Pages

Sunday, 28 July 2024

The appeal of Chekhov

Nabokov says in Strong Opinions

“The word “genius” is passed around rather generously, isn’t it? At least in English, because its Russian counterpart, geniy, is a term brimming with a sort of throaty awe and is used only in the case of a very small number of writers, Shakespeare, Milton, Pushkin, Tolstoy. To such deeply beloved authors as Turgenev and Chekhov Russians assign the thinner term, talánt, talent, not genius. […] Genius still means to me, in my Russian fastidiousness and pride of phrase, a unique, dazzling gift, the genius of James Joyce, not the talent of Henry James.” 

And yet: 

“Mr. Karlinsky has put his finger on a mysterious sensory cell. He is right, I do love Chekhov dearly. I fail, however, to rationalize my feeling for him: I can easily do so in regard to the greater artist, Tolstoy, with the flash of this or that unforgettable passage (“…  how sweetly she said: ‘and even very much’ ”—Vronsky recalling Kitty’s reply to some trivial question that we shall never know), but when I imagine Chekhov with the same detachment all I can make out is a medley of dreadful prosaisms, ready-made epithets, repetitions, doctors, unconvincing vamps, and so forth; yet it is his works which I would take on a trip to another planet.”

Nabokov makes a similar point in Lectures on Russian Literature

“Russian critics have noted that Chekhov’s style, his choice of words and so on, did not reveal any of those special artistic preoccupations that obsessed, for instance, Gogol or Flaubert or Henry James. […] Thus Chekhov is a good example to give when one tries to explain that a writer may be a perfect artist without being exceptionally vivid in his verbal technique or exceptionally preoccupied with the way his sentences curve. […] The magical part of it is that in spite of his tolerating flaws which a bright beginner would have avoided, in spite of his being quite satisfied with the man-in-the street among words, the word-in-the-street, so to say, Chekhov managed to convey an impression of artistic beauty far surpassing that of many writers who thought they knew what rich beautiful prose was.”

Unlike Nabokov, I do think Chekhov has genius—like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Gogol—whereas Turgenev has talent. But I too find it difficult to talk about Chekhov’s greatness, to rationalise my love for his writings.

When I read Alice Munro for the first time last year—a darling of Book Twitter, until the recent explosion—I enjoyed the stories a lot, but I remember thinking she’s very good but not Chekhov good. Alice Munro is also a subtle writer, writing about the lives of ordinary people and the little moments that are full of meaning. In a way, she should perhaps appeal more to me, writing about women, and she’s contemporary—TSK on Twitter said “being closer to us in time, her stories are fresher and more alive”—and yet I have never felt a connection with Alice Munro the way I feel about Chekhov (and now I clearly won’t). 

But it’s not just Alice Munro. I just love Chekhov more than any other short story writers; and in literature in general, I feel closer to Chekhov than anyone else, even Shakespeare and Tolstoy. 

Why? 

Part of it must be the authorial persona. Some writers—like Chekhov, Cervantes—have a more lovable persona than others—like Tolstoy, George Eliot. Tolstoy the artist may be able to depict a wide range of perspectives and inhabit the mind of more or less any character* but you can tell—you can feel on the page—that Tolstoy the man is judgemental. Same with George Eliot. 

It’s not that Chekhov doesn’t judge or doesn’t condemn. That is something people like to repeat when they talk about Chekhov, but all you have to do is to read “Ward No.6” or “In the Ravine” and you can see that isn’t true—Chekhov’s moral sense is clear, as he writes about people’s egotism, callousness, and cruelty to each other. But he is compassionate and humane. He makes us feel understood. He provides solace in moments of despair. 

He conveys, better than anyone, those brief moments of sadness that we sometimes feel. Take, for example, this passage from “The Beauties”: 

“I felt this beauty rather strangely. It was not desire, nor ecstacy, nor enjoyment that Masha excited in me, but a painful though pleasant sadness. It was a sadness vague and undefined as a dream. For some reason I felt sorry for myself, for my grandfather and for the Armenian, even for the girl herself, and I had a feeling as though we all four had lost something important and essential to life which we should never find again. My grandfather, too, grew melancholy; he talked no more about manure or about oats, but sat silent, looking pensively at Masha.” 

Later, in the same story: 

“On the platform between our carriage and the next the guard was standing with his elbows on the railing, looking in the direction of the beautiful girl, and his battered, wrinkled, unpleasantly beefy face, exhausted by sleepless nights and the jolting of the train, wore a look of tenderness and of the deepest sadness, as though in that girl he saw happiness, his own youth, soberness, purity, wife, children; as though he were repenting and feeling in his whole being that that girl was not his, and that for him, with his premature old age, his uncouthness, and his beefy face, the ordinary happiness of a man and a passenger was as far away as heaven....” 

(translated by Constance Garnett) 

I’m not a guard with a “battered, wrinkled, unpleasantly beefy face”, but I recognise that melancholy feeling.

This is why, when I feel down, I turn to Chekhov. 

Chekhov appeals to me also because he’s a humanist, and humane. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky constantly write about God and constantly wrestle with their faith; Chekhov doesn’t pretend to know the answers to any of those big questions, but he’s capable of depicting goodness without faith, and conveying—in life as well as in writings—a sense of purpose without religion. He also rejects ideology, and rejects extremes. 

If anyone asks who my literary heroes are, my immediate answer would be Chekhov. I might perhaps also mention Vasily Grossman or Primo Levi—it might be a bit too early to say—but my one literary hero would be Chekhov. 

What about you? Why do you like Chekhov? 


*: except Hélène. 

19 comments:

  1. I like Chekhov because of the person he was, and for how the person he was shines through his literary work and his humanitarian side.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Chekhov once said that most of us can deal with major crises, but it’s the day-to-day living that wears us down. And no-one, I think, depicted this in fiction (or in drama) better than did Chekhov. Although often a funny writer - most obviously in his early stories, abut also, I think, in his later work - when I think of Chekhov, the overriding mental picture I have is of sadness. And while he was not averse to depicting crises, or even scenes of horror (see “In the Ravine”), the sadness comes from our day-to-day living, from an accumulation of small things that eventually destroy us. Somehow, imperceptibly, Ionych turns from an idealistic young man into a rapacious, middle-aged mediocrity. How it happens, why it happens - who knows?

    But Chekhov was far from a melancholic. Depsite what I see as the overriding air of sadness, he had a keen sense of the absurdity of it all. “The Cherry Orchard”, he insisted, was a comedy, and should be played like a farce. If only directors took him at his word!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. I have to read more of his plays, don't I?
      Earlier I reread my blog post on Three Sisters: Chekhov basically leaves all the big, dramatic events off-stage and writes about the little moments between them. It's so odd! And yet it works.

      Delete
  3. This is the first time I'm commenting on a blogspot, so I'm sorry if I am accidentally being impolite, but I want to chime in. >_<

    I think the thing I like most about Chekhov is that he writes in a very objective style but doesn’t sacrifice his sense of empathy and humanitarianism. He cares for other people's problems and you can tell by just reading him.

    In ward no 6, when Andrey Yefimich tried to exit his cell to take a smoke, he was stopped by Nikita, Andrey Yefimich started screaming at him and before long, Ivan Dmitrich (Who had been pretending to sleep) join in, protesting of the injustice, the two would bang the door together in anger.(I read ward no 6 back in march and this scene is probably the strongest of the whole story.)

    Chekhov could've as easily written it so Ivan Dmitrich continued to mock Andrey Yefimich to get him back to bed or made him indifferent to the whole thing, yet the fact that Chekhov made Ivan care and stood up for him is (what I think) made him so special.

    Chekhov doesn't just stand and look at atrocity, he must run and stop it.

    For all the neutrality in his narration, I can imagine Chekhov in real life, looking at an old dying man, poor and sick. Chekhov, running up to the nearest person (one who was happily passing this dying man without a care in the world) shook him repeatedly and screamed "My God! What are you doing? Can't you see this man is dying! Why are you ignoring him, you dolt! Come, we must help him for God sake!*"

    The only other person I know who I feel to have this same quality is Fumiyo Kouno, (specifically in her story “Town of Evening Calm”), they write not only for themselves but also for all those that are trapped in the same situation.

    ….It is just in their nature to do so.

    I agree with the sentiment that Munro doesn’t have that special something Chekhov has and I think this is the reason. Munro doesn’t have some big social problem that seem to frustrate her (Unlike Chekhov with poverty and Kouno with Hiroshima), from the little I read of her, most of it seem to meander,
    (She also seem to be more frustrated in her husband and daughter than any big social issue)

    I have a feeling that if she were to be put in the same scenario of a dying man she would give him a glance, continue her walk and think only of her day as if nothing happened.....She's just too indifferent, and at a certain point I do believe that it made her a lesser artist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,
      Welcome to my blog. What's your name?
      I agree with you about Chekhov. One thing I would say is that Chekhov is never neutral; he may depict everyone with compassion and understanding, he may not moralise, but he is not neutral; you know the qualities and actions he condemns, even if he has compassion for the people who have or do them.
      But you are right that Chekhov the person didn't stand still when he saw something wrong. That's the impression I got when I read his letters last year.
      As for Alice Munro, you make an interesting point. Perhaps you're right. I have to think some more about it.

      Delete
    2. The strange thing is that if I pick up Alice Munro again now, to figure out what Chekhov has that she lacks, I will not be able to get out of my head the revelations we recently got about her behaviour towards her daughter. That would colour my judgement.
      Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comment. That is an interesting point.

      Delete
    3. Hey thanks for replying! I've Been a fan of this blog for some time now but didn't have the courage to comment, so it's really nice to finally comment and get a response (Also name's John, nice to meet ya! :D)

      Aaaaah, yeah I can see that, I was thinking more in the line of Murasaki Shikibu where in her narration she would sometimes give snide remarks to a character she didn't like/annoyed at.

      (Example:

      “Now that I have plucked them,’ as they say, I am sure the warbler will be round in no time.” Some young women can say very naughty things.

      The puzzled Ukon opened it on the way out. Wicked Ukon! “Dear me!” she said to her mistress, without telling her that she had read it. “This promises to be very difficult for you both! His lordship seems to have caught wind of what is going on.”)

      Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Chekhov ever do that in his narration (Or at least not in his 3rd person one), if he want to condemn someone, I think he uses another character in the story to say it so it doesn't sound like he himself is bias to a certain stance (Even though as you say, he certainly has strong moral stance)

      I get that with the Munro thing, I used to think people aren’t static and that people can be good and bad throughout their life, and depending on when they create a piece of art they can be a better person than they are in the future/when they die….But then again, I don’t think the tone of Munro’s stories change at any point in her life and I do feel I’m being too soft when saying such thing, so maybe I shouldn’t say it. (But then again, considering who I am, those words should never exit my mouth for God sake!)

      Anyway, with all that, thanks for the compliment! I edit the previous comment several time, so I’m glad it can be somewhat interesting >_<

      Also I forgot to write this in my previous comment, but as a side note, I do like the grouping of Cervantes and Chekhov since both lived in relative poverty early in their lives before gaining some successes with their work.

      I think those aspects help to make them more compassionate, when you’re born at the lowest level of society and someone helps you, you can’t really judge them (Or at least judge them that much), they’re probably just thankful someone in this world cares enough to keep them alive.

      Delete
    4. Hello John,
      "I get that with the Munro thing, I used to think people aren’t static and that people can be good and bad throughout their life, and depending on when they create a piece of art they can be a better person than they are in the future/when they die…."
      I don't understand this. Could you explain again?

      Delete
    5. Aaah sorry, I just meant that if I read a story written by Munro 20 years before she was married that I try to believe that she may have been a different person and would do things completely differently (From what I read people with less develop brain are prone more to change than people who have fully matured, and perhaps if she was still in that stage of development she would feel more outrage as a young woman)

      But since all of her early works also have the same tone as her later, I feel it's just wishful thinking that she could've been a different person.

      Hopefully this explanation makes more sense

      Delete
    6. Right.
      I'm still not sure I catch your meaning. Is Jane Austen different throughout her career? Is Tolstoy? What about George Eliot?

      Delete
    7. For what it is worth, likely little, John's timeline of Munro's biography and career is way, way off. There is no story written by Munro 20 years before she married. There could not be such a thing.

      That is a great list, Di, of writers who, creatively, which may not be the issue here, changed enormously.

      Delete
    8. Tom,
      It's just that I have read fewer than 10 Alice Munro stories, so I don't really know what John meant.
      Jane Austen and Tolstoy certainly changed a lot creatively, but they didn't seem to change that much as *people*, by which I mean the implied author. Austen's last 4 novels, for example, are very different in tone, but her views and values remain the same.
      (I'm still thinking about writing a blog post about change in Jane Austen and Chekhov, though it's probably not enough material for a full post).

      Delete
    9. If Tolstoy's crisis does not count as personal change I am not sure what does.

      People literally founded societies based on the teachings of post-crisis Tolstoy.

      The implied author is a marvelous concept, so useful, but also a fiction created in collaboration with the actual author, and thus not such a reliable guide to the actual human.

      Delete
    10. Okay, I admit that Tolstoy is a bad example. His late fables are very different. But Hadji Murad from the late, post-crisis period is not that different from Anna Karenina or War and Peace.

      Delete
    11. Hello I’m sorry for the late reply, because I was thinking a lot of what to say next, hopefully this isn’t too late >_<

      I agree with Tom, Tolstoy change a lot through his life,

      As for Elliot and Austen, I haven't read much by them, but I won't rule out Elliot changing as a person, since she change from an Evangelical christian to a more agnostic humanism kind of believe (I’m also pretty she also change as a person just from reading Thomas carlyle and John Ruskin, considering how much of their idea are in her work)

      Jane Austen I also won’t rule out considering she had typhus when she was a child (Which supposedly almost kill her) and also several other disease like chronic conjunctivitis (around age 30) and otitis externa ( supposedly at 1808, meaning age 34) I have a sneaking suspicion that almost dying at such a young age and getting worsening disease must've change her somehow (Actually it may have effect her faith considering how devout she is as a christian) It may also have turned her to becoming a very serious novelist (Since all the novels that we remember Jane Austen by was written after these two diseases happen, I don’t think much people remember her prayers and short stories) it could be that we never saw that change in her just because Austen was a very private person and didn’t overly share her life. (Unlike Tolstoy who was very bombastic about his development)

      I think their change is just more subtle

      To be honest, I'm more skeptical if an author doesn't have some kind of personal change in their life, since the basic principle of a story requires writing a character that changes throughout the story. Even with the David Lynch thing of like "Ideas are all around us and we don't have to experience suffering to actually create art with suffering", I still feel that, that is not enough, since writting is so intertwined with self expression that there is a more likely chance that someone who never change throughout their life is more likely to creating an unoriginal or just a very bland story. (At least in my opinion)

      I also have trouble believing that a serious author, one who is convinced that he/she is doing beneficial to the world with their writing, would have the same outview on life throughout their life. Not only because they would slowly lose grip on what are the greatest problem of their time/ what are troubling most people (And in turn the author), but also not acknowledging scientific discovery and political news that would affect them (Anna Karenina (among many other things) came from the fact that Darwin’s Origin of Species was published and that most people have to face the fact that God and heaven are no longer an option- and have to ask if science is the only thing one can believe in, and War and Peace came from the fact Tolstoy wanted to write about the decembrist uprising but decided to go back in time and figure out why they had even done such thing) I feel great authors are required to challenge themselves and question what they believe in, at least every few years, both for the good of themselves and to not repeat what they had written in their previous works.

      It’s very telling to me that if someone makes a work of art that has the same theme from when they first got published, the same character facing the same problem, that there is a more likely chance that he/she is very uncurious about both the world and of themselves.

      This has become a very long rant, I’m sorry it got out of hand >_<

      Delete
    12. P.s. Also I understand the Hadji Murat comparison with Karenina and War and Peace, (with them being epics that focus on multiple character) I think Tolstoy had the idea for Hadji Murat as far back as in his 20's (There was a letter he sent to his brother on how much he admired Murat), I get the impression that
      He probably thought of the story structure when he was young and that’s why it feels like the exception to all of his other works from his late period.

      Delete
  4. Although you may have meant "before and after" the second husband, which is fair, but then we are talking about the brain development of a woman in her forties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah sorry about that, I meant to say her first marriage, apologies that I word it badly.

      That's true, her brain was already set in stone, so I'm probably being too hopeful.

      Delete

Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).