Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Dark Muse]

In any case, what do you think about the disorder of the house? I don't quite see how that fits in with the character of these two ladies. In the previous chunk of text, the house reflected the character of the women inside, but the untidiness of their home doesn't seem like much of a reflection on the mother and daughter. They seem to have everything together. At least, they live their lives according to all the rules. Why would the house not be well kept?

I would disagree with you here. For me I think the image of the inside of the house does reflect upon their character. I personally don't seem them as truly being "together" in some ways perhaps this image we are given of the interior of the house might also reflect their own state of mind. Just as the outside of the house seems to more reflect their physical being as it were. Though they not actually be doing anything that is scandalous or criminal in a way perhaps they live too much out of society, and too much in their own world to be truly seen as living according to the rule. In a way perhaps they are just oblivious to the rules. They have imprisoned themselves.



There was a smell of moth powder, and of goatskin shoes, a pair of which lay on a chair beside me wrapped in a handkerchief. In the windows were geraniums, and muslin curtains, and on the curtains were torpid flies. On the wall hung the portrait of some bishop, painted in oils, with the glass broken at one corner, and next to the bishop a row of ancestors with lemon-colored faces of a gipsy type.

This image for me seems to reflect quite well just what one would except to find inside a how so dark and decaying as the outside of the house is seen to be. A place that is not truly being tended or cared for. I can imagine the inside of their house being coated in dust, and cobwebs. This also for me does conjure up images of a sort of "grandmother's" house. Particularly in invoking the scent of the moth powder, but also the images of the geraniums and the muslin curtains, it brings to mind a very strong image of a little old lady living in just such a place.


On the table lay a thimble, a reel of cotton, and a half-knitted stocking, and paper patterns and a black blouse, tacked together, were lying on the floor. In the next room two alarmed and fluttered old women were hurriedly picking up similar patterns and pieces of tailor's chalk from the floor.


The untidiness of the house reflects upon the general neglect that these women have for the outside world and materialistic concerns. Though the mother does seem to have some concerns for her daughter being married as we have discussed before, this seems more of a delusion on her part then something that can ever be actually realized. I think it also reflects upon the fact that we know they are not use to having visitors so perhaps they do not feel the need to always keep things neat and tidy. The two older women are startled and embarrassed by the sudden arrival of this gentleman in the midst of their work. In the way in which the mother and daughter seem to always be constantly working upon trousseau I can imagine they would always have these scraps of cloth about them, as they have little else to do with their time.

[Janine]

Wow, I am so behind now. Did you post any new text, Quark? I will have to try and catch up this week. I am going out again tomorrow. I am so sorry to be so unattentive and sooo far behind. I love this story and will promise to catch up real soon.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! 1000 IS JUST GREAT!

[Quark]

I'm going over to my brother's place today and probably won't be able to post until I get back late tonight. I see DM posted something good, so I'll make sure to respond to that either tonight or tomorrow morning. Janine, I won't post more text for a couple of days as I'm also running behind here. I've been visiting people for the last few days and it's been difficult to find a computer and time to post. Tonight I get home, though, so see everyone then.

[Quark]

I would disagree with you here. For me I think the image of the inside of the house does reflect upon their character.

I think so too, but I'm not certain in what way exactly the house reflects upon the characters. The comparison between house and characters is pretty clear in many other places, but here it seems to break down a little. I do think there is a connection, but it's probably a weaker one than the others we've noticed already. This may be because Chekhov is shifting from describing the family in general to beginning the action of the story. The mess may be less symbolic then because Chekhov is now trying to set up an individual situation rather than an overview. The disorder may just be a result of the family's seclusion. They don't have visitors much, so they let the house go. I know I do that from time to time. When there isn't anyone coming over I tend to get used to my own mess. That could just be my slovenly habit, though.


I personally don't seem them as truly being "together"

I mean together as in "having it together." They seem to know what they're about. The mother has one goal (caring for the family) which she's carrying out zealously throughout the story. The daughter acts the part of the modest maiden. Mother and daughter have established roles, and they stick to them.


The untidiness of the house reflects upon the general neglect that these women have for the outside world and materialistic concerns. Though the mother does seem to have some concerns for her daughter being married as we have discussed before, this seems more of a delusion on her part then something that can ever be actually realized. I think it also reflects upon the fact that we know they are not use to having visitors so perhaps they do not feel the need to always keep things neat and tidy.

Yeah, I tend to see it this way too. It's really just a symptom of their isolation.


This image for me seems to reflect quite well just what one would except to find inside a how so dark and decaying as the outside of the house is seen to be. A place that is not truly being tended or cared for. I can imagine the inside of their house being coated in dust, and cobwebs. This also for me does conjure up images of a sort of "grandmother's" house. Particularly in invoking the scent of the moth powder, but also the images of the geraniums and the muslin curtains, it brings to mind a very strong image of a little old lady living in just such a place

That image goes hand in hand with the dilapidated chimney and other little marks of disrepair that the house has. There's a feeling that the house has seen better days. The staff might have, too. We've already commented on the elderly servants. The mother and daughter appear to be living in the shadow of more active, vibrant time. This past may have been tied to the patriarchs idolized on the wall. The family owes it's wealth and status to it's ancestors, and first amongst them is the bishop. Then, the colonel is put up.


I posted a translation of the French a few pages back, but it might have gotten lost. I'll repost it so we don't have to flip back:


NOTES

Où est mon cravatte lequel mon père m'avait envoyé de Koursk? : Where is my tie, the one my father sent me from Koursk?

Ah, est-ce que, Marie . . . que: Oh, is it that, Marie . . . that

Nous avons donc chez nous un homme peu connu de nous: Because we have with us a man not well known to us

we speak French: French was the primary language of Russian aristocrats; however, by Chekhov's time speaking French was considered an affectation

[Quark]

Looking back over the story, I noticed these lines:


"But who will ever wear such a number of things? There are only two of you?"

"Oh . . . as though we were thinking of wearing them! They are not to be worn; they are for the trousseau!"

When delusions were brought up, this was this first part of the story that came to mind. The mother is feverishly working away at the trousseau and doesn't even consider that she may be making too much. When the narrator asks about the excess the mother says "Oh ...", and the pause shows that the question had not even entered her head. There's a sense that she's just now looking up from her work.

[Janine]

Ok, I was trying to determine how far behind I am and it's not as bad as I thought. I figure it's just about the second chunk of text you have posted, Quark. I need to read this whole page of posts and go from there....about 11 posts...yikes! and they are not short. I will take them a few at a time. You guys have really been busy with this second section. I wish to read all that both of you have written. Now I know just how lost everyone felt in the Lawrence thread with so many posts a day. I am determined though to catch up here. Afterall, I did suggest this story and I like it very much. If you can hold up on posting more text, Quark, and I will try to catch up tomorrow.

[Quark]

Ok, I was trying to determine how far behind I am and it's not as bad as I thought. I figure it's just about the second chunk of text you have posted, Quark. I need to read this whole page of posts and go from there....about 11 posts...yikes! and they are not short. I will take them a few at a time.

We're not that far into the story yet, so it shouldn't be that difficult to catch up. There have been a few posts, but you don't have to read all of them.


You guys have really been busy with this second section.

The first two sections may be the most important. Chekhov sets up this story like a row of dominoes. It's a straight line from premise to conclusion, and by the time the action starts we already know how this one is going to end. That makes is understanding these opening paragraphs quite crucial.


Now I know just how lost everyone felt in the Lawrence thread with so many posts a day.

Stupid poetic justice.


If you can hold up on posting more text, Quark, and I will try to catch up tomorrow.

I'm still catching up, as well. I was away for a few days and couldn't do much. I probably won't add any more text tomorrow.

[Janine]

We're not that far into the story yet, so it shouldn't be that difficult to catch up. There have been a few posts, but you don't have to read all of them. Oh good because today is not looking too promising over here; I may be shutting down the computer most of it and tonight...thunderstorms again. This morning about 8:30 we had a killer storm. I could not believe the magnitude of that thunder - the whole house shook and it was loud; I think it was one of or the worst storms I ever experienced but it did not hit anything nearby, thank God. I was sure the front tree would be hit by lightening again. Needless to say, I was totally unplugged at the time for cautions sake. I will shut down if I even hear thunder far off. One never knows. By the way, Quark, it was my old computer which got the surge. I have some surge protection on this one but I do shut down anyway. Why risk it? It was actually my modem that was damaged - that I did have to replace with Verizon for about 30 bucks. The computer was unharmed, but next time I might not be so lucky. I unplug when I go out if they predict storms.


The first two sections may be the most important. Chekhov sets up this story like a row of dominoes. It's a straight line from premise to conclusion, and by the time the action starts we already know how this one is going to end. That makes is understanding these opening paragraphs quite crucial.
Interesting metaphor - domino effect, eh? Well, I guess I am dumb, first time I read it, I did not realise the young woman would die, even though the tone was so sad. At least, I don't think I did; but then again; it is a 'short' short story, and I have read it several times by now so I can't really recall my first impression. I agree that the opening paragraphs are very crucial to the story and that ending. The idea of this house being like a tomb, also is crucial to story development. You know, tombs can be quite lovely outside, with flowering trees in abundance; but inside, they are still dark and airless and deadly, aren't they?


Stupid poetic justice. :lol:


I'm still catching up, as well. I was away for a few days and couldn't do much. I probably won't add any more text tomorrow.

Ok, good...then I don't feel too bad. I will try and read all of the posts up until now. It will just take me a bit of time. Now I am like you, Quark, over there in the L thread this last time, trying to play 'catch up'.;):lol:

[Quark]

The more I read this story the more I realize how dense the opening section is. There so many little details, and one could spend an entire post on each of them. I don't know if we'll get to everything, but I do want to cover the portraits. Chekhov says


On the wall hung the portrait of some bishop, painted in oils, with the glass broken at one corner, and next to the bishop a row of ancestors with lemon-coloured faces of a gipsy type.

Oil paintings appear in a several stories, and usually for Chekhov they have a special purpose. Paintings represent the way the owner wants to appear to others. They're about self-presentation. It makes some sense as these paintings were commissioned by patrons who dictate to the artist what the subject matter will be. If the patron wants a portrait of themselves or a family member to hang in their own homes, there's bound to be some posing and self-presentation. Chekhov uses this in his fiction to peak into the mind's of his characters. The painting we see in stories like "The Betrothed" or "A Doctor's Visit" put the self-image of characters like Andrey Andreyich and Lyalikov on display. At the same time, though, these paintings can often be brutally honest. The artist sees more than the patron wants, and the images can sometimes reflect part of the owner's personality they don't want to acknowledge. In "The Betrothed," Andrey Andreyich idolizes his wife and pursues her like a heroine from a romance novel. At one point he says


"My dearest, my darling, my beautiful," he murmured. "Oh, how happy I am! I think I shall go mad with joy!"

But Nadya recognizes this as a fantasy:


And this, too, she seemed to have heard long, long ago, to have read it in some novel, some old, tattered volume which no one ever read anymore.

Nadya then begins worry that she is becoming useless and unproductive in her role as idealized wife. When husband and wife go to look at houses this conflict between what Andrey wants in his wife and what Nadya wants for herself becomes clear:


On St. Peter's day Andrey Andreyich took Nadya after dinner to Moscow Street to have yet another look at the house which had long been rented and furnished for the young couple. It was a two-story house, but so far only the upper floor had been furnished. In the ballroom, with its gleaming floor, painted to look like parquet, were bent-wood chairs, a grand piano, a music-stand for the violin. There was a smell of paint. On the wall was a large oil-painting in a gilt frame--a picture of a naked lady beside a purple vase with a broken handle.

"Beautiful picture," said Andrey Andreyich with an awed sigh. "It's by Shishmachevsky."

The painting represents the idealized beauty that Andrey thinks Nadya has, or should have. To Nadya, though, the image shows just how useless this kind aesthetic is. The woman is nude and next to a chipped (unusable) vase. The image at once portrays Andrey's aestheticism and the problems with that aestheticism. Chekhov uses paintings for this dual purpose in other places, and I think "The Trousseau" (I was getting to it) is another example. The portraits that the narrator comments on link the family to its past--which is extremely important to them. That's the self-image the mother and daughter have. They see themselves as part of a "row of ancestors." The most prominent painting in this first scene is of the bishop. A lower ecclesiastical rank might indicate spiritualism and a higher one might point toward ambition, but I think a bishop represents respectability and morality. That meshes well with the behavior of these characters, too. Respectability is all this family has going for it right now. The portraits reinforce that. The faces, though, and the chipped glace show a side of the family that is less attractive. We've already said a lot about the clutter and dilapidation of the house, and the chipped glace is just another part of that. The sallow complexion and the gypsy faces, however, say something different. That details makes it sound like the "row of ancestors" may not have been as sophisticated as they like to appear. The mother is proud of her French, but there's something grasping in the way she takes pride in it. She isn't sure of herself entirely, and she needs affirmations like her French skills to keep her going. She might fear that she isn't as sophisticated as she thinks.


Janine, I just saw your post. You must have got it in while I was typing. I'm not going to be back until later on tonight, though, so I won't be able to respond until then.

[Janine]

Quark, I came on here briefly to check on things. They are still predicting heavy storms. I may not be able to signon again tonight. I am finding that staying offline I am a little more inspired to get some domestic chores done (way over due).

I only just now read your last post. I agree about the pictures and I like the analogy you presented from the other Chekhov story. I, too, found those paintings very curious; I especially liked the way the bishops portrait has a chip or crack in the edge of the glass...that seemed symbolic to me; otherwise why would Chekhov have pointed that detail out. The other paintings also seem signiificant by the mere mention of their details - the yellow faces and the gipsy aspect of their appearances. I do agree the mother's French seems a bit strained and she doesn't seem natural speaking it, nor greatly confident. It is a mere affection and something she feels elevates the family above all the rest on their street, I am sure. This may also be why they don't mingle and they are so seclusive in the house. Perhaps the neighbors know the truths about their ancestors and their family but they hide those to each other and stay secluded to maintain a sort of superiority.

[Quark]

Interesting metaphor - domino effect, eh? Well, I guess I am dumb, first time I read it, I did not realise the young woman would die, even though the tone was so sad. At least, I don't think I did; but then again; it is a 'short' short story, and I have read it several times by now so I can't really recall my first impression.

It probably would be difficult to forecast that the daughter was going to die--that would have been some foresight--but, at the same time, one could tell this story probably wouldn't have a happy ending. Or, if it did, it would have been a surprise. From the setup we know there are only two possible endings: either the daughter gets married or she doesn't. Marriage is the only ambition these characters have, and the plot has to revolve around their ambitions or else it would be a rather random story. The setting and early characterization doesn't make it seem likely that there would be a marriage. There's so much isolation and gloom surrounding mother and daughter right from the start.


I agree that the opening paragraphs are very crucial to the story and that ending. The idea of this house being like a tomb, also is crucial to story development. You know, tombs can be quite lovely outside, with flowering trees in abundance; but inside, they are still dark and airless and deadly, aren't they?

There is something tomb-like about their home. The occupants of the house--like those of a tomb--are unconscious of the splendor around them, and both have a musty, decrepit interior.


I especially liked the way the bishops portrait has a chip or crack in the edge of the glass...that seemed symbolic to me; otherwise why would Chekhov have pointed that detail out.

I think that detail reinforces the state of disrepair the house is in. Everything seems a little worn-down or broken.


The other paintings also seem signiificant by the mere mention of their details - the yellow faces and the gipsy aspect of their appearances. I do agree the mother's French seems a bit strained and she doesn't seem natural speaking it, nor greatly confident. It is a mere affection and something she feels elevates the family above all the rest on their street, I am sure. This may also be why they don't mingle and they are so seclusive in the house. Perhaps the neighbors know the truths about their ancestors and their family but they hide those to each other and stay secluded to maintain a sort of superiority.

It's a little hard to speculate on this since Chekhov gives us so little to work with, but there is some aspersion he's casting on the family.

[Janine]

Ok, Quark, I am going to answer this and then go back over the stuff I missed last week.


It probably would be difficult to forecast that the daughter was going to die--that would have been some foresight--but, at the same time, one could tell this story probably wouldn't have a happy ending.

:lol: Well, sorry to laugh, Quark, but that's kind of 'a given', knowing Chekhov rarely ends his stories on a happy note.:( I did think it had a sad tone, right there from the beginning. I think most of the stories, I have read by him, do; they don't end up very promising for anyone. That's his strength though - he's a 'realist' in many ways. He's just telling it like it...as he is observing life. I am liking his work more and more. At first, I did find it a little too dismal, but now I really find it interesting. You have made a Chekhov convert out of me!:D


Or, if it did, it would have been a surprise. From the setup we know there are only two possible endings: either the daughter gets married or she doesn't. Marriage is the only ambition these characters have, and the plot has to revolve around their ambitions or else it would be a rather random story. The setting and early characterization doesn't make it seem likely that there would be a marriage.

No, I didn't see her getting married at all. I could pretty much spot the futility of their sewing from the beginning. I see those patterns strewn around the house. I was thinking 'patterns' could also symbolise to Chekhov an unfinished life. I think one could say that they girl's life is cut short and unfinished just like the trousseau in the end. The girl never develops and is like a shadow in that house. The patterns are the mere outline of the clothes and no doubt many don't get completed or finished.


There's so much isolation and gloom surrounding mother and daughter right from the start. Most definitely, 'isolation' is the big theme here and I believe 'futility', as well. It's a very ironic story in some ways.


There is something tomb-like about their home. The occupants of the house--like those of a tomb--are unconscious of the splendor around them, and both have a musty, decrepit interior.

I think that was originally Dark Muse's idea or was it mine, yours? I'm not sure, but it's a good one whoever thought of it. Its stuffy and airless as a tomb would be. The contrast between outside and inside is remarkable and obvious right away. I was thinking how graveyards or mausoleums are sometimes remarkably beautiful and filled with natural elements. Even carvings outside are white and usually bedecked in floral designs, etc. The house is described as white so that would fit the idea of a tombstome or mausoleum. The inside of the house is definitely musty and decrepit as the old woman and the other occupants.


I think that detail reinforces the state of disrepair the house is in. Everything seems a little worn-down or broken. Yes, I really loved the way Chekhov inserted that image of the broken glass on the edge. It's subtle and very meaningful, yet simplistic.


It's a little hard to speculate on this since Chekhov gives us so little to work with, but there is some aspersion he's casting on the family.

True, he never gives us a lot but what he does mention then takes on more significance. Anyway, I think it's fine to personally speculate a little, just for one's own interpretation or satisfaction.

[Quark]

:lol: Well, sorry to laugh, Quark, but that's kind of 'a given', knowing Chekhov rarely ends his stories on a happy note.:(

Well, what's the word we used in the previous discussion? Lachrymose, was it? That's certainly a dominant mood with Chekhov, and it is part and parcel of his realism. What I'm talking about with the dominoes is less about the mood of the story, and more about it's plot. It's really a tragedy, and I think that's what Chekhov is signaling early on. We can say that it's going to be lachrymose just by seeing the name at the bottom of the title page, but we know it's going to be tragic by reading the start of the story.


At first, I did find it a little too dismal, but now I really find it interesting. You have made a Chekhov convert out of me!:D

Oh, you know what I want to hear, Janine.


I see those patterns strewn around the house. I was thinking 'patterns' could also symbolise to Chekhov an unfinished life. I think one could say that they girl's life is cut short and unfinished just like the trousseau in the end. The girl never develops and is like a shadow in that house. The patterns are the mere outline of the clothes and no doubt many don't get completed or finished.

An incomplete pattern. Yeah, their lives are an incomplete pattern. Their lives' ambitious are a pretty clear cut pattern (get the daughter married), but it's stop short by death and left incomplete.


Most definitely, 'isolation' is the big theme here and I believe 'futility', as well. It's a very ironic story in some ways.

It's extremely ironic, and it's the forerunner of those great ironic plays like Three Sisters.


I think that was originally Dark Muse's idea or was it mine, yours? I'm not sure, but it's a good one whoever thought of it. Its stuffy and airless as a tomb would be.

I think you're echoing yourself, but yeah it is a good observation.


The contrast between outside and inside is remarkable and obvious right away. I was thinking how graveyards or mausoleums are sometimes remarkably beautiful and filled with natural elements. Even carvings outside are white and usually bedecked in floral designs, etc. The house is described as white so that would fit the idea of a tombstome or mausoleum. The inside of the house is definitely musty and decrepit as the old woman and the other occupants.

You can even extend this comparison beyond the physical nature of the house. It also describes the way the daughter and mother think. They're dead to the world. They don't respond to the beauty around them (or the opportunity, probably). Really, the deceased live as meaningful of a life as these two. That is, of course, way too hard to say out loud, which is why Chekhov gently insinuates it in the imagery.


Anyway, I think it's fine to personally speculate a little, just for one's own interpretation or satisfaction.

If we're speculating, then, here's what I say: the neighbors probably don't visit the mother and daughter. They wouldn't see the portraits, and they probably don't remember the people the portraits are supposed to represent. I don't think Chekhov is saying that the townspeople are somehow privy to embarrassing details about the family. Rather, I think he's saying that the family lineage isn't as great as the mother and daughter suppose it is. Pure speculation, though.


What do you want to do about text, by the way? Should we hold up until you're caught up, or should we go on?

[Janine]

Well, what's the word we used in the previous discussion? Lachrymose, was it? That's certainly a dominant mood with Chekhov, and it is part and parcel of his realism. What I'm talking about with the dominoes is less about the mood of the story, and more about it's plot. It's really a tragedy, and I think that's what Chekhov is signaling early on. We can say that it's going to be lachrymose just by seeing the name at the bottom of the title page, but we know it's going to be tragic by reading the start of the story.

Quark, 'Lachrymose' is a good word to describe the tone we often experience in these stories; it does go hand in hand with Chekhov's realism. I see what you mean about the dominos; but they're outcome is determined by the tone or attitudes of the individuals - their mood. It's obvious from the beginning observation, of just the house (first outside and then inside), that there will be some spiralling downward for the reader and the narrator yet to experience and therefore, it will not end happily at all. First off, we know the narrator will not marry the girl; he is looking back and saying he will never forget this house; this can also clue us into the fact, this house and these people have made such a deep impression on him. I think this suggests tragedy; 'tragedy' always leaves a stronger impression, than a story in which the ending would turn out happy.


Oh, you know what I want to hear, Janine.

;) Yeah, I am good at flattery. But seriously, I do find Chekhov more interesting now. I even read his early play "Ivanov"; I am hoping to read others, which are in a book I bought awhile ago, from Dover on 3 Russian authors. I think the CD narration was really what piqued my interest. I have listened to that several times now. I also like the background on the author, knowing some facts about him first being a doctor and realising he may have witnessed some of his stories interests me even more. Now his sense of realism is something I can relate to.


An incomplete pattern. Yeah, their lives are an incomplete pattern. Their lives' ambitious are a pretty clear cut pattern (get the daughter married), but it's stop short by death and left incomplete. Yes, those patterns interested me from the beginning; it may be because I have sewn myself in the past; found old patterns in my storage and things never completed; just a pile of high hopes. In this way, I could so easily relate to this story of life not fully realised, of effort ending in futility. I like what you added her "Their lives ambitions are a pretty clear cut pattern (get the daughter married)...." But if you notice even their plan is lacking; how in the world will the woman shut up in the tomb-like house ever meet someone to marry? This is truly a disfunctional family - mother and daughter live in their dreams and concentrate only on the compiling of things for the trousseau. They never progress to having the daughter even wear the articles of clothing, let alone try to meet a man. That would take socialization and obviously, this family has problems in that area. They are quite deficient and unhealthly interacting with others. This story very much reminds me of Lawrence short story "Things". You should read it sometime, Quark. It is also concerned with the 'futility of things' and is ironic in the fact' the family keeps collecting 'things'; but then moves around a lot, eventually keeping their things in storage. They are always for the future, which they never realise.


It's extremely ironic, and it's the forerunner of those great ironic plays like Three Sisters.

Interesting. I must read that play sometime soon. It sounds good. Oddly enough, I am reading Lawrence's "Daughters of the Vicar"...I have a feeling they have similar themes.


I think you're echoing yourself, but yeah it is a good observation. Oh, am I? Well I think it's an accurate thought. For some very odd reason I keep thinking of a Thomas Hardy novel, in which dead relatives were kept in a sort of ancient family tomb. I can't recall the name of that novel; it's not one of the major novels. I will have review and see if I can come up with the name for my own satisfaction. I read nearly all of Hardy's work at one time. I love the author.


You can even extend this comparison beyond the physical nature of the house. It also describes the way the daughter and mother think. They're dead to the world. They don't respond to the beauty around them (or the opportunity, probably). Really, the deceased live as meaningful of a life as these two. That is, of course, way too hard to say out loud, which is why Chekhov gently insinuates it in the imagery.

Yes, and they are stagnant. That's the exact word I have been trying to think of. They are very much stagant and stuck in rut, in a routine. They can't break out of this now and so this routine contains them as does this stuffy tomblike house. They are tramped in within their own stagnant attitude towards the rest of the world. The probably don't even see the beauty around them anymore. Right, they live as the dead, with no true meaning in their lives. Yes, again the patterns strewn on the floor, the delipadated portraits on the wall, the general lightless aspect of the house - the dreariness, mundane quality, stagnant, dead quality present in this house.


If we're speculating, then, here's what I say: the neighbors probably don't visit the mother and daughter. They wouldn't see the portraits, and they probably don't remember the people the portraits are supposed to represent. I don't think Chekhov is saying that the townspeople are somehow privy to embarrassing details about the family. Rather, I think he's saying that the family lineage isn't as great as the mother and daughter suppose it is. Pure speculation, though.

Yes, I would agree with those last two lines of speculation. Also, the neighbors may only speculate about these people since they keep so much to themselves.


What do you want to do about text, by the way? Should we hold up until you're caught up, or should we go on?

Quark, Maybe hold up one day; I just copied all the old posts into my offline file to review. I think, personally, I am pretty much caught up. I just want to read what you and Dark Muse were discussing. I doubt I will need to comment on those posts. I would say, to post more text tomorrow or Monday. I am going out Monday early evening, to visit my grand-daughter; I should be home by 10. Today we have thunderstorms again - just had a bad one a couple hours ago. I am glad I got through this post ok; I was detecting some flashes and thought I would have to quite and shut down again. These summer thunderstorms are really inconvenient.:( Oh well, what can one do, right? That's nature.

EDIT:OK, I just read all of the posts offline and I am up to snuff. I agree with both of you on your comments about the second and first part of the texts. I am ready to move on whenever you are Quark. Take your time and don't feel pressured.

[Quark]

First off, we know the narrator will not marry the girl; he is looking back and saying he will never forget this house; this can also clue us into the fact, this house and these people have made such a deep impression on him. I think this suggests tragedy; 'tragedy' always leaves a stronger impression, than a story in which the ending would turn out happy.

There is an ominousness that hangs around those first few paragraphs. Not only can we project from the characters what's going to happen, but the narration itself seems to set it up. I had felt the tragic expectation of this story, but I wasn't quite able to put my finger on what it was that was making me sense that. I think you're right that a lot of it has to do with the narrator setting the house apart from the rest of his experiences, as if saying something momentous had happened there. Since tragedy does have a longer shelf life than comedy, I tend to agree with you that Chekhov is forecasting gloom.


;) Yeah, I am good at flattery. But seriously, I do find Chekhov more interesting now. I even read his early play "Ivanov"; I am hoping to read others, which are in a book I bought awhile ago, from Dover on 3 Russian authors.

I keep saying this but it may become a reality yet. At some point, I'd like to do a play. For variety's sake, if nothing else.


I think the CD narration was really what piqued my interest. I have listened to that several times now. I also like the background on the author, knowing some facts about him first being a doctor and realising he may have witnessed some of his stories interests me even more. Now his sense of realism is something I can relate to.

The CDs were well done--"The Trousseau" particularly. Branagh really emotionalized the story. It was quite poignant when he said last words. As for Chekhov, yeah, it's an interesting story. A lot of why his fiction has such diverse characters is because he met so many different people during his travels as a doctor. In 19th century Russia there wasn't the specialization and coverage in the medical profession that we have today in the US. There was pretty much one doctor to call, and that doctor saw everyone.


Yes, those patterns interested me from the beginning; it may be because I have sewn myself in the past; found old patterns in my storage and things never completed; just a pile of high hopes. In this way, I could so easily relate to this story of life not fully realised, of effort ending in futility.

That's funny. I never realized how hopeless sewing is. And yet so many people do it.


I like what you added her "Their lives ambitions are a pretty clear cut pattern (get the daughter married)...." But if you notice even their plan is lacking; how in the world will the woman shut up in the tomb-like house ever meet someone to marry? This is truly a disfunctional family - mother and daughter live in their dreams and concentrate only on the compiling of things for the trousseau. They never progress to having the daughter even wear the articles of clothing, let alone try to meet a man. That would take socialization and obviously, this family has problems in that area. They are quite deficient and unhealthly interacting with others.

This goes back to something that DM said. She was saying that--let's see if I get this right--the mother was using the trousseau and the marriage as a distraction. It's a delusion that help her avoid thinking about the perhaps unpleasant reality of her life. She doesn't plan to set up the daughter because she knows that marriage is impossible. Instead, she just stays at home and works on the trousseau.

That's one possible explanation of why the mother doesn't plan this out better.


This story very much reminds me of Lawrence short story "Things". You should read it sometime, Quark. It is also concerned with the 'futility of things' and is ironic in the fact' the family keeps collecting 'things'; but then moves around a lot, eventually keeping their things in storage. They are always for the future, which they never realise.

"Things" sounded like a good story, and I do mean to read it sometime. I'll have to go look at the discussion when I do read it.


Oddly enough, I am reading Lawrence's "Daughters of the Vicar"...I have a feeling they have similar themes.

Is that another short story? I can't say I've heard of that one.


I can't recall the name of that novel; it's not one of the major novels.

If it's not one of the major ones I probably can't help you.


Yes, and they are stagnant. That's the exact word I have been trying to think of. They are very much stagant and stuck in rut, in a routine. They can't break out of this now and so this routine contains them as does this stuffy tomblike house.

This is another possible explanation of their lack of planning. The family is just so used to their home, its routine, and the life it represents that they don't want to leave the house.


And I say let there be more text!


Tea, biscuits, butter, and jam were brought in, followed by raspberries and cream. At seven o'clock, we had supper, consisting of six courses, and while we were at supper I heard a loud yawn from the next room. I looked with surprise towards the door: it was a yawn that could only come from a man.

"That's my husband's brother, Yegor Semyonitch," the little lady explained, noticing my surprise. "He's been living with us for the last year. Please excuse him; he cannot come in to see you. He is such an unsociable person, he is shy with strangers. He is going into a monastery. He was unfairly treated in the service, and the disappointment has preyed on his mind."

After supper the little lady showed the vestment which Yegor Semyonitch was embroidering with his own hands as an offering for the Church. Manetchka threw off her shyness for a moment and showed me the tobacco-pouch she was embroidering for her father. When I pretended to be greatly struck by her work, she flushed crimson and whispered something in her mother's ear. The latter beamed all over, and invited me to go with her to the store-room. There I was shown five large trunks, and a number of smaller trunks and boxes.

"This is her trousseau," her mother whispered; "we made it all ourselves."

After looking at these forbidding trunks I took leave of my hospitable hostesses. They made me promise to come and see them again some day.

It happened that I was able to keep this promise. Seven years after my first visit, I was sent down to the little town to give expert evidence in a case that was being tried there.

As I entered the little house I heard the same "Ach!" echo through it. They recognised me at once. . . . Well they might! My first visit had been an event in their lives, and when events are few they are long remembered.

I walked into the drawing-room: the mother, who had grown stouter and was already getting grey, was creeping about on the floor, cutting out some blue material. The daughter was sitting on the sofa, embroidering.

There was the same smell of moth powder; there were the same patterns, the same portrait with the broken glass. But yet there was a change. Beside the portrait of the bishop hung a portrait of the Colonel, and the ladies were in mourning. The Colonel's death had occurred a week after his promotion to be a general.

Reminiscences began. . . . The widow shed tears.

"We have had a terrible loss," she said. "My husband, you know, is dead. We are alone in the world now, and have no one but ourselves to look to. Yegor Semyonitch is alive, but I have no good news to tell of him. They would not have him in the monastery on account of -- of intoxicating beverages. And now in his disappointment he drinks more than ever. I am thinking of going to the Marshal of Nobility to lodge a complaint. Would you believe it, he has more than once broken open the trunks and . . . taken Manetchka's trousseau and given it to beggars. He has taken everything out of two of the trunks! If he goes on like this, my Manetchka will be left without a trousseau at all."

"What are you saying, mamam?" said Manetchka, embarrassed. "Our visitor might suppose . . . there's no knowing what he might suppose. . . . I shall never -- never marry."

Manetchka cast her eyes up to the ceiling with a look of hope and aspiration, evidently not for a moment believing what she said.

There's only one more chunk of text after this. Wow, this story went fast.

[Janine]

There is an ominousness that hangs around those first few paragraphs. Not only can we project from the characters what's going to happen, but the narration itself seems to set it up. I had felt the tragic expectation of this story, but I wasn't quite able to put my finger on what it was that was making me sense that. I think you're right that a lot of it has to do with the narrator setting the house apart from the rest of his experiences, as if saying something momentous had happened there. Since tragedy does have a longer shelf life than comedy, I tend to agree with you that Chekhov is forecasting gloom. I still stand by the white house representing a mausoleums type fascade; as in a cemetary with lovely greenery all around it. In this way, the whole introduction would fortell something ominous lurking within that quite decievable white house, which appears at first sight, to be very sedate and peaceful, thus setting up a great contrast between life and death and light and darkness. Tombs and mausoleums are certainly 'momentous' in appearance. One may notice them from a distance, with a sort of awe.


I keep saying this but it may become a reality yet. At some point, I'd like to do a play. For variety's sake, if nothing else. Ok, I will go for that, Quark. I would love to do a play. You know recently I read a number of plays. I read some O'Casey, since I saw a Youtube video of one of his plays performed and loved it. I also would like to read a few of Lawrence's plays. I bet you didn't even know he wrote any plays? L did it all; he even painted!


The CDs were well done--"The Trousseau" particularly. Branagh really emotionalized the story. It was quite poignant when he said last words. As for Chekhov, yeah, it's an interesting story. A lot of why his fiction has such diverse characters is because he met so many different people during his travels as a doctor. In 19th century Russia there wasn't the specialization and coverage in the medical profession that we have today in the US. There was pretty much one doctor to call, and that doctor saw everyone. I thought so, too...Branagh a very good narrator. He must make a fortune with his voice alone. I recently, saw on Youtube a clip, where he's in the studio, recording his readings about Goebels. I think the DVD is the "Goebels Experiment"...it sounded chilling...readings from his diary. Branagh also starred in the West End in Chekhov's "Ivanov". It was rewritten some for the modern stage and I heard excerpts on Youtube. They are wonderful. His performance was acclaimed. I know someone who flew there to see it twice, so you can imagine, and it's not even Chekhov's most well known play. I wish Branagh would do more Chekhov. He really seems to admire the author. Maybe as he gets older her will do more. It would be interesting if he would.

About the doctor, here we used to have one doctor for mostly everything. You are just too young to remember those days, Quark. I recall them even making housecalls. I miss those days. Medicine was much more personalized. I hate the way it is so cold nowdays. It takes me a week to get an appointment with my family doctor; a couple of months with my specialists. It didn't used to be anything like that. Doctors attented to their patients immediately and insurance was not a big issue, like it is today. I would image that Chekhov was a sort of country doctor and got to see many things in the short space of his career. It is good he did, he had so much to draw upon. It's always interesting, to see how an author develops his ideas, drawing from what sources from his own past.


That's funny. I never realized how hopeless sewing is. And yet so many people do it. Only if you are a chronic procrastinator like me. But I know a lot of people who are and have started sewing projects and then got impatient and abandoned them. Later the reminents someone crop up to taunt you and haunt you.;) I have an exorbinate amount of 'unfinished' projects around this house. I always maintain hope that someday....
Perhaps the key here is the word 'hope'...perhaps making these clothes keep the mother and daughter hopeful. Of course it's only an illusion or delusion as we already discussed. It's a false sense of 'hope'.


This goes back to something that DM said. She was saying that--let's see if I get this right--the mother was using the trousseau and the marriage as a distraction. It's a delusion that help her avoid thinking about the perhaps unpleasant reality of her life. She doesn't plan to set up the daughter because she knows that marriage is impossible. Instead, she just stays at home and works on the trousseau.

Good point. It is a distraction and they are so emeshed in this nonsense of making so many unwearable clothes, they never stop to let it dawn on them, the futility of their own efforts. By habit, they are obesessed now, with their set tasks and that has become their routine. They remain in the groove; they now know nothing else.


That's one possible explanation of why the mother doesn't plan this out better.
Right.

"Things" sounded like a good story, and I do mean to read it sometime. I'll have to go look at the discussion when I do read it.

"Things" is one of my favorite Lawrence stories; but unfortunately, we did that one first and it was only Virgil and I starting off and we didn't do much discussion in depth on that particular story. I regret that now, since I really love that story; I have even thought of doing it over again. You will find our discussion right in the beginning of that thread.


Is that another short story? I can't say I've heard of that one.

It's in the collection of the (48) Complete Short Stories of DHL (in three volumes); it's one of the longest ones. I believe it has more than ten parts. I am over half way through. It's a wonderful story, but a bit long to discuss, I think, in the L thread. It's nearly a novella. It's suppose to be one of his finest short stories. I left the longest ones in the collection till last.


If it's not one of the major ones I probably can't help you.

No, but it was very good. I think it involved an architect coming to this parish. Hardy had trained to be an architect; he designed his own house - Maxgate. You can find it online. I know I own this novel and it's not a long one; I need to go check through my Hardy books.

I have "Under the Greenwood" tree by Hardy on DVD adaptation and love it. Ever read the book? It's more pastoral and a slow-paced novel, but very good, with country humor in it...a colorful band of wandering mistrals - the church choir - real characters. The movie has really grown on me and become a favorite. It's very well done. It's a great Christmas movie since it starts out then and goes through the seasons like "Far From the Madding Crowd"....but it's a lighter tale, more playful and humorous.


This is another possible explanation of their lack of planning. The family is just so used to their home, its routine, and the life it represents that they don't want to leave the house.

That is what I think, believe.


And I say let there be more text!
:lol: Quark, I like your flair!


There's only one more chunk of text after this. Wow, this story went fast.

Ok, I will work on the new text later on; maybe even tomorrow. Yes, see, now that you have not abandoned the ship, we can finish this up fairly quickly and move onto Shakespeare and dear old Henry IV.:D

[Quark]

Tombs and mausoleums are certainly 'momentous' in appearance. One may notice them from a distance, with a sort of awe.

Do you think the narrator recognized the house as a tomb? Are you saying he would have made that connection?


Ok, I will go for that, Quark. I would love to do a play.

They're long, of course, like all plays, so that might be an obstacle. Maybe we could do one of the short one act plays. Some of those are rather comical. If anyone liked this story, though, I would suggest Three Sisters which shares many themes with this story. The Cherry Orchard is the play people usually read, but I think it's a little overrated.


I also would like to read a few of Lawrence's plays. I bet you didn't even know he wrote any plays? L did it all; he even painted!

No, I had no idea. It doesn't surprise me, however. That guy wrote a little of everything: novels, poems, short stories, philosophical tracts, travel books. Any of the plays worth reading?


Branagh also starred in the West End in Chekhov's "Ivanov". It was rewritten some for the modern stage and I heard excerpts on Youtube. They are wonderful. His performance was acclaimed. I know someone who flew there to see it twice, so you can imagine, and it's not even Chekhov's most well known play. I wish Branagh would do more Chekhov. He really seems to admire the author. Maybe as he gets older her will do more. It would be interesting if he would.

I saw parts of his Ivanov on youtube, but I couldn't find the whole thing. What I saw was pretty good. I don't know if it's worth flying to see, but Branagh's version did bring something to the play.


About the doctor, here we used to have one doctor for mostly everything. You are just too young to remember those days, Quark. I recall them even making housecalls. I miss those days. Medicine was much more personalized. I hate the way it is so cold nowdays. It takes me a week to get an appointment with my family doctor; a couple of months with my specialists.

Oh, health care is such a hot topic these days. I'd say something, but the mods would be on me like mildew on my bathroom tiles.


I would image that Chekhov was a sort of country doctor and got to see many things in the short space of his career. It is good he did, he had so much to draw upon. It's always interesting, to see how an author develops his ideas, drawing from what sources from his own past.

That is one of the things I like about Chekhov's fiction. The cast of characters is quite diverse. It isn't like reading Henry James where you going to be introduces to aristocrat followed by aristocrat followed by middle-class woman about to become an aristocrat. There's actually some difference between characters and settings. One story might center on shopkeeper, the next on a seminary student, the next is about a peasant. Men, women, children, the elderly, even animals are main characters in the short stories. Some are set in Siberia, and others is Petersburg. Chekhov takes a good survey of his country through his works.


Perhaps the key here is the word 'hope'...perhaps making these clothes keep the mother and daughter hopeful. Of course it's only an illusion or delusion as we already discussed. It's a false sense of 'hope'.

As long as you're not living in a tomb, you're fine.


Good point. It is a distraction and they are so emeshed in this nonsense of making so many unwearable clothes, they never stop to let it dawn on them, the futility of their own efforts. By habit, they are obesessed now, with their set tasks and that has become their routine. They remain in the groove; they now know nothing else.

The mother's reaction to the narrator's question about the trousseau indicates that to me. She seems so surprised, as though she never considered whether what she was doing was excessive. It seems like she's losing herself in the work. Whether that's healthy or not, I don't know. But I would say she's very absorbed in what's she doing.


"Things" is one of my favorite Lawrence stories; but unfortunately, we did that one first and it was only Virgil and I starting off and we didn't do much discussion in depth on that particular story.

Yeah, If I remember that was second story you two did.


I have "Under the Greenwood" tree by Hardy on DVD adaptation and love it. Ever read the book?

No, and there's a lot of Hardy I haven't read like Return of the Native. I didn't even finish Tess. I read the first half, and then had to abandon it for some reason--maybe boredom, I don't know.


Ok, I will work on the new text later on; maybe even tomorrow.

There's a few things to talk about with the new text: a new character, a jump forward in the plot, the mother's grief. Should be something good to say. Then, there's the conclusion. I'd be interested to see what people think of this story when we get to the end.

[Dark Muse]

"That's my husband's brother, Yegor Semyonitch," the little lady explained, noticing my surprise. "He's been living with us for the last year. Please excuse him; he cannot come in to see you. He is such an unsociable person, he is shy with strangers. He is going into a monastery. He was unfairly treated in the service, and the disappointment has preyed on his mind."

I was wondering if there was any particular significance as to the absence of men within this story as it stuck me as being curious, and when I say that, of course there are men mentioned in the story, but they seem to have no direct, "physical" or interactive relationship with the mother and the daughter, they are all just hovering in the background like ghosts even when they are still alive, but we do not see them as truly being a part of the family in any sort of way, nor do we see them interacting with the family.

We start with the mother's husband who is away somewhere, and we never actually "see" him in the story, he is only mentioned second-hand through the narrator and the mother, he does not seem to have any role in what is going on, and then later he dies.

Then there is the brother-in-law, and whenever we "meet" him it is never face to face, he is never truly present when the narrator is there, he is always lurking somewhere off in the shadows, and we here about him through the mother, but again he does not seem to be truly present within the story, is almost like a ghost haunting the house.

We have the daughters wishful thinking (even though she verbally denies) about someday being married, but her insistence that she never will marry becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy as she mysteriously dies and so her husband is non-existent.

Then there is the narrator who just passes in and out of the house, but he is an outside, he is not really connected to them, just an observer, and I think it is like seven years it said between his first and second visit, so he really has no part in their goings on.

[Quark]

I was wondering if there was any particular significance as to the absence of men within this story

You're right that all the male characters have been pushed to the story's periphery. Now that you mention it, I wonder too. It could stem from the assumption that men are somehow more active than women, and so Chekhov thought a story about passivity should be acted out by women. The plays that have the same theme in them use passive female characters, as well. Chekhov may have believed that his readers would have an easier time accepting a group of women never leaving the house than a group of men.


they seem to have no direct, "physical" or interactive relationship with the mother and the daughter,

Yeah, that brings up another good idea. Their absence makes the household feel cold, too. There's a lack of intimacy created by their distance.


they are all just hovering in the background like ghosts even when they are still alive,

This goes back to Janine's observation that the house is like a tomb. The men are like ghosts hovering around the dead.


but we do not see them as truly being a part of the family in any sort of way, nor do we see them interacting with the family

This introduce the idea of disintegration. The family slowly disintegrates in this story, and the men's absence foreshadows that. The family is half-disintegrated when the story starts, but by the end only the mother is left.


Then there is the brother-in-law, and whenever we "meet" him it is never face to face, he is never truly present when the narrator is there, he is always lurking somewhere off in the shadows, and we here about him through the mother, but again he does not seem to be truly present within the story, is almost like a ghost haunting the house.

I'm going hold off on talking about the brother-in-law, but I think what you're saying here works.


Then there is the narrator who just passes in and out of the house, but he is an outside, he is not really connected to them, just an observer, and I think it is like seven years it said between his first and second visit, so he really has no part in their goings on.

And the narrator's gender adds to that feeling of oddness that Chekhov is trying to conjure up early in the story. He--the narrator--is male while the household is very feminine.

[Janine]

Do you think the narrator recognized the house as a tomb? Are you saying he would have made that connection?

Ok, I am going to answer this one first, so I don't get behind again. I am not sure about that answer; it might be so but let me listen once more to the story, and I will make up my mind as to the whole opening scene.


They're long, of course, like all plays, so that might be an obstacle. Maybe we could do one of the short one act plays. Some of those are rather comical. If anyone liked this story, though, I would suggest Three Sisters which shares many themes with this story. The Cherry Orchard is the play people usually read, but I think it's a little overrated.

Oh, are they long? I have a book of several playwrites and it's not a thick paperback. I didn't think "The Cherry Orchard" was that long. Also, to me, plays read faster. Usually they are basically quick dialogue. Is Three Sisters a long play? Awhile ago I went to print out "Ivanhov" from the computer and I didn't think it that long...the printer was running forever and I could not abort it. I think when I was done it printed about 50 pages....well, there goes my ink...


No, I had no idea. It doesn't surprise me, however. That guy wrote a little of everything: novels, poems, short stories, philosophical tracts, travel books. Any of the plays worth reading?

Haha...I actually think he wrote a lot of everything. Did you fail to mention all his critical analysis? I have two books dedicated to those. I wish he done something on Chekhov. It would have been interesting. He discussed the other Russian authors. He also wrote a few philosophical books. I own both of those. One I read but one is still begging to get read. Also, you failed to mention the 8 full volumes of letters he wrote...he was a prolithic letter writer!


I saw parts of his Ivanov on youtube, but I couldn't find the whole thing. What I saw was pretty good. I don't know if it's worth flying to see, but Branagh's version did bring something to the play.

No, you can't find the whole thing - it's a play on stage - they don't even allow cameras or video cameras into the theaters:bawling:. I just saw some stills and heard some excerpts from it. You didn't see any true moving videos of the play, did you? I would die to see those. I heard his performance was stellar. I would die to see it but of course, I don't have the money to fly off to London.


Oh, health care is such a hot topic these days. I'd say something, but the mods would be on me like mildew on my bathroom tiles. Good one, and yes they would....I know that mildew well; currently I have been scrubbing away. Isn't there something atomic I can put on my tub and tile to remove soap scum in a flash?


That is one of the things I like about Chekhov's fiction. The cast of characters is quite diverse. It isn't like reading Henry James where you going to be introduces to aristocrat followed by aristocrat followed by middle-class woman about to become an aristocrat. There's actually some difference between characters and settings. One story might center on shopkeeper, the next on a seminary student, the next is about a peasant. Men, women, children, the elderly, even animals are main characters in the short stories. Some are set in Siberia, and others is Petersburg. Chekhov takes a good survey of his country through his works.

That is true. I like the way you have contrasted Henry James and Chekhov. It's true. Dickens seems to have complete opposites - wealthy or downtrodden and poor. I don't think there are many in-betweens. I like the diversity here in Chekhov's work as well. Good point, Quark.


As long as you're not living in a tomb, you're fine.
Somedays I do wonder....


The mother's reaction to the narrator's question about the trousseau indicates that to me. She seems so surprised, as though she never considered whether what she was doing was excessive. It seems like she's losing herself in the work. Whether that's healthy or not, I don't know. But I would say she's very absorbed in what's she doing.

Exactly! I think they did very much lose themselves in the work; at least the mother. It became so routine to her; she knew nothing else. It became her obsession; I guess just like TV and computers can be nowdays....;) especially computers! eeekkk...

Also, I think this being a woman's type chore - the 'sewing' - it is important to consider and this may be why this story centers on the women; the men are in the background so much.


Yeah, If I remember that was second story you two did. Oh, maybe it was the second. Do you recall which one we did as the first?


No, and there's a lot of Hardy I haven't read like Return of the Native. I didn't even finish Tess. I read the first half, and then had to abandon it for some reason--maybe boredom, I don't know.

A lot of people cannot get into "The Return of the Native" for some reason; but I guarantee if you do, you won't regret it. It starts out slow perhaps. I have the movie version with a very young Katherine Zetta-Jones and Clive Owen. It's pretty close to the novel with a few liberties. You can always cheat and watch that first. The book can be a little confusing at times. I liked the book emensely, though. I think, though my favorites are still "Tess", "Far From the Madding Crowd", and "The Major of Casterbridge". By the way, I own all of those film adapations as well. I'm a bit of a film freak.


There's a few things to talk about with the new text: a new character, a jump forward in the plot, the mother's grief. Should be something good to say. Then, there's the conclusion. I'd be interested to see what people think of this story when we get to the end.

Great. I look forward to that. Now onto Dark Muse's post and your second one here. It may have to wait until tomorrow - late now.

[Quark]

Ok, I am going to answer this one first, so I don't get behind again.

I'll hold off on responding to this post so you can catch up. I'll just include it in with my next post tomorrow.

[Quark]

Some things I noticed about the most recent chunk of text:


Tea, biscuits, butter, and jam were brought in, followed by raspberries and cream. At seven o'clock, we had supper, consisting of six courses

This family appears to overdo everything. The mother keeps repeats her exclamation of surprise (Ach!) over and over again throughout this story, both mother and daughter work on a trousseau which already fills several trunks, and now they sit down to six course meal. I'm not sure whether it because they have nothing else to do or whether it's due to obsession, but the family definitely is prone to excess and repetition.


and while we were at supper I heard a loud yawn from the next room. I looked with surprise towards the door: it was a yawn that could only come from a man.

The reader is introduced to the uncle in much they same way the daughter is introduced. He's heard behind a door before he's ever seen, and this make it feel like there's a whole inner world of this house which the narrator isn't seeing.

"That's my husband's brother, Yegor Semyonitch," the little lady explained, noticing my surprise. "He's been living with us for the last year. Please excuse him; he cannot come in to see you. He is such an unsociable person, he is shy with strangers. He is going into a monastery. He was unfairly treated in the service, and the disappointment has preyed on his mind."


When I pretended to be greatly struck by her work, she flushed crimson and whispered something in her mother's ear. The latter beamed all over, and invited me to go with her to the store-room.

The daughter may think the narrator is flirting with her here, and that could be the motivation for inviting him back.


"This is her trousseau," her mother whispered; "we made it all ourselves."

More pride from the mother


After looking at these forbidding trunks I took leave of my hospitable hostesses.

Forbidding? That's an odd word choice. I think a better translation would be "enormous" here--at least, that's how many of the other versions translate it.


It happened that I was able to keep this promise. Seven years after my first visit, I was sent down to the little town to give expert evidence in a case that was being tried there.

So he blows them off, apparently. Nice.


As I entered the little house I heard the same "Ach!" echo through it.

Much of this episode is just a repeat of their previous encounter to show that nothing has changed. The only differences here appear to be connect to the male characters who were introduced but never really present in the previous section. This reinforces the static feeling of the women. Nothing ever happens to them, but growing old. The men however experience some change. The colonel is promoted and the uncle at least makes an attempt at entering the clergy.


Yegor Semyonitch is alive, but I have no good news to tell of him. They would not have him in the monastery on account of -- of intoxicating beverages. And now in his disappointment he drinks more than ever. I am thinking of going to the Marshal of Nobility to lodge a complaint. Would you believe it, he has more than once broken open the trunks and . . . taken Manetchka's trousseau and given it to beggars. He has taken everything out of two of the trunks! If he goes on like this, my Manetchka will be left without a trousseau at all."

Yegor acts as antagonist here, as he steals the trousseau. Like time, he's slowly taking away the mother and daughter's opportunity. Just as it becomes more difficult to marry the daughter as she gets older, it's even more difficult to marry her without a trousseau.


Oh, are they long? I have a book of several playwrites and it's not a thick paperback. I didn't think "The Cherry Orchard" was that long. Also, to me, plays read faster. Usually they are basically quick dialogue. Is Three Sisters a long play?

I think they're about the size of Ivanov. That is, barely printable. The one act plays, though, are quite short. Some could be printed in less than seven pages.


No, you can't find the whole thing - it's a play on stage - they don't even allow cameras or video cameras into the theaters:bawling:. I just saw some stills and heard some excerpts from it. You didn't see any true moving videos of the play, did you? I would die to see those. I heard his performance was stellar. I would die to see it but of course, I don't have the money to fly off to London.

What I saw was only about a minute long. It was probably just a promotional video, or something. I never saw the entire thing--or anything close.



A lot of people cannot get into "The Return of the Native" for some reason; but I guarantee if you do, you won't regret it. It starts out slow perhaps. I have the movie version with a very young Katherine Zetta-Jones and Clive Owen. It's pretty close to the novel with a few liberties. You can always cheat and watch that first. The book can be a little confusing at times. I liked the book emensely, though.

It's good to know there's a movie, in case you get bored with the book. A good out is always nice to have.

[Quark]

I came across a mention of "The Trousseau" in a book that approaches Chekhov's works from a historical and sociological angle called Chekhov And His Russia. I'm surprised I found anything on this story, actually. It's a rather obscure tale. One could say that the story itself is buried in trees and never visited. This old book (published 1948) says a few words about the setting and characters--including the uncle:


We see the little house of a colonel's family in a quiet Moscow street, a white house overshadowed by trees. In the drawing-room the atmosphere is stuffy, with a smell of mothballs; the portrait of a bishop hangs on the wall. It is the setting for one of those stories of a respectable army family which could be paralleled in many literatures, the shy daughter with wole chests full of her home-made trousseau, who waits in vain, the father's death, and the uncle, the skeleton in the family cupboard, who sells the precious trousseau for drink and has to be reported to the marshal

This is another reading of the brother-in-law. He could represent the part of the family that doesn't live up to expectations. The mother and daughter hold their roles well, but not everyone apparently is so disciplined.

[Dark Muse]

This family appears to overdo everything. The mother keeps repeats her exclamation of surprise (Ach!) over and over again throughout this story, both mother and daughter work on a trousseau which already fills several trunks, and now they sit down to six course meal. I'm not sure whether it because they have nothing else to do or whether it's due to obsession, but the family definitely is prone to excess and repetition.

Perhpas the overdoing it with the meal in particular also relates to the mother's delusions about thier family and station in life, the way in which they fancy themselves to be aristacratic. They do not have much, and yet when they have a guest over, they plan this rather large elabortate meal.


The reader is introduced to the uncle in much they same way the daughter is introduced. He's heard behind a door before he's ever seen, and this make it feel like there's a whole inner world of this house which the narrator isn't seeing.

This could further empasize the isolation and privacy of the family, and the role of the narrator as being an outsider looking into this strange world, which is not often penetrated by the outer world, but usually keeps contained within itself. It is also interesting, that during his whol visit he remained completely oblivious ot the pressence of the brother-in-law, nor was he mentioned before until now.

I think the pressence of the old laides mentioned early, who are also glimpse through a door way and not truly "explained" or introduced, are another glimpse of this inside and unknown world within the house that the narrator is not privy to.


The daughter may think the narrator is flirting with her here, and that could be the motivation for inviting him back.

Is it possible that the mother did see a potential suitor in the narrator and perhaps this is part of the reason why she makes such a display of the trousseau which she is so proud of?


So he blows them off, apparently. Nice.

LOL. In spite of his assertion at the start of the story, that he never could forget the house, probably after he had returned back to his own life they had passed from his mind untill he found himself having to return to the same area again, in which he thought he would drop in upon them, because they were such a currious family.

[Quark]

In spite of his assertion at the start of the story, that he never could forget the house, probably after he had returned back to his own life they had passed from his mind untill he found himself having to return to the same area again, in which he thought he would drop in upon them, because they were such a currious family.

I noticed that discrepancy, too. The narrator is suddenly careless about the house that he would "never forget." Did Chekhov forget what he just wrote? Possibly, but I think there's better explanation. The narrator is supposedly writing these lines over eight years after he first met the family. He may not have registered the importance of the story until after his third meeting with the family. That meeting shows the tragedy fully played out, and Chekhov may be pointing readers past the comical first scene toward the more meaningful later scenes. It's only now that the narrator, who has witnessed the entire action of the story, can say that he will "never forget." Chekhov had written many funny little one-scene stories prior to "The Trousseau," but here the writer is breaking out of that mold. This story is trying--perhaps desperately--to be something more, and the narrator's forgetting about the house until the very end may be Chekhov's way of showing his ambition to the reader.


Perhpas the overdoing it with the meal in particular also relates to the mother's delusions about thier family and station in life, the way in which they fancy themselves to be aristacratic.

Yes, I would say so. I imagine the mother taking pride in the meal, as she does her French. The six courses might also have something to do with the uniqueness of the occasion. They don't have visitors often. When one does show up, they lavish meals on him simply because they can, and they haven't had the opportunity of feeding anyone yet. I'll say more about this below.


This could further empasize the isolation and privacy of the family, and the role of the narrator as being an outsider looking into this strange world

This is my impression, too. I'm tempted to go even further and say that this makes the narrator less critical because he can't pass judgment if he doesn't know the extent of the house and these characters' lives. The house's inner-rooms are like the parts of the mother's and daughter's experience that he will never see, and hence can never really come to any conclusions about. This might make him less judgmental about what he cannot see, and more sympathetic to what he can see.


Is it possible that the mother did see a potential suitor in the narrator and perhaps this is part of the reason why she makes such a display of the trousseau which she is so proud of?

It's vaguely suggested that the mother and daughter see the narrator as a potential husband, but I don't know whether that's the motivation here. They could just be showing them the trousseau because it's what consumes most of their time. Like the elaborate meal, they have things which are impressive but don't get to use or show off much. It's natural that they would bring them out when they finally have a visitor. If I were working tirelessly on a boat (I'm not, but say I were for some reason) and someone came over, I would practical shove them to go see my boat. And I wouldn't do it because I thought they were interested boating. I would do it because the boat is something that is important to me, and I never get to show it off. The meal and trousseau could be like my hypothetical boat: stupid obsessions which unwitting visitors have to put up with. That said, it also could be subtle suggestion to the narrator that he should marry the daughter.

[josephwillson]

ScrapBookingnut.com provides you good reference Scrap-Book (http://www.scrapbookingnut.com/) for scrap booking phrases, titles, captions and quotes.

[Janine]

Ok, read all the posts; so fell free to carry on, and go forward with the text, without me today. I am not feeling well at all; wondering if I got the stomach virus my grand-daughter was coming down with on Monday when I went to visit her. We didn't realise she was sick until yesterday. Today I woke up feeling direly ill. This has not been my month.

So far, I agree with everything both of you pointed out. Good work, Quark, digging up that background information. I think that scoundrel uncle does play a major role in this, in the way he keeps taking the articles of clothing from the trousseau and selling them. Now the work seems even more futile for the mother and daughter, so it makes the tale more poignant than ever.

[Quark]

The last section of the story:


A little bald-headed masculine figure in a brown coat and goloshes instead of boots darted like a mouse across the passage and disappeared. "Yegor Semyonitch, I suppose," I thought.

I looked at the mother and daughter together. They both looked much older and terribly changed. The mother's hair was silvered, but the daughter was so faded and withered that her mother might have been taken for her elder sister, not more than five years her senior.

"I have made up my mind to go to the Marshal," the mother said to me, forgetting she had told me this already. "I mean to make a complaint. Yegor Semyonitch lays his hands on everything we make, and offers it up for the sake of his soul. My Manetchka is left without a trousseau."

Manetchka flushed again, but this time she said nothing.

"We have to make them all over again. And God knows we are not so well off. We are all alone in the world now."

"We are alone in the world," repeated Manetchka.

A year ago fate brought me once more to the little house.

Walking into the drawing-room, I saw the old lady. Dressed all in black with heavy crape pleureuses, she was sitting on the sofa sewing. Beside her sat the little old man in the brown coat and the goloshes instead of boots. On seeing me, he jumped up and ran out of the room.

In response to my greeting, the old lady smiled and said:

"Je suis charmée de vous revoir, monsieur."

"What are you making?" I asked, a little later.

"It's a blouse. When it's finished I shall take it to the priest's to be put away, or else Yegor Semyonitch would carry it off. I store everything at the priest's now," she added in a whisper.

And looking at the portrait of her daughter which stood before her on the table, she sighed and said:

"We are all alone in the world."

And where was the daughter? Where was Manetchka? I did not ask. I did not dare to ask the old mother dressed in her new deep mourning. And while I was in the room, and when I got up to go, no Manetchka came out to greet me. I did not hear her voice, nor her soft, timid footstep. . . .

I understood, and my heart was heavy.

[Dark Muse]

I looked at the mother and daughter together. They both looked much older and terribly changed. The mother's hair was silvered, but the daughter was so faded and withered that her mother might have been taken for her elder sister, not more than five years her senior.

Here it seems as if the daughter is starting to become the mother, or more like her mother. And it is interesting the way in which, though both have grown older it is the daughter who ends up dying before the mother. Perhaps because she was not strong enough to live in such a life as the mother had created, and while the mother had the trousseau the daughter really didn't have anything, in her silent pleas of wanting something more with her desires to marry some day in spite of the odds against her.


"I have made up my mind to go to the Marshal," the mother said to me, forgetting she had told me this already. "I mean to make a complaint. Yegor Semyonitch lays his hands on everything we make, and offers it up for the sake of his soul. My Manetchka is left without a trousseau

Manetchka flushed again, but this time she said nothing.

"We have to make them all over again. And God knows we are not so well off. We are all alone in the world now."

This reminds me of Ulysses and the wife, who everyday would unsew that she had sewn the day before in order to stall time to keep her suites at bay. She keeps working on the trousseau while the brother in law continues to steal it away. While she complains about it, I do not feel as if she really actually really do anything about it, I think a part of her needs the trousseau to truly never end, because if and when she did complete it then she would have nothing left and would have to face the realty.


A year ago fate brought me once more to the little house.

This just struck me as interesting, that though he says "fate" brought him back he does not really give a reason for why he would be there again, as the first two visits he clearly stated some act of business which had brought him there. Now his reason for coming seems a bit more ambiguous.

Also is there meant to be some significance in the fact that he visits the house 3 times, considering the fact that the number 3 is considered to be a powerful symbolic and spiritual number.


"It's a blouse. When it's finished I shall take it to the priest's to be put away, or else Yegor Semyonitch would carry it off. I store everything at the priest's now," she added in a whisper.

Even though the daughter is dead the mother is still swing, as it seems that the blouse is not truly intended for anyone to ware since she says she is going to have it put away somewhere so her brother-in-law cannot take it. Why should she care anymore what happens to the clothes? Though she does not mention the word trousseau it is as if she is still working on it.

[Quark]

Here it seems as if the daughter is starting to become the mother, or more like her mother. And it is interesting the way in which, though both have grown older it is the daughter who ends up dying before the mother. Perhaps because she was not strong enough to live in such a life as the mother had created, and while the mother had the trousseau the daughter really didn't have anything, in her silent pleas of wanting something more with her desires to marry some day in spite of the odds against her.

The daughter's aging is definitely linked to her mental state and her lifestyle in the house--somehow. Most immediately, Chekhov is trying to render the daughter as a pathetic victim, but I think it goes beyond that to make a comment on her feelings and lifestyle. You're right that it probably refers to her being overburdened, and being separated from the fruits of her labor. She doesn't see anything come from her sewing, and on some level that has to be disappointing. Beyond that, though, I think Chekhov makes her age more quickly than the mother because the daughter represents youth, hope, and vigor. Having her age and die makes us realize how stifling the house is--perhaps more than just having the mother age and die. This is all a bit of stretch, though. Really, if disappointment could make someone age then my parents would look like they're ninety.


This reminds me of Ulysses and the wife, who everyday would unsew that she had sewn the day before in order to stall time to keep her suites at bay. She keeps working on the trousseau while the brother in law continues to steal it away. While she complains about it, I do not feel as if she really actually really do anything about it, I think a part of her needs the trousseau to truly never end, because if and when she did complete it then she would have nothing left and would have to face the realty.

Are you talking about the mother here? I could see either the mother or daughter as complicit. They don't have much else to do, and the trousseau distracts them away from rather unpleasant realities.

I like the comparison with Ulysses, too. This story is very much a retelling of the epic, but it's an ironic retelling. Instead of the husband returning, he dies. Instead of the sewer fending off suitors, she dies. Instead of a loyal son, there's a irresponsibly uncle. What's supposed to happen doesn't in Chekhov's tale, and that sets up the sad ending.


This just struck me as interesting, that though he says "fate" brought him back he does not really give a reason for why he would be there again, as the first two visits he clearly stated some act of business which had brought him there. Now his reason for coming seems a bit more ambiguous.

Maybe the narrator is starting to admit that the story isn't about him. He realizes that the reason for him being there isn't important.


Also is there meant to be some significance in the fact that he visits the house 3 times, considering the fact that the number 3 is considered to be a powerful symbolic and spiritual number.

Perhaps it less spiritual and more about storytelling. Aristotle claims that all stories have a beginning, middle, and end. This story may be playing off that assumption. "The Trousseau" has three sections which correspond to the three parts of a story, but they're all the same. They don't break down into beginning, middle, and end. Instead, each just repeats the same scene over and over again.


Even though the daughter is dead the mother is still swing, as it seems that the blouse is not truly intended for anyone to ware since she says she is going to have it put away somewhere so her brother-in-law cannot take it. Why should she care anymore what happens to the clothes? Though she does not mention the word trousseau it is as if she is still working on it.

That does reinforce your idea about the sewing being obsessive, and not really about making a trousseau. Yeah, the mother continues to sew well after it's time to sew here. Why? I tend to agree with you that there's something desperate about her needlework. She doesn't know what else to do, and it keeps her from thinking about dead relative and missed chances.

[Janine]

Here it seems as if the daughter is starting to become the mother, or more like her mother. And it is interesting the way in which, though both have grown older it is the daughter who ends up dying before the mother. Perhaps because she was not strong enough to live in such a life as the mother had created, and while the mother had the trousseau the daughter really didn't have anything, in her silent pleas of wanting something more with her desires to marry some day in spite of the odds against her.

First, I will start by answering your post, Dark Muse, even though Quark also commented. I think this is true about the mother and daughter resembling each other. It would be inevitable being in such close proximity to each other day in and day out. They really are trapped in a world they have created. Ever hear the phrase - "you are your own worst enemy"? or "I have created a monster". The sewing addiction is obesessive and it's a sort of monster that is gobbling up the vitality of both women. The house is a stiffling place. It would seem that sewing these clothes could be creative but it appears that is not Chekhov's own observation on this situation. It may have started out as a good thing, even 'hopeful', but then after years of total dedication to this obsession, concerning the daughter's trouseau, it's become totally unhealthy for both women; to the reader, at first it appears to be quite ridiculous, odd, obscurd; until the end when it becomes clear just how tragic this all is. I don't think it that unusal that the daughter could die before the mother. She would feel the most trapped emotionally, perhaps the most stress of her situation, the most hopefulness and futility. It could also have been a common disease that killed her at such a young age. It mentions in the beginning that she had some scares from Smallpox. I don't know a lot about the disease but it may have left her body in a weakened state, more susceptical of disease. Afterall, her mother did have something of a life at one time, being married and raising her as a child. This daughter has no chance at all at any of that. She is like a blossom unopened, thwarted. She is never gotten a chance at her life. It's hardly imaginable how she can stay sane or breath in such a closed in and restricted environment. I think that your last line makes perfect sense. I would totally agree with it, Dark Muse.


This reminds me of Ulysses and the wife, who everyday would unsew that she had sewn the day before in order to stall time to keep her suites at bay. She keeps working on the trousseau while the brother in law continues to steal it away. While she complains about it, I do not feel as if she really actually really do anything about it, I think a part of her needs the trousseau to truly never end, because if and when she did complete it then she would have nothing left and would have to face the realty.

That's an interesting analogy. I don't recall that too well, didn't read much of the Greek Mythologies and if I did it was eons ago in HS. Here again, I think your paragraph and comments make a lot of sense. The making of the trouseau is so habitual now, what indeed would the two do if they were not sewing...stare at blank walls, sit in dark rooms. I think the whole idea of the trousseau is 'hope'. We know it's a futile hope but it's 'hope' in the way they are seeing it. We know it's hollow hope. It's not anyway realistic or possible.


This just struck me as interesting, that though he says "fate" brought him back he does not really give a reason for why he would be there again, as the first two visits he clearly stated some act of business which had brought him there. Now his reason for coming seems a bit more ambiguous.

That's a keen observation. I had noticed that as well and wondered about it. I am not sure what to make of it really.


Also is there meant to be some significance in the fact that he visits the house 3 times, considering the fact that the number 3 is considered to be a powerful symbolic and spiritual number.

I think Quark answered this below when he speaks of a story in terms of 3 parts. That seems to work well with many short stories. I know Lawrence has employed the same device or the same way to separate events, although many times he has many more parts to his short stories. I just read one with over 10 parts. It was one of his longest stories.


Even though the daughter is dead the mother is still swing, as it seems that the blouse is not truly intended for anyone to ware since she says she is going to have it put away somewhere so her brother-in-law cannot take it. Why should she care anymore what happens to the clothes? Though she does not mention the word trousseau it is as if she is still working on it.

Habit like I said. It seems this is all she now knows. If she didn't do this, she most likely would just die herself. I think the sewing at this point is just a matter of self preservation and survival. She is old, but at least she is doing something.

Ok...onto Quark's next. I am so sorry to have neglected this thread this week. I was feeling awful all week long...stomach problems, etc. I could only manage popping in and out online; nothing too taxing.

[Janine]

The daughter's aging is definitely linked to her mental state and her lifestyle in the house--somehow. Most immediately, Chekhov is trying to render the daughter as a pathetic victim, but I think it goes beyond that to make a comment on her feelings and lifestyle. You're right that it probably refers to her being overburdened, and being separated from the fruits of her labor. She doesn't see anything come from her sewing, and on some level that has to be disappointing. Beyond that, though, I think Chekhov makes her age more quickly than the mother because the daughter represents youth, hope, and vigor. Having her age and die makes us realize how stifling the house is--perhaps more than just having the mother age and die. This is all a bit of stretch, though. Really, if disappointment could make someone age then my parents would look like they're ninety.

Ok, now I am answering yours, Quark, although you did answer Dark Muse's posts specifically. Does that make sense? I don't want to leave anyone out. I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement. The aging house mirrors the aging inhabitants. I think the fact she never see the fruits of her labors must have been very disheartening, issuing forth a very dismal outlook and attitude about life. She would have to feel totally frustrated or resigned to her situation. I do feel for her. I don't see anyway she can possibly break out and become herself or blossom into a vibrant young woman, who might be eligable for marriage. Her plight is a dead end from the beginning. I hear you about parents and aging; I think I would also look ninety by now, adding up various disappointments in my life. I think having the daughter die off relatively young makes the story of the trousseau and dressmaking more ironic and futile.


Are you talking about the mother here? I could see either the mother or daughter as complicit. They don't have much else to do, and the trousseau distracts them away from rather unpleasant realities.

I agree, I think I already did in my earlier post. Mother and daughter are like the patterns on the floor. The daughter the mere pattern of what the mother wish for her but knows not really how to go about that but to make the trousseau and the would the state of being married.


I like the comparison with Ulysses, too. This story is very much a retelling of the epic, but it's an ironic retelling. Instead of the husband returning, he dies. Instead of the sewer fending off suitors, she dies. Instead of a loyal son, there's a irresponsibly uncle. What's supposed to happen doesn't in Chekhov's tale, and that sets up the sad ending.

Interesting comparison, as I said. Quark, do you think Chekhov would have had that earlier story in-mind? Of course, Chekhov sticks to the brutal realistism, true to the harsh reality we see demonstrated here.


Maybe the narrator is starting to admit that the story isn't about him. He realizes that the reason for him being there isn't important.

I will have to think about this. I never thought him that signifcant actually, only as a sensitive observer and one who felt sympathy for the young woman trapped in her situation.


Perhaps it less spiritual and more about storytelling. Aristotle claims that all stories have a beginning, middle, and end. This story may be playing off that assumption. "The Trousseau" has three sections which correspond to the three parts of a story, but they're all the same. They don't break down into beginning, middle, and end. Instead, each just repeats the same scene over and over again.

I liked Chekhov's use of this repeating in each of the sections. I found it very effective story telling. It's quite brilliant. I noticed this same division in a few other of his stories and some repetition with alteration. It's an interesting way to present the story.


That does reinforce your idea about the sewing being obsessive, and not really about making a trousseau. Yeah, the mother continues to sew well after it's time to sew here. Why? I tend to agree with you that there's something desperate about her needlework. She doesn't know what else to do, and it keeps her from thinking about dead relative and missed chances.[/QUOTE]

[Quark]

Hi, Janine. Good to see you back. I hope you're feeling better now. It sounded like a bad stomach flu you had. Your post has a lot of points, so I won't get to everything tonight. Let me start with these few, though. What did you think of the story, by the way? This is one of his earlier ones, and people tend to consider his earlier work a little more shallow than his later stories. We've read a few of those later works, so I wonder how think this compares.


Interesting comparison, as I said. Quark, do you think Chekhov would have had that earlier story in-mind? Of course, Chekhov sticks to the brutal realistism, true to the harsh reality we see demonstrated here.

It's hard to tell. The Odyssey is quite a famous story, and the parallel is strong. It's difficult to imagine Chekhov not making that connection, but, at the same time, he doesn't play off of it that much. Usually when someone's explicitly trying to make a connection to another work they put in something that makes it more obvious to the reader. They might name a character after a person in the Odyssey--or name their novel Ulysses. Chekhov here just takes the outline of the Odyssey, and doesn't make the parallel that obvious. He's done that before, though. "About Love" is an ironic retelling of Anna Karenina. This could be an ironic retelling of the Odyssey, but like I say it's difficult to tell the extent to which Chekhov wanted readers to make that connection.


I liked Chekhov's use of this repeating in each of the sections. I found it very effective story telling. It's quite brilliant. I noticed this same division in a few other of his stories and some repetition with alteration. It's an interesting way to present the story.

That's a good point, and I think it all goes back to that irony you brought up. While we're on subject I'd like to give a good definition of the ironic, but I'm feeling lazy (and it's also incredible uncomfortable sitting here in 87% humidity). I'll just quote a definition since I'm not up to the task at the moment:


Ironic: A mode of literature in which the characters exhibit a power of action inferior to the one assumed to be normal in the reader or audience, or in which the poet's attitude is one of detached objectivity

Good enough. That works, and I think this defines the story well. It also partially explains the repeated scenes. By showing the characters in these never-changing scenes it portrays the characters as static and powerless. Any change that does happen to these characters occurs in between scenes, and so it makes them appear even less active than perhaps they are. This feeds into that ironic feeling that the story has.

[Janine]

Hi, Janine. Good to see you back. I hope you're feeling better now. It sounded like a bad stomach flu you had. Your post has a lot of points, so I won't get to everything tonight. Let me start with these few, though. What did you think of the story, by the way? This is one of his earlier ones, and people tend to consider his earlier work a little more shallow than his later stories. We've read a few of those later works, so I wonder how think this compares.

Thanks Quark. I don't know what it was, but Brooke thankfully got over it in a few days; I am still feeling the effects, since I have a very weak stomach anyway. I hope I am back to 'my' normal self soon.

Ok, so will you address my very good points sometime soon? I guess you wish to wrap this story up by this end of this month and move on. Will we be taking a month's break or doing another Chekhov? I think a month would be good; maybe meantime we will start a new story in L; not promises, just thought.

You kidding; I liked this story very much. I told you before it struck a note with me. I am now thinking it struck more of a personal note, than I realised at first. I can't go into that, since it's personal; but oddly enough, since we started to discuss this story this month, I realised I am feeling a lot of this stagnation myself within my family right now; even with our house needing repairs. At times, I found it hard to post because of this very fact, then add my being sick to the equation and those was my reasons for being so many times absent. I am still sorry about all that; just unfortunate. This story strikes me in a very personal way indeed. I think the narration of the audiobook is wonderful, as well. That last statement from Branagh had just the right tone to it, it left me stunned. Reading the actual words of the story online has revealed even more to me.

Quark, I honestly, don't know if I compare weak stories to strong stories in authors. I sort of look at each as separate entities, which have been written in various times in the author's lives and I take that into account. I have done that with the Lawrence short stories, even the novels. I enjoyed Lawrence's first novel, as much as his last novels. I put them into perspective. "The White Peacock" was not a complete work. It had it's flaws; but it also contained some of the most fresh and beautifully poetic passages I have ever read of Lawrence's work. Therefore, to me, it was memorable. I still think about it all the time. I see the short stories of both authors equally; so I don't think, this being an early work takes away from it anything for me. It has a sort of youthfulness to the observation, which may be fresher than his other works. I am not sure where you said this tale lies exactly within Chekhov's body of work; how old did you say he was when he wrote it? I don't see this work as 'shallow' at all, so I would not agree with those critics. I think an early work can be more simply stated and have just as much impact as a later work that is more developed or sophisticated. Right now a great many critics are depating the early play of Chekhov's "Ivanhov", recently performed in London, West End. It's an early play and perhaps not as developed but of the scenes I heard excerpts of I was captivated. I think these author genius' had what it takes from the very beginning. You know, the newer fiction coming out today cannot compare to even weak Lawrence or weak Chekhov. Their works are still masterpieces, early or late.


It's hard to tell. The Odyssey is quite a famous story, and the parallel is strong. It's difficult to imagine Chekhov not making that connection, but, at the same time, he doesn't play off of it that much. Usually when someone's explicitly trying to make a connection to another work they put in something that makes it more obvious to the reader. They might name a character after a person in the Odyssey--or name their novel Ulysses. Chekhov here just takes the outline of the Odyssey, and doesn't make the parallel that obvious. He's done that before, though. "About Love" is an ironic retelling of Anna Karenina. This could be an ironic retelling of the Odyssey, but like I say it's difficult to tell the extent to which Chekhov wanted readers to make that connection.

I get your drift here and I like this idea. It may have been in the back of his mind, the earlier tale, and this may have influenced him or inspired him. All artists and authors take from other sources. There is nothing at all wrong with that or nothing taking away from their original ideas. As they say in the Bible "there is nothing new under the sun".


That's a good point, and I think it all goes back to that irony you brought up. While we're on subject I'd like to give a good definition of the ironic, but I'm feeling lazy (and it's also incredible uncomfortable sitting here in 87% humidity). I'll just quote a definition since I'm not up to the task at the moment:

The dictionary one was helpful. Thanks for posting it. Oh, I hate this humidity. You have it there, too? I hate all this darn rain we have been having. Yikes, half the summer is over and it rains nearly everyday; not to mention these annoying thunderstorms, which have also restricted my computer time. I hope Mr. Sun comes out soon. We need cheerier, drier weather to uplift our spirits.


Good enough. That works, and I think this defines the story well. It also partially explains the repeated scenes. By showing the characters in these never-changing scenes it portrays the characters as static and powerless. Any change that does happen to these characters occurs in between scenes, and so it makes them appear even less active than perhaps they are. This feeds into that ironic feeling that the story has.

When you pointed this out in your last post, I thought right away of Lawrence and his use of repetition to structure a story. I'm not sure that Chekhov and Lawrence weren't much alike in that way. I can think of both authors, using this sectioning in their works and it's very effective story-telling....also, it guides the reader to stay attentive, building a sort of suspense.

Good point here you are making, about the never-ending scenes revealing the unchangablity and stagnation of the characters and situation. Chekhov cleverly spaced this story out with years between the visitor from the outside world looking in, observing. Each time he arrives back at the scene the stagnation is not much altered except that there is subtle evidence of death, which occurred in-between his visits. And yes, indeed this all fits into the whole wharted and ironic feeling of the story, also the deadliness lingering always in the atmosphere of this house.

[Quark]

I think the fact she never see the fruits of her labors must have been very disheartening, issuing forth a very dismal outlook and attitude about life. She would have to feel totally frustrated or resigned to her situation. I do feel for her.

I'm wondering about the smallpox now. The narrator does mention that she has a mark of it on her nose, and that might have something to do with her death. I don't know about the aging, though. That seems tied to the point Chekhov is trying to make about her disappointment and exhaustion. I thought it was a little unrealistic, but, whatever, Chekhov wanted to make this point extra clear to us. It reminds me of those Victorian novels where they use faces and postures as part of their characterization. Dickens will say "she had very secretive eyes," and then eight-hundred pages later you find out that she has some secret. Chekhov usually avoids this kind of characterization, but he succumbs to it here. Sometimes it's done well--Lawrence, in face, does it well--but when there's such a one-to-one relationship between feature and characteristic it's kind of clumsy.


I hear you about parents and aging

I kid about that, of course.


I never thought him that signifcant actually, only as a sensitive observer and one who felt sympathy for the young woman trapped in her situation.

No, he isn't significant in himself, but his reactions to what he's sees are important. As he progresses in the story, his relationship with the family and his own story changes. In some places he's very casual about the whole affair, but in other places he's deeply affected by what he experiences.


Will we be taking a month's break or doing another Chekhov? I think a month would be good; maybe meantime we will start a new story in L; not promises, just thought.

That would work. We probably won't do another story in this thread, as it's taken us so long to get through this one. I had planned on maybe doing two this month, but it's almost July now and we're just finishing "The Trousseau." I'd be up for a Lawrence story in July, though.


I think the narration of the audiobook is wonderful, as well. That last statement from Branagh had just the right tone to it, it left me stunned. Reading the actual words of the story online has revealed even more to me.

Yeah, he did a good job. He reads all the stories a plaintive undertone, and it really works with this story. The sadness in "The Trousseau" is an undertone. The narrator doesn't dwell on it directly until the very end.


Quark, I honestly, don't know if I compare weak stories to strong stories in authors. I sort of look at each as separate entities, which have been written in various times in the author's lives and I take that into account.

Understandable. Every story attempts something different from the others that precede it or follow it. They also reflect the concerns of the author at a given time in their life, and it's helps if we look at them in the right context. But, at the same time, we can compare them to our own life, and understand them in that context. What did we get out of reading the story? I got a lot from stories like "The Lady with the Dog," "Ward No. 6," and "About Love." "Neighbors," though, was a bore. We didn't read that story--largely on account of it being a bore. That's not to say that "Neighbors" is objectively a bad story. Some people think it's great. It just didn't do much for me. Other readers, however, might have different tastes from mine, and I'd like to hear about them because when I choose stories I like to pick ones that's entertaining and worth posting about.


I have done that with the Lawrence short stories, even the novels. I enjoyed Lawrence's first novel, as much as his last novels. I put them into perspective. "The White Peacock" was not a complete work. It had it's flaws; but it also contained some of the most fresh and beautifully poetic passages I have ever read of Lawrence's work. Therefore, to me, it was memorable. I still think about it all the time. I see the short stories of both authors equally; so I don't think, this being an early work takes away from it anything for me. It has a sort of youthfulness to the observation, which may be fresher than his other works.

Lawrence's early works are still widely read, but I don't think Chekhov's have faired so well. Partially (or maybe entirely) this is because Chekhov didn't consider himself an artist during at the beginning of his career. He rushed many of his early stories to magazines just to get a buck. It wasn't until later that he began to put real, earnest thought into storytelling. I get the sense that Lawrence took his first works more seriously.


I am not sure where you said this tale lies exactly within Chekhov's body of work; how old did you say he was when he wrote it?

I don't even remember what I wrote. I think I said he was 24, which would put this around 1882.


I don't see this work as 'shallow' at all, so I would not agree with those critics. I think an early work can be more simply stated and have just as much impact as a later work that is more developed or sophisticated. Right now a great many critics are depating the early play of Chekhov's "Ivanhov", recently performed in London, West End. It's an early play and perhaps not as developed but of the scenes I heard excerpts of I was captivated. I think these author genius' had what it takes from the very beginning.

Yeah, if anyone said to me that earlier work is always of poorer quality than later work I wouldn't take that person seriously. There is no rule that states that a first attempt must always fail, and many first novels or stories are better than anything that follows them. A frequently cited example of this is Pynchon's V. The book got the author much publicity, but his later novels fell flat on their face. Some people remember Gravity's Rainbow fondly, but a lot of the later stuff is questionable. Yet, in Chekhov's case, I think the earlier works are a little weaker. Or, to put it a better way, they're just more frivolous. Usually they involve stock characters acting out stock situations with stock gags. I wouldn't lump "The Trousseau" in with those stories, though. The situation may be a stock one, but the characters, the humor, and the pathos are not. I thought the story was affecting, and even beautiful at times. It was a good pick Janine.


You know, the newer fiction coming out today cannot compare to even weak Lawrence or weak Chekhov. Their works are still masterpieces, early or late.

Hear, hear


When you pointed this out in your last post, I thought right away of Lawrence and his use of repetition to structure a story.

It reminds me of "The Man who Loved Islands," actually--in structure, at least. There were three islands, right?

[Janine]

I'm wondering about the smallpox now. The narrator does mention that she has a mark of it on her nose, and that might have something to do with her death. I don't know about the aging, though. That seems tied to the point Chekhov is trying to make about her disappointment and exhaustion. I thought it was a little unrealistic, but, whatever, Chekhov wanted to make this point extra clear to us. It reminds me of those Victorian novels where they use faces and postures as part of their characterization. Dickens will say "she had very secretive eyes," and then eight-hundred pages later you find out that she has some secret. Chekhov usually avoids this kind of characterization, but he succumbs to it here. Sometimes it's done well--Lawrence, in face, does it well--but when there's such a one-to-one relationship between feature and characteristic it's kind of clumsy.

Hey, Quark, good post! Well, the simplicity of Chekhov's writing, causes one to notice even small details. So, the the mere mention of the 'smallpox scare' seemed to me to be intended to be someone significant; it may not be directly significant, but rather significant, in the way that it would forshadow a later threat to the young woman's life.

Oh, I don't know. I think someone couped up in an airless, lightless environment might age pretty significantly. I am not sure how may years lapsed between visit #1 and visit #2. I will have to go back and review. I think it's insignifcant as to it's realism but it could me merely the way the author is progressing his story, like in "The Man Who Loved Islands"; which I will get to that later, since you mentioned it.

Are you then saying Chekhov's characterization here is a little clumsy? I guess I am not as astute as you to notice that. Hahah...you know, it's funny but, I have always had trouble reading Dickens. Maybe, this is why. I did enjoy "Tale of Two Cities", but others I could not get into; for one thing they have sooo many characters. However, I love the film adaptations of his work. I am presently watching one on DVD "Our Mutual Friend". It's a fine production but shows squalid London and the Thames in such a realistic way it's sometimes hard to take.


I kid about that, of course.
Maybe I don't kid. I live with my relatives; that is probably the gist of it.


No, he isn't significant in himself, but his reactions to what he's sees are important. As he progresses in the story, his relationship with the family and his own story changes. In some places he's very casual about the whole affair, but in other places he's deeply affected by what he experiences.

Right, I agree. His personal impression deepens as the story progresses. It's subtle but one can feel it.


That would work. We probably won't do another story in this thread, as it's taken us so long to get through this one. I had planned on maybe doing two this month, but it's almost July now and we're just finishing "The Trousseau." I'd be up for a Lawrence story in July, though.
Oh, good. I just completed reading all 48; now I hope I recall what they all were about. I tend to forget easily. Usually reading line one and the last line brings the tale back to me. I will have to think of which one would be good to do next.

Haha..."the best layed plans of mice and men often go astray" - isn't that how that line goes? It's totally ironic. In the L thread, I thought the last story would end in half a month's time, too. I thought it a bit simpler a tale. Oh, how wrong I was. This one in Chekhov is proving to be more complex than we first thought. Things never go as expected or planned. But who's complaining. We will have tons of time for other stories.


Yeah, he did a good job. He reads all the stories a plaintive undertone, and it really works with this story. The sadness in "The Trousseau" is an undertone. The narrator doesn't dwell on it directly until the very end.

Yes, that's it. It's read in a 'plaintive undertone'. It's more effective that way; it suits Chekhov's writing well. Sometimes less acting is more acting. I have heard Branagh recite poems by some woman online and they are very sad, about soldiers and death. He has just the right tone with these, too. He usually knocks you over with the last word.


Understandable. Every story attempts something different from the others that precede it or follow it. They also reflect the concerns of the author at a given time in their life, and it's helps if we look at them in the right context. But, at the same time, we can compare them to our own life, and understand them in that context. What did we get out of reading the story? I got a lot from stories like "The Lady with the Dog," "Ward No. 6," and "About Love." "Neighbors," though, was a bore. We didn't read that story--largely on account of it being a bore. That's not to say that "Neighbors" is objectively a bad story. Some people think it's great. It just didn't do much for me. Other readers, however, might have different tastes from mine, and I'd like to hear about them because when I choose stories I like to pick ones that's entertaining and worth posting about.

But, I think what you are saying here, Quark, is somewhat personal preference. Some stories, some people like I don't. I don't know if I even liked "The Lady and the Lapdog". I guess I am going to have to go back and read that one again. I know it's considered one of C's best. I imagine on a second reading of any of these stories, I would have a totally altered impression. I would notice or feel more. I know many of the L stories, I have now read twice. This really helps me to appreciate them. There is one L story "A Fragment of Stained Glass". It's suppose to be a very significant story for the author. I have read it twice and I can't say I really felt anything much about that story. I don't know why. Perhaps it's just personal. It did not resonate with me. humm..."Neighbors" eh? I will have to check that one out and let you know what I think.

Quark, I'm afraid that haven't read much Chekhov; so I will have to trust you to pick; so far so good; your doing a fine job. I put my faith in you entirely to choose the stories.


Lawrence's early works are still widely read, but I don't think Chekhov's have faired so well. Partially (or maybe entirely) this is because Chekhov didn't consider himself an artist during at the beginning of his career. He rushed many of his early stories to magazines just to get a buck. It wasn't until later that he began to put real, earnest thought into storytelling. I get the sense that Lawrence took his first works more seriously.

Oh well, I think that's pretty much true of all budding authors. Afterall they did have to live and eat and be housed. I know that Hardy first presented all his work in magazines; it was like the soap opera of today. It was serialized. Look how famous those novels are now. Lawrence was realistic about writing and making money; but he was not big into money/property, to say the least. However, at times he had to be realistic; if you read his letters he will even complain at times that he is sick of writing and wishes he didn't have to write another word. I do think, from an early age, Lawrence had a passion for writing, as he did for painting/art. I think this is innate and he was truly the young genius they first labeled him as. Now with Chekhov, he had another profession as a physcian to begin with, then he was writing on the side and then fulltime - was it? Their situations in life were very much different when they started out writing, I believe. Lawrence had taught school but that was more closely related to literature and writing. However, Chekhov's experience as a doctor, provided him with much insight and ideas for his stories, I am sure.


I don't even remember what I wrote. I think I said he was 24, which would put this around 1882.

I think he was about 24.


Yeah, if anyone said to me that earlier work is always of poorer quality than later work I wouldn't take that person seriously. There is no rule that states that a first attempt must always fail, and many first novels or stories are better than anything that follows them. A frequently cited example of this is Pynchon's V. The book got the author much publicity, but his later novels fell flat on their face. Some people remember Gravity's Rainbow fondly, but a lot of the later stuff is questionable. Yet, in Chekhov's case, I think the earlier works are a little weaker. Or, to put it a better way, they're just more frivolous. Usually they involve stock characters acting out stock situations with stock gags. I wouldn't lump "The Trousseau" in with those stories, though. The situation may be a stock one, but the characters, the humor, and the pathos are not. I thought the story was affecting, and even beautiful at times. It was a good pick Janine.

I haven't heard of the author or any of his works. It's an interesting comparison though. One just can't generalize.

I think the one story of Chekhov's about the girl giving the suspicious wife back all her jewelry was a bit contrived. That may be what you mean by stock characters. And yet, I remembered that story and the plot and the outcome and the irony. I am sure it's not his best but I still think about it for some odd reason. I think it's overdone though and I imagine you would hate that one. Was it called "The Chorus Girl"...all I know is the husband is all the time hiding in the other room. It's ironic but predictable, I think.

I thought "The Trouseau" was rather sad, but beautiful myself. Thanks for choosing it for me. Glad you also appreciated it. Wonder what Dark Muse thought of the story. I felt she liked it, too.


Hear, hear You agree then? ...or are you the town crier? :lol:


It reminds me of "The Man who Loved Islands," actually--in structure, at least. There were three islands, right?


Yes, three islands and three distinct sections. It certainly does remind me of that story. I loved that Lawrence story. I thought it well constructed.

Another few thoughts came to me, about this story. It's very much a story expressing the idea of unfinished things. I think too, the way the mother directs all her energy into the task of making clothes, is something she does to maintain a sense of 'hope', in an atmosphere which is degenerating/discintigraging around her. The sewing is a diversion from reality. We all have those; what are these computers? The mother in the end, is also the victim in all this. She has become 'her own worse enemy' by her obsession and false dedication to creating this trousseau; now for a daughter who doesn't even exist.

[Quark]

Are you then saying Chekhov's characterization here is a little clumsy?

Mostly I was just commenting on a pet peeve of mine. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that characterizing in that way is always clumsy.


I am not sure how may years lapsed between visit #1 and visit #2. I will have to go back and review.

Seven years elapse from the first visit to the second, and he tells us that he visited the house one year ago from when he's narrating the story.


Hahah...you know, it's funny but, I have always had trouble reading Dickens. Maybe, this is why. I did enjoy "Tale of Two Cities", but others I could not get into; for one thing they have sooo many characters. However, I love the film adaptations of his work. I am presently watching one on DVD "Our Mutual Friend". It's a fine production but shows squalid London and the Thames in such a realistic way it's sometimes hard to take.

You're certainly not alone with that reaction. Many readers never get into Dickens. Some really enjoy his novels, but often people report experiencing boredom, fatigue, and nausea during the long middle sections of books like Bleak House. Dickens even frequently comes in those threads called "Most Overrated Authors." I like Dickens some of the time, but not always. It really depends on the novel and chapter you're talking about. Some sections are slow reads, but others are actually very engaging.


Maybe I don't kid. I live with my relatives; that is probably the gist of it.

At least there are no misconceptions. I think my parents believe I'm going be elected president at some point.


In the L thread, I thought the last story would end in half a month's time, too. I thought it a bit simpler a tale. Oh, how wrong I was. This one in Chekhov is proving to be more complex than we first thought. Things never go as expected or planned. But who's complaining. We will have tons of time for other stories.

It's difficult to get through any Lawrence story in less than a month. The symbolism and the shadowy motivations of the characters require so much elucidation right away that it takes weeks before anyone really knows what to say about the story. Think of the last story. Who could say definitively what the peacock represented, or what the husband really felt for the wife? There's mystery that surrounds a good Lawrence story, and usually we're hundreds of posts into the discussion before we've penetrated to the true heart of the story. With Chekhhov there isn't that mystery. Usually the stories are pretty straightforward in character, plot, and symbol. The implications of the story are always rather profound, but the story itself remains pretty accessible.


Yes, that's it. It's read in a 'plaintive undertone'. It's more effective that way; it suits Chekhov's writing well. Sometimes less acting is more acting. I have heard Branagh recite poems by some woman online and they are very sad, about soldiers and death. He has just the right tone with these, too. He usually knocks you over with the last word.

Couldn't agree more.


But, I think what you are saying here, Quark, is somewhat personal preference.

It is personal. That's why I'd like to hear it. I can't anticipate what other people's reactions to the stories will be because they're personal.


so far so good; your doing a fine job. I put my faith in you entirely to choose the stories.

Always good to hear. You did suggest this one, though, so if you read another that you like feel free to bring it up.


I am sure it's not his best but I still think about it for some odd reason. I think it's overdone though and I imagine you would hate that one. Was it called "The Chorus Girl"...all I know is the husband is all the time hiding in the other room. It's ironic but predictable, I think.

It's funny that you mention that one, as it was on mind when I was saying that. "The Chorus Girl" is included in a lot of anthologies, but it's not my favorite Chekhov story.


The sewing is a diversion from reality. We all have those; what are these computers? The mother in the end, is also the victim in all this. She has become 'her own worse enemy' by her obsession and false dedication to creating this trousseau; now for a daughter who doesn't even exist.

True, but I hope our own lives are not as hopeless and ironically undermined as the characters here. That would be depressing note to end this discussion on, and I'm looking for some happiness after the books I've read recently for LitNet. The Poe thread is doing "The Man in the Crowd"--another tale of obsession with a somewhat pessimistic ending. The Man with the Blue Guitar has some exuberance to it, but I wouldn't say it's upbeat. I could use a comedy right now.

[Janine]

Mostly I was just commenting on a pet peeve of mine. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that characterizing in that way is always clumsy.

Hi Quark, ok now I get your drift. Just checking or clarifying that statement.


Seven years elapse from the first visit to the second, and he tells us that he visited the house one year ago from when he's narrating the story.

Ok, so 7 years elapse to begin with, after his first introduction to the family; then, he wrote this story one year, after he went there the third time; so therefore, we don't have a truly clear idea of how much time elapsed between visit #2 and visit #3; is that correct? It could many more years than 7, right....maybe 10, 15, even 20.


You're certainly not alone with that reaction. Many readers never get into Dickens. Some really enjoy his novels, but often people report experiencing boredom, fatigue, and nausea during the long middle sections of books like Bleak House. Dickens even frequently comes in those threads called "Most Overrated Authors." I like Dickens some of the time, but not always. It really depends on the novel and chapter you're talking about. Some sections are slow reads, but others are actually very engaging.

:lol: This is just how I would describe it..."boredom, fatigue, and nausea"....I recall once trying to read Great Expectations and I think I fell asleep. I just could not get into the novel, nor did I really like the more current film adaptation. Maybe, I am overlooking something. Ok, then I was required to read (high school) A Tale of Two Cities, and I just recall my huge struggle with the text at the time - also a yawn:yawnb:. However, after seeing the Masterpiece Theater adapation, which nearly follows the original book to a "T", I once again read the novel. This time I even wondered, if I had only skimmed it before; I didn't recall it being anything to do with love...my God, its a whole love triangle. I could only recall the last words which are the famous ones, that everyone associates with this novel. Then, too, a few of us discussed it on here and I think it is one of the finest novels I have ever read. However, in researching the book and Dickens, I found critics said that ATOTC is unlike Dicken's other novels. I think in the other novels, he has more 'quirky', even 'degenerate' characters which are difficult to keep track of. Well, at any rate, I am glad I am not alone in thinking this way. It just seemed that in my high school, Dickens was always drummed into us. Now I found out my former teacher, who I have in later years befriended, has more of a narrow view of literature, than I ever realised. I was shocked. Apparently, she likes none of the English authors, but loves Dickens. I really found that statement completely ludicrious. I was in shock she hated Hardy's work; don't even mention DHL! Yikes, she might take a fit. She's a truly lovely person, but I believe quite limited in her literary views. Now wonder I hated literature in high school. Wasn't till I got into college that I started to spark new interest; that's because we got into the good stuff, something a little more contraversial.


At least there are no misconceptions. I think my parents believe I'm going be elected president at some point.

:thumbs_upI hope so, too.;) It would great to know a former Litnet member became our president! :lol:


It's difficult to get through any Lawrence story in less than a month. The symbolism and the shadowy motivations of the characters require so much elucidation right away that it takes weeks before anyone really knows what to say about the story. Think of the last story. Who could say definitively what the peacock represented, or what the husband really felt for the wife? There's mystery that surrounds a good Lawrence story, and usually we're hundreds of posts into the discussion before we've penetrated to the true heart of the story. With Chekhhov there isn't that mystery. Usually the stories are pretty straightforward in character, plot, and symbol. The implications of the story are always rather profound, but the story itself remains pretty accessible.

Well, I am not sure it was weeks or hundreds of post, before we got into the story; but a lot of immediate impressions were altered by the end of the story. I find this happens almost always with the Lawrence stories. I find myself seeing so much more on closer examination of the words and phrases. Really, it was Virgilwho helped me to develop that eye, when looking at these stories in a new light. I also find repeated readings help enormously. In the end, there is still mystery surrounding the various characters in Lawrence's works. I would agree with that. Yes, Chekhov is more straightforward with more realism. Both authors end up being quite profound, but the take a different route to get there.


Couldn't agree more.

Good, like being agreeable.;)


It is personal. That's why I'd like to hear it. I can't anticipate what other people's reactions to the stories will be because they're personal.
True and any feedback from us would help your task. I would ask people, in Lawrence, which stories to pick, but none of them has read any or many of the stories asside from Virgil He read a many way back and I do confer with him on the stories everytime I pick one; he's also has picked many of the ones we did discuss in the past. I am presently in a quandry once again, as to which one to pick for next time. I would like to keep it to a short one, because some are truly long and yea gads, complicated/complex, too! It would take us 3 months to discuss those. I should be reviewing them now to see which I think would be a good pick for the group we now have. Then, I will notify everyone by profile message.


Always good to hear. You did suggest this one, though, so if you read another that you like feel free to bring it up.

Ok, Quark, I will do that; maybe I will even look some up online to see which ones people seem to discuss or applaud. I liked the story In the Ravine, but I think it would take longer than a month to discuss. It's a pretty long story and a little more complex than Chekhov's shorter ones.


It's funny that you mention that one, as it was on mind when I was saying that. "The Chorus Girl" is included in a lot of anthologies, but it's not my favorite Chekhov story.

How funny, I thought of it right away as less complex. Another thing I thought about the story, The Chorus Girl, is I started to think it obscurd or unreal, that she would give the woman ALL of her jewelry so readily; seems she would be a little smarter or more worldly to know what she was up to; not the naive type as she is depicted. It just seemed a bit over-the-top to me, personally. That, I suppose was the main idea; the other woman was a rip-off artist and the tale was heavy in irony, but still....(?) I kept reading/listening that one, to see if I missed something. Maybe I am being unfair to the poor chorus girl. Back then, people were forced into situations just to survive. We don't know her background. We only surmise the wife isn't truly poor or needy at all, but ruthless and a swindler in the end. Perhaps the chorus girl is an airhead and not too bright. It's possible she just fell into her situation from need to survive. I am thinking of the poor daughter in the Trousseau, had she been the one to survive, and was left alone in the world. She might end up in a low position and she might be just as naive; having been sheltered all her life as shut-in. I am not sure of any of this; just surmising; maybe, I need to listen to that story again; it's not clear in my head. The narrator definitely sympathises with the chorus girl at the end.


True, but I hope our own lives are not as hopeless and ironically undermined as the characters here. That would be depressing note to end this discussion on, and I'm looking for some happiness after the books I've read recently for LitNet. The Poe thread is doing "The Man in the Crowd"--another tale of obsession with a somewhat pessimistic ending. The Man with the Blue Guitar has some exuberance to it, but I wouldn't say it's upbeat. I could use a comedy right now.

Quark, I tried to come up with a Lawrence comedy, but there doesn't seem to be such an animal! :lol: The one's I thought humorous, everyone else failed to see the humor or irony. I must have a sick sense of humor.:goof:

Those other discussion you mentioned sound dismal. Everyone voted on Rob Roy, too and then didn't show up. I didn't care to wade through it myself. I am reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness currently, because everyone on here always recommends it. Just by the title I don't think that's a comedy either...do you? At least it's short!:lol:

Here's the last part and I have a few comments. First I love the last line.


"It's a blouse. When it's finished I shall take it to the priest's to be put away, or else Yegor Semyonitch would carry it off. I store everything at the priest's now," she added in a whisper.

And looking at the portrait of her daughter which stood before her on the table, she sighed and said:
I almost think by now the old woman is a bit cracked. She keeps on sewing and probably will till her dying day. This reminds me of something my mother told me about my great-great grandfather who was Scottish and was a fireman. He would sit in the firehall waiting for a bell to go off, and he would hand sew quilt pieces; we found partly made quilts in my grandmother's attic when she died and we helped clean out. Now, if you ever met a quilter, you know they become very obsessed with quilting; knitter, too. My mother told me that on his death bed, he was still pretending to quilt. His hands just automatically kept sewing the invisible thread. She swore it was true. I think this mother is to this point throughout the story. She really cannot stop; it is so habitual for her. She has no other life or outlet, but to live to sew these clothes.


"We are all alone in the world."

And where was the daughter? Where was Manetchka? I did not ask. I did not dare to ask the old mother dressed in her new deep mourning. And while I was in the room, and when I got up to go, no Manetchka came out to greet me. I did not hear her voice, nor her soft, timid footstep. . . .

I understood, and my heart was heavy.

That was effective use of 'repetition' in using that phrase - "we are all alone in the world."

I really like that last line, as I said above. It's simplistic, but it ends on this very deeply felt and poignantly sad note.

I was to B&N's big sale tonight. I am happy to report I bought two books - one of Chekhov's short stories; most of them I don't have in the coffee stain book; I also just noticed it contains In the Ravine - splendid! I got a similar book of Tolstoy and and a third one free. Not quite as cheap as my library, but still a few good bargains and specific things I wanted. I went to my library earlier and found three good books; final cost of those was $1.25...not bad, eh?

I guess this wraps up this story; what do you think, Quark? You satisfied? You may want to comment briefly on a few things I wrote in this post.

[Krauq]

we don't have a truly clear idea of how much time elapsed between visit #2 and visit #3; is that correct? It could many more years than 7, right....maybe 10, 15, even 20.

No, it's never made clear how long it was between the second and third visits. The first visit must have taken place some time over eight years ago, but beyond that we don't know.


Now I found out my former teacher, who I have in later years befriended, has more of a narrow view of literature, than I ever realised. I was shocked. Apparently, she likes none of the English authors, but loves Dickens. I really found that statement completely ludicrious. I was in shock she hated Hardy's work; don't even mention DHL! Yikes, she might take a fit. She's a truly lovely person, but I believe quite limited in her literary views. Now wonder I hated literature in high school. Wasn't till I got into college that I started to spark new interest; that's because we got into the good stuff, something a little more contraversial.

That's being particular. She only likes Dickens? I would hope she reads more than that even if she prefers Dickens, otherwise she'd be missing quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with saying that Dickens is your favorite author--despite what we've been saying here--but to say he's the only author you read is rather narrow. I'm sure you set her straight, though.


I am presently in a quandry once again, as to which one to pick for next time. I would like to keep it to a short one, because some are truly long and yea gads, complicated/complex, too! It would take us 3 months to discuss those. I should be reviewing them now to see which I think would be a good pick for the group we now have. Then, I will notify everyone by profile message.

I think if you gave everyone enough time to read the story you could do a longer one. Nothing over sixty pages, but something around 30 or 40 could be done. We might not be able to read it line by line, but we could make it work.


Ok, Quark, I will do that; maybe I will even look some up online to see which ones people seem to discuss or applaud. I liked the story In the Ravine, but I think it would take longer than a month to discuss. It's a pretty long story and a little more complex than Chekhov's shorter ones.

Yes, that story is shelved for now. I don't know when I'll do another story, actually. I think I would have to advertise more and get people interested before I attempt another discussion.


We only surmise the wife isn't truly poor or needy at all, but ruthless and a swindler in the end. Perhaps the chorus girl is an airhead and not too bright. It's possible she just fell into her situation from need to survive. I am thinking of the poor daughter in the Trousseau, had she been the one to survive, and was left alone in the world. She might end up in a low position and she might be just as naive; having been sheltered all her life as shut-in. I am not sure of any of this; just surmising; maybe, I need to listen to that story again; it's not clear in my head. The narrator definitely sympathises with the chorus girl at the end.

You're right about the wife, but I didn't get the sense that the chorus girl was an airhead. I know you were exaggerating for comic effect, but I don't think she was outwitted by the wife. Rather, the wife was able to manipulate her because she was too softhearted to ignore the misleading tale about the wife's suffering. A lack of intelligence isn't her downfall. It's her susceptibility to guilt. The wife conjures up her place as a Christian, as a wife, as a member of a family and class as arguments to guilt the chorus girl into giving away her possessions. The story is about shame, guilt, and how those feelings are often forced on us unnecessarily. A good theme, and it's well-handled in the story. I just think it isn't as affecting as the other stories. There just isn't much emotion in the story, which is something Chekhov is usually pretty good with. Technically, though, it's a fine story: clever, succinct, etc.


Quark, I tried to come up with a Lawrence comedy, but there doesn't seem to be such an animal! :lol: The one's I thought humorous, everyone else failed to see the humor or irony. I must have a sick sense of humor.:goof:

The minute I posted that I realized my mistake. Yeah, there doesn't appear to be many cheery Lawrence stories. I guess we don't have particularly upbeat tastes. Humor is always good, though--even if it's dark humor. Which one did you find funny, by the way?


Everyone voted on Rob Roy, too and then didn't show up.

No surprise there.


I am reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness currently, because everyone on here always recommends it.

That's a classic.


I almost think by now the old woman is a bit cracked. She keeps on sewing and probably will till her dying day. This reminds me of something my mother told me about my great-great grandfather who was Scottish and was a fireman. He would sit in the firehall waiting for a bell to go off, and he would hand sew quilt pieces

It is something like that with the mother. At first glance it's rather absurd, but the more you see of someone like that the more it feels tragic. That's the progression here--from weird, quirky, old woman to tragic protagonist.


That was effective use of 'repetition' in using that phrase - "we are all alone in the world."

It is the refrain of this story. Yet I'm not entirely sure what it means. That is, I don't know why she's saying it. Is it to get sympathy from the narrator? The reader knows they're alone, so it must be aimed at the narrator. But why? It could be Chekhov just trying drive home this point, but maybe there's something more to it.


I was to B&N's big sale tonight. I am happy to report I bought two books - one of Chekhov's short stories;

Tell me how that goes. I'm always curious what stories they put in those Chekhov collections these days?


most of them I don't have in the coffee stain book

You're just not going to let that go.


I also just noticed it contains In the Ravine - splendid! I got a similar book of Tolstoy and and a third one free. Not quite as cheap as my library, but still a few good bargains and specific things I wanted. I went to my library earlier and found three good books; final cost of those was $1.25...not bad, eh?

Ah, then I know what Chekhov stories you have. Sometimes when I'm at B&N I read out of their Chekhov collection. It's got some good stories in it. "In the Ravine" obviously, but also "Ward No. 6" and "On the Road" are excellent. The two for three deal they have is also good--considering how cheap those books are already. I remember getting three novels there once for less than fifteen dollars--a steal by any measurement.


I guess this wraps up this story; what do you think, Quark? You satisfied?

Satisfied? Sure, why not? We covered most everything there is to cover in this story. It's time to do something else. I'm glad everyone who could make it did. It was a fun discussion as always.

[Janine]

No, it's never made clear how long it was between the second and third visits. The first visit must have taken place some time over eight years ago, but beyond that we don't know.

Hi Krauq! Wonder why Chekhov kept that space of time sketchy or obscure. How do you deduct that between first and last visit was only eight years or I guess you saying it was over 8 yrs ago. I think it much more than 8years.


That's being particular. She only likes Dickens? I would hope she reads more than that even if she prefers Dickens, otherwise she'd be missing quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with saying that Dickens is your favorite author--despite what we've been saying here--but to say he's the only author you read is rather narrow. I'm sure you set her straight, though.

I know it. I was in shock when we first had this conversation via phone. I now wonder if she meant she didn't like the more contemporary authors such as Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, etc; although, she did mention Hardy and she made it quite clear that she very much disliked his novels. I think she was being extreme considering all English literature. Surely she likes Shakespeare. I know she likes Dickens. She seems to like the French authors, such as Hugo and American authors. I agree that she must have been missing out on a lot of really fine literature.


I think if you gave everyone enough time to read the story you could do a longer one. Nothing over sixty pages, but something around 30 or 40 could be done. We might not be able to read it line by line, but we could make it work.

Well, we will see. We did discuss some longer ones, but those were a little more demanding. If we have more people in the discussion, it might become totally overwhelming. There are still a lot of shorter ones, that I feel are very fine stories. I plan to do those first, if possible.


Yes, that story is shelved for now. I don't know when I'll do another story, actually. I think I would have to advertise more and get people interested before I attempt another discussion.

Good idea. I think I can help. I will keep my eye out for any Chekhov lovers. Some people list him in their favorite author lists. You might check out Profile pages; but just make sure those members are still active; otherwise it's a waste of time.


You're right about the wife, but I didn't get the sense that the chorus girl was an airhead. I know you were exaggerating for comic effect, but I don't think she was outwitted by the wife. Rather, the wife was able to manipulate her because she was too softhearted to ignore the misleading tale about the wife's suffering. A lack of intelligence isn't her downfall. It's her susceptibility to guilt. The wife conjures up her place as a Christian, as a wife, as a member of a family and class as arguments to guilt the chorus girl into giving away her possessions. The story is about shame, guilt, and how those feelings are often forced on us unnecessarily. A good theme, and it's well-handled in the story. I just think it isn't as affecting as the other stories. There just isn't much emotion in the story, which is something Chekhov is usually pretty good with. Technically, though, it's a fine story: clever, succinct, etc.

Yes, I was exaggerating to give you a chuckle. I do have to listen to that one again. It's been awhile and I forget the details now. I think the word "maniupulate" is a good one to describe what was going on between them. The wife was quite shrewd. Yes, this is a good way of putting it - the guilt played a big role in the story. Also, the difference in the two classes of women. Now I will listen to it and see it this way. I don't think it's a bad story. I just thought you might consider that one weaker than many of the others.


The minute I posted that I realized my mistake. Yeah, there doesn't appear to be many cheery Lawrence stories. I guess we don't have particularly upbeat tastes. Humor is always good, though--even if it's dark humor. Which one did you find funny, by the way?

Hahah....I would rather not say specifically, since I might be chastised for it. I guess I think some are humorous or more amusing in places; not in the entire meaning of the story, that usually goes much deeper. It's like Dicken's -you do get a chuckle here and there, at the obscurity of a character or their actions. I don't think either Lawrence or Chekhov wrote funny stories. Lawrence can be a bit amusing at times in his wording, or his observation of people's quirpy ways.

No surprise there. Yeah, really...what's become of Henry IV discussion, too?


That's a classic. I am about 1/3 through it now; I am finding it interesting. I like the way in which he writes. It's becoming intriguing. Is it a really sad story? I am seeing it as a personal journey into a dark land where Marlow will be altered forever. It's quite mysterious and that keeps ones interest. It's not a long book so I should finish it in the coming week. I read slowly though, a little at a time. I wanted to keep reading last night but it was after 4! eeeek....



It is something like that with the mother. At first glance it's rather absurd, but the more you see of someone like that the more it feels tragic. That's the progression here--from weird, quirky, old woman to tragic protagonist.

Good, like the way you stated that. That's it exactly!


It is the refrain of this story. Yet I'm not entirely sure what it means. That is, I don't know why she's saying it. Is it to get sympathy from the narrator? The reader knows they're alone, so it must be aimed at the narrator. But why? It could be Chekhov just trying drive home this point, but maybe there's something more to it.

'refrain' - oh yes, that's a good word for it. I think it is to get sympathy from the narrator. Who else can she state this to? The narrator seems to be a very sympathetic person and nice to all. I also think it helps Chekhov to drive home that point about being alone. It's obscurd - this aloneness - because basically the mother and daughter brought it on themselves not connecting with the outside world throughout their lives. In that tomb of a house, they have always isolated themselves and the result is this profound feeling of being "all alone in the world".


Tell me how that goes. I'm always curious what stories they put in those Chekhov collections these days?

I checked and only a few double ones I have in the other book. It will take me awhile to read all these, you know. I have to be in the mood to approach them. I can take a few at a time. Maybe, I should set my goal to now read all of the Chekhov short stories, like I did with the Lawrence ones.
Krauq, how many Chekhov short stories are there exactly? I think he may have exceeded Lawrence in the amount.


You're just not going to let that go. hahah...yes and everytime I see the Starbucks in the B&N, I now think of you. You know I am just joking with you. The stain is so light I could hardly notice it. It's a really nice book. All of my Lawrence short story books now are in pieces. I can still read them but all the pages are out of the books by now. They were used paperbacks I bought and then I had some of my own from years back - those are going to pieces, too. I need to rubberband the whole mess together or put them into a tin or box. Next to these, the Chekhov 'coffee stain' book looks nearly like mint!



Ah, then I know what Chekhov stories you have. Sometimes when I'm at B&N I read out of their Chekhov collection. It's got some good stories in it. "In the Ravine" obviously, but also "Ward No. 6" and "On the Road" are excellent. The two for three deal they have is also good--considering how cheap those books are already. I remember getting three novels there once for less than fifteen dollars--a steal by any measurement.

Yes, it has Ward No. 6. That was one reason I bought it. I also, am economically minded and wanted to get three books all the same price, so the free one would be a true bargain. I got one of Chekhov, one of Poe, one of Tolstoy - all collections of their shorter works. I am into short stories presently, so this worked out well. I got all three for about $16. but they all are the thicker editions - $7.95 each.


Satisfied? Sure, why not? We covered most everything there is to cover in this story. It's time to do something else. I'm glad everyone who could make it did. It was a fun discussion as always.

I thought we were done. I enjoyed this discussion, even though I was not writing comments all the time; I was however, reading all the fine comments Quark and Dark Muse wrote. So, I was here; just behind the scenes many times, something like the moderators, I suppose. Thanks for a fun discussion everyone. I loved this story. To me it's memorable.

[Quark]

Hi Krauq! Wonder why Chekhov kept that space of time sketchy or obscure. How do you deduct that between first and last visit was only eight years or I guess you saying it was over 8 yrs ago. I think it much more than 8years.

It probably is more than eight years from #1 to #3, but as we've been saying there's really no way to tell how much longer than eight years it's been. I think Chekhov leaves the time unspecified because it makes the visits blur together more. If we knew when each took place, then each scene would stand out as its own point in the time line. By leaving it unspecified, Chekhov places all the events in a distant past which runs together in the reader's mind. Or, maybe Chekhov just didn't think it was important.


I know it. I was in shock when we first had this conversation via phone.

I'm just surprised you stay in touch. How many people can say that about their former English teachers?


Some people list him in their favorite author lists. You might check out Profile pages

Good idea. I did that when I first started the discussion, but I've been lazy and haven't done much since then.


Hahah....I would rather not say specifically, since I might be chastised for it. I guess I think some are humorous or more amusing in places; not in the entire meaning of the story, that usually goes much deeper.

That's funny. I guess I'll have to restrain my urge to chastise. I think I know which one you're referring to, though. Was it the one with the secretary? Oh, what was that called? I would go back and find the discussion, but it's probably one-thousand posts back by now. I remember the back and forth between the characters being amusing. It was a bit of a satire, after all. The characters were supposed to represent the modern, soulless lifestyle that Lawrence loathed so. I got a chuckle out of that story. I think you're right about L's use of humor, though. It's really a supporting character and never really the center of attention. He slips in a joke ever now and then, but the meaning of the story does go deeper.


No surprise there. Yeah, really...what's become of Henry IV discussion, too?

I know. We finally get to do one of the big ones, and no one is around to talk about it. Richard II and Winter's Tale were good, but c'mon it's Henry IV!


Is it a really sad story? I am seeing it as a personal journey into a dark land where Marlow will be altered forever. It's quite mysterious and that keeps ones interest.

Sad? It's definitely not happy, but I wouldn't say it's sad either. At least, it isn't sad in that tearful sort of way.


I think it is to get sympathy from the narrator.

That might be a better way of looking at the line. It could be meant more for the narrator than the reader. The reader already knows they're alone. The narrator probably does too, but the mother could just be playing it up for sympathy.


how many Chekhov short stories are there exactly?

Hundreds. I've never taken a complete survey of his works, and every time I look at an anthology I see a story that I never saw before. If I had to guess I would say that there's about two-hundred and fifty. That's a steep hill to climb--and one that probably isn't worth the effort. I would just stick to the good stories, and leave the others behind.


I got one of Chekhov, one of Poe, one of Tolstoy - all collections of their shorter works. I am into short stories presently, so this worked out well. I got all three for about $16. but they all are the thicker editions - $7.95 each.

Those books are a great deal. Keep them on the shelf, though. The covers are a little flimsy and tend to peal away if they're just left on the table. My copy of Vanity Fair looks like an old onion.


I thought we were done. I enjoyed this discussion, even though I was not writing comments all the time; I was however, reading all the fine comments Quark and Dark Muse wrote. So, I was here; just behind the scenes many times, something like the moderators, I suppose. Thanks for a fun discussion everyone. I loved this story. To me it's memorable.

Thanks, Janine. I'm glad you enjoyed the story and discussion.

[Janine]

It probably is more than eight years from #1 to #3, but as we've been saying there's really no way to tell how much longer than eight years it's been. I think Chekhov leaves the time unspecified because it makes the visits blur together more. If we knew when each took place, then each scene would stand out as its own point in the time line. By leaving it unspecified, Chekhov places all the events in a distant past which runs together in the reader's mind. Or, maybe Chekhov just didn't think it was important.

Only about 8 years? I pictured more time than that had elapsed, for some reason. Oh, now I get what your are saying...at least 8 yrs. I agree with that. Yes, it does create more of a blur and it makes one wonder, too. That Chekhov was a pretty smart guy, wasn't he?:rolleyes:


I'm just surprised you stay in touch. How many people can say that about their former English teachers?

Oh, she lives in my town and taught up until about 10 years ago. I had contact with her, when my son was in school; see, we went to the same high school. It was kind of strange though, him having some of the same teachers, I had in the past. We once worked the same place too, but at different time periods; same thing there - a few stranglers were still working there and he worked with these ladies. Again, sort of strange. My English/History teacher, Louisa, is really a lovely person. She is very active in our town and in the Historic Society; everyone likes her. I like her a lot, but she does seem to me now to have a very limited world view of literature; it may be due to her religious convictions; but I'm not sure. I also worked with her on two groups in high school - the school newspaper staff and the yearbook staff, so we got friendly then. In recent years, I got friendly with her through other pursuits, such as antique collecting, local history, etc. I guess she's in her mid 70's now, so it's cool to be friends. The age gap closes up at my age.


Good idea. I did that when I first started the discussion, but I've been lazy and haven't done much since then.

Quark, you lazy bum, you! hahaha....yes, one must work hard to recruit these Chekhov lovers. They are there somewhere, I am sure.


That's funny. I guess I'll have to restrain my urge to chastise. I think I know which one you're referring to, though. Was it the one with the secretary? Oh, what was that called? I would go back and find the discussion, but it's probably one-thousand posts back by now. I remember the back and forth between the characters being amusing. It was a bit of a satire, after all. The characters were supposed to represent the modern, soulless lifestyle that Lawrence loathed so. I got a chuckle out of that story. I think you're right about L's use of humor, though. It's really a supporting character and never really the center of attention. He slips in a joke ever now and then, but the meaning of the story does go deeper.

:nod: That's the one! :lol:...some individuals did not find it too humorous. I thought it was truly amusing, the way the two women went at each other. I do think Lawrence had a sense of humor, especially from comments in letters about him from his friends. They all said he was loads of fun to be around. He could be quite the comic and he could impersonate people perfectly, have everyone rolling on the floor with laughter. He was quite 'multi-talented', something like me! *shy smile of innocence*

Right to say it's a 'supporting character' in that story, not central but none the less it is meant to be humorous in some ways.


I know. We finally get to do one of the big ones, and no one is around to talk about it. Richard II and Winter's Tale were good, but c'mon it's Henry IV!

Tell me about it.:mad: Finally, we get to my beloved Henry and *in tears now* - they all ran off! I love the Henry histories the very best. Henry V is still my favorite though; God knows when we can get to that one....maybe sometime next century....


Sad? It's definitely not happy, but I wouldn't say it's sad either. At least, it isn't sad in that tearful sort of way. I think it's sad so far and I am half way through; well, the title feels sad right there for me. It's very interesting - the writing. When I am done reading it, I will have to give you my full impression.


That might be a better way of looking at the line. It could be meant more for the narrator than the reader. The reader already knows they're alone. The narrator probably does too, but the mother could just be playing it up for sympathy.

I think that's what it is intended for. It's for the narrator's benefit and ultimate sympathy.


Hundreds. I've never taken a complete survey of his works, and every time I look at an anthology I see a story that I never saw before. If I had to guess I would say that there's about two-hundred and fifty. That's a steep hill to climb--and one that probably isn't worth the effort. I would just stick to the good stories, and leave the others behind.

Well, Chekhov didn't write novels, is that correct? I would imagine that is why he outnumbers Lawrence in short stories. He just wrote plays and short stories, right? That is a lot of short stories though....lots of separate ideas.


Those books are a great deal. Keep them on the shelf, though. The covers are a little flimsy and tend to peal away if they're just left on the table. My copy of Vanity Fair looks like an old onion.

They peal away? I never had a book peal away before, Quark. Where do you live in a hothouse or an aquarium? :eek::confused: Hummm..mine presently are under the AC unit. I better move them or they might curl up. I do have all my Lawrence short story books now falling appart. They didn't peal away - the spines gave out and the pages fell out completely. I will have to rubberband them together or put them into a small box. You know how hard it is to replace those. They really need one book with all his stories in it, not the three paperbacks.


Thanks, Janine. I'm glad you enjoyed the story and discussion.

Thank you, Quark for your great introduction and keeping with this discussion group. Only thing is, did you notice the woman is sewing by an open window with sunlight pouring in? I had to laugh since this story was so 'sunless'; but still, I do love those two photos you posted in the intro, so don't change them! It was a good discussion this time. I look forward to many more stories and good discussions in the future.

[Quark]

:nod: That's the one! :lol:...some individuals did not find it too humorous. I thought it was truly amusing, the way the two women went at each other.

Let me know when you pick another story. If you start the discussion before August I should be able to post some thoughts on the story before next semester starts.


He was quite 'multi-talented', something like me! *shy smile of innocence*

Oh, of course. In fact, you probably have him outdone with visual media. Meanwhile, it takes all my focus to do just one thing right. If I could master one art form, I think I would stop there and consider myself accomplished. Yet maybe that isn't what makes people explore different forms. Usually it seems like--well, exploration. It isn't so much about mastery, as it is finding something new, interesting, and possibly challenging. Like I say, though, I feel challenged enough.


Tell me about it.:mad: Finally, we get to my beloved Henry and *in tears now* - they all ran off! I love the Henry histories the very best. Henry V is still my favorite though; God knows when we can get to that one....maybe sometime next century....

I would be more than willing to start that discussion, but I don't know of anyone besides the two of us who would participate. Virgil appears to be a little overwhelmed right now. Jozanny stepped into the Richard II discussion briefly, but was rather non-committal about Henry IV. I'm sure some people voted for the play, but that doesn't mean they will post anything. We make a good team, but saving that thread might be beyond even our super powers.


Well, Chekhov didn't write novels, is that correct? I would imagine that is why he outnumbers Lawrence in short stories. He just wrote plays and short stories, right? That is a lot of short stories though....lots of separate ideas.

Right, there are no Chekhov novels. He wrote some novella-length stories--some went longer than one-hundred pages--but nothing that we would consider a full-fledged novel. I think the novel and Chekhov is actually a rather interesting topic, not because Chekhov wrote so many novels or had so many opinions on the novel, but because he said so little about it. The novel was "the" art form of the nineteenth century, and intuitively you would assume that Chekhov would have been pushed to write one. Yet he hardly mentions it. This leads to a lot of speculation. Did he not appreciate the novel as much as most readers? Did he look down on the novel? Was he intimidated by it? Chekhov's silence on the topic is odd. Some critics believe that his reputation suffered because of it. Many readers evaluate an author on the basis of their largest contribution to literature. When a writer composes a lot of smaller works they tend to get overlooked for authors who created one, giant novel. Take Melville and Hawthorne, as an example. Two 19th C American writers who are each well-regarded. By the strength of Moby Dick, however, Melville often looms larger than Hawthorne. Similarly, the big novels of Russian Literature like Crime and Punishment or Anna Karenina push Chekhov's short stories into the background. I think it's silly to define an author by just their best work, but that's often what happens.


They peal away? I never had a book peal away before

Well it's not an old wife's tale I'm relating. The covers actually do peal. The material they make those B&N covers out of is so thin, and cardboard-like, that it bends really easily.

[Janine]

Let me know when you pick another story. If you start the discussion before August I should be able to post some thoughts on the story before next semester starts.

Well, maybe midmonth. I don't usually like to start midmonth though. I haven't thought much about it. It seems Litnet is slow with summer lazyiness. I admit to being so myself. I have been trying to catch up on other things and also we are planning some upgrades to our house. I know this will be disruptive. I feel like I am in limbo right now. I don't know when that will be sprung on us or how long it will take. I need a new bathroom, that's a lot of work, even though it's just a small bathroom. So we will see what happens in the next few weeks, ok? I could start one but not sure I could keep up personally with it. If we have the turnout like last time that may be ok. I can lead from a distance for once.


Oh, of course. In fact, you probably have him outdone with visual media. Meanwhile, it takes all my focus to do just one thing right. If I could master one art form, I think I would stop there and consider myself accomplished. Yet maybe that isn't what makes people explore different forms. Usually it seems like--well, exploration. It isn't so much about mastery, as it is finding something new, interesting, and possibly challenging. Like I say, though, I feel challenged enough.

Quark, I didn't know you were so artistic minded. Do you do any visual artwork. Maybe you stuff is good. It all takes practice and persistence, even with natural talent. I laugh when I read Lawrence's letters; he often complained about having to do anything creative. I guess even genius' get burned out now and then. I can't recall now who I was talking about being multi-talented. Was it Chekhov or Lawrence. They both were. Look at Chekhov, afterall he was also a doctor. Quite an accomplishment for a young man back then to be a doctor and an author.


I would be more than willing to start that discussion, but I don't know of anyone besides the two of us who would participate. Virgil appears to be a little overwhelmed right now. Jozanny stepped into the Richard II discussion briefly, but was rather non-committal about Henry IV. I'm sure some people voted for the play, but that doesn't mean they will post anything. We make a good team, but saving that thread might be beyond even our super powers.

Yeah, agreed. I would hold off a bit on Henry IV. I am sure it will be complicated. All the histories are. We need a bunch of participants on the Henry plays.


Right, there are no Chekhov novels. He wrote some novella-length stories--some went longer than one-hundred pages--but nothing that we would consider a full-fledged novel. I think the novel and Chekhov is actually a rather interesting topic, not because Chekhov wrote so many novels or had so many opinions on the novel, but because he said so little about it. The novel was "the" art form of the nineteenth century, and intuitively you would assume that Chekhov would have been pushed to write one. Yet he hardly mentions it. This leads to a lot of speculation. Did he not appreciate the novel as much as most readers? Did he look down on the novel? Was he intimidated by it? Chekhov's silence on the topic is odd. Some critics believe that his reputation suffered because of it. Many readers evaluate an author on the basis of their largest contribution to literature. When a writer composes a lot of smaller works they tend to get overlooked for authors who created one, giant novel. Take Melville and Hawthorne, as an example. Two 19th C American writers who are each well-regarded. By the strength of Moby Dick, however, Melville often looms larger than Hawthorne. Similarly, the big novels of Russian Literature like Crime and Punishment or Anna Karenina push Chekhov's short stories into the background. I think it's silly to define an author by just their best work, but that's often what happens.

Interesting, I wonder about now. I can see how it would cause his work to not be taken as seriously at first. That's sort of a pity, since his stories are so fine. I do think one associates Chekhov with plays such as "The Cherry Orchard." So he was a playwrite and short story author and not a novelist. I could care less. Seems people had a narrow view of what marked an author and his importance. It's still expression in some form. Truly he was an artist!


Well it's not an old wife's tale I'm relating. The covers actually do peal. The material they make those B&N covers out of is so thin, and cardboard-like, that it bends really easily.

Maybe just sitting around the don't peal. I haven't read the new ones yet; I am usually so careful with my books; like I never bend the covers way back. I do however, have so many they are now sitting in piles, which I am not happy about. I need to read them! I am almost finished Heart of Darkness. I liked it very much. Now I will start a new book. One down and many to go!

[Quark]

Yeah, agreed. I would hold off a bit on Henry IV.

The cat might be out of the bag on that one. It was none of my doing. Well, it was kind of my doing. I sent around some messages about maybe starting up the discussion to see if there was any interest. I got mixed reactions: Virgil is busy of course, but some others thought they might post. I was mulling over whether to go ahead with the discussion when mayneverhave decided to start it himself. He wrote a good introduction, actually. It gave a pretty good overview with a couple of interesting observations. I don't know whether there will be much of a follow up, but I'll go ahead and give it a chance. After all, it's probably my only opportunity to discuss the play. If we wait much longer, I won't have time to fit it in. Don't feel obligated to post, though. If you have time for it, great, but I'm not even sure whether the conversation going to take off yet. This summer has been a lazy one for LitNet, and I doubt that's suddenly going to change.

[weltanschauung]

ive read most part of the discussion about the trousseau. i'll probably posst something eventually too.
:)

[Quark]

ive read most part of the discussion about the trousseau. i'll probably posst something eventually too.
:)

I guess this is a little tardy. Sorry about that weltanschauung. I took some time off LitNet and I didn't notice anyone posted anything. I'm glad you like the story or the discussion enough to read the posts. I'd be around to talk about the story if you're still interested, but I know it's been outrageously long since you last posted.

[Janine]

Hi Quark, Dark Muse, weltanschuung, if any of you just happen to be around. I've been missing the Chekhov discussion. I hope we can discuss another story when you get a break from school, Quark. I was checking out some Youtube videos and came across these readings of three short stories. These are from the Kenneth Branagh narrated set In the Ravine. Thought that others here would enjoy listening to these three - all on the more humorous side:

A Story Without A Title ~ Anton Chekhov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIPjVOCJVY

The Orator ~ Anton Chekhov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgGIkR-37j0

Hush ! ~ Anton Chekhov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlom2UBJxJU

[Quark]

Hi Quark, Dark Muse, weltanschuung, if any of you just happen to be around. I've been missing the Chekhov discussion. I hope we can discuss another story when you get a break from school, Quark.

Yeah, I'd like to get back into it as well, but I'd prefer to let someone else run things so that I don't get roped into doing too much work. Of course, I always say that, and then I realize that no one is really up for the slight effort it takes to keep a discussion going. Then, I end up running the thread. Something like that might happen soon. There isn't much going on in the other threads, so I will probably open up a new one. I was thinking about making it a Thomas Hardy thread, since I've read a few of his works recently. I wouldn't mind doing a discussion on some of the novels. They're short, too, so I think I could rope some people into it. Under the Greenwood Tree is less than two-hundred pages, I think.


I was checking out some Youtube videos and came across these readings of three short stories.

Good catch. I'll have to download those onto a CD, so I have something to listen to in the car.

[Janine]

Yeah, I'd like to get back into it as well, but I'd prefer to let someone else run things so that I don't get roped into doing too much work. Of course, I always say that, and then I realize that no one is really up for the slight effort it takes to keep a discussion going. Then, I end up running the thread. Something like that might happen soon. There isn't much going on in the other threads, so I will probably open up a new one. I was thinking about making it a Thomas Hardy thread, since I've read a few of his works recently. I wouldn't mind doing a discussion on some of the novels. They're short, too, so I think I could rope some people into it. Under the Greenwood Tree is less than two-hundred pages, I think.

Hey, Quark, glad to see you back or at least making a guest appearance :lol:....I miss discussing stuff with you. I would love to continue with Chekhov but if you can't do it, I will understand. The L thread is on 'temporary' stagnation, too. I should post something in the thread just to keep it from getting buried...we still have more stories to discuss in the L thread, you know...L was a prolithic author. I know what you mean about giving up the role of directing the thread. If you give it up completely, Quark, it will fall into obscurity...why don't you just put it on hold for a bit longer and we can pick up later on; even if we change formats and discuss a play. I just purchased a boxed set from Amazon of the Chekhov plays on film. The price went way down and I jumped at the oportunity. I own an Ibsen set something like this from the BBC and I love it. Ghost is the best one. Have you every read it?

As far as Hardy is concerned - I love Hardy!!! I have read nearly all his novels. I was big into Hardy about 5 years back; I even joined a Hardy site but then dropped out...wasn't a forum but an email list. I also own most of the adaptations...my favorites are the BBC, the Masterpiece Theater productions and A&E. I would definitely be up to disgussing "Under the Greenwood Tree". I love the story and I own the adaptation which is terrific and captures the book and characters perfectly. It's a short book, too and I own it. I own all my Hardy books I read. What other Hardy works have you read so far? My friend from Japan has studied Hardy extensively. I also read some biography of the author; a very interesting man indeed.


Good catch. I'll have to download those onto a CD, so I have something to listen to in the car.

You can download the videos, if you have the right program. I recently got the abreivated form of Real Player SP. I am thinking of buying the full program...it's pretty cheap really and you can burn the videos.

As far as these are concerned though; these are the stories and narration I believe I send to you back a few years ago on CD's. Kenneth Branagh narrates them....Hey, Quark, you losing your memory...:lol:

Right now I am trying to get ready for Christmas. Debating whether to put up a small tree. I bought my grand-daughter gifts and that is all I need to buy. "Under the Greenwood Tree" IS a Christmas story; or at least, it begins at Christmas and like other Hardy works, goes through all 4 seasons. It's a lovely and fun story. I love it!

[Quark]

Hey, Quark, glad to see you back or at least making a guest appearance :lol:

I have until mid-January off, so I should be able to post for a while.


I would love to continue with Chekhov but if you can't do it, I will understand.

I would definitely be up to disgussing "Under the Greenwood Tree".

I think I'll ask people in the "General Literature" part of the forum what they think. If there's more interest in Chekhov, I'll just start another discussion in this thread. If Hardy is more popular, I'll make a new thread. I'll throw up three titles from each author in a poll, and see what happens. The list will be something like this: The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, "In the Ravine," Under The Greenwood Tree, The Woodlanders, The Mayor of Casterbridge. In any case, I'm going to contact the mods about getting the thread more visibility on the forum. These author pages make it hard to follow the discussions on a single text.


The L thread is on 'temporary' stagnation, too. I should post something in the thread just to keep it from getting buried

These threads are always buried. Anyone casually browsing LitNet would probably overlook both the L thread and the C thread, since they're in the incredibly difficult to navigate author list. It's long been my complaint that the site makes it easy to get to the inane conversations in the "General Literature" forum about who is the worst novelist of all time in the universe, but makes it difficult to find thoughtful discussions of a single text.


...we still have more stories to discuss in the L thread, you know...L was a prolithic author.

It doesn't just amaze me how many he wrote. It amazes me how many he wrote that were good. Many of these more obscure stories that he wrote are surprising good.


If you give it up completely, Quark, it will fall into obscurity...why don't you just put it on hold for a bit longer and we can pick up later on; even if we change formats and discuss a play.

I wouldn't mind doing more with Chekhov, but the thread hasn't generated much interest in the year-and-a-half it's been running. A change might help. If nothing else, creating a new thread gets some attention.


What other Hardy works have you read so far?

I've read most of the novels except Desperate Remedies, Two on a Tower, and that last one which I can never remember the title of. I'm only vaguely aware of his poetry, though.


As far as these are concerned though; these are the stories and narration I believe I send to you back a few years ago on CD's. Kenneth Branagh narrates them....Hey, Quark, you losing your memory...:lol:

Wait, "A Story without a Title" and "Hush" were in that set?



"Under the Greenwood Tree" IS a Christmas story; or at least, it begins at Christmas and like other Hardy works, goes through all 4 seasons. It's a lovely and fun story. I love it!

I would have offered it up to the Christmas Reading Poll if I had gotten here earlier, but I looked in just after they closed the poll.

[Janine]

I have until mid-January off, so I should be able to post for a while.

Oh good. I just found out today our home improvements might be pushed up a bit; local politics...don't ask....:(


I think I'll ask people in the "General Literature" part of the forum what they think. If there's more interest in Chekhov, I'll just start another discussion in this thread. If Hardy is more popular, I'll make a new thread. I'll throw up three titles from each author in a poll, and see what happens. The list will be something like this: The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, "In the Ravine," Under The Greenwood Tree, The Woodlanders, The Mayor of Casterbridge. In any case, I'm going to contact the mods about getting the thread more visibility on the forum. These author pages make it hard to follow the discussions on a single text.
That sounds doable; although I doubt anyone over there is interested. Anymore they like to chit-chat and flirt or worse yet, irritate each other. They might even say "Chekhov, who is he?" humm..."Hardy, who is he?" :lol: "Does he write vampire novels?"...just joking, of course. As far as speaking for myself, I love all three of those Hardy books. For right now, my attention span is terrible, so I would prefer to start with the shortest one. I did read Desperate Remedies and the first TH book I ever read was Two on a Tower...I found it at a yardsale and it introduced me to Hardy. I liked it; but now I don't think it was his best. I think I did however, enjoy Desperate Remedies, if it's the one I am thinking of. I do own them all, and hope to re-read them ALL eventually. Woodlanders is one of my favorite books; Mayor of C is amazing, too...both make me cry. The BBC movie adaptations are good, too but deviate slightly from the book text. I hope my set of plays comes soon; The Cherry Orchard is in that set and Judi Dench stars...that one is suppose to be the best version ever. You should buy that set yourself...on sale now on Amazon. I will look it up for you.


These threads are always buried. Anyone casually browsing LitNet would probably overlook both the L thread and the C thread, since they're in the incredibly difficult to navigate author list. It's long been my complaint that the site makes it easy to get to the inane conversations in the "General Literature" forum about who is the worst novelist of all time in the universe, but makes it difficult to find thoughtful discussions of a single text.

Yeah, tell me about it...exactly my own beef anymore. I can't even find them when I put them through 'search'...what's with that? They used to come up immediately...I would just put 'Lawrence' in and up popped the L short story thread...now I have to wade through tons of pure junk threads and several pages.


It doesn't just amaze me how many he wrote. It amazes me how many he wrote that were good. Many of these more obscure stories that he wrote are surprising good.

Not only that...he wrote tons of wonderfully expressed letters and tons of
novels and tons of commentaries and tons of travel books and tons of poems, etc. etc. etc...and all this while suffering with consumption....which, you know, eventually took his life at an early age. The man truly was amazing! Some of those more obscure stories ended up being my favorites. I finally read all the stories - some two and three times. I will, no doubt, read them all again someday - they are that good!

I am not that into Hardy's poetry...and I don't quite know why. My Japanese friend loves his poetry...I find it difficult. Odd, because he deals with the language barrier. I much prefer his novels but actually Hardy wrote those for a living and prefered his poetry....sort of like Michelangelo believing he was no painter but really a sculpture...yet take one look at the magnificance of the Sistine Chapel and we know he was indeed one of the greatest painters of all time.


I wouldn't mind doing more with Chekhov, but the thread hasn't generated much interest in the year-and-a-half it's been running. A change might help. If nothing else, creating a new thread gets some attention.
I don't want to give up on Chehkov. I finally got into the author more and you disappear. I know you were busy with school and study. I think I can better apply myself to the discussions now. Do you think Dark Muse is still interested in Chekhov? Maybe start a new thread on the plays...what do you think of that idea? True that creating a new thread can generate some new interest.


I've read most of the novels except Desperate Remedies, Two on a Tower, and that last one which I can never remember the title of. I'm only vaguely aware of his poetry, though. Jude the Obsure. That one was not received too well - presented too many delicate topics (sex and religion) for the day; still shocks people, I think. It's a good book, but difficult. Basically, it's the most tragic of all Hardy's novels; a real heart-breaker. Tess of the D'Urbervilles is great. I also love Far from the Madding Crowd. Do consider these two novels, as well. I know you will love reading them...they are page-turners and they are poetic and wonderful!


Wait, "A Story without a Title" and "Hush" were in that set? Eh, yeah....you must have been driving around a bend when these two stories were playing (I recall you listened to them going to your parent's house for the holidays). I will re-check my set; but if you got three cd's from me, they should be on one of those. I have listened to that set countless times now; I really like it a lot. See, Ken Branagh has turned me into a Chekhov fan! I know a women who flew to London to see him in Ivanhov...she did this twice and from Australia! She loved the play and his performance was stunning. The play text was revised by Tom Stoppard, I believe. I have heard some excerpts on Youtube and seen some photos of the production - looks extraordinary. I am jealous I could not have seen it, too.


I would have offered it up to the Christmas Reading Poll if I had gotten here earlier, but I looked in just after they closed the poll.
You know, I thought of it, too; but it was a little too late...I think they had the nominations posted already. Would have been the perfect holiday book; I don't know why Turn of the Screw is, do you? That seems more like Halloween to me. Maybe it takes place at Christmastime.

[Quark]

For right now, my attention span is terrible, so I would prefer to start with the shortest one.

Yeah, I don't want to do too much at the moment. I'm writing up a syllabus, doing Christmas shopping, and trying to be festive at the same time. I fear my Christmas cheer is running a little thin at the moment. I don't think I'll try anything ambitious on LitNet until after New Year's.


The BBC movie adaptations are good, too but deviate slightly from the book text. I hope my set of plays comes soon; The Cherry Orchard is in that set and Judi Dench stars...that one is suppose to be the best version ever. You should buy that set yourself...on sale now on Amazon. I will look it up for you.

If we do one of those, it might be interesting to compare it with the text. I'm sure there's plenty to talk about. Adaptions seem like they're either really excellent or laughably bad--entertaining in any case. I'd love to see a movie try to condense an entire Hardy novel into 120 minutes. Of course, they did a Bleak House movie, so anything is possible.


Yeah, tell me about it...exactly my own beef anymore. I can't even find them when I put them through 'search'...what's with that?

Well, I talked with Niamf a while back--a year ago probably--and said something about starting a subforum for reading groups like these. She seemed up for it, but I wasn't sure which to put into it so the idea never went anywhere. I'll bring it back up with the mods and just put this thread in there. Then, if it looks like a good setup, I'll ask to get more included. That might get these threads more visibility.


Some of those more obscure stories ended up being my favorites.

I thought "White Peacock" and that other infidelity one (the name escapes me) we read were quite good. They were stories I had never heard of, but I thought they stacked up with the major stories like "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." Sometimes the big, canonical works get an undue amount of attention for some very technical innovation they make, and they overshadow other very enjoyable works within an author's career. I think that's definitely the case with Lawrence's short stories. His famous novels and the couple of short stories that make it into anthologies have devalued his other contributions. I'm glad we've taken a look at some of the underrated stories.


I am not that into Hardy's poetry...and I don't quite know why. My Japanese friend loves his poetry...I find it difficult. Odd, because he deals with the language barrier. I much prefer his novels but actually Hardy wrote those for a living and prefered his poetry....sort of like Michelangelo believing he was no painter but really a sculpture...yet take one look at the magnificance of the Sistine Chapel and we know he was indeed one of the greatest painters of all time.

Yeah, Hardy thought his long bloated epic poem on the Napoleonic Wars was his great work. I rolled my eyes so far back I hurt myself when I heard that.


I don't want to give up on Chehkov. I finally got into the author more and you disappear.

I don't think it would be the end of the world if the discussion ended. We've already posted over one-thousand times in here. There is such a thing as beating a dead horse. Maybe something new would be a good change. If we switched over to talking about Hardy, I don't think it would too much of a shock to you since you've already read his entire body of work.


Do you think Dark Muse is still interested in Chekhov?

I think she's more interested in Poe and lyric poetry. That's fine, of course. In fact, I wish I could have given her more help in getting her Poe discussion group off the ground.


Maybe start a new thread on the plays...what do you think of that idea? True that creating a new thread can generate some new interest.

I'll ask around.


Jude the Obsure. That one was not received too well - presented too many delicate topics (sex and religion) for the day; still shocks people, I think. It's a good book, but difficult.

I was actually thinking of the Well-Beloved. Jude is the last of his Novels of Character and Environment--or, his "serious" novels. The Well-Beloved he just considered a long prose work. He started it in 1892 before Jude (1895), but he published the complete work after Jude in 1897. Jude was the last straw with him, though.


I don't know why Turn of the Screw is, do you? That seems more like Halloween to me. Maybe it takes place at Christmastime.

It was an odd choice considering that Dickens' Christmas Carol was also up for vote.

[Dark Muse]

You know, I thought of it, too; but it was a little too late...I think they had the nominations posted already. Would have been the perfect holiday book; I don't know why Turn of the Screw is, do you? That seems more like Halloween to me. Maybe it takes place at Christmastime.

Trading ghost stories was a common form of entertianment in the Victorian age during Christmas time, and so the story of the governesss within The Turn of the Screw is being told on Christmas eve.

Though it does not play a large part in the story, when the story is intruduced it makes a reference to Christmas.

[Quark]

Trading ghost stories was a common form of entertianment in the Victorian age during Christmas time, and so the story of the governesss within The Turn of the Screw is being told on Christmas eve.

Though it does not play a large part in the story, when the story is intruduced it makes a reference to Christmas.

Is that the pitch people used to get the story included in the poll? It seems a little weak. Although, maybe you could make an argument that it widens our conception of what Christmas is. So often everyone wants to have the same kind of Christmas that everyone else is having (you will wear the Rudolf sweater, and you'll like it!!), and we all end up straining to fit an image of what the perfect Holiday season is supposed to be. A ghost story might be a good change.

[Dark Muse]

Is that the pitch people used to get the story included in the poll? It seems a little weak. Although, maybe you could make an argument that it widens our conception of what Christmas is. So often everyone wants to have the same kind of Christmas that everyone else is having (you will wear the Rudolf sweater, and you'll like it!!), and we all end up straining to fit an image of what the perfect Holiday season is supposed to be. A ghost story might be a good change.

Haha, that is just my explination for it, though I have to say I am enjoying reading it, even though it is my second time for this one. I do rather like the Victorian idea of Christmas ghost stories.

I do not think the person who nominated it, said anything regarding thier reasons, and since the selection was not challenged by any other members it was added to the poll, and ended up getting the majority vote.

[Quark]

I do not think the person who nominated it, said anything regarding thier reasons, and since the selection was not challenged by any other members it was added to the poll, and ended up getting the majority vote.

I might give the story a chance in a couple of days. Right now, I'm a little busy with Christmas stuff--contemporary Christmas stuff--to contribute much.

[Dark Muse]

I might give the story a chance in a couple of days. Right now, I'm a little busy with Christmas stuff--contemporary Christmas stuff--to contribute much.

It is a good story.

[Janine]

Yeah, I don't want to do too much at the moment. I'm writing up a syllabus, doing Christmas shopping, and trying to be festive at the same time. I fear my Christmas cheer is running a little thin at the moment. I don't think I'll try anything ambitious on LitNet until after New Year's.

I am hearing you...I almost got into an fight with a lady at a grocery store tonight; she couldn't control her bratty kids in my opinion and she was quite defensive, when I said something to one of them for bumping my cart continually. I had major anxiety at that moment and could not take it; not to mention I was late to my son's house and knew standing in a long line to pick up rotisere chicken was cutting into my precious time with my granddaughter. We both have to take a deep breath and get through this next week...now snow is added to the mix here.....suppose to be pretty bad, so they say. At least tonight I got to see my darling granddaughter.


If we do one of those, it might be interesting to compare it with the text. I'm sure there's plenty to talk about. Adaptions seem like they're either really excellent or laughably bad--entertaining in any case. I'd love to see a movie try to condense an entire Hardy novel into 120 minutes. Of course, they did a Bleak House movie, so anything is possible. I happen to think the adaptations I own are pretty decent ones. Only thing is "Woodlanders" I found out is an abreviated form for the US release; hate it when they do that. "The Mayor of Casterbridge" to me is A1...all the actors are excellent and it's a miniseries; so they could pretty much include everything that was in the book, plot-wise. I love the production! Yes, it would be great to compare them with the actual text and book.


Well, I talked with Niamf a while back--a year ago probably--and said something about starting a subforum for reading groups like these. She seemed up for it, but I wasn't sure which to put into it so the idea never went anywhere. I'll bring it back up with the mods and just put this thread in there. Then, if it looks like a good setup, I'll ask to get more included. That might get these threads more visibility. You mean Niamh? haha..slip typing (?) I would like to see a better organisation of these discussion threads; not sure what the answer to that would be. They definitely need to be more visable and easier to find.


I thought "White Peacock" and that other infidelity one (the name escapes me) we read were quite good. They were stories I had never heard of, but I thought they stacked up with the major stories like "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." Sometimes the big, canonical works get an undue amount of attention for some very technical innovation they make, and they overshadow other very enjoyable works within an author's career. I think that's definitely the case with Lawrence's short stories. His famous novels and the couple of short stories that make it into anthologies have devalued his other contributions. I'm glad we've taken a look at some of the underrated stories. It was 'Wintry Peacock'; "White Peacock" was Lawrence's first published novel. I read it and liked it very much, although it is not as developed and polished as his other works; the seeds of his later works are in that novel; there are a lot of beautifully poetic and lovely passages. I think the infidelity one you are thinking of is 'Witch A La Mode'...that one was great I thought...we did such an indept discussion on it and on the other; that made it really special, too. Some of L's less known books have actually left an deep impression on me. The last one I read was "Boy in the Bush" and I really loved it. It has a surprising ending but still I liked it a lot. I now own an early miniseries of the book which follows pretty closely but not entirely. I enjoy that as well. The book was originally not considered a major work by L because he collaborated on the storyline. Now scholars agree that the book is entirely Lawrence and I would agree with that. For some reason I can't stop thinking about that novel. It's set in Western Australia during the 1800's.


Yeah, Hardy thought his long bloated epic poem on the Napoleonic Wars was his great work. I rolled my eyes so far back I hurt myself when I heard that. Oh wow; now see, I don't really like long epic poems like that. I don't have the attention span for them at all. I just can't get into his poems; I can't seem to find the flow or rhythm; do you know what I mean? Yet he is considered a major poet.


I don't think it would be the end of the world if the discussion ended. We've already posted over one-thousand times in here. There is such a thing as beating a dead horse. Maybe something new would be a good change. If we switched over to talking about Hardy, I don't think it would too much of a shock to you since you've already read his entire body of work.

:lol: Really, you don't think it would be the end of the world...well people in NJ think it is now that snow is predicted a week before Christmas! My son went to a supermarket tonight and he asked the manager if a boom had fallen - the shelves were whiped out! Ok, back to literature - sure, something new might be overdue here. I know a lot of people have listed Hardy in their favorite authors in their profile information - perhaps they will respond.



I think she's more interested in Poe and lyric poetry. That's fine, of course. In fact, I wish I could have given her more help in getting her Poe discussion group off the ground. I feel badly I never joined in one of the discussions; I would have liked to sample some Poe myself.


I'll ask around. Good idea.


I was actually thinking of the Well-Beloved. Jude is the last of his Novels of Character and Environment--or, his "serious" novels. The Well-Beloved he just considered a long prose work. He started it in 1892 before Jude (1895), but he published the complete work after Jude in 1897. Jude was the last straw with him, though. Yep, right...I read that book ages ago...but was it "Well-Beloved" or just "Beloved" ? It somehow doesn't sound right but I know I read that book because my Japanese friend suggested it and he knows about the real life connections to the characters in that story. Personally, I didn't like the work as well as Hardy's other novels. Maybe I didn't get it. My Japanese friend apparently did get it and he liked it very much.


It was an odd choice considering that Dickens' Christmas Carol was also up for vote.

I still think so, too. To me it's stretching it a bit to have picked that novel, even if they mention Christmastime in the beginning.

[Quark]

I am hearing you...I almost got into an fight with a lady at a grocery store tonight

Yikes. That's tense.


I happen to think the adaptations I own are pretty decent ones. Only thing is "Woodlanders" I found out is an abreviated form for the US release; hate it when they do that. "The Mayor of Casterbridge" to me is A1...all the actors are excellent and it's a miniseries

I'll YouTube it.


You mean Niamh? haha..slip typing (?)

Yes, that's the one. What did I say? Niamf? Niammph? I always get names wrong. But, in any case, I want to ask around about setting up a subforum--maybe in the General Literature section--that would list these reading groups. When I first came to LitNet, I thought that the entire forum was devoted to reading groups like this. After all, the first thread I walked into was the Lawrence thread. Little did I know that these threads are actually the minority, and the few that are active are pushed to the sides. I think a subforum--or something like that--would be a great way to get these discussion more attention.


It was 'Wintry Peacock'; "White Peacock" was Lawrence's first published novel.

Of course. Yeah, I switched the names. The story I'd actually like to read is the "Prussian Officer." Someone mentioned it in the "Help me with a Quotation" thread, and it occurred to me that I hadn't read it. Supposedly, it is one of the major works.


Yep, right...I read that book ages ago...but was it "Well-Beloved" or just "Beloved" ?

I'm pretty sure it's Well-Beloved. Beloved is a Toni Morrison novel, I think.

[Dark Muse]

I'm pretty sure it's Well-Beloved. Beloved is a Toni Morrison novel, I think.

Yes, Beloved is a novel by Toni Morriosn

[Quark]

Just bumping this thread so that it stays on the top of the Chekhov threads. Don't mind me.

[Janine]

Just bumping this thread so that it stays on the top of the Chekhov threads. Don't mind me.

Oh yeah Quark, I do that with the L one occasionally. Right now I am stagnant and trying to decide on a story. I need to reply to your post a few back.

You are right, Dark Muse. I had them mixed up.

[Janine]

Yikes. That's tense. Don't worry, I didn't take any action. :lol:

I'll YouTube it. Did you? I love that film and watched it again not long after I brought it up in here.


Yes, that's the one. What did I say? Niamf? Niammph? I always get names wrong. But, in any case, I want to ask around about setting up a subforum--maybe in the General Literature section--that would list these reading groups. When I first came to LitNet, I thought that the entire forum was devoted to reading groups like this. After all, the first thread I walked into was the Lawrence thread. Little did I know that these threads are actually the minority, and the few that are active are pushed to the sides. I think a subforum--or something like that--would be a great way to get these discussion more attention.

It's an idea. What exactly though is a subforum?
It's spelled Niamh...it's not an easy spelling to remember or pronounce.


Of course. Yeah, I switched the names. The story I'd actually like to read is the "Prussian Officer." Someone mentioned it in the "Help me with a Quotation" thread, and it occurred to me that I hadn't read it. Supposedly, it is one of the major works.

We read that one and discussed it in length. How did you miss out? Maybe you hadn't joined the group yet. It's a great story. Do read it. It's longer than some but it goes along quickly. I know you will like that one. You can still find the discussion in the L thread closer to the beginning. May have been the second or third story we did. Virgil picked that one.

I'm pretty sure it's Well-Beloved. Beloved is a Toni Morrison novel, I think.[/QUOTE]

It is! I hadn't read it for a long time and I forgot.

Good to see you back on the forum Quark. You have been missed.

[Quark]

I'll YouTube it. Did you?

Of course. I love film adaptations. It was pretty good. I thought that was a particularly hard novel to do, though. The characters are so larger than life that it's hard not to be disappointed when you see some random twit actor playing Henchard.


It's an idea. What exactly though is a subforum?

Subforums are those forums within forums. The "Serious Discussion" section of the "General Chat" section is a subforum.

I floated the idea of user-started bookclub forum, but that didn't get much support. It looks like we'll have to stay in the author's forum for the time being.


We read that one and discussed it in length. How did you miss out? Maybe you hadn't joined the group yet.

I think it was before my time. There were a few stories before I got involved.

I'll check it out next time I'm at the library.


Good to see you back on the forum Quark. You have been missed.

And good to see you. It's been a while.

[Janine]

Of course. I love film adaptations. It was pretty good. I thought that was a particularly hard novel to do, though. The characters are so larger than life that it's hard not to be disappointed when you see some random twit actor playing Henchard.

What twit actor? This is the one I saw and own - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L29y7-BaRDM
starring the fine actors Ciaran Hinds and Polly Walker, James Purfoy, and others as well. It's the best production out there in my view.


Subforums are those forums within forums. The "Serious Discussion" section of the "General Chat" section is a subforum. Ok, then I get it.


I floated the idea of user-started bookclub forum, but that didn't get much support. It looks like we'll have to stay in the author's forum for the time being.
I think it's fine where is at if we keep it up to date...still shows up in "Today's Posts".


I think it was before my time. There were a few stories before I got involved. Yeah, you probably weren't born yet. :lol:


I'll check it out next time I'm at the library. Just don't spill coffee on the story!

[/quote]And good to see you. It's been a while.[/QUOTE] It has and wish I could report good health, but I think I am having a relapse of symptoms/infection today. I will probably have to call my doctor on monday, once again. Took antibiotics for 10 days, been off them over a week and now symptoms are back. Not sure what the answer is. This is very frustrating.

[Quark]

What twit actor? This is the one I saw and own - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L29y7-BaRDM
starring the fine actors Ciaran Hinds and Polly Walker, James Purfoy, and others as well. It's the best production out there in my view.

The cast was quite good, but some of the characters in Hardy's novel lose something when you see them in person. Henchard is such a perfect representation of desire and ambition vying with personal affection in the novel, and I can't help feel that it loses something when you see Henchard as just some guy in the film. I think the actors and actresses did a fine job, though--especially for a film adaptation. Some of them can have some pretty wooden performances. I watched Dombey and Son the other day, and it was pretty intolerable--although the actor playing Carker was excellent.


Just don't spill coffee on the story!

The library is lucky if they get the books back from me--let alone without marks or damage. I'm horrible with library books.


It has and wish I could report good health, but I think I am having a relapse of symptoms/infection today.

Ugh. That's no good. Well, medicinal tea for you:

http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_087081WGM_966225.jpg

[Bookworm3.14]

I would just like to say that I really enjoyed "The Lady with the Little Dog." It had a mysterious ending as well.

[aoceanak]

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind while reading Chekhov is how wonderfully he is able to stick with his two main criteria for writing; it should be clear and to the point, and easily understood. He doesn't add extra fluff, he just tells brilliant stories. He brings you in a journey of falling in love with the wrong person at the wrong time and realizing that you will not ever again be satisfied unless you make that the right person and this the right time

[Mr. princh]

This thread is for the overall discussion of Chekhov and his short stories. I happen to be a big fan of Chekhov, and am willing to discuss the themes, enigmas, and ironies of his stories with this forum community. I'd like to start with Rothschild's Violin, since it's my favorite Chekhov story thus far (I play violin, so maybe that's why!). I'll let someone else start the discussion, so I can have the opportunity to read people's insights without my interference.
Rothchild's Fiddle is an excellent story some one said( I think it was Gorky ) that Chekhov could compress a life time into ten pages, how right he was. Two of of my favorites has always been Ward 6 and A Boring Story. His characterization is superb I think it was his greatest strength as a writer.

[YesNo]

I picked up a selection of Chekhov stories a few days ago at a used book store. Maybe this thread will motivate me to read them.

[Danik 2016]

On Chekhov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov

201 Stories by Anton Chekhov (This looks like a preciosity):
http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/

[YesNo]

I read Chekhov's story, "Vanka", last night. It is here in your list Danik: http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/095.htm The translation's different, but it looks like the full story. It was about five pages.

Vanka is very young. His parents are now both dead and he only has a grandfather who has positioned him as an apprentice to a shoemaker. This seems like a good choice but Vanka feels abused by his master and he is lonely. He wants to go home and writes a letter to his grandfather explaining his problems and asking to be taken home. Vanka's mother taught him to read, but he was inexperienced in sending letters. Perhaps the letter arrived, perhaps not. We are left with Vanka putting his letter in a box without return address nor with very clear directions where to deliver the letter. It was likely lost, but he was happy and with hope he went to sleep on that Christmas Eve after the others left him to go to midnight Mass.

[Danik 2016]

I think this list contains all his stories. I read "The Orator" and "Misery" and the translation seemed to be very fluent.
"The Orator" is a very funny story, sort of dark Russian humour."Misery" is a very sad but very realistic story.
I got the impression that you like the story of Vanka.

[YesNo]

Yes, I liked the story. I could feel empathy for Vanka wondering what happened to him after reading that story. Yesterday I read "The Privy Councilor" next in the book I have: http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/063.htm It is about a family who receives a visit from a brother who has some high government role. There is something wrong with the brother, perhaps dementia, and he gets himself into a lot of trouble with the family and the servants associated with it. The story is told from the perspective of a boy who doesn't understand what is going on, but gives the reader enough information to guess.

I'll read "The Orator" and "Misery". The collection I have only has 28 stories in it. ("The Portable Chekhov")

[Danik 2016]

I liked "The Privy Councilor" very much. A touching story, told with humour and sensibility. I think you are right, the councelor keeps forgetting names and persons. And in his innocence he reveals something that would have remained hidden if he hadn´t visited his sister.

[YesNo]

"The Orator" and "Misery" were as you described them. In "Misery", at least he could talk to his horse.

[Danik 2016]

I´m starting to like Chekhov's realism much more than I did before. And the translations of this thread are fluent. I intend to read all the stories, bit by bit.

[YesNo]

I plan to read them all as well. I started "A Calamity" yesterday but got distracted. It is called "A Misfortune" here: http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/073.htm

Whoever owned the book before highlighted the following of the 28 selected stories. This is like a selection of a selection, so I will read them first, in case I don't make it through all of them:

Vanka
A Calamity
The Chameleon
The Culprit
Heartache
The Letter
The Name-Day Party
Anna on the Neck
About Love
The Darling
The Lady With the Pet Dog
At Christmas Time

[Danik 2016]

I liked the suggestions of Eldrich Press too. Maybe I shall interpolate the reading with other texts too enjoy the stories better.
I read "A Misfortune" but I much prefer "The Privy Councilor". It´s more original. There are so many 19/20 C literary stories about women who commit adultery out of boredom.

[YesNo]

"Heartache" is "Misery"

"The Chameleon" is about a dog and wondering if it is a stray or the General's dog. Opinions change on what to do with the dog depending on the owner. This is humorous.

"The Culprit" is about a guy who unbolts parts of passenger trains so he can use the nut as a weight for fishing. Apparently it was a common practice. He's arrested and sent to hard labor. It left me puzzled, but I can see the story as a humorous piece if one is in the right mood.

I didn't particularly like "A Calamity" although the details were interesting. It was a story of adultery out of boredom as you mentioned.

That leaves in the short list:

The Letter
The Name-Day Party
Anna on the Neck
About Love
The Darling
The Lady With the Pet Dog
At Christmas Time

[Danik 2016]

Read "The Chameleon" today. It´s the dogs luck that the chief of police doesn´t know where the dog coes from. And Russian authorities are very much like Brazilian. The treatment of a street dog is very different of the one given to a dog that belongs to an important person.

[YesNo]

The Chameleon was funny. I haven't read any more of the stories, but I may get a chance today. I am also thinking of reading Balzac's Droll Stories, but that would be for another thread.

[Danik 2016]

As usually when animals are involved, I was angry with the treatment of the dog and so I didn´t think the story so funny. But it was a good satire of the police officer.
I´ll see if I can find Balzac´s Droll Stories.

[Danik 2016]

As usually when animals are involved, I was angry with the treatment of the dog and so I didn´t think the story so funny. But it was a good satire of the police officer.
I´ll see if I can find Balzac´s Droll Stories.

[YesNo]

I didn't like Hrukin putting his cigarette out on the dog's nose either, but it was an effective way for Chekhov to show that the dog's accuser lack of empathy. I suppose it is more satire than comedy.

I read "The Letter" http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/116.htm and "At Christmas Time" http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/198.htm. Chekhov's bad guys are people who lack empathy. His good guys express their suffering which should have been evident to the others, but isn't.

"The Letter" was satirically humorous. An alcoholic wanted a drink. A deacon wanted to be a good father and send his son a letter advising him how to behave. The chief deacon wrote the letter for him. These three have different motivations and different levels of empathy toward that son.

The story "At Christmas Time" was heartbreaking. The contrast between suffering and the lack of empathy here was very sharp. It was the best story so far and very much like "Vanka".

[Danik 2016]

Read "At Christmas Time" just now, I had not noticed that you had added to your post.
I agree with the contrast between feelings and lack of empathy. Chekhov´s world is a very hard world and that makes it sound very up to date.
Taken away the snow, this could have been a Brazilian story. Many people are iliterate and therefore in some public places like the Central Train Station in Rio de Janeiro there are people that write letters for a small amount.
I´ll read "The Letter" tomorrow.

[YesNo]

I'm glad you posted, Danik! This will get me back reading Chekhov. It is amazing how distracted I get. "At Christmas Time" is how I see Chekhov in my mind especially the ending to that story. It is interesting that this could represent Rio de Janeiro today. I tend to assume everyone is literate with access to email, but I know that can't be the case.

[Danik 2016]

I must have got distracted too, for only yesterday I noticed you had added two more stories to your post.
In Brazil there still is a lot of iliteracy, allthough many people use the message funtion of their smatphones. I assume that in US most people, even the poor, have learnt to read and write.

[Danik 2016]

I enjoyed "The Letter" very much. It´s very typical the awe both the less educated clerics have of the written words. I liked the ironical ending too.

[YesNo]

I read "About Love" yesterday. http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/191.htm

It is another story about the breakup of a family due to affections by an outsider. There was no actual adultery as I read it. What I like about it is the power of thought.

[Danik 2016]

Just finished "About Love". Why, I thought it an almost romantic story clad in realistic musings.

I read a story of his called "The cat", which is very typical too, but couldn´t find it in this collection. It is not "The Incident".

[YesNo]

Searching for Chekhov and cat brought up The Incident. I didn't see something like that in the list of titles either. Maybe searching for the name of a character in the story would find it better.

"About Love" was romantic in the apparent longing between the three people involved. It left all three of them alone. I might have been missing the point of it.

[Danik 2016]

Certainly not, Yes/No. I meant they are romantic in their longings. This story made me realise an aspect of Chekhov I had not noticed before: how the longings of his protagonists are usually crushed by an implacable and indiferent reality.

Just finished reading "Vanka". I liked it very much. You learn about the life of the boy through the letter (though his grandfather probably never will, because the boy didn´t stamp the letter). But living in a country with so much iliteracy I couldn´t help wondering about how wonderfully young Vanka did express himself.
I think the great curse of iliteracy is not the writing part. It is the inability to express oneself.

[Danik 2016]

It is still not the story I was looking for. But to me it is an example of wrong pedagogy:

http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/094.htm

[YesNo]

Good point about being crushed by an implacable and indifferent reality.

I found it odd that Vanka could write so well, but I let that go because the overall story was so nice. What I mainly remember is his belief that the letter would be delivered and this gave him peace.

[Danik 2016]

Just read "A Transgression":http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/124.htm

A very good story with an unexpected ending!

[YesNo]

I read "Anna on the neck": http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/180.htm It was about poverty, money and beauty rising above it all but not in a beautiful way.

[Danik 2016]

I agree with you. But I guess at the beginning choices for Anna were limited. Having married a man she didn´t even like because of her family, she learnt to make the best of a bad job, and live the way she liked.

[YesNo]

I read A Transgression after you mentioned it. It does have an unusual ending.

The story "Anna on the neck" got me thinking yesterday about groups of people and how they "evolve". In this story the family groupings were shifting as they must with each new generation as members of the groups make their choices. The original family because of the father's alcoholism was at risk. The children tried to keep it together. The daughter was able to escape, but at the price of not being able to solidify a family of her own. Her husband wasn't able to create a family or he would have done so by now. That makes three characters in the story who are not able to support a stable family group. Although the daughter looks like she is in good shape her indifference to her brothers and hostility toward her husband makes me suspect there is tragedy in store for her as well.

It is also interesting how Chekhov used addiction, in particular, alcoholism. Clearly the father was at fault for his inability to control his drinking. This the reader would pick up on easily, but so was his son-in-law who had no alcohol problem at all and explicitly criticized his father-in-law's drinking. His son-in-law's careerism may have been an addiction as bad as alcoholism as far as his new family is concerned. He is paying the price through his trophy wife whom he now can't get rid of. His daughter, also not an alcoholic, was addicted to socializing.

[Danik 2016]

I agree with you, I think one of the things Chekhov depicts in several of his stories are the social relationships. The indifferent ones (those without empathy) are very often the rich and/or powerful ones. The dependents, which often suffer from this indifference are the poor, the children the animals. Anna would be a social climber. She is born in a poor family and has this father, who is addicted to alcohol. By marrying a rich man she doesn´t care for she first intends to provide for her family. But as she discovers her own female power she loses the fear from her husband and learns to provide for herself. But Chekhov stops short of a possible tragedy. In the French realism, which is still harder the story would probably include the tragedy.

[Danik 2016]

Read "Grisha" a portrayal of a very small boy, who is going out for the first time. http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/056.htm

[YesNo]

Chekhov's story sets up the tension for even deeper tragedy as you mention. I'll read Grisha tonight.

[Danik 2016]

Yes, sometimes Chekhov seems to suggest another end for the story, one that goes beyond his own end and is born of the imagination of the readers.

[Danik 2016]

Just read "A Trifle from Life" another story with a little boy as protagonist. He was very observant of small creatures, it seems.

http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/083.htm

[YesNo]

Taking the perspective of a two-year-old was interesting in Grisha.