Sher’s Comments (group member since Nov 23, 2020)

Sher’s comments from the Nonfiction Reading - Only the Best group.

Wow, I am surprised you went back to Gluck, but you do seems to enjoy reading deeply in a poet you admire. I'm not ready for more Gluck yet...

More soon...

Bravo Jerome!
Bravo!

I thought and thought about this nose, and of course thought about Pinoccio and the little boy's lying and how his lies made his nose grow...

Then I thought about disfigurement of character as it relates to the body. Lose a nose or gain a big nose depending on your level of immorality! and I did notice the misogeny, and his dealing with and view of women stood out to me because, it was an area inside the story that showed pattern. Gogol repeated listing of the major's women... but the major never seems to be condemned morally for any of this. Gogol just presents the pattern. No doubt this story shows the height of one man's conceit.

About _Momo_. I tried to rent it on Audible and it is available in several languages -- not English.... hmmm... a suspicious disappointment perhaps...

And John— who are you currently reading. I am reading Wendell Berry’s poems. A real treat..

I just heard this John, and we just had read that interview at Rattle with Stephen Dunn. I really admire his work —enjoy his work…

Ok, since Larry sort of let his cat of the bag, I'll go ahead and eviscerate this story. Kidding, but I really did not like "The Nose" at all.

1. Was there a place in the story you found particularly moving? No. I was put off by the premise. Even though Saunders argues a truth can be told through the literary genre of the absurd, the truths did not matter to me, because the story was too alienating for me. It wasn't that I could not believe a nose could be cut off, and I was ready for a skillful story about what this nose symbolized, but the story fell far short of being a work of art-- for me.

2. Did you find something about the story that was confusing-- or did you find yourself resisting an aspect of the story?
The final straw--truly the straw that broke the camel's back came late in the story when the writers switches into meta discourse . I thought I can't believe he is doing this -- so unnecessary; I am not interested in a discussion about the story and how/why it was written. Also, I cared for none of the characters.

3. What moment did you find yourself tearing up, getting annoyed, or thinking in new ways?
Annoyed and impatient- see above.

4. What did you feel about this story and when did you feel it?
"The Nose" did remind me of my favorite story of all time The Double by Dostoevsky. I haven't read this book in over ten years, and I need to read it again, to see if it still impacts me, but the running around, second guessing, doubts regarding identity-- but _The Double_ isn't considered absurd. I don't think...

So, I get that this genre can be a way of relating a truth that is worth reading about, but the style, at least, of this story did not reach me.

So true Steve. Thanks for reminding me.

By the way, we are in a serious heatwave here, so I am inside a lot right now. I finished “The Nose” today. I have had a strong response to this story, but I don’t want to post until everyone is done reading it— or I could post it as a spoiler where it is hidden, but I can’t do that on my Ipad… anyway let me know Jerome, Larry, Steve when you have read the next story—thanks.

Tolstoy's False Disciple: The Untold Story of Leo Tolstoy and Vladimir Chertkov

What I find most interesting about Tolstoy, Steve, is how different he was as a man from his writing. He expresses all sorts of morals and spirituality in his writing that played no part of his life. How art seems to have been separate from the man.

It is a separate group called Nature Literature- you will need to search for it in groups and join. I'm one of the co--moderators there. We invited you some time back, but at that time you had slacked off on nature reads. Check it out- they read some great books.

Stephanie- we are all reading and discussing the Finding the Mother Tree book over in the Nature Literature group, if you are interested in joining. We start July 1st.

John:
A group of us read _Walden_ cover to cover two years ago, and several of us found the voice surprisingly arrogant and standoffish. We had to work through our feelings about this - since we read the Ingalls bio before hand and fell in love with everything Thoreau. But, when we read _Walden_ we were surprised on many fronts. I was really glad to read _Walden_ in its entirety since like you over many years I had only read sections. I found it a mixed bag- but its essential reading for Thoreau- much different from his journal entries.

I just started reading Saunders’s commentary on “The Master and Man,” and I was so interested in the first paragraph , which is a short biographical sketch of Tolstoy. I haven’t read a biography of Tolstoy- seems like it would be fascinating to do so. I’ve read _War and Peace_ and some of his writings about art and god, but I didn’t know that his philosophy was sort of a combo Jesus / Hindu reality.

The story is definitely about redemption- both men experience it.

I wondered about free will though in regards to the master—or maybe that is not the term. But, what happens to the master’s individual will? It is subsumed into a “we.” The we being the divine element. Interesting that once the master let go of his sense of self, then he existed for others- for the first time in his life, and in doing that he also saved Nikita from himself. A story with tremendous moral message.

But individual will is present in a different way with Nikita as when he rejects drink— he did this of his own will based on reasoning and reflection. He reflected upon all the troubles alcohol had brought him, and he was able to choose the more skillful path without divine intervention.

Vasili needed a divine savior - he needed a divine master- whereas Nikita was so much more well rounded and able to live in he world once he was saved by his human master and redeemed to live a better human life.

Lastly Nikita experienced peace—- Vasili experienced a rapturous joy. That rapturous joy was not to survive the world, but Nikita’s peace of mind was with him the rest of his life.

Now back to Saunders…

The "Master and Man" brought up a lot of questions for me. I'll start though with the list of Saunders's questions.

1. Was there a place in the story you found particularly moving?
The big scene in this story reminded me of a similar scene in _ Corelli's Mandolin_. Except in that book it was a war situation and a friend gave his life for a friend he loved by covering his body over his friend's, and the savior took the bullets. I was most moved by Nakita sitting outside the sledge--very still as the snow piled up around him, and the scene of horse kicking the sledge as his last effort before dying of cold.

2. Did you find something about the story that was confusing-- or did you find yourself resisting an aspect of the story? I did not care for the master--, and I could not help but make connections in my mind with present day corporate executives and power elites and the Master. The driving greed and the ease of despising the lower man. More on this later.

3. What moment did you find yourself tearing up, getting annoyed, or thinking in new ways? I was sad about the horses's death. For the Master the horse was a tool, for Nakita the horse was a living being that he had relationship with and compassion for.

4. What did you feel about this story and when did you feel it?
All the questions arose--which I will post separately-- when the Master opened his coat and lay ontop of Nakita. What is this story really about - or does it have layers of meaning?

Steve and all - have any of you read Tolstoy's longer works? Which ones? And is Tolstoy a favorite Russian author for you....

Larry wrote: "Sher posted this: "Olenka reminds me of an animal's love -- in that =- when an owner dies, that animal can devote itself to another --owner-- very quickly. I realize this is not universally so, but..."

That is an interesting question Larry about estates- something that never crossed my mind. It was nineteenth century, and we'd need to know about inheritance laws in Russia, but I suspect the wife got nothing...? But there were no children...no male heirs? So, who would inherit? And she did not take over the business. One would almost expect her to just carry on in the place of the husband and uphold his memory and values... but I don't think that would have made such a good pattern story.

Hi Steve- I haven't been slacking, but I am still busy. But, my folks leave tomorrow- last big party tonight... Then just another week with stepdaughter here, which I do not expect to be so difficult.
Anyway, the Tolstoy story is long, and I am halfway through. Very different style. I worry about the horse....

Steven wrote: "Agree that the endings of the two Chekhov stories are puzzling - are they important to our understanding or not. And, why would he use this device twice. I wonder if this is a trait in all his shor..."

I wondered the exact same thing-- do all Chekhov stories end with these irrelevant twists? Are they irrelevant endings or what? Maybe someone who has read a lot of Chekhov knows?

Again, I won't be able to read /comment on " Master and Man" until June 22nd--right on the schedule.

I keep wondering -- how much effort should we put into Chekhov's endings? Are these whimsical -- are they keys to each story, or are they sort of assertive -- I have the right to confuse you, and I am doing it?

"The Darling"
My favorite story so far-- will use these questions and may come at them at slightly different angles.

1. Was there a place in the story you found particularly moving?

I enjoyed the repetitive pattern of this story; it made it pleasant to read, and the story had a pleasing flow. Larry , I think, called it fairytale. For me it felt like singing a song with a verse and a chorus that repeated. Then I read Saunders, and he explained this is a pattern story. His explanation fit well with my visceral reaction to the structure of story. So, we see how form itself in a story can make an impact on a reader --


2. Did you find something about the story that was confusing-- or did you find yourself resisting an aspect of the story?

For a few moments my 21st C view flashed, and I was irritated by Olenka's giving of her self, her mind--just everything to be in love. But I quickly shed those irritations, and I stopped blaming, and I relaxed into the pattern, and did what Steve did and asked--what else is to be seen in this story?

3. What moment did you find yourself tearing up, getting annoyed, or thinking in new ways?

It's odd, but I keep going back to the Christian view of love for God; yet, would this have been a perspective Chekhov would have shared ? In his last years he was a professed atheist.

4. What did you feel about this story and when did you feel it?

As I mentioned the pattern of the story was satisfying. I felt relieved that at the end the vet? came back and had a son with him who she could love and take care of. The ending was fun, because it leaves an opening instead of all her other relationships that closed with change and dissolution.

Olenka reminds me of an animal's love -- in that =- when an owner dies, that animal can devote itself to another --owner-- very quickly. I realize this is not universally so, but generally. It's interesting that love for Olenka wasn't personal - I mean it wasn't about her and her individuality, it was more about devotion and having an object of attention to grasp and subsume into. Sort of an organic truth or way of functioning --she became super-alive under the conditions of love and devotion--

I am still thinking about this story and trying to see it from different angles.