...
Show More
Anton Chekhov's literary work is often labelled as 'pessimistic' and this is not untrue. However, it is not merely pessimistic; in fact, to try and reduce his writing or worldview to any single concept would be folly. Yes, Chekov does like to focus on settings that are wretched and tragic, but he also maintains hope that man's condition might someday be improved and is too sympathetic towards human beings to be considered a mere cynic.
Chekhov isn't just an impressionist either. He definitely excels in portraying lovable characters as they are without the need for a driving narrative or solid denouement, as in stories like 'The Huntsman', but a fair deal of his stories are not above telling moral lessons. Although Chekhov maintained he only wanted to portray Russian life as is, it is hard not to read 'Ward No. 6', 'The Fidget' or 'The House on the Mezzanine' without feeling like you have been given a warning.
That is what I loved most about Chekhov. He has many virtues: elegant and stately prose, a strong voice, the ability to craft flawed and vivid characters; but to me he is most effective as a teacher. He reveals the lies we tell ourselves, the people we take for granted and the happiness we wilfully deny. It is not often I read a book and feel changed as a person, but from this I was told 'For the love of all that is good, don't compromise your values, don't harden your heart or idle away your hours' and was shaken to the core.
Of course, I am not blind to Chekhov's shortcomings either. A great writer often has great flaws and Chekhov's would be a tendency to have his characters spout big philosophical diatribes, as if reading a passage on stoicism from a textbook, or to occassionally layer his writing with mock profundity, a ripple in the water leading him on a tangent to ponder life's infinite mysteries. In fairness, this does add to the mystical weight of his prose, and there is so much real profundity in his writing that it overshadows the times when it is forced.
The above hardly detracts from the brilliance of his stories though, and it is safe to say that Chekhov's work will endure for a long time, his oeuvre ready to awe any who approach it.
Chekhov isn't just an impressionist either. He definitely excels in portraying lovable characters as they are without the need for a driving narrative or solid denouement, as in stories like 'The Huntsman', but a fair deal of his stories are not above telling moral lessons. Although Chekhov maintained he only wanted to portray Russian life as is, it is hard not to read 'Ward No. 6', 'The Fidget' or 'The House on the Mezzanine' without feeling like you have been given a warning.
That is what I loved most about Chekhov. He has many virtues: elegant and stately prose, a strong voice, the ability to craft flawed and vivid characters; but to me he is most effective as a teacher. He reveals the lies we tell ourselves, the people we take for granted and the happiness we wilfully deny. It is not often I read a book and feel changed as a person, but from this I was told 'For the love of all that is good, don't compromise your values, don't harden your heart or idle away your hours' and was shaken to the core.
Of course, I am not blind to Chekhov's shortcomings either. A great writer often has great flaws and Chekhov's would be a tendency to have his characters spout big philosophical diatribes, as if reading a passage on stoicism from a textbook, or to occassionally layer his writing with mock profundity, a ripple in the water leading him on a tangent to ponder life's infinite mysteries. In fairness, this does add to the mystical weight of his prose, and there is so much real profundity in his writing that it overshadows the times when it is forced.
The above hardly detracts from the brilliance of his stories though, and it is safe to say that Chekhov's work will endure for a long time, his oeuvre ready to awe any who approach it.