Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.2 AVERAGE
4.2 AVERAGE
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
What a wonderful collection. Chekhov is almost certainly the best short fiction writer of all time. They feel timeless.
I like these translations better than the few Constance Garnett ones I've read.
For me many of these stories rate full 5 stars graded individually. Sadly it's brought down ever so slightly by its decision to include a few of his earlier sketches. This seems to be a common decision with Chekhov collections and I'm not sure why. I guess it offers a slight sense of the progression of his writing over time, but that's not really why I come to collections like this. I'd have preferred if they'd included one or two more of his best known works instead.
My favorites - Easter Night, A Dreary Story (Boring Story here), In Exile, The Black Monk, The House with the Mezzanine, Gooseberries, On Official Business, The Lady with the Little Dog, In the Ravine.
I like these translations better than the few Constance Garnett ones I've read.
For me many of these stories rate full 5 stars graded individually. Sadly it's brought down ever so slightly by its decision to include a few of his earlier sketches. This seems to be a common decision with Chekhov collections and I'm not sure why. I guess it offers a slight sense of the progression of his writing over time, but that's not really why I come to collections like this. I'd have preferred if they'd included one or two more of his best known works instead.
My favorites - Easter Night, A Dreary Story (Boring Story here), In Exile, The Black Monk, The House with the Mezzanine, Gooseberries, On Official Business, The Lady with the Little Dog, In the Ravine.
funny
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
medium-paced
funny
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
My five favourites:
The Black monk
Rothschild's fiddle
Sleepy
A boring story
Anyuta
Considering that I've now read almost everything Chekhov has ever written, I think I can form an opinion on the quality of his works; They're good. When Chekhov shines, he really shines, and when he falls flat it's never egregiously bad. Like others have said, the most interesting aspect of Chekhov is the empathy that shines through his works; poor, ill, rich, female, male, foreigner...etc it doesn't matter to Chekhov, he can see us all suffering.
Now, despite the fact that I'm really happy I read this, and that it contains some of my favourite short stories ever, I also have to admit that it made me realise it's a horrible idea to read a prolific authors entire works in under a year. You will get burnt out. Although I love Chekhov, I can also now realise that he's a fairly routine writer, he has his knack and he does it well, but rarely does he try something unique. Overall though, fantastic writer, fantastic stories.
The Black monk
Rothschild's fiddle
Sleepy
A boring story
Anyuta
Considering that I've now read almost everything Chekhov has ever written, I think I can form an opinion on the quality of his works; They're good. When Chekhov shines, he really shines, and when he falls flat it's never egregiously bad. Like others have said, the most interesting aspect of Chekhov is the empathy that shines through his works; poor, ill, rich, female, male, foreigner...etc it doesn't matter to Chekhov, he can see us all suffering.
Now, despite the fact that I'm really happy I read this, and that it contains some of my favourite short stories ever, I also have to admit that it made me realise it's a horrible idea to read a prolific authors entire works in under a year. You will get burnt out. Although I love Chekhov, I can also now realise that he's a fairly routine writer, he has his knack and he does it well, but rarely does he try something unique. Overall though, fantastic writer, fantastic stories.
challenging
emotional
funny
lighthearted
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Chekhov adopts the Flaubertian objectivity and reluctance towards commenting on his characters. But where Flaubert’s withdrawal from revealing his approval/disapproval and the sheer coldness of his prose itself become a kind of condescending commentary that gives away his opinions, Chekhov steers clear of it by not only becoming his characters but also being a mere passerby. A passerby who can not only witness and empathize with his often lonely characters but can also detach himself abruptly and walk away without an iota of moralizing—this abruptness, and this desire to be two things at once are what make his stories seem as if they don’t really end at all.
This wanting to be two things at once is clearly seen in the story-within-a-story frame that Chekhov sometimes sets up, where two or more characters engage in a conversation and one of them, all passionate, narrates a story. The tale, which usually seems like the failure of the teller’s privacy, may be about a peasant narrating how painful his life has been, or a passionate case on happiness, or a man’s secret about his adulterous love affair, etc. This story is often passionately concluded with the teller’s own moral opinion, so passionate that even the reader is convinced by his notion. But all this teller’s passion and secret is greeted with, is the listeners’ boredom and indifference. What’s in the speaker’s head is interesting and urgent only to him; it sounds great only in his head, and not when blurted out. But again the teller is often not privy to the listener’s boredom—a typically Chekhovian trick. Their lives go on. It’s not just his abrupt endings that make them ambiguous: it’s also the absence of Chekhov, coupled with his free characters.
One of the other things that sets him apart is his concise, unlyrical, and (sometimes almost) flat prose that doesn’t linger much on static detail: though when it does, detail seems almost arbitrarily sprinkled. This and the lack of authorial commentary, allow his characters a kind of freedom where they not only seem to live but almost float.
Chekhov is free of any ideological consistency, but the one thing he’s unfailingly consistent is the capital-R Realism, though his version differs a little from the other 19th-century heavyweights. He doesn’t seem to be arguing for his own ideologies, nor is he interested in neatly wrapping things up by shoving moral epiphanies down the throats of his characters. He just shows you both the sides and shrugs, says “I don’t know,” and walks away.
I'm refraining from rating it because I don't really like the much acclaimed Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation, plus this selection also leaves out a lot of his important short pieces. Comparing it with other translations, I find their version to chase concision at the expense of clarity. I'll probably check out Constance Garnett's translation, which, though sometimes too literal, looks rather lucid.
This wanting to be two things at once is clearly seen in the story-within-a-story frame that Chekhov sometimes sets up, where two or more characters engage in a conversation and one of them, all passionate, narrates a story. The tale, which usually seems like the failure of the teller’s privacy, may be about a peasant narrating how painful his life has been, or a passionate case on happiness, or a man’s secret about his adulterous love affair, etc. This story is often passionately concluded with the teller’s own moral opinion, so passionate that even the reader is convinced by his notion. But all this teller’s passion and secret is greeted with, is the listeners’ boredom and indifference. What’s in the speaker’s head is interesting and urgent only to him; it sounds great only in his head, and not when blurted out. But again the teller is often not privy to the listener’s boredom—a typically Chekhovian trick. Their lives go on. It’s not just his abrupt endings that make them ambiguous: it’s also the absence of Chekhov, coupled with his free characters.
One of the other things that sets him apart is his concise, unlyrical, and (sometimes almost) flat prose that doesn’t linger much on static detail: though when it does, detail seems almost arbitrarily sprinkled. This and the lack of authorial commentary, allow his characters a kind of freedom where they not only seem to live but almost float.
Chekhov is free of any ideological consistency, but the one thing he’s unfailingly consistent is the capital-R Realism, though his version differs a little from the other 19th-century heavyweights. He doesn’t seem to be arguing for his own ideologies, nor is he interested in neatly wrapping things up by shoving moral epiphanies down the throats of his characters. He just shows you both the sides and shrugs, says “I don’t know,” and walks away.
I'm refraining from rating it because I don't really like the much acclaimed Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation, plus this selection also leaves out a lot of his important short pieces. Comparing it with other translations, I find their version to chase concision at the expense of clarity. I'll probably check out Constance Garnett's translation, which, though sometimes too literal, looks rather lucid.
There were a few in the middle that simply were not as good, but the stories that truly cut the core of what it feels like to be human, particularly at the end, were magnificent. Chekov does what he does in the Russian tradition of capturing how dark life can seem. I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said before.
I can now unequivocally claim Chekhov to be my favorite of the Russian writers. Excellent short stories.