Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The Seagull

by Anton Chekhov, Michael Frayn (Translator)

3.89 of 5 stars 3.89 · rating details · 8,881 ratings · 138 reviews

A Methuen Student Edition of Chekhov's classic play in Michael Frayn's acclaimed translation.

When it opened in St Petersburg in 1896, The Seagull survived only five performances after a disastrous first night. Two years later it was revived by Nemirovich-Danchenko at the newly-founded Moscow Art Theatre with Stanslasky as Trigorin and was an immediate success. Checkhov's d...more

Paperback, 192 pages

Published April 25th 2002 by Bloomsbury Methuen Drama (first published 1895)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

Best Russian Literature

32nd out of 283 books — 1,015 voters

The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde

A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams

Best Plays Ever

57th out of 449 books — 510 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Oct 27, 2009 Haman rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

اگر حتی زندگیم برایت ارزشی دارد بیا و انرا بگیر

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 21, 2009 Bruce rated it 3 of 5 stars

When I read a play, I am always aware of what a limited view I have of the work, knowing that I am seeing a mere skeleton without any flesh, a framework on which must be hung the realization of the work of art; thinking that I have truly experienced the play by just reading it is, I think, much like convincing myself that I know a Beethoven symphony simply because I have read the score. I have never seen Chekhov’s “Seagull” produced, and that is frustrating. I have read about it and can, by my o...more

3 likes · like · see review

May 09, 2013 Charles rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: plays, symbolical, love, drama

I was really surprised when I was informed that this play was written in 1895, and first produced in 1896. It is unconventional as a play for its time, and I do believe that it shares some qualities with Oscar Wilde (whom I prefer on the whole, though Chekhov has his redeeming qualities)

What I liked about this play, first of all, was the way it explored various themes/morals/ideals in the metatheatrical, and even Wildean, tradition. From the very beginning, from Constantine's own play (yes, a pl...more I was really surprised when I was informed that this play was written in 1895, and first produced in 1896. It is unconventional as a play for its time, and I do believe that it shares some qualities with Oscar Wilde (whom I prefer on the whole, though Chekhov has his redeeming qualities)

What I liked about this play, first of all, was the way it explored various themes/morals/ideals in the metatheatrical, and even Wildean, tradition. From the very beginning, from Constantine's own play (yes, a play within a play), a multitude of new ways to interpret art are explored. I liked Constantine's bold statement that he disliked the modern stage of the time (though Chekhov counterbalances this with Arkadina's, his mother's, conflicting view in order not to 'hurt' the play's potential to be performed on a modern stage). I like the way he compared it to the Eiffel Tower (not all had liked its stye at the time) and Maupassant. I admire Constantine's courage to make a play without any characters (a humanist critic would have loathed his plays though). This is Chekhov's sublimity in action, through his character he expressed a lot of his own opinions.

I also like the way Chekhov counterbalances any bold statement he makes with another character. For example, Arkadina regarded her son's play as "decadent trash", though Dorn liked it, "fresh and naive". I would have liked it as well, though it is difficult to be understood by an audience (this was years before the Russian Revolution by the way, and even when that occurred there was a high illiteracy rate in Russia). Constantine is an staunch individualist without knowing it. He believes he is an unparalleled genius, and takes any form of criticism personally. He is also an idealist, thinking that life must be represented as it was ought to be and not as it is. That is why his plays are dream-like, or transcendental. He desires matter and spirit to be united as one, now tell me if that is not idealist (though that would indeed be the ideal). Only wine and tobacco can destroy individuality, as Dorn said.

What is also interesting is when Constantine (Triepliff) kills the seagull out of 'idleness'. Now, does this remind anyone of Coleridge's epic poem 'The Ancient Mariner', who shot the Albatross with a crossbow in all its innocence. Const. thinks that Nina no longer loves him, for he is not a literary success like Trigorin. He regarded Nina as his muse, and his attempted suicide might have been because he suspected Nina's infatuation with Trigorin. I do not believe that it was ever jealousy that had caused Const. to contemplate suicide, but rather the pride in him. (again, the rise of individualism). The way he regarded others as "slaves of convention" just because they had a different style from his, and the way he place all his hopes on Nina, prove to be fatal ultimately. Even when Nina left him shamelessly for Trigorin, when he was in all that time still hopeful for a lasting relationship with her, Const. still put all his eggs in one basket. He could have found plenty of other fish in this never-ending sea. Nina was still infatuated with Trigorin, even at the very end after he had also shamelessly left her after their elopement together.

An enormous part of Chekhov's brilliance lies in his 'twist in the tale' endings. Let us just say that it did not end 'happily' for Const., without spoiling anything. All in all this is a very good play, and it is times like these when I really wish I was British so that I could go to a theatre there and see Ian Mckellen perform the part of Sorin. That is way better than reading the play, the way Chekhov would have intended it.(less)

like · see review

Feb 24, 2013 Edward rated it 5 of 5 stars

I reread this play just before going to see an excellent local Seattle production, the ideal way to read a play as otherwise the words just remain lifeless on the page. Chekhov either makes you laugh or cry, or usually both, in whatever order you want. In this four act play ordinary people are at cross purposes in understanding one another. Characters love others who don't reciprocate - rationalizations, pleadings, anger, annoyance, all the usual reactions take place. You want to shake them and...more I reread this play just before going to see an excellent local Seattle production, the ideal way to read a play as otherwise the words just remain lifeless on the page. Chekhov either makes you laugh or cry, or usually both, in whatever order you want. In this four act play ordinary people are at cross purposes in understanding one another. Characters love others who don't reciprocate - rationalizations, pleadings, anger, annoyance, all the usual reactions take place. You want to shake them and tell them to wake up . . . except you begin to recognize yourself.

At the heart of this play is a play within a play. Konstantin, a would-be play write, mounts a simple production on the country estate where all of the actions take place, with Nina, a young woman with whom he is in love. She plays the only role in a bleak and surreal fantasy about the distant future in which all human life has disappeared. His mother, a fading actress, finds the play absurd and meaningless. Most of the other spectators are just bewildered and would like nothing better than to forget it. Only Yevgeny, an old doctor who has seen his share of suffering, sees something of value in the play, perhaps reflecting his own disillusionment in treating human maladies for so many years.

Konstantin is so distraught at his play's poor reception that he shoots a seagull and lays it at Nina’s feet, proclaiming that it is a “symbol”. Of what? she asks, uncomprehendingly. A good question and one that is open to interpretation. Is it his life, melodramatically offered to her? Is it the play itself, dead on arrival? Her love for him? Nothing is resolved.

Life continues, and viewers will either find the play ironically amusing (at least until a dark last act) or like the viewers of Konstantin’s play, will find THE SEA GULL to be made up of too many words that don’t seem to go anywhere. Most of the characters, ten speaking parts in all, remain the same, make their accommodations and compromises with their aspirations which, after all, is what most people do. Some are satisfied, others mildly regretful. But for two of the chief characters, Konstantin and Nina, Act IV (two years have gone by since Act III), the compromises are dramatic and startling.
(less)

like · see review

Jan 03, 2013 Jennifer Creery rated it 5 of 5 stars

Simply amazing! Chekhov's ability to create drama, with careful avoidance of the term 'melodrama', out of seemingly unpromising materials and with such artistic beauty, upholds him as one of the foremost Russian playwrights of the 19th century. Indeed, of all time. I've read most of Chekhov's plays, and 'The Seagull' seems to be my favourite despite its terrible reception when it was first performed. I think the argument of 'nothing happens' in Chekhov's plays is perhaps a little shallow. The ab...more

like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 Stephanie Davies rated it 5 of 5 stars

Chekhov described his play as “a comedy, three f., six m., four acts, rural scenery (a view over a lake); much talk of literature, little action, five bushels of love,” a description which hardly does justice to one of the best additions to the literature canon. The Seagull is concerned with such compelling topics as unrequited love, failure, abandonment, and the banality and stifling mediocrity of life. There are certainly funny moments within the play-- for instance, it is difficult to point a...more

5 likes · like · see review

Feb 02, 2010 Bettie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: winter20092010, slavic, play-dramatisation, fraudio, published-1895, satire

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Feb 03, 2010 Laura rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Bettie

Shelves: audio-books, russian-fiction, read-2010

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Feb 01, 2010 Kate rated it 5 of 5 stars

Anton Chekhov's play THE SEAGULL was first performed in 1896. The play addresses and explores many themes but one that affected me most is Trigorin's view of his writing. B. A. Trigorin is an accomplished writer who speaks of his insecurities to Nina, a naive actress. Trigorin's writing is his obsession and he cannot get away from it because he cannot get away from himself.

"A minor writer, especially, if he hadn't had much luck, sees himself as clumsy, awkward, and unwanted...drawn towards peopl...more

1 like · like · see review

May 28, 2011 Jimmy added it · review of another edition

Shelves: male, play, russia, year-1890s

This is a review of the performance I saw on May 28, 2011 in Atlanta, and not of the actual play as written.

Chekhov is one of my favorite writers and it pains me to see him performed in this way. It also pains me to trash an Atlanta production of a serious play (I do want to be encouraging, afterall). Atlanta doesn’t often perform Chekhov, or anything halfway serious for that matter. It’s like we’re so afraid of boring the audience we have to make everything into an easy joke, which is why we n...more

like · see review

Dec 01, 2010 Steve rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: plays, russians

Like Vanya, we have a pastoral love-triangle. This is much stranger, however, as it is metafictive (a play about plays and playwrights; about playacting--one must wonder if the characters are ever sincere, shades of Hamlet Act II.) and heavily indebted and intertextual with Hamlet. Again, there is a concern with the future (everyone agrees that eventually all life will die out--the end). Here there are Manichaean concepts in a play-within-the-play. Again, I'm left with the feeling that I'm missi...more

like · see review

Mar 14, 2011 Sara rated it 5 of 5 stars

I saw a brilliant production of this play on Broadway (brought over from London) a few years ago, so I guess I wouldn't say read it, I would say, if you can see a first class production of it that gets the humor and doesn't make Kostya a clueless sad sack, sell part of your book collection to get a ticket. For a writer, it's all about your worst nightmares. For anyone, the final scene between the two failed young lovers, and what follows, is devastating.

But reading it is worthwhile too. Just pi...more

like · see review

Apr 26, 2013 Jo.ey rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Die zwei Kernmotive in Tschechows Drama sind Langeweile und Leidenschaft. Die
Kulisse ist öde: ein russischer Gutshof um die Jahrhundertwende, auf dem sich
nichts interessantes ereignet. Vor dieser Kulisse aber spielen sich viele
kleine Dramen ab, die sich allesamt und Leidenschaft und unerwiderte Liebe
drehen.

Der Lehrer Medvedenko liebt Mascha, sie jedoch liebt den jungen Treplev. Der
wiederum liebt Nina, die aber ihr Herz an den jungen Dichter Trigorin verliert.
Auch die Arkadina, die Mutter Treplev...more

like · see review

Dec 28, 2012 Gloria rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I don't know why I find Chekhov so much more accessible than Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy, but his works never fail to pull me in.

Chekhov's keen observations, his own long life of bachelorhood (until marrying at 41-- and even then, in a rather unconventional marriage) and lengthy list of love affairs must have surely contributed to his cynical, distraught characters.

The Seagull is a heart-wrenching complicated love triangle of Masha loves Constantine, Constantine loves Nina, Nina loves Trigorin (who...more

5 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2012 Sam Woodfield rated it 3 of 5 stars

It's been quite a while since I read a play and this has reminded me that I should do more often as this was a very good quick read.
There is no real main protagonist in this play, although it seems to work around the life of Constantine who is a very sad young man who feels he is insignificant and a failure in all he does. He is unlucky in love, and a failed author and playwrite, his mother is far from affectionate and is only concerned with herself, leaving when Constantine needs her the most....more

like · see review

Dec 02, 2012 Nerya rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: december-2012

K tejto knihe som sa dostala viac menej náhodou prostredníctvom nového albumu Tomáša Klusa a podľa toho, čo som sa dočítala nie som jediná, ktorú tieto pesničky doviedli k tejto knihe. Čím viac som počúvala tie piesne, tak som akosi viac mala potrebu si prečítať túto hru, pretože som mala pocit, že napokon možno tým pesničkám viac porozumiem a nakoniec si prečítam aj niečo z "iného súdka".

Racek je skutočne útla knižočka, ktorú sa mi podarilo prečítať počas cesty vlakom do školy. Úprimne sa prizn...more K tejto knihe som sa dostala viac menej náhodou prostredníctvom nového albumu Tomáša Klusa a podľa toho, čo som sa dočítala nie som jediná, ktorú tieto pesničky doviedli k tejto knihe. Čím viac som počúvala tie piesne, tak som akosi viac mala potrebu si prečítať túto hru, pretože som mala pocit, že napokon možno tým pesničkám viac porozumiem a nakoniec si prečítam aj niečo z "iného súdka".

Racek je skutočne útla knižočka, ktorú sa mi podarilo prečítať počas cesty vlakom do školy. Úprimne sa priznávam, že niektoré veci som si musela prečítať viackrát preto, lebo mi akosi nechcelo "dopiecť" iné zase preto lebo sa mi páčila ich formulácia. Bola to príjemná zmena.

Kniha je príbehom - divadelnou hrou, takže väčšinou sledujeme rozhovory postáv, v ktorých som spočiatku mala trochu zmätok a párkrát som sa musela vrátiť na prvú stranu, aby som si pripomenula, kto je vlastne kto. V príbehu sa prelína množstvo vzťahov, resp. lások, ktoré sú väčšinou jednostranné, nenaplnené a ich hlavní hrdinovia sa väčšinou napokon len trápia, pretože svoj osud proste zmeniť nevedia.

Najsympatickejšia mi bola postava Trepleva, nádejného spisovateľa, ktorý sa snažil písať moderne, vidieť do budúcnosti. Spočiatku sa mi tiež páčila postava Niny, tá však napokon akoby stratila tú svoju iskru a v mojich očiach sa zmenila. Samotný Trigorin, čoby jeden z hlavných aktérov mi veľmi sympatický nebol už od začiatku, akosi som mu proste nevedela prísť na chuť. Och a nesmiem zabudnúť na Sorina, Treplevovho strýka, ktorý mi tam ako jediný pripadal aspoň trochu vtipný a taký, pri zmysloch. Ostatní akoby žili v inom svete. Ale to je asi len môj pocit, ktovie.

Rozhodne som čakala, že to celé bude dlhšie, že sa toho udeje viac, že tam bude viac príbehu, viac...hocičoho. Napokon som sa však dokonale uspokojila aj s tým, čo sa našlo na tých pár stranách a zanechalo to vo mne pocit, ktorý ani poriadne neviem opísať. Kniha sa mi však veľmi páčila a bolo v nej niečo, hlavne na konci, čo spôsobilo to, že sa mi na rukách objavili zimomriavky. Zvlášť po tom, čo som si nakoniec znova pustila pesničky od Klusa, tentokrát už ako človek poučený, ktorý vie o čom v nich ide.
(less)

like · see review

Jan 19, 2013 Licinius rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 19th-century, favorites, favorites-2013, plays

Ecce Homo. Voici l’homme, ou plutôt des êtres humains qui peuplent un endroit autour d’un Lac. Le Lac. L’eau comme source de vie, d’envie mais aussi de passivité et peut être de sommeil, de l’intuition profonde, de l’inconscient. On a dit de cette pièce qu’elle était impressionniste, naturaliste, symboliste. Je crois tout simplement qu’elle prolifère de sens, ce sens que cherche désespérément la plupart des personnages de cette pièce. Un sens à la vie, un sens à l’écriture, un sens sur l’idéal e...more Ecce Homo. Voici l’homme, ou plutôt des êtres humains qui peuplent un endroit autour d’un Lac. Le Lac. L’eau comme source de vie, d’envie mais aussi de passivité et peut être de sommeil, de l’intuition profonde, de l’inconscient. On a dit de cette pièce qu’elle était impressionniste, naturaliste, symboliste. Je crois tout simplement qu’elle prolifère de sens, ce sens que cherche désespérément la plupart des personnages de cette pièce. Un sens à la vie, un sens à l’écriture, un sens sur l’idéal et enfin un sens sur la réalité.

A part Nina « la Mouette », personne ne change dans cette pièce qui s’étend sur deux ans. Sorine veut absolument vivre en ville, il le répète tout le temps, mais il n’en fera rien, deux ans plus tard il est toujours dans le même lieu. Treplev ne veut pas glisser dans la « routine » et les « procédés » de l’écriture, il se veut écrivain nouveau, il restera un Chatterton pathétique, un gamin en manque de reconnaissance de sa mère. Celle là justement ! Arkadina est sans doute le personnage le plus hypocrite et égotiste de la pièce, elle n’a jamais le temps de lire ce qu’écrit son fils et encore moins de l’aimer, elle préfère paraitre jeune et se fiche même de la tentative de suicide de Treplev si cela dérange son idylle avec Trigorine, lui aussi écrivain mais célèbre contrairement à Treplev. Trigorine est un Balzac russe, il est une sorte de « vache à nouvelles », une machine qui note tous les moindres événements de la vie, étant lui-même incapable de vivre sa vie. Son métier n’a rien de valorisant, il préfère même pêcher dans le lac. Il croit revoir dans Nina une possibilité d’un amour qu’il n’a pas eu ou en tout cas un sujet à nouvelle. Cette relation ne durera pas, elle ne fera qu’accroitre la haine de Treplev envers Trigorine. Cette opposition est pour moi fascinante à plus d’un titre. Trigorine prend la place du père mort de Treplev en étant l’amant d’Arkadina. Il incarne aussi l’écrivain célébré par ses nouvelles routinières et aux figures de styles surannés, ce que hait Treplev en tant que jeune écrivain avide d’instaurer du neuf, du nouveau. C’est aussi à mon sens le futur de Treplev, l’écrivain accompli extérieurement, même si intérieurement, il ne peut supporter ses propres œuvres. Ce dernier point est éloquent : l’écrivain est incapable de quantifier son talent, sa valeur ajouté, la qualité de son œuvre. Il n’y a que (douce ironie !) le médecin Dorn pour s’apercevoir du talent de Treplev lors du monologue de Nina dans sa pièce. Lui seul sait quantifier cela, non pas parce qu’il est scientifique, mais parce qu’il n’attend rien de la vie. Il n’a plus d’idéal, plus d’absolu à atteindre. Sa vie étant accompli, il reconnait volontiers le talent de Treplev, contrairement à Arkadina qui voit dans ce théâtre une concurrence et qui n’hésite pas à traiter son fils de « gamin capricieux » ou encore Trigorine qui préfère regarder le décor et son lac plein de poissons plutôt que la pièce.

Reste la Mouette, Nina. Peut être le personnage le plus vivante car changeant. D’une jeune fille naïve et romantique (comme Treplev), elle devient finalement une femme déterminé voir ambitieuse en étant fermement décidé à de devenir une grande actrice. Elle a compris que la Gloire était vaine, que ce qui comptait réellement, c’était de patienter. Mais elle a dû traverser bien des épreuves pour savoir cela. Aimé et aimant Treplev au début de la pièce, son désir de vie la fera se détacher de cet amour. La pièce de Treplev lui apparait « sans vie », et c’est finalement vers Trigorine, l’écrivain à succès, qu’elle se dirige doucement. La mouette se brulera les ailes avec Trigorine, qui l’aime non pas d’un amour vrai, mais uniquement comme un moyen de créer une autre nouvelle. Elle quittera tout pour lui et pour poursuivre ses rêves. Elle tombera de haut. La mouette est abattue comme le prédisait Treplev. Mais Nina continue de vivre. Elle devient lucide. Elle tient le coup. Elle revient voir un Treplev inchangé dans le dernier acte. Celui-ci l’aime encore. Son lyrisme révulse Nina, qui ne comprends plus cela, elle qui a compris que son idéal n’était qu’une chimère. Treplev refuse cette vérité, comme le fait qu’elle aime encore Trigorine. Treplev choisit la mort, Nina la vie.

Il y a tant de choses à dire sur cette pièce qui m’a vraiment touché ! J’ai oublié de parler de l’instituteur Medvedenko, qui bien que lâche n’en reste pas moins humain et altruiste, ou encore de Macha… Il faut que je la relise à nouveau !(less)

1 like · like · see review

Nov 30, 2011 J.S. McLean rated it 3 of 5 stars

Oh Chekhov, you bummer you.

I can't believe I've never read this play before; there are lines in it that are not only exquisite, but were used by a friend of mine in a re-working of several Chekhov pieces performed several years ago. Somehow (like Cheever, and so many other things, I guess) it escaped me.

Definitely not a surprise; his reputation precedes him, and this play pans out pretty much exactly as expected. Fortunately, it's a bit hard to get attached to the characters in it, so when horr...more

like · see review

Oct 29, 2012 Leanne Feliz Pastorpide rated it 3 of 5 stars

[different translation]

The Seagull, written by Anton Chekhov in 1895, takes place in the Russian countryside. The play is about Konstantin, a desperate and frustrated writer deeply in love with Nina, a rising but naive actress who loved him back but got in an affair with Trigorin, a famous writer dating Arkadina, a famous but seemingly obsolescent actress that has the frustrated writer for a son. Along with the criss-cross love affairs are the perpetually unhappy daughter of an estate manager, M...more [different translation]

The Seagull, written by Anton Chekhov in 1895, takes place in the Russian countryside. The play is about Konstantin, a desperate and frustrated writer deeply in love with Nina, a rising but naive actress who loved him back but got in an affair with Trigorin, a famous writer dating Arkadina, a famous but seemingly obsolescent actress that has the frustrated writer for a son. Along with the criss-cross love affairs are the perpetually unhappy daughter of an estate manager, Masha, who loves Konstantin but instead married a schoolteacher named Medvedenko who deeply loves her, old Sorin the estate owner, and a local doctor named Dorn.

Chekhov labeled it a comedy but interestingly enough, a lot of the scenes were dramatic and somehow tragic, or perhaps the comedy is within the very tragicness of the characters in the play. The play is very much realistic. It revolved around unrequited love, fame and fortune, and aging.

The text itself is a worthy read but the use of symbolisms and little knowledge I have of the setting’s culture somehow distanced me from truly appreciating ingenuity of the play, especially with the ending of it.

We all have something to sympathize with the characters, may it be unhappiness, discontent, and the plain mediocrity of life. The scene wherein Trigorin tells Nina the dissatisfaction he feels about being a famous writer and how he views his writing, and Nina on the other hand daydreaming about being famous, was the most compelling for me. I was able to see the art of writing in a two-way street.

I commend the Dulaang UP, under the direction of Tony Mabesa, for a job well done in making Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull, translated by Tom Stoppard, come to life. It was faithful to the text. The actors gave justice to the characters they’re portraying, although some really stood out. My favorite part in the actual play was the mother-son fight scene of Irina and Kostya, feeling the intensity of it all. Nina and Konstantin’s talk in act four was quite moving as well.

“And now, Kostya, I understand, finally, that in our business - acting, writing, it makes no difference - the main thing isn’t being famous, it’s not the sound of applause, it’s not what I dreamed it was. All it is is the strength to keep going, no matter what happens. You have to keep on believing. I believe, and it helps. And now when I think about my vocation, I’m not afraid of life.”
(less)

like · see review

Oct 18, 2012 Ryan Rebel rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: reviewed

My interest in this play was reverse-engineered from the adaptation "The Nina Variations". I am currently rehearsing for that play, so I've been digging into the themes of "The Seagull" without even having read it.

Maybe that means my mind was overripe for this play, but regardless, Chekhov is brilliant. The set-up and characters are so pedestrian on the surface, but some of the lines stick to you like a leech. They resonate, and they play, and they grow in your mind. Chekhov never needs to get f...more

like · see review

Jan 15, 2013 Natasha Chowdory rated it 3 of 5 stars

Chekov is constantly put on lists of 'Thing to Read Before you Die' and as a relatively short play I thought that I would give this a go (and it was free on my Kindle). However, I'm pretty sure that I didn't quite get it. Well there were bits of it that I've come to associate with Russian Literature i.e. to have some obscenely funny juxtaposed against something really darkly sad. (read. The young Doctor's notebook by Bulgakov). I can imagine that the scenes between Arkadina and well, anyone woul...more

like · see review

Jan 05, 2013 Pierre E. Loignon rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theatre, litterature

Tchékhov, Anton, La Mouette

La Mouette est, pour moi, une comédie sur l’écriture et sur l’Art.
Je ne sais pas si certains arrivent à l’apprécier sans y réfléchir et sans préparation, mais ce n’est pas mon cas. On y trouve bien quelques remarques amusantes sur le métier de l’écrivain, quelques quiproquos et plusieurs possibilités amusantes à mettre en scène pour que la pièce soit immédiatement drôle et c’est indéniablement ce qui fait le succès populaire de la pièce. Par contre, si on en reste là...more Tchékhov, Anton, La Mouette

La Mouette est, pour moi, une comédie sur l’écriture et sur l’Art.
Je ne sais pas si certains arrivent à l’apprécier sans y réfléchir et sans préparation, mais ce n’est pas mon cas. On y trouve bien quelques remarques amusantes sur le métier de l’écrivain, quelques quiproquos et plusieurs possibilités amusantes à mettre en scène pour que la pièce soit immédiatement drôle et c’est indéniablement ce qui fait le succès populaire de la pièce. Par contre, si on en reste là, il me semble, qu’à l’instar de Tolstoï, on ne pourra saisir ce qui fait la qualité propre de La Mouette.
(Tolstoï a, en effet trouvé qu’elle était « une absurdité sans valeur à la manière d’Ibsen », où « les mots sont entassés les uns sur les autres, sans qu’on sache pourquoi ».)
Ce que je trouve vraiment génial avec cette pièce et que je suis arrivé à remarquer par la suite en approfondissant les vagues intuitions que j’ai eues en allant voir jouer et en lisant La Mouette, c’est d’abord, qu’il s’agit d’une transposition de la structure narrative de Hamlet. Tchékhov replace en effet tous les éléments et personnages royaux, aux ambitions politiques grandiloquentes de Shakespeare dans une lointaine province, où les personnages sont de petits bourgeois qui veulent voir leurs noms dans les journaux. C’est une répétition historique ironiquement imaginée dans un horizon médiocre, par un artiste qui s’exprime ainsi cyniquement envers lui-même, exactement que le font les personnages dans sa pièce.
Ensuite, il n’y a aucun fond dramatique réel, aucun menace matérielle. Le devenir, le mouvement, comme dans la logique hégélienne, surgit du mouvement purement verbal de l’être vide au néant et du néant à l’être vide. C’est une pure affaire de langage existant pour lui-même en dehors de l’humanité souffrante à partir de besoins réels et concrets. Tout provient du vide de l’intériorité de pauvres riches êtres campagnards qui désespèrent d’atteindre les standards sociaux qu’ils idéalisent candidement.
Je n’avais pas non plus prêté attention à l’aspect symbolique de la pièce. La Mouette y symbolise pourtant la liberté artistique, qui peut bien voler, mais qui reste toujours à portée de fusil du premier chasseur venu. Ainsi, le personnage de Nina, si heureuse et adorée près de son plan d’eau est abattu inconsciemment par Trigorine. Ce dernier, hanté par son besoin d’écrire, vide de leurs substances les êtres qu’il rencontre et agit de manière si nécessaire et innocente qu’il ne se souvient même pas, à la fin de la pièce, d’avoir demandé à Chamaraïev d’empailler la mouette, alors que titube autour de lui, les restes moribonds de Nina.
Enfin, la vanité existentielle du métier d’écrivain et de l’écriture en général est aussi tellement bien mise de l’avant dans la pièce! Le pur talent monstrueux qui ronge l’écrivain, qui le pousse follement à ne vivre que pour et dans son écriture, sans se faire d’illusions sur les qualités de ses efforts, car il a perdu tout contact avec leur valeur réelle depuis des lustres. Tout cela convient tellement à une personne comme Tchekhov qui a écrit 600 œuvres littéraires (dont La Mouette) entre 1880 et 1903! Son cynisme envers lui-même a quelque chose de vraiment grand et de très touchant.
Comme l'a compris, et exprimé mieux que personne Mallarmé, l’artiste, c’est le guignon « mordant au citron d’or de l’idéal amer »...
Bref, plus j’y pensais et plus je trouvais la pièce géniale. Il y a longtemps que je n’avais pas autant creusé autour d’une œuvre d’art pour mieux la comprendre et l’apprécier. Je me sens maintenant fin prêt pour y retourner. Quelqu’un veux bien venir avec moi?
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Oct 20, 2012 Jessica Barkl rated it 4 of 5 stars

I re-read this play today because there is an audition for it in Albuquerque. I find it funny that some things are easier to read and understand after some life experience. The last time I read this, I think I was 19 years old, and thought it was a bit melodramatic, but this reading...and maybe it was the translation, but...I liked it a lot more. The characters are very stereotypical of Chekhov with the young girl, the ailing senior, the doctor everyone loves, and the diva matriarch. But...the q...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 04, 2012 Anne Sofie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: plays

4,5 star

I've just finished The Seagull, and i think it was sublime in many ways.

First of all because that untill the end, you couldn't really figure out who would kill him or herself, though it was obvious almost from the begining that one of them would commit suicide. All of them were depressed and melancholic in one way or another.
Second of all I liked the way they were reffering to a seagull, both the one wich was shot, and the metaphorically.
Some people might say it is depressing reading,...more

like · see review

Oct 23, 2012 Flora21 rated it 4 of 5 stars

I can relate to Konstantin Treplev. In fact, I really sympathize with him. He's torn between two women, equally passionate, equally selfish. Both Nina and his mother believe in their artistic calling; the former thinks it's a form of penance she has to endure and remain faithful to, while the latter thinks it's a privilege she is entitled to. But Konstantin feels he has no calling. If Nina insists that she is the seagull, wandering aimlessly in life, it is Treplev who seems most forlorn and aim...more

like · see review

Aug 22, 2012 Mary Lois Timbes rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: classics

An all-time favorite play of mine, The Seagull transports us to a remote country house in Russia where a sensitive young man seeks some affection from his mother, a famous actress who has brought her young writer-lover to vacation. Anton, the son, agonizes over his lonely life, his love for a beautiful neighbor girl who is falling under the sway of the writers. He shoots a seagull and lays it at her feet. A convoluted, emotional story about people who constantly say how bored they are yet they a...more

like · see review

Feb 04, 2013 Ana Bolton added it

"Postoje opsesije, kad čovek danju i noću misli, na primer, samo o mesecu; i ja imam takav svoj mesec. Danju i noću me mori jedna nametljiva misao: ja moram da pišem, ja moram da pišem, ja moram... Tek što sam završio jednu novelu, a već moram da pišem drugu, zatim treću, posle treće četvrtu... Pišem neprestano, kao čovek koji se vozi i samo menja konje, i drukčije ne mogu. Čega tu ima divnog i svetlog, pitam ja vas? O, kakav ludački život! Eto, sad sam s vama, uzbuđujem se, a međutim svestan sa...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 10, 2010 Talieh rated it 5 of 5 stars

نمایشنامه مرغ دریایی آنتوان چخوف،ترجمه بهروز غریب پور__
آنچه مرا در رابطه با این نمایشنامه شگفت زده کرد،روابط شخصیت ها با یکدیگر بود. و واکنش آنها نسبت به موقعیت های متفاوتی که داشتند.نگاه کنستانتین به وضعیتش با دیالوگ دورن به تریگورین برای خواننده به شکل شوکه کننده ای به انتها می رسد. تمایز دیدگاه کنستانتین و نینا نسبت به هنر مورد علاقه شان درخشان ترین صحنه نمایش بود!

like · see review

Feb 16, 2011 Sherry rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: cultural-political, plays, theatre-direction

This is the Chekhov play that brought his name to the forefront of Dramatic literature and created the moscow Art theatre that used as it's symbol the seagull in flight. Nina the young actress, beloved by Constantin Treplev, falls in love with his Mother's lover, Trigorin, runs away with him only to return, a fallen but oddly hopeful woman. She identifies with the seaqull who is shot by Treplev in the first scene and placed at her feet. Trigorin comments: A man comes along and shoots a seagull f...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 07, 2011 Matthew Dunleavy rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Nobody

From spoilersliterature.blogspot.com;

I’ve been rather pleasant in all my reviews the past few months but that doesn’t mean I like everything out there; believe me, I don’t plan on saying many nice things about Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull (4 acts, 71 pages). The version I read was translated by Tom Stoppard and his introductory essay was more exciting than the content and the characters of the whole play.

The conversations throughout the play were considerably lofty without actually saying anythin...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (154)

More editions...

Genres

Plays

272 users

Drama

106 users

Classics

101 users

Cultural > Russia

80 users

Plays > Theatre

55 users

Literature > Russian Literature

39 users

Literature

16 users

Literature > 19th Century

11 users

Classics > Classic Literature

4 users

Adult Fiction

4 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Ghosts
by Henrik Ibsen
Miss Julie
by August Strindberg
Mourning Becomes Electra
by Eugene O'Neill
The Inspector General
by Nikolai Gogol
Buried Child
by Sam Shepard

About Anton Chekhov

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was born in the small seaport of Taganrog, southern Russia, the son of a grocer. Chekhov's grandfather was a serf, who had bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught himself to read and write.Yevgenia Morozov, Chekhov's mother, was the daughter of a cloth merchant.

"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloom...more Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was born in the small seaport of Taganrog, southern Russia, the son of a grocer. Chekhov's grandfather was a serf, who had bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught himself to read and write.Yevgenia Morozov, Chekhov's mother, was the daughter of a cloth merchant.

"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloomy to me." His early years were shadowed by his father's tyranny, religious fanaticism, and long nights in the store, which was open from five in the morning till midnight. He attended a school for Greek boys in Taganrog (1867-68) and Taganrog grammar school (1868-79). The family was forced to move to Moskow following his father's bankruptcy. At the age of 16, Chekhov became independent and remained for some time alone in his native town, supporting himself through private tutoring.

In 1879 Chekhov entered the Moskow University Medical School. While in the school, he began to publish hundreds of comic short stories to support himself and his mother, sisters and brothers. His publisher at this period was Nicholas Leikin, owner of the St. Petersburg journal Oskolki (splinters). His subjects were silly social situations, marital problems, farcical encounters between husbands, wives, mistresses, and lovers, whims of young women, of whom Chekhov had not much knowledge – the author was was shy with women even after his marriage. His works appeared in St. Petersburg daily papers, Peterburskaia gazeta from 1885, and Novoe vremia from 1886.

Chekhov's first novel, Nenunzhaya pobeda (1882), set in Hungary, parodied the novels of the popular Hungarian writer Mór Jókai. As a politician Jókai was also mocked for his ideological optimism. By 1886 Chekhov had gained a wide fame as a writer. His second full-length novel, The Shooting Party, was translated into English in 1926. Agatha Christie used its characters and atmosphere in her mystery novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926).

Chekhov graduated in 1884, and practiced medicine until 1892. In 1886 Chekhov met H.S. Suvorin, who invited him to become a regular contributor for the St. Petersburg daily Novoe vremya. His friendship with Suvorin ended in 1898 because of his objections to the anti-Dreyfus campaingn conducted by paper. But during these years Chechov developed his concept of the dispassionate, non-judgemental author. He outlined his program in a letter to his brother Aleksandr: "1. Absence of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature; 2. total objectivity; 3. truthful descriptions of persons and objects; 4. extreme brevity; 5. audacity and originality; flee the stereotype; 6. compassion."

Chekhov's fist book of stories (1886) was a success, and gradually he became a full-time writer. The author's refusal to join the ranks of social critics arose the wrath of liberal and radical intellitentsia and he was criticized for dealing with serious social and moral questions, but avoiding giving answers. However, he was defended by such leading writers as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Leskov. "I'm not a liberal, or a conservative, or a gradualist, or a monk, or an indifferentist. I should like to be a free artist and that's all..." Chekhov said in 1888.

The failure of his play The Wood Demon (1889) and problems with his novel made Chekhov to withdraw from literature for a period. In 1890 he travelled across Siberia to remote prison island, Sakhalin. There he conducted a detailed census of some 10,000 convicts and settlers condemned to live their lives on that harsh island. Chekhov hoped to use the results of his research for his doctoral dissertation. It is probable that hard conditions on the island also worsened his own physical condition. From this journey was born his famous travel book The Island: A Journey to Sakhalin (1893-94). Chekhov returned to Russia via Singa(less)

More about Anton Chekhov...

Books by Anton Chekhov

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Sea-Gull

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Seagull

“If my life can ever be of any use to you, come and take it.” — 39 people liked it

“MEDVIEDENKO
Why do you always wear mourning?

MASHA
I dress in black to match my life. I am unhappy.” — 24 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Seagull
avg rating	preview: The Seagull Goodreads rating: 3.89 (8881 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/79649.The_Seagull?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327929521l/79649.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/79649.The_Seagull?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Seagull by Anton Chekhov[/url]

The Seagull

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website