This month’s read is Anton P Chekov’s The Darling (1899), which features in George Saunders’ A Swim in the Pond in the Rain (2021). Join me in reading this story, and if you’d like to go deeper, read what Saunders has to say about it in his book. Note, the link will direct you to a HTML version. If you prefer EPUB, EPUB2, or Kindle, make a selection here.
Once you’ve read The Darling, join in the conversation below! Think reading experience, writing craft (setting, scene, voice, structure, characterisation, mood, subtext, POV … ), insights, inspiration, or anything else that comes to mind.
Hello! Thank you, Mek, for hosting a short story chat. I love the idea. 'The Darling' for me is pretty interesting bc Chekov seems to break half the rules we've learned in creative writing. I'm always here for rule breaking.
I found the time-management interesting, the way the story skips over vast durations, and pretty much names them (3 months later, 6 years later). It was a jolt the first time ('He proposed to her, and they were married.') but after that, I started to enjoy the conceit of it. It's a risky move, you really need to be on board as a reader for it to work, I think. Otherwise, I will have fallen out of the story.
I noticed that the narrator commentates on the actions and goings on, which is something I've been pulled up on as a writer. But as a reader, I really enjoy seeing the presence of the narrator and negotiating the duplicity of voice between the narrator and the characters. Of course, this story is mostly the narrator telling a story, rather than immersive (would you call it observational 3rd person POV?), but there are still these moments where I think the narrator shows their hand more prominently. E.g., in a phrase like this: 'Evidently her best years were over, past and gone, and a new, dubious life was to begin...' And here: 'There was no unhappier creature in the world, she felt.' The narrator's qualification here, 'she felt'... is such a wonderful intervention, rich with meaning. Kristen (from PWE)
Hi Kirsten! Thanks for reading and getting the conversation started!
Yes, I imagine if Chekov handed this in as an assignment, he’d get feedback about the need to make the story more scene, less exposition, but I think considering the story’s theme is centered on the patterns in relationships over a life time, summary is essential for a short piece.
I enjoyed the way details of character were built with telling dialogue for each iteration of Olenka’s persona, particularly where she rewrites her personal history and acts as though ‘she had been dealing in lumber for ever so long …’ with, ‘ “Imagine, we used to buy wood from our forests here …” ’. Which brings me to what bugged me — here, and in many other parts of the story, dialogue was sufficient to convey subtext but the narrator kept elaborating, which made it feel like a didactic tale, as though the reader could not be trusted to recognise the patterns of Olenka’s codependency and her adoption of other peoples' thoughts and interests as her own. I wonder why Chekov chose to do that. Perhaps this approach is fitting of the time or necessary for the story’s folkloric quality.
To answer your question on POV, I'd say close 3rd person but it got uber close and felt like the narrator became a character when the narrator mentioned the charm of Olenka's pronunciation of the lumber industry terms. And yes, those bits you mentioned seem to zoom in closer, getting inside her head, yet 'evidently' keeps some degree of distance.
I'm curious about your thoughts on the meaning in 'she felt'.
By the time the vet returned, I was expecting there to be a change in course, and there was, but she remained a passive bystander as life happened to her. I was left feeling a little unsure of what to think of her by the end, maybe in the way that she was unsure of what to think without someone else’s ideas to adopt; in this way, is the narrator manipulating the reader? Building up an expectation of a big reveal that gives the story more meaning, when really it is an exploration of a character who repeats the same dysfunctional patterns over and over again?
What did you think of the cat and the boy? She rejected the cat that behaved as she did, and the boy rejected her. Perhaps this highlights the role of the other in the codependence. Was Sasha’s sleep talk, which concludes the story, a nightmare where he is trying to get Olenka to leave him alone? It is such an unsatisfying ending, but it may have been intentional to not end with a resolution but rather a complete narrative arc for the life of each relationship. The ending has a sinister quality — has Sasha been ‘groomed’ to join in Olenka’s dysfunction?
I read the final third of the story in the hard copy in Saunders’ book and noticed variations in the translation, although they are not great enough to impact points we’ve discussed here.
Now, I will go and read what Saunders has written and report back! Have you delved into A Swim in the Pond in the Rain yet?
Hi Mek! A Swim in the Pond has been on my to read list all year, so I was pleased you chose a story to finally get me started on it. (-:
Mmm. I've been thinking a bit about the cat. Initially I read it differently from George Saunders. That might be the specific translation / or idiom. When Sasha says, 'I'll give it to you', I interpreted it as a forfeiture of self to Olenka, i.e., Sasha can't fight anymore, so he says: 'I'll give it to you', meaning I'll love you (in spite of the fact it will hurt me to love you), now please stop fighting. Whereas George Saunders offered a very different translation, and for him the meaning was less defeated, and more aggressive. I would be interested to read other translations to see how much the meaning changes. But once I read it the way I did, it kind of stuck with me and I'm struggling to see the story as George Saunders does.
In this context, like you, I saw the cat as a parallel of Sasha, but in a different way to Saunders: Olenka allowed the cat into her bed (lost her boundary with the cat on some level, gave it the love she had initially withheld), and ... so I thought Sasha was doing this too, relenting, giving up all boundaries to live without conflict (but, of course, it's a dream/nightmare... so this is maybe an expression of his worst fear, rather that how he will actually act).
Regardless, I think it's a pretty bleak ending. I was left feeling sad for both Olenka and Sasha. Things do not bode well: Olenka's greatest fear is losing Sasha to someone else and Sasha's greatest fear is losing himself to Olenka. (At least, in my interpretation, which is probably half wrong bc of my misreading of the translation). Kristen
I loved Saunders’ analysis, particularly on what slight deviations to the pattern do not only for the story but also the reader’s experience. His explanation of Sasha’s dream mutterings makes the meaning less ambiguous than it was on first reading, with more a resistance to Olenka’s smothering than a begrudging acquiescence to it - interesting how different translations can shift meaning, although in this case, even the version I shared here with the 'shut up' still had that line 'I'll give it to you!' which I'd interpreted more literally than Saunders has. One thing I wonder in his analysis is whether Chekov truly had no grand design in the pattern (Saunders thinks not) — surely at least on rewrites he would have refined the story to enhance the patterns even if they initially came about subconsciously. I guess we’ll never know.
I’m looking forward to reading the rest of A Swim in The Pond, first jumping ahead to Appendix B for his exercises for moving from exposition to rising action, something I am grappling with in my current project.
Now onto The Gift of the Magi (I’ll kick off the discussion on it later today, unless you beat me to it) and I’ve just ordered Bliss Montage from my local bookshop for the next read (it’s not available at my library unfortunately).
Hello! Thank you, Mek, for hosting a short story chat. I love the idea. 'The Darling' for me is pretty interesting bc Chekov seems to break half the rules we've learned in creative writing. I'm always here for rule breaking.
I found the time-management interesting, the way the story skips over vast durations, and pretty much names them (3 months later, 6 years later). It was a jolt the first time ('He proposed to her, and they were married.') but after that, I started to enjoy the conceit of it. It's a risky move, you really need to be on board as a reader for it to work, I think. Otherwise, I will have fallen out of the story.
I noticed that the narrator commentates on the actions and goings on, which is something I've been pulled up on as a writer. But as a reader, I really enjoy seeing the presence of the narrator and negotiating the duplicity of voice between the narrator and the characters. Of course, this story is mostly the narrator telling a story, rather than immersive (would you call it observational 3rd person POV?), but there are still these moments where I think the narrator shows their hand more prominently. E.g., in a phrase like this: 'Evidently her best years were over, past and gone, and a new, dubious life was to begin...' And here: 'There was no unhappier creature in the world, she felt.' The narrator's qualification here, 'she felt'... is such a wonderful intervention, rich with meaning. Kristen (from PWE)
Hi Kirsten! Thanks for reading and getting the conversation started!
Yes, I imagine if Chekov handed this in as an assignment, he’d get feedback about the need to make the story more scene, less exposition, but I think considering the story’s theme is centered on the patterns in relationships over a life time, summary is essential for a short piece.
I enjoyed the way details of character were built with telling dialogue for each iteration of Olenka’s persona, particularly where she rewrites her personal history and acts as though ‘she had been dealing in lumber for ever so long …’ with, ‘ “Imagine, we used to buy wood from our forests here …” ’. Which brings me to what bugged me — here, and in many other parts of the story, dialogue was sufficient to convey subtext but the narrator kept elaborating, which made it feel like a didactic tale, as though the reader could not be trusted to recognise the patterns of Olenka’s codependency and her adoption of other peoples' thoughts and interests as her own. I wonder why Chekov chose to do that. Perhaps this approach is fitting of the time or necessary for the story’s folkloric quality.
To answer your question on POV, I'd say close 3rd person but it got uber close and felt like the narrator became a character when the narrator mentioned the charm of Olenka's pronunciation of the lumber industry terms. And yes, those bits you mentioned seem to zoom in closer, getting inside her head, yet 'evidently' keeps some degree of distance.
I'm curious about your thoughts on the meaning in 'she felt'.
By the time the vet returned, I was expecting there to be a change in course, and there was, but she remained a passive bystander as life happened to her. I was left feeling a little unsure of what to think of her by the end, maybe in the way that she was unsure of what to think without someone else’s ideas to adopt; in this way, is the narrator manipulating the reader? Building up an expectation of a big reveal that gives the story more meaning, when really it is an exploration of a character who repeats the same dysfunctional patterns over and over again?
What did you think of the cat and the boy? She rejected the cat that behaved as she did, and the boy rejected her. Perhaps this highlights the role of the other in the codependence. Was Sasha’s sleep talk, which concludes the story, a nightmare where he is trying to get Olenka to leave him alone? It is such an unsatisfying ending, but it may have been intentional to not end with a resolution but rather a complete narrative arc for the life of each relationship. The ending has a sinister quality — has Sasha been ‘groomed’ to join in Olenka’s dysfunction?
I read the final third of the story in the hard copy in Saunders’ book and noticed variations in the translation, although they are not great enough to impact points we’ve discussed here.
Now, I will go and read what Saunders has written and report back! Have you delved into A Swim in the Pond in the Rain yet?
Hi Mek! A Swim in the Pond has been on my to read list all year, so I was pleased you chose a story to finally get me started on it. (-:
Mmm. I've been thinking a bit about the cat. Initially I read it differently from George Saunders. That might be the specific translation / or idiom. When Sasha says, 'I'll give it to you', I interpreted it as a forfeiture of self to Olenka, i.e., Sasha can't fight anymore, so he says: 'I'll give it to you', meaning I'll love you (in spite of the fact it will hurt me to love you), now please stop fighting. Whereas George Saunders offered a very different translation, and for him the meaning was less defeated, and more aggressive. I would be interested to read other translations to see how much the meaning changes. But once I read it the way I did, it kind of stuck with me and I'm struggling to see the story as George Saunders does.
In this context, like you, I saw the cat as a parallel of Sasha, but in a different way to Saunders: Olenka allowed the cat into her bed (lost her boundary with the cat on some level, gave it the love she had initially withheld), and ... so I thought Sasha was doing this too, relenting, giving up all boundaries to live without conflict (but, of course, it's a dream/nightmare... so this is maybe an expression of his worst fear, rather that how he will actually act).
Regardless, I think it's a pretty bleak ending. I was left feeling sad for both Olenka and Sasha. Things do not bode well: Olenka's greatest fear is losing Sasha to someone else and Sasha's greatest fear is losing himself to Olenka. (At least, in my interpretation, which is probably half wrong bc of my misreading of the translation). Kristen
Hello again, and Happy New Year!
I loved Saunders’ analysis, particularly on what slight deviations to the pattern do not only for the story but also the reader’s experience. His explanation of Sasha’s dream mutterings makes the meaning less ambiguous than it was on first reading, with more a resistance to Olenka’s smothering than a begrudging acquiescence to it - interesting how different translations can shift meaning, although in this case, even the version I shared here with the 'shut up' still had that line 'I'll give it to you!' which I'd interpreted more literally than Saunders has. One thing I wonder in his analysis is whether Chekov truly had no grand design in the pattern (Saunders thinks not) — surely at least on rewrites he would have refined the story to enhance the patterns even if they initially came about subconsciously. I guess we’ll never know.
I’m looking forward to reading the rest of A Swim in The Pond, first jumping ahead to Appendix B for his exercises for moving from exposition to rising action, something I am grappling with in my current project.
Now onto The Gift of the Magi (I’ll kick off the discussion on it later today, unless you beat me to it) and I’ve just ordered Bliss Montage from my local bookshop for the next read (it’s not available at my library unfortunately).