Quark, I like what you have added here to Alexei's comments and observations. The two put together make for an interesting set of ideas. I think I agree on both and I always think the humorous characters were written to give more plausability and human characteristics to the story. I agree with that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I am sure he will continue with the Aeneid discussion. He loves that thread and that book. He just got sidetracked this month with personal concerns, his mother, job, and trip out to Ohio. He is very dedicated to that thread; just give him time.Quote:
The Aeneid discussion is kind of at an ebb right now, but I think/expect/hope Virgil will start it up again soon.
The 'best' thread???A hummmmm....what say, Quark? I think the best thread has been the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread - remember we reached over 1000 posts in under a year. But if we continue to work hard on the Chekhov thread, it might equal it someday;) , at least in response and participation. I am liking Chekhov more and more. In fact, I just downloaded the first CD in my computer and I am listening to all the stories again. I really enjoy them, the more I hear them. They are so entertaining and thought-provoking, and this time around I picked up on some new things to point out about "Oh! The Public". Alexei, we have been doing two stories a month but then there were the months we did do only one, since it was much longer. Quark, wait till Alexei sees your array of emoticons to describe the story....oh my gosh....Quark was having a silly moment, A. and being quite creative, if you think in those terms....or was it taking short-cuts, Q?Quote:
The best thread on LitNet, the Chekhov short story discussion, does a story every month.
Quark, can you email me about the selection - can we collaborate a bit? I have been reading so many of the stories, you mentioned. I read "The Student" and liked it very much and I thought the story "A Story Without a Title" was great. There are others I like, too. I emailed you in here (PM) but you did not respond...*grrrr*.... and also, you did not answer my post questions on the topic. I need to know what you have in-mind for next month, so I can search for the story in the library or online. I am going there tonight. I like to be prepared ahead. I would rather do two shorter stories, like we did this month; plus some of the younger students can handle this right now with exam time coming up. I don't have the time this coming month for a long involved story. I don't feel well enough either to tackle one of those; not right now.Quote:
Right now we're finishing up one called "Oh! The Public." Next month (April 1st) we'll start doing another one. I keep changing my mind on what story we should do, though. Rest assured it will be a good one, but I'm still not sure which to do. I'll know by next week. You should check it out. We're here at: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=17728&page=12
Yes, actually I still am kind of sick, dragging. I have been forcing myself to go out and do minimal things around the house, but I tire so easily and sleep badly.:bawling: This flu/cold was/is horrid!Quote:
Are you still sick, Janine? That must be a horrid flu/cold. Feel better, obviously.
Glad it is your model and I think you can learn much from our format or attempt at format. I do think we can build up the Chekhov and noticed that some of my avid Lawrence people are becoming quite interesting. Who knows - we might lose them to Chekhov in the end. ;) :( :lol: - that is mixed emotions or mixed emoticons!Quote:
The Lawrence thread is our model over there. I would be quite happy if we could get the same kind of participation over there as we do in the Lawrence thread.
"Simplier" was not the right word for me to use. I think the reading of them is simplier,but the actually discussion is not. I was referring more to the very short,short stories we have done last month. By the way, Quark, get yourself over there and answer my thread, will you? ;)...oh, and my PM message...Quote:
Simpler? I prefer the word approachable. They're short--even for short stories. And, they don't require a lot of added explanation. I don't think that makes them simple, though. We just read "The Lady with the Dog" last time. How can you say that one is simple? One could write (and people have written) an entire article just on the ambiguities in that story. That's not to mention the subtlety of characterization and the extent of the symbolism. It was hardly simple. These last two have been a little simple, I guess, but how can they not be? They're two pages long. I'll let this slide since you're still convalescent, but c'mon. Simple?
