Natalya was once a happy and radiant young woman. Now an older woman, she reflects about her youth. In particular, she thinks about the heavy emphasis she put on her wealth and the relationships and experiences that it cost her. One man, Pyotr, loved her, but they both let their different statuses in society prevent their love from having a chance. After years of unhappiness and regret, Pyotr comes to visit Natalya.
Dramas, such as The Seagull (1896, revised 1898), and including "A Dreary Story" (1889) of Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, also Chekov, concern the inability of humans to communicate.
Born (Антон Павлович Чехов) in the small southern seaport of Taganrog, the son of a grocer. His grandfather, a serf, bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught to read. A cloth merchant fathered Yevgenia Morozova, his mother.
"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloomy to me." Tyranny of his father, religious fanaticism, and long nights in the store, open from five in the morning till midnight, shadowed his early years. He attended a school for Greek boys in Taganrog from 1867 to 1868 and then Taganrog grammar school. Bankruptcy of his father compelled the family to move to Moscow. At the age of 16 years in 1876, independent Chekhov for some time alone in his native town supported through private tutoring.
In 1879, Chekhov left grammar school and entered the university medical school at Moscow. In the school, he began to publish hundreds of short comics to support his mother, sisters and brothers. Nicholas Leikin published him at this period and owned Oskolki (splinters), the journal of Saint Petersburg. His subjected silly social situations, marital problems, and farcical encounters among husbands, wives, mistresses, and lust; even after his marriage, Chekhov, the shy author, knew not much of whims of young women.
Nenunzhaya pobeda, first novel of Chekhov, set in 1882 in Hungary, parodied the novels of the popular Mór Jókai. People also mocked ideological optimism of Jókai as a politician.
Chekhov graduated in 1884 and practiced medicine. He worked from 1885 in Peterburskaia gazeta.
In 1886, Chekhov met H.S. Suvorin, who invited him, a regular contributor, to work for Novoe vremya, the daily paper of Saint Petersburg. He gained a wide fame before 1886. He authored The Shooting Party, his second full-length novel, later translated into English. Agatha Christie used its characters and atmosphere in later her mystery novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. First book of Chekhov in 1886 succeeded, and he gradually committed full time. The refusal of the author to join the ranks of social critics arose the wrath of liberal and radical intelligentsia, who criticized him for dealing with serious social and moral questions but avoiding giving answers. Such leaders as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Leskov, however, defended him. "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 The Wood Demon, play in 1889, and problems with novel made Chekhov to withdraw from literature for a period. In 1890, he traveled across Siberia to Sakhalin, remote prison island. He conducted a detailed census of ten thousand convicts and settlers, condemned to live on that harsh island. Chekhov expected to use the results of his research for his doctoral dissertation. Hard conditions on the island probably also weakened his own physical condition. From this journey came his famous travel book.
Chekhov practiced medicine until 1892. During these years, Chechov developed his concept of the dispassionate, non-judgmental 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." Because he objected that the paper conducted against [a:Alfred Dreyfu
3.5 stars. It was a good short story about two people who would have been in love if the circumstances surrounding them would have been different. It explores the themes of loneliness, stature and loss. I enjoyed reading this story and would highly recommend it.
Неоднозначное произведение. Трудно понять одна ли нерешительность виновна в страданиях героев... Это та работа которая оставляет больше вопросом чем ответов.
E le pareti che non si potevano penetrare, ma gli eroi del romanzo moderno, per quanto ne so, sono troppo timid, svogliati, pigri e sospettosi; si rassegnano troppo presto all'idea di essere dei falliti, che la vita personale li ha ingannati; invece di combattere, si limitano a criticare, definendo il mondo volgare e dimenticando che la loro stessa critica gradualmente si trasforma in volgarità.
Mi hanno amato, la felicità era vicina e sembrava vivere con me spalla a spalla; io vivevo senza preoccupazioni, senza cercare di capire me stessa, senza sapere cosa aspettarmi e cosa volere dalla vita, mentre il tempo scorreva. Passavano accanto a me persone con il loro amore, brillavano giorni sereni e notti calde, cantavano i tordi, si sentiva l'odore del fieno, e tutto questo, dolce e straordinario nei ricordi, passava rapidamente, senza lasciare traccia, non veniva apprezzato e svaniva come una nebbia... Dove se n'è andato tutto?
Mio padre è morto, sono invecchiata; tutto ciò che piaceva, che accarezzava, che dava speranza – il rumore della pioggia, il tuono, i pensieri sulla felicità, le conversazioni sull'amore – è diventato solo un ricordo, e vedo davanti a me una distesa uniforme e desolata: nell'orizzonte non c'è un'anima viva, e lì all’orizzonte è buio, spaventoso...
En fantastisk, trist, historie der alene igennem en minimal handling og nogle tankestrømme formår at vise hvor ødelæggende klasseforskelle, ulighed og rigide samfundsnormer er og hvordan det slår kærlighed, glæde og menneskenes "sjæl" ihjel. Men hvad mere er at denne historie, mere end de fleste af Chekhovs historier, viser at det også er folks egen underlæggelse under normerne og deres manglende villighed til at bryde "muren" af ulighed der skiller dem, selv når det faktisk er muligt, der slår dem og deres lyst til verden ihjel. Det er således både en kritik af normer og klasseforskelle, af det enorme sociale pres for at underligge sig dem og samtidig en kritik af manglen på selvstændig handlekraft og eget virke til at gøre op med disse normer og ulighed han kritisere, altså både samfundet og apatien. Reelt et stærkt litterært revolutionært kampskrift til handling.