Trauma and Grief in Chekhov’s “The Lament” and Mansfield’s “The Fly”: A Comparative Study
Mehar Jahan Bushra, Research Scholar, Department of English and Modern European Languages, University of Lucknow, Lucknow (UP)
I. Introduction:
Since time immemorial, the portrayal of emotional woundedness and human responses to life’s challenges has been a pervasive theme throughout literature across the globe. While battle wounds are physical and visible, the profound emotional injuries caused by unprecedented tragic events like losing a loved one to death remain hidden from plain view. The studies focusing on trauma, aim to comprehend emotional wound(s) in need of healing, much like words that are in dire need of interpretation. Therefore, the scholarship on trauma is not limited to simply remembering and mourning traumatic events instead, it involves exploring the depiction of these events through various forms and genres of literature and what can be learnt from the discourse. Trauma studies in literature have evolved from medical and scientific studies and “the origin of contemporary trauma studies can usefully be dated to 1980” (Whitehead 4). So, here the term ‘trauma’ is not employed in a psychiatric sense.
Trauma theory has become one of the most discussed and contemporary concepts of our time, applicable to individuals, cultures, and nations. It is famously said “We live in an age of trauma” (Kurtz 1). A seminal essay in trauma theory titled “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies,” explores the intricate relations between traumatic knowledge and literature and how literature can both reflect and respond to trauma, emphasising the critical role it plays in addressing, representing, and responding to traumatic knowledge (Hartman 537). However, what we must acknowledge is the complex nature of trauma, as people who encounter the same trials and losses may exhibit contrasting emotional responses, as Kurtz astutely asserts “the fact that different individuals respond differently to the same events” (7). With this perspective in mind, the paper aims to explore how trauma is experienced, expressed, and responded to by two bereaved fathers in these enduring literary works. To support the argument, the study relies on trauma theory while doing a rigorous textual analysis to illuminate how these authors depict grief and loss.
For ages, stories and the art of storytelling have played a significant role in connecting humans, whether through oral traditions or the written word. There exists an inherent human drive to both listen to and share stories. As theorists have emphasised, “For stories also have the function, as theorists have emphasised, of teaching us about the world, showing us how it works, enabling us - through the devices of focalization - to see things from other vantage points, and to understand others’ motives that in general are opaque to us.” (Culler 91). Unlike any other genre of literature, short story has a unique ability to encapsulate the complexity of the human world compactly and appealingly. This constraint compels authors to restrict their storytelling to its essential components, making every word count. In doing so, short fiction often focuses on the core elements of human experiences and emotions, delivering a concentrated dose of meaning in a limited space. Short stories, especially with open-ended narratives like “The Fly” often leave room for interpretation and reflection. They prompt readers to contemplate the narratives and the characters’ motives, inviting them to engage their critical thinking and empathy.
Anton Chekhov and Katherine Mansfield are undoubtedly acknowledged as great storytellers, as the worldviews they expressed remain timeless. They possessed the skill to craft narratives that were difficult to put down, leaving room for many possible interpretations. The short stories- “The Lament” and “The Fly” examined here, present compelling narratives of pain and sorrow. They both feature bereaved fathers who grapple with their son’s death in distinct ways, struggling to find consolation or closure. Their psychological trauma is an enduring and inexorable aftermath of the tragic event. The central theme revolves around the traumatic experience of mourning the death of the only son. However, the stories differ in their narrative, perspectives, and, most importantly, in their endings. These differences illustrate how two individuals, facing the same loss, can react differently to the same tragedy.
II. Trauma and Grief in Anton Chekhov’s “The Lament”:
“The Lament” written in 1886, is a heart-wrenching portrayal of the reality of the world where nobody is ready to have an ear for someone’s sorrow. The title of the story is commonly translated as ‘misery’, which means a circumstance, thing, or place that causes suffering or discomfort. The short story is narrated by a third-person omniscient narrator and its subtitle - “To whom shall I tell my grief”, conveys the protagonist’s underlying trauma. The story is set on a snowy night in a busy city in Russia, where Iona Potapov, a carriage driver, has lost his young son Kuzma Ionitch to illness just a week ago. He desperately seeks someone to share the sorrow of his son’s death. He tries to talk to his passengers but they all are too self-centred and insensitive to listen to him. They all either ignored him or mocked him.
With a look of anxiety and suffering, Iona’s eyes stray restlessly among the crowds moving to and fro on both sides of the street: can he not find among those thousands someone who will listen to him? But the crowds flit by heedless of him and his misery...His misery is immense, beyond all bounds. If Iona’s heart were to burst and his misery to flow out, it would flood the whole world, it seems, but yet it is not seen. (Chekhov 18)
Helpless Iona turns to his old mare, an animal who seems to understand his pain and offers him some comfort by silently standing by his side. Iona unburdens his grief to the mare, an innocent creature, who becomes his companion in trauma by patiently listening to him. But until Iona finds a listener, he feels that his suffering lacks meaning, making healing seem impossible but this sharing of his trauma has a therapeutic effect on him.
It is indeed a tragic tale of a father who has lost his son and his only hope of survival in his old age. Iona laments that after his son’s death, he has nothing left as he was his only companion. With his sudden passing, Iona is left with no source of support or joy in his life. He has a daughter but she lives far away leaving him with no one nearby to share his sorrows and grief. He feels lonely, dejected, isolated, and hopeless as he has nobody to console him or comfort him during this tragic period. Iona seems to be mourning or ‘lamenting’ as the title signifies and intends to lament further, which is distinctly a sign of ‘working through’, a way of responding to trauma. It involves a process of mourning in which the person aims to acknowledge the pain, reflect on it, and fully understand it in all its complexities. “Mourning brings the possibility of engaging trauma and achieving a reinvestment in, or recathexis [sic] of, life which allows one to begin again. (La Capra 66). For La Capra, working through is a desirable process as it provides “the ability to say to oneself: “Yes, that happened to me back then. It was distressing, overwhelming, perhaps I can’t entirely disengage myself from it, but I’m existing here and now, and this is different from back then.”(144). This does not, in any way, mean avoiding trauma but simply means coming to terms with it.
He feels alienated and thinks he belongs nowhere except death, “the damp earth”... “The grave that is”. He laments his son’s death by saying, “Here my son’s dead and I am alive… It’s a strange thing, death has come in at the wrong door…”( Chekhov 17). Iona’s trauma is reflected in his every mournful expression, yet much remains deeply hidden inside his heart just like the tip of the iceberg; the actual remains secreted there in his heart until he shares it with someone. His emotional agony belongs to an invisible geography that remains unreachable to others; until it finds manifestation through words. For a traumatised individual like Iona, “Life itself, [as] Freud says, is an awakening out of a ‘death’ for which there was no preparation.” (Caruth 65)
The story deftly depicts that amidst the crowd of people, Iona is left alone to bear his loss. The author’s choice of the setting of the story serves as a powerful way to insinuate Iona’s trauma. The bitter cold and heavy snowfall create a hostile and challenging environment which can be seen as a metaphor for Iona’s emotional state. The harshness of the winter environment mirrors the emotional coldness and apathetic behaviour of the people around him. The description of Iona as “all white like a ghost” is a rich and multifaceted symbol that poignantly captures his isolation, emotional state, vulnerability, and perceived otherness within the story. It strongly suggests his emotional and social isolation. The colour ‘white’, often associated with purity and simplicity, aligns with his genuine and natural display of emotions. Moreover, ‘white’ also hints at a sense of blankness that mirrors his feeling of emptiness. The use of ‘ghost’ imagery further reinforces his portrayal as a spectral figure, disconnected from the living world, subtly underscoring how the people around him treat him as if he does not quite exist in their reality. Like a ghost among humans, Iona is perceived as an outsider, someone who deviates from the norm. Moreover, when he tries to utter even a single word related to his personal life and the loss he is going through, he receives only curses and abuses from the people. The people, instead of listening to him dehumanise him in response by addressing him as a ‘werewolf’, ‘devil’, or ‘old plague’, which reinforces that he is socially marginalized.
Like Coleridge’s mariner, who was compelled to tell the story of his hellish time at sea – to whomever will listen (Pederson 104). Iona too wants to tell how his son died, how he suffered, and how the funeral took place— to whoever will listen. The narrator says,
Just as the young man had been thirsty for water, he thirsted for speech. His son will soon have been dead a week, and he has not talked to anybody yet…he wants to talk of it properly, with deliberation…He wants to tell how his son was taken ill, how he suffered, what he said before he died, how he died…He wants to describe the funeral and how he went to the hospital to get his son’s clothes. (Chekhov 19)
Finally, he resorts to the compassionate and faithful ear of an animal, his mare. His speech works as a cathartic act for him. Hatman says, sharing trauma can heal it temporarily. “These tellings soothe, but only momentarily (Pederson 104). By giving voice to his emotional wounds, Iona finds a sense of relief and closure he was looking for.
III. Trauma and Grief in Katherine Mansfield’s “The Fly”:
“The Fly” was first published in The Nation and Athenaeum in 1922 and in The Doves’ Nest and Other Stories in 1923. It is primarily narrated from the perspective of ‘the boss’, the story’s protagonist, who is referred to by his designation rather than by name. The narrative centres around the weekly visits of his old friend, Woodifield, who is five years younger. During one visit, Woodifield shares news about his daughters visiting the boss’s son’s grave in Belgium. Although this news disturbs the boss, he does not speak a word and remains unmoved. Later in his office, he notices a fly struggling to save itself from drowning in the ink-pot, initially he tries to help it, but eventually, he intentionally continues to drop even more ink on it until the fly dies. The story is open-ended, lacking a fixed meaning that can be succinctly summarised in a few sentences. It is more complex than it appears; in fact, the most fascinating aspect of the story is the titular character or precisely the symbolic device, the fly, which lends this short piece of fiction a profound sense of tragedy. “This brief and suggestive short-story, ranked by a critic as one of the best fifteen in English literature, has puzzled most interpreters, provoked them, and has caused contradictory critical opinions, by its subtle presentation and exploration of the mystery of human psychology.” (Bhattacharyya 106). Undoubtedly, it has held readers spellbound for a considerable length of time.
While the story initially focuses on Woodifield and his weekly visits to the boss, the actual narrative centres on the boss and the episode with the fly. It is thought-provoking that the story has depicted both men, Woodifield and the boss, as bereaved fathers who seemed to have opted for different approaches towards life after the tragic death of their sons. The narrative emphasises that the former seems emotionally weak and suffers from a stroke while the latter has a flourishing business and a stern personality who does not make any display of his emotions. Also, through a close reading, it is evident that all characters mentioned in the story, except the protagonist ‘the boss’ and his deceased son, are named. Mansfield’s choice not to name these central characters likely underscores the emotional distance and isolation the boss feels as he grapples with his son’s loss. The absence of names underscores the emotional void in his life.
The boss’s traumatic repression is characterised by his inability to feel pain; he has not even visited his son’s grave. His emotional paralysis vividly showcases the numbing effect typical of emotional injury and the blockage of grief that trauma studies and psychologists recognize in traumatised individuals. These characteristics are quite evident in the boss’s character. The very fact is, “Trauma indicates a shattering break or cesura in experience which has belated effects”. (La Capra 186). So, when Woodifield reminds him of his only son who died in World War I six years ago, he does not react and looks blank. Unlike Woodifield, “The boss seeks to keep his grief of bereavement at bay by concentrating on material comforts, glitters, and his power of authority” (Bhattacharyya 110). The trauma of losing a young son has certainly devastating effects on the boss and Woodifield. However, as Woodifield chooses to talk and discuss his grief with others, he seems to have overcome the loss of his son, whereas the boss chooses to refuse the reality. He delves into materialistic gains, becomes a successful name in the business world, and surrounds himself only with his work to forget the sufferings of life. The lifestyle he chooses to overcome trauma is a way to escape from reality. This phenomenon of coping with trauma is commonly referred to as ‘acting out’, which can involve adopting certain narratives to make sense of traumatic experiences, which can serve to secure the self by shutting down questioning and showing strength and decisiveness in the wake of trauma. As the boss says to Woodifield, “‘Drink it down. It’ll do you good. And don’t put any water with it. It’s sacrilege to tamper with stuff like this. Ah!’”(Mansfield 39). It shows that he tries to distract himself from the deep-seated trauma by involving himself and Woodifield in drinking Whisky, aiming to swallow the ‘trauma’ down and focus on other topics. However, as Woodifield departs and the boss is left to his thoughts, his conscience begins to grapple with questions about how he can remain so emotionally numb. Strangely, his boy was his only son. How could he not cry? It highlights the fact that he has forgotten to feel because, for the last six years, he never pictured his son lying in the grave. Such “emotional numbness is a common symptom of trauma, leading individuals to desire to remain within the traumatic experience without seeking closure” (La Capra 23). This description aptly fits the boss’s condition. He is emotionally cold; hence, when he attempts to mourn his son’s death as a typical bereaved father, he requires a staged environment to weep. He asked his office messenger, “I’ll see nobody for half an hour, Macey…Understand? Nobody at all.”(Mansfield 40). He groaned “My son!” yet he could not weep.
The traumatised individual tends to relive the past, as if they were still fully in the past, with no distance from and repeat something compulsively to feel the pain (LaCapra 142). So, initially, he tries to do it by recalling the fact the boy was his only son whom he wished would carry on the responsibilities of his business. Then he recalled the day when he received the telegram informing his son’s sudden death. Yet, still, the emotional numbness continued, so he looked at his son’s photograph, which was not his ‘favourite’. Trauma is persistently associated with the power of remembrance as it intensifies the trauma by serving as a vessel for retaining and recalling the traumatic experiences. But for him, nothing could evoke the emotion he wanted to feel. The narrator says, “He was puzzled. Something seemed to be wrong with him. He was not feeling as he wanted to feel.” (Mansfield 42)
Also, it may seem that when he saw the fly in the inkpot, he initially thought of helping it, but later, due to the repressed trauma, the Freudian idea of ‘death drive’ occurred in him for the moment, which led him to “act violently” with the fly, “in a way that is destructive and self-destructive” (LaCapra 143). He rescues the fly from the inkpot and then repeatedly drops ink on it. It seems as if he could not reason why he was doing it; he just lost his emotional abilities, resulting in the merciless killing of the fly. A critical analysis of the boss’s character emphasises, “He himself causes disaster to the fly by dropping blots of ink on it; at the same time, he sincerely wants it to recover from the plight, encourages it with words and actions, and is profoundly shocked at its ultimate death.” (Bhattacharyya 114). J.D. Thomas also opined that the boss may have a self-destructive nature, although it is implicit. “The boss, likewise, has tried to give himself to death: “Time, he had declared then, he had told everybody, could make no difference. Other men perhaps might recover, might live their loss down, but not he.” Nevertheless, he has despite himself proved too tough, too vital to succeed in self-destruction.” (Thomas 262). While it is not explicitly stated, his attempts to “give himself to death” yet the way he (un)intentionally tortures the fly implies his struggle with his self-destructive tendencies or thoughts. His belief that time could not make a difference and his assertion that he could not recover from his loss indicate a deep sense of hopelessness and despair.
Another possible way to put the boss’s merciless killing of the fly could be to say that he was perhaps recreating his son’s death on the battlefield to mourn the loss. He tries to relive the trauma of his son fighting for life through the fly’s struggle. This interpretation seems to stand as the most plausible as the language employed here is evocative and does not look like a mere narration of killing an insect. The way he admires the fly’s courage and encourages it by saying, “Never say die” and “Come on” and his behaviour towards the fly and the employment of key phrases like “Help! Help! Said those struggling legs”, “ready for life again”, and “afraid to move because of what would happen next”, hint as if he is addressing a helpless human battling for life. Finally, when it is dead, its body is respectfully addressed as ‘the corpse’. It is to be noted that Mansfield uses the stream-of-consciousness technique to delve into the character’s deep thoughts, rendering the character’s experiences more palpable and intense. This technique unveils the character’s unwitting act of slowly taking the life of the innocent fly without realising it until it dies. The emotive language subtly shows that while playing with the life of the fly, he started acting violently and brought destruction to the fly, due to his long-suppressed trauma. And now, he can feel something after so many years, a dreadful feeling of being “positively frightened” (Mansfield 43).
IV. Comparative Analysis
Trauma is a perilous and uncharted territory, that demands traumatised individuals to have enough courage to explore it. In “The Lament”, Iona seems to possess the strength to accept his loss and face his trauma by “working through” it, while the boss in “The Fly” embraces escapism. He has chosen to avoid his trauma by “acting out” in various ways.
Both bereaved fathers are going through trauma and had the same love for and expectations from their sons. However, their responses to trauma dramatically vary: Iona, a poor cabby, has only experienced a week of grief and feels isolated, with an overwhelming urge to talk to someone. In contrast, the boss has endured six years since his son’s death and has never spoken a word about it, even to his friend Woodifield, who underwent the same tragedy. Moreover, the boss chooses to isolate himself. His response to trauma does not lead to resolution or healing. His persistent acting out over an extended period of six years entraps him which consequently hinders the process of his own healing. According to an article on “Acting out and Working through”, “LaCapra states that acting out occurs where sufferers become ‘stuck’ in the past and live a restricted life” (Schick 1842).
Iona desperately seeks a companion and attempts to talk to people three times, but no one pays heed to him. He tries to talk to his passengers and even a stranger, but none of them listen or care. He ultimately copes with his trauma by sharing his grief with his old mare, whom he later feeds. On the other hand, the boss chooses to embrace a narrative of himself as a successful businessman, confining himself to a comfortable office in London and never displaying his emotions. He copes with his trauma by projecting his trauma and exercising control over something weaker than him i.e. the fly. This marginalised and privileged dichotomy is subtly exhibited in their treatment of the innocent creatures and their approach to dealing with personal trauma. One character has the courage and likes to acknowledge and nurse the pain while the other consistently ignores and represses it as if it never existed. “The Lament” ends on a note of hope, while “The Fly” concludes with ambiguity. Furthermore, their traumas transform them from what they were at the beginning to what they become at the end.
V. Conclusion:
Both texts show that much like Iona and the boss, every human possesses a part of their heart that remains unexplored. They protect and conceal it, keeping it hidden from everyone’s view, yet they yearn for it to be uncovered, to share it with a companion, a true friend, much like how Iona does in the short story. Despite being financially poor, he appears emotionally richer than the boss, but such a view would be one-sided. Humans, like diamonds, have many facets. The boss is a powerful established businessman, but deep inside, he is a helpless man who has lost his son. He keeps his grief hidden and buried in his heart. The public face he wears is just one of those facets. Unlike Iona, the boss chooses to hide his pain from the world. After all, each individual’s approach to coping with trauma is different and special. However, sharing trauma proves to be more beneficial than repressing it. This paper has addressed questions that often align more with philosophy than with conventional literature. It highlights that an individual’s responses to trauma are influenced by their social class, their relationship with others, and their ability to communicate their grief. To sum up, it can be said that it is natural for people to grapple with fear and anxiety during and immediately after a traumatic event, and most importantly, everyone’s emotional response is unique.
Works Cited
Bhattacharyya, Arunodoy. Studies in Select Short Stories. Book Way Publishers,
2009.
Caruth, Cathy. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, UK, 1997.
Hartman, Geoffrey H. “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies.” New Literary History, vol. 26, no. 3, 1995, pp. 537–63. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20057300. Accessed 20 Sep. 2023.
Kurtz, J. Roger, editor. Trauma and Literature, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
LaCapra, Dominick. Writing History, Writing Trauma. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014.
Mehrotra, Madhu, editor. Gems of Short Fiction: An Anthology of Short Stories. Oriental Black Swan, 2011.
Pederson, Joshua. “Trauma and Narrative”. Trauma and Literature, edited by J. Roger Kurtz, Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp-104.
SCHICK, KATE. “Acting out and Working through: Trauma and (in)Security.” Review of International Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, 2011, pp. 1837–55. JSTOR,http://www.jstor.org/stable/23025578. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.
Thomas, J. D. “Symbol and Parallelism in ‘The Fly.’” College English, vol. 22, no. 4, 1961, pp. 256–62. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/373033. Accessed 27 Sep. 2023.
Whitehead, Anne. Trauma Fiction. Edinburgh University Press, 2004.