Anton Chekhov’s Selected Stories portray the Russian people as they were not how he wished they were; which is why he never “lived in his works”. Instead Chekhov acted as a moral compass for the Russian generation. His brilliance laid on the reliance of “impressionistic realism” and the ever-present after mass of the official end of serfdom in (1861), allowing him to encompass more aspects of Russian life. His stories are under constant study because of the individuality of his writing techniques. While Chekhov's use of irony, characterization and imagery provides insight into 19th-century Russia, it is through characterization that we understand the minds of contemporary Russians.
Chekhov manipulates his reader’s expectations to emphasize his point by way of irony. “Together with the light, my burning face was caressed by a delightful, sultry fragrance; this, no doubt, was the smell of an aristocratic bedroom” (At Sea pg#). Chekhov uses irony to reverse the assumption that the “aristocratic” characters have superior morals to the dirty sailors who are spying on them, which illuminates the fact that all people, regardless of class, can be devoid of morals. Another prevalent technique in Chekhov’s stories is including ironic narration. Frequently the narration moves from objective and external to the consciousness of the narrator. “Long conversations followed, arguments; in their delight with each other…Makar and his new acquaintance disclaimed each others talent, unable to accept each other, envy, hatred anger followed, and they parted enemies” (In Spring pg #). Makar is searching for someone who could understand him and relate to him, when he finally found someone who was like him, knew what it was like being a writer (not ha...
... middle of paper ...
...s; he is showing the dependence on men and exposing the gender roles in Russia.
Chekhov included techniques such as imagery, irony and characterization in all his stories, but what is truly remarkable is how he was able to reveal the thought process of Russian people through his characters while maintaining a neutral point of view. We develop a greater understanding of Russian life as it was in the 19th century through the imagery and ironic narration but everything learnt about the interaction between Russian people was solely determined from the interaction and thought process of the characters in his stories. One thing to consider is that Chekhov was not aware that his writing would be read so far in the future nor did he intend for it to be. It was possible that his intentions were solely to humor Russian people with the very culture that they inherit.
He uses the characters in the story to represent the middle and upper class and how they only represent greed, selfishness, and artificial emotions. They are essentially useless in the way that they are illustrated by Tolstoy. The details of the funeral at Ivan’s house at the beginning of the story is meant to demonstrate the materialism that the characters revolve around from the furniture that is so particularly described to the fake mannerisms the characters show to Ivan’s wife. The only character that falls out of this category is the peasant that stays with Ivan at the end of his life. The peasant is the only one who understands what Ivan is going through because he knows that no one is immortal and death is inevitable. He is not caught up in the false ideals that the upper class has made up for themselves. This man helps Ivan understand the truth about life and how he has been living it wrong all
The short story, “Ivan Fyodorovich Shponka and His Aunt”, explicates the life of a man named Ivan Fyodorovich Shponka. We see him briefly in his young years, followed by his life in the army, and his return to the farm where his strong characterized aunt resides. We can see immediately that this man lives in constant cleanliness and dutiful paranoia; these are some of his desires that he wishes to exhibit to others. We can also see his fears, which reside in the confiscation of his masculinity and independence. This short story has many elements that resemble others in the Nikolai Gogol collection.
Shukhov is a likeable and yet somewhat naïve fellow who is just like everybody else. In fact, what really makes this book remarkable is not Shukhov himself. What makes it special is that, even though at first glance the story may seem to be about Shukhov, it is actually a tale of events and common occurrences that could happen to anyone. The book is not just a detail of one day in the life of Ivan, it is a relatable story of what could happen to anyone shoved into a Russian prison camp. Ivan’s life in the book is shown to be nothing more than a picture of the thousands of lives that were lost or destroyed in the Stalinist camps. Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is not one character, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is the picture of “anyman.” Using the depiction of the beliefs, hopes, and need to survive that would arise in a common prisoner Solzhenitsyn creates a story of the victory of humane principles over corruption.
Tolstoy transports the reader through these examples of sociological thought with the suffering of his hero. Ivan likely mirrors the thoughts that Tolstoy has in reference to his own life, shunning institutions of society, education and religion. It is in these examples of conformity that the reader sees err, and the justification of that err not to return to a life of perpetual discontentment and conformity, but to move ahead through the pain that Ivan experiences to learn a lesson of accepting freedom, not only on the terms of the freedom itself, but in the burden with which freedom presents itself.
Tolstoy establishes his satire instantly after the death of Ivan through the cruel and selfish reactions of his friends. The death of a friend would normally conjure feelings of grief and compassion, yet for Ivan’s close associates, thoughts of their futures drowned out any thoughts of death. “So on receiving the news of Ivan Ilych's death the first thought of each of the gentlemen in ...
Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) was born a year before the emancipation of serfism in Russia took place. Although he was the grandson of a serf, Chekhov was able to attend the medical school at the University of Moscow and become a physician. Chekhov started writing in order to support his family economically, becoming a master in drama and short stories. His literature is characterized by the use of colloquial language which could be understood even by the less educated and recently liberated serfs. Social change is the main theme in ‘The Cherry Orchard’, a four-act play written in 1904. In this play the different characters portray how changes in Russia after the emancipation of 1861 were taking place and although the play is set several years after this, it is clearly seen how the play develops around this event. For peasants, the liberation of 1861 brought different consequences. Not all of them took advantage of their freedom, and for some, their lives were the same after being liberated. In this play, these differences can clearly be seen. A main character of this play is Yermolai Lopahkin. Being son and grandson of serfs, represents the young class of peasants who got advantage of the emancipation and achieved economic success. Also, we have minor characters that represent other side of liberated serfs, who did not have Lopakhin’s opportunities to success after emancipation.
Fulford, Robert.“Surprised by love: Chekhov and ‘The Lady with the Dog’.” Queen’s Quarterly. n.d. Web. 17 November 2013.
It seems as though Pyotr and Alexeich both represent different aspects of Chekhov’s father, and Chekhov himself is Anna. Chekov’s father was aloof from his family and came from a lower class background; like Modest Alexeich, Chekhov’s father also fawned at the feet of his social superiors. Chekhov, in contrast, was an unconventional boy. He eventually broke from his family’s lower class position and became a doctor; however, throughout his school and career he performed additional odd jobs to earn money he could send to his father. Also like Anna, Chekhov loved to be with people (Payne xiii, xvii-xxi). Comparing the two, then, it would seem as if Chekhov identifies with Anna as she struggles to find her social identity and wrestles with her desires and the needs of those she loves. This tone gives the story a melancholy mood and leads to a bittersweet conclusion. The ending seems happy for Anna, yet the reader is left to wonder what the ending represents. Did her father and husband receive the dues for their behavior? Are Anna’s actions a normal product of the transformation from youth to adulthood, or did she come to completely discard respect and
In describing the setting, the general locale is the prison in the coldest part of Russia- Siberia, geographically but socially depicting the social circumstances in the prison, but draws analogies to the general social, political and economic circumstances of Russia during the Stalinist era (form 1917 revolution up to 1955). The symbolic significance of the novel and the film (genres) reflects experiences, values and attitudes of the Russian society. The genres reflect the origins of the Russian social disorders and massive counts of political misgivings which watered down real communism in Russia. We are constantly reminded of the social and cultural heritage and originality of Russian ethnic groups through those different levels of meanings
Fulford, Robert.“Surprised by love: Chekhov and ‘The Lady with the Dog’.” Queen’s Quarterly. n.d. Web. 17 November 2013.
Chekhov is part of a non-typical category of artists, because he did not believed in his genius, on the contrary, there are evidence that he believed that his work will not conquer time and posterity. Spectacular, just like Russia at the border between the 19th and 20th century, Chekhov was born the son of serfs in 1860 (Tsar Alexander will abolish serfdom in 1861) only to become a landlord 32 years later, and a neighbor of Prince Shakovskoi. He bought the Melikhovo estate (unconsciously imitating Tolstoy, the patriarch of Iasnaia Polyana), not far from Moscow, with 13 thousand rubles of which he has paid an advance of five thousand.
Social change raced through Russia during this play, as “mankind is advancing, perfecting its powers.” (Chekhov 116) After feudalist Russia collapsed, members of the lower class became more motivated to increase their social standing. (Complex) Although it was a time of great joy and hope for the peasantry in Russia, this time period, roughly 1861-1917, was full of uncertainty. Russian peasants did not know how the government would support and defend their ability to grow higher in society. The Cherry Orchard reflects Russian peasants’ fears regarding these social changes. Lopakhin is the paragon (12) of a Russian peasant who rose from the ranks of peasantry to a successful businessman. (Simple) He notes, “I’m rich, plenty of money, but if you think it over and work it out, once a peasant, always a peasant.” (Chekhov 70-71), as he reminisces about his upbringing in the lower class. This way of thinking speaks for all the peasants in this time of social change; even if a peasant moved up in social standing, he or she would not forget or bury their past. Lopakhin remarks that at one time “my father was your [Lyubov] grandfather’s serf”, (Chekhov 85) which shows how muc...
Anton Chekhov’s short story “The Bishop” was written in 1902 and published in 1979 in “Anton Chekhov’s Short Stories” along with many of his other works, such as “The Betrothed” and “The Lady with the Dog”. While “The Bishop” is not a direct reflection of Chekhov’s life, the story does reflect elements of his life. His religious upbringing is most prevalent in this story, but being ill with Tuberculosis of the lungs during the time this story was written is shown as well through Bishop Pyotr’s sickness.
“To whom shall I tell my grief?” Grief must receive closure. Grief has the power to make the strongest person helpless. For an individual to share their grief they receive a sense of compassion instead of endlessly searching for answers. In the short story “Misery”, Anton Chekhov effectively shows the desperation of communication through the character Iona Potapov and his mare. Chekhov illustrates the difficulty Iona faces to communicate his sufferings to the various people he speaks to as a sleigh driver. He accomplishes this through his style of writing, imagery, and the events that take place in the story.
Chekhov often uses a particular season and time of day to set the atmosphere of the act. He uses pathetic fallacy to reflect the mood of different characters in the play. For example in The Seagull the opening two acts are in the spring, which symbolises growth, new birth and purity. It is a time of excitement as there is a homecoming as Arkadina is returning and Kostya finally has his time to show off his work as a playwright (although it doesn’t work out that way). In the fourth act two years have passed and a lot has changed in that time. Chekhov once again uses a homecoming to mirror the opening act, however this time it is a cold, wet, winter’s night. Winter is a complete contrast to Spring and this symbolizes a time of stagnation and hibernation, it is the dreaded month. There is no sense of growth or a new beginning anymore as Kostya has achieved his ambition and is still not content. So when Nina turns him down one final time, after there long duration apart, Kostya shoots himself. This is a clear example of how Chekhov meticulously uses the time of day and year to set the atmosphere of the act. This is also evident in the Cherry Orchard when the opening act is in May and the fourth act is in October. “Its October and its devilishly cold in here”, says Lopakhin in act four, this tells us that summer is now coming to an end and within that symbolizes the end of the Cherry Orchard.