Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Dark Muse]

It seems to me that thier love, was really just more of an infactuation between the two of them. If he did truly love her, than I do not think he would have doubted what his future with her would have been like.

And I personally find it hard to belive that two young people whom truly are in love with each other, would not express any acutal passion for one another when they are together, nor make any attempts to see each other privately. Whenever he is with her, it is always in the pressence of her husband or within her husbands household. They never try and sneak away together.

As far as the child goes. I would just think that a man of Alekhin's mortal standing would feel conflicted about playing such a role in the life of Anna's child knowing what he we was doing. It seems kind of odd to me, to have your lover play a role in your child's life.

[Janine]

It seems to me that thier love, was really just more of an infactuation between the two of them. If he did truly love her, than I do not think he would have doubted what his future with her would have been like.

I don't really know what to say. I feel this type of viewpoint is truly limited. Love exceeds certain boundaries, at least for me. I guess it is all in your interpretation, of exactly what 'true love' or 'genuine love' is. I think this is what Alekhin is asking throughout his story. I think, the doubt he has was born from his deep love for her. He was thinking of her and whether he could provide the quality of life, she was used to living, or if by taking her away, he might drag her down and daily life miserable in the end.

And I personally find it hard to belive that two young people whom truly are in love with each other, would not express any acutal passion for one another when they are together, nor make any attempts to see each other privately. Whenever he is with her, it is always in the pressence of her husband or within her husbands household. They never try and sneak away together.

No one is saying that would be easy to do, but we are not in their situation and so how can we judge what they will do or should do. Everyone is individual, different in how they react to situations like this, and because Alekhin does not take the steps to show Anna the passion he has in his heart, which would then break through and undermine her marriage and her settled secure life, it not to say they did not feel a deep passion, for each other inwardly. And is 'passion' the only true ingredient in love? I think consciously, staying around her family was purposeful, in that in this way they could not slip and become impassioned with each other; it was the safe route. If they did sneak away and meet privately, that would open up a whole new world to them and this would not necessarily mean, it would end in happiness, probably to the contrary.

Did you read "Ethan Frome", Dark Muse? In that story, the husband is very passionate in his thinking for the woman, the cousin who comes to care for his invalid wife. And yet they don't act on their impulses until later and the outcome is not favorable. His reasoning for not breaking loose and taking her away from the trap that she is in, is the fact he believes he does not have the means to support her or to give her a good life. Therefore, he suffers inertia throughout the story; but there is no doubt that he does adore and love her. There are zillions of stories of unrequitted or unconsumated love in Literature and most of those are the finest stories ever written.

As far as the child goes. I would just think that a man of Alekhin's mortal standing would feel conflicted about playing such a role in the life of Anna's child knowing what he we was doing. It seems kind of odd to me, to have your lover play a role in your child's life.

Don't understand this part of your thinking, at all. I don't know how Alekhin could simply ignore the child. The child must have loved him, as well, and therefore, why would he shun or ignore the child?

Alekhin is not Anna's lover - where do you see he is? He has put or kept himself in the position of being her close friend, not her lover.

[Dark Muse]

But if he is only a close frined to her, and not a lover, than they are not truely in love with each other. They may care for each other, but if they are only friends, than thier relationship is not a romantic one.

I do not see how you can keep confluding that they are only friends to each other, but still at the same time deeply in love with each other.

[Janine]

But if he is only a close frined to her, and not a lover, than they are not truely in love with each other. They may care for each other, but if they are only friends, than thier relationship is not a romantic one.

I do not see how you can keep confluding that they are only friends to each other, but still at the same time deeply in love with each other.

Because apparently, we have different definitions of what the word 'lover' means. I take it to mean they are physically intimate and therefore lovers. I didn't not see any physical consumation in their relationship. Friends can be lovers also and lovers should be one's best friend, for true love to exist. That is my concept of 'love'. Therefore I do think they loved each other very deeply and very much so. Just because they did not act on it physically does not dispute their love for each other. What, friends can't love also?

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that could be. For me lover does not have to mean only having physcial contact. When I use the word lover, I mean both the possiblity of having physical reltations, as well as using it for two people whom are in a romantic relationship I will refer to as "lovers" even if they may not have nessciarly been physically intimate with each other.

[Quark]

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 doesn't mention the father dying. I would assume he's still living--just not on the farm. This was a common arrangement in nineteenth century Russia. Wealthy landowners would take a house near/in a city while they would employ bailiffs and others to run their estate. Pretty sweet deal, right? Live where ever, do no work, and get paid exorbitant amounts of cash. The son has to work the farm because the father has run into debt--probably because the farm isn't making enough money to support itself. The dad is still living, I would guess, just not on the estate.

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.

Well maybe we haven't been wording our objections properly. I don't think it's so much a question of whether he loves her. No, it's more of a question of what's the basis of that love. Alekhin's believes that they should have run away together; and, since we all admit that there's downsides to that plan, we have to put scrutiny on the upsides. Would they have been happy together? Much of the story makes it seem like they wouldn't have been. We can say with some certainty that Alekhin loves Anna now, but we don't know whether Anna really loved him or just found him charming and took pity on him. We don't know whether Alekhin loved Anna because she was Anna or because she represented an escape from his dull life. Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love, but maybe they should spoil their relationship if they were never going to be happy.

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?

I'm a little unclear on something. Do you agree with his decision not to pursue a relationship with Anna?

[Janine]

Yes, that could be. For me lover does not have to mean only having physcial contact. When I use the word lover, I mean both the possiblity of having physical reltations, as well as using it for two people whom are in a romantic relationship I will refer to as "lovers" even if they may not have nessciarly been physically intimate with each other.

Yes, I would agree with that Dark Muse; however to me, concerning these two particular people, I would not have considered 'lovers', unless they had verbally expressed this to each other during the span of the story. Only at the end, does this become a truth, when they confess their mutal love to each other. So I didn't feel they were lovers most of their lives, nor did I feel that they were at the end either, actually; I feel this way because they chose not to become lovers. They never followed out their feelings to that extend. If they did not act on their impulses, I do not feel they were 'lovers'. Therefore, I don't see why Alekhin should have felt any guilt in playing with Anna's children.

[Janine]

It doesn't mention the father dying. I would assume he's still living--just not on the farm. This was a common arrangement in nineteenth century Russia. Wealthy landowners would take a house near/in a city while they would employ bailiffs and others to run their estate. Pretty sweet deal, right? Live where ever, do no work, and get paid exorbitant amounts of cash. The son has to work the farm because the father has run into debt--probably because the farm isn't making enough money to support itself. The dad is still living, I would guess, just not on the estate.

I didn't know that about Russian life. I didn't really get the impression the father still was alive, but I will look over that part of the story again and see if it reveals anything. I have been on a mini-vacation! At least these posts might bring this thread back into the first page listings.

Well maybe we haven't been wording our objections properly. I don't think it's so much a question of whether he loves her. No, it's more of a question of what's the basis of that love. Alekhin's believes that they should have run away together; and, since we all admit that there's downsides to that plan, we have to put scrutiny on the upsides. Would they have been happy together? Much of the story makes it seem like they wouldn't have been. We can say with some certainty that Alekhin loves Anna now, but we don't know whether Anna really loved him or just found him charming and took pity on him. We don't know whether Alekhin loved Anna because she was Anna or because she represented an escape from his dull life. Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love, but maybe they should spoil their relationship if they were never going to be happy.

"Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love,"...well, maybe at this point, too much questioning - as to whether it was 'true love', might spoil this story for us altogether. I liked the story, thinking it was just as he said and that he did love her and she him. I guess I am a "hopless romantic"!

I'm a little unclear on something. Do you agree with his decision not to pursue a relationship with Anna?

I think I do, because he felt (at the time) it was the 'right' thing to do. Who will ever know if it was. We would have to be given more information and I don't see that it is possible to evaluate if they would have been happy, had they acted on their impulses.

[Quark]

You're back, Janine. Where did you go off to?

At least these posts might bring this thread back into the first page listings.

It's always about the glamor of that first page with you.

I didn't know that about Russian life. I didn't really get the impression the father still was alive, but I will look over that part of the story again and see if it reveals anything.

I don't remember much being said about the father. He paid for his son's education, went into debt, and then he recedes into the background. Either Alekhin doesn't think he's important to the story, or maybe they just were not very close.

Something I am curious about, though, is the amount of time that elapses in the story. I get the impression that it's about a year from when he meets Anna to the end of his story. If you look back over the story, tell me whether that's right.

"Alekhin warns us not to ask these questions because they spoil love,"...well, maybe at this point, too much questioning - as to whether it was 'true love', might spoil this story for us altogether. I liked the story, thinking it was just as he said and that he did love her and she him. I guess I am a "hopless romantic"!

Maybe we are getting a little carried away with the questions, but I think it is important to acknowledge the ambiguities in "About Love". After all, Alekhin sets up his story as the investigation of a "mystery."

Anyway, here's the conclusion of the story:

While Alehin was telling his story, the rain left off and the sun came out. Burkin and Ivan Ivanovitch went out on the balcony, from which there was a beautiful view over the garden and the mill-pond, which was shining now in the sunshine like a mirror. They admired it, and at the same time they were sorry that this man with the kind, clever eyes, who had told them this story with such genuine feeling, should be rushing round and round this huge estate like a squirrel on a wheel instead of devoting himself to science or something else which would have made his life more pleasant; and they thought what a sorrowful face Anna Alexyevna must have had when he said good-bye to her in the railway-carriage and kissed her face and shoulders. Both of them had met her in the town, and Burkin knew her and thought her beautiful.

Alekhin finishes his story, and Chekhov briefly describes the reaction of the listeners. Interestingly, Burkin and Ivan first admire Alekhin's estate before they even consider the story. Perhaps their admiration for the farm is a just a disguise for their admiration of Alekhin's virtue and self-sacrifice. Soon, though, their respect changes to pity for this man who's wasted his talents. They admit that Anna must have appeared very attractive, but they don't seem to care about Alekhin's love for her. Like the other two stories in this trilogy, the listeners of the story don't agree with the teller of the story. They place the emphasis on Alekhin's professional life, whereas Alekhin stressed the importance of his private life.

[Quark]

Oh, dear! I thought you were discussing "Gooseberries!" LOL My mistake.

We had talked about "Gooseberries" earlier, and I was afraid it might mislead some people--sorry about that. There is connection between the two stories, though. "Gooseberries" and "About Love" are the second and third stories in a trilogy Chekhov wrote. The first is "The Man in a Case." We're doing "About Love" because it's the best of the three, I think, and you don't need to know the other stories to understand it by itself.

I'll have to go read "About Love." I want to get involved in some of the more productive discussions.

You should have time to catch up since the story is only about nine pages.

[Janine]

Oh, dear! I thought you were discussing "Gooseberries!" LOL My mistake.

I'll have to go read "About Love." I want to get involved in some of the more productive discussions.

Antiquarian, it is really cool seeing you here. Welcome. This story is online. I put it into my Word program and reduced the font size and it came down to about 7 pages. I printed all three stories and have read them all. Maybe we can do "Gooseberries" next? What do you think, Quark. I take it you have read it, A? Glad you are joining in. It is only the 17th so you will have time to read "About Love" and make comments. We could use some more opinions on the story.

Quark, I did not mean to ignore your post. I will answer it tonight. I have to go out today and will be back later. Sorry for the delay.

[Quark]

I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him

What have you read so far? Anything good?

he can be so, so subtle.

Yeah, subtlety and understatement are common with Chekhov. I've found that multiple readings often raise my appreciation for the ambiguities that he creates in these stories. In the "About Love" discussion this month we've talked about three different ambiguities surrounding each of the main characters; and, each of us seems to have a slightly different interpretation. It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.

[Janine]

"Gooseberries," LOL and now "About Love." "The Huntsman," "Easter Night," "Vanka," "Sleepy," "Small Fry," "The Malefactor," "Panikhida," "Anyuta," those are some. I was reading them in order, I think, so I think these are the early ones, correct?

I read "About Love" this afternoon, but I'd like to read it again. It's so short and will only take me a little time.

This is very interesting thread. Hopefully, I can contribute as well as learn.

Antiquarian, we, participants in this thread, are also active in our otherthread - "Lawrence short stories". Quark and I made a trade-off; if I supported his thread, he would come and support mine. You are more than welcome in that thread, also. We have so much fun in each thread and we learn a lot about the two authors. Both author's stories are fascinating. We sort of pop back and forth between them, really keeps the mind stimulated. I think you would like both very much.

The posts (from all of you) looked very in depth and intimidating. I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him and he can be so, so subtle.

Oh Antiquarian, don't be silly; don't feel the least bit intimidated. I don't know that much about Chekhov. Whatever, I have written I really 'winged it' and struggled with my posts. I am better versed in Lawrence, but sometimes his stories throw me, too...like certain elements in the last one "Two Blue Birds"; things I can't seem to explain or quite understand definitively. He, too, can be subtle and also enigmatic, which actually sets up more of a challenge, I think....makes the two authors more interesting to study/discuss.


Of the Chekhov's (I am fairly new to Chekhov) I have read 'Lady and the Lapdog', 'Rothchild's Violin' and these three stories in the trilogy. I also listened to the complete 3 disc CD set, recently - it was great. I listed which ones were in this set, in one of my posts. Oh, and I also read 'The Student' and 'Sleepy'...I did request we not do 'Sleepy' presently, since it involves a baby being smothered. I also requested no harm to animals, small children and babies, at least for a few months. I am too close to becoming a grandmother and I found 'Sleepy' a bit disturbing, even though it is a good story.

[Dark Muse]

The posts (from all of you) looked very in depth and intimidating. I love Chekhov, but I'm not that up on him and he can be so, so subtle

As Janine said you really have nothing to worry about here. I know virtually nothing about Checkhov, the story About Love is my first time in participating in this thread, and I have only just started reading him.

Other than About Love, all I have read are Gooseberries and The Man in the Case, becasue I heard they were releated to About Love, and than I read Rothchild's Fiddle.

[Quark]

"Gooseberries," LOL and now "About Love." "The Huntsman," "Easter Night," "Vanka," "Sleepy," "Small Fry," "The Malefactor," "Panikhida," "Anyuta," those are some. I was reading them in order, I think, so I think these are the early ones, correct?

Those are the early ones. "Sleepy" is probably the latest story from that group--and also the best, I think. The way Chekhov builds to the ending is well done. Each mistaken association leads into the next until the shocking conclusion. Janine, the soon-to-be grandmother, found it disturbing, so we're going to wait to do that story. I do want to do it at some point, though.

Antiquarian, we, participants in this thread, are also active in our otherthread - "Lawrence short stories".

I was going to plug your thread, too, but I thought I would just wait for you to do it. Yes, the Lawrence short story thread is also very good. The discussions are run pretty similarly, and the cast of characters is almost the same--with the addition of Virgil in the Lawrence thread.

Quark and I made a trade-off;

I think I've gotten the better end of that deal.

Oh Antiquarian, don't be silly; don't feel the least bit intimidated.

As Janine said you really have nothing to worry about here.

Yeah, I try to keep things as beginner-friendly as I can since most of us are new to Chekhov.