Review of gooseberries
Pranjal01:
::
Answers
Answered by
21
Now this was a pessimistic short story, but, in a sense, realistic. Chekhov suggests that happiness is flawed and is meaningless. The only way a man can be happy is by shutting out the misfortune of others, and living in a state of ignorant bliss. But, according to him, this gives no real purpose to life. The only way to live a purposeful life is by being kind to others unto death. This is all brought to the realisation of the narrator through a gooseberry. Yes, a gooseberry.
I like the way this was done because it shows the self-serving nature of happiness. The narrator’s brother has absolutely disgusting gooseberries but, to him, they’re the fruit of the gods. He has convinced himself that they are delicious. This is juxtaposed against how he has shut out the realities of the world; he has shut out the realities of how a gooseberry should taste. His happiness has only been achieved by ignoring the poverty and destitution of Russia. Comparatively, his fine gooseberries have only been created by ignoring how a proper tasting gooseberry should taste. His happiness simply serves himself.
“The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths.”
This is a grim ethos because it is impossible to change all the misfortunes of the world. He, essentially, says that no man should be happy whilst others suffer. That’s all well and good, but people will always suffer; it’s a horrible truth of human existence. So, by his logic, no man has the right to happiness because of it. This is a bleak outlook, and an unfair observation of the world. The narrator’s brother has worked hard all his life; he may be cold and stingy, but doesn’t he have a right to enjoy the fruit of his labours? He cannot change poverty nor world hunger. His happiness may be selfish, but it is happiness he has earnt. Should he be miserable and destitute simply because others are?
I liked this short story simply because it was thought provoking. I think Chekov’s observations are true and stark, thought they essentially say we should all do more than achieve happiness. This again is true but, unobtainable. Most people are selfish and that’s just life, unfortunately. I won’t be reading anymore of Chekhov in the future because I found his work to be a little too depressing and pessimistic for my taste.
I like the way this was done because it shows the self-serving nature of happiness. The narrator’s brother has absolutely disgusting gooseberries but, to him, they’re the fruit of the gods. He has convinced himself that they are delicious. This is juxtaposed against how he has shut out the realities of the world; he has shut out the realities of how a gooseberry should taste. His happiness has only been achieved by ignoring the poverty and destitution of Russia. Comparatively, his fine gooseberries have only been created by ignoring how a proper tasting gooseberry should taste. His happiness simply serves himself.
“The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths.”
This is a grim ethos because it is impossible to change all the misfortunes of the world. He, essentially, says that no man should be happy whilst others suffer. That’s all well and good, but people will always suffer; it’s a horrible truth of human existence. So, by his logic, no man has the right to happiness because of it. This is a bleak outlook, and an unfair observation of the world. The narrator’s brother has worked hard all his life; he may be cold and stingy, but doesn’t he have a right to enjoy the fruit of his labours? He cannot change poverty nor world hunger. His happiness may be selfish, but it is happiness he has earnt. Should he be miserable and destitute simply because others are?
I liked this short story simply because it was thought provoking. I think Chekov’s observations are true and stark, thought they essentially say we should all do more than achieve happiness. This again is true but, unobtainable. Most people are selfish and that’s just life, unfortunately. I won’t be reading anymore of Chekhov in the future because I found his work to be a little too depressing and pessimistic for my taste.
Attachments:
Similar questions