Discovering Russian Literature discussion

For discussion of the play The Seagull by Anton Chekhov. Please post your thoughts, comments, and questions here, and be aware spoilers may be posted here.

ACT I

First of all I have to say that I loved the opening lines to this play:

"Why are you always in black?"
"I'm in mourning for my life. I am sad"

These words really spoke to me, and I found quite interesting because it does seem very reflective of the modern Goth culture. I also found the discussion that followed between Masha and Medvedenko to be quite an interesting one.

I think it really speaks of many of the misunderstandings, and stereotypes as well as different life experiences between the classes which serve to further divide them.

Among the working/lower classes there is the perception that if only they had money they would be happy and all their problems would go away. That money would be the solution to all ills.

And among those who have money often have their own personal hardships, struggles, and disconcentnet trivialized. Because they do not understand the physical hardships of those who do not have money, there is a perception that they do not have a "right" to be unhappy.

On the other hand those who do have money have a tendency to idealize the "simple life" and have a romantic view of what peasant life would be like and have no real grasp or understanding of the true suffering that those who have little or no money must suffer through. They have no conception of what it would really mean not to have food on the table.


I was a bit baffled by the reasoning and motivations of Treplef in the creation of his play after he gives his speech to Sorin, stating that he does not believe in the stage, and finds it vulgar. His his play an attempt for him to transform the stage into what he thinks it ought to be? Or just a way to spend time with Nina? Or an effort to when over the approval and affection of his mother?

The concept of having a play within a play I also found interesting. I rather like the idea of a play which itself deals with the theater, I wonder if this is a bit of self-mockery? Does this make a statement about life itself being a stage as declared by Shakespeare?

Comment and question: I'm getting a little lost with the characters because I'm reading on a Kindle (not my favorite way to read, but the download was free). Does Trigorin represent Chekhov?

Comment and question: Trigorin is discussing with Nina how his life is "nothing especially lovely" because everything he sees he must remember for his writing. That's the way it is with me and teaching. I see or hear or learn something and I think: "How does that fit into a lesson plan?" Does this happen to others of you in other occupations?

D.j. wrote: "Comment and question: I'm getting a little lost with the characters because I'm reading on a Kindle (not my favorite way to read, but the download was free). Does Trigorin represent Chekhov?

Comm..."

I myself wondered if Trigorin was meant to be a stand in for Chekhov himself. I found his conversation with Nina about his being a writer quite interesting. Nina being young and naiave glorifying a life of perceived fame and Triogrin speaking of the actual realities of living such a life. Being a writer myself I could relate to much of what Trigorin says.

D.j. wrote: "Comment and question: I'm getting a little lost with the characters because I'm reading on a Kindle (not my favorite way to read, but the download was free). Does Trigorin represent Chekhov?

Comm..."
There are a lot of aspects of Chekhov's personality that he generously lend to his characters. In this play, I can name at least 3:
- Trigorin - the established writer who is modest about his success
- Treplev - the "fresh", rebelious writer with idealistic ideas
- Dorn - a doctor, like Chekhov, with a fine sense of self-irony with regards to his age and his success with the ladies

"I was a bit baffled by the reasoning and motivations of Treplef in the creation of his play after he gives his speech to Sorin, stating that he does not believe in the stage, and finds it vulgar."
Treplev is talking about "great" artists that appeal to the general (ignorant) masses, who fake serving a noble purpose, but, in fact cultivate their own image on stage. My interpretation is a bit subjective due to my limited English. I recommend the 2-minute clip associated with this article (upper-right) which spot-on handles this subject. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Catalin wrote: ""I was a bit baffled by the reasoning and motivations of Treplef in the creation of his play after he gives his speech to Sorin, stating that he does not believe in the stage, and finds it vulgar."..."

In the 2nd and 3rd acts as we see more of Treplef's views, and particularly in comparison to Trigorin it becomes clearer what Treplef's motivations and ideology in regards to what he perceives modern art is degrading into.