/lit/ - Literature

>>4786575
>For example, one short story, he uses the old "switcharoo,"
very deep analysis op you should become a chekhov scholar

>>4786576

>>4786576
Yep I'm truly thrilled we have an accomplished author looking for such slight details as "the ol' switcharoo". I doubt I could ever have smoak'd that one for Myself.

>>4786580

>>4786580
>>4786576
I'm willing to talk more about his bag of tricks if you want.

>Provide an abstract in depth analysis of a body of an author's work in very colloquial terms
>Two people shit on it
>thread life expires

Wow, and you guys wonder why /lit/ is such a shit pit.

>>4786607
>Wow guys this universally loved author is great!
>As an author myself I was incredibly
impressed to have noticed (the entire point of the fucking story)
>My god do I love the taste of my own cum

>>4786607
>gets teased for his silly analysis
>thread doesn't get immediately bumped (this is a slow board)
>LIT IS SUCH A SHIT PIT

what'd you think, you'd post this thread and we'd all go "WOW OP YOU NOTICED SOME OF THE MOST MACRO LEVEL DETAILS IN ONE SHORT STORY FROM POSSIBLY THE MOST ACCLAIMED SHORT STORY WRITER IN HISTORY, INCREDIBLE"

i mean for chrissakes it's not that interesting that you like chekhov. who the fuck doesn't like chekhov? we all know he's good, this isn't exactly an interesting insight.

>>4786613
>>4786619
You simpletons really need to get a job--having any sort of discourse is really not your forte.

>>4786622
Try not to spill wine on your keyboard while you sob violently, you non-euclidian faggot.

>>4786622
>this buttmad that nobody got down on their knees and sucked his cock for saying that chekhov pulled 'the old "switcharoo"'

>>4786631
My 9.95 dollar bottle of wine (750ml) which was produced in the most southern part of my country, indeed, the only part of this country that could be considered "wine country," will never be drunk up by my keyboard.

Oh, and I'll have you know, the efficiency in which I cross my bridges is most advanced.

Good day peasant!

>>4786607
I'd suggest things got off on the wrong foot right off the bat. The tone of the OP made it an easy target for ridicule; in fact I'm not totally convinced it's sincere. If it is, then here's a bit of constructive criticism, borne of my interest in the topic and my irritation over the result:

>calling Chekhov by his first name
Seriously? Really bad first impression
>holy monkey spunk!
Thought I'd give this bit of face-wrinkling expression a pass since I like Chekhov too
>This motherfuck
Typical 4chan, but it's still stupid and serves to build a case against you
>myself as a subject of sentence
Just no
>myself as an author
Don't even inject yourself like that
>I can appreciate the little things
Setting yourself up for some high expectations on your delivery
>For example, "switcharoo"
Okay, good, he is going to give some examples after all
>His plays are meh though (I've only read uncle vanya)
Whereof you do not know, thereof you must shut it

Do with that as you will. If you're inclined to share more on the subject of Chekhov's craft, I for one would be sincerely interested.

Christ you guys are stupid pathetic twerps.

Isn't it time for another philosophy thread?

>>4786717
>you can only talk about deeply academic subjects if you speak in what ways I tell you

LOL! Hitler much?

>>4786717
>If you're inclined to share more on the subject of Chekhov's craft, I for one would be sincerely interested.

Chekhov does this thing where he takes the kernal of a proverb and makes a short story out of it.

And you can tell the exact moment when the proverb or "moral of the story" moment/revelation occurs--as if the entire story was just filler and concrete that acted as a pedestal for this "lesson" or "piece of wisdom".

>>4786722
>OP, trying his hardest to pretend that everyone doesn't actually think his post was undilluted retard

>>4786722
But the OP sounds like a fool, going off like that. Same with this post. Are you OP, unable to handle some self-reflection?

>>4786728
>>4786729

>>4786727
This is more like it. Thanks OP. I'd add Chekhov's skill at characterization by showing some small but telling action.

>>4786722
>>4786733
Is this you, OP? If so, you're seriously posting that and then post something like >>4786727 at the same time?

>>4786733
>I said something retarded and was called a retard, that means I win

>>4786739
Chekhov also does hilariously subtle things that you could only deduce if you were really paying attention.

For example, there are detectives in a room investigating a missing persons case.

The bed has stains on it, not blood or urine, but beer.

The peasant says something to the matter of "yes it's beer, it looks, smells, and tastes of it"

Without losing momentum, he just continues narrating the story without dwelling or narrating how hilarious it would be to imagine the servant actually licking the bedsheets to see if it "tasted" like beer. hahahaha

>>4786745
It's the only way I can get you cretins to pay attention.

Wow, do you dumbards not read outside of your syllabus'? Do you not have any opinions of your own that your professor did not tell you to have? Critical thought on this board is about as hard to find as discussion of literature.

Pathetic.

>>4786760
>blanket namecalling
>being every bit as bad
At this point I'm dropping this thread. Actually disappointed this time.

lol fucken morons

>>4786790
wow you're such a cry baby fuckwit.

stellar thread 5/5

>>4786575
What about the old trick where he's about to tell you something very crucial and game-changing to the plot, but... he doesn't!

>>4788283
ohhhhh that Chekov! He's got an extensive bag of tricks.

How about when he gets everyone angry and fired up when no one is truly to blame! Then everyone finds out at the end and feels foolish and reconcilable.