the book by Susan Minot. I want to rent it this evening! :) Janine, you give me such good book and movie ideas! Thanks! :)

Yes, Antiquarian, that is the film and she was the author of the book; said so in the beginning credits. She and the screen-writer of "The Hours" co-wrote this screenplay. I liked the film. The setting and cinematography is wonderful; soundtrack beautiful. I think it was well done and the acting was very fine. It is interesting to note that two sets of mother and daughter actors are in this film: Vanessa Redgrave and Natashia Richardson; Meryl Strepp and Mamie Gummer. The cast was very well chosen. Hugh Dancy gave a stellar performance. Let me know how you like the film? It is a quiet slow moving film, but it did keep my interest.

[islandclimber]

geez... I go away and the Chekhov thread turns into the chick flick discussion thread... tsk tsk tsk, what is going on here people???:p (don't tell anyone, but I'll let you in on a little secret... I actually like quite a few chick flicks.. as long as they are not too ridiculous.. but don't tell, it's a secret :p)

DarkMuse. People think you are a guy... and with the name Ishtar... well I guess most people don't have much of an exposure to assyrian/babylonian mythology... I thought she was the goddess of love and fertility, and even at times, of war... and her astral manifestation was Venus? and it's a good thing you are a tomboy nature brat, or Quark would be hopelessly outnumbered here... driven to despair, that his beloved Chekhov thread had been overrun, and turned into a tea party discussion group:lol: I think I am the one with a tattered life... my life is always in shambles more or less... something odd, something strange, dreaming about black and white wildflowers and fragile voices, and damp colours that seep through the cracks in the sidewalk I sometimes sleep on... I always am somewhere far off to the left of absurd, somewhere sinking into movements that always seem so ridiculous... oh well... tattered, melancholy, distraught lives are the only fun ones to live... or so it seems...:D

though, returning to tea, I do quite like it myself...:D In fact I just purchased 14 new books from the local used bookstore here, and I am looking forward to sipping herbal teas, while I go through them like wildfire... no sleep for me until I am finished:D

well, I am off to do some work... when is the next story starting? and what is the next story? as I said before I will be dropping in periodically still, like right now... just to attempt to say something argumentative, controversial and outrageously shocking... I mean, I would never do anything of that nature... just nice polite, agreeable comments from me...:p

[Janine]

geez... I go away and the Chekhov thread turns into the chick flick discussion thread... tsk tsk tsk, what is going on here people???:p (don't tell anyone, but I'll let you in on a little secret... I actually like quite a few chick flicks.. as long as they are not too ridiculous.. but don't tell, it's a secret :p)

:lol: yeah and islandclimber - you know Quark is going to say something degrogatory about it soon. He is very sensitive about his beloved Chekhov thread being interupted by gabby women.:lol: ...although he did already comment that he actually does like chick-flicks sometimes...I guess he is intune somewhat with his feminine side...good for him! :thumbs_up :D :lol:



DarkMuse. People think you are a guy... and with the name Ishtar... well I guess most people don't have much of an exposure to assyrian/babylonian mythology... I thought she was the goddess of love and fertility, and even at times, of war... and her astral manifestation was Venus? and it's a good thing you are a tomboy nature brat,

Dark Muse can answer, up till here and below too, if she wants. I don't mean to infringing on her territory. I realise you wrote this directly to her but I could not help but ease-drop;) ....



or Quark would be hopelessly outnumbered here... driven to despair, that his beloved Chekhov thread had been overrun, and turned into a tea party discussion group:lol:

You kidding; he probably secretly loves it. Has has entered into some of this dribble above. He probably appreciates the fact also, that we have not been 'bugging' him to pick the next story; as everyone is bugging me in the L thread and making me crazy. I don't know about tea but he drinks and occasionaly spills coffee on books at Barnes and Noble and then tries to sneak them back onto the shelves; the B&N detectives always catch him though.:lol: I hope he is laughing, too.


I think I am the one with a tattered life... my life is always in shambles more or less... something odd, something strange, dreaming about black and white wildflowers and fragile voices, and damp colours that seep through the cracks in the sidewalk I sometimes sleep on...
Sounds like the perfect makings for a poet to me. Cheerup, you are too young to fret so. Your whole life is before you, and it will be a glorious life, if you see it with color film. Take those dark glasses off, islandclimber! You have so much to offer the world and I love your poetry in your blog.


I always am somewhere far off to the left of absurd, somewhere sinking into movements that always seem so ridiculous... oh well... tattered, melancholy, distraught lives are the only fun ones to live... or so it seems...:D

Yes, and are you any more abnormal than any of us? We all go off into some foreign land of our own from time to time. Snap out of it, Mr. Meloncholia! Not true - distraught lives are not the most fun; where did you get your information? *smile* and be happy!


though, returning to tea, I do quite like it myself...:D In fact I just purchased 14 new books from the local used bookstore here, and I am looking forward to sipping herbal teas, while I go through them like wildfire... no sleep for me until I am finished:D

Ok, I love returning to tea...and what kind of herb tea do you like islandclimber? I love herb tea and drink it all the time! 14 books - wow, now that is something to be happy about and also, I bought about 4 or 5 Dostoyevsky books; you promised we could discuss "Notes from the Underground", if I read that one; I have it now and it is short. Soon I can read it and you promised; I will hold you to that.

So what great book bargains did you get? You must have been in 'seventh heaven' when you found them.



well, I am off to do some work... when is the next story starting? and what is the next story? as I said before I will be dropping in periodically still, like right now... just to attempt to say something argumentative, controversial and outrageously shocking... I mean, I would never do anything of that nature... just nice polite, agreeable comments from me...:p

I have been wondering the same thing. I know I suggested that we do all of the three in that trilogy, but now I think I would be bored if we did. Quark, can we do something new and different instead? Also, can it be from the book collection, entitled Anton Chekhov 'Lady With Lapdog' and Other Stories by Penquin Classics? The book contains 11 stories - only one of which we did so far - the title one. I just took that book out of my library yesterday. Please please...*begging*

islandclimber,to you last lines - ah, be nice now and yes, do be polite; but you don't always have to agree at all on the short story threads. In fact, Dark Muse and I often don't agree, don't we, DM?...and we still like like each other anyway, even when she hates the woman character or likes her and I am just the opposite:) :D in my thinking...happens all the time.

[Janine]

The book is slow moving as well Janine. I did rent it today, along with Away From Her with Julie Christie.

Antiquarian, doesn't your library have free videos and cd rentals like mine? It is always a good thing for me, because if I am disappointed, then I did not waste the money to see the film. I hope, if you rent it, you like it. If you do rent it, watch the extra features. I found the making of the film really interesting and I had not thought of the curtains that wave in the breeze in the old woman's room as being like sails. I thought that was interesting imagry. I kept thinking the room looked really etheral and almost dreamlike, with those white curtains on each side of the bed, moving in the sea breeze.
I must look the soundtrack up on the net. I think it would be a good one to buy.

[Quark]

Hehe, it was Ishtar, an ancient Goddess of the Moon

That's a little obscure. I can see how some people might take it for a male username.


Who has tattered lives here? We three women all have it together.

Isn't that the usual setup to these chick flicks. They always seem to start with a woman going through a tough breakup, or getting fired, or something else like that. Then the rest of the story is about them getting their lives together and healing emotionally. I've been forced to see one or two of these movies by girlfriends, and they (the movies) usually follow this plot.


I actually like quite a few chick flicks

Don't you start.


well, I am off to do some work... when is the next story starting? and what is the next story? as I said before I will be dropping in periodically still, like right now... just to attempt to say something argumentative, controversial and outrageously shocking... I mean, I would never do anything of that nature... just nice polite, agreeable comments from me...:p

I'm looking through my books for another story to do, and I have a few ideas already. Hopefully I can reach a decision about it by next week. I'll post more when I know.


although he did already comment that he actually does like chick-flicks sometimes...I guess he is intune somewhat with his feminine side...good for him! :thumbs_up :D :lol:

Yes, despite my macho exterior, I actually don't abhor chick flicks. Although, I don't know if I particularly like them either. Let's say I'm ambivalent about the whole genre.


I don't know about tea but he drinks and occasionaly spills coffee on books at Barnes and Noble and then tries to sneak them back onto the shelves; the B&N detectives always catch him though.:lol: I hope he is laughing, too.

You're just not going to let the coffee thing go, are you? I am a klutz, but that doesn't mean you need to keep bringing it up. When you get my book you'll see that it was only a small spill anyway. I was able to deflect most of the overflow with my hand onto the person sitting across from me.


islandclimber! You have so much to offer the world and I love your poetry in your blog.

I didn't know island had a blog. I'll have to check it out.


I have been wondering the same thing. I know I suggested that we do all of the three in that trilogy, but now I think I would be bored if we did. Quark, can we do something new and different instead? Also, can it be from the book collection, entitled Anton Chekhov 'Lady With Lapdog' and Other Stories by Penquin Classics? The book contains 11 stories - only one of which we did so far - the title one. I just took that book out of my library yesterday. Please please...*begging*

I don't think we'll do the other two stories immediately after "About Love." You're right, we could use a change. Before we completely forget them, though, I would like to talk about how the other two in the trilogy relate to "About Love." Since we already read them, we may as well talk about them a little bit before we move on. I'll post something about the three stories tomorrow and see if I can get some conversation going.

[Janine]

That's a little obscure. I can see how some people might take it for a male username.

I thought the same thing about that user name. Now the name 'Dark Muse', I always got the sense of as being a woman.


Isn't that the usual setup to these chick flicks. They always seem to start with a woman going through a tough breakup, or getting fired, or something else like that. Then the rest of the story is about them getting their lives together and healing emotionally. I've been forced to see one or two of these movies by girlfriends, and they (the movies) usually follow this plot.

That is funny that you should say that. "The Jane Austen Book Club" actually does start out with one woman's husband announcing to her he does not lover her anymore and turns out he has a girlfriend. So the other older woman she is good friends with concocts the idea of getting her involved in a book club so she will get her mind off her depression. Then when the other woman arrives with this cute guy, Hugh Dancy, they all think..hummm...he might like the rejected wife. The funniest part really about the story is the book discussions though and her is this cute young guy surrounded by middle-aged woman and one of the woman's daughters, who just happens to be gay. He honestly comes to take the book club seriously, which is cool in my mind. He's very active debater, and lends a male viewpoint to the whole thing which makes it interesting. It was an entertaining film. Actually, the irrate person or annoying person is not the guy as Virgil suggested but the one girl who has some issues and things she knows it all, inwardly she is really the most insecure of all. The acting was good and the film was a low budget indie film and commendable.


Don't you start. :lol: :lol: :lol: what exactly is the definition of a 'chick-flick', anyway? I think many films labeled chick-flick, are actually cross-overs, into other genres.



I'm looking through my books for another story to do, and I have a few ideas already. Hopefully I can reach a decision about it by next week. I'll post more when I know.

Oh good, well get with it will you, Quark, ...poor Janine has been reviewing Lawrence stories all week long and staying up mega late to do so. So can it be one of these:

Grief
Agafa
Misfortune
A Boring Story
The Grasshopper
Ward 6
Ariadne
The House with an Attic
Ionych
The Darling

All of the above are in my library book.:D


Yes, despite my macho exterior, I actually don't abhor chick flicks. Although, I don't know if I particularly like them either. Let's say I'm ambivalent about the whole genre.

Like I said - how do you define them really? We could call 'Monty Python' chick flicks, since the guys play women so often in the skits and movies.:lol: I guess they are well in touch with their 'feminine side'.:lol:


You're just not going to let the coffee thing go, are you? I am a klutz, but that doesn't mean you need to keep bringing it up. When you get my book you'll see that it was only a small spill anyway. I was able to deflect most of the overflow with my hand onto the person sitting across from me.

I keep the 'deflection method' in mind if this ever happens to me. Usually I am a bit paranoid, I will spill something on the books. It is pretty easy to do. Alright then, I won't bring it up anymore. I don't want to further wound your delicate male sensibilities.



I didn't know island had a blog. I'll have to check it out. Yes, he does and he has some very nice poetry he wrote in his blog. Do you have a blog, Quark? I haven't gotten around to one yet, but I have ideas for one. I just never have the time to start one or keep it active.




I don't think we'll do the other two stories immediately after "About Love." You're right, we could use a change.

Good, because I hate to say this, but I think they are a bore. I think too we brought up the main themes of each already.



Before we completely forget them, though, I would like to talk about how the other two in the trilogy relate to "About Love." Since we already read them, we may as well talk about them a little bit before we move on. I'll post something about the three stories tomorrow and see if I can get some conversation going.

Well, if you insist; but I probably won't participate too much in those, since I don't have the time to review those stories or read them entirely again; and I don't clearly recall them now. Maybe an overview and some comments would be fine. I think I have some commentary on 'Gooseberrries' I could post from a book I own; but I might have to type it out and we will see just how long that is before I commit to that task. I already did post that commentary about how they were considered by Chekhov as a trilogy and he had planned more to come but never accomplished that. I guess he got side-tracked, as we all do.

[Janine]

I don't know, Janine. I've never been to my local library. I live a little outside of town, well on the very southeastern edge, and the library is so far away, while the video store is just a few streets down. Well within walking distance, especially considering the fact that I hiked miles and miles and miles today. LOL

I probably should check out the library, though. I loved going to the library when I was a kid.

Antiquarian, ever since I discovered my library has tons and tons of videos and even new releases, and they buy more all the time, I stopped renting completely. I has saved me mega bucks. I drive there 2 to 3 times a week to check things out. Their regular collection, which is huge is great and you can keep the DVD's, Tapes, CD's out two full weeks. The circuit Videos and CD's come in from the library system monthly and change at the end of the month; then more come in from the system...I am talking about hundreds at a time...CD's about 600 new ones every three months. Those videos you have to return in 2 days, CD's - two weeks, but if you miss a day, the fee is only one dollar a day (late charge)...still way cheaper than the video rental. It is literally a feast to go there and I do have to drive there, but it is not far from my house. The only time I go now to my video store, is to check out what they are selling, unless it is something I can't find at my library, which is totally rare. I practically live at my library and it is a tiny facility and yet they have so much, just packed in tightly. They also, have about 25 computers and full use of them for free. I had to resort to that once, when my broadband went out and I could not get online. Libraries have changed greatly in the past 10 years, thank heaven! I am really blessed with such a great free resource.

[Dark Muse]

Wow so much has happend in so little time LOL. I will do my best to address everyone.


DarkMuse. People think you are a guy... and with the name Ishtar... well I guess most people don't have much of an exposure to assyrian/babylonian mythology... I thought she was the goddess of love and fertility, and even at times, of war... and her astral manifestation was Venus?

Yes, she is associated with those things as well, moon goddess also often have associations with love and fertility as well.


islandclimber,to you last lines - ah, be nice now and yes, do be polite; but you don't always have to agree at all on the short story threads. In fact, Dark Muse and I often don't agree, don't we, DM?...and we still like like each other anyway, even when she hates the woman character or likes her and I am just the opposite:) :D in my thinking...happens all the time.

Yes, that is quite true. I am the disagreable one :D but there is never any love lost. At least I hope I do not overstay my welcome.


That's a little obscure. I can see how some people might take it for a male username.

Yes, that is true, but the place I had been using that name it, was somewhere where I had the exepectation that the majority of the people would know what I was speaking of becasue of the nature of the forum.

[Dark Muse]

Oh good, well get with it will you, Quark, ...poor Janine has been reviewing Lawrence stories all week long and staying up mega late to do so. So can it be one of these:

Grief
Agafa
Misfortune
A Boring Story
The Grasshopper
Ward 6
Ariadne
The House with an Attic
Ionych
The Darling

All of the above are in my library book.:D

Oh, please not Ward 6, that would be a bit too much reading for me at this particular time.

[Janine]

Thanks for the information, Janine. I stopped going to the library, initially, because they didn't keep it clean enough for me and it seemed to be a gathering place for kids with nothing to do and no interest in books. Then I moved to Europe and I couldn't even find the library for several years. LOL Since coming back to the US, I haven't gone to the library. I really should try it sometime soon, especially since the video store I usually go to moved and now it's almost as far away as the library! :flare:

Yeah, I know what you mean by clean. The videos and DVD's and CD's sometime feel sticky and grimmy, like someone was devouring pizza when watching/listening to them. You will think I am nuts, but I always carry those antibacterial portable whipes and whipe my hands off after leaving the library. I carry my stuff home in a bag, usually a dollar store paper bag with handles and when I get home I whipe them all down. Some libraries do this at their check-in counter (my friend works at one that does so), but ours does not and it is one of my pet peeves. My library does not even keep soap in their bathroom and I think that is just plain yucky, so one day I complained about that. Know what their solution was? It was to leave antibacterial lotion on the front checkout counter; of course no one even notices it is there. They are stupid there....but I put up with all this to get those great free offerings. Also, often the library's have books for sale or free and sometimes donated VHS tapes for 50 cents or $1. I have found some worth picking up, from time to time. It is always an adventure for me to go there. I get lucky some nights.:thumbs_up :D

[Janine]

No, I don't think you're crazy at all, Janine. I always keep a bottle of that antibacterial lotion in my car. Use it almost every time I get in. My grocery has started keep the wipes near the carts, so people can wipe the handles of the carts. I love it.

That is good; I keep thinking I must be crazy or fussy, because I seem to be the only one doing this, at my library. The way the media is always talking about germs nowdays, it does make one paranoid; but I have even been to the video store and seen them whiping the covers and the CD's themselves; I think my library's attitude is a disgrace - you should see some of the groady CD covers. My grocery has been doing that also with AB whipes for the handles, etc., also keeping whipes near the meats; plastic bags for the same. Did you ever pick up a chicken package and the whole thing is slimmy...ick...I think that has to be germy.:(

[Janine]

Wow so much has happend in so little time LOL. I will do my best to address everyone.

Yeah really...we've been busy in here, tiddling away the time till our fearless leader picks a new story....Quark, where are you...?


Yes, she is associated with those things as well, moon goddess also often have associations with love and fertility as well.

Interesting, DM....and are you those things?


Yes, that is quite true. I am the disagreable one :D but there is never any love lost. At least I hope I do not overstay my welcome.

No, you can never 'overstay your welcome'...always welcome in both threads, DM ....you kidding? I never take confrontations on here seriously, at all. Just debating, just debating.....normal stuff....makes for more fun and more excitement...

Yes, that is true, but the place I had been using that name it, was somewhere where I had the exepectation that the majority of the people would know what I was speaking of becasue of the nature of the forum.[/QUOTE]

Funny, about user names; I have met some people on this site and truly did not find out their sex for months. That was ok; they were just people to me. One person, I kept wavering in my discision as to male or female, and finally someone clued me in. Otherwise, I really would not have known.

[Dark Muse]

Interesting, DM....and are you those things?

Though the moon has alwyas been something sacred to me and I have always been drawn to the Moon Goodess, I do not know how much of her qualtiies I acutally imbue. Considering I am dead set against having childern, I cannot consider myself very fertile.

And I do not think I really make a very good idol of love either. Though it is true that in some regaurds Ishtar does have a bit of a darker asepct as well which I can relate to. I am probaly more in like to Artemis the Huntress, and Porctress of the wood, and creatures of the wood.

[Quark]

Oh, please not Ward 6, that would be a bit too much reading for me at this particular time.

A good story, but, yes, you're right that it's a too long for the next story. I'm looking for a shorter one, and I have a few ideas already. I'll make up my mind soon.

[islandclimber]

Janine, the books are

Borges-- Collected Fictions
Calvino--- Cosmicomics
Pessoa-- The Book of Disquiet
Cortazar --- Blow-up and Other Stories
Gogol-- Collected Tales
Hedayat -- The Blind Owl
Short Stories by the Generation of 1898 (spanish writers like Unamuno, Ibanez, etc...)
Gorky--- Creatures that were Once Men and Other Stories
Sartre--- The Wall
Sartre--- Nausea
Camus--- The Fall
Pelevin--- The Blue Lantern
Fuentes--- forget the name of the book...
and DH Lawrence--- Complete Stories Vol 1:D




And you Missy..(yes I am calling you Missy, Janine:lol:) you do not tell me to stop being melancholy:flare: :lol: haha.. just teasing, but I do love being melancholy.. it is my favourite feeling... such a wonderful emotion to feel in all its power... and having a shattered life makes living so darn interesting.. maybe I can write my bizarre autobiography one day hahaha:lol: .. and then burn it before it is too late... or not.. I think I will just leave that idea... :D

So, I actually have to apologise... I deleted my blog the other day.. I was sick of it.. I seem to do things like that often... so no blog for me anymore.. just in case you have already tried to look Quark. sorry bout that... I may start it up again sometime... but when I have more time...

Quark, I mostly like the chick flicks that kind of transcend the genre to a degree.. the strictly formulaic chick flicks that you outlined the plot for, are generally pretty bad... but some so called chick flicks are just amazing... I think guys just label anything sentimental and sad as a chick flick so they get to avoid allowing the possibility that they have a sensitive and emotional side.. us men cannot allow our emotions to run away unrestrained.. no tears here.. :lol: I only cry way too often.. is that a bad thing, that movies and books make me cry all too often...:bawling:

ugh, I do not want to work tomorrow... if you pick a story that I like here... I am going to have trouble staying away as Janine picked my favourite Lawrence story... oh, why does work have to be my reality?? what seriously messed up god decided to run the world this way.. .I quit!!! work, I mean, not life.. though the ceiling fan looks attractive right now:p haha... hmm I wonder if it would support my bodyweight.. Hahahahah:lol:

okay enough of suicidal dreams... I will be back soon I think, quite possibly. and do enjoy the teaparty.. oh yeah, Janine, I love wild nootka rosehip tea... I love mint-chamomille tea... jasmine green tea.. rooibos teas... mmmmmm.. so many :D

[Quark]

Borges-- Collected Fictions
Calvino--- Cosmicomics
Pessoa-- The Book of Disquiet
Cortazar --- Blow-up and Other Stories
Gogol-- Collected Tales
Hedayat -- The Blind Owl
Short Stories by the Generation of 1898 (spanish writers like Unamuno, Ibanez, etc...)
Gorky--- Creatures that were Once Men and Other Stories
Sartre--- The Wall
Sartre--- Nausea
Camus--- The Fall
Pelevin--- The Blue Lantern
Fuentes--- forget the name of the book...
and DH Lawrence--- Complete Stories Vol 1:D

That's quite a list. A few Chekhov short stories and it's complete.


I deleted my blog the other day..

Just to stop me from seeing it?


Quark, I mostly like the chick flicks that kind of transcend the genre to a degree.. the strictly formulaic chick flicks that you outlined the plot for, are generally pretty bad...

When I was talking about chick flicks/lit I was referring to the stories that stick to the form I described. You know, the ones where the woman loses her boyfriend, meets cute X, fights with cute guy X over something, overcome differences with cute guy X, happy ending. Along the way, of course, the woman heals emotionally, there's some quips by the woman's best friend, and there's some camera time for the crazy, embarrassing parents. It's a pretty set routine for most of these movies. Like I said, though, I'm not totally opposed to them. I just don't want the thread being turning it one!


ugh, I do not want to work tomorrow... if you pick a story that I like here... I am going to have trouble staying away as Janine picked my favourite Lawrence story...

Oh, now I'm in competition with Janine. This can't end well.

[Janine]

Janine, the books are

Borges-- Collected Fictions
Calvino--- Cosmicomics
Pessoa-- The Book of Disquiet
Cortazar --- Blow-up and Other Stories
Gogol-- Collected Tales
Hedayat -- The Blind Owl
Short Stories by the Generation of 1898 (spanish writers like Unamuno, Ibanez, etc...)
Gorky--- Creatures that were Once Men and Other Stories
Sartre--- The Wall
Sartre--- Nausea
Camus--- The Fall
Pelevin--- The Blue Lantern
Fuentes--- forget the name of the book...
and DH Lawrence--- Complete Stories Vol 1:D

Wow, Quark is right - that is quite a list! islandclimber, just what was my original question, anyway? That is a very impressive list. Are you reading those all at once?



And you Missy..(yes I am calling you Missy, Janine:lol:) you do not tell me to stop being melancholy:flare: :lol: haha.. just teasing, but I do love being melancholy.. it is my favourite feeling... such a wonderful emotion to feel in all its power... and having a shattered life makes living so darn interesting.. maybe I can write my bizarre autobiography one day hahaha:lol: .. and then burn it before it is too late... or not.. I think I will just leave that idea... :D
That 'Missy' sounds kind of John Waynish...:lol: Oh yeah, well I have to drag you out of the 'down in the dumps' you seemed to have been in lately. What happened to old islandclimber who seemed to be up and cheerful, and up on the rocks climbing to his heart's content; opps I think I see a glimmer of that guy here somewhere... :lol: at least, he is kidding around in his post...there is hope afterall. Feel 'melancholy', I, for one, love to feel 'melancholy' often, but leave that deep darker depression behind; it is worthless and such a waste of time..... A shattered life? What? Aren't we being a bit melo-dramatic, a bit Hamletish...for a good looking healthy guy of 25? I would trade ages and bodies with you, if I could and I am not depressed or shattered, yet!!! No sir, it would take a lot to find me that way. I love tragedies, but I am a born optimist! I guess you will have to put up with me.
Yes, I would like to read your bizzare biop someday; NO don't burn it! Will it include you climbing experiences/travels through exotic lands/elicite affairs? :lol:


So, I actually have to apologise... I deleted my blog the other day.. I was sick of it.. I seem to do things like that often... so no blog for me anymore.. just in case you have already tried to look Quark. sorry bout that... I may start it up again sometime... but when I have more time...

You do have to apologise. Here I was plugging your beautiful poetry, on this thread....and that it the thanks I get....:( :lol: just kidding, too. I hope you have copies of those poems, and I hope soon you make a new blog; although I admit, I don't find the time to read very many of those between these two threads and life asside from the computer.



Quark, I mostly like the chick flicks that kind of transcend the genre to a degree.. the strictly formulaic chick flicks that you outlined the plot for, are generally pretty bad... but some so called chick flicks are just amazing... I think guys just label anything sentimental and sad as a chick flick so they get to avoid allowing the possibility that they have a sensitive and emotional side.. us men cannot allow our emotions to run away unrestrained.. no tears here.. :lol: I only cry way too often.. is that a bad thing, that movies and books make me cry all too often...:bawling:

You guys are a riot. But I must tell you I love it, when guys can tap into deeper emotions and cry. Why shouldn't they? Men are human, you know. They should express themselves naturally. Yes, there is a fine line between silly chick flicks and serious good ones. Men labeled them chick flicks I believe, as you said. islandclimber, you can cry :bawling: on my shoulder any day. I am a good listener.;)



ugh, I do not want to work tomorrow... if you pick a story that I like here... I am going to have trouble staying away as Janine picked my favourite Lawrence story... oh, why does work have to be my reality?? what seriously messed up god decided to run the world this way.. .I quit!!! work, I mean, not life.. though the ceiling fan looks attractive right now:p haha... hmm I wonder if it would support my bodyweight.. Hahahahah:lol:

Yeah, and tomorrow is only Thursday too...but the weekend is coming soon....hang in there. Yes, and why have none of you raved over my lovely page I made up to announce the new story? I wanted to get all your attentions, so I even made a composite photo to add to the page (tricky, huh?) and I did tons of hours of research. Ok, you can all aplaud me now!;) :lol:



okay enough of suicidal dreams... I will be back soon I think, quite possibly. and do enjoy the teaparty.. oh yeah, Janine, I love wild nootka rosehip tea... I love mint-chamomille tea... jasmine green tea.. rooibos teas... mmmmmm.. so many :D

Yes, definitely - enough of those. The fan would not support you and it would be a failed attempt. Let's talk about tea instead - wow, those sound so good. I like chamomille-mint too and I love peppermint and cinnamon apple spice tea. Never heard of Nootka tea - heard of nookie but not nootka :lol: - is that Alaskian? Humm....jasmine sounds so good. I never tried it. We must talk 'tea' more often.

[Janine]

Just to stop me from seeing it? Probably just a whim today - don't take it personally, Quark.




When I was talking about chick flicks/lit I was referring to the stories that stick to the form I described. You know, the ones where the woman loses her boyfriend, meets cute X, fights with cute guy X over something, overcome differences with cute guy X, happy ending. Along the way, of course, the woman heals emotionally, there's some quips by the woman's best friend, and there's some camera time for the crazy, embarrassing parents. It's a pretty set routine for most of these movies. Like I said, though, I'm not totally opposed to them. I just don't want the thread being turning it one!
I love your rendition of the cute (girl) X and the cute guy X - therefore, Quark, does X plus Y equal Z? :lol:Oh boy oh boy.....that was really bad!:( ;) Not just chick flicks are formulated these days. Think of all the films of 'disfunctional families', then all the glorified 'serial killer' films, and then the same old plot for all the 'thriller/heist' films. Oh please, can't they come up with something new and different soon?



Oh, now I'm in competition with Janine. This can't end well.

You certainly are. You better work harder at this thread. Did you see my intro page in Lawrence? I am pretty proud of that and it is eye-catching, I think. I am sure newcomers are going to flock there soon. Poor Chekhov may have to take a back seat this month. How can you compete with a title 'Witch a la Mode'?

[Quark]

You certainly are. You better work harder at this thread. Did you see my intro page in Lawrence? I am pretty proud of that and it is eye-catching, I think. I am sure newcomers are going to flock there soon. Poor Chekhov may have to take a back seat this month. How can you compete with a title 'Witch a la Mode'?

With how easy these threads are to run--once they get going, that it--I don't think there's any need for competition. So, I don't see why we need separate seats, or burners, or fiddles. Besides, if we did have them, the Chekhov discussion certainly wouldn't be sitting in the back.

Oh, and in the spirit of promises I hope not to break, I want to announce that the next story will start Monday. This weekend I'll pick one of the options and post an intro to get things going.

[Janine]

With how easy these threads are to run--once they get going, that it--I don't think there's any need for competition. So, I don't see why we need separate seats, or burners, or fiddles. Besides, if we did have them, the Chekhov discussion certainly wouldn't be sitting in the back.

Oh, and in the spirit of promises I hope not to break, I want to announce that the next story will start Monday. This weekend I'll pick one of the options and post an intro to get things going.

:lol: Yeah right, stay in your chairs now and get comfortable....oh good, Monday is cool. Quark, will it be one of these choices:

Grief
Agafa
Misfortune
A Boring Story
The Grasshopper
Ward 6
Ariadne
The House with an Attic
Ionych
The Darling

These are in my library book! Of course, some may be too long, like Ward 6 so skip that one. "The House With an Attic" sounds interesting. Also, at your suggestion, I read "The Student" already - I had to print that one out.

[Quark]

"The House With an Attic" sounds interesting. Also, at your suggestion, I read "The Student" already - I had to print that one out.

"The House With an Attic" doesn't sound familiar. If I've read it, it must have been under a different name. I'll look it up and see what it's about. "The Student" is one the stories I'm considering. After the last selection, the two elements of a good story for this month would have to be brevity and an optimistic mood. The whole "About Love" trilogy is rather depressing and long. We should mix it up this time and do something brief and warmer in mood. I'll let you know when I decide on the perfect story.

[Janine]

Alas, our leader, Quark makes an appearance! Yeah - Chekhov was fading into the sunset again.
I thought the one on my CD set was lighter and rather humorous -
"Fat and Thin"
I got a huge kick out of that one and it is not a dismal story, like the last three have been. Also, it is short and light, but witty. Just a suggestion. I remember that Pensive said she liked it, or so I think she did.

[Quark]

Alas, our leader, Quark makes an appearance!

Does that not happen often? Yes, I'm here. When did I leave?


Yeah - Chekhov was fading into the sunset again.

Huh?


I thought the one on my CD set was lighter and rather humorous - "Fat and Thin"

I'm glad you like it, but it's less than a page long. I'm not sure what we would say about it. Our posts would be longer than the story itself. I am looking for a briefer story than the trilogy we just did; but, at the same time, I think we need to keep it at a length that allows for multiple comments.

We are agreed, however, that the next story should have a more hopeful attitude. "About Love", while being clever and moving, is also somewhat depressing, and a brighter story should be welcome after that. Chekhov did write many stories that were warm and fuzzy or goofy and humorous. Finding ones in these categories that are good for discussion is difficult, though, and I've often shied away from picking them. These stories are frequently too short and too simple to sustain much conversation, even though they do make a good break from the poignant stories like "About Love." "Whitebrow" for example is quite warm and fuzzy--almost intolerably so. It tells the story of a cute puppy that finds it's way into a pack of wolves who decide they love it too much to eat it. While, yes, it's in no way depressing, I struggle to find any point of discussion. All we could say is "Isn't the little puppy adorable?" Some of the humorous tales are good for a laugh, but also fail to make a great discussion topic. From this category "On the Road" would make the best discussion, but unfortunately it's too long for this time around.

Besides the warm, fuzzy stories and the goofy, funny stories, there is a third group of Chekhov writings that I think would work best. Those are the stories that explore Chekhov's sympathy with his characters and audience. Two good stories from this group are "The Student" and "At Home." "The Student" considers the value of story-telling when a theology student compares his surroundings with a story from the Bible and then realizes that the story has a power he didn't expect. The ending of the story is very optimistic and poetic, but the middle of the story is once more about anguish and suffering. Does that rule that story out? "At Home", on the other hand, doesn't have any people dying, suffering under miserable conditions, or lovers being separated, so it's not depressing at any point. This one is about education, law, children, and family. I would hope one of the themes would get people talking. I think it's something like seven pages--not too long. I'm going to consider other stories, but these are the two that I'm leaning toward.

Well, that's enough writing for now. I have stories to read. I'll post more tomorrow.

[Dark Muse]

Well now look who is being Mr. Chick-flick talking about being all warm and fuzzy. ;)

I am horrible I know.

But I can go with anything if others want something a bit more light, though considering Poe is one of my faveorite authors, I never really do get tired of the dark, dreary and disturbing.

So I am game for anything.

[Janine]

Does that not happen often? Yes, I'm here. When did I leave?

Not too often...sorry....just kidding with you....don't be so 'touchy'. What type of herb tea did you bring for tonight's teaparty?



Huh? Well it seemed to be fading and nearly ended up on page two of my search. I keep rescuing it. ;) It heads down the page and I think it will be setting like the sun.



I'm glad you like it, but it's less than a page long. I'm not sure what we would say about it. Our posts would be longer than the story itself. I am looking for a briefer story than the trilogy we just did; but, at the same time, I think we need to keep it at a length that allows for multiple comments.

Get out, is it really that short? I only listened to it on the CD. I think it is a few more pages than one. I will look it up, just for the record.


We are agreed, however, that the next story should have a more hopeful attitude. "About Love", while being clever and moving, is also somewhat depressing, and a brighter story should be welcome after that. Chekhov did write many stories that were warm and fuzzy or goofy and humorous. Finding ones in these categories that are good for discussion is difficult, though, and I've often shied away from picking them. These stories are frequently too short and too simple to sustain much conversation, even though they do make a good break from the poignant stories like "About Love." "Whitebrow" for example is quite warm and fuzzy--almost intolerably so. It tells the story of a cute puppy that finds it's way into a pack of wolves who decide they love it too much to eat it. While, yes, it's in no way depressing, I struggle to find any point of discussion. All we could say is "Isn't the little puppy adorable?" Some of the humorous tales are good for a laugh, but also fail to make a great discussion topic. From this category "On the Road" would make the best discussion, but unfortunately it's too long for this time around.

Ok, now you see the problems, that arise in picking a good story for the thread. I suffered last week over the L decision and today, at first glance in the thread, I thought they were going to hurl rotten tomatoes at me. Just kidding now; it is quite civil in there and everyone agrees that this story is interesting and will make for a good lively discussion.
So, knowing what you are going through, GOOD LUCK, Quark, picking a story.;)

That is sweet - a story about a puppy and wolves. I must try and read that one.


Besides the warm, fuzzy stories and the goofy, funny stories, there is a third group of Chekhov writings that I think would work best. Those are the stories that explore Chekhov's sympathy with his characters and audience. Two good stories from this group are "The Student" and "At Home." "The Student" considers the value of story-telling when a theology student compares his surroundings with a story from the Bible and then realizes that the story has a power he didn't expect. The ending of the story is very optimistic and poetic, but the middle of the story is once more about anguish and suffering. Does that rule that story out? "At Home", on the other hand, doesn't have any people dying, suffering under miserable conditions, or lovers being separated, so it's not depressing at any point. This one is about education, law, children, and family. I would hope one of the themes would get people talking. I think it's something like seven pages--not too long. I'm going to consider other stories, but these are the two that I'm leaning toward.

Thanks for breaking that down for us. How about the story "Children" - I loved that one:), or is it also one page long? It is on my CD set. It is warm and fuzzy, but seems to have some substance and point, as well. Maybe that is really "At Home" with a different title?



Well, that's enough writing for now. I have stories to read. I'll post more tomorrow.

Ok, then enjoy your stories and I want to watch a movie before it gets too late.

[Janine]

Well now look who is being Mr. Chick-flick talking about being all warm and fuzzy. ;)

I am horrible I know.

But I can go with anything if others want something a bit more light, though considering Poe is one of my faveorite authors, I never really do get tired of the dark, dreary and disturbing.

So I am game for anything.

:lol: Mr. Chick-flick! That is a good one ;) DM!

Yes, you need some sunlight in your life, DM and warm and fuzzy is just fine with me this month, too. :D Too much Poe, can make for a dismal existence. We need some cheer in this thread, Quark!

[Dark Muse]

Yes, you need some sunlight in your life, DM

But it burns.......

[Janine]

But it burns.......

Dark Muse, use a good sunblock and an umbrella, or sit in the shade - just be near some sunlight to life your spirits. I know I am craving some right now. I should go to the park tomorrow, or if I had the will and energy, I should start my gardening. Your pictures in the L thread have inspired me! :) We need some photos in this thread - hey, Quark, any Chekhov stories with flowers in them?

[Dark Muse]

Acutally Sunlight has the oppisite effect on me, and this time I am being serious, no joke. When it is rainy and stormy and overcast I get really hyper and bouncy and happy.

When it is all sunny out, it like weighs me down, and I just turn into a grumpy sloth.

[Quark]

Well now look who is being Mr. Chick-flick talking about being all warm and fuzzy. ;)

I actually don't mind warm and fuzzy. Don't let this get out, but I read a lot of Shelley and Keats poetry--you can't get any more namby-pampy than that. Chick-flicks are a different matter, though. Those are what Janine was bringing up earlier with her "Jane Austen Book Club." You know, those movies about the frazzled female eventually regaining control of her life (and a hot guy). It's the chick-flicks that scare me, not necessarily the warm and fuzziness associated with them.


But I can go with anything if others want something a bit more light, though considering Poe is one of my faveorite authors, I never really do get tired of the dark, dreary and disturbing.

We definitely have to do "Sleepy" later, then. It's very Poe-like.


What type of herb tea did you bring for tonight's teaparty?

Grrrr...


Well it seemed to be fading and nearly ended up on page two of my search. I keep rescuing it. ;) It heads down the page and I think it will be setting like the sun.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, we probably were slipping onto that dreaded second page.


Thanks for breaking that down for us. How about the story "Children" - I loved that one:), or is it also one page long? It is on my CD set. It is warm and fuzzy, but seems to have some substance and point, as well. Maybe that is really "At Home" with a different title?

"Children" is certainly warm-hearted, but it doesn't really have a plot. Most of the cute stories are like that. They're just moments in the life of the characters. "At Home" is warm-hearted enough to put it in the cute category, but there is enough plot and conflict to give it some more interest. The themes raised are also very interesting.

When we're between stories one of these times, I might post a story like "Children" or "Whitebrow" just for something different. But, like I say, I probably won't make it the story for the month.

[Quark]

I've decided on a story. I brought it up earlier; it's called "The Student." This should make Janine happy since she's already read it, but I think it has some other positives besides that. "The Student" explores the value behind story-telling which makes it an excellent look into the motives behind Chekhov's story-telling. Part of the fun of reading this story is in drawing parallels between the student's tale and Chekhov's other short stories. This story is often included in collections because it explains many of Chekhov's views on art in way that dry analysis sometimes fails to. The story is also enjoyable by itself, though. It has its plot, pathos, and poetry which are as moving as the other stories we've done. The only typical Chekhovian device that's missing from this story is ambiguity. The last story was very unclear, but this one has a much more direct manner of expression. That was actually part of the reason I choose this one. I felt like we were all getting a little tired of stories with multiple, conflicting explanations where we have to ask "Does this character really love that one?" or "Is the perspective of this character prejudiced?" I do like Chekhov's irony and ambiguity, but I think we need a short break from it. "The Student" isn't without mystery, though. There should be some questions left after reading.

I'll post a more formal and less rambling introduction tomorrow. The discussion should be fun. I don't think we'll go too long on this one, however. It's a short, short story (3 pages!).

[Janine]

I've decided on a story. I brought it up earlier; it's called "The Student." This should make Janine happy since she's already read it, but I think it has some other positives besides that. "The Student" explores the value behind story-telling which makes it an excellent look into the motives behind Chekhov's story-telling. Part of the fun of reading this story is in drawing parallels between the student's tale and Chekhov's other short stories. This story is often included in collections because it explains many of Chekhov's views on art in way that dry analysis sometimes fails to. The story is also enjoyable by itself, though. It has its plot, pathos, and poetry which are as moving as the other stories we've done. The only typical Chekhovian device that's missing from this story is ambiguity. The last story was very unclear, but this one has a much more direct manner of expression. That was actually part of the reason I choose this one. I felt like we were all getting a little tired of stories with multiple, conflicting explanations where we have to ask "Does this character really love that one?" or "Is the perspective of this character prejudiced?" I do like Chekhov's irony and ambiguity, but I think we need a short break from it. "The Student" isn't without mystery, though. There should be some questions left after reading.

I'll post a more formal and less rambling introduction tomorrow. The discussion should be fun. I don't think we'll go too long on this one, however. It's a short, short story (3 pages!).

:thumbs_up Yeah, Quark, I am glad you finally settled, and on this story. I liked this story very much. I think I have it, in an offline file; not sure if I printed it, but I will if I failed to do so, or can't find in an anthology, I will print it out. By the way, Quark, I finally did find my own Chekhov anthology book. The type on the spine was really worn, so I could not see it well, in my bookcase. It might contain the story, if I am lucky.

I will try and find a nice photo for you to post along with the story introduction. What do you think? Illustrate Chekhov, like I do in Lawrence - makes it eye-catching! I promise I won't post a photo of tea or anything girly.:lol:

Anyway, can't wait to read your introduction. I like that you choose this less ambiguous story. I was getting sick of getting stuck on the same old questions. Go see Lawrence, where I mention that, also. We seem to all want to judge the characters, instead of just plain observing them as human-beings, with their strenghs and weaknesses.

[Quark]

:thumbs_up Yeah, Quark, I am glad you finally settle and on this story. I liked this story very much. I think I have it in an offline file; not sure if I printed it but I will if I failed to do so or can't find in an anthology. By the way, Quark, I finally did find my own Chekhov anthology book. The type on the spine was really worn so I could not see it well in my bookcase. It might contain the story, if I can lucky.

I'm glad you like the story. Your book should have it. Like I say, this one is frequently included in collections.


I will try and find a nice photo for you to post along with the story introduction. What do you think? Illustrate Chekhov, like I do in Lawrence - makes it eye-catching! I promise I won't post a photo of tea or anything girly.:lol:

I have some pictures already downloaded that I can use for illustrations. I'll post them with my introduction with one on top and the other on the bottom. One picture will show the beginning of the story, and the second will portray the ending. I did this on the Aeneid thread, and I thought it worked quite well.


Anyway, can't wait to read your introduction. I like that you choose this less ambiguous story. I was getting sick of getting stuck on the same old questions. Go see Lawrence, where I mention that, also. We seem to all want to judge the characters, instead of just plain observing them as human-beings, with their strenghs and weaknesses.

Well I'm working on getting you guys to appreciate Chekhov's irony, but, in the meantime, I figured I would give everyone a break. This story does have some ambiguity--you just can't escape it--but it's very downplayed. I'll point it out when we get there, but I probably won't make a big deal out of it.

The Lawrence discussion has been abuzz recently with character judgments. I don't know if that's a horrible thing, though. I'm more concerned that we're going to burn through the story in a week. It seems like we're moving at a furious pace.

[Janine]

I'm glad you like the story. Your book should have it. Like I say, this one is frequently included in collections.

Doesn't appear to be in my book.:( but that is ok, I have it in a file and I may have printed it out since I recall reading that one....I must have printed it.:)


I have some pictures already downloaded that I can use for illustrations. I'll post them with my introduction with one on top and the other on the bottom. One picture will show the beginning of the story, and the second will portray the ending. I did this on the Aeneid thread, and I thought it worked quite well.

Quark, I am impressed; you are getting artistic like me. It must be rubbing off on you.:D


Well I'm working on getting you guys to appreciate Chekhov's irony, but, in the meantime, I figured I would give everyone a break. This story does have some ambiguity--you just can't escape it--but it's very downplayed. I'll point it out when we get there, but I probably won't make a big deal out of it.

Irony is not my favorite thing, but I am getting an education in this thread. I don't mind 'irony' as much as tons of pages stuck on one aspect of the story only. I long to talk about other aspects as well - like forshadowing and plot devices, symbolism, etc.



The Lawrence discussion has been abuzz recently with character judgments. I don't know if that's a horrible thing, though. I'm more concerned that we're going to burn through the story in a week. It seems like we're moving at a furious pace.

Yes, it has and I just pointed that out. It has sort of happened in here, as well at times. We seem more to concentrate on whether, we 'like or dislike' the characters or even believe them, such as in "In Love". As I said above, let's move onto other aspects of the story.
I know the L thread seems to be going at a 'furious pace' but that is an illusion, since in actuality, the real discussion does not offically start until tomorrow. Did you read the story, Quark? Tonight, I will try and post some parts of the story text, starting at the beginning, since there is some lovely and meaningful writing there, that needs to be examined and talked about. Basically, up until now, it has just been chit-chat and a crit session concerning the characters and their morality and some sketchy thoughts on the symbolism. Mostly, poor Coutts has been put through the wringer.

[Quark]

It's only been a few days since we stopped discussing "About Love", but I think everyone is ready to move on anyway. The next story is called "The Student", and it's a very short, short story. We probably won't spend more then a couple of weeks on this one since it is so brief. That being said, though, the discussion should be good because this story explains a lot we've already discovered about Chekhov's writing. Here's the intro (which isn't given by me):


"The Student"
http://www.leningradartist.com/tat08b.jpg
At the Evening by Tatarinov


I'm in a really uncreative mood right now, so I'm going to post part of an article on the story which serves as a much better introduction than whatever I would type. This is by Donald Rayfield:


The mystic side of Chekhov—his irrational intuition that there is meaning and beauty in the cosmos, which aligns him more to Leskov than to Tolstoy in the Russian literary tradition—is very nearly suppressed in the Melikhovo phase, preoccupied as it is with the objective and concrete. But there is one work of 1894, “The Student,” which Chekhov insisted to Bunin was his favorite and most optimistic piece. It is the only story of the Melikhovo period which links the lyricism of The Steppe with the late prose of "The Bishop," and almost the only story of Chekhov's which can be read as a parable about art. Lyrical praise of nature brings about fusion of love and reflection. For the first time Chekhov shows that he has discovered what makes art of crucial importance to humanity, and, as always when dealing with poetry or music, he sees it as its purest in an ecclesiastical setting.

That describes perfectly the importance of this story to Chekhov and his other works; but, to make it intelligible to everyone who hasn't read Leskov or who doesn't know what the "Melikhovo" phase is, I have to add a few things. First, the Melikhovo phase is the time in Chekhov's life when he lived in the town of that name (1892-1898). The Leskov-Tolstoy compare and contrast in the first sentence is suppose to indicate that Chekhov believed in nature more than Tolstoy. Finally, the article points out that Chekhov liked to connect poetry with the church. This is true. Everything else should be understandable.

I'll comment more and respond to Janine later on tonight hopefully.

http://www.leningradartist.com/tat16b.jpg
A Village of Maksimkovo by Tatarinov

[Dark Muse]

I just read the story today, and though it is short, I did find it quite interesting, and I will look forwad when we get into the discussion of it.

I really like the pictures you used for the intro of the story.

[Quark]

I just read the story today, and though it is short, I did find it quite interesting, and I will look forwad when we get into the discussion of it.

Yeah, I'm not sure which way this discussion will go. It could get very technical about Chekhov's writing, or it could be a philosophical discussion of the ideas. Maybe no one will show up, and it won't be anything at all. Who knows?


I really like the pictures you used for the intro of the story.

I was hoping they would work. The second one I wasn't so sure about. They're supposed to be pictures of the beginning and ending of the story, but the last one is a little off. It's supposed to be Ivan looking down from a hill and seeing the village and river with the sunrise. That turned out to be a difficult picture to find. Try typing hill+village+river+sunrise into a search engine and see what comes up. I had an easier time doing this for the Aeneid thread since there are billions of paintings and statues of Dido. Plus, I didn't have to worry about giving anything away. I could show a picture of Dido on the burning pyre without having to put "SPOILER" above it. Here, in this thread, I was afraid to even explain what the pictures were without giving away the story too much. I'm glad you liked them, though. I'll have to do this more often for the intros.

[Janine]

Yeah, I'm not sure which way this discussion will go. It could get very technical about Chekhov's writing, or it could be a philosophical discussion of the ideas. Maybe no one will show up, and it won't be anything at all. Who knows?

Wow, Quark!:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up !
You deserve those 4 thumbs up. You did a fantastic job on this intro and it looks very creative. I like the way you centered everything; I am going to steal that idea for the next Lawrence story...looks like a webpage....very nice, professional.

About the discussion, I will be here!...if I am not quite here, I will be close by always...seems others are certainly interested, too. Your fine introduction made me want to re-read the story, with a new perspective. Good job, Quark!;)



I was hoping they would work.
The photos work perfectly. I like the bit of contrast of the two. I think the first one could almost be appropriate for the Lawrence thread.
I should have posted a house with cascading white aylssum, shouldn't I, Antiquarian? I had not thought of that before.

Gee, now I can't wait to see what you come up with for the story after this one.;) :)

[Janine]

Quark, I read the story again today and will try to comment briefly now on the first paragraph and the impression I have of this as the introduction of the setting of the story:


At first the weather was fine and still. The thrushes were calling, and in the swamps close by something alive droned pitifully with a sound like blowing into an empty bottle. A snipe flew by, and the shot aimed at it rang out with a gay, resounding note in the spring air. But when it began to get dark in the forest a cold, penetrating wind blew inappropriately from the east, and everything sank into silence. Needles of ice stretched across the pools, and it felt cheerless, remote, and lonely in the forest. There was a whiff of winter.

Firstly, I notice how the weather begins with the fact that it 'was fine and still', and then by the end of the paragraph, our whole impression has been altered to the reverse, ending with the line "There was a whiff of winter.

Several phrases starkly stood out to me, also. One is the second statement: "The thrushes were calling, and in the swamps close by something
alive droned pitifully with a sound like a blowing into an empty bottle."

I wondered what you thought of that statement - does it signify anything in particular? or symbolic?
This is curious to me, even though I live by a lake, and sometimes perceive the disturbing sounds of nature, along with the happy ones. Also, I observe the 'food-chain' in action all the time, and find it sad or evoking a melancholy state sometimes, but then one always has to say "well, that is the way of nature" and just ignore accept it as a truth. Still this conjures up an image to me, when I was out late at night in our yard, and I heard a horrid screeching sound and then saw a large bird flying overhead with something pretty large in it's talons. It made me shudder.
I am not a hunter, so the 'joy' of the shot did not thrill me too much, but I can see where that is appropriate to the story, and it is interesting to me, that by placing this line about the shot, just so in the begining of the story, the idea of 'man' is introduced into this scene of natural/animal elements; maybe linking man to the natural animal world of instinct? What do you think?
The last statements seem to sink the story mood into one of darkness, coldness and silence - these words are particularly melancholy and sad, "cheerless, remote, and lonely".
One paragraph and the mood of the story is immediately set. That is quite well done, I think and beautifully written.

What struck me, throughout the story, is the number of times the words 'death' or 'dead' and 'darkness' and 'cold' are so often repeated.

Hey, Quark, I thought this was going to be a somewhat happy story? ;) :lol: I know, it ends on a positive note....

[OlgaG]

The first paragraph of “The Student” sounds like a life cycle to me . “At the beginning, it’s comfortable and friendly. Enjoy your game! Shoot something alive for fun! But wait, your day, eventually will come to an end, and it’ll be frizzing cold closer to the end of your life!”

[Dark Muse]

I have mulled over this paragraph trying to decipher the meaning behind it. I did think it was a rather beautiful paragraph and painted a very lovely picture.


At first the weather was fine and still. The thrushes were calling, and in the swamps close by something alive droned pitifully with a sound like blowing in an empty bottle

I think this does really set up the scene of being out, isolated in nature, with only the sounds of the wildlife around you.

I did find the use of the word "pitifully" interesting here, also the face that it pointed out that it was "something alive" as presumably, if it is making a noise it is indeed alive.

I also found the imagery of the "empty bottle" to be interesting.


A snipe flew by, and the shot aimed at it rang out with a gay, resounding note in the spring air.

This I find very interesting, because as soon as man is introduced into the scene, with the presence of the shot, everything becomes less dreary, and it is given a more uplifting and cheerful appearance, using words like a gay note in the spring air.

This paints a less dreary picture than that pitiful droning cry.


But when it began to get dark in the forest a cold, penetrating wind blew inappropriately from the east, and everything sank into silence. Needles of ice stretched across the pools, and it feels cheerless, remote, and lonely in the forest. There was a whiff of winter.

I really liked the use of the word "inappropriately" it is almost like scolding the wind from coming to intrude upon this happy spring scene.

I loved the words "sank into silence"

And I could not help but to think of death in this scene, as soon as the shot is fired at the bird, suddenly we get images of cold, darkness, winter.

[Quark]

Sorry I couldn't post yesterday. I sat down to write something late last night, but I was too preoccupied--and tired--to be anywhere close to coherent. It's always encouraging to see, though, that people are carrying on the conversation without me. It's especially encouraging to see people considering the story so deeply, too. I like what everyone has posted so far, and I'll try to add to it without screwing it up. First,


I notice how the weather begins with the fact that it 'was fine and still', and then by the end of the paragraph, our whole impression has been altered to the reverse, ending with the line "There was a whiff of winter.

I really liked the use of the word "inappropriately" it is almost like scolding the wind from coming to intrude upon this happy spring scene.

The cold wind is inappropriate because it's so out of place for the time of year and the spirit of Easter. Both spring and Easter are connected with ideas of growth and rebirth, but the wind is stifling. It creates a stillness which stops the progress of the season, and we regress into morbid winter. That makes it "inappropriate" to the superficial understanding of the student. At this point in the story, he's ignorant to the greater meaning of these changes--so is the reader, of course. The wind is then "inappropriate." The wind does two things which help the story, though. First, it creates a hushed silence which makes us expectant of something important. Second, it corresponds with the mood of the biblical story. The day Peter disowns Christ is cold, and the morbid, wintry environment reminds us of the misery and death associated with the crucifixion. Remember that the student realizes that "the past is linked with the present by an unbroken chain of events." The structure of the story is based on that epiphany, and much of the content of the story is mirrored or repeated.


Several phrases starkly stood out to me, also. One is the second statement: "The thrushes were calling, and in the swamps close by something alive droned pitifully with a sound like a blowing into an empty bottle."

I did find the use of the word "pitifully" interesting here, also the face that it pointed out that it was "something alive" as presumably, if it is making a noise it is indeed alive.

Good observation. The pitiful droning sound is a little strange in this scene where everything is happy and fine. I think this supposed to indicate the suffering and misery below the surface that is central to many of Chekhov's stories. If you've read "Gooseberries", for example, you might remember how the happiness of that story's main character is distraction away from the greater suffering in the world. In that story, Chekhov uses the pattering sound of the rain to refer to that misery. Here, Chekhov is using the droning sound of something vaguely alive to show the presence of that unhappiness. Later in "The Student", we'll run into a beaten-down woman and an unfortunate widow who are both quite unhappy. The droning in the swamp is a reminder to the student who's strolling through a happy scene that misery still exists.


The first paragraph of “The Student” sounds like a life cycle to me . “At the beginning, it’s comfortable and friendly. Enjoy your game! Shoot something alive for fun! But wait, your day, eventually will come to an end, and it’ll be frizzing cold closer to the end of your life!”

Welcome to the forum OlgaG. You picked a good discussion to join in on. Chekhov's is possibly the best short story writer, and this is one of his most characteristic works. I hope you stick around for the rest of the conversation.

The first paragraph is reminiscent of the life-cycle. The fine weather and people shooting for sport reads like a description of youth. Yet, when the cold wind comes in from the east, it seems like mortality is not far away. Eventually, I think the representation of the life-cycle becomes a symbol for the constant death and rebirth of beauty and truth which the student believes guides life.


I have mulled over this paragraph trying to decipher the meaning behind it. I did think it was a rather beautiful paragraph and painted a very lovely picture.

The story is quite poetic throughout. The only dull part is perhaps the student's biblical tale--which is supposed to be poorly-told.


Hey, Quark, I thought this was going to be a somewhat happy story? ;) :lol: I know, it ends on a positive note....

I know the story isn't as cheerful as I promised, so you'll have to settle for optimistic. It actually ends with some hope.

[Janine]

Sorry I couldn't post yesterday. I sat down to write something late last night, but I was too preoccupied--and tired--to be anywhere close to coherent. It's always encouraging to see, though, that people are carrying on the conversation without me. It's especially encouraging to see people considering the story so deeply, too. I like what everyone has posted so far, and I'll try to add to it without screwing it up. First,

Since you address most of Dark Muse's post I skipped to yours. I will check back to see if I missed anything. Welcome also, OlgaG. I hope you enjoy the discussion and the entire forum.
Don't appologise for not posting yesterday - quite understandable; anyway, Quark, you saw the Lawrence thread - that is keeping me busy enough to try and keep up with. Honestly, at this point, I am totally overwhelmed in there. I am not sure how I am going to catch up either.
Glad you liked what everyone posted so far. Thanks.



The cold wind is inappropriate because it's so out of place for the time of year and the spirit of Easter. Both spring and Easter are connected with ideas of growth and rebirth, but the wind is stifling. It creates a stillness which stops the progress of the season, and we regress into morbid winter. That makes it "inappropriate" to the superficial understanding of the student. At this point in the story, he's ignorant to the greater meaning of these changes--so is the reader, of course. The wind is then "inappropriate." The wind does two things which help the story, though. First, it creates a hushed silence which makes us expectant of something important. Second, it corresponds with the mood of the biblical story. The day Peter disowns Christ is cold, and the morbid, wintry environment reminds us of the misery and death associated with the crucifixion. Remember that the student realizes that "the past is linked with the present by an unbroken chain of events." The structure of the story is based on that epiphany, and much of the content of the story is mirrored or repeated.

Good commentary and I agree the weather is not synonomous with the idea of Easter and springtime. I like you other ideas and had not thought of some things you mention here. I also like your references to the day Christ was disowned by Peter and other referenes to the bible story. That is good about 'the misery and death' and the link in the cycle of life. Yes, it is an epiphany indeed.



Good observation. The pitiful droning sound is a little strange in this scene where everything is happy and fine. I think this supposed to indicate the suffering and misery below the surface that is central to many of Chekhov's stories. If you've read "Gooseberries", for example, you might remember how the happiness of that story's main character is distraction away from the greater suffering in the world. In that story, Chekhov uses the pattering sound of the rain to refer to that misery. Here, Chekhov is using the droning sound of something vaguely alive to show the presence of that unhappiness. Later in "The Student", we'll run into a beaten-down woman and an unfortunate widow who are both quite unhappy. The droning in the swamp is a reminder to the student who's strolling through a happy scene that misery still exists.

Good, and I agree with all you pointed out. Very well put!
Does that pitiful sound also relate to the hunting in that they both encompass this idea of the cycle of life and death?



Welcome to the forum OlgaG. You picked a good discussion to join in on. Chekhov's is possibly the best short story writer, and this is one of his most characteristic works. I hope you stick around for the rest of the conversation.

Well, that he is but then again, so is D.H.Lawrence an extremely fine short story author. If you have time OlgaG, check out our thread, too.
It is funny - this is like the dualing short story threads, Quark!



The first paragraph is reminiscent of the life-cycle. The fine weather and people shooting for sport reads like a description of youth. Yet, when the cold wind comes in from the east, it seems like mortality is not far away. Eventually, I think the representation of the life-cycle becomes a symbol for the constant death and rebirth of beauty and truth which the student believes guides life.

I do, too....totally agreed on this part.



The story is quite poetic throughout. The only dull part is perhaps the student's biblical tale--which is supposed to be poorly-told.

Yes, this is more poetic than others we have read so far. I like the writing style and the natural elements. Yes, but I did not find that part dull at all.


I know the story isn't as cheerful as I promised, so you'll have to settle for optimistic. It actually ends with some hope.

:( Oh yeah -- real cheerful, Quark .....:bawling: Granted, there may be a tiny spark of hope at the end.

[Dark Muse]

Good observation. The pitiful droning sound is a little strange in this scene where everything is happy and fine. I think this supposed to indicate the suffering and misery below the surface that is central to many of Chekhov's stories. If you've read "Gooseberries", for example, you might remember how the happiness of that story's main character is distraction away from the greater suffering in the world. In that story, Chekhov uses the pattering sound of the rain to refer to that misery. Here, Chekhov is using the droning sound of something vaguely alive to show the presence of that unhappiness. Later in "The Student", we'll run into a beaten-down woman and an unfortunate widow who are both quite unhappy. The droning in the swamp is a reminder to the student who's strolling through a happy scene that misery still exists.

Yes I got the feeling of the suggestion of missery or suffring from that imager, I also found the imagery of the empty bottle interesting, and wondered if the fact that bottle was indeed empty was not ment to be representive of something. It does kind of relate and reflect to ideas that will later be presented in the story, with the pair of mother and daughter widows.

Or perhpas the Student himself, at this point is "empty" becasue as you said in this stay he is ignorant and well currently he is only concered with his sport of shooting and not really thinking about the greater questions of life.


The story is quite poetic throughout. The only dull part is perhaps the student's biblical tale--which is supposed to be poorly-told.

I was a bit confused on the signifigance of that particular story, and how that story had led him to his conclusion of the relationship between the past and the present, and I was not certain just how that story connected to the widows or why they would relate to that story.

[Quark]

Quark, you saw the Lawrence thread - that is keeping me busy enough to try and keep up with. Honestly, at this point, I am totally overwhelmed in there.

We've never had this many people involved before, so it's going to be a little difficult until we figure out a good way to go about this. I tried the post chunks of the story method last time, but that didn't seem to work. This story is a little easier since it's only three pages, and I don't have to keep people on one part of the story since there only is one part. The L discussion is lot harder this time around because the story is so multi-part. Everyone will naturally be interested in something different than everyone else. It may be difficult to focus in that situation. I don't know, of course, because I haven't seen all the posts yet. But, I would imagine trying to reply to all the posts--which have different ideas--would get tiring.


I also like your references to the day Christ was disowned by Peter and other referenes to the bible story.

There are three parts to the story (sunset, the student's story, sunrise), and each is connect to the others through repeated images, sounds, or actions. It supposed to show the link between the past, future, and present. The student realizes that there is truth behind everything that is omni-present, and the environment around him is meant to be a demonstration of that.

The interesting thing about these repetitions, though, is that they are not all the same. The beginning of the story has a merry, upbeat mood while the scene at night is morbidly depressing. Finally, the ending is encouraging and hopeful. Even though the beginning of the story and the middle of the story have birds calling (thrushes and cocks, respectively), these parts of the story are incredibly different. I have a few ideas for why this is, but I haven't picked the one I want to put forward.


Good, and I agree with all you pointed out. Very well put! Does that pitiful sound also relate to the hunting in that they both encompass this idea of the cycle of life and death?

I interpreted the hunter's shot and the pitiful sound to be opposing moods more than opposite side of the life-cycle. The "gay" sound of the rifle indicates joviality while the droning noise in the swamp is solemn and sort of unsettling. The first sound is blissfully enjoying the moment and the other is cognizant of the sadness elsewhere.


Well, that he is but then again, so is D.H.Lawrence an extremely fine short story author. If you have time OlgaG, check out our thread, too. It is funny - this is like the dualing short story threads, Quark!

Yes, Lawrence was a fine short story writer. In fact, the one you're doing in the thread right now is one of the better stories we've read so far.


Yes, but I did not find that part dull at all.

I'll address this point tomorrow. Right now, my short answer is that the student's telling of the story is meant to be clichéd. The student's rendering of the story is a clumsy simplification and told with odd language. Chekhov's audience may have found this dull. A century later, and in translation, we don't really pick up on this. I will post more on this tomorrow to make it clear.


:( Oh yeah -- real cheerful, Quark .....:bawling: Granted, there may be a tiny spark of hope at the end.

Only a tiny speck of hope? It ends with him discovering that truth and beauty govern the world, and that his life will have happiness and meaning. A bit more than a speck of hope, I think.

[Quark]

Yes I got the feeling of the suggestion of missery or suffring from that imager, I also found the imagery of the empty bottle interesting, and wondered if the fact that bottle was indeed empty was not ment to be representive of something. It does kind of relate and reflect to ideas that will later be presented in the story, with the pair of mother and daughter widows.

Or perhpas the Student himself, at this point is "empty" becasue as you said in this stay he is ignorant and well currently he is only concered with his sport of shooting and not really thinking about the greater questions of life.

I hadn't thought about the emptiness of it. Perhaps it's a reference to a lack of meaning the student feels before his epiphany. I'm not quite sure about it.


I was a bit confused on the signifigance of that particular story, and how that story had led him to his conclusion of the relationship between the past and the present, and I was not certain just how that story connected to the widows or why they would relate to that story.

The story is significant because it's an expression of the grief that the widows feel. The student thinks to himself before he starts the story:

And now, shrinking from the cold, he thought that just such a wind had blown in the days of Rurik and in the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter, and in their time there had been just the same desperate poverty and hunger, the same thatched roofs with holes in them, ignorance, misery, the same desolation around, the same darkness, the same feeling of oppression -- all these had existed, did exist, and would exist, and the lapse of a thousand years would make life no better.
The tears of the women prove the truth of this statement. Their pasts were filled with this oppression, and the student taps into this with his story of Peter.

[blazeofglory]

One of the stories by Checkov is the death of a clerk I never can forget . He is really immortal in his writing. The other that is afresh in my memory chamber is Grief, and the way he talked to a horse to express the pains he lives with.

[Janine]

We've never had this many people involved before, so it's going to be a little difficult until we figure out a good way to go about this. I tried the post chunks of the story method last time, but that didn't seem to work. This story is a little easier since it's only three pages, and I don't have to keep people on one part of the story since there only is one part. The L discussion is lot harder this time around because the story is so multi-part. Everyone will naturally be interested in something different than everyone else. It may be difficult to focus in that situation. I don't know, of course, because I haven't seen all the posts yet. But, I would imagine trying to reply to all the posts--which have different ideas--would get tiring.
That's an understatement. Right about now I am ready to tear my hair out! I told Virgil he has to pick the story and direct the discussion next month. I am trying desperately to get the discussion back on track. I was also waiting a bit for you to arrive, where have you been? Are you too overwhelmed with all the posts so far.
Virgil just popped in and he thinks he is behind but I think he not so behind really, not with the text I posted so far. I think it beneficial to do so and in this thread as well, because when we take appart the text by sentences and phrases we notice so much more, like that hollow sound like blowing in a bottle. Keep trudging away, Quark and post more text when you can. I am anxious to move on but don't rush it. We have time and I am bogged down in the L thread, as you can see.


There are three parts to the story (sunset, the student's story, sunrise), and each is connect to the others through repeated images, sounds, or actions. It supposed to show the link between the past, future, and present. The student realizes that there is truth behind everything that is omni-present, and the environment around him is meant to be a demonstration of that.

Yes, that is real good, insightful and I like your ideas here of past, present and future. I like the fact the environment takes on this special significance to the student.


The interesting thing about these repetitions, though, is that they are not all the same. The beginning of the story has a merry, upbeat mood while the scene at night is morbidly depressing. Finally, the ending is encouraging and hopeful. Even though the beginning of the story and the middle of the story have birds calling (thrushes and cocks, respectively), these parts of the story are incredibly different. I have a few ideas for why this is, but I haven't picked the one I want to put forward.

Oh, I will be interested in hearing your theory on that aspect.


I interpreted the hunter's shot and the pitiful sound to be opposing moods more than opposite side of the life-cycle. The "gay" sound of the rifle indicates joviality while the droning noise in the swamp is solemn and sort of unsettling. The first sound is blissfully enjoying the moment and the other is cognizant of the sadness elsewhere.

Didn't think of that but I guess if one was a hunter you would understand. I don't like hunting so it sounded ominous to me and not joyous. I see your point now. There are a lot of contrasts just in the very first paragraph, even within the same sentences. It is very well-crafted.


Yes, Lawrence was a fine short story writer. In fact, the one you're doing in the thread right now is one of the better stories we've read so far.
Yes, isn't the story great? Did you read the actual story yet. We are kind of held up and waiting for you, but I can't hold those flood gates back for long. We have a lot of enthusiastic posters in there, you know. It is a good lively group this time.


I'll address this point tomorrow. Right now, my short answer is that the student's telling of the story is meant to be clichéd. The student's rendering of the story is a clumsy simplification and told with odd language. Chekhov's audience may have found this dull. A century later, and in translation, we don't really pick up on this. I will post more on this tomorrow to make it clear.

Ok, I get the cliched part; I will wait for you to expound on that idea and the difference in the reader now and the audience then.


Only a tiny speck of hope? It ends with him discovering that truth and beauty govern the world, and that his life will have happiness and meaning. A bit more than a speck of hope, I think.

Ok, well maybe a big ray of sunshine instead! Yes, sounds hopeful to me anyway but then I have to admit, knowing the stories we had read of Chekhov's I was at first suspicious that was truly a happy hopeful ending.

[Janine]

Yes I got the feeling of the suggestion of missery or suffring from that imager, I also found the imagery of the empty bottle interesting, and wondered if the fact that bottle was indeed empty was not ment to be representive of something. It does kind of relate and reflect to ideas that will later be presented in the story, with the pair of mother and daughter widows.

It is an interesting idea. I think it would relate to the 'emptiness' the student feels until he has his 'epiphany', as Quark pointed out. This epiphany seems to fill him with wonder and a renewed sense of his life.



Or perhpas the Student himself, at this point is "empty" becasue as you said in this stay he is ignorant and well currently he is only concered with his sport of shooting and not really thinking about the greater questions of life.

This would go with my above statement. I think this would relate to the empty image better.


I was a bit confused on the signifigance of that particular story, and how that story had led him to his conclusion of the relationship between the past and the present, and I was not certain just how that story connected to the widows or why they would relate to that story.

I was thinking of the widows having lost loved ones and I was thinking of the two women in the biblical story, having lost a son/a companion, Mary Magdeline and Mary in relation to the two woman in this story. I think the women could relate to their loss with their own deep sense of loss.

Blazeofglory, we didn't read the first story you mention; it sounds good. However we did read "Misery" which I think is the same as "Grief". Do you know, Quark, is that the same story? If so we discussed that a few stories back; you might want to check out those posts. It was a good discussion.

[Dark Muse]

I was thinking of the widows having lost loved ones and I was thinking of the two women in the biblical story, having lost a son/a companion, Mary Magdeline and Mary in relation to the two woman in this story. I think the women could relate to their loss with their own deep sense of loss.

I did not think of that, though the story the Student tells, seems to be specially about Peter denying Christ, not so much Christ himself or the Cruxifiction but the actions of Peter after the fact.

I was trying to figure out how the idea of Peter's denying Christ could fit into the story.

[Janine]

I did not think of that, though the story the Student tells, seems to be specially about Peter denying Christ, not so much Christ himself or the Cruxifiction but the actions of Peter after the fact.

I was trying to figure out how the idea of Peter's denying Christ could fit into the story.

hummm...yeah I have to admit that is curious. It did seems to revolve more about the denying of Christ by Peter. I guess, if our fearless leader, Quark continues to post the text, we will get to that part and then examine it closer, to see if there is specific significance for the two woman, to the student's biblical story.

[OlgaG]

I love "The Student" story – small in form, perfect in shape, and very moving. I feel a very definite strong connection with Ivan (never mind he is almost 200 years old). We are “the students” of life, and I think, the learning to be continued…


I did not think of that, though the story the Student tells, seems to be specially about Peter denying Christ, not so much Christ himself or the Cruxifiction but the actions of Peter after the fact.

I was trying to figure out how the idea of Peter's denying Christ could fit into the story.

The biblical story is about betrayal and remorse. Peter was weak and scared, he denied Christ, but Peter later becomes one of the greatest of all saints. I gave it the same with Chekhov’s story meaning: from darkness - to truth and beauty.

[Dark Muse]

The biblical story is about betrayal and remorse. Peter was weak and scared, he denied Christ, but Peter later becomes one of the greatest of all saints. I gave it the same with Chekhov’s story meaning: from darkness - to truth and beauty.

That makes sense, I can see that within the story. The Student, takes the same sort of journey that Peter took, starting in the lonseome wintery forest and than moving to the greiving widows before coming out with his great revelation and understanding which lifts the cloud of gloom from him.

[Quark]

I was going to post about the Ivan's clumsy way of telling his story, but first I think I should respond to these posts.


I was trying to figure out how the idea of Peter's denying Christ could fit into the story.

hummm...yeah I have to admit that is curious. It did seems to revolve more about the denying of Christ by Peter.

But the student didn't betray anyone, did he? The story specifically focused on Peter's three betrayals of Christ. Did the student betray the widows? I didn't see that, but maybe I need to read it again and be sure.

I think Peter's episode in the garden does have some relation to the widows, and it's especially significant for the student. I'll start with Ivan and then move on to the widows. Peter and Ivan share a similar goal when the enter the garden. Both Peter and Ivan are recent converts to Christianity and they want to spread their new-found wisdom to the benighted peasants around them. At the campfire, however, they each have a realization. Peter's gaining of self-knowledge corresponds to the student's epiphany about story-telling. Through their failures, they become awakened to some new truth. In the same way Peter is told that he will betray Christ, the student knows the epiphany he is about to have before he tells his story. The sentences I quoted in my last post have the same idea as those toward the end, but the student isn't aware of their importance yet. When he gets to the campfire, though, everything becomes clear to him--as it did to Peter.

The connection to the widows is less explicit, but it's still there. Chekhov describes the daughter, Lukerya, as beaten down. Ivan tells the story of Christ being beaten, and this part resonates with her.

He loved Jesus passionately, intensely, and now he saw from far off how He was beaten. . . . "

Lukerya left the spoons and fixed an immovable stare upon the student.
Vasilisa, the mother, has a different reaction which is the result of the different life she's led. The older widow was nurse. Her contact with the families she's served has given her an "air of refinement," but really her condition is no better than the other impoverished villagers. The end of Ivan's story provokes tears from her because it's about a complacent person discovering how weak and miserable they are. Her crying comes at exactly the point in the story when Peter knows who he is:

He remembered, he came to himself, went out of the yard and wept bitterly -- bitterly. In the Gospel it is written: 'He went out and wept bitterly.' I imagine it: the still, still, dark, dark garden, and in the stillness, faintly audible, smothered sobbing.. . . ."

The student sighed and sank into thought. Still smiling, Vasilisa suddenly gave a gulp, big tears flowed freely down her cheeks, and she screened her face from the fire with her sleeve as though ashamed of her tears

Let's also not forget that both women are widows, and that Ivan's story is about the loss of a man who was important in Peter's life.


The biblical story is about betrayal and remorse. Peter was weak and scared, he denied Christ, but Peter later becomes one of the greatest of all saints. I gave it the same with Chekhov’s story meaning: from darkness - to truth and beauty.

Yes, I think you've hit on the connection between Peter and Ivan.


I think Chekhov might be too impressionistic in his brevity for me, and I'm even Russian! I should "get it." LOL

Wait, what do you mean? How is Chekhov impressionistic?

[Janine]

Hi Everyone! I came back over here, since I thought this thread less confusing than the Lawrence one, and now I do wonder.
But seriously, so far in reading of this entire page, I basically think I agree with Qlga and Quark on some of the parellels. I will also have to read that part over and see if anything more jumps out at me or suggests a different link to that bibilical story and how Ivan is relating, the widows as well.

:lol: and I thought this was going to be easy....*sigh*...*sign*

[Janine]

His stories are generally very brief. Instead of filling them with details and symbols, he usually just gives us an "impression" of something. He's impressionistic. This is not to say that he never uses symbols. Of course he does, but not like Lawrence, for example. Chekhov will give us an "impression" of the character or an "impression" of the landscape or an "impression" of the theme. This is not to detract from Chekhov's skills, either. Not many storytellers are able to capture so much in so little. Often, rather than following a linear plot, Chekhov just gives us an impression. His use of mood, character, scenery, etc. are all very impressionistic, and all to the good, but sometimes it takes a little longer to work everything out.

I can't agree with the connection between Peter and Ivan, though. I think the connection is just that - connections. I think, through the retelling of the story of Peter to Vasilisa and her daughter, Ivan comes to realize that all of life, from the very beginning is interconnected. He comes to realized the interconnectedness in life.

Ivan first mentions that the same cold wind blew during the the time of Rurik, Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great (Russian Czars) and then he believe Vasilisa and her daughter, because of their tears, must identify in some way with the story of the apostle Peter. And I think they do. I don't think it's from darkness to light, but rather a realization that all of life is interconnected and we are all a part of one undivided whole. The past is connected to the present and the present will be connected to the future.

Perhaps I'm living up to my "Russianness" after all! ;) I don't really know.

:lol: Hello Ms Russia! ;) This is a great post! You put that so well, so concisely. I really like this idea of yours about Chekhov being 'impressionistic'. I agree with all you said, but I will be anxious now to hear what others think. I most definitely believe the story points out the 'interconnectedness' of life, especially since he sites other historic examples to the two women. This reminds me of the scene in Hamlet when Hamlet is looking at the skull of poor Urick and speaks of Alexander and the same idea is imparted in this speech along with the whole idea of life's and nature's continuing cycles. I love that speech and now I know just why. It too, expresses the 'interconnctedness' of life.

Good post!

[Dark Muse]

I can't agree with the connection between Peter and Ivan, though. I think the connection is just that - connections. I think, through the retelling of the story of Peter to Vasilisa and her daughter, Ivan comes to realize that all of life, from the very beginning is interconnected. He comes to realized the interconnectedness in life.

Ivan first mentions that the same cold wind blew during the the time of Rurik, Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great (Russian Czars) and then he believe Vasilisa and her daughter, because of their tears, must identify in some way with the story of the apostle Peter. And I think they do. I don't think it's from darkness to light, but rather a realization that all of life is interconnected and we are all a part of one undivided whole. The past is connected to the present and the present will be connected to the future.

Perhaps I'm living up to my "Russianness" after all! ;) I don't really know.

I am a bit confussed than, on just how the story of Peter estbalishes the idea of intercontectedness.

[Dark Muse]

Yes I suppose, though that seems to be making a lot of assumptions, and if anything it seems as if at least the daughter of the two windows was rather the one who was betrayed.

[Quark]

Just to make sure there isn't any confusion, I'll say this in bold. I'm not posting chunks of the story for discussion since the story is so short. Also, it's difficult to talk about one part without bringing up the rest. The story is about interconnectedness, so it's hard to break it up into segments to talk about. Instead, let's discuss the story as a whole.


His stories are generally very brief. Instead of filling them with details and symbols, he usually just gives us an "impression" of something. He's impressionistic. This is not to say that he never uses symbols. Of course he does, but not like Lawrence, for example. Chekhov will give us an "impression" of the character or an "impression" of the landscape or an "impression" of the theme. This is not to detract from Chekhov's skills, either. Not many storytellers are able to capture so much in so little. Often, rather than following a linear plot, Chekhov just gives us an impression. His use of mood, character, scenery, etc. are all very impressionistic, and all to the good, but sometimes it takes a little longer to work everything out.

Good observation. The story does give more vague impressions than anything definite. Part of this comes from the author's economy of expression. Chekhov believed that a narrator should be objective, and not veer away from the plot to make too many verbal embellishments. He once chided Maxim Gorky, "You have so many modifiers that the reader has trouble understanding and gets worn out...The brain can't grasp all that at once, and art must be grasped at once, instantaneously." Chekhov preferred to be elliptical rather than wordy, and it shows most prominently at the beginning of "The Student." The setting is described with a few sounds, and the student with only one sentence. Rather than showing a complete picture of the scene and character, we get only a vague impression.


I can't agree with the connection between Peter and Ivan, though. I think the connection is just that - connections. I think, through the retelling of the story of Peter to Vasilisa and her daughter, Ivan comes to realize that all of life, from the very beginning is interconnected. He comes to realized the interconnectedness in life.

I don't quite follow. Do you think there is a connection between Peter and Ivan, or not? If so, how do you think that connection is established in the story?

[Quark]

If someone was betrayed, they would still identify with the story. The Easter story the student tells is one of betraying and being betrayed. He could have told any number of others, but that's the one he chose, one about betrayal.

I didn't think the characters reacted to the betrayal so much, but more to the gaining of self-knowledge, brutality, and loss. I posted something earlier about the possible connections between the characters.

[Janine]

I'll actually have to read it again to answer that more fully. I do think there's a connection, but I want to be able to back it up with a quote from the story. Chekhov says so much in so little. He's so deep, really. He can seem like one thing on the surface, yet be really be something else entirely.

I need to read it again too, Quark. I forget the stories so quickly, because of reading others. I will look closer at the text now, and see if i can also see anything new, I had not previously noticed, keeping in-mind these new ideas.

[Quark]

I'll actually have to read it again to answer that more fully.

I need to read it again too,

Well you guys should have time to reread it. I probably won't be able to post anything until tomorrow night.

[Janine]

Well you guys should have time to reread it. I probably won't be able to post anything until tomorrow night.

Oh good, I need a break today...I have errands to do and will be out all day into evening. I may not be back on here until tomorrow. I didn't read the story last night; didn't have time after my movie - sorry about that. I had to relax.

[Quark]

Before everyone reaches their conclusions about the connections between Ivan's tale and the characters in "The Student," I wanted to bring up one other possibility. The biblical story could be told well by Ivan, and that's what's making the widows react. I was reading an article earlier in the week that argued that the student is deceived about the meaning of his story. This is from an article about various portrayals of Peter's betrayal called "Three Versions of Peter's Denial":

Modestly or ignorantly, he [Ivan] fails to understand what has happened; he thinks the women are moved because their souls are affected by what happens in Peter's soul, not because he has been able to tell the story well, but he is wrong. He has told the story well, as touchingly and nearly as sparely as it is told in the Gospels. The link between Vasilissa and the distant past is himself, the narrator, and if he could admit that narrative skill he could make explicit what Chekhov only implies: that the past and present are linked by a chain of human fashioning. Everything in the story, and especially the choice of Peter's denial, demonstrates that there would be no past without a narrator to transmit it--without a Chekhov to put the past in an expressive setting and arrange for its eloquent retelling.
In this reading, everyone's confusion about the connections is the correct response. There are no connections; Vasilia's tears are the result of Ivan's dramatic narrative and not anything personal. For this critic, "The Student" is about emotion, and nothing more. The depression the student feels toward the middle of the story is no more ignorant than the joy he feels at the end. I talked about the optimistic feeling at the end being more informed, but this critic disagrees:

Ivan's joy is the result on an accident of mood and hence is a fragile thing. He is only twenty-two. How many years will he have to change his mind? When will he feel the cold wind blowing again?...Chekhov is uninterested in the devaluation of one mood by another--of hope by disillusion, say, or steadfast faith momentary cowardice. What interests him is the cause-and-effect of emotional change, or the sheer drama of change itself
It goes without saying that I disagree with this interpretation, but I thought I should bring it up. I think that there are real connections between the widows and the story, and that the end is meant to be definitive. Part of this comes from the ideas I already posted, but also some of it come from what Chekhov himself said about the story. He wrote to his brother after he finished this one to tell him that he'd finally written an optimistic piece which should silence his critics who claim he only writes about sadness. If you view the ending as just another mood, then the story is neutral at best. In fact, I think it would still be another depressing Chekhov plot. What separates it from the others is the uplifting ending, and I think we have view it as real.

Not to dwell on this, though, I wanted to post another idea. That is, that I think the three moods in the story relate to the three dominant moods in Chekhov's other works. First, the upbeat, happy opening corresponds with the humorous or comic which is in many of Chekhov's early stories. Then, the sadness of the middle we're all familiar with. Finally, the optimistic ending reminds me of the sympathy Chekhov has for his characters which gives his stories some warmth. Each of these moods are very common in the other stories, but it's rare to see them as close together as they are in this story.

[Dark Muse]

When I first read the story I was a little confused by his automatic presumption that they must connected in someway to the story of Peter.

If they were relgious, and I presume they were sense he was telling a biblical story, than couldn't they have been touched by the story without nessciarly being personally connected to it?

Aren't people affected sometimes by either things they read, or stories other people tell, or movies, ect... that do not nessicarly refelct thier own personal life?

[Janine]

Before everyone reaches their conclusions about the connections between Ivan's tale and the characters in "The Student," I wanted to bring up one other possibility. The biblical story could be told well by Ivan, and that's what's making the widows react. I was reading an article earlier in the week that argued that the student is deceived about the meaning of his story. This is from an article about various portrayals of Peter's betrayal called "Three Versions of Peter's Denial":

In this reading, everyone's confusion about the connections is the correct response. There are no connections; Vasilia's tears are the result of Ivan's dramatic narrative and not anything personal. For this critic, "The Student" is about emotion, and nothing more. The depression the student feels toward the middle of the story is no more ignorant than the joy he feels at the end. I talked about the optimistic feeling at the end being more informed, but this critic disagrees:

It goes without saying that I disagree with this interpretation, but I thought I should bring it up. I think that there are real connections between the widows and the story, and that the end is meant to be definitive. Part of this comes from the ideas I already posted, but also some of it come from what Chekhov himself said about the story. He wrote to his brother after he finished this one to tell him that he'd finally written an optimistic piece which should silence his critics who claim he only writes about sadness. If you view the ending as just another mood, then the story is neutral at best. In fact, I think it would still be another depressing Chekhov plot. What separates it from the others is the uplifting ending, and I think we have view it as real.

Not to dwell on this, though, I wanted to post another idea. That is, that I think the three moods in the story relate to the three dominant moods in Chekhov's other works. First, the upbeat, happy opening corresponds with the humorous or comic which is in many of Chekhov's early stories. Then, the sadness of the middle we're all familiar with. Finally, the optimistic ending reminds me of the sympathy Chekhov has for his characters which gives his stories some warmth. Each of these moods are very common in the other stories, but it's rare to see them as close together as they are in this story.

Well, Quark, I read your post and the ones following and now I think - 'wow, Chekhov is really confusing!' My first impression of the ending, was not one of 'optimism'; that is why I kidded you and said a 'tiny ray of hope.' However, I was seriously bending that direction; therefore, I might tend to agree with the second commentary a little more. I felt, given Ivan's age, he would definitely waver later, from his momentary optimistic view of life and once again become melancholy; that is not to say he would stay that way. That is also not to say he would then disregard the interconnectedness of life. I still think this way, somewhat; yet that would dispute the idea of his having an 'epiphany', or would it? Does his epiphany depend on the ending being optimistic? I guess I questioned also the true optimism of the last paragraph, knowing the mood of the Chekhov stories I have read so far and seeing that most of them, even if they seem happy, are under the surface not. I was therefore 'suspicious' of that being a truly happy ending, or a conclusion. I think mostly though, I would go with what the author said about his own work. If he meant the ending to be happy and optimistic then it must be so. Perhaps he wrote it happy for his public but he, himself, Chekhov knew otherwise; however the public would read it as optimistic. Personally I don't read the ending as being truly optimistic.
I do tend to agree with the first statement as Antiquarian does, but I agree with Dark Muse , also - that the woman could be religious, and therefore would naturally be very emotional about the retelling of the bible story - why not?

[Janine]

I think people have to remember that the women's connection with and emotional reaction to the story of Peter might occur simply because Ivan is telling the story on Good Friday - it's the Easter holiday. The women probably are orthodox, but I think the fact that it's Good Friday, the day Christ died, is affecting them somewhat.

Antiquarian, I think that very well could play into it. Also, many people become moody or melancholy on Easter, with the approach of spring; for instance, if the weather is not condusive to the idea of spring. I think Good Friday is a kind of depressing/melancholy day for most; well of the Christian faith, I suppose.

[OlgaG]

If somebody would tell me about betrayal, I’ll cry. I had too much of it, don’t you?

[Janine]

If somebody would tell me about betrayal, I’ll cry. I had too much of it, don’t you?

I do agree with that though, Olga. Yes, the idea that Peter was so beloved by Christ and then he betrayed him is a sad thing to contemplate, indeed.


I have had some additional thoughts on this story though. First, knowing how sparse Chekhov's work normally is, why would he include facts in this story, such as the fact that he points out the two women are widows? Is he doing this, just to show how sad in spirit those two women may have become, and therefore they can hear of any sad story and burst forth into their own personal tears of grief? Or are those tears merely human empathy for the Peter/Christ story. I always feel that story makes me very sad, as does the fate of Judas; because it seemed to me that it was in the plan and preordained to be. I always feel a sort of unfairness, about that part of the bible story: that God, the father, would put into his grand plan, this element of two devoted disciples betraying his son; or it it simply that Jesus sensed they would betray him and told them so, or as a prophecy? The betrayal is prophecized specifically, about the crowing of the **** 3 times, so it then makes it believable as a prophecy. This is a confusing part to me in the bible. The disciples were only men and yet they seem to be singled out to betray Christ; out of all, why those two?

If one thinks of this perhaps the widows connect in this way - why were they singled out by God or fate to become widows? or why was their life so difficult and sad? I know these are only mere quesses, but I thought I would throw out this idea. The bible story does show how our fates can change dramatically in a very short time. In this way would they feel interconnected to the bible story?

Quark, will you be posting anymore of the text for us to examine and talk about? I don't mean to rush you, but I was just curious.

[Quark]

I don't think the women necessarily have an connections to the story of Peter. I don't think they were necessarily betrayed or were a betrayer.

When I first read the story I was a little confused by his automatic presumption that they must connected in someway to the story of Peter.

I brought up some connections in the story, and I don't know whether they got skipped over. I'll post them again because there are connections in the details. Chekhov didn't stress them, however, because that would place to much emphasis on these details which are not really important. It's the sympathy and truth of story-telling that is being conveyed here. If Chekhov had made the widows victims of betrayal--or something else more explicit--then we might consider the story as being "about" betrayal. Leaving the connection less spelled out better makes the more abstract point the student makes at the end: that art expresses the recurring beauty and truth which we sense through our sympathy. There still are details which link the widows and Peter with the story, but they're not meant to absorb the story. I listed the ones I saw in a previous post:

II think Peter's episode in the garden does have some relation to the widows, and it's especially significant for the student. I'll start with Ivan and then move on to the widows. Peter and Ivan share a similar goal when the enter the garden. Both Peter and Ivan are recent converts to Christianity and they want to spread their new-found wisdom to the benighted peasants around them. At the campfire, however, they each have a realization. Peter's gaining of self-knowledge corresponds to the student's epiphany about story-telling. Through their failures, they become awakened to some new truth. In the same way Peter is told that he will betray Christ, the student knows the epiphany he is about to have before he tells his story. The sentences I quoted in my last post have the same idea as those toward the end, but the student isn't aware of their importance yet. When he gets to the campfire, though, everything becomes clear to him--as it did to Peter.

The connection to the widows is less explicit, but it's still there. Chekhov describes the daughter, Lukerya, as beaten down. Ivan tells the story of Christ being beaten, and this part resonates with her.

Vasilisa, the mother, has a different reaction which is the result of the different life she's led. The older widow was nurse. Her contact with the families she's served has given her an "air of refinement," but really her condition is no better than the other impoverished villagers. The end of Ivan's story provokes tears from her because it's about a complacent person discovering how weak and miserable they are. Her crying comes at exactly the point in the story when Peter knows who he is:

Let's also not forget that both women are widows, and that Ivan's story is about the loss of a man who was important in Peter's life.
I think we've looked for connections in the wrong place, so far. We focused on the idea of betrayal, but that isn't what makes the widows respond. No, it's the beating which makes the "beaten-down" widow stare at the student, and it's the self-knowledge which brings the older widow to tears. Their reactions are placed right after these parts in the story. That's why I view them as linked. I don't see why else Chekhov would have them react at two different times with two different reactions if he meant them to be responding to just one thing, the betrayal.


Aren't people affected sometimes by either things they read, or stories other people tell, or movies, ect... that do not nessicarly refelct thier own personal life?

Yeah, that's what the story is exploring. The question is why do people respond. Is it because their excited by a cleverly told story, or are they responding to something deep within their souls? The student thinks it's more of the latter, and I think the story is meant to agree with him.


Does his epiphany depend on the ending being optimistic?

I think it does. What makes Ivan hopeful is the fact that people are connected by mutual sympathy with the truth and beauty in the world. Originally, the student is depressed by the recurrences he sees:

And now, shrinking from the cold, he thought that just such a wind had blown in the days of Rurik and in the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter, and in their time there had been just the same desperate poverty and hunger, the same thatched roofs with holes in them, ignorance, misery, the same desolation around, the same darkness, the same feeling of oppression -- all these had existed, did exist, and would exist, and the lapse of a thousand years would make life no better.
After the seeing Vasilia's tears, though, Ivan's despair is transformed into joy and hope. The fact that the widow could feel that sadness, too, has changed Ivan. In her sympathy the student sees truth becoming beauty. I do think you have to see the same thing to view the story as optimistically as he does. But, that's why story is framed and worded the way it is. It's meant to drive you to that conclusion.


First, knowing how sparse Chekhov's work normally is, why would he include facts in this story, such as the fact that he points out the two women are widows?

Good point. I say above that both the women and Peter have lost someone important to them. This another part of the connection between the characters.


This is a confusing part to me in the bible. The disciples were only men and yet they seem to be singled out to betray Christ; out of all, why those two?

That's a tough biblical question, and I don't have a good answer. Sorry, Janine.


Quark, will you be posting anymore of the text for us to examine and talk about? I don't mean to rush you, but I was just curious.

I'm not posting chunks of the story--seeing as how this one is so short.

[Janine]

Quark, I pretty much agree with what you said above. I had another thought on the older widow. Here are quotes to describe the two women:


The gardens were called the widows' because they were kept by two widows, mother and daughter. A campfire was burning brightly with a crackling sound, throwing out light far around on the ploughed earth. The widow Vasilisa, a tall, fat old woman in a man's coat, was standing by and looking thoughtfully into the fire; her daughter Lukerya, a little pockmarked woman with a stupid-looking face, was sitting on the ground, washing a cauldron and spoons. Apparently they had just had supper. There was a sound of men's voices; it was the laborers watering their horses at the river.

Several things stand out in these two quotes, to me as parallels to the biblical/Good Friday story; The woman tend a garden, known as 'the widows' and this recalls me to the 'Garden', where Christ will be finally betrayed.


They talked. Vasilisa, a woman of experience who had been in service with the gentry, first as a wet-nurse, afterwards as a children's nurse expressed herself with refinement, and a soft, sedate smile never left her face; her daughter Lukerya, a village peasant woman who had been beaten by her husband, simply screwed up her eyes at the student and said nothing, and she had a strange expression like that of a deaf-mute.

This second quote lets us know, just how close Vasilisa was to the children in the family - see my underlined phrases. She might, therefore relate to the nurturing of Mary, the mother of Christ, and the magnitude of her loss. As you already said the younger woman would relate to the idea of abuse and being beaten, since she has experienced it, first hand. The older woman has experinced the joys of motherhood and may be fell so torn within relating to the thought of Mary losing her son in this terrible way - crucifixion; the young woman would relate to the abuse and beating of Christ, undoubtably. Both of these ideas would betray their 'womanhood' and their sensibilies to life itself.

It is interesting also to note the difference in the two woman - one is said to be "experienced" and "expressed herself with refinement", while the other younger woman seems to have had a "strange expression like that of a deaf-mute"; also she is described as a "village peasant". Why do you suppose Chekhov choose to have the two woman be so different?

Quark, I disagree - I think posting the text (even if this is a short short story) is very beneficial and we will end up seeing much more to the story than we previously noticed. Hey, you getting lazy on us, Quark - our fearless leader!???...*moan*...*sigh*

[Dark Muse]

Ok, I think that it is starting to make more sense now. It is hard not to think about the idea of the betrayl, sense that is the main theme of the Bibilical story.

Though much of the focus has been placed upon the story of Peter, and its signifigance, one of my faveorite scenes, that I think was also really imporant to the idea of the connection, was when Ivan was first comitting on the fire before he began telling the story:


The gardens were called the widow's becasue they were kept by two widows, mother and daughter. A camp fire was burning brightly with a crackling sound, throwing out light far around on the ploughed earth. The widow Vasilisa, a tall, fat old womnd in a man's coat, was standing by and looking throughtfully into the fire; her daughter Lukerya, a little pock-marked woman with a stupid-looking face, was sitting on the ground, washing a caldron and spoons. Apperantely they had just had supper. There was a sound of men's voices; it was the labourers watering thier horses at the river.

"Here you have winter back again" said the student, going up to the campre fire. "Good evening."

Vasilisa started, but at once recognized him and smiled cordially.

"I did not know you; God bless you," she said.

"You'll be rich"

They talked, Vasilisa, a woman of experince, who had been in service with the gentry first as a wet-nurse, afterwards a children's nurse, expressed herself with refinemnet, and a soft, sedtate smile never left her face, her daughter Lukerya, a village pesant woman, who had been beaten by her husband, simply screwed up her eyes at the student and said nothing, and she had a strange expression like that of a deaf mute.

"At just such a fire the Apolste Peter warmed himsel," said the student, streaching out his hands to the fire. "so he must have been cold then, too. Ah, what a terrible night it must have been, granny! An utterly dimsal long night."

[Quark]

Several things stand out in these two quotes, to me as parallels to the biblical/Good Friday story; The woman tend a garden, known as 'the widows' and this recalls me to the 'Garden', where Christ will be finally betrayed.

We haven't spoken much of the similarities in setting and ambiance, but there are several. As you explain, Ivan's story and the biblical account both are set in gardens. I'll list a few more to make the comparison clearer. Both scenes are centered around a fireplace; birds (thrushes, cocks) vocalize in the stories; laborers return at the end of the stories; the frigid wind, obviously, is another linking detail. I know that I must be overlooking some others, but that is all that comes to mind right now. If anyone can think of some more feel free to post them. While it's probably enough just to say that there are connections, finding them can be sort of fun. It reminds me of those picture puzzles I used to play when I was six. There would be a drawing and it would ask you to find odd items (scissors, a telescope, etc.), and then you'd see how many you could get. I was horrible at these, of course, and I couldn't get more then two or three, but I still loved them. When I read the end of "The Student," it just reminded me of those puzzles because the conclusion gives you things to look for. Every time I reread, I try to find as many as I can. I'm still horrible at this, though (notice how I could only find three connections).


She might, therefore relate to the nurturing of Mary, the mother of Christ, and the magnitude of her loss...the young woman would relate to the abuse and beating of Christ, undoubtably. Both of these ideas would betray their 'womanhood' and their sensibilies to life itself.

That's a good point, Janine. The mother would react to the this story because it's about loss, and she has lost her motherhood. Vasilisa watches her daughter leave her and get beaten in the way Peter has to see Christ separated and beaten.


It is interesting also to note the difference in the two woman - one is said to be "experienced" and "expressed herself with refinement", while the other younger woman seems to have had a "strange expression like that of a deaf-mute"; also she is described as a "village peasant". Why do you suppose Chekhov choose to have the two woman be so different?

While the characterization of the two women is different, their situation is the identical. Both are impoverished widows tending the same garden. Vasilisa distinguishes herself from the common peasants by her manner which she acquired from the gentility; but, behind her pretentiousness, she's still a peasant. This sets up her reaction to the final part of Ivan's story. When Peter discovers that he is not as strong of Christian as he supposed himself, he weeps. Vasilisa cries because she knows she is not a gentle aristocrat.

Chekhov gave the two women these distinguishing characteristics and reactions so that the story didn't become centered on just one idea in Ivan's story. Like I mentioned earlier, if Chekhov had made both women the victims of betrayal, then "The Student" might be considered "about" betrayal. Instead, Chekhov gives different characters and reactions so that the reader doesn't fixate on something irrelevant.


Quark, I disagree - I think posting the text (even if this is a short short story) is very beneficial and we will end up seeing much more to the story than we previously noticed. Hey, you getting lazy on us, Quark - our fearless leader!???...*moan*...*sigh*

Well, you're going to be seething with rage for the rest of this story because I'm not going to post text. The story is three pages!


Though much of the focus has been placed upon the story of Peter, and its signifigance, one of my faveorite scenes, that I think was also really imporant to the idea of the connection, was when Ivan was first comitting on the fire before he began telling the story:

That's an odd choice, actually. Why do like that scene? I found it kind of perfunctory. He had to introduce the widows and get the student to tell his story, so he wrote this scene to fill that purpose. I didn't think it a purpose of its own. I suppose it has its charm. I like the way the widow doesn't recognize him at first and then is surprised to see him. One thing is still don't get about their dialogue, though, is the line "You'll be rich." What does that mean?

[Dark Muse]

One of the reasons I like the scene becasue there is something both very primal as well as universal in the idea of people gathering around the fire and sharing stories and expeinces. I think it is another way that the past and present connect, not just through the emotions and meaning behind the story. I also liked the fact that they were both placed in the garden. The widows are sitting within the gardens, while when Christ told Peter that he would deny him they two were in a garden. Perhaps that helps set up why Ivan choose that story to tell.

I did find the "rich" line to be a bit odd.

[Quark]

One of the reasons I like the scene becasue there is something both very primal as well as universal in the idea of people gathering around the fire and sharing stories and expeinces. I think it is another way that the past and present connect, not just through the emotions and meaning behind the story. I also liked the fact that they were both placed in the garden. The widows are sitting within the gardens, while when Christ told Peter that he would deny him they two were in a garden. Perhaps that helps set up why Ivan choose that story to tell.

I did find the "rich" line to be a bit odd.

I suppose if you read those lines by themselves there is something primal about it. Also, the way the setting and characters are described makes the scene sort of close and intimate. It says, "A campfire was burning brightly with a crackling sound, throwing out light far around on the ploughed earth." The fact that there's nothing but level, fallow ground around them centers our attention on the fire. And, the only lighting is supplied by the flames, so it further draws our attention. The description of the characters also draws us to this point of time and place. The widows have just finished eating and working, so they have nothing to do, but listen to Ivan. The student, meanwhile, doesn't want to go home or think about home, so he's lingering near the village--also with nothing to do. The characters' inactivity and the small field of view each limit our attention to this moment and place. This makes the scene sort of close and intimate. The sparse details and dialogue, I suppose, help create the primitive feel of the scene.

[Dark Muse]

I do not think the lines have to be read alone to be "primal" I think the act initself is a primal one. Fire was the first source of "engery" one of the first life giving forces that man had. Sense the beigning of man people have gathered around fires.

I think even in this day an age, there is something primitive in the use of fire, the burning of a candle, the using of a fireplace, sitting around a campfire, I think this act initself connects us to our ancient anncestors.

It is as old as time, at least as old as "human time"

[Quark]

I do not think the lines have to be read alone to be "primal" I think the act initself is a primal one. Fire was the first source of "engery" one of the first life giving forces that man had. Sense the beigning of man people have gathered around fires.

You're right that story-telling around the fire is something primal on its own, but within the story it may have other characteristics. Often the context or the language used will change the meaning of scene--or at least the impression it gives. In this case, the paragraph that precedes the greeting and story has a great impact on our interpretation of the scene. Here's the paragraph:

Ivan Velikopolsky, the son of a sacristan, and a student of the clerical academy, returning home from shooting, kept walking on the path by the water-logged meadows. His fingers were numb and his face was burning with the wind. It seemed to him that the cold that had suddenly come on had destroyed the order and harmony of things, that nature itself felt ill at ease, and that was why the evening darkness was falling more rapidly than usual. All around it was deserted and peculiarly gloomy. The only light was one gleaming in the widows' gardens near the river; the village, over three miles away, and everything in the distance all round was plunged in the cold evening mist...And now, shrinking from the cold, he thought that just such a wind had blown in the days of Rurik and in the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter, and in their time there had been just the same desperate poverty and hunger, the same thatched roofs with holes in them, ignorance, misery, the same desolation around, the same darkness, the same feeling of oppression -- all these had existed, did exist, and would exist, and the lapse of a thousand years would make life no better. And he did not want to go home.
I think this changes the way we look at the fire and story to follow. It's not just a primal reflex which makes Ivan tell the story. The story is prompted by these feeling of recurring misery. I think the description of the widows and the fire is subsumed by this other prompting; and that, while the details of the scene give a primal impression, the context makes us read the passage differently.

That's not to say that there isn't anything primal about that part. It was good that you pointed out how the scene portrays a very basic, instinctual desire to tell stories. I hadn't originally interpreted it as such, and that's why I was a little surprised you would call that scene your favorite. I just wanted to point out that the part does have a greater role within the story.

[Janine]

We haven't spoken much of the similarities in setting and ambiance, but there are several. As you explain, Ivan's story and the biblical account both are set in gardens. I'll list a few more to make the comparison clearer. Both scenes are centered around a fireplace; birds (thrushes, cocks) vocalize in the stories; laborers return at the end of the stories; the frigid wind, obviously, is another linking detail. I know that I must be overlooking some others, but that is all that comes to mind right now. If anyone can think of some more feel free to post them. While it's probably enough just to say that there are connections, finding them can be sort of fun. It reminds me of those picture puzzles I used to play when I was six. There would be a drawing and it would ask you to find odd items (scissors, a telescope, etc.), and then you'd see how many you could get. I was horrible at these, of course, and I couldn't get more then two or three, but I still loved them. When I read the end of "The Student," it just reminded me of those puzzles because the conclusion gives you things to look for. Every time I reread, I try to find as many as I can. I'm still horrible at this, though (notice how I could only find three connections).

:lol: Quark, I was always good at doing those puzzles; I just loved them. Maybe I need to go back and examine that text and find those hidden words. Glad you agree with me that there are many parellels to the biblical story.


That's a good point, Janine. The mother would react to the this story because it's about loss, and she has lost her motherhood. Vasilisa watches her daughter leave her and get beaten in the way Peter has to see Christ separated and beaten.

Yes, that was pretty much my point. She didn't lose her motherhood but she no longer had to mother anyone, including Ivan. That is true about Vasilisa leaving and her mother must have stood by and seen her daughter terribly hurt. Yes, this would relate to Christ being separated from Peter and the others and being beaten. I also think the older woman, having been very much a mother, would feel the pain that Christ's mother felt to see her son being beaten and crucified. I am sure she could relate to the 'beating' part of that very well.


While the characterization of the two women is different, their situation is the identical. Both are impoverished widows tending the same garden. Vasilisa distinguishes herself from the common peasants by her manner which she acquired from the gentility; but, behind her pretentiousness, she's still a peasant. This sets up her reaction to the final part of Ivan's story. When Peter discovers that he is not as strong of Christian as he supposed himself, he weeps. Vasilisa cries because she knows she is not a gentle aristocrat.

Not convinced of this as yet; but I will review and see if I think that truly relates. I feel this idea is stretching it a bit; but you may be right. I just had not considered it before.



Chekhov gave the two women these distinguishing characteristics and reactions so that the story didn't become centered on just one idea in Ivan's story. Like I mentioned earlier, if Chekhov had made both women the victims of betrayal, then "The Student" might be considered "about" betrayal. Instead, Chekhov gives different characters and reactions so that the reader doesn't fixate on something irrelevant.

Maybe, too so the idea is more universal and will mean something entirely different to the reader - referring to the bible story.


Well, you're going to be seething with rage for the rest of this story because I'm not going to post text. The story is three pages!

Not me; I am none combative normally and I don't seeth with rage...life is not worth it and who has time to be angry? It is your thread basically, so do as you feel fit; you are 'the leader', Quark. I will go along with it, no matter. If I want to point out some text, I will just go ahead and quote some. I need to find those passages, that reveal parallels, and then I can quote that text, in order to better point out similarities specifically.


That's an odd choice, actually. Why do like that scene? I found it kind of perfunctory. He had to introduce the widows and get the student to tell his story, so he wrote this scene to fill that purpose. I didn't think it a purpose of its own. I suppose it has its charm. I like the way the widow doesn't recognize him at first and then is surprised to see him. One thing is still don't get about their dialogue, though, is the line "You'll be rich." What does that mean?

Whether the fire is primal or not, does this really matter? I find it does relate to the bible story now, and the garden as well. It is interesting how this short short story is so well crafted and the two time periods intertwine, to prove the student's point, of everything being related and interconnected. The fire glow does add a nice touch to the story and one feels that fires do indeed tend to make people tell tales and stories.

[Quark]

I have to go along with Janine on the fact that I don't think Vasilisa is crying because she's not a gentle aristocrat.

Well, two parts of the story led me to think that: the initial characterization of Vasilisa and the end of Ivan's story. Chekhov gives the description of the older widow in half a sentence: "Vasilisa, a woman of experience who had been in service with the gentry, first as a wet-nurse, afterwards as a children's nurse expressed herself with refinement, and a soft, sedate smile never left her face." I glean two pieces of characterization from this. She was employed by the gentry, and she has elegant manners with a calm demeanor. The syntax of the sentence makes it seem like the manners were the result of her employment. If they were unrelated, I would think Chekhov would separate the two ideas with a period; instead, he jams them into the same sentence, and makes it appear that there is some connection. That makes me believe that she acquired her refinement from her contact with the gentry. (Where else would she get it from?). These manners clash with her surroundings and even her appearance. The narrator describes her a fat, old and wearing a man's jacket. Meanwhile, she's living on the outskirts of a poor village. This isn't a good situation for anyone of refinement. I don't think she really wants to consider this. The story Ivan tells might be tapping into the widow's grief over this situation. The student frames the story of Peter as an awakening of self-knowledge. He starts with Jesus telling Peter that he will deny him in the garden three times, and Peter doesn't believe him. Peter says that he will always follow Christ. This could correspond with the widow denying her humble circumstances, and claiming that she's a refined woman. Ivan ends his story with the realization that Jesus was right, and then Peter weeping. Peter discovers that he isn't a strong Christian. Ivan narrates, "For the third time he denied it. And immediately after that time the **** crowed, and Peter, looking from afar off at Jesus, remembered the words He had said to him in the evening. . . . He remembered, he came to himself, went out of the yard and wept bitterly." The story ends with an awakening of self-knowledge as Peter realizes that he isn't what he thought he was. The widow might be suffering a similar awakening.

Another possibility that we've talked about is that Vasilisa might be responding to the loss of her chance at motherhood. In the previous post, I focused on who the widow worked for. Perhaps, though, we best look at what specifically her job was. She was a wet-nurse and then a children's nurse. In each case, she was serving another family instead of her own. She might be reacting to the loss of her daughter as Peter reacted to the loss of Christ.

In either case, I think there is a connection forged between the life of the widow and what happens to Peter in Ivan's story. Chekhov draws so many connections elsewhere that I find it hard to believe he wouldn't be doing it here. This is particularly true since the student believes that "all that had happened to Peter the night before the Crucifixion must have some relation to her."

Janine, I'll get to your post tomorrow. Hopefully, you're feeling better then.

[Quark]

It's been rather quiet recently. At first, I thought people were just in hushed awe at my last post, but, more realistically, it probably has to do with Janine being out due to injury and Antiquarian starting her own thread. I hope, however, that I can get enough participation to get through the end of this story. We're almost done; I don't anticipate the discussion going on for more than another week. There's only two things I have left to talk about. The first is the ending which I still maintain is optimistic, but I know I have at least one person who disagrees. Since this is one part of the story that can be taken by itself, I'll post it:


Now the student was thinking about Vasilisa: since she had shed tears all that had happened to Peter the night before the Crucifixion must have some relation to her. . . .

He looked round. The solitary light was still gleaming in the darkness and no figures could be seen near it now. The student thought again that if Vasilisa had shed tears, and her daughter had been troubled, it was evident that what he had just been telling them about, which had happened nineteen centuries ago, had a relation to the present -- to both women, to the desolate village, to himself, to all people. The old woman had wept, not because he could tell the story touchingly, but because Peter was near to her, because her whole being was interested in what was passing in Peter's soul.

And joy suddenly stirred in his soul, and he even stopped for a minute to take breath. "The past," he thought, "is linked with the present by an unbroken chain of events flowing one out of another." And it seemed to him that he had just seen both ends of that chain; that when he touched one end the other quivered.

When he crossed the river by the ferryboat and afterwards, mounting the hill, looked at his village and towards the west where the cold crimson sunset lay a narrow streak of light, he thought that truth and beauty which had guided human life there in the garden and in the yard of the high priest had continued without interruption to this day, and had evidently always been the chief thing in human life and in all earthly life, indeed; and the feeling of youth, health, vigor -- he was only twenty-two -- and the inexpressible sweet expectation of happiness, of unknown mysterious happiness, took possession of him little by little, and life seemed to him enchanting, marvellous, and full of lofty meaning.

I have three observations which make me interpret this as optimistic. One, the student's thoughts are extermely hopeful, and I don't believe they are meant to be ironic or ambiguous in any way. Also, Ivan's subjective state matches his surroundings, as opposed to other stories we've read where the characters' thoughts contradict their environment. I'll have to post more on this to make this point clear. The third reason I find the ending optimistic is that Chekhov himself interpreted it as such. In letters he explains this story quite well, and I'll post some meaningful comments he made about it later. Right now I'm leaving for my brother's place, so I'm rather rushed. When I get there I will post something more thorough.

[Janine]

It's been rather quiet recently. At first, I thought people were just in hushed awe at my last post, but, more realistically, it probably has to do with Janine being out due to injury and Antiquarian starting her own thread. I hope, however, that I can get enough participation to get through the end of this story. We're almost done; I don't anticipate the discussion going on for more than another week. There's only two things I have left to talk about. The first is the ending which I still maintain is optimistic, but I know I have at least one person who disagrees. Since this is one part of the story that can be taken by itself, I'll post it:

Same in Lawrence thread, where did everyone run off to? I had posted text to discuss and I don't think anyone commented on it but me. Now today there is a flood of posts I must answer. I reeled everyone back in, when I posted another new junk of text, with some comments, last night. Until then, I thought the L thread was lost to infamy.:bawling: Anyway, I was out of commission for a day or so, and I guess we all needed a short break anyway.
Now my eyes are ok and I was still (the entire time) checking in here and no one was posting and your last line of your last post said:


Janine, I'll get to your post tomorrow. Hopefully, you're feeling better then.

So basically, Quark, I was waiting for you to answer my post. What happened?
I won't answer your last post comments now, until you answer that post you promised to get to 'tomorrow', which was about a week ago. I have to go and answer all the L posts presently, so I will check back later, and see if you posted a reply to this.

Don't let Chekhov fade into the sunset, too.:(

[Quark]

I'm back from Indiana. Sorry to leave again. I hope my sporadic appearances are not what's losing people.


Now my eyes are ok

That's good news. What was wrong with them, anyway? You said something about about an "erosion." What does that mean?


So basically, Quark, I was waiting for you to answer my post.

Oh, I didn't know you were waiting for me to respond to that. I know I said I would, but when I looked back over your post I found that I agreed with everything you said. I didn't really have anything to add.

Do you want to respond to anything I've written before I post my follow up to my last post? Or, do you still instist that I reply to your other post? I can, if you want.

[Janine]

I'm back from Indiana. Sorry to leave again. I hope my sporadic appearances are not what's losing people.

Great, Quark, how was your trip? I hope you enjoyed yourself. Hey, we can wait. We needed a break, anyway. You can just reel them all back in; I did that on the Lawrence thread and they came when I called. Everyone had flocked to the 'Faulkner' thread, that Antiquarian had starteded, now they must be slowing up over there; it was quite active for a time, lot of fun contraversay about Miss Emily; she and the thread are currently 'resting in peace'. Antiquarian, what is happening in that thread currently, where did everyone go?


That's good news. What was wrong with them, anyway? You said something about about an "erosion." What does that mean?

Well, it is a chronic thing; had it for years now; a 'corneal erosion' sounds worse than it is. It hurts worse than it sounds though, very painful. It looks like your eyeball is fine, but it sometimes will water continually and feels like stabbing pains or grit. It is when the microscopic cells of the cornea actually rub or flake off; Dr. sees it under a microscope. Good news, is that eye tissue can heal quickly. Basically, it is caused by 'dry eye'. Cool air or something unknown (?), can bring on an attack. Now it feel better, but I have to be cautious, because tonight the temperature is changing quickly. Thanks for asking and for your concern, Quark.


Oh, I didn't know you were waiting for me to respond to that. I know I said I would, but when I looked back over your post I found that I agreed with everything you said. I didn't really have anything to add.

Ok, then that is fine with me. Did I say anything important or brilliant? I honestly don't recall what I wrote back then.


Do you want to respond to anything I've written before I post my follow up to my last post? Or, do you still instist that I reply to your other post? I can, if you want.

No, continue to post, unless others wish to respond first to what you have written before. I will be honest, I did not get the chance to read it all yet thoroughly. Oops, I just checked back and I did read it so just push on to your conclusion if you are inclined to do so, Quark.

[Quark]

Great, Quark, how was your trip? I hope you enjoyed yourself.

Oh, it was enjoyable. The only problem was the couch I slept on. It was a sectional whose sections spread out while I was sleeping on it. I woke up at 2:34 A.M. in between two of the sections.


Hey, we can wait. We needed a break, anyway.

I assumed that was the case.


You can just reel them all back in; I did that on the Lawrence thread and they came when I called. Everyone had flocked to the 'Faulkner' thread, that Antiquarian had starteded, now they must be slowing up over there; it was quite active for a time, lot of fun contraversay about Miss Emily; she and the thread are currently 'resting in peace'. Hey, Antiquarian, what is happening in that thread currently, where did everyone go?

That's another thread I would like to join in on, but I already have too much already. I can't even keep this one going! I'm trying to focus on just our two for now, so I can get things back on track.


Well, it is a chronic thing; had it for years now; a 'corneal erosion' sounds worse than it is.

It doesn't sound painful so much as it sounds weird. What causes your eye to erode?


Ok, then that is fine with me. Did I say anything important or brilliant? I honestly don't recall what I wrote back then.

You did make one point that was pretty good. I probably should respond to it. I suppose I will when I post tomorrow. Yes, I will do it this time.


No, continue to post, unless others wish to respond first to what you have written before. I will be honest, I did not get the chance to read it all yet thoroughly.

It's a little late for me to write it up tonight. Plus, I can't find the Chekhov quote I need right now. It's in a book I have, but I've lost my place and can't find anything. I'll search tomorrow, and post when I find it.

[Janine]

Oh, it was enjoyable. The only problem was the couch I slept on. It was a sectional whose sections spread out while I was sleeping on it. I woke up at 2:34 A.M. in between two of the sections.

:lol: Oh, the old 'sectional sofa scenerio'! :lol: I would have liked to see that live!;) Note: my creative alliteration...


I assumed that was the case.

It very much was - "we was just plum tired out by then" (that there is 'Jesse James' talk)....I'm feeling kinda funny tonight...:D


That's another thread I would like to join in on, but I already have too much already. I can't even keep this one going! I'm trying to focus on just our two for now, so I can get things back on track.

I tried to comment some, since I just read the story, but I really was pressed for time, too.



It doesn't sound painful.... That is what you think!!! It is excruciating and when it hurts the worst, it then waters like mad and your nose also runs. Oh, get it sometime and you will see just how painful it can be or better yet, go stick a pin in your eyeball - that is just what it feels like.


.....so much as it sounds weird. What causes your eye to erode?

Not really weird, just painful and you can't see out of your eyes for a day or so, due to putting all kinds of icky drops in it; so basically, you can't read, you can't drive, you can't watch TV, or look at the computer - what else is there??? I listened to a book on my MP3 player, that worked and I kept my eyes closed and moist. A condition known as 'dry eye' causes it. The eye can't keep enough moisture in it naturally. My son has it slightly, too. Anyone, any age, can get it...it is not an old person thing. :(



You did make one point that was pretty good. I probably should respond to it. I suppose I will when I post tomorrow. Yes, I will do it this time.

Oh goodie; when I mentioned the word 'brilliant', it must have sparked a memory in your brain in reference to my post.



It's a little late for me to write it up tonight. Plus, I can't find the Chekhov quote I need right now. It's in a book I have, but I've lost my place and can't find anything. I'll search tomorrow, and post when I find it.

Is that the same book you were going to mail to me....someday in time?..... I have 2 of your Chekhov disks burned and one pending, but it sounds to me like you need to keep that book. If so tell me and I will order the 40 story one that is on Amazon. The CD's can still be yours.

[Janine]

Everyone deserted me when I wanted to talk about Faulkner's writing style. LOL

See what I mean, Antiquarian; they all just want to get into a good heated fray - if you start talking about 'writing style' they loose interest; head off for another contraversial thread...there is enough of those around....that is for sure....:( They come on first and only to criticize the story and tell everyone if they liked it or hated it. I personally cannot see how that is discussing it. I admit, this is one of my pet peeves.

Antiquarian, had it more time I would have discussed that with you. I like talking about style and symbolism, etc. Maybe I will have more time next week and we can revive your thread.

[Quark]

Here's the idea I wanted to respond to in your other post.


Maybe, too so the idea is more universal and will mean something entirely different to the reader - referring to the bible story.

The difference between the women does bring out the potential for different interpretations. Chekhov explored this potential as much as he could in many of the stories we've read. This is often done through ambiguity in which we're not sure what the correct interpretation of the story is. In "About Love" we had numerous examples of this.


Everyone deserted me when I wanted to talk about Faulkner's writing style. LOL

Now you feel our pain. It often happens that when you get something that you think is important everyone disappears. There have been times on the Lawrence thread when Janine has posted three straight posts on something, and no one has responded to her. The worse case of that I've struggled through was with the "Lady with the Dog" discussion. I was trying to explain irony and ambiguity, but no one was going to have any of it.

If I get some time, I'll try to post some more in that discussion. I've been too preoccupied recently, though, to do much on LitNet.


See what I mean, Antiquarian; they all just want to get into a good heated fray - if you start talking about 'writing style' they loose interest; head off for another contraversial thread...there is enough of those around....that is for sure....:( They come on first and only to criticize the story and tell everyone if they liked it or hated it.

Maybe that means Janine and I need to yell at each other more.

[Janine]

Here's the idea I wanted to respond to in your other post.

Thanks, Quark, for even reading it. I just read this whole post of yours.;) I read your posts but back when we did "The Lady and the Lap Dog" I was not fully emersed in this thread, so sorry if I did not pay full attention. I know I didn't back then; I was half-hearted about Chekhov at that time and the story was long and I could not keep up either. I think it was Christmas or some holiday time and I was too busy. Our first story in Lawrence, I had such high hopes for, since it is one of my favorites and we barely scratched the surface.:( I should go back one day and try and interpret it myself.


The difference between the women does bring out the potential for different interpretations. Chekhov explored this potential as much as he could in many of the stories we've read. This is often done through ambiguity in which we're not sure what the correct interpretation of the story is. In "About Love" we had numerous examples of this.

I can't yell at you on this one. ;) I think I pretty much agree with you. He certainly loved 'ambiquity'! You said it!;)


Now you feel our pain. It often happens that when you get something that you think is important everyone disappears. There have been times on the Lawrence thread when Janine has posted three straight posts on something, and no one has responded to her. The worse case of that I've struggled through was with the "Lady with the Dog" discussion. I was trying to explain irony and ambiguity, but no one was going to have any of it.

Yes, Quark, you are a friend in pain. Thanks for pointing that out - I have posted several in a row and no one even noticed. Maybe I need those dancing bananas on my posts. At least make it worthwhile for me; does that mean you did read them? Sorry again about that first short story and my neglect at the time.



If I get some time, I'll try to post some more in that discussion. I've been too preoccupied recently, though, to do much on LitNet.

Good, that would be nice. We can always pick it back up anytime and keep it going, Antiquarian...don't think of your thread as dead yet.


Maybe that means Janine and I need to yell at each other more.

:lol: Maybe Dark Muse and Janine should yell at each other! We are always disagreeing...

[Dark Muse]

:lol: Maybe Dark Muse and Janine should yell at each other! We are always disagreeing...

LOL, tis true. That is the one thing we can agree on, is that we disagree.

[Janine]

LOL, tis true. That is the one thing we can agree on, is that we disagree.

Yes, it has become chronic.....:lol:

[Quark]

During my aimless, miscellaneous reading today I stumbled across a commentary on Chekhov that had something that fits almost perfectly with what I was arguing before. Earlier, I was trying to prove that the story is, in fact, optimistic, but I never finished that thought. I said three qualities of the story made me believe that: the author's comments on the story, Ivan's conclusion at the end, and the psychological state of the student. This commentary has an excellent explanation of that last point. This is from Anton Chekhov, A Study of the Short Fiction:

In "The Student" the protagonist's inner, subjective view of the world manifests itself in the objective, social reality of the two peasant women. More common in Chekhov's stories is the opposite pattern, whereby the subjective views of the protagonists conflict with the social reality. The pattern in these stories is a variation on such stories as "Ward Number Six" and "Rothschild's Fiddle," wherein the characters question the meaning of their lives; the key difference is that these protagonists do not undergo a moral conversion toward self-unity and psychological health, but instead experience a mental breakdown, the protagonist's state of mind becomes altered
That's a great explanation of Ivan's psychological change at the end of the story. He moves toward "self-unity" and "psychological health" which is quite uplifting. In other stories, the protagonist descends into mental unbalance and delusion. Part of what makes this story different--and more optimistic--is that the character's mental alteration is for the better, and not the worse.

The change in mood also makes the story optimistic. The gloom of the opening is replaced with "strange, mysterious hapiness," and the feeling that life is "enchanting, miraculous, imbued with exalted significance."

Last, Chekhov's own statements cast this story in an optimistic light. He wrote to his brother that he considered this story a rebuttal to those who thought his work was only gloom and sadness.

[Janine]

Good post, Quark! Thanks for posting that commentary. It is very helpful. I don't really see anything here, I would disagree with. I will read it again, but it is pretty straight-forward and seems plausible. Now I can see the 'optimist light' at the end of the story. I always do like to hear just what the author, himself, has to say about his own work. That bit of information seems the most revealing; afterall, he should know his own intentions and his own writting.

[Quark]

Good post, Quark! Thanks for posting that commentary. It is very helpful. I don't really see anything here, I would disagree with. I will read it again, but it is pretty straight-forward and seems plausible.

I think so, too. The only part of the story that might gives me any pause about this interpretation is a clause Chekhov interjects into the last sentence.

When he crossed the river by the ferryboat and afterwards, mounting the hill, looked at his village and towards the west where the cold crimson sunset lay a narrow streak of light, he thought that truth and beauty which had guided human life there in the garden and in the yard of the high priest had continued without interruption to this day, and had evidently always been the chief thing in human life and in all earthly life, indeed; and the feeling of youth, health, vigor -- he was only twenty-two -- and the inexpressible sweet expectation of happiness, of unknown mysterious happiness, took possession of him little by little, and life seemed to him enchanting, marvellous, and full of lofty meaning.
The reference to Ivan's youth casts a doubtful light on the permanence of his new philosophy. His sudden burst of happiness might be the result of his youthful outlook on the world, and have nothing to do with the story or the widows. He's still young and has many options. Wouldn't hope be natural to someone in that position?

This does temper our belief in Ivan's conclusion, but I don't think it totally overturns it. Chekhov probably included this small doubt because he was uncomfortable with any dogma--even his own. From what I know of his stories, and his personal life, Chehkov was too mercurial in temperament to argue for just one idea. His perspective was always changing, and a fixed ideology was something terrible in his mind. This story comes closest to that, though, and so he interrupted the flow toward a fixed conclusion by including this reference to Ivan's age.


I always do like to hear just what the author, himself, has to say about his own work. That bit of information seems the most revealing; afterall, he should know his own intentions and his own writting.

I wish I could find the letter he wrote online somewhere. It's brief, but it does have slightly more to it than what I posted.

[Quark]

I'm having trouble keeping up, but now I see the optimistic ending, too.

Don't worry Anti. We're almost done with this story, and then we'll have our usually down-time in between stories. You can pick it up again when we start the next one. This has been a really busy month for everyone so far. You started the Faulkner discussion; I've been doing six different threads; plus, Janine picked a long story this time around. We've all been a little stretched thin.

[Quark]

The story's a lot deeper than I thought on first reading it, Quark. I think Chekhov is like that. Sometimes people can read him and think, "Okay, that was lovely." But on a second, third, or fourth reading, they see how much he managed to pack into so few words. Sometimes, I'm just amazed. And his stories are so beautiful and so timeless.

I remember my opinion of this story changing after multiple reads, too. I think the first time through I only got the general impression of the student's mood changing. I felt the gloom and hopelessness of the beginning, and the optimism and warmth of the ending. The story is so poetic in sections that on the first reading you just get swept along with the words, and you don't notice the structure--or even the images. It's just a vague impression. Later, after I read it again when I was deciding which story we should do, the technical aspects of the poem became almost flourescent, and I saw the cyclical structure, the mirrored images, the ambiance, and the characters. During my later read, and during the discussion, I've picked up much more on the philosophy and the thoughts of the story. That's why recently I've been so focused on Ivan's conclusion at the end so much.

There are, of course, many other Chekhov stories that gain something from re-reading. The last one we did, "About Love," was a good example. I'm not sure why Chekhov's works are so different upon re-reading, but they certainly are. Any guesses why? It might have to do with Chekhov's terseness. His stories are so short for their content that important parts may go unnoticed because they're not lingered on long enough for the reader to register them. Another cause of enjoyable re-reads might be Chekhov's constantly changing opinions and ideas. This creates the ambiguity and irony that often is missed on first readings. For whatever reason, though, the complexity that warrants re-reading and re-thinking stories is there in Chekhov's works.

I'll have to think about it more, but good observation Anti.

[Quark]

Thank you, Quark. I agree with everything in your post as well. I'm beginning to appreciate Chekhov even more. :)

Thanks, that's always what I want to hear. You do know how to flatter, Antiquarian!

Now, let's finish this story. There is one last thought that I wanted to get out. Dark Muse and I already argued about this a little, but I like to take this a little deeper and get some other people involved. Chekhov refers to the camp fire many times and the story I'm curious to know what effect that has--why he does it. It's first brought up as an incidental piece of ambiance. The student surveys the ground and sees
a camp fire was burning brightly with a crackling sound Then he notices Vasilisa staring at it
Vasilisa...was standing by and looking thoughtfully into the fire This perhaps centers our attention on the fire, but it doesn't do anything particularly important yet. Ivan actually points out it's importance before Chekhov does. It's the student who says
At just such a fire the apostle Peter warmed himselfThe fire links Ivan with the past and the human spirit, and I think this is the purpose of the fire. The fire makes a sort of portal through which the student can generalize and talk about humanity in general. In an optimistic way, though. The cold wind has a similar effect on Ivan, but it makes him feel pessimistic about the peasants and the universe. The fire and cold wind are opposites in this story that fight with one another for control of Ivan's world-view. This split is rather common in Chekhov stories. Usually, it's snow that represents the negative, hopeless view of the world, however. I'm thinking of "In Exile," in particular, where there is another set of characters around the fire telling stories. The cold snow contrast with the warmth of the fire much more explicitly in that one. "Misery" also has these two symbols. The driver is oppressed by the snow, but looks for companionship by the fire. In any case, I thought I should point this out before we move on.

[Janine]

Good to see you all awake in here and keeping this thread active. I thought the forum was a bit of a ghost-town today. Poor Lawrence is fading into the sunset again. I will have to go and make a comment to get everyone back on-track.
I am sorry, Quark, I am behind on this thread. I have been trying to read the posts since I last posted. They kind of got away without me. I hope I can catch up soon.
I did post more text, for the Lawrence story, with some comments and questions of my own; I thought you all wanted to comment on that part of the story, as well; it begins with entering into Winifred's parlor/house. Was it the red anemones that you wanted to post something about, Quark?

[Janine]

Could the fire also symbolize the interconnectedness of all life?

That is an interesting thought, Antiquarian. For centuries man has gather around fires and in a way this connects them. Is that what you meant, when you said that? Many time stories are woven while sitting around a fire or fireplace/hearth. Fire has a mystical and magical significance. One seems to 'open-up' around a fire and connect with others. Fire seems to bring out deeper profound thoughts.

[Janine]

Yes, that's what I meant, I guess. LOL Fire was invented by cavemen, right? So in a way, fire is one of the few constants in life.

Yes, Antiquarian, I think that was my idea basically.

[Dark Muse]

Hehe well not to be nit-picky but they did not really invent fire, just figured out how they could contain it and start it on thier own.

[Dark Muse]

hehe yeah, I presumed that is what you really ment. I mostly said that in jest

[Quark]

Good to see you all awake in here and keeping this thread active. I thought the forum was a bit of a ghost-town today. Poor Lawrence is fading into the sunset again.

As I was saying to Anti earlier, this has been a tough month for everyone. We've been stretched a little thin with me doing five discussions, DM at school, Anti starting the "A Rose for Emily" thread, and the long Lawrence story. Eventually, I'm sure, we'll get back on track. It always seems to come and go.


I did post more text, for the Lawrence story, with some comments and questions of my own; I thought you all wanted to comment on that part of the story, as well; it begins with entering into Winifred's parlor/house. Was it the red anemones that you wanted to post something about, Quark?

I saw that, and I've been meaning to post. I'll try tonight. No, you haven't posted the little bit of dialogue I want to use. It's at the very end, though, so don't feel like you have to rush to get to it. I have plenty to say in the meantime.


Could the fire also symbolize the interconnectedness of all life?

I agree to a certain extent. I think it does help Ivan reach the conclusion that life is recurring and therefore "interconnected." But, the cold wind does that also. The difference is that the fire makes Ivan realize the beauty of that "interconnectedness" while the cold wind only depresses the student with "interconnectedness."


Hehe well not to be nit-picky but they did not really invent fire, just figured out how they could contain it and start it on thier own.

Yes, and Newton didn't invent gravity--although it would be weird if he did.

[Quark]

Alright, I'm beginning my search for the next story. Any requests? Should we do a psychological one, a moving one, a poetic one, a funny one? Domestic, fantastic? What do people feel like reading? Chekhov wrote two billion short stories (I believe) and I've read about a billion, so we should be able to find one to fit our mood.

[Quark]

My vote goes to poetic, Quark. :)

I'll see what I can do. There are already a few I have in mind for that.

[Dark Muse]

Though I know not everyone will agree with this, but personally I am always up for something dark

[Quark]

Though I know not everyone will agree with this, but personally I am always up for something dark

Janine won't let me do the really dark Chekhov story that I'd like to do, but there are others. Hmm, dark and poetic? I'll have to search to see if I can find the best of those.

[Dark Muse]

Well now I am currious, tell me what it is, so I can read it on my own when I get the time.

[Quark]

Well now I am currious, tell me what it is, so I can read it on my own when I get the time.

I think I brought it up earlier. It's called "Sleepy," and I promised Janine I wouldn't do it on the LitNet discussion for a few months. Once you read it, you'll know why. You would like it, though. The dark, shocking end could be straight out of a Poe tale. I like it because of the masterful use of perspective.

[Dark Muse]

Do you know if by any chance it is also called Sleepyhead? Becasue I have a story called Sleepyhead, in my Chekhov book

[Dark Muse]

OK cool, thank you. I will defininately have to look into that when I have the chance.

[Quark]

Do you know if by any chance it is also called Sleepyhead? Becasue I have a story called Sleepyhead, in my Chekhov book

I believe those are the same stories. It should start with something like this:


NIGHT. Varka, the little nurse, a girl of thirteen, is rocking the cradle in which the baby is lying, and humming hardly audibly:

"Hush-a-bye, my baby wee,
While I sing a song for thee."

A little green lamp is burning before the ikon; there is a string stretched from one end of the room to the other, on which baby-clothes and a pair of big black trousers are hanging. There is a big patch of green on the ceiling from the ikon lamp, and the baby-clothes and the trousers throw long shadows on the stove, on the cradle, and on Varka. . . . When the lamp begins to flicker, the green patch and the shadows come to life, and are set in motion, as though by the wind. It is stuffy. There is a smell of cabbage soup, and of the inside of a boot-shop.

Which Chekhov book do you have anyway? I can look it up online and see which stories you have. I try to pick stories that everyone has--no promises, of course, though.


I've read "Sleepy," Quark. I'd love to discuss it here, but as I said, I understand Janine's sensitivity to it now. Perhaps that will fade with time, though.

I would like to discuss it at some point, but there's no rush. We have truckloads (SI unit of Chekhov stories) of excellent works left to read. I can rattle off three right now: "A Doctor's Visit," "On the Road," "Ward No. 6." Any of these stories would work. I ask, though, because each story is quite different. I'd like to pick one that fits with everyone's preferences.


What do you consider Chekhov's greatest story?

It depends on what I'm interested in reading at that point. I've liked all the ones we've read for the thread so far. "About Love" was probably my favorite from that group, but other people didn't seem to enjoy it as much as I did. Some that we haven't read that are good are "Dreams," "The House with the Mansard," and "At Home." I'm not sure which I would elevate to "favorite" status, but each of those are ones I come back to frequently.


And do you like Ivan Bunin as well?

I'm very partial to William Trevor, who's often called "the Irish Chekhov," but really, I think that's a disservice to both Chekhov and Trevor. Both are unique.

I've heard of these people, but not read them. Bunin seems interesting, and I've meant to read more Soviet Lit. I was actually talking Idril awhile ago about my ignorance of 20th century Russian Lit. She suggested some books. I'm not sure if Bunin was an author she mentioned. I suppose I can make my own decisions about what to read, but she's the queen of Russian lit on this forum. When I have a question about it, usually I just ask her.

[Janine]

Yes, no maiming or killing of babies, puppies, of kittens please!!!:bawling:

[Quark]

Yes, no maiming or killing of babies, puppies, of kittens please!!!:bawling:

Agreed. (Although, I do encourage everyone who's interested in that to read "Sleepy").

[Janine]

Agreed. (Although, I do encourage everyone who's interested in that to read "Sleepy").

You know, asside from my sensitivity about the subject matter in that story, I really did not like the story at all; the more I thought about it the sillier it seemed to me. How would anyone expect a person to go with no sleep?

[Dark Muse]

Agreed. (Although, I do encourage everyone who's interested in that to read "Sleepy").

I cannot wait. As soon as I am able to, I shall definately look into it. I need something dreary to get me through the hot summer.


Which Chekhov book do you have anyway? I can look it up online and see which stories you have. I try to pick stories that everyone has--no promises, of course, though.

A really old book I got from my grandma. She had a whole collection of volumes of work from varrious authors. I am not sure where she first got them from.

[Janine]

I cannot wait. As soon as I am able to, I shall definately look into it. I need something dreary to get me through the hot summer.

Dark Muse, you need to cheerup, not get drearier.


A really old book I got from my grandma. She had a whole collection of volumes of work from varrious authors. I am not sure where she first got them from.

Cool, I got mine from my dad, but so far Quark has not picked one story available in that book, or my two library books.....hey, what is with that Quark,.... are you listening? Oh yes, and I forgot another collection of short stories on 3 CD's (audiobook I bought just for this thread).:(
I will check and see if just maybe, I have that one about 'The Doctor's Visit'. They don't maim/kill any kids in that one, do they?

Geez, 'Ward 6' in my books is 46 pages long, XIX chapters! *moan*groan*sigh*...it is teey tiny type face, too. Yikes, it is a short novel!

[Quark]

You know, asside from my sensitivity about the subject matter in that story, I really did not like the story at all; the more I thought about it the sillier it seemed to me. How would anyone expect a person to go with no sleep?

Her family and her employer are what's keeping her awake, and they don't entirely succeed. She's drifting in and out the whole time. I didn't find that too much of a stretch.


A really old book I got from my grandma. She had a whole collection of volumes of work from varrious authors. I am not sure where she first got them from.

Well that's no help. Which stories do you have?


but so far Quark has not picked one story available in that book, or my two library books.....hey, what is with that Quark,.... are you listening? Oh yes, and I forgot another collection of short stories on 3 CD's (audiobook I bought just for this thread).:(

I offered you a book with all the stories we've done so far in it. You haven't seemed too interested in it.

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, you need to cheerup, not get drearier.

Ahh but reading things that are dark is what makes me happy. I enjoy the darkside.

Quark, here is the list of stories I have in my book


The Kiss
The Chorus Girl
La Cigale
Verotchka
The Match
Excellent People
The Black Monk
A Family Council
Woe
Women
A Husk
Anna Round The Neck
The Peasants
A Terrible Night
In Exile
The Proposal
Who To Blame
Rothchild's Fiddle
Sleepyhead
The Princess
Fish
Mass For The Sinner
The Lament
Oysters
Vanka
Zinotchka
The Privy Councillor
The Wager
The Cossack
At the Manor
An Event
Art
The Brids
Ward No. 6
At Home
An Adventure
A Father
Two Tragedies
The Rook
On The Way
Children
Head Garderner's Tale
The Runaway
The Reed
In the Ravine

[islandclimber]

the black monk... please, please, please.. and I promise i will return to discuss haha... I am just so hectic with work.. but if we read Ward No. 6 or The Black Monk... I would make time... They are long but it is not a big deal.. we can take more time, and go slower.. it wouldn't be the end of the world... haha...

[Janine]

Ahh but reading things that are dark is what makes me happy. I enjoy the darkside.

Quark, here is the list of stories I have in my book


The Kiss
The Chorus Girl
La Cigale
Verotchka
The Match
Excellent People
The Black Monk
A Family Council
Woe
Women
A Husk
Anna Round The Neck
The Peasants
A Terrible Night
In Exile
The Proposal
Who To Blame
Rothchild's Fiddle
Sleepyhead
The Princess
Fish
Mass For The Sinner
The Lament
Oysters
Vanka
Zinotchka
The Privy Councillor
The Wager
The Cossack
At the Manor
An Event
Art
The Brids
Ward No. 6
At Home
An Adventure
A Father
Two Tragedies
The Rook
On The Way
Children
Head Garderner's Tale
The Runaway
The Reed
In the Ravine

Dark Muse, this looks like the same book I have, with the same stories, in the same order - only thing different that I can percieve, is that after 'Anna Round the Neck' I have these 3 stories, also:

The Incubus
Miss N.N.'s Story
The Young Wife

Curious...when you listed those, Dark Muse, did you miss those three, by any chance?

Glad to see you back, islandclimber! Hope you stick around for awhile. Sorry you have been so busy with work. I envisioned you on the side of some beautiful mountain somewhere. Bummer that it was work instead; must be your busy time.
Will you be back in the Lawrence thread, as well? Discussions have been going great this month although I have had to break a lot myself, becoming a first time grandmother a few days ago. :)

[Dark Muse]

I went back to double check with my volume, and no those three are not listed in my book

[Quark]

Bunin's writing is gorgeous and he's so overlooked in Russian Literature even though he's a Nobel winner. "The Gentleman from San Francisco" is his most famous story, though it's "Sunstroke" that reminds me more of Chekhov.

Trevor is a great Irish writer, whose stories are a lot like Chekhov's.

I will probably read them eventually--for the sake of Chekhov comparisons if nothing else. When I do, I'll let you know.


I'm proud to be Russian myself. :)

I would be, too. They have a great literature tradition. If it wasn't for the weird, Cyrillic alphabet I would try learn Russian.


Quark, here is the list of stories I have in my book

Keep that book because we'll do at least a third of those stories.


the black monk... please, please, please.. and I promise i will return to discuss haha... I am just so hectic with work.. but if we read Ward No. 6 or The Black Monk... I would make time... They are long but it is not a big deal.. we can take more time, and go slower.. it wouldn't be the end of the world... haha...

It's been over a year since I've read either of those stories. Naturally, I'll have to give them another look over before I decide. I remember them being enjoyable, interesting reads, so I definitely will consider them.

[Janine]

I went back to double check with my volume, and no those three are not listed in my book

How strange, DM....hummm... maybe I should read those (out of curiosity) - maybe they were banned from your book.;) I certainly can imagine 'The Incubus' being so.:lol:


Quark I think 'The Black Monk' sounds interesting, and it does seem that it is not that long, either. If we do 'Ward 6' this time around, I don't think I can do it, too. It is too long for me now to fit in. I will be going to see the baby a lot this month; I am sure; so I don't want to commit to too much for the month of May.

Also, the idea of the black monk sounds like something Dark Muse would definitely like - sounds like a dark tale. :lol:

[Janine]

Quote by Dark Muse:

A really old book I got from my grandma. She had a whole collection of volumes of work from varrious authors. I am not sure where she first got them from.

Hey, Dark Muse, do your books, from your grandma, have green covers? I bet these are the same books I own, from my dad. They also, are various authors: collections of each. I have about 20 or more of them. They are great; something I feel lucky to have inherited. Publisher is Walter J. Black, Inc. Copyright 1929.

[Dark Muse]

Mine have red covers, but they are from Walter J. Black

[Janine]

Mine have red covers, but they are from Walter J. Black

aha... I think that is the set my library owns. Yes, I had noticed one (the Chekhov) I took out of that set and it was also by Black.

[Janine]

Oh horrors! I could not find the Chekhov thread and had to go looking for it...it had drifted to page two. Are we nearly done or done discussing this story "About Love"? I am trying to get my footing and catch up today.

[Janine]

Janine, we finished "About Love" some time ago. We've been discussing "The Student." I think your mind is just elsewhere today. ;)

Oops! You are right about that. I was thinking more about 'baby', but now we can't go; the baby kept them up all night long crying. I hope it is nothing. I will tell you more in an email. I am going now to have dinner, etc.

[Quark]

Quark I think 'The Black Monk' sounds interesting, and it does seem that it is not that long, either. If we do 'Ward 6' this time around, I don't think I can do it, too. It is too long for me now to fit in. I will be going to see the baby a lot this month; I am sure; so I don't want to commit to too much for the month of May.

Also, the idea of the black monk sounds like something Dark Muse would definitely like - sounds like a dark tale. :lol:

I'll reread it tomorrow. Out of all the Chekhov books I own that one is missing from them all, so I have to get the book from the library.


Well, baby was not feeding, so that was a worry; I think what happened was they both went into a panic; lack of sleep did not help. Baby's sense this and they get nervous, too. Now things got back on track and last I heard baby had feed; was sleeping soundly. I am relieved. Yes, I didn't think an over 8 lb baby was going to waste away, in one day's time. They called for some advise and got it all straightened around - new parents! right? Everyday new day should be an adventure.

I suppose it's natural to be a little over-apprehensive, but let's hope they get some sleep.

[Janine]

Oh, that's too bad. I feel bad for you, but there will be so many more nights with the baby. Try not to worry. New babies often cry most of the night. It's just a normal part of their little world. She was almost nine pounds! :) She's so healthy! :)

Well, baby was not feeding, so that was a worry; I think what happened was they both went into a panic; lack of sleep did not help. Baby's sense this and they get nervous, too. Now things got back on track and last I heard baby had feed; was sleeping soundly. I am relieved. Yes, I didn't think an over 8 lb baby was going to waste away, in one day's time. They called for some advise and got it all straightened around - new parents! right? Everyday new day should be an adventure.;)

[Dark Muse]

Also, the idea of the black monk sounds like something Dark Muse would definitely like - sounds like a dark tale. :lol:

Hehe yes, I was intrigued by the titile of that one

[Janine]

I'll reread it tomorrow. Out of all the Chekhov books I own that one is missing from them all, so I have to get the book from the library.

Hahaha - finally one that you are missing, Quark. I guess we got you back for once!

Quark I am still intersted in that book you offered to me of the 40 stories; but the thing is, I thought you expressed a desire to keep it; that you needed that one. If so, I can order the one online; just let me know, will you?

I have two of your CD's set done and ready to mail, but there is one pending. Shall I send you the two now and then the other when I can get it done?Burner quit on me, but I have to do computer adjustments/figure out how to make it work again. Haven't had time lately. Feel sure it will work fine again; this has happened before.

[Quark]

Hahaha - finally one that you are missing, Quark. I guess we got you back for once!

It's poetic justice, I know.


Quark I am still intersted in that book you offered to me of the 40 stories; but the thing is, I thought you expressed a desire to keep it; that you needed that one. If so, I can order the one online; just let me know, will you?

I'm ready to send it to you whenever you want. The only the thing that's slowing shipping is that I don't know where to send it. You have to email me.


I have two of your CD's set done and ready to mail, but there is one pending. Shall I send you the two now and then the other when I can get it done?Burner quit on me, but I have to do computer adjustments/figure out how to make it work again. Haven't had time lately. Feel sure it will work fine again; this has happened before.

Whenever you get the third disk done send it to me. It doesn't make sense to send two packages.

[Janine]

It's poetic justice, I know.

So it is, so it is....:lol:



I'm ready to send it to you whenever you want. The only the thing that's slowing shipping is that I don't know where to send it. You have to email me.

Just PM'd you - check your box.


Whenever you get the third disk done send it to me. It doesn't make sense to send two packages.

Ok, but feel badly about holding up on that. I was so mad when the third one would not burn.

[Janine]

Sometimes I think babies just aren't hungry, like us. And it's normal for them to be up at night and for new parents to lose a lot of sleep in the first few months. It's a hard job, but well worth it. It's nice to read things are fine now.

Yes, I tried to tell them that but you know, I did mothering so long ago, they don't think now I remember anything...so funny really. I hope we can go there tomorrow sometimes - now he said in the daytime. Thing is he has to go to work on Wednesday. Just pray things stay fine. They are nervous first time parents.

Antiquarian, did you notice when I posted the new segment of type in the short story everyone seems to have vanished? It is like your 'Miss Emily' thread - the contravery stops and everyone departs. I wanted to get back to the text, so we can finish up soon and start something new. It will be good to move onto another story in this thread and in the Lawrence thread, don't you think?

I am taking bets next on who will hate who in the next story! :lol:

I think I may go and watch a movie now....

[Quark]

I read over "The Black Monk" just now, and I think it would be a good read for the next discussion. It's an oddly compelling tale of, um, well, I can't really say without giving it away too much. Then it would be less odd and compelling. The story is very similar to some of the others we've done except that it's much more psychological. I had read this story once before, but I was getting it confused "The Bishop" for some reason. I don't know why. Bishop and monk are both religious figures, I guess. I was a little sceptical of the story at first because I thought we were talking about "The Bishop" which isn't as good of a story. Some people like "The Bishop" and it's in both of my collections, but I've always been underwhelmed by it. "The Black Monk," however, is quite interesting. I have some objections to it--like Janine's reservations about "Sleepy." I'm willing to be a team player for this discussion, though.

The only problem might be the length. It's almost thirty pages long! To make things easier for everyone, I probably won't start the discussion until Sunday or Monday. That way everyone has time to read. We'll go slow during the discussion, too.


Antiquarian, did you notice when I posted the new segment of type in the short story everyone seems to have vanished? It is like your 'Miss Emily' thread - the contravery stops and everyone departs. I wanted to get back to the text, so we can finish up soon and start something new. It will be good to move onto another story in this thread and in the Lawrence thread, don't you think?

I am taking bets next on who will hate who in the next story! :lol:

I wouldn't be worried about participation on that thread. We've filled thirty pages with conversation on the current story.

What is the next story, by the way? I know you said before, but now I can't find where.

[Dark Muse]

I will look forward to The Black Monk, and start reading as soon as I can, it sounds compelling

[Janine]

"The Black Monk" sounds very good.

Janine hasn't posted the title of the next Lawrence story, Quark. She just posted that she's chosen it. Janine is a woman of mystery. ;)

:lol: ;) :lol: Good one, Antiquarian! :nod: :cool: :brow:

[islandclimber]

Thank you Quark!!! :D I am looking forward to reappearing here for this discussion...

I've just been so busy with work and with a couple short outdoor trips, that I haven't had time for almost anything.. but tonight I went to the Debussy's "Pelias et Melisande" which was just wonderful.. so maybe that is a sign of things being less hectic for me, haha... not likely though...

Janine! Congratulations on being a grandmother! I am sorry I didn't get on here to say it sooner... Is it a granddaughter or grandson??

[Janine]

And quite true, making the group wait. ;) Everyone will be thumbing threw books or on the Gutenburg site trying to figure out which one it is. :)

So far, I only have one book to thumb through. Makes it easier for me. LOL

:lol: I love being mysterious...but, Antiquarian, you can get a really good clue (so you can narrow it down) if you check out my post of my recently read list in the thread on this site. I listed that particular story with others, that I read the last few weeks.

Quote by islandclimber

Thank you Quark!!! I am looking forward to reappearing here for this discussion...

I've just been so busy with work and with a couple short outdoor trips, that I haven't had time for almost anything.. but tonight I went to the Debussy's "Pelias et Melisande" which was just wonderful.. so maybe that is a sign of things being less hectic for me, haha... not likely though...

Wow, I love Debussy. That must have been amazing. I am truly jealous. Sounds relaxing, too.
Glad you are back islandclimber; your so interesting to talk to and discuss with....and you have prior knowledge of this story.


Janine! Congratulations on being a grandmother! I am sorry I didn't get on here to say it sooner... Is it a granddaughter or grandson??

Thank you, islandclimber. It has been wonderful being a grandmother so far. I got to see my pretty little sweet granddaughter yesterday and hold her quite a bit. Nice being a grandparent; I get to enjoy her and they get to do all the work! ;) . She is healthy baby, at birth 8lbs 14oz! I am just greatful all is well and baby and mother are doing fine; dad too. She is going to be daddy's little girl. My son adores her already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse and answered by Antiquarian:
"I will look forward to The Black Monk, and start reading as soon as I can, it sounds compelling"

You can't resist that title, can you DM?

That one really made her curious.:lol:
DM's in her glory lately, with the 'witchy' one in L and now this 'darkish' sounding tale in Chekhov.


It sounds interesting to me, too. I intend to read it tomorrow if I have time.

Yeah, finally one that I have available in my own book!:thumbs_up Thanks Quark for picking this one; although a little long, that should not pose too much of a problem this month.

[Dark Muse]

LOL, yes it is true

[Janine]

LOL, yes it is true

Always here to accomodate!:lol:


Quotes by Antiquarian

I saw your list, Janine, and yes, one can narrow it down quite a bit. So you did see it afterall. Yes, easy to guess my mind I suppose. But for the record, it is not 'The Christening' - that story was kind of sad, but we might do it another time, who knows. Wasn't as bad as 'Sleepy'.


I just got back from Barnes and Noble, where I got three inexpensive books with a gift card and from the video store, where we rented four movies: "National Treasure 2" (brother and husband's rental), "Away From Her," "The Devil Wore Prada" (in the mood for some comedy) and "The Jane Austen Book Club."

I saw "National Treasure 1" so I know what you mean - entertaining I guess. I saw "Devil Wears Prada" - got a kick out of that film; I want to rewatch "Jane Austen Book Club" - got a kick out of that, too. I will have to see if my library has "Away From Her". Going there tonight probably. Enjoy your films!



Very interested in starting the new Chekhov and Lawrence stories.

Yes, always fun to start in with a new story. It will be soon. Just have to finish up the L story for now....we will get there.:)

[Quark]

Janine hasn't posted the title of the next Lawrence story, Quark. She just posted that she's chosen it. Janine is a woman of mystery. ;)

Oh, I guess I wasn't missing it. There isn't any rush for Janine to pick since we're not even close to starting another story, yet.


Thank you Quark!!! :D I am looking forward to reappearing here for this discussion...

I'm glad we're getting one of favorites this time. You know that means you have to be here for the discussion, right?


DM's in her glory lately, with the 'witchy' one in L and now this 'darkish' sounding tale in Chekhov.

Yes, DM must be reveling in the recent choices. To get even we're going to have to do some unbearable warm and fuzzy stories soon.


Yeah, finally one that I have available in my own book!:thumbs_up Thanks Quark for picking this one; although a little long, that should not pose too much of a problem this month.

I thought this story might be a stretch for you, but it sounds like it will work out. We'll go slowly to make sure we don't lose anyone. Also, I won't open the discussion for few days. That should give everyone time to read over the story.


Quark lacks your mystery. He just came right out and told us the next story would be "The Black Monk." ;)

I was just responding to public pressure. It sounded like this was the favorite. Once I read it, I knew this one would be excellent for discussion, and there wasn't any need for mystery.

[Janine]

Oh, I guess I wasn't missing it. There isn't any rush for Janine to pick since we're not even close to starting another story, yet.

Thanks, Quark. I was going out, but then decided to stay close to my house tonight because I don't feel particularly well - stomach; so hopefully, I can post some more of the text tonight. That way we can move closer to that dramatic ending.


I'm glad we're getting one of favorites this time. You know that means you have to be here for the discussion, right?

I hope you can also, islandclimber. The story sounds real good. Somehow this title interests me; don't ask me why, but it does. I liked the other monk one I read; I forget the name now but islandclimber, you suggested that one to me I believe. It was on audiofile set.


Yes, DM must be reveling in the recent choices. To get even we're going to have to do some unbearable warm and fuzzy stories soon.

I have to see this to believe it - DM reading warm and fuzzy stories.:lol: She will lose her mirth.


I thought this story might be a stretch for you, but it sounds like it will work out. We'll go slowly to make sure we don't lose anyone. Also, I won't open the discussion for few days. That should give everyone time to read over the story.

Oh, I think I can fit it in somewhere, Quark. I haven't deserted your thread yet, have I? I usually stick with things when I get involved. Some might just call that getting in a rut.:lol:



I was just responding to public pressure. It sounded like this was the favorite. Once I read it, I knew this one would be excellent for discussion, and there wasn't any need for mystery.

Yes, there did seem to be a general consensius here, that this should be the next story. Well that made it easy for you for once, Quark. Oh can't wait to see what you come up this time for the opening page and the nice illustration/painting. This one should be interesting to come up with something great. I will keep that inmind while reading it; maybe give you some suggestion.

The photo you came up with with swans for that poetry thread was really nice. You intro page was a good one. Made me interested in reading the poem.

Quote by Antiquarian

I want to watch "The Jane Austen Book Club"

...oh yeah I am sure they will; not sure the 'guys' will like that film - it might be too warm and fuzzy for them; I got a kick out it though. It is amusing, especially since we all know what book clubs can be like.

So Antiq, you can speak French? If so that is really cool. I wish I could speak it; only had it in HS and can't recall a thing now....well, maybe a few common phrases and that is it! I don't have a talent with other languages at all.

Enjoy "National Treasure 2" - it will no doubt be fun and if it is silly, you can all laugh at those parts together.

[Dark Muse]

I have to see this to believe it - DM reading warm and fuzzy stories.:lol: She will lose her mirth.

The horror! The horror!

[Janine]

Quote by Dark Muse

The horror! The horror!

What did I tell you, Quark.;) I knew this would be your reaction, DM! :lol:



I'm getting better and better at French, Janine. I can now read and write very well, but sometimes the native French just speak way too fast for me.

Antiquarian, I would think so, with a French husband, but I am not even sure that would help me much. I just can't grasp a second language. I wish that I could. I can see some words written and recognise the meaning, in the French language, but forget about me pronouncing it correctly. I am awful at that.:( The French do speak fast in my opinion.

That film you mentioned I looked up online; sounds great; the one with Julie Christie. I like her.

I don't feel well tonight; it's my stomach. I ate out last night and something did not agree with me. Hope I am better tomorrow. Until then, see you all tomorrow in here. We are in-between stories now, am I right?

[Janine]

My husband is very, very good with English, though his English is heavily accented. He prefers to speak English rather than French here, so I don't get a lot of practice time in.

It is good he is, because it would be a bit difficult to communicate. I can see, on the other hand, how you would get no practice. When you go back to France, to visit his family next, I would make him speak French for a month before you go....so you can practice.


Yes, I'm sure we're between stories here. I started reading "The Black Monk" tonight, but I didn't get too far.

I hope you feel better tomorrow. :)

I started reading the story last night, also. I was going to read "The Virgin and the Gypsy" instead, from where I broke off. My book is an older version than yours I believe, Antiquarian. It has this interesting composite drawing on the cover - very 'illustrationy' looking - hey, is that even a word? I think it is a Bantam book.

Anyway, the monk story was indeed in my collection - halaluah! I was going to read one page; before I knew it, I read a few chapters; I would have read more, but my eyes would not stay open. It was really good so far, and I loved the poetic prose, more so than any of the stories we have read before this.

Thanks for suggesting it, islandclimber; and for chosing it, Quark! I will be anxious to see what photo you come up for for this unique tale. It is a very visually rich story with many little details. I like that and it is very nice for spring. In fact it seems to have started out in May.

Antiquarian, thanks for asking; trying to get myself together to go out soon. I better depart from this computer if that is to happen.

[Quark]

Oh, I think I can fit it in somewhere, Quark. I haven't deserted your thread yet, have I? I usually stick with things when I get involved. Some might just call that getting in a rut.:lol:

I didn't think you deserted us. If anything, I've deserted the Lawrence thread. The last few days of furious posting have left me behind. Hopefully, I can catch up tonight.


Oh can't wait to see what you come up this time for the opening page and the nice illustration/painting. This one should be interesting to come up with something great. I will keep that inmind while reading it; maybe give you some suggestion.

Everyone's been so gaga over the pictures I've posted that I don't know whether I can live up to expectations. I'm sure I'll come up with something. You're right that this story does give me some options. With the Yeats discussion I didn't have so many choices. There it was just a matter of finding the right group of swans. If I had shown a picture of anything else, I would have gotten a bunch of confused posts saying "Where are the swans!" and "You're 59 swans short!" or "Gimme more swans!" A story like "The Black Monk" is a little bit more open-ended for illustrations. I could do the garden or some of the characters. It can't be that hard to find pictures of black monk.


...oh yeah I am sure they will; not sure the 'guys' will like that film - it might be too warm and fuzzy for them; I got a kick out it though. It is amusing, especially since we all know what book clubs can be like.

I actually saw that chick-flic the other day. My step-mom was watching it, and it eventually clicked that it was the same movie you guys were talking about. It was a tolerable movie. I didn't find it competely repulsive. The spandex guy was endearing, and the women characters were sort of interesting. What was with the French teacher character? They made her more and more insane as the movie went on.


Anyway, the monk story was indeed in my collection - halaluah! I was going to read one page; before I knew it, I read a few chapters; I would have read more, but my eyes would not stay open. It was really good so far, and I loved the poetic prose, more so than any of the stories we have read before this.

Thanks for suggesting it, islandclimber; and for chosing it, Quark! I will be anxious to see what photo you come up for for this unique tale. It is a very visually rich story with many little details. I like that and it is very nice for spring. In fact it seems to have started out in May.



I finished reading "The Black Monk" today and I must say, I really loved it. It's beautiful, poetic, tragic. I think it will give us a wealth of things to discuss and I'm anxious to begin.

So, that's two thumbs up. It is a good story. I think the discussion will be even more interesting. I'm curious to see which direction you guys take this.

[Janine]

I didn't think you deserted us. If anything, I've deserted the Lawrence thread. The last few days of furious posting have left me behind. Hopefully, I can catch up tonight.

Really? I thought I slacked off a bit last week, but then I was a little preoccuppied in real life;) - this emoticon :blush: looks the closest to a baby, but ours has some dark hair on her head. Now I did manage some posts in the Lawrence thread but that is more interesting sometimes with loose corsets, bare limbs, phallic symbols, etc...the ones you just mentioned in your last post over there.;) :lol:


Everyone's been so gaga over the pictures I've posted that I don't know whether I can live up to expectations. I'm sure I'll come up with something. You're right that this story does give me some options. With the Yeats discussion I didn't have so many choices. There it was just a matter of finding the right group of swans. If I had shown a picture of anything else, I would have gotten a bunch of confused posts saying "Where are the swans!" and "You're 59 swans short!" or "Gimme more swans!" A story like "The Black Monk" is a little bit more open-ended for illustrations. I could do the garden or some of the characters. It can't be that hard to find pictures of black monk.

Haha:lol: I did wonder about those swans, but I understood the two did represent the lot, so I didn't ask any dumb questions, such as 'where are the other 59 swans, Quark?':lol: I keep thinking of this really cool artwork, I saw online by this artist, who is an illusionistic painter; this one is monks and they change into something else, when you look at it for a time. It would be so cool to post for this story but of course, it is under copyright laws so not sure we can on here; although you can copy it from online in a certain size; so maybe we could use it; I hunt for it. If I find it might fit I send you the link for consideration or go look for some monk type images - something mysterious, also. This painting I was thinking back to, is very mysterious looking. It is mirage like and erie I believe.


I actually saw that chick-flic the other day. My step-mom was watching it, and it eventually clicked that it was the same movie you guys were talking about. It was a tolerable movie. I didn't find it competely repulsive. The spandex guy was endearing, and the women characters were sort of interesting. What was with the French teacher character? They made her more and more insane as the movie went on.

Well, that sounds like a fair assessment, from a male point of view. I don't think this film would particularly appeal to males; although some may like it, who knows? How many males are really into Jane Austen books, to begin with? I laughed when I got to the part, where you said the 'spandex guy was endearing'. I thought so too, because he reminded me of my son, at that point in the film - my son mountain bikes and he wears a similar spandex body suit. But Quark, I know you like girls; you just told us recently; so what were you doing looking at Hugh Darcy's spandex? :lol:

When you say the French teacher, was she the one who had the weird mother - the latent hippie who almost burned her house down, played by Lynn Redgrave? She was a case, wasn't she? The dark haired daughter was so stuck up and proper when she joined the group and she was so funny with her above-it-all, know-it-all comments on the Austen text. I found her one of the most interesting of the characters, actually. She was so awful in the beginning, but she did make one laugh. I thought that actress did an admirable job of her acting. Boy, Jimmy Smitts (sp?) sure digressed to overweight and homely in his middle age; he used to be kind of cute. Well, it was one of those ensemble casts and I did enjoy it. At least, I did not fall asleep, like the other night while watching a play on DVD.




So, that's two thumbs up. It is a good story. I think the discussion will be even more interesting. I'm curious to see which direction you guys take this.

It should be a great discussion this time around!

[Dark Muse]

I just finnised The Black Monk, and I loved it. It definitely had some Poe like elements within it, and well to be honest I could not help but to find it quite humurous in its own way.

[Janine]

I just finnised The Black Monk, and I loved it. It definitely had some Poe like elements within it, and well to be honest I could not help but to find it quite humurous in its own way.

You know, I still have only gotten to chapter 2, but I had that exact thought about Poe, and then I thought right after - Dark Muse will like this story! So, I am right,huh?

[Janine]

I must be missing a lot because I didn't see much like Poe in the story or anything humorous, but I did like it very, very much and think it will be great to discuss. I found it sad, really. Maybe in the discussion the Poe-like elements and the humor will come out for me. ;)

Antiquarian, don't worry, I have not really gotten that far to make that Poe comparison; I was more or less just kidding with Dark Muse. I did find it strange that she thought it humorous though since you said it was so tragic, which would fit more with Chekhov's usual work.

[Dark Muse]

I can exaplin the Poe elements of the story when we start the dicussion. As far as the humur part, well I love Dark/Black comedy, and though this story was not ment to be a comedy, there were certain elements of it my twisted sense of humur could not help but to be amused by

[Janine]

Okay, great. Save it please, for the discussion. I wouldn't want Quark to think we'd started without him while he was out getting yellow highlighters for Lady Chatterley and rounding up the movies Janine recommended. :lol:

(Sorry, Quark, just joking! :))

Actually, I like Lady Chatterley a lot. I think it's a great book.

Good to hear, Antiquarian, I think then you would definitely like his other books as well. I said before that "Sons and Lovers" is quite set appart and distinctly different from the novels that followed - Lawrence said so himself. I thought "Lady Chatterly's Lover" a fine book and very well crafted.

Yeah, don't start the discussion on "The Black Monk" yet please; poor Quark will take a fit if we do so, before he posts his nice introduction page and photo. Also, I have not even finished reading the story.

Quark, I did find many photos of Russian monks online last night, and they don't look quite like I would picture a monk, only one really had a hood and it was quite decorative; others had dark clothes and a sort of hat. I saved the photos, if you care to check them out; I could send them to your email address or provide links on here. I also found that illusionist painters work with monks but the gowns/hoods were not real black. Still it is an interesting looking painting.

Quess what Antiquarian? I just discovered this recently. I think that Quark mentioned a Chekhov short story called 'The Good Doctor' - well, I saw it done in play form and guess who played the 'good doctor'? Richard Chamberlain. Check it out on Amazon.

[Janine]

I will look for it, Janine, and thank you. I like anything with Richard Chamberlain. I saw him in a very strange Australian movie once called "The Waves," I think. I liked it, but it was strange. Maybe it was New Zealand. He played a lawyer defending a Maori and he got caught up in the mysticism of the group. The ending was very, very strange.

Antiquarian, I thought "The Good Doctor" was a little strange, too, I think; or if I recall it correctly, from when I saw it awhile back. I just remember he talks to the audience quite a bit and I think he is not that decent a man; but don't quote me on that; it has been awhile since I saw it. When it comes back into my library, I shall watch it again; now I am curious knowing it was from a Chekhov story. I think it is listed on the Kultur site, too. I think it may be one of their DVD's productions. I saw it on Amazon the other night; just looked it up to refresh my memory and see if indeed, the story was originally by Chekhov and if it was based on the short story.

"The Waves" wasn't a remake of the Virginia Woolf novel was it? They do shoot a lot of English films in Australia. Hope that one comes into my library sometime; sounds interesting.