Anagnorisis? Catharsis?

I'm not sure whether I did not completely understand the end of the play, or that my expectations for anagnorisis and catharsis are overestimated. Either way, the only thing Chekhov's conclusion made me say was "ok". I would enjoy a class in which the play were explained to me, because otherwise, the only surprising events at the end are Firs' solitary end, and Pishchik's sudden gain in wealth. I welcome any analysis that would enlighten this neutral perspective on the play. I feel like the whole play builds up like a balloon, and instead of exploding, it simply deflates rapidly and unsatisfactorily.

Sheldon Cooper In Anton Chekhov

Lopakhin appears as the sardonic character who flagrantly employs verbal irony. Ironically, Varya remains unaware of his truly obvious sarcasm. When Varya "[Swings the stick just as LOPAKHIN enters]" (364), he replies, "thank you kindly". We see Varya's gullible nature when she "[angrily and mockingly]" responds, "I beg your pardon" and then allows herself the humiliation of accepting his gratitude for the "charming reception" (364). Lopakhin's attitude knows no boundaries, for he continues his attacks when saying how "it's nothing. A huge bump coming up, that's all" (364).

This clip of the comical television show, The Big Bang Theory, compares to this situation, where Leonard represents Lopakhin, and Sheldon illustrates Varya's innocence. LINK.

The simple representation of a character who's physical state embodies his hunger for money poses a humorous image. Pishchik's speedy mood swings earn him the personality of an infant with a lot of baby fat. He "[snores but wakes up at once]" (352), as a baby would. We see his personality type when he "[feels in his pocket, [and] grows alarmed.] [then exclaims,] The money is gone! I've lost the money! [Tearfully] Where is my money? [Joyfully] Here it is, inside the lining.... I'm all in a sweat...." (353). Ironically, a grown man (, a very grown man) has the personality of a two-year old who can't find his pacifier.

define:Grammar Nazi

Zis iz a grammar Nazi. Link.

I dooz not yuzualy kerr mooch for g[guttural sound]amer. (Yu dooz not SAY guttural zound, youz idiot, youz zimply zound ze guttural zound.) Yu zee?Zis iz vat I meen.

AAAz I vaz zaying, I zyuzshualy ouverloook ze mouuzt meeneenglessss of errrrors, laik zeeeez fyw:

Mizz Ward wraitz zis naitmerr of a sentence:

Ze quantity "a lot" eez written as "a lot". Too separrate vords. Such a common meesteik bozerz mee not. Enny ozer reespectebel leetereit vud cundemm such an atrocyty.

Meeez Vard, I vas juzt abaut to moov on ven I noutizt

ze absenz of an apoztrofee ven rrrytyng ze vord "Your" az a contracshon of "you are".

No vorryz. Such mystayks are eezyly ouverlooked.

Forgyv me, Myz Oussa, but ze vord"unbiast", sadly, duz not exyst. Ze correct term is spelt "un

biased".

Myzter Rozalez,

Zadly, yu emytomyze zee errors in wryten text that are NOT yzy to ouverlook:

I could not uunderztand prezyzly vat yu ver traying to zey here:

Ze numeruz errors dyztract ze reederr. I suugezt u correct zem.

Hyrr, I bylyv yu arre myzyng a "to be verb", making a complete, yet passive sentence: "I mean that is just ridiculous". A comma avter "mean" vudnt hrt yzer.

Hyrr, such an ymportant vrd as "reality" dyzervz adequate reepreezenteyshun.

Unless yu are attemptyng to dyscrrayb sumthing zat haz gon "off course" (az, I bylyv, yz not ze cayz hyrr),

ze adequate zpelling yz "of course", and may bee rypleyzt by ze morr sutl "obviously", "certainly", or "evidently".

My commanderr vud zertanly ztreiten you up, Rozalez, az he sayz von muzt alvayz "revise, revise, revise!"

Myzz Joveen, sadly I must tell you zat beeing of ze pyure raze yz no excuuse to have dezplycabl zpelling:

Here, ze vord is correctly spelled "dying". It iz a common myztake. Only commoners are excused. You have no excuze.

Maybe zis iz zom zort of typographical error, and I shall concede to you ze benefit of ze dout ven correcting ze spelling of ze vord "misinterpreted".

And finally, and inexcuzably zo, you attempted to pazz phrazez off az zentenzez. Zis yz yor firzt and faynal varning.

Myzter Dakyardy,

Alzou I zee a respectable atemt to avoid errors, nozing ezceypz my vell-treynd ay:

Here, better sentence construcshon vud be appreshyated: Ynsted of saying "...place they grew up in", a smoozer phrazing vud be "...place in which they grew up".

Here, ve see a common error in sentenz conztrucshon. It appeerz to be that yu attempted to pass off ze haylayted portion az a sentenze. I suggezt yu mend it.

Ouverall, our Italian friendz have proven to share our cuztomz in grammar and zpelling.

Myz Zantamarya,

Alzough yu have vizited our land, please refrain from kindling ze liberal-creative-neoliterary-reformist techniques in yor rrytyng:

Such vorks are forbidden. Ve muzt refreyn from all changes in lyterery style and customz. Lyterature muzt remain ze zame forever.

Alzo, I bet yu dydnt expect me to see ziz error:

Error.

MYzter Lynarez,

Let me just beegin by expressing my dyzapointment in ziz introducshon:

Von duz not "seats back and thinks", but razer "sits back and thinks".

Myzter Palazioz,

Anozer of ze fine raze, I vish to congrratyuleyt yu on ur exelent grammar and spelling. If you vish to upgreyd yor status, I suggest you improve pazive voyz and rreppettittivve word choice.

Myz Danyela Cueyar,

You arre behind on yur tax forms, and yor tithe to ze reich. If you zoo not fix zis, ze reich vill be forzt to take meazurz (firzt, labor camp remediation, zen you vill be deported and vanished from ze land and stripped of yor statuz az citizen of ze reich).

After a hard dayz vork, I must retire to complete my own tax formz to ze reich. Undeniably, zey vill be perfect and free of ze nearly-inexcusable errors I previously exposed. Ze personz I helped vill undeniably appryshyeyt my effortz in seyving zem from dire, possibly feytel consequencez.

Viktor Vaynberg

Grammar Nazi

Twain Syndrome

After reading Act II of The Cherry Orchard, I grew suspicious of Chekhov's comment regarding plays. I wrote an analytic essay on the metafictional techniques Twain employs to mock his readers. Chekhov, I believe, does not stray far from this apparently common act.

Lyubov Andreyevna criticizes the play Lopakhin saw at the theater, explaining how "there was probably nothing funny about it. Instead of going to see plays you ought to look at yourselves a little more often. How drab your lives are, how full of futile talk" (343)! Here, Chekhov directly mocks his audience. He even implies a lack of humor in his so-called comedy. Either we chose two very different texts which both coincidentally insult the reader in some way, or authors' actions as these characterize the literature of the time. Mark Twain lived between 1835 and 1910, while Chekhov's life spanned from 1860 to 1904.

I do not know if I should be happy I uncover these insults, or baffled at why I shrug them off and continue reading such ridiculing texts. I still expect to stumble upon what would define this play as a comedy, for, up until this point, I have not started to laugh.

Curiously, Chekhov alludes to Shakespeare with what appears to be a common citation, now nearing the status of cliché, along with the "to be or not to be" line: Lopakin mocks Varya's conservative beliefs by telling her, "Aurelia, get thee to a nunnery..." (349). Twain cites the same text in the Duke's recreation of Hamlet's speech. They both employ it in their comedies as a mechanism to mock womens' idea of marriage and chastity.

Banned Equals Interesting

The simple fact that a book earns a banned-book status makes it all the more enjoyable. In a way, I feel an urge to read such books only to demonstrate rebellion. Also, the english courses I have taken in high school assigned the majority of listed titles listed there.

"Randomly Awesome Words"

LINK