The Coast of Utopia: Voyage Act II

I was surprised when I started reading the second act of Voyage. I thought that the story would continue on from 1841, however when it said "March 1834" I was relieved since I thought many things unexplained in the first act would come into place and I would get to answer many of the questions that had risen as I read the first act of Voyage. I didn't knowwho were Sazonov, Ogarev , Ketscher or Polevoy, however as I kept on reading I found their connection with the initial characters.
During one of the conversations Stankevich and Herzen had, I learned and got to reflect on something very true; "Reform can't come from above of below, only from within..."(pg 66) The first part was very true, reform could be made truthfully until there was change in people's perspectives and their way of thinking. There couldn't be really a change if it was only imposed by the law or demanded by revolutionists, since ideals wouldn't really change and the society would always be at risk of falling back into chaos. Something else that proves this statement true is that for instance in places where there were common ideals and more or less common interests, prosperous and stable societies developed. For instance North America; the initial settlers had no interest on remaining under the servitude to the king or the despots or nobles in their country. Their only interest was to make themselves rich and build a profitable estate that could supply them with all their needs. Apart from their common interests they had common ideals more or less: in the north they wanted to find a place where they could preach their religion freely as English men keeping their language, their culture and their customs and having to some extent a self governing system to rule their communities. In the south they didn't have religion as a priority but they did know they didn't want an autocrat taking their belongings and the products of their work from them. These ideals made North America a strong independent nation and the small differences between north and south became evident in the Civil War. However, what I'm trying to show is how the only thing that bonds together a nation is not law but common ideals from both the higher and poorer social classes.
Going on with the Play, I found it very funny that Belinsky had gotten a job as a French translator without knowing French. I found it very irresponsible and thought what would be the consequences if the one who had hired him got to know that Belinsky didn't know French. I found this act to be more fluent and easy to read than the first Act. In this act there weren't as much interrupted conversations going on at the same time and the scenes were longer so more things could develop. Just as I thought, the story got more interesting as Natalie got into the picture. Now I could understand more her letter to Michael and why the sisters hated her so much. Apart from Natalie, other character that I found very interesting was Polevoy, especially at the reunion where he was drunk and kept on snapping his fingers at anything. During this Act I got to see how Michael persists with his continuous childlike attitude asking everyone around him for money. Michael was desperate for money, he even compromised himself of translating a very long book into German just for gettin money. I started hating him and his dependence on others. Approaching the end of this Act, I found it very strange that the Ginger Cat was real and that it was on the scene with them and that it talked to Belinsky. I think the author should have continued with that scene at that moment, it seemed very intriguing and unusual. It was very depressing that Alexander was going crazy; well, how else could you explain his desire of watching and waiting for the sun to set even when he was blind?This act near the end gave me the impression that the peace and the tranquility that took place at Premukhino would soon end since in the second Act more scenes took place at the real and miserable world, and sad things such as Liubov, Pushnev and Stankevich's death and the lost of sight of Alexander altogether with the miserable estate of life of Michael foreshadow probably the change in the perspective of the Play.

The Coast of Utopia: Voyage Act I

The Coast of Utopia gave me the impression of being a smooth fluent novel. It kept me interested as each scene shown was cut on an intriguing part or I was left in doubt regarding what would happen next. Something that called my attention throughout the first act was the way Michael changed his philosophical views on life. At the beginning of the play Michael claimed to believe in a philosophy that appeared to be Hegel's Philosophy which talked about an Absolute and a Universal Idea, at that moment Michael speaks of love and of the happiness of the spirit as the only important happiness. "To give oneself without love is a sin against our inner life which is our only real life."(pg14) Then only two years after Michael says: “I renounce to all love except pure philosophical love. The so-called love of human animals removes people two by two from the only possibility of happiness, which is the communion of beautiful souls."(pg19) Michael's inconsistency of ideals not only shows in what he says but also in his friends. For instance he was at first friend of Belinsky and agreed with the philosophy he defended. Afterwards, Michael claims "Belinsky is not one of us, I agree. In fact, I have broken off relations with him. He's turned out to be a complete egoist. But my estate is the self and the future of philosophy in Russia."(Pg 52) Other part of this play that clearly shows the inconsistency of thought of Michael is in page 51 where he claims:” I was on the wrong track with Fitche, I admit it --Fitche was trying to get rid of objective reality, but Hegel shows that reality can't be ignored, you see, Father. Now I know where I was going wrong." The problem with Michael is that he constantly changes his views upon life and his thoughts and points of view affect the whole family. Michael is a very stubborn character and personally I think he is also very spoiled man who has not accepted his obligations and his responsibilities in life and has always returned home when he finds he really doesn't like where he is going. I think he resembles much Serebryakov from Uncle Vania since they both claim to know a lot and to have lots of education and knowledge but it all pretension and they don't really believe what the preach or else they wouldn't change ideologies so quickly. Other characteristic that lets the reader see Michael's immaturity is the constant arguing he has with his dad throughout the play. Michael always thinks the opposite of what his father thinks. They’re always arguing on what's best. However, when Michael is in trouble he goes to his dad just like a little boy and asks him to give him money or to help him out.

I didn't agree neither with Michael's view on life,(since it was rather inconstant), nor with Alexander's perspective since it was too radical. For example regarding the age in marriage, I thought that he was too strict with his idea of the groom being twice as old as the bride. He resembled old men and women who are very stubborn themselves and think that everyone should do as they say since they are older and they "know more". As the novel kept on going I longed for Liubov marrying Stankevich and I was very surprised when I got to know that they had both died by 1941. It was sad but what impressed me the most was Varenka was with Stankevich when he died and that she was living with him. How could she betray her sister and leaver her husband? I really didn't like the outcome of that story, especially because what would be of her poor boy? Apart from that I was sad to hear from Pushkin's death. I had hopes from him being able to marry Tatiana one day. However I thought maybe Tatiana could marry Turgenev. He seemed to be a good man for her.

Uncle Vania Act IV

I was glad that at last Serebryakov and Elena were leaving. At last everything would be fine, they would get back to their routine and live their lives peacefully without having to take care of Serebryakov or having Elena as a distraction. I really hope at this point that Voitinsky achieves his happiness and independence, that for once in his life he can work for himself and spend his money however he wants to without having to worry to give anything to Serebryakov or to pay other debts. I was disillusioned with Voitinsky's attempt of suicide and his stubbornness in not wanting to return the medicine to Astrov and not wanting to reconcile with Serebryakov. I was annoyed with Astrov’s insistence regarding him and Elena. In his attitude towards Elena I could see how drunk he always was.
The repetition of at the end that at last everything was going to be alright and that they finally would rest made me feel happy for them. During their lives, Marina, Voitinsky, Sonya, Maria Vasilyevna, Astrov and Telegin had lived in servitude to other richer people like Serebryakov and his wife. At last they would be free and they at last had opened their eyes and seen that they better start working again for them and wait for their deaths so that they could rest at last. From this novel I got the feeling of idleness and life without reason of being. This play gave me the impression that life was miserable for most of the people in Russia back then and made me think of the present and realize that maybe many Colombians are living as well in the same conditions, unheard, ignorant, in servitude enslaved by people with money or prestige that pose as fake role models and don’t contribute for the actual developing of the nation or its culture.

Uncle Vania Act III

In Act III alcohol played an important role in my point of view, Astrov and Voitinsky both had too much to drink and their behaviors were altered by it. I found it very funny how they were both behaving and how Elena won importance in this act since she was the center of attention of Astrov, Voitinsky and Serebryakov. I remember perfectly the scene on the play when I saw it when Sonya claimed that she was ugly and it was very interesting recalling the play and the actors. I found that scene very funny in the play when it was acted but not as funny as when I read it. Maybe the author should include a more thorough description of each character so that the reader might have a clearer image of the characters. I couldn't understand why was Sonya in love with Astrov but I felt also sorry for her since Astrov wasn't in love with her and she had Elena by her side to remember her how unlikely it was for any man to fall in love with her if she was in Elena's company.
I was glad that at the end Elena and Sonya were friends and that they could understand each other better since Elena was her mother in law and she had influence over Serebryakov's opinion over Sonya. As I said before alcohol played an important role in this Act since most of the characters in this act where under the effects and their behaviors changed because of it. For instance, I don't think that Sonya and Elena would have gotten to talk and to become friends if they weren't under the effects of alcohol. On the other hand I found it very abusive that Astrov ignored what Elena was trying to say to him and that he insisted in having an affair with her even if she said she wasn't interested. How could he be so vain as to think that Elena would like him and have a crush on him since she arrived. It was obvious she wasn't happy with Serebryakov but that didn't necessarily mean that she would fall for any other man that came into her life. I was afraid that when Elena was kissing with Astrov, Sonya would come in and feel betrayed. I was relieved that the one to find out was Voitinsky and not Sonya, although I felt sorry for Voitinsky since he was also in love with Elena he would not go telling everybody about what he had seen since Astrov was his friend and he would gain Elena’s hate if he told everyone that he had seen her kissing another man not his husband.
Over this Act I was able to see clearly the true nature of Serebryakov he was inconsiderate with his friends whom had given all their lives to his well being and his prosperity. In this Act, the reader gets to witness a confrontation between Serebryakov and Uncle Vania, the reader at last sees the true selfishness of Serebryakov and the desperation of Voitinsky. At last Voitinsky shoots his gun and scares everyone, I remembered this scene clearly in the play when I watched it because the gun made a very loud sound and it got everyone’s attention. That scene had a great impact on the audience and it is one of those scenes that stays in your memory for a long time.

Uncle Vania II

In this act what impressed me the most was that Serebryakov was displayed more like the victim and Uncle Vania as the cause for many of his problems. I felt sorry at a moment for Serebryakov because he felt rejected, however at that point I couldn’t judge whether he was telling the truth or playing the victim for gaining Elena’s sympathy. Serebryakov makes me remember of my grandmother, he always remembers how great and good he was in the past and how badly his condition has worsened to. They both are a lot alike in that they are willing to be treated as little kids, congratulated for the most simplest and dumbest action they make, fed, loved and cared by everyone in their lives and most importantly, when they feel they are loosing the attention from everyone else they start complaining either about their environment or about their old bodies. Their childlike attitude is well portrayed in the following quotation: “No, no! Don’t leave me with him! Don’t! He’ll talk my head off! ...” Act II (Pg 181).
I felt really bad for Elena, she was tormented by her old and sick husband, also by Uncle Vania who tried to seduce her and came to her complaining about his miserable life and how his love for her made him suffer so much. She is trapped in a place full of pessimistic men who want her to rescue them and she is never free to do what she really wants with who she wants. It is as if the old men wanted to drain her youth for them, as if they thought that if they were with her they would be young, intelligent and independent again. In this part of the play many of the thoughts of the characters are hypothetic, since most of the characters are old they think of what could have been if, or if they had done something differently how well their lives would be. I have noticed this also in my grandmother's attitude towards life and I think that if you saw things differently you would enjoy your life more. I think one should always keep the young and optimistic view of life so that when one becomes old, it is not as hard to ask for help and for have faith and hope in a better future, possible or not.

Uncle Vania Act I

In Uncle Vania's first act, an optimistic view on life is portrayed by Voinsitsky and Telegin which contrasts doctor Serebryakov's. However, they are not optimistic towards Serebryakov's habits and his ungratefulness to them. Through Voinsitsky's views Chekhov makes criticisms to the "studious and illustrated" men from the high society who don't know about anything and when Voinsitsky claims that "He (Serebryakov) has retired, and not a single living soul knows who he is, he is absolutely unknown; which means that for twenty-five years he has held some other man's job. And look at him: he struts about like a demigod!"(Act1). This is a strong critic against so called writers and studious men who do nothing in their lives and think of themselves as the discoverers of knowledge.
Other thing that brought up my attention is how Serebryakov and his daughter are always complaining about their situation without taking into account the incommodities they are making pass to their hosts. I feel more sympathetic to Elena but still I can't understand why is she together with and old, unsuccessful and whining old man. I would like that further in the story Elena and Voinsitsky ended up together. I think something like that does happen, but they just seem perfect for each other, and since Voinsitsky has showed how he likes her and feels envious from Serebryakov, it could be a nice ending for the novel. The play, up to now has seemed to me very realistic and tranquil, I don't expect anything out of the ordinary to happen in it.
I found it both humorous but impolite how Voinsitsky told his mother to be quiet in page 170. I think Voinsitsky is upset because he has seen with Serebryakov what he doesn't want to become and what he was becoming before when he studied so much. Uncle Vania is afraid of becoming an old, unsuccessful, unlucky and unhappy man.
As I continued reading the play I started liking less Uncle Vania, I thought he was the one that was pessimistic and always complaining about his situation. Something that called my attention was the mentioning of the inner destruction in man by Elena, she is young, idealist and likes to protect life, nature and earth. On the other hand, the rest of the men like Voinsitsky are old and destructing, Elena mentioned the instinct of destruction before Freud had published the book that would explain this instinct more deeply: "El malestar en la cultura.” This is something that surprised me because Chekhov had the same feeling that there was an instinct of destruction in man before Freud discovered it.

Seize the day chapters 3-4

In chapter three I found a more humane and sympathetic face of Dr. Alder. Throughout his conversation with Wilhelm, Dr. Alder gave me the impression to show some love for his son. He cared about them and despite his thoughts, he loved Wilhelm and Catherine. However, as they started fighting I got to learn why Wilhelm hated his father so much. Dr. Alder was very prejudging, he thought his son hadn’t taken advantage of all the opportunities he had given him, and finally he thought he was better than his son and that had had a harder life. This wasn’t true because of the conditions in which Wilhelm found himself at the moment. The only person to whom Wilhelm could turn to criticized him and didn’t try to understand him, instead he told him how bad he had done things throughout his life. Finally I came to the conclusion that Dr. Alder was very selfish, he didn’t even want to give a bit of his own money which he wouldn’t need to help them out. How could he expect them to be there for him when he died? He was so selfish and egocentric that he thought his own sons were waiting for him to die so that they could take all the money from him. Maybe that would be what he would do if one of his sons died and left some money behind.
In this chapter I saw a connection between this book and slaughter house five, as Dr. Tankin said to Tommy ""The real universe. That’s the present moment. The past is no good to us. The future is full of anxiety. Only the present is real -- the here-and-now. Seize the day.""pg 62 This quotation also reminds me of a movie I saw the last year named "Dead Poet`s society" which basically shared the same message. Throughout the previous two chapters Wilhelm is constantly complaining about his life and how his father doesn’t want to help him. However as he makes business with Mr. Tamkin the reader realizes how careless and irresponsible Wilhelm is with his money. The fact that Mr. Tamkin's letter resembled the one of a fourth grader made me worry because that evidently prooved that he hadn't recieved college education even if he was a mathemtician he would need to know how to write properly. I couldn't understand why Wilhelm was entrusting his money to such man. On the other hand when I read all the stories Mr. Tamkin told Wilhelm I realized he was a liar without reason. Mr. Tamkin made me remember a little girl who I knew whom liked to tell lies to everyone about everything even if it was well known that all she told was always lies. Something that really got my nerves was that Mr. Tamkin claimed to know Greek without being able to right properly in English.