Adventures in Reading Something I Kept Putting Off
I might just make a series out of this, because there are A LOT of books/plays/etc that I have always meant to read. (Story of a reader's life, right?) We'll see.
Anyway, after much deliberating, I finally started trying to tackle Chekhov. (Calm down, Star Trek fans, I'm talking about Anton Chekhov. No nuclear wessels here.) And got bogged down in "Platonov" immediately.
My God, it's confusing trying to keep track of all these characters dumped on you first scene. Even more confusing than reading a Shakespeare play you've never seen performed, because everybody seems to have as many names as Aragorn.
Then I remembered how much easier Much Ado About Nothing was to read after having watched the movie with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson. So I tried to find a DVD recording of "Platonov" at several libraries. No success. Arg. I had to buy a megapack DVD of a ton of old BBC recordings of various Chekhov plays.
But it was worth it. I forgot how much I missed playing spot-the-BBC-actor. And even though I *still* feel a little lost trying to follow everything going on, I really, really am fascinated with the way the story weaves. And the way the characters weave through the story's weaving, till everything is tied up in knots and you have no idea what is what anymore. I have no idea how Chekhov manages to make the story feel locked in stasis, yet completely chaotic, all at once. It makes no sense, but it works.
What really sticks with me is how Platanov is the one always philosophizing, like he's superior, when he's the worst one of the messy lot of flawed characters. Everyone else is selfish, but well-meaning, more or less. But Platonov really doesn't mean well for anyone in particular, unless it's directly related to *his* well-being. So ironic that the one who is quickest to read the flaws in others is the one with the most flaws within himself. Or maybe it's not irony. Maybe the more flaws you have, the better practiced you will be at spotting flaws elsewhere. Or the more desperate to focus on flaws that don't belong to you.
Anyway, after much deliberating, I finally started trying to tackle Chekhov. (Calm down, Star Trek fans, I'm talking about Anton Chekhov. No nuclear wessels here.) And got bogged down in "Platonov" immediately.
My God, it's confusing trying to keep track of all these characters dumped on you first scene. Even more confusing than reading a Shakespeare play you've never seen performed, because everybody seems to have as many names as Aragorn.
Then I remembered how much easier Much Ado About Nothing was to read after having watched the movie with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson. So I tried to find a DVD recording of "Platonov" at several libraries. No success. Arg. I had to buy a megapack DVD of a ton of old BBC recordings of various Chekhov plays.
But it was worth it. I forgot how much I missed playing spot-the-BBC-actor. And even though I *still* feel a little lost trying to follow everything going on, I really, really am fascinated with the way the story weaves. And the way the characters weave through the story's weaving, till everything is tied up in knots and you have no idea what is what anymore. I have no idea how Chekhov manages to make the story feel locked in stasis, yet completely chaotic, all at once. It makes no sense, but it works.
What really sticks with me is how Platanov is the one always philosophizing, like he's superior, when he's the worst one of the messy lot of flawed characters. Everyone else is selfish, but well-meaning, more or less. But Platonov really doesn't mean well for anyone in particular, unless it's directly related to *his* well-being. So ironic that the one who is quickest to read the flaws in others is the one with the most flaws within himself. Or maybe it's not irony. Maybe the more flaws you have, the better practiced you will be at spotting flaws elsewhere. Or the more desperate to focus on flaws that don't belong to you.