Chekhov Short Story Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

The site sounds great, but are you keeping it to yourself? Where is it? I still have access to my university's library. I haven't had to resort to the internet yet, but I will have to shortly. It would be good to have a website like that; what's the URL?

---

Heck, I forgot to look it up and I don't want to go to email page and lose this one. I will put it in next post reply, which I hope to do after this one. It seems like a pretty good site. The biography was pretty long and extensive and quite informative.

Quote:

---

I thought we might read one of the more famous stories like "The Lady with the Dog". It's a love story with several ambiguities which should be fun to talk about. I think it's a little longer, but still under twenty pages; good read. We can start talking about that story as soon as you want. And, when we start, we don't have to stop discussing this story. Until we get some more activity on this thread, I don't see any reason to set timelines or reading lists when it's only the two of us. Read whenever you get time, and post when you think of something to say. And, if you want to say anything about another story that we haven't officially read yet, feel free to. I've read most of them already so I should know what you're referring to.

---

Quark, you are good. I have a huge book and would be this story you pick - this story is not in my book; strange, since I just read online it is one of Chekov's major works. I checked the index 3 times, nope not there!

However, the good news is - I did find the text online, so I suppose I can read it online this time around - easy to quote from it that way anyway. Also, the site I found gives some good commentary which should be helpful. There seem to be a couple other sites, when I ran a seach 'The Lady and the Dog Chekov online text' that came up and they sound like good commentary, as well; might add to our own ideas or get us thinking in different directions. I am always open to suggestion on how to discuss these stories or what topics/aspects to explore within the story.

I like the way you think here - not structured, very flexable. Who needs the pressure, right, of a deadline? We are here to enjoy ourselves and the discussion groups and just maybe learn something new, even about ourselves. We started the Lawrence thread with the same notion, but some of the participants are anxious to go onto a new story each month. Sometimes we have run over and I don't care, or we have posted remarks after we started another story. I did that in the "Women in Love" Thread, and may still add to it from time to time....why not?

Quote:

---

Definetly renew that book.

---

I did already once but after that they give you a grace period. I will probably take it back so I can get it out again for the next story we choose. No problem. I don't think in my library there is a big demand for Chekov. Wish I owned the book. It is a rather nice old addition with a handsome cover.

I will answer your next post after dinner. I am cooking and think my chicken is nearly done; plus I need fuel for my brain to function (think).

Quark- here is the Chekov link - give you something to do while I am gone to dinner....ha!

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/c...nalInformation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Or to put it better, the question is: why is Yakov like Yakov? And, we've come up with three words synonymous with Yakov--repression, selfishness, and pessimism--but we don't know what causes these characteristics in Yakov. We don't know why Yakov is like Yakov. Perhaps, Chekhov was only accurately stating the question and not solving it.

---

I've taken a bit of a vacation from the topic, not really intentional but that's not really important...anyway...

It would be interesting to know what Yakov was like before the death of his child, was that death to blame for his pessimistic views? And as for Chekhov not solving it, he never seems to be all that concerned with resolution anyway so I wouldn't doubt that 'why is Yakov like he is' wasn't a question he felt the need to address.

Lady with the Dog...is that the one that takes place, mostly, at a spa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idril

I've taken a bit of a vacation from the topic, not really intentional but that's not really important...anyway...

It would be interesting to know what Yakov was like before the death of his child, was that death to blame for his pessimistic views? And as for Chekhov not solving it, he never seems to be all that concerned with resolution anyway so I wouldn't doubt that 'why is Yakov like he is' wasn't a question he felt the need to address.

---

Yeah, the story leaves you wondering about Yakov's past. Clearly Yakov, himself, can't account for it. He's totally repressed the memory of his lost daughter, so how accurate can his representations of his life be? Even though his past is somewhat hidden, we have to come to some conclusions about it if we're to make any estimation of Yakov's character. The whole question of his past decides whether Yakov is a just a petty, malevolent person or a hapless victim of fate. And, once we figure that out we can start to answer Yakov's greater question: What makes people miserable? So Yakov past is extremely important, but not expressly told by Chekhov. In the end, we're no more wise than Yakov because we're equally confused. I wonder if this is the intent, and I wonder if this is what makes the story so poignant. All we can do is grieve at the end like Yakov.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idril

Lady with the Dog...is that the one that takes place, mostly, at a spa?

---

A lot of the action in "The Lady with the Dog" happens in a hotel in Yalta--I think it's something like Oreaga, or Origa? something Russian. I don't know if it's a spa or whether that's a different story. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what makes something a spa. I could be living in a spa right now and I wouldn't know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, the story leaves you wondering about Yakov's past. Clearly Yakov, himself, can't account for it. He's totally repressed the memory of his lost daughter, so how accurate can his representations of his life be? Even though his past is somewhat hidden, we have to come to some conclusions about it if we're to make any estimation of Yakov's character. The whole question of his past decides whether Yakov is a just a petty, malevolent person or a hapless victim of fate. And, once we figure that out we can start to answer Yakov's greater question: What makes people miserable? So Yakov past is extremely important, but not expressly told by Chekhov. In the end, we're no more wise than Yakov because we're equally confused. I wonder if this is the intent, and I wonder if this is what makes the story so poignant. All we can do is grieve at the end like Yakov.

---

Quark, I agree with all you have said here, especially - that some facts are not expressly told by Chekhov. I do think this is the "intent"....and it makes the story very "poignant" to us. It is a 'puzzle', and 'enigma', as to why Yahov cannot be a happy individual, throughout his life; it is more 'realistic' that way, I believe. Many people are 'puzzles' to us and we can never really solve their story. Only they can know. Probably even Chekhov does not know. Hmmm.....just found this, quoting from Wikipedia article....

"His originality consists in an early use of the stream-of-consciousness technique, later exploited by Virginia Woolf and other modernists, combined with a disavowal of the moral finality of traditional story structure.[12][13] He made no apologies for the difficulties this posed to readers, insisting that the role of an artist was to ask questions, not to answer them.[14]"

Interesting, since I do think he is similar to Woolf in tone and internal thought and 'stream-of-consciousness' style. Funny we are studying both simultaneously.
Bye the way - the Wikipedia article is quite interesting with some great photos of Chekhov and also his home and Olga.
I did find this out also:

"At Yalta, Chekhov wrote one of his most famous stories, The Lady with the Dog (also called Lady with Lapdog),[82] which depicts what at first seems a casual liaison between a married man and a married woman in Yalta. Neither expects anything lasting from the encounter, but they find themselves drawn back to each other, risking the security of their family lives."

So the book in my library will do well for my needs. I had better hurry - they close at 5 tonight.



Hi Idril, nice to see you back; I hope you stick around for awhile.

Quote:

---

A lot of the action in "The Lady with the Dog" happens in a hotel in Yalta--I think it's something like Oreaga, or Origa? something Russian. I don't know if it's a spa or whether that's a different story. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what makes something a spa. I could be living in a spa right now and I wouldn't know it.

---

Hey, Quark, Is the story sometimes called "Lady and The Lapdog"? since my library has a copy of that story in another anthology. I just found it listed in their online site. The book I presently have out does not have the story in it...strange considering it is one of most prominent stories from what I have read online.....so I have answered my own question above --- just revised my post...great news!

I had to leave for a couple of days and I couldn't get to a computer. Hopefully people haven't completely given up on me yet. And, hopefully some people have read the story now. First, let me respond to some things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Quark, I agree with all you have said here, especially - that some facts are not expressly told by Chekhov. I do think this is the "intent"....and it makes the story very "poignant" to us. It is a 'puzzle', and 'enigma', as to why Yahov cannot be a happy individual, throughout his life; it is more 'realistic' that way, I believe. Many people are 'puzzles' to us and we can never really solve their story. Only they can know. Probably even Chekhov does not know.

---

Yeah, I think Yakov's character is uncertain for a reason. Janine, you're right to point out how lifelike that is. But, I think Yakov's ambiguous past is also a statement about self-knowledge. Yakov's fuzzy memory is much like our own difficulty in defining ourselves, realizing our shortcomings and moving forward. As we read more of these stories, this theme will become more clear. Usually, somewhere locked within the characters is some important epiphany which generates the conflict in the story. In this case, Yakov's sense of lost life is at odds with his current life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hmmm.....just found this, quoting from Wikipedia article....

"His originality consists in an early use of the stream-of-consciousness technique, later exploited by Virginia Woolf and other modernists, combined with a disavowal of the moral finality of traditional story structure.[12][13] He made no apologies for the difficulties this posed to readers, insisting that the role of an artist was to ask questions, not to answer them.[14]"

Interesting, since I do think he is similar to Woolf in tone and internal thought and 'stream-of-consciousness' style. Funny we are studying both simultaneously.

---

Chekhov does place more importance on the characters' thoughts than the external action. This comes through noticeably in both "Rothschild's Violin" and "The Lady with a Dog". It's not quite a straight stream of consciousness--though. In Virginia Woolf novels, for example, the text gives us the direct unadulterated thoughts of the characters from their perspective. While Chekhov does write pretty thorough descriptions of a character's thoughts, they're usually done from a neutral perspective. Chekhov will translate for the audience Yakov's stream of consciousness instead of giving it to us directly like Virginia Woolf. He'll say something like, "Yakov wondered why there was so much suffering in the world". A typical stream of consciousness writer would put those kind of statements in first-person. I think Chekhov could be called a proto-stream of consciousness write, but, really, he's on the cusp between Realism--more externally oriented narration--and Modernism--the internal stream of consciousness narration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

"At Yalta, Chekhov wrote one of his most famous stories, The Lady with the Dog (also called Lady with Lapdog),[82] which depicts what at first seems a casual liaison between a married man and a married woman in Yalta. Neither expects anything lasting from the encounter, but they find themselves drawn back to each other, risking the security of their family lives."

So the book in my library will do well for my needs. I had better hurry - they close at 5 tonight.

Hey, Quark, Is the story sometimes called "Lady and The Lapdog"? since my library has a copy of that story in another anthology. I just found it listed in their online site. The book I presently have out does not have the story in it...strange considering it is one of most prominent stories from what I have read online.....so I have answered my own question above --- just revised my post...great news!

---

The stories are translated obviously, so their names could vary depending on what book you have. We had some confusion with "Rothschild's Fiddle" and "Rothschild's Violin", and I think most of the stories will be like that. I'm pretty sure that "The Lady and the Lapdog" is the same story as "The Lady with the Dog". Although, if you start reading and the story isn't about an adulterous relationship, then we might have problems.

I have a lot more to write, but I'm behind on some other threads. I'll have finish tomorrow. Have fun with the short story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I had to leave for a couple of days and I couldn't get to a computer. Hopefully people haven't completely given up on me yet. And, hopefully some people have read the story now. First, let me respond to some things.



Yeah, I think Yakov's character is uncertain for a reason. Janine, you're right to point out how lifelike that is. But, I think Yakov's ambiguous past is also a statement about self-knowledge. Yakov's fuzzy memory is much like our own difficulty in defining ourselves, realizing our shortcomings and moving forward. As we read more of these stories, this theme will become more clear. Usually, somewhere locked within the characters is some important epiphany which generates the conflict in the story. In this case, Yakov's sense of lost life is at odds with his current life.




Chekhov does place more importance on the characters' thoughts than the external action. This comes through noticeably in both "Rothschild's Violin" and "The Lady with a Dog". It's not quite a straight stream of consciousness--though. In Virginia Woolf novels, for example, the text gives us the direct unadulterated thoughts of the characters from their perspective. While Chekhov does write pretty thorough descriptions of a character's thoughts, they're usually done from a neutral perspective. Chekhov will translate for the audience Yakov's stream of consciousness instead of giving it to us directly like Virginia Woolf. He'll say something like, "Yakov wondered why there was so much suffering in the world". A typical stream of consciousness writer would put those kind of statements in first-person. I think Chekhov could be called a proto-stream of consciousness write, but, really, he's on the cusp between Realism--more externally oriented narration--and Modernism--the internal stream of consciousness narration.


The stories are translated obviously, so their names could vary depending on what book you have. We had some confusion with "Rothschild's Fiddle" and "Rothschild's Violin", and I think most of the stories will be like that. I'm pretty sure that "The Lady and the Lapdog" is the same story as "The Lady with the Dog". Although, if you start reading and the story isn't about an adulterous relationship, then we might have problems.

I have a lot more to write, but I'm behind on some other threads. I'll have finish tomorrow. Have fun with the short story.

---

Quark, in your first paragraph which Chekhov story are you referring to. Rothschild's Violin or the new one we will be doing? When do you think we will finish up this story and go onto that one? I am sure it is the same story and yes, what I read it is about an adulterous relationship - well, that should be interesting, more so than poor Yakov's story. One article online said it is the very same story. Still this current book I have does not contain it so I will get the other one out of my library on Tues - closed tomorrow for Labor Day. It features the 'Lady and the Lapdog' and other tales and according to their online site it is now available for checkout. This is better, I can alternate now between the two books.

Otherwise, good post on your part, understanding and helping me to understand the differences in the styles of 'stream-of-consciousness', and how they differ slightly in Woolf and Chekhov's writings. Makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks for the great explanation. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Quark, in your first paragraph which Chekhov story are you referring to. Rothschild's Violin or the new one we will be doing? When do you think we will finish up this story and go onto that one? I am sure it is the same story and yes, what I read it is about an adulterous relationship - well, that should be interesting, more so than poor Yakov's story. One article online said it is the very same story. Still this current book I have does not contain it so I will get the other one out of my library on Tues - closed tomorrow for Labor Day. It features the 'Lady and the Lapdog' and other tales and according to their online site it is now available for checkout. This is better, I can alternate now between the two books.

---

I was referring to both, but I was using "Rothschild's Fiddle" as the example because we've both read that one. I do think that the statement works for many Chekhov stories. I'll try to point it out in the next one which I'd like to start now. And, since we've been reading Virginia Woolf, I thought I'd let her give the first observation:

Quote:

---

Our first impressions of Chekhov are not of simplicity but of bewilderment. What is the point of it, and why does he make a story out of this? we ask as we read story after story. A man falls in love with a married woman, and they part and meet, and in the end are left talking about their position and by what means they can be free from "this intolerable bondage."

"‘How? How?' he asked, clutching his head. ... And it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found and then a new and splendid life would begin." That is the end. A postman drives a student to the station and all the way the student tries to make the postman talk, but he remains silent. Suddenly the postman says unexpectedly, "It's against the regulations to take any one with the post." And he walks up and down the platform with a look of anger on his face. "With whom was he angry? Was it with people, with poverty, with the autumn nights?" Again, that story ends.

But is it the end, we ask? We have rather the feeling that we have overrun our signals; or it is as if a tune had stopped short without the expected chords to close it. These stories are inconclusive, we say, and proceed to frame a criticism based upon the assumption that stories ought to conclude in a way that we recognize. In so doing we raise the question of our own fitness as readers. Where the tune is familiar and the end emphatic — lovers united, villains discomfited, intrigues exposed — as it is in most Victorian fiction, we can scarcely go wrong, but where the tune is unfamiliar and the end a note of interrogation or merely the information that they went on talking, as it is in Tchekov, we need a very daring and alert sense of literature to make us hear the tune, and in particular those last notes which complete the harmony.

---

— Virginia Woolf, The Common Reader

Woolf is saying that many of the typical literary devices which create structure and meaning are missing in Chekhov's fiction. This leads to the kind of uncertainty we had in "Rothschild's Violin", but Woolf, in this quote, was referring to "The Lady with the Dog". What things do you think she found unclear about this story? Why do you think she may have been baffled by the ending and confused about the story's meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I was referring to both, but I was using "Rothschild's Fiddle" as the example because we've both read that one. I do think that the statement works for many Chekhov stories. I'll try to point it out in the next one which I'd like to start now. And, since we've been reading Virginia Woolf, I thought I'd let her give the first observation:

— Virginia Woolf, The Common Reader

Woolf is saying that many of the typical literary devices which create structure and meaning are missing in Chekhov's fiction. This leads to the kind of uncertainty we had in "Rothschild's Violin", but Woolf, in this quote, was referring to "The Lady with the Dog". What things do you think she found unclear about this story? Why do you think she may have been baffled by the ending and confused about the story's meaning?

---

Quark, This writing by Woolf is quite interesting to me. Thanks for posting it. I will have to read it again to get it's full portend. You ask some very pertinent questions, but you must give me a few days to read the story. I can't get the book until Tues; will read it that night. Tonight I will read the Lawrence story and I am also reading "The Plumed Serpent" by Lawrence, but quite slowly. I hope to complete the present chapter tonight and read the story, too. I better get offline, if I am to accomplish this, right? ;)

Definitely keep Woolf's comments in mind when you're reading these stories. I think they're well put observations about the "bewilderment" involved in reading Chekhov. Often people consider Chekhov just a moralist, or a realist, or a humorist, but actually he's an artist. The stories have humor and realism, and the characters do derive some morals from the stories they're in. Yet, the point of the fiction is often beyond that. It has to do with that "bewilderment" that Woolf brings up. Once we begin to understand that, we can start to see why the stories are literature--not just comic everyday events that have a moral.

We can talk some more about this and define "bewilderment" more when we've all read "The Lady with the Dog".

Quirk, Interesting. I also think this bewilderment idea could certainly apply to Lawrence's work as well, especially this last story I read last night. Interesting story, by the way, very multilayed - much to think about there. Yes, very true there was a bit of humor even in the last Chekhov story we read. It was subtle but I caught it now and then. Let's face it the funniest humor is real life humor and it's many ironies.

I will try tonight to read part of the (online) "The Lady and the Dog (Lapdog)" - I am sure it is the same story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Quirk, Interesting. I also think this bewilderment idea could certainly apply to Lawrence's work as well, especially this last story I read last night.

---

Certainly, Lawrence's stories also don't have obvious heroes and villains or conclusive endings. Many times we're wondering what the story is meaning to tell us. In the last Lawrence story we read, we couldn't be sure whether the violent end really solved anything. And, we didn't know who to blame. Was it just Adams? Or, possibly, were both Elsie and Whiston somehow culpable? Something about the story thwarts our effort to label people good or bad, and something also stops us from solving the characters' problems ourselves. We need new words to describe the characters and a larger context to describe the action. We need what Woolf calls a "very daring and alert sense of literature" to talk about this. Whether this is really cool idea about literature or just an author's excuse for not being able to reach conclusions, I don't know. But, you're right, I think it is applicable for both Chekhov and Lawrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Certainly, Lawrence's stories also don't have obvious heroes and villains or conclusive endings. Many times we're wondering what the story is meaning to tell us. In the last Lawrence story we read, we couldn't be sure whether the violent end really solved anything. And, we didn't know who to blame. Was it just Adams? Or, possibly, were both Elsie and Whiston somehow culpable? Something about the story thwarts our effort to label people good or bad, and something also stops us from solving the characters' problems ourselves. We need new words to describe the characters and a larger context to describe the action. We need what Woolf calls a "very daring and alert sense of literature" to talk about this. Whether this is really cool idea about literature or just an author's excuse for not being able to reach conclusions, I don't know. But, you're right, I think it is applicable for both Chekhov and Lawrence.

---

Hi Quark, Oh good, glad we agree. Most certainly the last Lawrence story did have this quality of loose ends not quite coming to a definite final conclusion - there really was no definitive conclusion, but rather a sense of 'wondering' long after the story ended, and so it is with Chekhov's story about Yahov and I would think other stories he writes as well from what I recall of a few I have read before. I will be anxious to see if it is the same with the story that we are about to read. I do think it 'very daring' and an 'alert sense of literature' on the part of the author. I very much like this idea with short stories. Didn't Woolf's own novel "To the Lighthouse" end with much 'wondering' what would follow?

Tues. Edit: Hi again; I have read 2/3 of the story last night. I like it so far very much. It is interesting and reminds me of some other story I read, but now sure which story that is. It might come to me eventually. I see a bit of humor in the story also - very subtle but still amusing.
I am having some computer problems today that I need to address, also a sporadic mouse which may need to be replaced since it is driving me crazy, and I will be disconnected also for a short while to hook up a new monitor...finally! Probably will be online, on here later tonight....but not sure. Looks like a busy day in real life time, too.

I came back only to leave on a little vacation for a few days. :blush: Quark, I remember now that it wasn't a spa, I knew they were not at home and were without their spouses but I was a little confused as to the setting. I'm in the middle of Beckett right now but I'll skim through the story tonight or tomorrow or possibly on thursday because my son has a doctor's appointment and we'll be sitting in the hospital for a few hours. I think since I've read it before, a skimming will suffice. I remember liking this story and I remember it being quite sad.

I find it a little funny that the author of Orlando is talking about bewilderment in Chekhov. :lol: ;) I understand she is talking not so much about the content, but the lack of endings and resolution and while I certainly acknowledge that that can be disconcerning, I still find his stories much more coherant than hers. Of course, I'm not that well versed in Woolf, I've only read a couple of her books and struggled with both of them whereas I responded to Chekhov right away with little trouble.

Idril, just curious; how did you find 'Orlando'? I read something on it and wondered if I would like it. I have only read 'To the Lighthouse' and 'Mrs. Dalloway' so I, too, cannot judge well Woolf's writings.

I will also be progressing slowly on this story. Went to my library tonight to get the anthology (with story in it)and seemed they were surrounded by police and firetrucks. Turned out someone smelled smoke two times today but they had not found anything - just a big scare. Hope the building does not burn down over night. That would be tragic - no more free videos or CD's, not to mention books!