Chekhov’s literary reputation may rest chiefly on his masterpiece plays – Seagull, Cherry Orchard, etc. – but he is also widely regarded as the father of the modern short story. This chronological story collection, which spans the years 1880 to 1903, raises the question of just what that means.If we mean the stripped down minimalist fiction and elliptical dialogue that graces many a contemporary literary magazine, then Chekhov is not your man. As editor and translator Robert Payne notes, Chekhov wrote in old-fashioned Russian of a long-gone world of fuzzy-headed gentry and work-beaten peasants, using language that even native speakers have occasional difficulty in understanding. Many of the early stories, moreover, are really little more than sketches, vignettes – even two-page jokes – that he dashed off in the middle of his medical studies. If you want to see a more obvious forebear of modern short fiction, you would do better with Guy de Maupassant, Jack London – or in a more specialized genre – Edgar Allen Poe.How, then, is Chekhov modern? I think it is his example of absolute freedom in the form; Chekhov recognized no strictures or rules about what a short story should or shouldn’t be. He made his tales dance to whatever tune he had in his head: whether an extended joke (“The Proposal”), dark comedy (“Death of a Government Clerk”, better known as “The Sneeze”), death and transfiguration (“Gusev,” “The Bishop”), the plight of provincial Russia (“The House with the Mezzanine,” “In the Horsecart”), oppression and poverty (“Sleepyhead,” “Vanka”), and most often, love and marriage (“The Huntsman,” “Anyuta,” “Anna Round the Neck,” “The Bride,” “The Lady with the Pet Dog”).In “Gusev,” for example, we witness the suffering and death of a retired soldier aboard ship. But Chekhov doesn’t stop there: we see his body, sewn into a sailcloth, fall into the sea, dropping past schools of fish, a shark, to the bottom. And then this:The heavens turned lilac, very soft. Gazing up at the enchanted heavens, magnificent in their splendor, the sea fumed darkly at first, but soon assumed the sweet, joyous passionate colors for which there are scarcely any names in the tongues of man.Chekhov strikes the same elegiac redemptive tone following another seemingly unredeemed death in a later story “The Bishop,” although in much more stripped-down language. The bishop, subject to incessant obsequiousness in life, is almost immediately forgotten after his death; life goes on, and only his aged peasant mother recalls him as she chats with her friends.Chekhov’s modern sensibility is also apparent in his rich characterizations and ambiguous conclusions to many of his stories: presumably happy endings are laden with irony, tragic conclusions infused with the powerful sense of life’s continuity. Chekhov never passes judgment on his characters; he is both merciful and merciless, letting them make and unmake their lives and fates.It is this claim to freedom within the confines of the form, then, where Chekhov’s greatness as a short story resides.Will the illicit couple in “The Lady with the Pet Dog” find a way to happiness? We don’t know, but what do know is how much we have grown to care about the answerAnd it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found and a lovely new life would begin for them; and to both of them it was clear that the end was still very far away, and the hardest and most difficult part was only beginning.
I loved this book. Its a collection of short stories from Anton Chekov collected during the span of his lifetime. At the end of each story it does list the year that he wrote it. The short stories are written about many different things but also give you a glimpse of Russian society at this time. Recurring theme for most of these stories are love, loss, sickness and the excessive of wealth of some (and being completely ignorant of life beyond their walls) and poverty for others. Shows you a lot of human elements that we see today in the world and some people that are completely delusional and fail to accept the reality of certain situations. He has a way of making ordinary things sound extraordinary and making you think more of everyday action and life deeply.
What do You think about Forty Stories (1991)?
Chekhov has been one of the few major writers I haven't read yet for a long time. I love Chekhov inluenced writers like Katherine Mansfield and Raymond Carver so I was looking forward to reading their forebear. This collection is organised in chronological order and at first I found the stories a bit disappointing. They were good but not quite as good as I had anticipated them to be. However he kept getting better and better and by the time I got to the Lady with a Pet Dog and The Bishop he had become a master. Those stories are incredibly moving and yet very simple. You can see why he is considered to be the father of the modern short story.
—Darran Mclaughlin
Chekhov demonstrates his powers of observation and insight into the human spirit, in each of these anecdotes of the Russian countryside. Yet he cannot help but reveal as much about himself as those he renders. Between the lines we learn of pervasive Russian sexism in the late 1800s/early 1900s, both in the population and as much as he himself contained. Chekhov's views of Russian administration and bureaucracy come through only too plainly, as he never pulls a punch, never spares any turn of phrase to further illustrate his contempt. These are to be expected.The delight of these stories lies in their breadth and diversity. I really feel this collection is a testimony to his love of all people, his fascination with their endless diversity and myriad motivations and values. Even when writing about a contemptible or ridiculous character, he only allows judgment to fall on the basis of their actions; never does he dictate to the reader how they should consider them.My only complaint with this book would be to find fault with the translator. The translation is a strictly literal, spiritless rendition from one language to another, a discipline which does not work with creative fiction. Common Russian expressions became inscrutable and abstract riddles that jarred me from the flow of reading. Many times a scene or an action could have been tweaked slightly, while remaining true to the author's intention, to allow a smoother interpretive experience.
—Christian
The stories are in chronological order of the time they are written, so it's fascinating as you see Checkhov evolve from a talented and technically precise writer, to a profound and masterful artist. The later stories are astonishing in their combination of simplicity and depth. Though it's sad that his life was cut so short, artistically, perhaps, it was good that Chechov began to make meaning of death (and, obviously, life) while he was still at the height of creative abilities. Though the later stories are more powerful, I would still suggest reading them in order to get the full effect.
—Kevin
