The Romeo and Juliet performance was beautiful, to the extent that it has almost displaced Chekhov in my mind. I think, therefore, that it’s best to start with the former, and perhaps try to circle back around to the latter. I absolutely loved the ballet, I think mostly because it was a grand tragedy, and there was a strong masculine element within it. The action seemed largely centered on the antics (and deaths) of Tybalt and Mercutio, relegating Romeo and Juliet to a secondary position of gentle love. The sheer masculine grace that seemed to dominate the action of the performance was splendid, and I think a good break from the normal female central plots and choreographies of ballets. The focus on men was grand, and evoked a sense of respect and fear in me – seeing such figures battle and die in the name of their family honor. We don’t have too much of that anymore.
But anyway, Chekhov. I’m still conflicted over the ethics of Lady with Lapdog. Why should we value pure emotion over the conventions of society, and why are the express feelings of Gurov and Anna Sergeyevna more significant than anything else? Perhaps this is an expression of “freedom” (if you can call it that) that western society at large has learned to value, but I don’t see the appeal. I guess I’m just a little pro-autocratic and authoritarian. But I think that if you allow such things to run wild, and ignore societal convention, it’s a sign of immaturity, as well as deep hubris. Throwing away what society has given you can be folly in many cases, and seems to assume that one knows better than his predecessors. I realize as I type this that I’m being severely hypocritical, as I criticize my own societal conventions of freedom, free love, and moral apathy.
Both Gurov and Anna Sergeyevna seem to have lived by convention, and then abandoned it for passion. They did not particularly enjoy their status quo, but I do not know the objectivity of either of their depictions of it, and I’m not entirely sure I trust the narration. We obviously cannot, and should not attempt to, totally discount emotion, but where is contentedness? Where is patience? Where is love born of trials? The two central characters here simply seem bored. But perhaps I’m just rambling. I don’t think either character should so easily abandon their burdens for an easier life that they like more… because honestly, it feels wrong, and that’s because it is wrong. And now I sound rather like Tolstoy in his period of insanity.
Additionally, the Arbat was gorgeous. The souvenirs there were rather expensive, so I only got one cookbook from Дом Книги. It will be a lot of fun to play with back in the US. There were rather a lot of Americans there, which was disappointing. I’ve also been, in general, disappointed by my general lack of extended Russian-speaking opportunities. I’ve spoken with many people and made myself understood, but for the most part in very small phrases and situations. I feel like I have an entire arsenal of the language I’m neither using nor improving. But perhaps that will increase with time here.
Are you claiming that some behaviors are meaningful *because* they adhere to social convention, or that social convention, having the benefit of generations of experience and wisdom, is more likely to be correct than emotional impulse? If the latter, then even social convention must be open to judgment by some standard, and to improvement, or else it never would have become more reliable in the first place. And by what standard can we judge other than what we, individually, find meaningful, be it on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level? If these two lovers found their current lives to be meaningless, should they resign themselves to a meaningless life, or should they seek meaning by changing their behavior, even in the face of social convention? You may disagree with the form of their experiment, but experimentation itself under those circumstances can hardly be anathema to a convert such as yourself.
ReplyDelete(Sorry this took forever, Ethan, I've been doing SO much.)
ReplyDeleteThe latter claim. Societal convention is open to evaluation by the community as a whole, but I'm not sure the individual can have the wisdom to do so.
I do lean toward (but am not wedded to) the idea of an absolute meaninglessness (because I am wedded to absolute meaning), and thus can see meaning being found in a certain manner within life, and held as a certain standard. Not sure, not well thought out.
When you say evaluation by the community as a whole, what do you mean by that? A formal council where everyone in the community tries to reach a consensus? Or perhaps the political leaders, as representatives of the general community? Or leading philosophers and theologians, as representatives of the ethical thought of the community? Those possibilities may have their merits, but I still have a hard time seeing evaluation by the community as a whole being separate from the sum of many interconnected individual evaluations, so if the one is acceptable, the other should be as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I didn't quite follow your final thought, but it sounds interesting. Oh, and don't worry about taking your time, I totally understand. It has been fun reading about all the things that have been keeping you so busy.