Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Janine]

Hehe, glad to here it, look forward to seeing what you have to say. Glad you do not feel so lost now.

Thanks, me too! It will have to be much later - going out now and will be out for awhile this evening.

[islandclimber]

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but do you agree with Alekhin here? He portrays love as this mysterious, unnameable force. On the other hand, he considers questions of meaning frivolous. When he talks about the Russian penchant for "questions that remain unanswered," we know he's really talking about the urge that people get for idle philosophizing. Later in the story we'll realize that this idle philosophizing is what leads to Alekhin's agonizing moral decision to leave Anna. It's easy to see why he would be telling us of the dangers then of pursuing these questions. But, does anyone really agree with him? Couldn't this speech just be more idle questioning? Alekhin wondering about what could have been with Anna?

I think Alekhin is far too involved in this idle philosophizing and questioning himself.. rather than really living life he seems to just sit back and question it, think about it, an armchair mountaineer... would rather think about, or read about climbing a mountain, than go out and do it... And I think the same can be said for his relationship with Anna.. he is content, and I think it is very evident, he is content with not doing anything about it, just thinking about it, and making excuses for the path he took... and saying it is in the nature of love, and therefore he could not help but do as he did... but even immmorality, impropriety, what would society think.. he is to caught up in what society will think to enjoy his life... and therefore is now content to sit idle, philosophizing on love, of which he knows very little as he never gave it a chance...

his stating that love is a great mystery, yes that is true... but what of it... does it matter that you can make that statement, what relevance does it have to anything... but he makes the statement as an intro to explaining why he chose to walk away and abandon love... because it is a mystery, he fell in love with a married woman.. and because it is a mystery, they both in the end.. tossed it aside... and humans don't grow that way, don't learn, certainly don't love...

by DM I really liked this passage, and I think that it is quite true. Not to sound cheesy, but love is eternal as they say, so there never can be a conclusion of it. And I think that there is much mystery in just how it works or why.

Doesn't sound cheesy to me... but, though I am not necessarily in disagreement on the point.. why do you say love is eternal? humans can't have a real comprehension or understanding of eternal, infinite, timeless... for it necessarily destroys all definitions... including the very words we use to describe these things... eternal has no end.. which means it is outside of time, which means all existence is but a single point that is everything and nothing... so the fact that the idea of human love has to fall apart in the face of this, just as do all other human definitions, (because they are created in time and space, in finite form),... love can be said to be a mystery, but eternal??? It can only be said to be eternal, if it is the base essence of everything in existence, the timeless, infinite essence...

and now away from random philosophizing...

By DM Though we have discussed this idea of "individualizing" love, there was a new thought supporting this idea, which had occurred to me. As not only can love and relationships be different from couple to couple, but one person never has the same relationship twice. It is always a completely new experience when someone engages in a relationship with a different person.

yes all instances of love can be individualized, but only on a human level, with human definition.. all love is necessarily the same if put on an infinite, timeless, eternal level... cuz on that level everything is one, of necessity...
but I will agree when thinking of human relationships, each one is different, each one is essentially different... we live subjectively, not objectively...

by DM I think that this is true to some extent, when one is in love, I do think that they often are given to question it, and I think this sets up the argument he presents within his story.

Because he was plagued with these questions Alekhin misses out on the potential happiness he might have had. Because he was worried about the rightness and wrongness of his love, they waited until it was too late to pronounce themselves to each other.

I agree to an extent, that humans by nature question everything that occurs to them, all feelings and emotions... love especially... Alekhin, though, not only misses out because of these questions, he then uses them to define love, and then to make an excuse for himself, for why he did not grasp love...

[Dark Muse]

Doesn't sound cheesy to me... but, though I am not necessarily in disagreement on the point.. why do you say love is eternal? humans can't have a real comprehension or understanding of eternal, infinite, timeless... for it necessarily destroys all definitions... including the very words we use to describe these things... eternal has no end.. which means it is outside of time, which means all existence is but a single point that is everything and nothing... so the fact that the idea of human love has to fall apart in the face of this, just as do all other human definitions, (because they are created in time and space, in finite form),... love can be said to be a mystery, but eternal??? It can only be said to be eternal, if it is the base essence of everything in existence, the timeless, infinite essence....

I think love is eternal because I think it has exhibited sense man has exisisted and will continue to exists ever after. It has always been there, and I think that it will always be. Even in the animal kingdom examples of love can be seen. Though a human relationship might end, the feelings of love, and the idea of love in itself still continue, and does not end. As well love can exists on many different levels, not always just in the romantic sense of the word.

As well I do not think man can truly comprehend or understand love, though they often try, and when trying to descibe love, words always fall short, one person can never make another person understand completely just how they feel when they are in love.

[islandclimber]

i do agree with you, but just to play the opposite side... What about relationships where love turns to hate? or is that love only an illusion, and it never was real love... for alot of people claim to feel love, but don't really...

[Quark]

Well there's no surprises so far. The young people all agree with the romantic Alekhin. It is Alekhin's story, so you have to feel for him. But, I don't know if that means you have to agree with him. I'm a little more mixed about what Alekhin says. I'll explain.

For the most part, I think along similar lines with Alekhin, too. While perhaps the capacity to love is universal and undifferentiated, the actual grounds on which a particular affection is founded are almost always different. When Alekhin says that we need to "individualize", I probably do agree. I only fear that this philosophy, if too liberally applied, could lead to selfishness. If everyone claims that their desires are unique and can't be judged, wouldn't that lead to complete self-indulgence? Sometimes sacrifice is noble. Even in this story, it's possible to see Alekhin's moves as the right ones. He, himself, realizes that their relationship would go nowhere and that it would only disrupt Anna's family. The other disagreement I have with Alekhin's argument is that it doesn't take into account that some desires are baseless. In his own story we wonder why exactly he loves Anna so much. Is this genuine love? Or is Anna simply part of an aristocratic lifestyle that he hunger for? Does he like Anna or just the life that surround Anna? In Alekhin's argument, we can't ask these questions.

So I don't know. I sort of agree and sort of think this is just an excuse for mindless self-gratification.

[islandclimber]

Quark... I don't think I said I agreed with Alekhin.. in fact my post was meant to show that I think Alekhin's whole introduction is just a glammed up excuse... a way to shove off the entire failure of his love, and his affair, to put the blame on the very nature of love itself... and I, also, wonder, whether his was a genuine love, or a lustful love that is just for self gratification, lusting after something you know you can't have, for that reason alone and then deeming it love... I think he was in love with the idea of love by the end, and in love with the idea of suffering from love, and a moral and righteous decision, accroding to him, to do as society insists...

again, I don't think my previous post is agreeing with Alekhin on anything but the statement that love is a mystery, which it is, so to speak... it can come of nothing, out of nowhere, and where least expected... but the rest of his speech, is just a glammed up, and in my opinion, well rehearsed in his head, excuse for mindless self-gratification, for throwing away the supposed love, for putting the blame on the very shoulders of the nature of love, etc... I think it is vanity and egotism on his part here, whether this is evident or not, I think it is a cynical undertone, as though when done making these excuses for himself, he wants to be told he did the right thing, as though he is a martyr of love, sacrificing himself for morality and righteousness... or so I find...

[Quark]

Quark... I don't think I said I agreed with Alekhin..

Oh, I thought you were agreeing with his argument, but saying that his actions didn't live up to his ideas.

[Dark Muse]

i do agree with you, but just to play the opposite side... What about relationships where love turns to hate? or is that love only an illusion, and it never was real love... for alot of people claim to feel love, but don't really...

When I speak of love being eternal I am speaking on a broad scale, of love in general, while the love within one person might die, love in itself will still exist.

That is, even if one relationship fails, there is another somewhere else that is succeeding.

So love is ever present, though it might just be as a brief candle flame within an individual, the greater fire never goes out, it will just reignite elsewhere.

[Janine]

Ok, I been reviewing everyone's posts and trying to make sense of what is being debated and argued - mostly about concepts of love. This discussion has gotten so 'philosophical', that sitting back, from my perspective and observing what is being said I can only come up with one observation, so far. Everyone here has a different concept of love and it seems to me the word 'love' is many things described and debated, and mused upon, but no one's definition is truly definitive or can be. So who is to say that Alekhin does not truly love Anna?
I know I must go over everything that all of you have posted; I have stored that in my Word program, cutting it down to the basics. I will try to print out and go over those posts, this weekend. For now, I feel that everyone saw this story a little differently, am I right?

Two things stand out to me. First, I read in a commentary book on Chekhov's short stories, from my library, that two of the stories of the three, in what the author does refer as 'a triology', have indirect connections or references, to ideas/concepts in Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" and also one short story - Gooseberries is directly related to T's story 'about how much land a man should own'. The two connected to Anna K, both use Anna as the love interest/woman's name. When I first read this short story, I was very much reminded of Anna K. First off, she was a married woman, had children, and was still devoted to her husband, second she fell in love with another man and third the last scene takes place with broken hearts for the lovers, at the train station; in this case, in the actual train compartment. Both are 'no-win' situations and doomed from the start. Whereas, in AK the protaganists act on their impulses and consumate their affair commiting adultry, in Chekhov's story the protaganists don't act on their impulses, and end by feeling their lives have been futile, accept their parting, knowing they missed their chance at true happiness. I found the parallels of the two stories interesting, and wondered what Chekhov was trying to say, by writing these two stories, in obvious opposition to Tolstoy's similiar ideas/themes. This story "About Love" also reminds me of Thomas Hardy's stories, where often there are missed opportunities and the two lovers do not get a chance to enter into a physical or emotional consumation of their true love.

[Quark]

For now, I feel that everyone saw this story a little differently, am I right?

I suppose that's how it normally is.

that two of the stories of the three, in what the author does refer as 'a triology', have indirect connections or references, to ideas/concepts in Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" and also one short story - Gooseberries is directly related to T's story 'about how much land a man should own'.

I didn't know Chekhov was referring to Tolstoy here. Is that something he revealed in a letter or something? In his youth, Chekhov was a huge Tolstoy fan so it's no surprise that he would use some of Tolstoy's ideas in his stories. I hadn't heard that before, though. Thanks for bringing it up.

The two connected to Anna K, both use Anna as the love interest/woman's name. When I first read this short story, I was very much reminded of Anna K. First off, she was a married woman, had children, and was still devoted to her husband, second she fell in love with another man and third the last scene takes place with broken hearts for the lovers, at the train station; in this case, in the actual train compartment. Both are 'no-win' situations and doomed from the start.

The parallels are definitely there. Infidelity is used similarly in both stories as a device to drive the plot to crisis.

Whereas, in AK the protaganists act on their impulses and consumate their affair commiting adultry, in Chekhov's story the protaganists don't act on their impulses, and end by feeling their lives have been futile, accept their parting, knowing they missed their chance at true happiness. I found the parallels of the two stories interesting, and wondered what Chekhov was trying to say, by writing these two stories, in obvious opposition to Tolstoy's similiar ideas/themes. This story "About Love" also reminds me of Thomas Hardy's stories, where often there are missed opportunities and the two lovers do not get a chance to enter into a physical or emotional consumation of their true love.

Yeah, Alekhin is not really a Vronsky. He doesn't have the nerve to go through with what Vronsky does so casually. Alekhin is much more like Levin: contemplative and above all moral.

The Thomas Hardy comparison may be more of a stretch. Usually in Hardy novels the characters are willing to gratify their own desires, but it's outside influence which prevent them from doing so. In "About Love" Alekhin and Anna put a stop to it themselves without appealing to society's judgment.

I'll think about the Tolstoy parallels later. Right now I'm watching a movie.

[Janine]

I suppose that's how it normally is.

True enough.

I didn't know Chekhov was referring to Tolstoy here. Is that something he revealed in a letter or something? In his youth, Chekhov was a huge Tolstoy fan so it's no surprise that he would use some of Tolstoy's ideas in his stories. I hadn't heard that before, though. Thanks for bringing it up.

Well, I renewed the book and there is quite a few pages of good commentary. I will try to scan that part and post some of what this critic has to say about it and how he came up with his comparisons and information. He said more than I did in my post above.

The parallels are definitely there. Infidelity is used similarly in both stories as a device to drive the plot to crisis.

Yeah, Quark, it made sense to me when I read the commentary on this story and the others in the 'trilogy'. He had more to say about that also and how the stories developed and related. I will read it over again this weekend and try to post something more specific on Monday.

Yeah, Alekhin is not really a Vronsky. He doesn't have the nerve to go through with what Vronsky does so casually. Alekhin is much more like Levin: contemplative and above all moral.

Yes, I could see that distinction right away - the book points this out I believe.

The Thomas Hardy comparison may be more of a stretch. Usually in Hardy novels the characters are willing to gratify their own desires, but it's outside influence which prevent them from doing so. In "About Love" Alekhin and Anna put a stop to it themselves without appealing to society's judgment.

I didn't say the same, but just similar in some respects, or something about the stories and the sad tone of them at the end. I feel some Hardy work would lend to this idea, but not hardly all. I was thinking more of "The Woodlanders" and some of the lesser known novels, perhaps. I will have to think more on that. I think Hardy was more into the idea of a person's 'fate' determining the outcome of their life and loves, and not simply free choice, free will.

I'll think about the Tolstoy parallels later. Right now I'm watching a movie.

Enjoy your movie! I am going to go watch a film, I started last night. Can't wait to see how it ends. Take you time answering this and checking out the Tolstoy parallels.

[Dark Muse]

Ok, I been reviewing everyone's posts and trying to make sense of what is being debated and argued - mostly about concepts of love. This discussion has gotten so 'philosophical', that sitting back, from my perspective and observing what is being said I can only come up with one observation, so far. Everyone here has a different concept of love and it seems to me the word 'love' is many things described and debated, and mused upon, but no one's definition is truly definitive or can be. So who is to say that Alekhin does not truly love Anna?

Hehe yes we have gotten a bit philosophical here in the discussion of love. Unless I have misread or misinterpreted something, I do not think anyone has thus far questioned Alekhin's love for Anna, but rather his approach on the subject. His own philosophy about love, as an explanation for the way things had come to end between him and Anna, is what is being put to question.

[Quark]

Hehe yes we have gotten a bit philosophical here in the discussion of love. Unless I have misread or misinterpreted something, I do not think anyone has thus far questioned Alekhin's love for Anna, but rather his approach on the subject. His own philosophy about love, as an explanation for the way things had come to end between him and Anna, is what is being put to question.

Yeah, Alekhin's motives for giving his argument are what's suspect here. Later on in the story we might get more into the actual love between Anna and Alekhin. I do think there is some question about why they're in love and if there in love, but that doesn't come out initially in the story. That doubt emerges when we start to notice the distance Alekhin's narration is from what probably really happened.

Well, I renewed the book and there is quite a few pages of good commentary. I will try to scan that part and post some of what this critic has to say about it and how he came up with his comparisons and information. He said more than I did in my post above.

I'm interested in what your commentary has to say, but I don't know about everyone else. If you haven't read Anna Karenina it might not mean much. I'll make a point about the connection, but I'll try to stay brief so as not to make anyone read Tolstoy's giant novel. After you guys went out and read all three stories in this trilogy, I'm real nervous about introducing other stories. Seriously, don't go out and read Anna Karenina.

Yeah, Quark, it made sense to me when I read the commentary on this story and the others in the 'trilogy'. He had more to say about that also and how the stories developed and related. I will read it over again this weekend and try to post something more specific on Monday.

After thinking about it last night I realized that "About Love" is actually an ironic retelling of Anna Karenina. Alekhin wants to believe that his love for Anna was like the affair in Tolstoy's masterpiece, and that Anna is madly in love with him. But, in reality, it's nothing like that. Anna doesn't throw herself in front of train. She remains quite cool. There are two other ironic parallels that come to mind, as well.

The first is that Alekhin would like to believe he's like Vronsky who's capable of wooing his Anna and having an illicit affair. But, the Alekhin we know is a frustrated intellectual who can't admit to loving someone until the very end.

The other ironic parallel is in the husbands. Both Anna's have spouses who are mindless bores, but in "About Love" there's nothing to indicate that this Anna wants to separate from her husband. Alekhin just wants to believe that she's trapped in a dreadfully stifling relationship.

Chekhov has copied Tolstoy's formula in Anna Karenina, but he's inserted it into the narrative of a hopelessly confused character. To many of Chekhov's readers the irony must have been pretty noticeable.

I didn't say the same, but just similar in some respects, or something about the stories and the sad tone of them at the end. I feel some Hardy work would lend to this idea, but not hardly all. I was thinking more of "The Woodlanders" and some of the lesser known novels, perhaps. I will have to think more on that. I think Hardy was more into the idea of a person's 'fate' determining the outcome of their life and loves, and not simply free choice, free will.

Oh I just knew you would refer to one the novels I haven't read. I can't make any arguments about The Woodlanders, but I will make a point about Jude the Obscure. The end of that novel is quite depressing. Jude slowly dies while reciting the book of Job. He finally becomes aware of how singularly cursed his life has been and dies in self-pity. Alekhin's introductory and closing arguments about love are filled with the same kind of self-pity, but there's a difference between how we interpret the two characters. Jude is Hardy's hero who he represents as an intellegent but humble character. Alekhin, however, is prone to overstatement and confusion. His telling of his own story shows how out of touch he is. His character is ultimately ironic, so when he reaches the higher pitches of self-pity we're not sure whether to believe him. Jude the Obscure ends with deep pathos focused on a single tragedy, but the ending of "About Love" is a lot more mixed and uncertain. There's pathos, but we don't know where it's coming from.

[Janine]

Quark, I read your post but I can't answer it all right, now.
I will later tonight; I'm making you wait, like you are making me wait in the L thread!

I have the book propped up and open to this page to copy this out now about the trilogy and the stories thematic connections:

From: Chekhov and his prose by Thomas Winner:

In 1898, the journal Russian Thought published three storis by Chekhov which, because of their close thematic and structural relationship, we consider to compose a trilogy. "The Man in a Shell", "Gooseberries", and "About Love", were first conceived as the opening group of a series of stories which were to compose a longer prose form. Such plans are mentioned by Chekhov in a letter to A.F. Marx, the publisher of this Collected Works, in which he protested publication of the three stories in the book form before the series was completed. But Chekhov was never to add to this group of stories, although later works show some thematic links to this cycle.

These exemplary tales, each illustrative of a special kind of constricted life, are united by the persons of their narrators who relate the tales to each other as was traditional in the genre of frame stories (Rahmenerzahlung). The protagonists suffer from the insularity of their lives -- from isolation and an inability to feel alive. The theme of dedication to too narrow a segment of life, which has been observed as one of the unifying themes of the "searching stories" , appears now to be only one aspect of the more general problem of man's pervading limitation of spirit. The phrase from "Gooseberries", a reference to Tolstoy's story, "How Much Land Does a Man need?", quoted as an epigraph to this chaper, states a theme of the trilogy. "A man needs not six feet of soil,...but all of nature, where unhindered he can display all his capabilities...of his free spirit." The chief protagonists of the stories are constrained by a shell, a mental "six feet of soil", which prevents each from living a full and satisfactory life.

I will post more of this commentary later on after you have absorbed this part.

[Quark]

I was going to post the next chunk of the story, but I think I should wait and give everyone a chance to catch up. DM is ailing, islandclimber is absent, and Janine is just caught up. It's probably best to just wait until tomorrow. See everyone then.