I knew my presentation was going to be tough because I chose a fifty-page play (Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard) for the primary source. In retrospect, choosing something a little shorter would have been more helpful for class interaction. I had planned to elaborate on the strategies for handling some of the difficulty plot points regarding the inaction of the characters. During the discussion of these difficulties, I was aiming for the class to develop some ideas to overcome these challenges. There wasn’t enough time for this activity or a great deal of interaction. I expected the time constraints, but the clock closed in fast nonetheless.
The selection of The Cherry Orchard was primarily based on my familiarity with another of Chekhov’s dramas (Three Sisters). As an undergraduate, reading this play was difficult and confusing. Why were characters not acting? The professor providing a straightforward lecture, and the tests required the class to simply repeat the lecture in essay form. As a result, I never really thought of the play as anything but dark tragedy dealing with economics. The play I chose for the presentation has economic themes, but that doesn’t explain some of the strange noises or scenes in each Act. In the presentation I wanted to convey how the class would tackle these strange occurrences and still create meaning. To that extent, I think the project looks successful.
Another issue was the first half of the presentation. Originally, I was going to split the group in two halves, one working on a pure summary and one on a character analysis. Then the two sides would have to figure out what was really going on in the play. There wasn’t a whole lot of time for that, and the play’s length was an obvious hurdle.
One more deficiency in the presentation was the linking of some of the theoretical elements (Elbow, Blau, Scholes) to the project. Many of the other presenters did an excellent job connecting these theorists and teachers to their own work. On that front, I could have done a far more explicit job pointing out how the activities related to the course readings. In many cases, the class interaction mimicked the theory, but I didn’t point it out. Specifically, the readings from Teaching The Elements and Pleasures of Difficulty were particularly helpful in their discussion of challenging texts.
On the bright side, the class picked up on the feeling of inaction, or as JJ pointed out, the unsympathetic nature of the characters. Along with the confusing cultural implications involving the names, the inactivity in the play related to my own interpretation concerning nihilism. More importantly, the class was eager to dissect some of the problems they encountered with the drama. In teaching undergraduates, the difficulty paper is a great way to help students develop the confidence and tools necessary for challenging literature. When I teach the reading course this fall at the community level, I plan to incorporate both reflections and difficulty papers into the coursework.
This had been an enjoyable and worthwhile semester. Many of the strategies and tools we covered in this class will find their way into some of my teaching.
Would nihilistic plays receive designations as tragedy or comedy? I don’t know. However, I do think you could look at this play as a comedic commentary on aristocratic obsolescence in the face of social change. Weird noises with no explanation, unsympathetic and vacillating characters, a general lack of anything worth watching on stage; all of this points towards an ancient maxim of comedy: a man wearing a funny hat is not funny; a man who doesn’t know he is wearing funny hat, that’s funny. These people are supremely unimportant, but they think otherwise. They don’t understand that they’re wearing funny hats–socially speaking.I also had difficulty in overtly tying my presentation to the specific theories discussed in class. Not that the ideas weren’t present, but they weren’t specifically designated. That being said, I think you did a good job in connecting the TEAPOD ideas of difficulty to a play many would consider inaccessible, whether because of translational problems, an inability to feel empathy for the characters, or otherwise. For the most part, we were able to entertain notions that the unsympathetic subject matter wasn’t so much a mistake on Chekhov’s part as it was a plan: to be nihilistic, to be funny, to be purposefully inscrutable (shades of Scholes’s "text on text" and "text against text" ideas as well).By the way, I just remembered what the servant being left in the house reminded me of: Resevoir Dogs. Big shootout, and then Mr. Pink, forgotten, gets up and runs away with the diamonds.
I doubt that anyone in our class will ever think of a difficulty paper without thinking of TEAPOD. So I think we all knew the theoretical source of your idea even though you didn’t explicitly state it. I wouldn’t worry about that. I think your choice of attacking the difficulty of Checkhov was right on the money; his plays ARE difficult. I enjoyed your presentation of this most challenging play.
Hey there, I liked your presentation just fine. I think that the play was hard only because I do not think that everyone forged through it before class. I liked the info about Russian lit, though, and culture. It was all good.
Francois, You did us a favor by tackling this piece. We saw exactly what it is like to deal with a class that is confused by so many things: names, inaction, names, odd occurences, names, language, names.
Assigning a character analysis is a really good idea. If assigned ahead of time, it will force students to concentrate on at least one aspect of the play. Reporting back to the class allows everybody to share their "expertise" and understand the whole play a little better.
As with many of the other presentations this semester, I will be borrowing this one in the future.
Edith
I enjoyed the presentation because I imagined as I read the play that I was the only one finding it difficult. Why do we do such ridiculous things to ourselves? I don’t know. Anyway, I felt wonderful as a result of the discussion because in spite of the difficulty, I "got it." The experience was affirming. Sharing the character summaries of the group put the class in charge of working out the difficulties–very Blau-esque. I liked that your presentation allowed time to talk about the story itself instead of just talking about what you would do if you had time. Naomi