Prologue:
Anton Chekhov is “one of the
most popular great Russian writers” (Asiado, 2008); his prolific pen made him
known in the world, and his works are constant part of literature textbooks and
courses. According to Boyd (2004), his works are
“extremely interesting but somehow ancillary and complimentary to his main
achievement. And this Russian conception of his work has some validity:
Chekhov, whatever his standing as a playwright, is quite probably the best
short story writer ever.” His writings placed him in the ranks of the
world’s literary cannon. Like certain great pieces of
music, his stories repay constant reading and revisiting; renowned and critically
acclaimed.
Chekhov’s stories, aside from being classic,
are unexpected to reveal postmodern ideas since he was born in late 19th
Century—the peak
of Modernism
This paper is focused on deconstructing, using Postmodern approach, two
of the longest fictions of Anton Chekhov entitled “The Wife” and “A Dreary
Story”.
“The Wife” is composed of seven chapters which tell about Pavel
Andreitch’s search for peace of mind, and for the answers to plenty
of his questions in life. He is described by his wife as educated, honest, high
principled, rich; but in effect, he becomes suffocating, oppressing, insulting
and humiliating. In his quest to find himself and the real meaning of his
existence, he gave up all his wealth and belongings, almost literally
everything that he posses in order to help the peasants who were under famine.
He was uncertain of what will happen in the future, that he might grow old and
poor; but he worried not. He found happiness in such action, he found pleasure
seeing his wife doing good things for others in the expense of his own money
and properties, and very selflessly, he said towards the end of the story, when
his wife was looking for what more she can give for the starving peasant:
“…there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor; but
that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily.”
“A Dreary Story” is
a composed of six chapters told through the Stream of Consciousness
of an old professor named Nikolay Stepanovitch, a dying medical professor, who recounts
at length his final months, his night fears and insomnia, his impatience with
colleagues and weariness with family matters. Alarmed by his own indifference
to his daughter's decision to run away with a man which he does not like, he
registers that indifference as “a paralysis of the soul, a premature death,”
and discovers within himself only a bundle of peevish desires. Towards the end
of the story, his intimate friend named Katya, a prostrated stage actress,
becomes bitterly disappointed because she asks for Nikolay’s advice but he
cannot give an answer. Having discovered the meaninglessness of life, he
becomes useless to the living.
Basic Tenets of Postmodernism
According to Feyerabend
“The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.” This argument
seems to question the organized body of knowledge that has been established by
history and human experience. Since the 1960s, when different thinkers started
questioning the validity of human Subject, leading to the rise of theories such
as “phenomenology” and sociological outlooks toward liberal and subjective
thinking; the birth of a new perspective now known as “postmodernism” has arise.
Fackerell (2007) asserts that “Postmodernism arms us with a method of calling everything into question and promoting a new cultural agenda.”
Postmodern is the time when
people could do away with theologies that has been the basis of human life
throughout the history of mankind. It dismantles the premodern’s belief in god,
and the modern’s belief in science. Copan Copan
The article entitled “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts & Howie,
2010) published by spaceandmotion.com states that “The current postmodern
belief is that a correct description of Reality is impossible.” This extreme
skepticism which is popularized by proponents such as: Friedrich
Nietzsche, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Karl Popper
and Thomas Kuhn
, produced the following postmodern assumptions (spaceandmotion.com, 2010):
- All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving.
- No theory can ever be proved true - we can only show that a theory is false.
- No theory can ever explain all things consistently.
- There is always a separation between our mind and ideas of things and the thing in itself.
- Physical reality is not deterministic.
- Science concepts are mental constructs.
- Metaphysics is empty of content.
- Absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable.
The Theory of the Absurd
“The picture we present of the reality is the product of the stories
we tell. Since the stories we create are different and multiple, so is the
world (multiple), as well. Accordingly, the realities that exist about the
world will be incomplete, and non-shared, as well. The world is ‘made’ not
‘found’” (Parker, 1997).
According to Sajjadi (2007), “There is no fixed, unique and
universal reality or truth so that one can analyze and evaluate good or bad
deeds, right and wrong, the good and the evil, ugly and beautiful by recourse
to it.” Thus, Postmodernism proposed a method of deconstruction that restored
the fundamental difference of things, a singular elevation of difference
thoroughgoing subjectivism, whereas objectivity was sacrificed to personal
subjective responses (Heartfied, 2002). Martin Esslin mentions Ionesco's
parallel concept of the absurdity: "Absurd is that which is devoid of
purpose. ...Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots,
man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless".
In “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Alfred Camus (1942), he introduced the
problem of human absurdity and how it arises. Through Sisyphus—the absurd hero,
he describes the characteristics of human basic ontological categories as the
feelings of "denseness" and "the strangeness of the world",
which are the feelings of the Absurdity of man in a world where the decline of
religious belief has deprived man of his certainties. “Absurdity does not
reside in the world itself, or in a human being, but in a tension which is
produced by their mutual indifference. Human existence is in its essence
completely different from the existence of things outside the human subject” (Navratilova,
2010).
The “Theatre of the Absurd” (Esslin,
1962) is another movement that supports postmodern thinking. “The playwrights
loosely grouped under the label of the ‘absurd’ attempt to convey their sense
of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe.”
(Crabb, 2010) Theater of the Absurd is surreal, illogical, conflictless and
plotless. The dialogue often seemed to be complete gibberish. They, in a sense,
attempt to reestablish man’s communion with the universe. Dr. Jan Culik, as
cited by Crabb, writes, “Absurd Theatre
can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our
age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by
instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish.
The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence
that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is
mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition.”
According to eNotes.com (2009), in literature, postmodernism
represents the rejection of the modernist tenets of rational, historical, and
scientific thought in favor of self-conscious, ironic, and experimental works.
Shadows of Absurdity in
“The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”
Irony and absurdity are some of the ideas of postmodernism. These
were manifested many times in “the Wife’ and “A Dreary Story”. In postmodern
literature, according to eNotes.com “the authors abandon the concept of an
ordered universe, linear narratives, and traditional forms to suggest the
malleability of truth and question the nature of reality itself, dispensing
with the idea of a universal ordering scheme in favor of artifice, temporality
and a reliance on irony.” In “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”, irony and
absurdity are depicted in many portions of both texts.
Noticeably, Chekhov’s style of writing manifested many ironic and
contradicting statements, which somehow supports the theory of the absurd.
Observe the contradiction between the underlined phrases and sentences, and his
constant use of words with opposing meaning (notice the highlighted words) in
following excerpts :
- No kind of sport, no kind of game or diversion, has ever
given me such enjoyment as
lecturing. Only at lectures have I been able
to abandon myself entirely to passion, and have understood that
inspiration is not an invention of the poets, but exists in real life…
That was in old times. Now at
lectures I feel nothing but torture…
There is a dryness in my mouth, my
voice grows husky, my head begins to go round…(A Dreary Story)
- He is always talking about serious things, but he never
speaks seriously. His judgments are always harsh and railing, but, thanks to his soft, even, jesting tone, the harshness and abuse do not jar
upon the ear…(A Dreary Story)
- And I vow to myself that I will never go to Katya's again, though I know I shall go next
evening. (A Dreary Story)
- "After all, why am
I so troubled?"
I thought. "What force draws me to the starving peasants like a
butterfly to a flame? I don't
know them, I don't understand
them; I have never seen them and I don't like them. Why this uneasiness?" (The Wife)
According to
eNotes.com (2009), “language is inherently
unable to convey any semblance of the external world, and that verbal
communication is more an act of conflict than an expression of rational
meaning.” The underlined
statements in the first item realize the idea of “temporality”, there are
conflicts between meanings; people cannot really say what will happen in the
future. All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly
evolving. What is true
today may be falsified tomorrow, because nothing is permanent. In item-two, the
confusing effect connotated by the meaning of each underlined statements is
notable, which is also the same effect created by the opposing pronouncements
in the underlined statements in item-three. Furthermore, the same idea is
conveyed in item-four whereas somebody is troubled and uneasy for people whom
he don’t know, don’t understand and don’t like. All these are absurd. The opposition between the
words “enjoyment” and “torture”; “harsh” and “soft”; “never go” and “shall go”
also prove the postmodern idea that language “is more an act of conflict…” ,
that language cannot be a defining factor for determining the truth. According
to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too
limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe Reality. Thus, according
to Feyerabend “The only absolute
truth is that there are no absolute truths.”
Furthermore, some absurdities are also depicted in the following
excerpts:
- And she thought it funny
that the students fought and I made them go down
on their knees, and she laughed.
She was a gentle, patient, good child. It happened not infrequently
that I saw something taken away from her, saw her punished without reason, or her curiosity repressed; at such
times a look of sadness was
mixed with the invariable expression of trustfulness on her face -- that
was all. (A Dreary Story)
- "Excuse us for troubling you, Natalie. We are
discussing a very important matter, and we had the happy thought that
we might take advantage of your good advice, which you will not refuse
to give us. Please sit down."…Natalya Gavrilovna looked at me
inquiringly and shrugged her shoulders as though to say, "What do I
know about it?" (The Wife)
The underlined
statements here depict confusing ideas. In item-five, how could a person who is
gentle, patient and good; will find it funny that students fight? Such is
absurd. In a conventional pattern of behavior, someone gentle, patent and good
is expected to think in a manner that aligns to these behaviors. In item-six, a
woman who thinks she doesn’t know about the matter is expected to give good
advice. In conventional reality, one cannot give what he doesn’t have.
Postmodernists
open a man’s mind to unconventional ideas by showing those which are least
expected. According to Crabb (2006) postmodernists “achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become
trite, mechanical and complacent.” Life has been made predictable,
postmodernism offers new things to ponder.
Furthermore, some evidences of the absurd are also noticeable in the
following:
- My wife's face wears a look of triumph and affected dignity,
and her habitual expression of anxiety.
(A Dreary Story)
- I listened and thought: "I am master here; if I like, I can in a moment turn out all that
fine crew." But I knew that all that was nonsense, that I could not turn out any one, and the word
"master" had no meaning. One may think oneself master, married, rich, a
kammer-junker, as much as one likes, and at the same time not know what it means. (The Wife)
The statement in
item-seven, considering the highlighted words and its general meaning is also
absurd. Upon hearing it, one might ask, “how could you be triumphant and
dignified when you are anxious?” To answer such question is futile since according
to “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts &
Howie, 2010): Absolute
and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable. In item-eight,
there is an obvious paring of words with somehow associated opposite meanings
with the word “master”: master-nonsense, master-no meaning, master-not know;
such pairs if used to define the word master will create unconventional
meaning, something frustrating—something absurd. This idea of opposing meanings
is carried out when Camus (1942) says, “When the
images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes
too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man's heart: this is the
rock's victory, this is the rock itself.” Thus according to Fackerell,
(2007) “The mind can be fooled. How could we know that our thinking patterns
are reliable?”
Finally, Chekhov also manifested absurd behaviors in his writings;
such are evident in the following:
- Katya listens and laughs.
She has a strange laugh; she catches her breath in rhythmically regular gasps,
very much as though she were playing the accordion, and nothing in her
face is laughing but her nostrils. I grow depressed and don't know what to say. Beside myself, I fire
up, leap up from my seat, and cry…(A
Dreary Story)
- …being very cold, burst out with, "Scoundrels,
these Germans!"I behave badly with Pyotr Ignatyevitch, and only
when he is going away, and from the window I catch a glimpse of his grey
hat behind the garden-fence, I want to call out and say, "Forgive
me, my dear fellow!" (A Dreary Story)
The situations
depicted in above items illustrate irony; what has been said and done are
different from what is really meant. According
to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too
limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe Reality. Looking at the
behaviors manifested by the characters in both text, an evidence of confusion
and uncertainty is drawn. The characters presented the so called “deceptive
senses” by showing ironic responses. Navratilova in “The Absurdity of Samuel Beckett” says, “It
is not concerned with the representation of events, the narration of fates, or
the adventures of characters. It is instead interested in the presentation of
an individual's basic situation. It presents individual human being's intuition
of his basic situation as he experiences it.”
Conclusion
“The ideas of those who think that they have some kind of objective
truth or reality now need to be firmly suppressed!” (Fackerell, 2007)
According to Camus: “If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would
have a meaning, or rather this problem would not arise, for I should belong to
this world. I should be this world to which I am now opposed by my whole
consciousness and my whole insistence upon familiarity. This ridiculous reason
is what sets me in opposition to all creation.” The world becomes alien
and the human being becomes a stranger in it, he feels isolated and limited.
This is what is absurd. We do not know and cannot know the truth. Furthermore, Fackerell
(2007) asserts, “Postmodernist no longer believe in the existence of the
objective truth.”
Human is now left with a question which will remain unanswered. Notice
the last words in the ending of both text:
- My wife often comes up to me and looks about my rooms
uneasily, as though looking for what more she can give to the starving
peasants "to justify her existence," and I see that, thanks to
her, there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor;
but that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily. What will happen
in the future I don't know. (The
Wife)
- "Let us have lunch, Katya," I say.
"No,
thank you," she answers coldly. Another minute passes in silence. "I
don't like Harkov," I ; "it's so grey here -- such a grey town."
"Yes, perhaps. . . . It's ugly. I am here not for long,
passing through. I am going on today."
"Where?"
"To the Crimea . . . that is, to theCaucasus ."
"To the Crimea . . . that is, to the
"Oh! For long?"
"I don't know."
(A Dreary Story)
“I don’t know.” This is the statement that best depicts
absurdity. Crabb (2006) in explaining postmodernism, talked about “The Myth of
Sysiphus” by Albert Camus, and further concludes: “Camus argued that humanity had
to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of
the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be
seen as absurd.
Anton Chekhov, in “The Wife” and in “A Dreary Story”, manifested
several shadows of the Absurd—such is a genuine characteristic of
Postmodernism.
References:
Asiado, T.
(2008). Anton Chekhov biography: Russian short story writer and playwright,
known for Uncle Vanya. Retrieved at:
Crabb, J. P. (2006) Theatre of the Absurd. Retrieved at:
Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of
Sysiphus. Retrieved at:
eNotes.com. (2009). Postmodernism
introduction. Retrieved at:
Fackerell, M. (2007). Postmodernism and the Death
of Truth. Retrieved at:
http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/postmodernism-and-death-truth
Haselhurst,
G. & Howie, K. (2010).
On Truth & Reality. Retrieved at:
Heartfield, J. (2002). Postmodernism
and the ‘Death of the Subject.
Retrieved at:
http://marxistsfr.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm.
Navratilova, E. The
absurdity of Samuel Beckett Retrieved on September, 2010 at
http://www.samuel-beckett.net/Absurdity.htm
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento