The Complete Short Novels (Vintage Classics)

Chekhov is the master story teller. The other great master is O'Henry, but public schools have forbidden his works along with Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). The third great story teller is Nelson Algren, another forgotten author. The short story and short novel or novella are quite an art to the craft of writing. The short novel gives the author a little more time to develop both character and story without consuming too much time in making a point. One gains insight from reading Chekhov and O'Henry, both authors give us a glimpse into the human condition. Muriel Spark does the same with her short novels as she provides the feminine approach to observation.

My opinion regarding Chekhov is filled with bias. He is superb and limitless in scope and breadth. His dominion os the free indirect style is masterful and, aside from Flaubert, none of his era that I know of can match.The translation is perfect - a balance between the original Russian and maintaining coherence and beauty in English.The quality of the paper and binding is good.

I was encouraged to buy this book when I read that William Boyd, one of my favourite modern novelists, thought that My Life is one of his favourite novels. Having now read it in this collection of short novels, or long short stories, by Chekhov I can see why. The Everyman edition is a first class production in every way. A book to treasure.

This was my first dip into the work of anton Chekhov after reading an extol of his literary prowess from Robert Greene. At first, I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about... I felt (and somwhat still do) that maybe some of the life of his writting is lost when translated but thats just a guess ...As I continued to read, I did begin to appreciate a few things. The depth of the characters in each short story is quite extraordinary. Chekhov has the ability to portray the banal and ordinary in such a way that it becomes mesmorizing. You feel like you woud be able to predict how a particular character would react to any number of situations and that you know and understand them intimately even though you have only 'met' them over a few pages.I also found myself fustrated with the lack of colsure in the stories. There were no cliff hangers, no satisfying climax... they would end abruptly without warning and left me yearning for some kind of clousure. It was almost amusing.I've come to appreciate them not as stories in the normal sense with a beginning, middle and end but more as a snapshot into the lives of characters so real that you can easily imagine them or something like them existing at that time and in that place. A window into their world, without frills or superfluous drama. Chekhov in my limited and weak understanding writes about the real and the only glamour he adds is the depth of his understanding and empathy able to dig deeper into he grit of a characters persona than anyone else ive ever read.

Very nice hardbackPleased

Best translation ever. Nice book cover.

Chekov and a good translation, what more needs be said.

An Everyman classic publication so it's a visual joy before delving into the stories.The English translation is so good that you really feel you are involved in Russian life. Wonderful stories evocative of the time they were written but still relevant today. Anguish, poverty, passion, humour, frustration and the foibles of society are superbly portrayed

Excellent edition. Thank you.

In his short, prolific career (he died at age 44), Anton Chekhov wrote hundreds of short stories, over a dozen plays, and five short novels. This last category is usually considered to be an awkward length—too long to be considered a short story, too short to be considered a novel and usually not published by itself as novels usually are. Personally, I love the short novel; many of my favorite literary works are in this category. Chekhov’s five contributions to the form are all full, expansive experiences, more so than the brevity of the short story can usually contain. In my opinion, Chekhov’s abilities were given free rein in this form. All of his strengths are on ample display in these five novellas.‘The Steppe’ (1888)The earliest story in this collection concerns a nine-year old boy, Egorushka, who is being taken by his uncle, Kuzmichov, and family friend the priest, Father Khristofer, to enroll in a school far away. The boy’s mother is a widow. The reason why the boy is being sent away is never explained although Kuzmichov says no one is forcing the boy. In fact, very little is explained as the story continues wherever Egorushka is present. Kuzmichov is combining this trip with business concerns, namely, to sell wool. After wandering through a few nearby villages and encountering some interesting characters at an inn where they stop overnight, they catch up with a wagon train where Kuzmichov drops the boy off. Kuzmichov will sell wool and eventually catch up with the wagon train and deposit Egorushka at the school.Entrusting a child’s safety with strangers strikes me as well as most modern readers are tremendously irresponsible and neglectful. Presumably this action was considered differently in 19th century Russia. The presence of the priest seems to provide a moral sanction to the decision. Fortunately, the boy comes through the trip relatively unscathed, although he reacts with hostility to some older boys’ rather harsh way of teasing. His uncle finally returns to deposit him in the new school. Once they have left, he realizes with sudden finality that his life has now changed irrevocably and he is on the cusp of a new life. All of this melodramatic thinking is perfectly natural in young children that haven’t built up enough experience, maturity, and objectivity to view the changes in their lives. Chekhov captures this perception of the child’s view of the constantly changing world around him. The rambling, episodic nature of the story is exactly how the child would see the world around him.‘The Duel’ (1891)‘The Duel’ has the most cohesive premise and plot of any of these short novels and I am not surprised that it is the only one to be filmed in recent years. Ivan Laevsky is a young man living in a coastal town in the Caucasus with his mistress, Nadezhda Fyodorovna, who is married to another man. He confides to his friend the doctor Samoilenko that he has fallen out of love with her. He’s not comfortable cutting her off without some consolation. He says that Nadia is without resources. He has intercepted a letter that notifies her that her husband has died. He’s decided to withhold the knowledge from her because he feels to show it to her now would amount to an automatic proposal to marry because the way is now clear.Meanwhile, Laevsky and Nadia have been living on credit that keeps mounting. It is implied that Nadia has resorted to sleeping with the occasional merchant in order to get a debt forgiven. Nadia still loves Laevsky but is becoming frustrated with his listlessness. Among the crowd of men that gather at the local bar is a zoologist named Von Koren that is also a friend of Samoilenko’s, whereas there is a mutual dislike between him and Laevsky. During all of their encounters there is a simmering tension between them as Von Koren likes to provoke Laevsky and Laevsky does not feel comfortable with direct confrontation so he lets these mild insults pass. On one occasion, however, the argument between them escalates to the point where Von Koren challenges Laevsky to a duel. This duel is not being fought over the woman they both love—Von Koren never indicates that he has any interest in Nadia—but because Von Koren is an extreme Darwinist who feels that Laevsky is a superfluous person and “natural selection” dictates that Society would be improved by being rid of him. Dueling at the end of the 19th century is widely considered an archaic, antiquated custom and to seriously contemplate it would be the height of absurdity. This is how Laevsky views it and he fully intends to fire at the sky when the moment arrives. Without divulging any more details, the duel does not go off as expected and both men survive. Laevsky’s close brush with death has enabled him to value his life and to realize that he does indeed love Nadia. He has already given her the letter informing her of her husband’s death in the middle of an argument during which neither of them felt kindly disposed toward the other. But now he admits that he loves her and the way is clear to marry. Relations between Laevsky and Von Koren are cool but civil and Von Koren sees that Laevsky has become a responsible, married man that now cares about his family and his job (he is a civil servant).Chekhov delves into each character’s minds as well as their hearts in this story, in which ideologies as well as temperaments do battle with each other. There are no real villains, even Von Koren, who is capable of evolving possibly beyond his world view. ‘The Duel’ is one of Chekhov’s best stories in any form.‘The Story of an Unknown Man’ (1892)The first-person narrator (referred to as Stepan) of ‘The Story of an Unknown Man’ is some kind of radical extremist (he refers to “my cause”) working as a butler in the home of a man named Orlov, whose father is a prominent statesman and foe of the narrator. He is ostensibly spying on the son and gathering information on the father and the father’s whereabouts. However, he plays his role almost too well. A perfect servant is the fly on the wall for many scenes of a personal nature. Orlov is as indolent as Laevsky, with less of a moral conscience. He too has a live-in mistress, Zinaida, that he neglects after boredom has set in, telling her that he has to go on an extended business trip when in reality he stays at one of his friend’s houses on the other side of town. Stepan at one point even comes in contact with the old man, who has visited when his son is not there. Faced with the perfect opportunity, the narrator does not act. The old man is weak and decrepit and the narrator’s awareness of his own mortality, brought about by the emergence of consumption, brings him to an awareness of kinship rather than enmity with the dying man (“It’s hard to strike a match on a crumbling wall”, he says to himself).Meanwhile, Stepan is thrown into more frequent contact with Zinaida and becomes her confidant. They decide to leave Orlov and travel to another city. Zinaida gets pregnant and, realizing that her life is hopeless with either Stepan, who is dying himself, or Orlov, poisons herself after giving birth to a baby girl. Stepan raises the infant as best he can over the next couple of years but returns to Orlov and leaves the child with her father. Orlov will make arrangements with someone to take the child into a boarding school.This story is an engrossing maze of ironies and unexpected turns. Obviously, the best-laid plans of radicals can get diverted by completely unexpected factors. Life has a way of disrupting all expectations. Stepan accomplishes none of the goals he was certain of achieving in the beginning of the story.‘Three Years’ (1895)Alexei Laptev is the son of a successful factory owner. He is wealthy but unattractive and socially awkward. His sister, Nina Fyodorovna, is being treated for cancer and is a friend of the daughter, Yulia Sergreevna, of the doctor who is treating her. Laptev sees Yulia frequently during her visits to his sister and has decided he is in love with her. He blurts out a proposal of marriage even before he’s bothered to court her. She refuses at first but then considers his wealth and the fact that she is already 25 and reconsiders. After Nina’s death, Alexei and Yulia take in her two daughters as their father is another of Chekhov’s irresponsible parents. Laptev eventually becomes the default manager of the factory as his brother suffers from mental illness and his father is old and blind. Laptev is now the father of a new daughter as well as his sister’s daughters. He feels like he needs to escape the weight of this overwhelming responsibility and then his wife surprises him with her sincere declaration of love.This story also has that rambling quality and the feeling that you’re not absolutely certain who is who and what is really happening. Individual scenes are quite dynamic such as Yulia’s encounter with her father-in-law, the self-righteous patriarch of the clan. The character of Laptev’s ex-mistress, Polina Nikol¬aeavna Rassudina, is particularly well-developed. Polina is described as very thin, with a long nose, looking very exhausted. She supports herself by giving music lessons. Despite the raw deal Life has dealt her she is intelligent and full of caustic remarks. She is obviously jealous of Yulia:“Whom have you married? Where were your eyes, you crazy man? What did you find in that stupid, worthless girl? I loved you for your intelligence, your soul, but this china doll only needs your money!”Polina also has a natural ability to be a drama queen:“The working class, to which I belong, has one privilege: the consciousness of its incorruptibility, the right not to owe anything to little merchants and to despise them. No sir, you won’t buy me! I’m not Yulechka!”Later in the story, when Laptev becomes more restless and overwhelmed, Polina moves in with another friend of his. We sense that he had still considered her as a viable alternative to his wife.‘My Life’ (1896)“My Life” has one of the best opening paragraphs I’ve read:‘The manager said to me: “I keep you only out of respect for your esteemed father, otherwise I’d have sent you flying long ago.” I answered him: “You flatter me too much, Your Excellency, in supposing I can fly.” And then I heard him say: “Take the gentleman away, he’s bad for my nerves.”This story concerns an idealistic young man, Missail Poloznev, upper class and born into another successful family business like Laptev in ‘Three Years’. He feels ashamed of his social position and that it’s an injustice to be a parasite of the working class. He tells his father he wants to become a manual laborer. In an inverse of the parable of the prodigal son, his father cuts him off and, in fact, beats his grown son, vowing to disown him. This makes Missail even more determined to live by the sweat of his brow. After disgracing his father by working a job as a house painter, the daughter of the court magistrate suggests that he try the railway office. Missail doesn’t make much of an impression on the railway manager but he does impress his beautiful daughter, Marya Viktorovna. Marya is also idealistic and has dreams of starting a Utopian community. Chekhov wrote this story after meeting Tolstoy and seeing his attempts at building a rural, equitable community. Chekhov is not rejecting Tolstoy; rather, he is putting the ideals into practice in the form of a man who is willing to sacrifice his upbringing on behalf of his ideals.Missail is reviled by both the members of his own class, who consider him a traitor, as well as many of his fellow workers, who view him as someone that doesn’t belong down in the ditches with them. More so than the male protagonists in the other short novels, he is brave, determined, realistic, and undaunted. He is prepared to live the rough life, to wear himself out as a laborer as a sort of penance in the name of social justice. He inspires his sister, Cleopatra, to seek a life for herself away from being her father’s caretaker. Meanwhile, he and Marya get married. Life with the lower class does not suit Marya, who feels she has talked herself into a trap. She leaves Missail and writes him that she and her father are traveling to America. Cleopatra dies in childbirth and Missail is now raising the daughter.My summaries have not done justice to Chekhov’s stories because they can’t be summarized as easily as the works of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. The large ideas that those titans dealt with front and center are simmering under the surface in Chekhov’s stories. He lets the circumstances speak for themselves. With simple narrative language (rendered with effortless clarity in the Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation) he tells you all you need to know; you are eavesdropping on the life of a fully rendered, believable human. With perfectly chosen details he renders people that speak to us across time and geography and radically different cultures with a familiarity that convinces us that they are our human kindred.

Steppe was a bit dull for me but the rest four, were magnanimous.Tip : When you read these stories, keep a seprate notebook to record all characters and names appearing. It would make reading pleasant and worthy of your time.

Can't believe I haven't read Chekhov earlier, but what fun it was. Each of his characters are bright to life in vivid stories of his contemporary Russian life. I found myself having feeling much sympathy and empathy throughout. Highly recommended for quick reads.

Love his works. Great story teller.