Printable View
This thread is for the overall discussion of Chekhov and his short stories. I happen to be a big fan of Chekhov, and am willing to discuss the themes, enigmas, and ironies of his stories with this forum community. I'd like to start with Rothschild's Violin, since it's my favorite Chekhov story thus far (I play violin, so maybe that's why!). I'll let someone else start the discussion, so I can have the opportunity to read people's insights without my interference.
I'm not sure how you'd like to discuss this story, so I'll just give some thoughts and impressions and you can jump in wherever you like.
- This story has one of my favorite opening lines of all of Chekhov's short stories:
"The town was small, worse than a village, and in it lived almost none but old people, who died so rarely it was even annoying."
- I love the way that Chekhov uses the words 'loss' and 'benefit' in this story; The way that Yakov continues to say throughout that he is suffering losses, but how this changes in meaning from the beginning of the story to the end.
- This story is a perfect example of Chekhov's genius in dealing with grief, pain, suffering, and death. The way he does it without resorting to cliches and hackneyed phrases or overflowing sentiment (which usually serve to kill the affect). When he says that Marfa was glad to be dying, we know what he means without him running-on for pages on end. He understood the power of understatement and subtlety.
- The most amazing line in this story comes after Yakov builds his wife's coffin. He then writes in his notebook: "Coffin for Marfa Ivanov - 2 roubles, 40 kopecks". A very Chekhovian touch.
- This is one of the finer examples of Chekhov (among many fine examples) dealing with death and immortality. An interesting (maybe) aside:
Soon after reading "Rothschild's Fiddle" I read "Ward No. 6". Look at these two sentences, first from "Rothschild's Fiddle":
"He could not take the fiddle with him to the grave, and it would now be orphaned..."
Compare that with this sentence from "Ward No. 6" (written almost exactly one year earlier), when the doctor in that story is pondering immortality:
"To see one's own immortality in the life cycle is as strange as to prophesy a brilliant future to the case after the costly violin has been broken and made useless."
A wonderful symmetry. I've always wondered, since recognizing that similarity in those two stories written so nearly together, whether using that symbol of the violin when discussing immortality in "Ward No. 6" gave him the idea to write this story about death and immortality in just this way, using the symbolism of the fiddle again. I at least like to think that that is the case, just because it would be interesting to have some glimpse into the working of Chekhov's mind, of seeing how he came upon the idea for, and symbolism of, "Rothschild's Fiddle."
Those are some random impressions. Jump in wherever you like.
One year later, I hope this conversation gets the attention it deserves. Chekhov is great for online discussion because he's an author that's accessible; but, at the same time, he's poetic and philosophical. Short stories don't make quite the demand that full length novels do, and laconic Realism is easier to grasp than voluble Modernism. But, that doesn't mean that just because Chekhov is terse the stories don't have subtlety. Often, clever turns of the plot reveal meaning and feeling to the story without the author having to directly explain to the reader the importance of events. Joseph Conrad, for example, has to purposely intervene in many of his stories to tell the reader what to think. In The Heart of Darkness, Marlowe has his adventure, but then he has to tell all the other sailors in asides and a final monologue how its important. That isn't to say Joseph Conrad is a horrible writer who should never be discussed online--in fact, I'm reading Nostromo right now. I'm only arguing that it's easier for the reader when the meaning is slowly revealed and not dictated at certain moments. Chekhov is considered one of the masters of the short story for his ability to manipulate the story and not the reader. He doesn't resort to sentimentality or weak intellectualism to tell his stories, yet he is still able to discuss the most important ideas in life like loss, death, memory, idealism, and self-image. It's literary things like this that I hope people get interested in.
I think "Rothschild's Violin" is great story to start with. Like most of Chekhov's stories it moves between his two dominant moods--comic and tragic. The stories seem to either start comic and end tragic or start tragic and end comic with some revelatory moment in the middle. In Chekhov, when it starts with laughs you can bet it's not going to stay that way, and this story is no exception. It starts out humorously with an excessively negative old man, Yakov, who is comical obsessed with loss. The first episodes of his life given to the reader are his vocational failures. He can't play violin when he wants and his career as an undertaker is languishing. Everything around him reminds him that he is losing something. His wife is ill, the town is being abandoned, and his money is dwindling. But why does Yakov believe so fervently in pessimism? Yakov himself realizes that he could change his profession and move away if he wanted to, but for some reason he stays and fixates on loss. The revelatory moment in this story is when his wife reminds him of a child that died. Yakov rejects this as the delusional ramblings of an old woman, but as he walks around the town object keep reminding him of the past life with the child that Yakov doesn't believe in. He keeps trying to repress the memory of his dead daughter, but it keeps coming back to him in a vague sense of loss. The story turns tragic when the reader realizes that Yakov isn't simply a cantankerous old man. He's really a person grieving with a profound sadness. This is Chekhov at his best, and it's a great short story.
The loss becomes more profound when we realize the extent of Yakov's repression. And, when we learn that Yakov isn't pinned down to the life he's leading now, the story becomes even more depressing. We eventual know that his horrible life is almost by choice. Yakov has ruined his own life because of grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Yeah, the themes in this story are very important and universal. Even Chekhov seems aware of this. As Yakov gives expression to his pain and grief, he gains popularity because of the ever presence of these ideas in everyone's mind. And, yes, Chekhov does a good job representing grief and loss without overflowing sentiment. He does it gradually, and that makes the story far more poignant than any maudlin display.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
What makes it "Chekhovian"? I'll admit that Chekhov's characters are very narrow-minded and limited in sight. The main characters in a lot of his stories are blinded to the real meaning of their lives. In this story, Yakov can only see the loss of money, and not the real tragedy he's living in. Is it Chekhovian because Yakov is being obtuse here?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
I haven't read Ward No. 6 yet, but that quote is very poetic and I'm interested in reading it now. I'll try to find similarities when I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Hi Quark, Good idea starting this thread. You are right saying that short stories can be less demanding. You might get some ideas from how we approached the stories in the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread - we have done now 4 short stories and plan more. I think we are doing approximately, one per month, but it does vary and we don't hurry the discussing along on any set time table. Less pressure doing it that way.
My one question and concern is getting the text for this particular short story you have picked. It does sound very interesting. I looked on this site and online and cannot find the text anywhere. I don't think my library has it either and I don't own a Chekov book. Any suggestions? I might find the story in one of my anthologies of short stories in general that I do own. Is it a more obscure story of Chekov's, because listed on Lit Net on Chekov's main page there are dozens of stories but not this one. I was disappointed in that fact. Help!
Sorry Expounder - I see you started the thread, so thank you! Welcome to the forum, as well. I am happy to see this thread started. Maybe you can tell me where I can find the text - I searched online, as I explained above to Quark. Is this a obscure story of Chekov's. I can't find it anywhere, not on this site nor online.
It was the musical element that I found most evocative in Rothschild's Violin. Chekhov is a master at language, he write such beautiful and lyrical descriptions so writing about a man who pours all his heartache, sadness and regrets into his instrument was incredibly powerful for me. The scene when Yakov is playing for Rothschild before his death is the main image I carry from this story.
And Ward No. 6 is another incredibly powerful story, I highly recommend it.
One thing I was struck by about Chekhov is the fact that a lot of his short stories don't really have a plot, you kind of find yourself in the middle of an on going story and then you float out of the story before the resolution. Not all of his stories are like that but a great deal of the ones I read were and at first it really bothered me but I found myself to caught up in his descriptions that plot became secondary. I don't know that I can really express my thoughts very well about this but to me, he's not merely an excellent writer, he's an artist. He uses words to paint a picture in an almost literal way...if that makes any sense :blush:
We could probably learn a thing or two from the D.H. Lawrence people. If we could do a story for each month that would be great. I thought we might move into Ward No. 6 next, but that might be more of a gradual transition because the stories are somewhat similar. As for finding the stories, I don't know of a website to find them on. I would get an anthology. We'll probably do the more popular stories like "The Lady With the Dog" and "On the Road". I saw in Barnes and Noble they have something called "Ward No. 6 and Other Stories" for $7.95. Libraries might have something, too. If someone could find a website that might be best, but I wouldn't know where to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
And, no, I didn't start the thread--that was Expounder, poor Expounder. Ever time I think of him, I summon up this tragic image of an eager, idealistic Russian Lit fan starting up a thread, and then becoming embittered and leaving when no one responded. For a few hours I feared I might end up like him.
Certainly music is very important for the characters in the story. The plaintive music of the violin reminds Yakov and his audience of the terrible losses they have suffered. Also, remember that Rothschild's playing aggravates Yakov when he's trying to repress the memory of his daughter. Music is both a beautiful expression of grief and a provocation of repressed feelings. Chekhov equates this power of the violin to that of his short story. Both bring about painful feelings of grief. Do you think Chekhov made the words musical as part of the comparison? Or, was he simply being poetic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
I agree that the stories are not about plot or dramatic action. Some stories keep you attention because they have a tension that keeps us glued to the book to see what will happen next. Chekhov stories don't keep us reading for the action; instead, they are more about characterization. The action is manipulated to give the reader revelations into the minds of the characters. In this story, the plot is used to show Rothschild initially as he might to a casual acquaintance, and then to reveal his terrible tragedy. Never is the plot the real focus of the readers attention. I really don't care what happens to Yakov next. When I was reading I only wanted to know about Yakov, himself. Why was he so fixated on loss? Why is he so irritable? The plot was used only to answer these questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
That much I know. I'm curious, though, what you mean by "He uses words to paint a picture in an almost literal way".
Quark, oh I see now - it was Expounder who started it months ago; yes, poor Expounder probably left the site by now giving up on finding any other Chekov enthusiasts.
First let me say I love the Russian novelists so I probably will enjoy reading Chekov. I can gather by what Idril (glad to see you here) has written and you have expounded on, that Chekov's stories are not 'plot driven'. This is fine with me; I like stories that delve into the characters best of all. It is much the same with Lawrence's stories - the characters are the most important aspect and most often, their interaction with each other. It sounds as if Chekov is more cerebral in that the characters contain internal dialogue or thoughts the reader is able to view and ponder. If you read our discussion on 'The Prussian Officer' you will see that this story is characteristic of this idea with mostly 'internal' emotions and thoughts occuring within the main character, even 'subconsciously'.
I hope I can get this story soon and read it. If not, I will be sure to comment on the next story you decide to discuss. I think it is always advantageous to choose a story available on this site or online, so that we can quote directly from the text, in order to point out certain characteristics and key words and passages. It is a lot easier than typing long sections of the story.
Ah, success, I found we have the story here on LitNet. It's at:
http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov/1272/
They cleverly changed the name slightly to "Rothschild's Fiddle" to throw people off, but I was able to find it. We actually have a pretty long list of Chekhov stories online here, so I think everyone should be able to read even if they don't own a copy of the story. And, many of Chekhov's short stories are twelve pages or less, so you won't have to stare at the computer screen too long to read to the end.
I'll try not to reveal too much of the story before you read it, but I do want to point out a difference between Chekhov and Lawrence. While both writers share a common focus on characterization, they do characterization in different ways. DHL often gives the immediate thoughts of the character pertaining to that moment--a sort of instantaneous insight into the character's mind. In Chekhov, all the characterization is done by inferences from without. While this story is about Yakov, the critical piece of information is given by Yakov's wife--not Yakov himself. In a D.H. Lawrence short story, I think the big revelation would probably come to the reader in the main character's own consciousness. Chekhov chooses to give it through the other characters and the plot. It's really only a stylistic difference, though. Ultimately, DHL's and Chekhov's goals are very similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quark, great detective work. Funny, I checked that list twice and could not see it. Good point and explanations about the differences in the novelists and their styles and approach to the characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
This should be an interesting thread and discussion group.
Thanks for finding the story online.
I think to a certain extent, it's just how he writes. I don't doubt he took some care to make the mood fit the content but his prose is just naturally flowing and evocative, much like music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That's my feeling as well, that the stories were more to expose the minds of his characters and not necessarily their stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I don't know entirely, I knew that was an odd way to put it. :rolleyes: :blush: Usually, when I read, I underline passages that are interesting to me or I note them in my little book journal but I have so little written about Chekhov's short stories because I read a good portion of it in a car so I didn't have the ability to do those things but there was a passage, a description of winter, I think, possibly in The Witch but I wouldn't bet anything on that guess...anyway... it just took my breath away for it's detail and imagery. It was like I was watching a painter paint, I was watching the artist's vision taking shape before me and normally, I don't create such detailed pictures in my head. My image of characters and places described in books, no matter how detailed the description is, is typically quite vague so the very clear, vibrant images Chekhov inspired in my mind was quite a revelation for me. I don't if I made myself any clearer or just confused the issue but that's the best way I can explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Idril, Your thoughts about passages being vivid like a painting makes perfect sense to me. I feel the same way about passages that Lawrence writes in his short stories. I am a visual artist and I can relate to this idea very easily.
Quark, Good news! I found an anthology of Chekov's work in my library today and it included the 'Violin' story. I read part of it online and will read the rest from the book tonight. There are many of his short stories in this book, so I was so happy to check it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
I know what you're saying. In Chekhov stories there are always a couple intense images that take on almost symbolic meaning. Unlike writers like Tolstoy or Dickens who give us an overwhelming amount of detail, Chekhov is more selective in the information he tells the reader. The writers like Tolstoy and Dickens use images and backgrounds to give a sense of place and reality, but I think Chekhov uses this information for mood and symbolism. This makes Chekhov's scenery and details almost poetic at times. A good image to look at in "Rothschild's Violin" is the river he visits near the end of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This scene is filled with details and ambiance. What do you think it means, though? What does the river mean for Yakov? Why is it hard for him to look at? What do you make of the boats and the trees? How does the image change in Yakov's mind?Quote:
"He came to the river, where the curlews floated in the air uttering shrill cries and the ducks quacked. The sun was blazing hot, and there was a glitter from the water, so that it hurt the eyes to look at it. Yakov walked by a path along the bank and saw a plump, rosy-cheeked lady come out of the bathing-shed, and thought about her: "Ugh! you otter!"
Not far from the bathing-shed boys were catching crayfish with bits of meat; seeing him, they began shouting spitefully, "Bronze! Bronze!" And then he saw an old spreading willow-tree with a big hollow in it, and a crow's nest on it. . . . And suddenly there rose up vividly in Yakov's memory a baby with flaxen hair, and the willow-tree Marfa had spoken of. Why, that is it, the same willow-tree -- green, still, and sorrowful. . . . How old it has grown, poor thing!
He sat down under it and began to recall the past. On the other bank, where now there was the water meadow, in those days there stood a big birchwood, and yonder on the bare hillside that could be seen on the horizon an old, old pine forest used to be a bluish patch in the distance. Big boats used to sail on the river. But now it was all smooth and unruffled, and on the other bank there stood now only one birch-tree, youthful and slender like a young lady, and there was nothing on the river but ducks and geese, and it didn't look as though there had ever been boats on it. It seemed as though even the geese were fewer than of old. Yakov shut his eyes, and in his imagination huge flocks of white geese soared, meeting one another.
He wondered how it had happened that for the last forty or fifty years of his life he had never once been to the river, or if he had been by it he had not paid attention to it. Why, it was a decent sized river, not a trumpery one"
And the difference is in the type of description. I found the passage I was talking about and it was in The Witch and it's the description of a storm. I know it will take us a bit off topic and I promise I'll get back to that in a minute but I wanted to share it with you in order to help me make my point. I won't copy the entire paragraph, just when the description startsQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
...And out there a regular battle was going on. It was hard to say who was being wiped off the face of the earth, and for the sake of whose destruction nature was being churned up into such a ferment; but, judging from the unceasing malignant roar, someone was getting it very hot. A victorious force was in full chase over the fields, storming in the forest and on the church roof, battering spitefully with its fist upon windows, raging and tearing, while something vanquished was howling and wailing...A plaintive lament sobbed at the window, on the roof, or in the stove. It sounded not like a call for help, but like a cry of misery, a consciousness that it was too late, that there was no salvation. The snow-drifts were covered with a thin coating of ice; tears quivered on them and on the trees; a dark slush of mud and melting snow flowed along the roads and paths. In short, it was thawing, but through the dark night the heavens failed to see it and flung flakes of fresh snow upon the melting earth at a terrifc rate. And the wind staggered like a drunkard. It would not let the snow settle on the ground, and whirled it round in the darkness at random.
He describes things not so much with words but with a series of images. He's not merely telling you it's windy, it makes you feel it and see it.
...ok, so back to the story in question...
I always thought that the river reminded him of his dead child, the life that could've been but wasn't. I think to confront that river meant he had to confront what he had given up in a sort of way. He was constantly counting up his losses but the most important one, that of his child he had successfully repressed, although, I think even though the memory of the even itself was repressed, that feeling of loss obviously permiated his entire outlook on life. As far as the trees and boats go, I just looked at them as evidence of the passing time, evidence of decay and lost opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I read the story last night but it might be a different translation in the book than the one online. Does this matter much? I will comment on the story later, probably tomorrow. I don't have the time now. It was quite interesting.
That is a very visual passage you just quoted, and the language is very flowing too. What I like about that description is that it conveys so much meaning and mood in just one small detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
Yeah, the river is certainly reminder for the past, but also for his present and future. Yakov sees his entire life in the passing of the river, and his walk along its banks seems like an act of self-analysis. At first the reflection off the surface hurts his eyes--just as the truth of the lost daughter is too painful for him to consider. Then he sees the past: the willow, the river full of boats and geese. Yakov sees in the river the same happy abundance he once had in his life. Then, he notices the abandoned and decrepit appearance of the present river and compares it with his own solitary life. Finally, he realizes that he could repopulate the waterway with boats. He could live his life again, and try to regain the paradise he lost. In the small amount of detail that Chekhov gives us, he creates a very effective and moving image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
I looked at the translation online and it's the same as the printed version in my book. So, at least we'll be on the same page. It shouldn't matter too much if there are other translations being quoted from. The stories are short, and we should be able to find whatever the passage is without much confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine