Well, I would really like to do "The Trouseau"; then do a play after. What do you think?
What was the thread called before this?
Printable View
Well, I would really like to do "The Trouseau"; then do a play after. What do you think?
What was the thread called before this?
I will see how things look for me in a few weeks and participate if I can. But I would defineintly be in favor of a story that was on the shorter side for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That would be great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
It originally was called just "Chekhov" which I thought was a little bare. I asked the mods to change it, and they humored me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
We probably will do something short--like four to seven pages. Well, that is if we do one. Really, I'm just throwing this out there to see if there's any interest. If not, I might just wait some more until we get more people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Cool, so we could do "The Trouseau" next month, do you think, Quark...then work up to the play in the summer? I am anxious to get back to some Chekhov.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: Quark,...you are 'simplistic' minded! (note: I did not 'simple' haha). Glad those nice mods changed it. I do think it appropriate to be called 'Chekhov Short Story Thread' since that draws so many to this thread (oh yeah, thousands;), they are beating down the door). Hey, Quark, I am here now and you and possibly Dark Muse. It only really takes two, three to discuss a story if others can't make it one month. At least, we can keep the thread going. Lately, it had been falling into obscurity again. Gladys and I had a discussion (just the two of us) on a Ibsen play and it was quite good and in-depth. It just takes two for any discussion to take place; of course, more participants is better, but not always feasible because of school work and exams, etc.Quote:
It originally was called just "Chekhov" which I thought was a little bare. I asked the mods to change it, and they humored me.
That would be great. I chose a short one for Lawrence thread this month, too; but so far it is not yet off the ground. Delays could not be helped. Short ones won't overwhelm us at this time. I would be up for "The Ravine" in the summer months, too. Maybe we can plain both - that story and a nice Chekhov play. I would personally love to see a Russian Play thread. I bought a book not long ago of several Russian Plays and it might be fun to explore them that way. What do you think of the idea?Quote:
We probably will do something short--like four to seven pages. Well, that is if we do one. Really, I'm just throwing this out there to see if there's any interest. If not, I might just wait some more until we get more people.
That would work. I know you have that one on CD, and I'm sure I have it in a book somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Which story do you think you'll read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I figure we'll do a play when more people join. It usually takes longer to do a dramatic work, and it might get a little dull if it were just the two of us talking about the same play for a month. Maybe this goes for "In the Ravine," too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Great, let's start with this one. Can we find the text online, so I can quote from it as well? Or, maybe it's in the book you sent to me; the coffee stain edition - I will never let you live that one down! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Go back to Lawrence thread, I just reposed my introduction page. You will like my creative picture. I posted this page 3 times by now! You guys!:brickwallQuote:
Which story do you think you'll read?
Ok, I take the hint; I am a boring person:(....Quote:
I figure we'll do a play when more people join. It usually takes longer to do a dramatic work, and it might get a little dull if it were just the two of us talking about the same play for a month. Maybe this goes for "In the Ravine," too.
It's just a joke; I agree but we will have to go canvasing *door to door to get some interested participants. Track down those Chekhov enthusiasts. Detective Janine will get right on the case; or as Virgil likes to refer to me Miss Marple! Miss Marple is going to bed now.:D
*door to door = profile page to profile page
If Chekhov wrote it you can find it on LitNet. They have a huge selection here: http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
It's not in the coffee book. "The Trousseau" is a slightly less known story, so it usually isn't anthologized. I liked it, though, and it's the right length. I think it would be a good first story to read.
I see it now--good image--but your link is defective. I'm sure I can find the story, but you might want to fix that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You said it, and not me. (I kid, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I did that when the thread started. I might bother people again, but I think I'll wait until it gets closer to when we'll be reading the story. It's still going to be a while until I can start a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Seriously? All C's work is on this very site; everything he wrote? I will check it out then. Thanks, Quark!Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You are right. I just checked out the 'coffee' book and it's not in that one or in my other anthology. That's ok; I like listening to it being read. I can then better check the actual text as we go along and you post it.Quote:
It's not in the coffee book. "The Trousseau" is a slightly less known story, so it usually isn't anthologized. I liked it, though, and it's the right length. I think it would be a good first story to read.
The 'coffee' book sounds like a book you keep on your coffee table! :lol:
Is the link defective or just taking you to the main Guttenburg Lawrence works page? I posted two links, I believe, and one is that particular volume of the stories, which contains this 'Wintery Peacock', but you have to scroll down to find the actual story. I will, however, check it again. Maybe, the links just do not work at all. Strange.Quote:
I see it now--good image--but your link is defective. I'm sure I can find the story, but you might want to fix that.
I left myself open for that one! :lol:Quote:
You said it, and not me. (I kid, of course).
Well, we must keep doing it. Many of those people may no longer be here. I have keep my ears perked up at all times to hear someone claim they are a Lawrence fan and then I urge them to come join in with the short story thread. I am always canvasing for new recruits! It's a full-time job. But you are right, wait till closer to the actual discussion date. I did that recently for Lawrence thread and then discussion kept getting pushed up and postponed and now I have to go and round everyone up again. I now still intend to begin Friday because we have enough to start and any further delays will be disasterous; they will all depart forever.Quote:
I did that when the thread started. I might bother people again, but I think I'll wait until it gets closer to when we'll be reading the story. It's still going to be a while until I can start a discussion.
Quark, Is this in part in your signature still valid; is this discussion planned for 3 weeks from now?
Quote:
"Just three weeks until the Chekhov discussion starts again! I know everyone can't wait.
Oh, and if anyone has a particular story they want to suggest just stop by the thread and name it. I have my favorites, of course, but I'm always open to suggestions."
Not quite, but, yes, a lot of it is here. Before the discussion starts, I'll post an introduction to the story and a link to the full text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Funny, but I probably wouldn't put that thing on my coffee table. Those Norton editions look so massive and studious. I would try to get something more accessible. The coffee book is great for discussion, though, since it's got so many stories and there's criticism right in the back on the stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Just to clarify, I'll try to get the thread going again sometime next week. I might post an intro to the story this weekend and see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I will try and see if I can get the story read. But I haven't been doing very well over in the D.L. thread.
Better than me--I hadn't posted a word in the Lawrence thread until yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Oh good, Quark, I will join in for certain. Timing is good. I like that story very much. I think we will discover more about it, as we discuss the various elements and imagery in the story. I thought it was well constructed. I will listen to the narration this week; probably a few times over.
Is this story text on this site, Quark? I can probably find it on Project Guttenberg. They seem to have everything. I will go and look right now. Great - looking forward to your introduction. Will you have a picture accompany it; you know how I like those illustrations!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You mean the coffee-stained book? haha - that's not very big. You should see the books my father left me; those are massive and heavy to hold up to read, especially since I prefer to read in bed. Yes, that part of the 'coffee' book does have some good criticisms in it; I noticed that. Thanks again! Glad you spilled you Starbucks that day.:lol:Quote:
Funny, but I probably wouldn't put that thing on my coffee table. Those Norton editions look so massive and studious. I would try to get something more accessible. The coffee book is great for discussion, though, since it's got so many stories and there's criticism right in the back on the stories.
Quark, I am looking forward to it so much. I actually missed Chekhov. I have been meaning to read his play "The Cherry Orchard". I was on a streak of reading plays, but now I switched to short stories. I was attempting to read all the Lawrence ones I have not yet read. I have read more than half by now, maybe 3/4's. He sure wrote a lot of stories!Quote:
Just to clarify, I'll try to get the thread going again sometime next week. I might post an intro to the story this weekend and see what happens.
It is, but I want to read over a few different translations before I post a link to one. When Dark Muse and I read over "Sleepy" we noticed how different one translation was from another, and the different slant each can give to the story. My favorite translations had the line "that foe was the baby"--really, the climax of the story--as a separate paragraph, and I thought that made a big difference. Seeing that line alone draws attention to it, and makes it more chilling. When it's lumped in with the rest of the text, the story loses a lot of its shock. I assume that I'll find something similar when I read through different translations of "The Trousseau," so I'd like to find the best one before I tell everyone to go to a certain page. If you want a text to work with for the moment, though, there is one on the author page here on Lit Net.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Later, I'll post a link to the text when I introduce the story this weekend.
I already have at least one, but the intro is going to be so long that I might use multiple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yeah, I've been wanting to get back to this for a while. Right now, I'm trying to educate myself a little more about Chekhov's biography and Russian history. For as much Russian Lit as I read you would think I would know more about the country and the writers, but I'm remarkably unaware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think the short stories are his best, but I'd like to do a play eventually. Maybe we'll build up to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Apparently. How long have you been reading Lawrence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, good, that makes sense. We leave it up to your decretion then; in here, you are the leader. Whichever one you pick, we will be fine with that. Thanks for all your hard work, Quark! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Great!Quote:
Later, I'll post a link to the text when I introduce the story this weekend.
Truly? or are you just joking?...haha...don't give too much of the story away...Quote:
I already have at least one, but the intro is going to be so long that I might use multiple.
Here I thought you were a regular Russian Lit expert! ;) Well, good for you, studying more of the Russian history!Quote:
Yeah, I've been wanting to get back to this for a while. Right now, I'm trying to educate myself a little more about Chekhov's biography and Russian history. For as much Russian Lit as I read you would think I would know more about the country and the writers, but I'm remarkably unaware.
Well, I didn't particular mean to discuss; I just have wanted to read it for ages. I bought a book of several Russian author's plays. I am anxious to read those soon. They are just from Dover, so I don't know how good the interpretation is. That's the thing with reading works other than our own native language. I never used to think about it before but since I joined on here, I feel I own a lot of inferior translations. Pity, cause I have a lot of classic books, many from my father. But then again, I am not that much of a purest.Quote:
I think the short stories are his best, but I'd like to do a play eventually. Maybe we'll build up to that.
Since about 1979, 80...seriously, I think that is when I discovered him. :lol: Were you even born yet? Someone told me about his books and I read "Women in Love" first. I loved the book and some of my short story paperbacks are from that era, too. I only discovered when I joined here, that they did not contain the entire collection of SS's; that's in the 3 volumes. Now I am checking off (in pencil) ones I've read, in that edition; since it lists all three volumes, even though it's only Volume III. Then, I read "The Rainbow", "Aaron's Rod", "Lady Chatterly's Lover", "Sons and Lovers", and mostly all of the novellas. Recently, I read "The White Peacock" (his first novel), "The Trespasser" (his second novel), "Kangaroo", "The Plumed Serpent", and his collaboration "The Boy in the Bush"; and I got into his biographies in the last 10 yrs. I have even read many of the novels and stories twice, thrice. Even though I feel, that I read a great deal of Lawrence, I know there is still a great deal more to read. The author was super prolithic! I have a book of his posthumous writings and many books of his critical analysis, and his letters, not to mention his philosophy books. I did read one of those. Did I mention all the films I own based on his work? You could say I have a full Lawrence collection by now, and I keep my eye out for more. I even have a book on the works of Lawrence on film. It's fascinating.Quote:
Apparently. How long have you been reading Lawrence?
I have never read any of Chekhov. Which story are you planning to discuss soon here? Let me read it so that I can decide whether to join in or not. I have only one week before going back to a full load of work.
Do you know Wikipedia gives a very good description of Chekhov?
I got this quote from the site: "Medicine is my lawful wife," he once said, "and literature is my mistress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov
I think I will be a reader of your discussion since I haven't read any of his work besides I may not have time then anyway.
Hi Jinjang, I am on to you; you edited, didn't you? haha..I was in here reading your post earlier. It's up to you but at least you may be able to read the story and add something from time to time. The story, I am fairly certain, will be 'The Trousseu.' Not sure I spelled that correctly. Anyway, read Quark's post above. He explains he will post the text and direct us to the online text that is the best translation. I have this particular story on a set narrated by the actor Kenneth Branagh and it's wonderful. I loved the story. It's different, too. All of Chekhov's are that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
Today I picked up a book of Chekhov's stories. I've read the first two out of the following:
The Confession
He Understood
At Sea
A Nincompoop
Surgery
Ninochka
A Cure for Drinking
The Jailer Jailed
The Dance Pianist
The Milksop
Marriage in Ten or Fifteen Years
In Spring
Agafya
The Kiss
The Father
In Exile
Three Years
The House with the Mansard
Peasants
The Darling
I very much enjoyed The Confession for its humor and dry wit.
:D You caught me but I always edit. I do not think there is any posting of mine without editing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
After reading Chekhov's biography here and Wikipedia, I thought it best to observe your discussion first and I was tiptoeing away, hoping nobody has seen me here.:D
Quark's Self-Congratulatory 1000th Post!
Now I'm only 5,802 behind Janine. Nonetheless, though, it feels good to reach quadruple digits.
Anyway, let me respond to some posts.
It is going to be a long intro. I might have to break it up into two posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
No, not quite. I don't think I discovered Lawrence until I was in my late teens--early 2000's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Apparently. Were you aware of this when you set out to read the entire Lawrence canon? I would think it would be a little daunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
We're reading "The Trousseau" next week. It's only a few pages long, so it shouldn't be that difficult to read through.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
Yeah, Chekhov's time was split between medicine and writing. He could have supported himself by writing alone, but he always felt a connection to medicine and science. Chekhov didn't see these pursuits as opposites, though, and what he learned from one profession he would use in another. Through his patients, Chekhov gained a wider knowledge of people, and through his scientific training he gained a respect for observation and honesty. He would later say in 1899 "I have no doubt that the study of medicine has had an important influence on my literary work; it has considerably enlarged the sphere of my observations ... Familiarity with the natural sciences and with scientific method has always kept me on my guard, and I have always tried where it was possible to be consistent with the facts of science, and where it was impossible." He wanted to tell "the absolute and honest truth" and not a fantasy about "only honest mayors, high-minded ladies, and virtuous railway contractors." Many of the people around him thought he should stop dividing his attention, but Chekhov thought that all his different pursuits were integral to the person he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
That's understandable. It's best not to try too many things at once. If you get time later on, feel free to post something. I'm sure we'll do more than one story.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
That's an odd list. There are some pretty obscure stories they threw in there. I don't know if I've even read "The Jailer Jailed" and "He Understood." I'll have to check them out. Were they some of his earlier, more humorous works? So far in the thread we've read a lot of the tragic stories, so it would be a good change of pace to read something a little more lighthearted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
They're very funny so far.
That's great, Quark! Afterall, you have a job and I don't! 1000 post is to be very proud of. CONGRATULATIONS! Excuse me, for not quoting you above in 7 point size! :lol: I was laughing my fool head off. How could we miss your impressively 'large' post? :lol: Quark, you always go in for a grand dramatic effect! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You will never catch up to me and Virgil! haha...hey, maybe we could celebrate my 6000, when I hit that landmark...doesn't look too far off. If we leave it to me, it will pass right by me, and I won't even take notice. You better remind me.Quote:
Now I'm only 5,802 behind Janine. Nonetheless, though, it feels good to reach quadruple digits.[/SIZE]
This was worth reposting! hahaha....I love it! :thumbs_up:lol:
About time....Just kidding with you.....:DQuote:
Anyway, let me respond to some posts.
Why is that? The actual story is so short. Does it involve a biographical background? I can't wait now to read your intro.Quote:
It is going to be a long intro. I might have to break it up into two posts.
No, not quite. I don't think I discovered Lawrence until I was in my late teens--early 2000's.
I don't remember if I was aware or not. I certainly didn't realise it in 1980; but when I get back to the author, a few years back, then I did realise there was a great deal of work out there. Believe me, it would take a lifetime to read it ALL. Also, I have picked up some great spin-off books with critical analysis of his works or exploring his life from different perspectives. I am always looking for more, can you believe that? I love discovering more to add to my collection; but some books are out of rage pricewise - check out Amazon and you will see what I mean. Some are truly rare. For instance, I got the first two books of the Cambridge series on his life. Now the third on "The Dying Game" is incredibly expensive. I suppose I will never get that one, unless I stumble across it at a fleamarket or yardsale - highly unlikely, but you never know.Quote:
Apparently. Were you aware of this when you set out to read the entire Lawrence canon? I would think it would be a little daunting.
I am really looking forward to that. I love the way Chekhov describes the house/the yard. It is like it is a character itself in the story.Quote:
We're reading "The Trousseau" next week. It's only a few pages long, so it shouldn't be that difficult to read through.
That's interesting, Quark, I didn't know all of this exactly. I like to hear anything biographical that will shed light on his writing; that goes for all authors.Quote:
Yeah, Chekhov's time was split between medicine and writing. He could have supported himself by writing alone, but he always felt a connection to medicine and science. Chekhov didn't see these pursuits as opposites, though, and what he learned from one profession he would use in another. Through his patients, Chekhov gained a wider knowledge of people, and through his scientific training he gained a respect for observation and honesty. He would later say in 1899 "I have no doubt that the study of medicine has had an important influence on my literary work; it has considerably enlarged the sphere of my observations ... Familiarity with the natural sciences and with scientific method has always kept me on my guard, and I have always tried where it was possible to be consistent with the facts of science, and where it was impossible." He wanted to tell "the absolute and honest truth" and not a fantasy about "only honest mayors, high-minded ladies, and virtuous railway contractors." Many of the people around him thought he should stop dividing his attention, but Chekhov thought that all his different pursuits were integral to the person he was.
That's understandable. It's best not to try too many things at once. If you get time later on, feel free to post something. I'm sure we'll do more than one story.
I know this is to Dr. Hill, but I was thinking the same thing. I guess this is not the book I own. I will see if I have any of these in my father's old book. These sound interesting. Would be nice to read lighter ones, too, just for a change from time to time.Quote:
That's an odd list. There are some pretty obscure stories they threw in there. I don't know if I've even read "The Jailer Jailed" and "He Understood." I'll have to check them out. Were they some of his earlier, more humorous works? So far in the thread we've read a lot of the tragic stories, so it would be a good change of pace to read something a little more lighthearted.
:lol:I am laughing because so do I, jinjang. I am a chronic editor on here. I have to have my posts 'just so'...guess it's the perfectionist in me, being an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
You can't get away without me noticing...tiptoeing, eh? :lol:Quote:
After reading Chekhov's biography here and Wikipedia, I thought it best to observe your discussion first and I was tiptoeing away, hoping nobody has seen me here.:D
I don't see them in any of the books I have, but I'm sure I could find them online somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Unless I pick up the pace, no, I probably won't. I'm okay with that, though. It's these people who joined last week and already have more posts than I do that make me feel inferior. Seriously, I think there are some who signed up a couple of months ago and have something like fifteen hundred posts! Twenty or thirty posts a day! How does that happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
In any case, we'll have a party when this thread reaches 1000. It's so close. Maybe Virgil will give us a geode--or maybe even two geodes. No, now I'm getting greedy. I'd take just one geode.
You mean 7000, right? You've already crossed 6000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There is some background to this story, as the story has something to do with class. Really, though, I'd like to post a long intro to indicate the official start of the thread. Nothing says start like a long post with illustrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I'd like to do something like that with Chekhov. As I read biographies, it's hard to separate what Chekhov was actually like from the mythology that the biographer is trying to create. Different perspectives would help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
One thing I already notice is how different from Lawrence Chekhov is. They really seem like opposites in a lot of ways. I'll talk more about this later.
Actually, I could procure this book for you if you wanted it. Having access to a university is a wonderful thing, and I believe mine has a copy of the book. Graduate students can check out books for over a year, too. If you want it, I could send it to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The house is right at the start of the story so it's probably the first thing we'll talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Okay, there's some delay.
I'm think we should wait a little until the L thread starts to wind down. It's a little difficult trying to do two discussion at once.
They sound interesting to me, too. I think I will copy your list and look online as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Game section. Mindless one liners in games will rack up zillions of posts quickly. That's not my style although I do participate in Shared and Three Person Haiku. You accumulate posts in there more rapidly.Quote:
Unless I pick up the pace, no, I probably won't. I'm okay with that, though. It's these people who joined last week and already have more posts than I do that make me feel inferior. Seriously, I think there are some who signed up a couple of months ago and have something like fifteen hundred posts! Twenty or thirty posts a day! How does that happen?
Yes, let's do that. Hey, can we have a party in the L thread when that reaches a substantial number. I will go and check to see what we are up to now. Hahah...so it's geodes now....do you have a fondness for geodes, Quark?Quote:
In any case, we'll have a party when this thread reaches 1000. It's so close. Maybe Virgil will give us a geode--or maybe even two geodes. No, now I'm getting greedy. I'd take just one geode.
Yes, my friend pointed that out to me as well; I just never got back to correct it.Quote:
You mean 7000, right? You've already crossed 6000.
.Quote:
There is some background to this story, as the story has something to do with class. Really, though, I'd like to post a long intro to indicate the official start of the thread. Nothing says start like a long post with illustrations
hummm..interesting...class eh? I can't wait to read your introduction and view any photos or paintings. I love how you set that up...very collegian.
Exactly, I think it would greatly benefit you to do so. I have found it did with me for Lawrence's work. It fills in the missing pieces somehow. It's all like a big puzzle and the more pieces you have the better a chance of understanding the total picture.Quote:
I'd like to do something like that with Chekhov. As I read biographies, it's hard to separate what Chekhov was actually like from the mythology that the biographer is trying to create. Different perspectives would help.
That is probably true. Wonder what Mr. Lawrence had to say about Chekhov; he wrote a lot of author commentary. He pretty much tore into Dostoyevski, although he did like one of his books, I believe, think it was "The Idiot" which I did happen to write. I think the Russians would have been too dire and sad for Lawrence but really I am not sure enough to make that statement - haven't read enough of those commentaries.Quote:
One thing I already notice is how different from Lawrence Chekhov is. They really seem like opposites in a lot of ways. I'll talk more about this later.
Thanks so much. I will let you know when. That would be great. I can send you something in return for your trouble. I have tons of CD's and books on audio. Maybe something that will add you class.Quote:
Actually, I could procure this book for you if you wanted it. Having access to a university is a wonderful thing, and I believe mine has a copy of the book. Graduate students can check out books for over a year, too. If you want it, I could send it to you.
That's right. I recall that. It stands out in my memory. Can't wait now to read it and listen to my audio narration.Quote:
The house is right at the start of the story so it's probably the first thing we'll talk about.
The family that the narrator is visiting belongs to a certain class, and Chekhov seems to be commenting on them as a group. It's very similar to what he does in the play Three Sisters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't know if I'll ever get a total picture. I'm just hoping that I can answer people's questions if they have any about the author. It's difficult not to start wondering about the writer when we know that the story came from a person with particular experiences and motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Lawrence probably didn't say anything directly about Chekhov as he was only a fringe figure in the early twentieth century--Chekhov that is. Really, he didn't become very popular in England until the 40's. I think Lawrence probably would have liked Chekhov for his ambivalent attitude toward society. Like Lawrence, Chekhov didn't approve often of what was going on around him. Chekhov wasn't necessarily disapproving, but he didn't paint a particularly attractive picture of Russian society. Lawrence probably would have agreed with the depiction, and respected the writer who created it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Sel...1528797/?itm=2
There is the book I own, in case anyone is interested :)
I was a little interested. The editors came up with an odd selection of stories. If you liked those, you probably would like a lot of Chekhov's other better-known works like "The Lady with the Dog," "The Black Monk," "About Love," "Sleepy," or "In the Ravine."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Another Update
This is mostly about the translation. I've read through a few different versions of "The Trousseau" now, and I think the best one is actually on Lit Net: http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov/1108/. It's an older translation by Constance Garnette--whose ubiquity in Russian to English translations is greater than Starbucks' in coffee joints or Microsoft's in computers--but her translation does give the story its best appearance. I like her longer sentences, and she seems to have a better grasp on the humor here than the other translators. I read a few other versions that gave the introductory paragraph a more poetic twist, but I think Garnette does a better job with the entire story. I know Janine was particularly struck by the opening description, so if there are reader looking for more beauty in the first paragraph I can point you to some other versions. Garnette's translation, though, I think is better in line with what the story is about.
The Lit Net version does not have notes for the French dialogue, though, so if you're curious what "Où est mon cravatte lequel mon père m'avait envoyé de Koursk?" means you may be left in the dark. I've found notes for this elsewhere, and I'll post them when we start. Or, actually, how about I just do that?
There--that's done now. Anyway, I'll post an introduction tomorrow to officially start the discussion, and we'll see what happens.Quote:
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
Dressed all in black with heavy crape pleureuses: mourning clothes
"Je suis charmée de vous revoir, monsieur: I'm charmed to see you again, sir
Quark, that's very helpful. Glad you posted those translations now, before we read the story. Tell me, if I listen to the narration, is that close to the translation here on LitNet by Constance Garnett? I happen to like her translations very much. I have read her Russian novel translations and she is fine, in my book. Thanks for doing all that research. I know it takes time and we all appreciate it, I am sure.
Since, you will be posting parts of the story, I don't see any problem with listening to it being read, as a sort of aid to my reading. I will read along online, as we go along. I think I know the story well by now; listened to the narration several times. I enjoyed it.
I can't say, but I'll probably listen to the CD you gave me again. I can check and see if it's the same translation. If it isn't, it's not a big deal. The translations are all pretty similar. Translators read their predecessors it seems like, and make only a few changes. Every version I've read of this story uses the word "vouchsafed" which is a bit of a coincidence. When was last time anyone used the word "vouchsafe?" Um, yes, could you vouchsafe me some cereal for breakfast tomorrow? No? Who else could it be vouchsafed for? Doh! He vouchsafes everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't object to her translations either. In another thread I heard someone complaining about her version of Anna Karenina, but they could just be complaining about Anna Karenina. Who wouldn't complain about the first half of that novel? Nothing happens, and it happens slowly. It really isn't until the second half that things start to get interesting. No translator, I think, could rescue the stuff about Levin's farming at the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, good. It shouldn't be hard to follow along on the computer screen. The story is only few pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh good, then we are on the same page with this in our thinking. I just copied the story into my offline document program. I read the first part describing the house. I must say I have a very distinct impression now which I will save for later on, when we begin discussing it. I love how graphic it is and the various contrasts just within these few paragraphs. It's a great story, Quark. Glad we are discussing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: 'vouchesafe', eh? I have heard the word in some literature and elsewhere but you are right - it is a rather older term I believe. I am not even completely sure of it's meaning. I must look that one up. You rendition of the work cracked me up as usual. Wish you had been my teacher in high school; I would laughed so much in your classroom.
Yes, I believe you are correct. It was in the Anna Karenina discussion. I read that book years back and now realise I must have read a condensed version since it was in one of my father's old books which is one author's work each - a compiling of various things he wrote -a few novels, stories, etc. I since picked up the novel, brandnew paperback, cheap at my library but it is by new translators and the complete text. In that same discussion, someone mentioned these translators and they didn't seem to care for them. I have not attempted to re-read the book yet; I have too many others that must come first. I am not sure I am too enthused now that you said the first half is a bore with Levin's farming described in detail. Oh well, I did get through sheep farming in Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd," and now I love that book.Quote:
I don't object to her translations either. In another thread I heard someone complaining about her version of Anna Karenina, but they could just be complaining about Anna Karenina. Who wouldn't complain about the first half of that novel? Nothing happens, and it happens slowly. It really isn't until the second half that things start to get interesting. No translator, I think, could rescue the stuff about Levin's farming at the beginning.
That will great. I also made a short cut so the story is now on my desktop. This is what I do with the Lawrence short stories, as well.Quote:
Oh, good. It shouldn't be hard to follow along on the computer screen. The story is only few pages.
Oh, the story is good, but I have no idea how big the "we" will be for the discussion. If it's too small, maybe we'll just switch over to Shakespeare thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You're right that's it's a little old-timey, but we can forgive Garnette since her translation itself is old-timey, as well. She wrote this out in the nineteen teens, I believe--something like 1913. I was just noticing that the following translations kept much of the same language as previous translations. Therefore, there really isn't that much difference between Garnette's and whatever else one might find elsewhere. After all, each of them says "vouchsafed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Ah, now I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There are some great moments in the second half of the novel that redeem it, I think. It is quite an undertaking, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I read "Misery" about a week ago and it was one of the most powerful short stories I've ever read, second only to Tolstoy's "How much land does a man need?" The role of Iona's horse as more noble and caring than the people Iona drives and almost like a confidant was done perfectly, and it struck me with relentless emotion at the end. It still resonates with me. Since then the only Chekhov stories I've read are Gusev (a bit on the obscure side but interesting, great overall), The Huntsman (was good, but not great), and Lady with the Dog (spectacular, almost as good as Misery). I definitely plan on reading more of Chekhov's work.
Oh, I agree. We actually did a discussion on that story a few pages back:Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=17728&page=9
I think there was some disagreement about what the story was about, though. Some of us thought it was more about grieving and others saw the story as a case of just loneliness. I suppose it's probably a little bit of both. I think the story is also somewhat odd in the way that it hits you so immediately. Chekhov lets us know what Iona's problem is right away--which is a little different from what he usually does. A lot of Chekhov stories work like snowballs: they start off somewhat mundanely and then slowly gather force and meaning until they reach an explosive ending. "Ward No. 6" and "Sleepy" are good examples of this. I won't spoil them if you haven't read them yet, but both stories have all the shocking twists and powerful moments close to the end. The beginnings--particularly in "Ward No. 6"--are deceptively slow and simple. The endings come somewhat as a surprise. Yet in "Misery" there isn't that gathering force like in most Chekhov fiction. Chekhov just hits you with everything right away. I don't know whether that makes it a better or a worse story--it was just something I noticed.
"Gusev" is a strange story. It's hard to know what to make of the strange images. "The Huntsman" I thought was a little boring. There are some funnier comic stories one could read. "The Lady with the Dog" was excellent, though, don't you think? Chekhov took on a huge theme--public vs. private life--and handled it with subtlety and feeling. I think that's hard to do when you're talking about something that big.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
Anyway, if you want to stick around we're about to start a new discussion of Chekhov's story "The Trousseau." We have the story on Lit Net here: http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov/1108/. I'm sure you would have something to say about this one.
Yeah, I'd have to say both grieving and loneliness are good descriptions of "Misery." You know Iona is grieving his dead son but he brings it up so much to strangers that it almost seems like loneliness. And when he confides in his horse, you see his desperation and that ultimately was what made the story so powerful for me. I certainly noticed the jolting, sudden impact of "Misery" too. With a title like that, though, it wasn't a complete surprise, and in my opinion I think it was perfectly implemented (maybe because it followed a "short but sweet" style). Still, as you described I really like Chekhov's gathering force plots such as in Lady with the Dog because you really don't know where the story is going to end up. I'm really glad I discovered this author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Yeah I'll definitely read it tomorrow along with "Sleepy" and "Ward No. 6" if time permits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That's a good observation. I think you're picking up on something that's very central to Chekhov as a writer. He strove for narrative efficiency. Chekhov once commented that if a writer mentions a gun in Act I it should go off in Act II. That is, everything an author writes about should work to some end. Many writers in the Realist tradition before Chekhov included a lot of detail, ambiance, and wordiness that Chekhov wanted to dispense with, and his work was a reaction away from the nine-hundred page novels that had flooded the market in previous decades. I also think his concision may have come from his early experiences as a writer. At the beginning of his career Chekhov was only given a few pages to work with and an audience that demanded a good laugh or cry on one reading. In journals like The Dragonfly, Fragments, or The Alarm Clock he didn't have the kind of space or readers that would tolerate diffuse prose, and he had to learn concision in order to survive. In any case, I think you're right about "Misery," and I would go so far as to say that most of Chekhov's successful stories follow that "short and sweet" style.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
To me, the endings are always the best part. I find it really hard to judge a story of his before I've read that last word because it's always those final moments which change and reinterpret everything that's come before. Some might see the endings as Chekhov trying to emotionalize or moralize his story--they might even view it as Chekhov simplifying and taking shelter from the complexities of his own story. I don't think it's emotionalism or moralizing, though. The endings are just where Chekhov exposes the theme or problem the story centers on. It's problems that Chekhov is exploring--not emotions or morals. A problem like the conflict between our private life and public persona is what drives "The Lady with the Dog." The problem of grieving in a cold, impersonal world is the center of "Misery." We react emotionally (we're sad with Iona) or we react with morality (we might castigate the narrator of "The Lady with a Dog"), but the story itself doesn't try to tell you what to feel or do. It merely explores a problem. I think that's what makes the endings so great. They're so accessible because the problems are usually something pretty universal (like public vs. private) and they give off powerful feeling and food for thought--all without being obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
At least, that's what I think.
"Sleepy" is more "short and sweet" I would say, but "Ward No. 6" is probably more impressive. You'll probably respect "Sleepy" for being better-crafted, but find "Ward No. 6" more thought-provoking. The latter is quite a heady brew--lots of talking about philosophy, society, and the mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
Oh, and Janine I'm almost done with the introduction for "The Trousseau." I'll post it sometime tonight.
JacobF, I responded to your post above.
In accordance with the treaty that states that the "D.H. Lawrence Short Story Thread" and the "Chekhov Short Story Thread" will alternate so that neither Janine nor Quark get so tired with running a thread that they give it up entirely, I'd like to open up the discussion on "The Trousseau" with a very long sentence. I know it's a been a while since we've done a story here--and there may not be many people left from previous discussion--but I'd like to try to start this up again. That is, if anyone is interested in a new story. Janine suggested this one to me a while back, and after reading it over again I think it would make a great discussion. The story is a little on the lachrymose side, but that isn't anything we're not used to. Anyway, here's:
Chekhov wrote "The Trousseau" (full text here: http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov/1108/) early on in his career. He was only 24 when this story came out, and was still studying full-time to become a physician--as well as tutoring on the side. Chekhov wrote many of these early stories with money in mind. His father went bankrupt a couple of years before and this plunged his family deep into debt. Trying to salvage his family's property, Chekhov shopped his fiction around to popular magazines for whatever they would give him. Later, he would look back on these early works as mediocre and lacking in seriousness, and he included very few in the his short story collections. More recently, though, critics have tried bring back these earlier stories. The collection of short stories that Janine has places this story alongside "In the Ravine" (a later classic)--something Chekhov never would have done. At some point, I think we'll have to decide whether "The Trousseau" has the kind of craft and weightiness that it deserves to be included with the other classics.
The story divides very neatly into three section, as the narrator visits the house three times. The first visit takes up considerably more pages than the other two, so I probably will split it up a few times when I post it. In any case, though, the story is quite short so there won't be too may sections. I count five right now. That means we should be able to get through this one pretty quickly. I don't want to rush anyone, though, so let me know if I'm blowing through the text too rapidly. Also, since Chekhov's stories are so dependent on the conclusion, if anyone wants to bring up something that happens later in the story before we get to it as a group feel free to mention it. I know it's difficult to talk about the set up of these stories without talking about what's being set up. Also, let me know how you feel about criticism. Some people love to consult it, but others treat it as an unwelcome intrusion. If anyone's interested what critics think of the story, I can post some examples. But, if it's going to get in the way, I'll gladly omit it.
Let me also mention that there's a few other good threads out there right now for discussion. One is the Shakespeare thread where they're discussing Richard II:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...lay.php?f=8593
and Henry IV part I:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=43183
Another is Janine's thread on D.H. Lawrence's Tortoise poems:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=25671
And there's the poetry bookclub on Margaret Avison:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=43462
But really the Chekhov Short Story Thread is the best.
I will see what I can do considering my poor preformace in the D.H. Lawrence thread this time around.
I know you said the translation on this forum is the best, but can you recomend others that are decent? Becasue I don't like reading stories from the computer screen and I don't like the way the stories on this site print out.