Researching The Black Monk and Incompleteness

I have spent the last week attempting to dive into The Black Monk and also see what has been writing about my, at least current, theme of the incomplete nature of the short stories of Anton Chekhov. I must admit, from the outset, I had better luck in one regard than in the other, though both proved to have their problems.


Finding writing about "incompleteness" or the "unfinished nature" of Chekhov's work has thus far proven to be next to impossible. While I'm not giving up by any stretch of the imagination, it has proven difficult to find anyone who as focused upon this, though I'm sure there must be some who have. This also, does reiterate for me however, that this topic may prove worth exploring if for no other reason than the decided lack of academic writing on the subject. So, in hopes of discovering something that connected with my interest in the topic I began to hunt for more general criticism of Chekhov, especially The Black Monk, because as I mentioned last week, it stands out as an anomaly with its very clear, Beginning, Middle, End, structure.

Here I found, yet another, road block, or at least, a bumpy road. Very little has been written about The Black Monk, at least in English, and it is in fact, one of the less discussed Chekhovian works. However, there has been some written about it, and I hope to discover more. Particularly interesting is one source within a source. In "The Black Monk: an Example of the Fantastic?" Claire Whitehead quotes Chekhov's contemporary, Mikhailovskii's confusion over the work as something that stands out from what one might consider typical Chekhovian style:

"But what does the story itself mean? What is its sense? Is it an illustration of the saying: 'anything for a quiet life', and which advocates that we should not prevent people from going out of their minds, as doctor Ragin says in Ward No.6? Let those suffering from megalomania continue to consider themselves great, -- in this there is happiness because they are content in themselves and do not know the grief and sorrow of life ... Or is it an indication of the fatal shallowness, dullness and poverty of reality which we should simply accept and adapt to, because any attempt to rise above it is threatened by madness? Is the 'black monk' a benevolent genius who calms exhausted people by means of dreams and ideas about the role of 'God's chosen ones'. the benefactors of mankind, or, rather, is he an evil genius who, with treacherous flattery, drags people into a world of illness, unhappiness and woe for those closest to them and, finally, into death? I do not know."

Obviously even Chekhov's contemporaries were confused at the notion of this story, the wife of one of his contemporaries even wrote to him after reading the manuscript, in order to inquire after his health. Chekhov considered that the piece was fairly straightforward, or at the least that is what he told those who asked about it, but I think at least part of the stunning nature of the piece lies in its true and final ending, (Spoiler alert) the death of Korvin. I truly believe if this story ends in a more prototypical Chekhovian manner, ie: partway through the story that we read, leaving it open ended, we do not feel the stunning nature of the piece.

Thus, I think the Black Monk is a major piece to the puzzle I am investigating here.


Notes on Danil Kharms:
There is a poem that I wish to include here as it connects to part of what I want to discuss in regards to Danil Kharms, however, I will need to gain access to a scanner, as there are crucial symbols embedded in the text of the poem. This section will wait a bit then