Chekhov Short Story Thread

[downing]

My first reaction to the story? It struck me how much it looks like Tolstoy's Anna Karenina: the plots are alike- woman comes in different city without husband and falls in love with another man, they love eachother passionately, she tries to break up with him but the meet again and continue their relationship. Of course, there are some differences between the plots, such as in Anna Karenina, Anna doesn't have any sexual relationshp with Vronsky so soon, but you understand on what I'd like to insist. The female character is named Anna...could there by some Tolstoy influence in Chekhov's Lady with the Lapdog. I did some research and found out that Anna Karenina was written in 1877 and LWTL(Lady with the Lapdog) in 1899...of course, it isn't this what really matters.
Quark, excellent way of commenting the role of the setting...good idea. By the way, I read that Chekhov wrote this short story while he stood in his mansion in Yalta. I also found something interesting about his relationship with Olga, his wife- you might find some conections between him and his character, Gurov:

On 25 May 1901 Chekhov married Olga Knipper — quietly, owing to his horror of weddings — a former protegée and sometime lover of Nemirovich-Danchenko whom he had first met at rehearsals for The Seagull.[73][74][75] Up to that point, Chekhov, who has been called "Russia's most elusive literary bachelor",[76] had preferred passing liaisons and visits to brothels over commitment;[77] he had once written to Suvorin:

“ By all means I will be married if you wish it. But on these conditions: everything must be as it has been hitherto — that is, she must live in Moscow while I live in the country, and I will come and see her… give me a wife who, like the moon, won't appear in my sky every day.[78] ”

Chekhov and Olga, 1901, on honeymoonThe letter proved prophetic of Chekhov's marital arrangements with Olga: he lived largely at Yalta, she in Moscow, pursuing her acting career.

(Source:Wikipedia)


The man who enjoys liaisons sounds like Gurov, doesn't it?

And he told himself that this had been just one more of the many adventures in his life, and that it, too, was over, leaving nothing but a memory. . . .

He had believed that in a month's time Anna Sergeyevna would be nothing but a vague memory, and that hereafter, with her wistful smile, she would only occasionally appear to him in dreams, like others before her.

[littlewing53]

ok..on aboard now...read the story last night...enjoyed it...it seems to me that chekhov wants his cake and eat it too....i enjoyed the violin more tho...as you mentioned earlier, Quark, there is an end..and there is more substance to his characters....whereas with lady...there is no change to their sad little affair other than they've latched onto each for dear life for lack of any other meaning in their separate lives...it is hard to believe that Gurov could love anything beyond himself and even himself with no real depth...the repression of those days...life still goes on but the cost of staying within the lines or outside the lines seems very dear...well written, yes....

[Janine]

Hi everyone, I am back briefly. I am sorry not to have been very active on Lit Net lately. I have been quite busy outside of here. I needed a break from the computer, also....so I did take it and lost my momentum somewhat.
I do agree with both Downing and littlewing about this current story. I agree with Downing that all while reading it I was reminded of "Anna Karenina" but not as detailed. Does this woman have children like Anna K? I don't recall reading that either had children but the scenerio seems so similar.
Personally, I did not like the ending. Perhaps that is insignificant, but I felt it just 'dropped off' into nowhere and I was taken aback. I was actually looking on the internet for the next pages. So as you said littlewings, it seemed that 'there is no change to their sad little affair'. I can't see where the story has taken us. It seems sort of pointless in the end.
I know, Quark, you are going to disagree with this, but I don't like 'happily ever after' endings all the time or actually hardly ever, so that is not the problem, but this ending seemed just plain flat to me and dismal. If there had been some sense that they would either fail in continuing or advance in someway, I might have bought this ending, but something felt very lacking to me in the way the last lines read. I need to read the story over again and maybe something more will emerge and enlighten me, but when I completed the story I felt like saying 'so this is it (?)'
I do agree that both characters have definite issues within themselves. The man does seem to 'want his cake and eat it, too.' He has been quite a womanizer, so he got into that pattern of living. I think the woman is a poor match for him, since she seems to be quite insecure. I think the fact of her deep needs being what has actually drawn him to her. He thought he could save her from something, perhaps? maybe from herself? I don't really know - that might just be a stab in the dark. Perhaps she feeds his male ego. It seems she has something the other woman did not, that attracts him. What does everyone else think? What quality do you think keeps him coming back to her?

[Quark]

downing, you're right that the plot of the story isn't original. It's been done many times. Probably the most famous is the one you brought up: Anna Karenina. I don't know if Chekhov took the name Anna from that novel and transposed it into his short story. Anna is a common name in Russia, and the Russian don't have much originality in naming people. Usually, if you're male, your either Ivan or Dmitri. If you're female you're Anna or Olga. This is why characters in Russian fiction use their middle names and nicknames so much. As for the connection between Gurov and the writer, I think there are similarities. And, it's quite possible that Chekhov may have been working through some of his own feeling about sex and love when writing the story. The story is so general, though, that I don't think it's really autobiographical. Chekhov probably just took his own life as a starting point for this story, and then went from there. When we read the story it's probably less about Chekhov, himself, than it is about love in general--if that makes sense.

ok..on aboard now...read the story last night...enjoyed it...it seems to me that chekhov wants his cake and eat it too....i enjoyed the violin more tho...as you mentioned earlier, Quark, there is an end..and there is more substance to his characters....whereas with lady...there is no change to their sad little affair other than they've latched onto each for dear life for lack of any other meaning in their separate lives...it is hard to believe that Gurov could love anything beyond himself and even himself with no real depth...the repression of those days...life still goes on but the cost of staying within the lines or outside the lines seems very dear...well written, yes....

Wow, you liked "Rothschild's Violin" more than this one. I know I had problems with how abrupt the ending was, but I thought overall it was a pretty great story. I would say this story has the deeper characters, too. Yakov, from "Rothschild's Violin", has two levels to him. On one level, there is his money-obsessed repressed side. On the other side, there is his deeply felt sense of life and loss. The story plays well off of these two sides is Yakov, and the ending does move you. But, in the end, Yakov had two levels to him, and the story doesn't get more complicated than that. In "The Lady with the Dog", both Anna and Gurov have many different sides to the personality that are not so clearly defined. I can name four, at least. Anna, for example, is split between her duty towards her society, her lust and passion, her love for Gurov, and her feelings of insecurity. Gurov is even more complicated than that. Added onto all of these characteristics, he has his miserable past that plagues him. So, when I compare "Rothschild's Violin" and "The Lady with the Dog" I generally find the latter to be more complex. I still like "Rothschild's Violin", and I'm not saying that you should like that story. I certainly think the ending in "Rothschild's Violin" is more moving. It's just that the story isn't as complex and involving as "The Lady with the Dog".

[B]
Personally, I did not like the ending. Perhaps that is insignificant, but I felt it just 'dropped off' into nowhere and I was taken aback. I was actually looking on the internet for the next pages. So as you said littlewings, it seemed that 'there is no change to their sad little affair'. I can't see where the story has taken us. It seems sort of pointless in the end.
I know, Quark, you are going to disagree with this, but I don't like 'happily ever after' endings all the time or actually hardly ever, so that is not the problem, but this ending seemed just plain flat to me and dismal. If there had been some sense that they would either fail in continuing or advance in someway, I might have bought this ending, but something felt very lacking to me in the way the last lines read. I need to read the story over again and maybe something more will emerge and enlighten me, but when I completed the story I felt like saying 'so this is it (?)'
I do agree that both characters have definite issues within themselves. The man does seem to 'want his cake and eat it, too.' He has been quite a womanizer, so he got into that pattern of living. I think the woman is a poor match for him, since she seems to be quite insecure. I think the fact of her deep needs being what has actually drawn him to her. He thought he could save her from something, perhaps? maybe from herself? I don't really know - that might just be a stab in the dark. Perhaps she feeds his male ego. It seems she has something the other woman did not, that attracts him. What does everyone else think? What quality do you think keeps him coming back to her?

You guys are really embracing the pessimistic view. What about the parts where Gurov says that he's finally in love; that all the other were just miserable affairs, but this one is real. Is he lying? It's possible, but I don't believe it. I think he really does love Anna, but he's trapped. He has to find some way of reconciling his needs with those of society--which could be really difficult since he's married and has children. He also has to get over his dark forebodings that this relationship will turn out like his others. Gurov still doubts that this love will not turn dull and monotonous like his others. I don't think it will. Despite the circumstances that would make him forget about Anna, he constantly keeps returning to her in his thoughts. I would assume that this means something more than he's bored in Moscow again. Usually, he just runs off to random women, and he does it with little chance of being caught. This time he want to come to the same woman, and he risks losing everything to do it. The story ends so confusing because Chekhov doesn't know whether Gurov's love for Anna can overcome all the other forces that are posed against it. And, he wants to leave it unclear whether it's love or lust that's between them. This is good way to end it. Once again, isn't this true to life. Do we really know whether it's love or lust? Or, Do we always know whether we should respect our previous obligations or disregard them for hopeful possibilities? Can we say how much the past should affect us? Do you know how much people should indulge their own desires and how much people need to work to improve society? I think if Chekhov gave away the future of Anna and Gurov too much it would answer these questions, and it would do incredible damage to the story.

This is starting to sound like a rant, so I'll stop. Thanks, everyone, for writing.

[downing]

Quark, I agree with you about:

The story is so general, though, that I don't think it's really autobiographical. Chekhov probably just took his own life as a starting point for this story, and then went from there.

This is what really happens when one writes, isn't it?

Janine's idea of Gurov being a womanizer: Indeed, I found some quotes to sustain your idea:

He considered that the ample lessons he had received from bitter experience entitled him to call them whatever he liked, but without this "lower race" he could not have existed a single day. He was bored and ill-at-ease in the company of men, with whom he was always cold and reserved, but felt quite at home among women, and knew exactly what to say to them, and how to behave; he could even be silent in their company without feeling the slightest awkwardness. There was an elusive charm in his appearance and disposition which attracted women and caught their sympathies. He knew this and was himself attracted to them by some invisible force.

"If she's here without her husband, and without any friends," thought Gurov, "it wouldn't be a bad idea to make her acquaintance."

Actually, I think that Gurov ''plays'' with Anna at the beginning just to obtain lusty satisfaction. He isn't really in love with her then, or at least, if he is, he doesn't realize this. On on threshold of their sexual relationship, Anna knows she is degrading herself and fears that he will no longer respect her. In this part of the story, we see that

Gurov listened to her, bored to death.

. Other way said, he wanted her, and soon He didn't care about her feelings at that time.

The sea had roared like this long before there was any Yalta or Oreanda, it was roaring now, and it would go on roaring, just as indifferently and hollowly, when we had passed away.

This is a very fine idea which I also found in The Great Gatsby. Unfortunately, I couldn't discover the quote online: the idea of the primordial existence of nature, which goes on, whereas we are passing elements through Universe.

I found another resemblance between Anna Karenina and this Chekhov short story: the fact that the adulterous man and woman are always unhappy. Again, I can't find the quote from Anna Karenina because I don't know the chapter, but I know that Vronsky told Anna that they are doomed and insisted on this word. If the adulturous person is separated from the lover, she is unhappy, but if they are together she is also unhappy, because they cannot stay too much- the same problem which appears to Gurov and Anna at the end of the story. But the word unhappy appears in this part of the story:

"You must go away," went on Anna Sergeyevna in a whisper. "D'you hear me, Dmitry Dmitrich? I'll come to you in Moscow. I have never been happy, I am unhappy now, and I shall never be happy--never! Do not make me suffer still more! I will come to you in Moscow, I swear it! And now we must part! My dear one, my kind one, my darling, we must part."

She pressed his hand and hurried down the stairs, looking back at him continually, and her eyes showed that she was in truth unhappy.

Every individual existence revolves around mystery, and perhaps that is the chief reason that all cultivated individuals insisted so strongly on the respect due to personal secrets.

Interesting.
The fact that our secret lives are our real lives- I believe that this is one of the text's main ideas.

He felt a pity for this life, still so warm and exquisite, but probably soon to fade and droop like his own. Why did she love him so? Women had always believed him different from what he really was, had loved in him not himself but the man their imagination pictured him, a man they had sought for eagerly all their lives. And afterwards when they discovered their mistake, they went on loving him just the same. And not one of them had ever been happy with him. Time had passed, he had met one woman after another, become intimate with each, parted with each, but had never loved. There had been all sorts of things between them, but never love.

And only now, when he was gray-haired, had he fallen in love properly, thoroughly, for the first time in his life.

I believe that this quote shows that Gurov was transfomed on the course of the story. At the beginning- a womanizer, at the end, a man who is capable of loving with his entire soul. Another quote which sustains this idea is:

Anna Sergeyevna came in, too. She seated herself in the third row of the stalls, and when Gurov's glance fell on her, his heart seemed to stop, and he knew in a flash that the whole world contained no one nearer or dearer to him, no one more important to his happiness. This little woman, lost in the provincial crowd, in no way remarkable, holding a silly lorgnette in her hand, now filled his whole life, was his grief, his joy, all that he desired. Lulled by the sounds coming from the wretched orchestra, with its feeble, amateurish violinists, he thought how beautiful she was . . . thought and dreamed. . . .

[Quark]

downing, that's a good post. You've hit on one of the big questions in the story. Is Gurov in love? Or, is he looking for escape from his monotonous life?

I believe that this quote shows that Gurov was transfomed on the course of the story. At the beginning- a womanizer, at the end, a man who is capable of loving with his entire soul. Another quote which sustains this idea is:

So Gurov is transformed. He begins as an aging adulterer and ends as a passionate lover. I have to admit that I am partial to this reading. I like to think that Gurov is capable of change and love. Where do you think Gurov changes, though? Do you think it was a conscious change and a total change?

This is a very fine idea which I also found in The Great Gatsby. Unfortunately, I couldn't discover the quote online: the idea of the primordial existence of nature, which goes on, whereas we are passing elements through Universe.

I found another resemblance between Anna Karenina and this Chekhov short story: the fact that the adulterous man and woman are always unhappy. Again, I can't find the quote from Anna Karenina because I don't know the chapter, but I know that Vronsky told Anna that they are doomed and insisted on this word. If the adulturous person is separated from the lover, she is unhappy, but if they are together she is also unhappy, because they cannot stay too much- the same problem which appears to Gurov and Anna at the end of the story. But the word unhappy appears in this part of the story:

You're going to make me read Anna Karenina again. I'm straining to remember, but I think you're right. Vronsky has this tragic take on adultery which turns out to be rather prescient. Both Anna's in these stories are faced with similar circumstances. They each have to choose whether to be loyal to their social duties or accept their new love affairs. Both Tolstoy and Chekhov end in a noncommittal way. One Anna is killed by a train, and the other isn't given enough room by the author to make a decision.

The adultery tale I thought of when I read the Chekhov story was actually Edith Wharton's The Age of Innocence. But, on second thought, I think that Anna Karenina is much better comparison. The Age of Innocence ends much more conclusively than the other two. Wharton wanted to attack society with her book, and I think the others just wanted to represent the conflict between private and public lives.

Interesting.
The fact that our secret lives are our real lives- I believe that this is one of the text's main ideas.

Gurov certainly believes that. He says so directly to the reader. I'm not sure I believe it, though. Gurov is a married man trying to have an illicit affair with a married woman. The conclusion that personal interests should be placed about the standards of the community seems self-serving coming from someone in Gurov's place. I can't say I'm convinced. The cause of Gurov's unhappiness isn't the fact that he's neglected his secret life. In fact, he leads a full secret life--maybe even an over-full secret life. Gurov's depression stems more from his poor marriage choice. Chekhov leads us to believe that his marriage began like his one of his affairs. Dmitri was searching for variety and lustful pleasure and he met his future wife. After they get married, though, the relationship becomes unbearable because he doesn't care for his wife at all. He then proceeds to have many concupiscent affairs with same motive that got him his wife. Between the affairs and his marriage he does manage to strike a healthy balance (sort of). Anna changes this. When Gurov discovers genuine affection for another person, his previous life becomes unlivable, and he risks everything to meet with Anna. I think one of the main themes of the story is that love is more real than pleasure. When I talked about setting, I brought up a quote from the story that I think is quite good. I'll repeat it:

At Oreanda they sat on a seat not far from the church, looked down at the sea, and were silent. Yalta was hardly visible through the morning mist; white clouds stood motionless on the mountain-tops. The leaves did not stir on the trees, grasshoppers chirruped, and the monotonous hollow sound of the sea rising up from below, spoke of the peace, of the eternal sleep awaiting us. So it must have sounded when there was no Yalta, no Oreanda here; so it sounds now, and it will sound as indifferently and monotonously when we are all no more. And in this constancy, in this complete indifference to the life and death of each of us, there lies hid, perhaps, a pledge of our eternal salvation, of the unceasing movement of life upon earth, of unceasing progress towards perfection. Sitting beside a young woman who in the dawn seemed so lovely, soothed and spellbound in these magical surroundings — the sea, mountains, clouds, the open sky — Gurov thought how in reality everything is beautiful in this world when one reflects: everything except what we think or do ourselves when we forget our human dignity and the higher aims of our existence.

Chekhov put it more poetically than I did, but that's what I'm saying.

Once again, downing, thanks for writing. It sounds like you took something meaningful away from the story--which is good so long as you condescend to share it with the rest of us. Just tell me if you think I messed something up (I probably did).

[Janine]

Two truly excellent posts - Downing and Quark! I enjoyed reading them, although I won't comment at this time. I am too tired out now. I think both of you said it all very articulately anyway, so not sure I could add anything else to these fine posts. And no Q, you did not mess something up!... stop knocking yourself!
I will only comment now on this - I do see what you mean Q, about Gurov being this time really in love and not just a state of lust or pursuit of the woman. Also, I see that Downing agrees with this and she has posted some good quotes to support her postion. So therefore, I consider it might be the case this this older gray haired Gurov has now found the true meaning of love, even though it is so late in his life.

[downing]

Wow, thank you both for your appreciation...I am flattered!

Quark- excellent post, just like Janine said.
Interesting idea about the resemblance between Age of Innocence and this Chekhov short story. Unfortunately, I haven't read the book you are referring at, even though I heard about it. I make you re-read Anna Karenina and you make me read The Age of Innocence.

So Gurov is transformed. He begins as an aging adulterer and ends as a passionate lover. I have to admit that I am partial to this reading. I like to think that Gurov is capable of change and love. Where do you think Gurov changes, though? Do you think it was a conscious change and a total change?

To quote you again, I think that Gurov changes when he finds that 'genuine affection' for Anna. Until now, in the other affairs it was never love, as Chekhov says in the end, just lustful desire. I think it was lustful desire in his and Anna's case too, perhaps until the beginning of their sexual relationship.

But here the timidity and awkwardness of youth and inexperience were still apparent; and there was a feeling of embarrassment in the atmosphere, as if someone had just knocked at the door. Anna Sergeyevna, "the lady with the dog," seemed to regard the affair as something very special, very serious, as if she had become a fallen woman, an attitude he found odd and disconcerting.

She is really different to the other women he was with and I think that her timidity and awakwardeness make him fall in love. And there is something else, too- the idea of soulmates.

They were like two migrating birds, the male and the female, who had been caught and put into separate cages. They forgave one another all that they were ashamed of in the past and in the present, and felt that this love of theirs had changed them both.

Janine, don't kill me. I know you don't believe in the 'soulmates' idea.

Quark, do you disagree with the idea that 'our secret lives are our real lives'? I think it is a real thing, because we don't show everything to society, we look like different persons in real life, different than we really are. In one of our interesting IM discussions when talking about this, Janine said that even LitNet is the place where we are ourselves...it is the our secret life.

Once again, downing, thanks for writing. It sounds like you took something meaningful away from the story--which is good so long as you condescend to share it with the rest of us. Just tell me if you think I messed something up (I probably did).

You are welcome. It is my pleasure! And you messed up nothing

[Quark]

Alright, I'm back. I hope everyone had as lazy of a weekend as I did. I went off to my parents house for the weekend, and I didn't get a chance to post anything--even though it seemed like the conversation was starting to pick up. I don't know if I'll have time tonight to write some responses, but I will try to post tomorrow morning (so long as I don't have to work). downing raises some good points that don't need anything added, and she has some that could be debated. I'll be a little more specific tomorrow, I promise.

[chaplin]

Hello,

I'm glad that Chekhov is being read and discussed, he truly deserves it, I mean he is the greatest short story writer ever (in my opinion, of course).

Pertaining to "The Lady with the Little Dog", I don't think it could be called exactly an autobiographical story, but it has obvious parallels to Chekhov's life. I don't know if they were worked into the story consciously or unconsciously, but I think they are definitely there. For example, at the end of the story he writes:

"And only now when his head was grey he had fallen properly, really in love -- for the first time in his life."

Gurov's path to "love" -a series of mostly physical relationships with a variety of different women- shadow's Chekhov's life. Chekhov had numerous liaisons, some sexual others not, with a really wide range of women, including even a pair of bi-sexual actresses, and two or three sets of "three sisters".

That being said, I don't think that Gurov is really at all Chekhov embodied in fiction. Chekhov had a knack for having autobiographical details of the story (a characters profession, as a doctor, a story's setting etc.) but was able to create a character from entirely original sources and not use him or her as a mouthpiece or mirror of himself.

Anyway, thank you for allowing me to add to your discussion and don't hesitate to tell me to stop if I depreciate it in any way.

[Quark]

Hello,

Where have you been? You may be the biggest Chekhov fan in this forum, and we haven't heard from you at all, yet. What do you think of the story? Many critics consider it Chekhov's best. Are they completely wrong or exactly right?

I'm glad that Chekhov is being read and discussed, he truly deserves it, I mean he is the greatest short story writer ever (in my opinion, of course).

I think Chekhov may be the most accessible and popular short story writer. That's why I wanted to devote a thread to his stories.

Pertaining to "The Lady with the Little Dog", I don't think it could be called exactly an autobiographical story, but it has obvious parallels to Chekhov's life. I don't know if they were worked into the story consciously or unconsciously, but I think they are definitely there. For example, at the end of the story he writes:

"And only now when his head was grey he had fallen properly, really in love -- for the first time in his life."

Gurov's path to "love" -a series of mostly physical relationships with a variety of different women before finding a marriageable mate- shadow's Chekhov's life. Chekhov had numerous liaisons, some sexual others not, with a really wide range of women, including even a pair of bi-sexual actresses, and two or three sets of "three sisters".

That being said, I don't think that Gurov is really at all Chekhov embodied in fiction. This is evident in Gurov's attitude toward love. It is more optimistic, hopeful, or, better, anticipative than Chekhov's. Even when Chekhov married Olga Knipper, I feel, that he wasn't enamored with her the way Gurov is with Anna. Chekhov definitely had a very fond affection for her, otherwise he wouldn't have married her (a step he was very cautious of taking); but, in his letters to and about Knipper, he never uses the rapturous language that Gurov sometimes does.

downing brought up the possible connection between Dmitri and Chekhov, and I wasn't sure how to respond--since I know so little about Chekhov's personal life. I had a feeling that Gurov's attitudes were probably similar to the writer's own, but it sounds like that their ideas could be pretty opposite. Was Chekhov really that dark? Do you think that maybe Chekhov would have accepted the more cynical reading of this story (that Gurov isn't really in love)?

Interesting idea about the resemblance between Age of Innocence and this Chekhov short story. Unfortunately, I haven't read the book you are referring at, even though I heard about it. I make you re-read Anna Karenina and you make me read The Age of Innocence.

There are some parallels between the Age of Innocence and "The Lady with the Dog", but I wouldn't rush out to read the Wharton book. I actually like the Chekhov story better because it's much more succinct and poetic. Wharton's story is much more of a comedy of manners, and a lot of the book is lost on a twenty-first century audience. It can be boring at times. There are some good parts--the love story is well done--but the book delves deeply into these social questions that I really didn't care about. Stick with Anna Karenina.

She is really different to the other women he was with and I think that her timidity and awakwardeness make him fall in love.

Yeah, I noticed this too. It's a good point, downing. Gurov calls her "pathetic", and that's her most attractive quality. Why is this? What's going on here?

And there is something else, too- the idea of soulmates.

Janine, don't kill me. I know you don't believe in the 'soulmates' idea.

You and Janine can fight this one out, but I think I'll stay neutral. Although, the more important question might not be whether "soulmates" exist in reality, but whether they exist in the story.

Quark, do you disagree with the idea that 'our secret lives are our real lives'? I think it is a real thing, because we don't show everything to society, we look like different persons in real life, different than we really are. In one of our interesting IM discussions when talking about this, Janine said that even LitNet is the place where we are ourselves...it is the our secret life.

What do I believe? Oh, no, I keep that hidden. I was just arguing that the story, itself, doesn't really give me the idea that the secret, personal life is more important than the exposed, public one. Gurov believes that strongly at the end, but he isn't exactly a believable character at that point.

[chaplin]

What do you think of the story? Many critics consider it Chekhov's best. Are they completely wrong or exactly right?

It is one of my favorites, the more times I read it the more I love it; and it is really a perfect story to illustrate what made Chekhov so great. For example, the minor, yet essential details inserted right in the middle of important scenes, (e.g. Gurov slicing a piece of watermelon as Anna sits dejected and troubled after they become lovers, two youths casting glances at Anna and Gurov from a staircase while they meet at the theater) which create a sense of reality that most other authors, being distracted with morals, messages, and conventional climax, take a pass on. Vladimir Nabokov sums it all up best: "All the traditional rules of story telling have been broken in this wonderful short story of twenty pages or so. There is no problem, no regular climax, no point at the end. And it is one of the greatest stories ever written."

downing brought up the possible connection between Dmitri and Chekhov, and I wasn't sure how to respond--since I know so little about Chekhov's personal life. I had a feeling that Gurov's attitudes were probably similar to the writer's own, but it sounds like that their ideas could be pretty opposite. Was Chekhov really that dark? Do you think that maybe Chekhov would have accepted the more cynical reading of this story (that Gurov isn't really in love)?

I would say that reading too far into the autobiographical side of the story would be a mistake, as is true for most of the great authors.

It's easy to see the story cynically or pessimistically (which critics seem to have done with every Chekhov story), but I find think pessimistic is a word that rarely can accurately describe a Chekhov story. Particularly with this one. Conventionally, it would seem pessimistic, if compared to more fairy tale-like stories ("happily ever after"), but, in fact, when viewed against the backdrop of reality, of real life it is really neither. There is no "Love will overcome" or "Love is an illusion"; just: this is what these two people felt. (Nabokov: "There is no special moral to be drawn and no special message to be received.")

I've also read on previous posts about the ending of the story. I feel it is absolutely perfect. Chekhov's endings aren't for everybody, but I, personally, find them some of the most satisfying of any author. Again, Nabokov: "The story does not really end, for as long as people are alive, there is no possible or definite conclusion to their troubles or hopes or dreams."

[Quark]

It's been a few days since I've posted. Sorry, I've been studying for the GRE (the big test that's going to decide everything that will happen in my life for years to come). I do want to keep the discussion going if I can. It's just going to be a little difficult until the 29th.

it is really a perfect story to illustrate what made Chekhov so great. For example, the minor, yet essential details inserted right in the middle of important scenes, (e.g. Gurov slicing a piece of watermelon as Anna sits dejected and troubled after they become lovers, two youths casting glances at Anna and Gurov from a staircase while they meet at the theater) which create a sense of reality

Yes, the Chekhov is in the details. I especially liked Gurov eating the watermelon while Anna is having her scene in the hotel room. The careless way in which he regards Anna makes it clear to us how Dmitri feels about women--at that point. Also, it reflects how the reader is feeling during that scene. We know that Anna's is only being insecure here, and we know that she sincerely likes and wants to make love to Gurov. Yet, she has this scene in the hotel room because of her own insecurity. It makes us all want to roll our eyes and do something to pass the time until she's done. Gurov casually strolling over to eat a watermelon is perfect.

that most other authors, being distracted with morals, messages, and conventional climax, take a pass on. Vladimir Nabokov sums it all up best: "All the traditional rules of story telling have been broken in this wonderful short story of twenty pages or so. There is no problem, no regular climax, no point at the end. And it is one of the greatest stories ever written."

If Chekhov wasn't interested in morals, messages, or the usual methods of storytelling, what do you think Chekhov wanted to do?

It's easy to see the story cynically or pessimistically (which critics seem to have done with every Chekhov story), but I find think pessimistic is a word that rarely can accurately describe a Chekhov story. Particularly with this one. Conventionally, it would seem pessimistic, if compared to more fairy tale-like stories ("happily ever after"), but, in fact, when viewed against the backdrop of reality, of real life it is really neither. There is no "Love will overcome" or "Love is an illusion"; just: this is what these two people felt. (Nabokov: "There is no special moral to be drawn and no special message to be received.")

I've also read on previous posts about the ending of the story. I feel it is absolutely perfect. Chekhov's endings aren't for everybody, but I, personally, find them some of the most satisfying of any author. Again, Nabokov: "The story does not really end, for as long as people are alive, there is no possible or definite conclusion to their troubles or hopes or dreams."

I think it's fair enough to say that the writer doesn't give us, the readers, one message about love and relationships in this story. I don't think you can say that Chekhov was simply cynical or idealistic about those topics. There is so much conflicting information; and, as we've pointed out, there is no typical conclusion that points to what's going to happen next. That being said, though, I think we can still learn something from reading the story. It made me think about how both personal insecurity and mundane sameness can threaten togetherness. I don't mean to suggest that that is the moral or point of the story. I just think it's part of the representation of life that's in the story. It's not a conclusion, just a thought.

Did anyone else come away with anything?

[zinfar]

Does anybody know where to find an on line english translation of "He and She" by Chekhov? If so please email me at [email protected]. Thank you

[gijmaj]

Chekov is the master of the short stories. each one is characteristic. discribing one side of the man.