Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Quark]

I went to post last night, but was interrupted by my sporadic internet access. It would flicker on and off, making it impossible to load a page before the connection timed out. After a couple of frustrated tries I just gave it a rest and waited for tonight. Now I have to catch up.

You should buy this book, Quark, it is very good or maybe your library would have it. It is called: Chekhov and his prose by Thomas Winner. I saw it on Amazon quite reasonaly priced.

That's sound like a good book, yet I don't think my library would have it. They're a little low books of criticism. They have a great selection of fiction, but books of criticism are few and far between. Luckily I still have JSTOR which is great for research.

Sounds ok, but not in only one month.

I don't foresee us getting through these stories that quickly.

That is an irony. I agree with the rest, you point out here, prior to your last statement - the irony or double standard.

You don't think he contradicts himself when he says that? It's possible that he can't break out of his idle, aristocratic habits but wishes to. I leave room for that, but still it makes you wonder about the applicability of the lesson he's trying to teach when he himself cannot follow it.

Apparently at the end of his story, in looking back, he feels he did not make the right decision, am I right?

Yeah, the decision he comes to at the end is that he should be with Anna. That why he admits to her his love. Alekhin recalls his frame of mind at that points as, "with a burning pain in my heart I realized how unnecessary, how petty, and how deceptive all that had hindered us from loving was. I understood that when you love you must either, in your reasonings about that love, start from what is highest, from what is more important than happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their accepted meaning, or you must not reason at all." Alekhin believes this is the important lesson to take away from the story. Interestingly enough, the visitors disagree. It's Alekhin's failure to make anything of himself professionally that they see as the greater tragedy.

I do not question that he recivied the education, but rather what he choose to do with it, which is sort of where I brought in the martyr complex.

Alehin, does not seem to really do anything with his education, and he useses his need to work off his father's debts, on his account, to stay upon the farm and work it, though I do not think that is what his father had in mind for him when he put his son through school.

It is odd that he would willfully choose to work the farm. The main reason he returns to the farm is because his father, who's paid for his education, has fallen into debt. He doesn't want to feel guilty by taking advantage of something his father paid for. To determine whether this constitute a martyr complex I think you have to ask whether he's doing this out of weakness or whether he's doing this from nobility. His thinking in other parts of the story makes me want to call this more weakness than nobility. Alekhin tends to let things happen.

yooohooo.... helloooooooo... I am here!!!

That's quite the ecstatic greeting. I'll just say hi.

just due to the way he introduces the story... it seems like there is some motive beyond just asking for pity and commiseration... as though while wanting pity and sympathy, at the same time he wants to be recognized as having done the right thing...

He may believe that he did the moral, "right" thing to do, but where do you see him reveling in that? What part of the story makes you think he want that kind of recognition? He certainly doesn't get it. Of course, who knows? All three of the storytellers fail to make the impression they want.

Janine, I don't think he does feel he made the wrong choice

The end of Alekhin's story makes it sound like he does regret having done the right thing. I quoted some of it above.

you know that new film "Moliere"... it has a similar love story... similar choice to make... it is quite interesting...

Is the movie about Moliere the playwright? I haven't seen any commercials for it.

I have to say I myself would say damn society and morality.. but that is just me... hahah.. love is more important than ridiculous societal impositions...

I'm all for damning society, but the whole "don't think about it" aspect of his argument loses me. Introspection is a good idea sometimes.

[Janine]

Sorry, everyone. I got in late and now I am fading. I read all your additional posts - yours, islandclimber's and yours, Quark's....so don't feel neglected. It is me and I kind of need a break for now. I am sorry for it, I am behind in several aspects of the computer.

Actually, Quark, my computer and especially my service (or so it seems) has been running very slowly. I don't know what it is. I worked on the computer maintanance last night and then I got 8 updates from online installed automatically today. In fact, as we speak I am updating my Internet Explorer to version 7...I hope I did the right thing accepting it. I have been putting that update off for sometime now.
For one thing, I noticed that new ad, at the top of the pages on this forum, messes me up; I have to wait for it to stop snowing, but generally speaking, it has been very, very slow. Has anyone else noticed this problem with this 'snowing ad' ?

For now I can't stay on long. I probably will be required to shut down after this update. I hope it does not change many things on my computer. I hate doing these updates!

[Dark Muse]

It is odd that he would willfully choose to work the farm. The main reason he returns to the farm is because his father, who's paid for his education, has fallen into debt. He doesn't want to feel guilty by taking advantage of something his father paid for. To determine whether this constitute a martyr complex I think you have to ask whether he's doing this out of weakness or whether he's doing this from nobility. His thinking in other parts of the story makes me want to call this more weakness than nobility. Alekhin tends to let things happen.

I think it does show a pattern in his behavior though, for him doing things which make him unhappy, for reasons that could be seen as "noble" as well as making a point than of explaining that he is doing these things to others, and his reasons for why he is doing them.

In the way he speaks, and tells his stories, he makes his actions about some greater cause than just what he wants.

And though he does not "brag" per sea, to me he does not come off as being particularly humble either.

It is almost as if he is trying to get people to pitty him, becasue he is suffering, on account of doing the "right" thing.

[Quark]

I have to wait for it to stop snowing, but generally speaking, it has been very, very slow. Has anyone else noticed this problem with this 'snowing ad' ?

No, I don't get a snowing ad. I do get one that beeps repeatedly. It's particularly annoying when I'm listening to music that's soft so I have to turn up the volume. When the ad comes up it emits this 2000 decibel screaming beep. Sometimes it completely catches me off guard and surprises me so much I tumble backwards over my chair comically.

And though he does not "brag" per sea, to me he does not come off as being particularly humble either.

Isn't he, though? By the end of his story he admits that he isn't much better than Anna's husband, who he had derided earlier. Talking about Anna, he says "It would have been a different matter if I had had a beautiful, interesting life -- if, for instance, I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country, or had been a celebrated man of science, an artist or a painter; but as it was it would mean taking her from one everyday humdrum life to another as humdrum or perhaps more so." He finds himself just as boring as the husband. Earlier he said this of the husband:

I tried to understand the mystery of a beautiful, intelligent young woman's marrying some one so uninteresting, almost an old man (her husband was over forty), and having children by him; to understand the mystery of this uninteresting, good, simple-hearted man, who argued with such wearisome good sense, at balls and evening parties kept near the more solid people, looking listless and superfluous, with a submissive, uninterested expression, as though he had been brought there for sale, who yet believed in his right to be happy, to have children by her

The ending is the salient part here. Alekhin thinks that the husband's uninteresting nature makes him unworthy of happiness. When Alekhin compares himself to the husband, isn't he really saying that he's unfit for happiness?

There is something to be said about Alekhin's need to appear "right." One of the questions he asks about his relationship with Anna is "Would it be honorable?" Clearly, he does care about how he appears in the eyes of others. Yet, I don't think we should confuse this desire for the motivation for telling this story, or for why he returns to the farm. His personal weakness drive him to working the farm, and his story is a lament for those weaknesses.

Maybe we shouldn't harp so much on this, though. I'm curious what you thought of Anna and Alekhin. I'll have to introduce that part of the story tonight.

[Janine]

No, I don't get a snowing ad. I do get one that beeps repeatedly. It's particularly annoying when I'm listening to music that's soft so I have to turn up the volume. When the ad comes up it emits this 2000 decibel screaming beep. Sometimes it completely catches me off guard and surprises me so much I tumble backwards over my chair comically.

Hi Quark, how strange; that sounds horrid! You might blow out your eardrums ; better be careful. I hate shrill noises; especially directly in my ears. Also, when falling off your chair you could hurt your back....you silly person, you...
The snowy ad is still there and seems to slow me up on search. Also, I regret that I upgraded internet explorer to version 7 and sorry I did it. It kept bugging me day after day to do so, and I thought, this update must be important. Now I think the new version was totally optional; so I go ahead and install and now notice it gobbled up more of my HD memory - like I need this now. I was trying to cut down on the memory on my computer, deleting and taking stuff off since it was running slowly before.

Isn't he, though? By the end of his story he admits that he isn't much better than Anna's husband, who he had derided earlier. Talking about Anna, he says "It would have been a different matter if I had had a beautiful, interesting life -- if, for instance, I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country, or had been a celebrated man of science, an artist or a painter; but as it was it would mean taking her from one everyday humdrum life to another as humdrum or perhaps more so." He finds himself just as boring as the husband. Earlier he said this of the husband:

I kind of laughed about the first comparison, Alekhin saying "..if I had been struggling for the emancipation of my country,..."; I kept thinking - 'yeah, right, then you might be killed and what good would you do Anna then?' And an artist or a painter - usually artists were 'starving artists' and struggling along in their own self-centered and liberated, carefree lifestyle. How would this free lifestyle be right for Anna, too? I guess he is really dreaming here and just musing without thinking too logically.
I also, did not quite see what was so 'humdrum' about Anna's life. She had her children, her husband, who obviously thought highly of her and loved her, and was good to her, and it was mentioned they had another estate in the country, asside from a lovely house and estate. I just don't know how miserable this poor Anna truly was. I have some questions about that in my mind, after re-reading this story last night (this may now be my 4th reading!).

The ending is the salient part here. Alekhin thinks that the husband's uninteresting nature makes him unworthy of happiness. When Alekhin compares himself to the husband, isn't he really saying that he's unfit for happiness?

Exactly, he does see himself as a more appealing person for Anna, but is he? I think this phrase 'unworthy of happiness' is actually in the text, but the opposite - the husband feels he is 'worthy of her happiness'; See this quote describing her husband:

...;to understand this mystery of this uninteresting, good, simple-minded man, who argues with such wearisome good sense, at balls and evening parties kept near the more solid people, looking listless and superfluous, with a submissive, uninterested expression, as though he had been brought there for sale, who yet believed in his right to be happy, to have children by her; and kept I kept trying to understand why she had met him first and not me, and why such a terrible mistake in our lives need have happened.

This clearly shows that Alekhin does think the husband feels he has the right to be happy with his wife. Yet all the adjectives that Alekhin seem to use, describing the husband, are negative and imply he is a boring person or not one who Anna would truly find to love, so why did she? I think this paragraph is clearly, all from the viewpoint of Alekhin and not of Anna herself or even her husband. Who knows what the true story was, or the true picture of the couple. This is only Alekhin's perception. It all depends on where a person is standing.

The last statement by Alekhin is also an assumption on his part. Who is to say that honestly the way things were or fate ordained them to be, was not the right way? Had Anna meet up with Alekhin first, he might have provided her with a miserable existence, had they actually lived together, sharing not just choice moments in their lives, but every aspect of married life together.

It seems to me now, after reading this story a 4th time, that Alekhin's view is very 'fairytalish' and it does feel like a direct take-off or his take-off of the Anna Karinena story by Tolstoy; as if Chekhov is showing what would have occurred, had neither woman or man taken the initiative to have an affair outside of a marriage, this being in opposition to the Tolstoy story...which everyone knows, ends tragically. So, which story is the more tragic? I would think this one sad, but the other much more devastating. I think that yes, Alekhin is playing a more herioc part in this story, but I think natually one would do so, having not been able to consumate one's deepest desires and finding some solace in thinking that way about oneself and their lost love. I think when criticising him, everyone has been a bit harsh. He could not help his intense feelings towards Anna, but I don't see them as truly realistic. I do feel he bend his tale, in order to fit his own fairytale images and fantasies about his story.

There is something to be said about Alekhin's need to appear "right." One of the questions he asks about his relationship with Anna is "Would it be honorable?" Clearly, he does care about how he appears in the eyes of others. Yet, I don't think we should confuse this desire for the motivation for telling this story, or for why he returns to the farm. His personal weakness drive him to working the farm, and his story is a lament for those weaknesses.

Is that so wrong though - for Alekhin to appear 'right' or 'noble'? In "A Tale of Two Cites" we see Sidney Carton much like Alekhin, who has open access to the couple's home and can come and go at will, being considered almost a part of the family and a good friend. Lucie knows that Carton loves her, he has professed it to her in a 'noble' manner. He sys he wants nothing in return (feeling he is unworthy of her fine love), but to be able to see her from time to time and be a part of her family, much like Alekhin is doing here. It so reminded me of the situation in that story. Now, as most know, the ending sees Carton giving the ultimate sacrifice for Lucie, her husband, her father and child - all that she loves; is it wrong that Sidney should feel noble or 'fine' about that? I see here, in this story, that Alekhin feels he did 'right' at the time of the parting; but living on and years later, he now questions it and the idea of love,as well. Is that not merely being human?

Maybe we shouldn't harp so much on this, though. I'm curious what you thought of Anna and Alekhin. I'll have to introduce that part of the story tonight.

I don't think we should keep harping on this one aspect of the story. I feel we have missed much and should move on. Why not take a look at Anna and also, her husband. It seems the story is a sort of triangle and we have not discussed those two characters in much detail. Of course, there again, we only have the limited perspective of Alekhin to go by, and must assume much about the couple from the few hints in his narrative.

But, by all means, Quark, do post parts of the story for us to examine.

Also, I am going to go back over the text and underline some parts and I have some specific questions.

[Quark]

I don't think we should keep harping on this one aspect of the story. I feel we have missed much and should move on...

But, by all means, Quark, do post parts of the story for us to examine.

Good idea. Let's move on and talk about Anna Alekseevna. We're introduced to her here:

And here it was my lot to meet Anna Alexyevna, Luganovitch's wife. At that time she was still very young, not more than twenty-two, and her first baby had been born just six months before. It is all a thing of the past; and now I should find it difficult to define what there was so exceptional in her, what it was in her attracted me so much; at the time, at dinner, it was all perfectly clear to me. I saw a lovely young, good, intelligent, fascinating woman, such as I had never met before; and I felt her at once some one close and already familiar, as though that face, those cordial, intelligent eyes, I had seen somewhere in my childhood, in the album which lay on my mother's chest of drawers.

Alekhin recounts love at first sight, but he doesn't remember why he was so infatuated with her. That should already draw questions from the reader: "Has he really forgotten or does he just not want to say? Or did he ever know?" Alekhin tries to make his feeling clearer, but he only obscures the matter further. Even though Alekhin's knowledge of Anna could only be superficial at this point, he immediately describes a sense of familiarity with Anna. The only substantial observation Alekhin has made so far is of her "cordial, intelligent eyes" which makes me even more suspicious of Alekhin's crush. He's been longing to get back to his refined lifestyle of courteous manners and intelligent conversation, and the woman he's infatuated with just happens to possess features that bespeak cordiality and intelligence. Alekhin may be cloaking his longing for culture and refinement inside a romantic infatuation with a woman who embodies those virtues.

Of course, who's to say that this wasn't genuine love? Alekhin's feelings are quite touching, and it's possible that bad memory could be causing the discrepancies in his story-telling. Looking further ahead might help us come to a better conclusion. Let's look at some scenes where they interact more. First, this one at the theatre:

"In the late autumn there was a theatrical performance for some charitable object in the town. I went into the governor's box (I was invited to go there in the interval); I looked, and there was Anna Alexyevna sitting beside the governor's wife; and again the same irresistible, thrilling impression of beauty and sweet, caressing eyes, and again the same feeling of nearness. We sat side by side, then went to the foyer.

" 'You've grown thinner,' she said; 'have you been ill?'

" 'Yes, I've had rheumatism in my shoulder, and in rainy weather I can't sleep.'

" 'You look dispirited. In the spring, when you came to dinner, you were younger, more confident. You were full of eagerness, and talked a great deal then; you were very interesting, and I really must confess I was a little carried away by you. For some reason you often came back to my memory during the summer, and when I was getting ready for the theatre today I thought I should see you.'

"And she laughed.

" 'But you look dispirited today,' she repeated; 'it makes you seem older.'

And this description of Alekhin's place in the Lugovitch's home:

"Her eyes, the elegant refined hand she gave me, her indoor dress, the way she did her hair, her voice, her step, always produced the same impression on me of something new and extraordinary in my life, and very important. We talked together for hours, were silent, thinking each our own thoughts, or she played for hours to me on the piano. If there were no one at home I stayed and waited, talked to the nurse, played with the child, or lay on the sofa in the study and read; and when Anna Alexyevna came back I met her in the hall, took all her parcels from her, and for some reason I carried those parcels every time with as much love, with as much solemnity, as a boy.

The byplay in the first passage shows some more of what each of them mean to one another. Oddly enough, I find little in either of them that makes me think Anna is madly in love with him. Compassion and some slight interest in his conversation are what Anna shows him at the theater. Alekhin believes that she's hiding her true feelings under this more polite manner, but why does he think that?

The second part I quoted has Alekhin once again describing Anna very superficially. It's her elegance, the way she does her hair, and her step that attract him. Their interaction doesn't give him much satisfaction. They remain silent during their walks, and he's practically her servant in the household. We get the image of Alekhin doting on her for unknown reasons, and Anna not returning his feelings. Alekhin will later refer to his affection as a "sad love", and it starting to become clear why.

The more I read this story the less I believe Alekhin. While there's nothing to indicate that he's deliberately avoiding the truth, he's so out of touch with everything that it makes it impossible to agree with him. I still think it's possible that he's being truthful. After all, the story wouldn't work if you weren't moved at least a little by what Alekhin says. But, the holes in his story create a space where a second explanation of their relationship arises--one where Alekhin is deceived about Anna. The more I look over things the more I tend to agree with that second one.


Janine, I'll respond to the rest of your post when I start talking about the husband.

[Dark Muse]

In a previous post, I have addressed a lot of what you bring up here reguarding the relationship between Anna and Alekhin, so I will just requote the points I made, though some of it has already been dicussed to a degree some of it I think light have also been overlocked when we got involved in the disucssion of Alekhin's movites for lack of a better word.

It is questionable if Anna and Alehin truly did love each other, as in some ways there does seem to be a lack of certain passion between them in their relations with each other. I think perhaps the fact that they are both two young people whom might have similar interests, and each provide the other with a certain escape or break in their usual routine and lives, they might have developed an infatuation with each other that they mistake as actual love.

As already mentioned, Anna, for Alehin represents an escape from his dull country life, and she stands for the lifestyle he might really wish to have for himself.

While Alehin, for Anna represents an escape from her day to day home life, as well as the opportunity to have a lively conversation with someone of intellect and wit.

I think it is the "newness" of each of them to each other which first attracts them, but I think in some ways, they feel safe in the fact that there is this barrier between them, and that is what allows them to carry on with their relationship. In the end I do not think they truly desired to actually be together, because in doing this, that would ruin the one thing each one can offer the other.

I think this is also way they cannot truly account for their attraction to each other, because they are not so much in love with one another for who they are, but perhaps more for what they are, and what they symbolize to the other.

I also found it interesting, that most of their interaction together seemed to be done "safely" that is they did not even seem to try to make many opportunities for themselves to be intimate with each other, so they could carry on this affection for each other without truly being confronted by it or having to commit to it, as Alekin's visits to Anna were most often quite in the open, and while the husband was there at the house.

It does not appear as if they really shared many private moments together but often when he is speaking of his time with Anna, he always refers to "they" as both her and her husband being present. Or the Anna's children being there.

It was almost as if their relationship was really more in their head than anything, as outwardly they did not really engage romantically, they enjoyed each other's company, but did not physically act in a way that could be seen as inappropriate.

[Quark]

In a previous post, I have addressed a lot of what you bring up here reguarding the relationship between Anna and Alekhin,

Yes and I was drawing on a lot of what you were saying earlier when I posted above. I know we agree on this point, but I sense that Janine and islandclimber may have a different opinion. If I find that everyone's arguing the same side of this question, though, I might switch and talk about the evidence that supports Alekhin's claims.

so I will just requote the points I made, though some of it has already been dicussed to a degree some of it I think light have also been overlocked when we got involved in the disucssion of Alekhin's movites for lack of a better word.

Well there are some things going on in these passages that are beyond just a rehash of what we were talking about earlier. For example, what do you make of the mother-child references that come up. Alekhin gives Anna a very maternal aspect in his story, and he refers to himself as a boy in the last section of the story I quoted. What's up with that?

[Dark Muse]

Reading over those passages, it is very intersting, and though we do not really know anything about his mother, or even when she died within his life. I do not think that is mentioned anywhere, it only talks of his father as far as I can recall.

I saw a lovely young, good, intelligent, fascinating woman, such as I had never met before; and I felt her at once some one close and already familiar, as though that face, those cordial, intelligent eyes, I had seen somewhere in my childhood, in the album which lay on my mother's chest of drawers.

and when Anna Alexyevna came back I met her in the hall, took all her parcels from her, and for some reason I carried those parcels every time with as much love, with as much solemnity, as a boy.

These passages do make it seem like he is acutally looking for more of a mother figure than a true lover. Or perhaps that is where his true infacutation with Anna comes from, he just does not fully realize it. That she acutally reminds him of his mother or childhood in someway, and that is why he comes to be drawn to her in such a way which he could not understand.

[Quark]

Reading over those passages, it is very intersting, and though we do not really know anything about his mother, or even when she died within his life. I do not think that is mentioned anywhere, it only talks of his father as far as I can recall.

No, he never does mention his mother, nor does he really talk about what kind of a mother Anna is. When he's connecting Anna to maternity, he must be doing it in a general, abstract way, and not linking her to anything in his actual childhood.

These passages do make it seem like he is acutally looking for more of a mother figure than a true lover. Or perhaps that is where his true infacutation with Anna comes from, he just does not fully realize it. That she acutally reminds him of his mother or childhood in someway, and that is why he comes to be drawn to her in such a way which he could not understand.

Anna does act as a mother for Alekhin in some ways. She's very comforting and sympathizing. We've already brought up the idea of Alekhin being pity-seeking--although I don't know if we ever agreed on that point. I think that Alekhin may be attracted to Anna as a giver of pity, like a mother. He's also comforted in the Lugovitch's home, and he becomes childlike in their domestic life.

Also, the mother-child language makes their relationship appear more platonic than sensual or sexual. This could be another warning thrown in by Chekhov that Alekhin doesn't understand his own story.

[Dark Muse]

Though he does mention his father, we really do not know what kind of realationship they had, other than it seemed his father cared for him becasue of what he sacrificed for his son's education, but we do not know how close they might have acutally been.

In someways, it seems he does almost seek more of a family/home life with Anna and her husband, but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

And it is true their relationship is not seemingly very sensual, and no indication of physcial intimacy is given. And most the time he spends with Anna, is in the realm of the household, often with the husband present.

In someways he does seem to be found of the husband, even if he does discount him as being dull when speaking of Anna's relationship to him.

He does not act very much like a typical lover.

[Quark]

Though he does mention his father, we really do not know what kind of realationship they had, other than it seemed his father cared for him becasue of what he sacrificed for his son's education, but we do not know how close they might have acutally been.

I don't think they were very close at all. Alekhin hardly mentions him at all during the story even though he's taking care of his father's estate. You would think the father would drop in or send a letter, but we hear nothing of his existence other than that he fell into debt. Alekhin does try to help his father, yet this isn't because of love or kinship. No, it's because he feels indebted to him for paying for college. Money and estates are the basis are their relationship. It doesn't seem like there's anything personal going on between them.

but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

It's starting to sound like you're even more hard on Alekhin than I am. My most recent reading of the story has made me a little more suspicious of Alekhin, but I think there's still a lot in Alekhin's story that makes sense. For example, why does Anna suddenly become depressed if she doesn't love him anyway? Alekhin's explanation of her irritability, while perhaps not being verifiable, at least makes sense. And, when Alekhin admits that he loves her she doesn't push him away or reject anything he's saying. She actually puts her head on his shoulder and cries. Some part of what Alekhin was saying must have gotten to her. Some part of what he's saying gets to me too. There are enough contradictions in his story to make you question what he's saying, but there never is enough to disprove it. I think the story is one big loop from when he says "love is a great mystery." He tries to answer the questions raised about love, but he's never able to.

As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

Are you saying that he isn't looking for comfort, or that he isn't interested in appearing noble?

In someways he does seem to be found of the husband, even if he does discount him as being dull when speaking of Anna's relationship to him.

I'm not actually sure what the friendship between the two of them is like. They are colleagues, right? I think Lugovitch is some court official too. Alekhin must have liked him at some point if he accepted an invitation to his house. The husband is certainly polite and accommodating. After all, he's constantly feeding him and giving him gifts. At the same time, though, I don't think Alekhin respects him at all. He may be like the husband for his hospitality, but he doesn't really care for his opinions.

[Janine]

I don't think they were very close at all. Alekhin hardly mentions him at all during the story even though he's taking care of his father's estate. You would think the father would drop in or send a letter, but we hear nothing of his existence other than that he fell into debt. Alekhin does try to help his father, yet this isn't because of love or kinship. No, it's because he feels indebted to him for paying for college. Money and estates are the basis are their relationship. It doesn't seem like there's anything personal going on between them.

Am I missing something here? All along now I have thought the father had died. Don't tell me I have to read this story a 5th time. Since he was never mentioned, I just naturally, felt he had left the debts and his estates/the farm to his son, and now the son felt ablidged to carry on with his father's property. Boy, am I confused. Where did the father run off to then?

It's starting to sound like you're even more hard on Alekhin than I am.

Yeah, I agree and I am not sure if I get his about our discussion so far. I keep feeling like everyone is concentrating on whether the man's story is plausible, or if he truly was in love with Anna. I still can't see why he could not have been in a silent way. It keeps being brought up, that he is not acting, or he is inert, or doesn't take inniative. Afterall, this is the late 19th century, and the woman is married with children. I can't understand why everyone is so hard on poor Alekhin. Any person speaking of a lost love or unrequitted love, will naturally color the story with their own impressions. I think in many ways, we are just over-analysising this thought, and why he did not act on his impulses. Is it always the right thing to act on impulse? Perhaps the man felt honor to her and respect, and did not wish to cross that line in her life, and cause her grief and unhappiness. He may have seen it this way clearly, when he was young and felt it his right not to act on his impulses. This man, Alekhin, is shown to be a 'fair' and 'honest' thinking person and upstanding, in other respects. He works hard on the farm, accepting his responsibility to his father and his debtors; he may not always like it or he may truly hate it, but he accepts it as his fate and his responsibility. He was part of the courts system of justice, showing he thinks logically and fairly. I don't see Alekhin as a bad person or a lame person, at all. I see him heroic in my own eyes. One may question this, but then I just don't see the point of this story, to be honest with you. I felt something deeper for him at the end, when he finally held Anna and confessed his love to her; then they parted and he sat alone and cried in his solace. What is wrong with his pathos and sadness, and also his questioning of 'love' throughout the story?

My most recent reading of the story has made me a little more suspicious of Alekhin, but I think there's still a lot in Alekhin's story that makes sense. For example, why does Anna suddenly become depressed if she doesn't love him anyway? Alekhin's explanation of her irritability, while perhaps not being verifiable, at least makes sense. And, when Alekhin admits that he loves her she doesn't push him away or reject anything he's saying. She actually puts her head on his shoulder and cries. Some part of what Alekhin was saying must have gotten to her. Some part of what he's saying gets to me too. There are enough contradictions in his story to make you question what he's saying, but there never is enough to disprove it. I think the story is one big loop from when he says "love is a great mystery." He tries to answer the questions raised about love, but he's never able to.

Yes, I though it clued us into the fact that Anna was finally showing her own feelings by her depression. But of course, the depression could have been from some other source or origin. Chekhov really does not provide the information to make a sound judgement on the cause; but then with her professing her love to Alekhin at the end, we can pretty much surmise the depression was born from her unrequitted love for him.

Are you saying that he isn't looking for comfort, or that he isn't interested in appearing noble?

Yes, I don't understand your remark here, Dark Muse, either.

I'm not actually sure what the friendship between the two of them is like. They are colleagues, right? I think Lugovitch is some court official too. Alekhin must have liked him at some point if he accepted an invitation to his house. The husband is certainly polite and accommodating. After all, he's constantly feeding him and giving him gifts. At the same time, though, I don't think Alekhin respects him at all. He may be like the husband for his hospitality, but he doesn't really care for his opinions.

I agree with all of this.

Quote by Dark Muse

In someways, it seems he does almost seek more of a family/home life with Anna and her husband, but perhaps does not completely understand just what he wants and confuses it for love.

I think he likes being part of a family life, but I don't think he 'confuses' his feeling for those of love; I think his love feelings are 'genuine'. One cannot always explain why one falls in love with some certain person. I don't understand why we are questioning him, when he said he could not exactly explain why he felt as he did for her, even from the start.

As for a man whom does concern himself with doing the right thing, I find it hard to beleive he could really be completely comftrable playing with the child of the man whose wife he is having an affair with.

What affair with his wife? They never have an affair throughout the story - at least not to my knowledge. It appears as just a close friendship in action. Why shouldn't he play with the child/children?

[Dark Muse]

Yes, I don't understand your remark here, Dark Muse, either.

What I was trying to say, is that I think this image of him playing with Anna's and her husbands child makes the idea of a passionate romantic relationship between Anna and Alekhin hard to beleive. Considering how concerned he is with his noblity and doing the right thing

What affair with his wife? They never have an affair throughout the story - at least not to my knowledge. It appears as just a close friendship in action. Why shouldn't he play with the child/children?

Well that is kind of my point. He is trying to tell this story as if he were truly in love with this woman, and yet thier relationship together was really a platonic one. There is nothing in thier actions which suggest they were turly passionate about each other or intimate. They were only two-like minds that established a close bound. But it does not seem they are truly in love.

[Janine]

What I was trying to say, is that I think this image of him playing with Anna's and her husbands child makes the idea of a passionate romantic relationship between Anna and Alekhin hard to beleive. Considering how concerned he is with his noblity and doing the right thing

I don't agree. If you read Anna K, I believe the husband liked her child and showed attention to him. Why wouldn't he? Lawrence fell in love with a married woman, and he played with her children when he visited her house. At first, it was just a strong attraction and eventually, they fell in-love, they ran off and eloped. I didn't find it strange at all, that Alekhin played with Anna's child. Why would he ignore the existence of the child? Wouldn't that make Anna hate him? If he bonded with her, it was only natural he would bond with the child, as well. Maybe in the end he cared more about the family staying together, partly for the child's sake, than leaving with Anna and tearing them appart. That is exactly what happens in Anna K, Tolstoy's story, and the outcome is tragic for all, especially her child. Also, in those days, the wife was not given any priviledges with the child or children, that she left behind. Had Anna in this story run off with Alekhin, no doubt she, too, would have been barred from seeing her child, who she loved dearly. Who would wish this for a loved one? For mother and child to be torn appart is a horrendous thing, unthinkable. This was the case in the 1900's with Frieda, she barely was alowed to see her own three beloved children. It took it's toll. It even took a toll on Lawrence. I am sure he felt badly and even guilty about it, at times. Later the children grew up and had a choice. The one girl remained faithful to her mother, Barbara, but the boy, Monty, rejected her I believe. For a mother, that would be a hard pill to swallow. It would leave a lifetime scar, not just on the mother, but children as well.

Well that is kind of my point. He is trying to tell this story as if he were truly in love with this woman, and yet thier relationship together was really a platonic one. There is nothing in thier actions which suggest they were turly passionate about each other or intimate. They were only two-like minds that established a close bound. But it does not seem they are truly in love.

Well, believe what you will about the story; I personally do believe Alekhin was very much in-love with Anna. We all love differently and who is to say if you don't show a deep passion or intimacy, you don't truly love. One can love from afar, and I still believe it can very much be love. Chekhov never gives us much to go by here. Who is to say their times together were not felt intimately by each? In "A Tale of Two Cities" I have no doubts in my mind that Sidney Carton did indeed love Lucy, even though he did not act on his impulses and try to obtain her. In the end he proved his love and it was far more noble, than if he had stolen her away from the other man in her life. In the end of that novel, Lucy knew just how much Sidney did love her and how far he would go for her sake. What is wrong with 'unconditional' love?