Seeing Chekhov: Life and Art

by Michael C. Finke

"Chekhov's keen powers of observation have been remarked by both memoirists who knew him well and scholars who approach him only through the written record and across the distance of many decades. To apprehend Chekhov means seeing how Chekhov sees, and the author's remarkable vision is understood as deriving from his occupational or professional training and identity. But we have failed to register, let alone understand, just what a central concern for Chekhov himself, and how deeply problematic, were precisely issues of seeing and being seen."―from the Introduction Michael C. Finke explodes a century of critical truisms concerning Chekhov's objective eye and what being a physician gave him as a writer in a book that foregrounds the deeply subjective and self-reflexive aspects of his fiction and drama. In exploring previously unrecognized seams between the author's life and his verbal art, Finke profoundly alters and deepens our understanding of Chekhov's personality and behaviors, provides startling new interpretations of a broad array of Chekhov's texts, and fleshes out Chekhov's simultaneous pride in his identity as a physician and devastating critique of turn-of-the-century medical practices and ideologies. Seeing Chekhov is essential reading for students of Russian literature, devotees of the short story and modern drama, and anyone interested in the intersection of literature, psychology, and medicine.

Genres: Biography

256 pages, Hardcover

First published May 12, 2005

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wasn't convinced by the author's application of psychoanalysis throughout the whole book. For example, he claims that when Chekhov talks about women (as the inferior sex) in a letter to his brother, and in the same letter transitions to giving his brother advice on writing, Finke says this is a condescending act of sexual dominance over his brother. (I.e. Chekhov is feminizing his brother by giving him advice... Sigh.)

The whole premise of the book is that Chekhov can be characterized by having a complex around seeing and being seen. I find the case way overblown and essentializing. I was hoping Finke's critical eye on Chekhov would be refreshing -- I get tired of the same glowing praises of his work and character, even as I love Chekhov myself -- but Finke's criticism seems to exist less for the sake of exploring and understanding the subject and more for the author's own desire to push a juicy but weak narrative.