Chekhov Short Story Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I think Lawrence was saying that we should keep love a mystery for the reasons Alekhin argues that we can't question love. Understanding love would disrupt the pleasure of the experience.

---

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

Quote:

---

The reader of "About Love", however, is left with a mystery simply because the problem is unsolvable, not because it ruins the experience. We stay away from conclusions, not because of enjoyment, but because we just don't know.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

I see what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

Lawrence's mystery means a resistance to intellect. This puts him in agreement with Alekhin. As we've noticed, though, "About Love" does not entirely agree with Alekhin. There's an acceptance of the possibility of Alekhin's argument, but there's also several questions surrounding his story. It's ambiguous, and that's the mystery that surrounds this story.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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