What do you think?
Rate this book
Six Great Modern Plays
The glass menagerie / Williams
All my sons / Miller
Three sisters / Chekhov
The master builder / Ibsen
Mrs. Warren's profession / Shaw
Red roses for me / O'Casey
All my sons / Miller
Three sisters / Chekhov
The master builder / Ibsen
Mrs. Warren's profession / Shaw
Red roses for me / O'Casey
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
12 people are currently reading
204 people want to read
About the author
Anton Chekhov
5,970 books9,790 followers
Antón Chéjov
(Spanish)
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
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
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Want to read
December 26, 2014I think I need a break from vampires and girls and young adult for a few days. Maybe this will make me feel smart again...
March 22, 2023
Part of a month of immersion in reading plays. Interesting to think of these described as "Modern" when most were produced before WWII. So a subjective point of view was helpful.
Three Sisters-Anton Chekhov
A Russian aristocratic family and their aristocratic friends reeling out page after page of empty conversation, boredom, selfish and frivolous emotion, judgmental cruelty and the frantic pursuit of diversion. I was astonished at the maddening obstinance of their ingrained PRIVILEGE. Until I learned this was Chekhov's point. A radical and trail-blazing portrayal of waiting for something monumental to happen, that never happens. It was interesting to understand how vastly this influenced other dramas that followed it, but I found it very difficult to care about these characters.
The Master Builder-Henrik Ibsen
Much more engaging characters, although from the beginning an uncomfortable forboding in regards to their state of mind. Hilda especially seems to arrive out of nowhere, as a foil to everyone else. She is unnerving and weird and keeps everything off-kilter. I enjoyed the spotlight on a belabored sense of duty, and to the theme of great art requiring great sacrifice.
Mrs. Warren's Profession-George Bernard Shaw
Delightful. A brazen exposition of moral hypocrisy and the slippery slope that leads thus. Sharp enough, in especially perceptive moments to set one's teeth on edge, and a bloodless slashing of the superiorities and ingenuous pretentions of propriety. I'll take Vivie's whiskey and cigars and good conversation any day.
Red Roses for Me- Sean O'Casey
I think I long to see this one performed the most; much nostalgia and music and working class Irish language. A perspective on trade union unrest, Protestant/Catholic antagonisms and the early genesis of Irish nationalism.
All My Sons-Arthur Miller
The stage directions! Miniature portraits of deep psychological evaluation. Categorization of the newly emerging middle class . . . sometimes terrifyingly recognizable. I am assuming Mr. Miller had some strong opinions regarding capitalism and war profiteering. Tragic and chilling.
The Glass Menagerie-Tennessee Williams
So awful. I read this play in High School, and coming back to it now, the details were very foggy but not the feeling I remember: just desperately awful. Every single one of these characters makes my hair stand on end.
In summary, an astonishing variety of method, subject and setting presented in this collection and it makes me feel that the world is a better place for having been flooded with cheap paperbacks that stand up and hold their own.
Three Sisters-Anton Chekhov
A Russian aristocratic family and their aristocratic friends reeling out page after page of empty conversation, boredom, selfish and frivolous emotion, judgmental cruelty and the frantic pursuit of diversion. I was astonished at the maddening obstinance of their ingrained PRIVILEGE. Until I learned this was Chekhov's point. A radical and trail-blazing portrayal of waiting for something monumental to happen, that never happens. It was interesting to understand how vastly this influenced other dramas that followed it, but I found it very difficult to care about these characters.
The Master Builder-Henrik Ibsen
Much more engaging characters, although from the beginning an uncomfortable forboding in regards to their state of mind. Hilda especially seems to arrive out of nowhere, as a foil to everyone else. She is unnerving and weird and keeps everything off-kilter. I enjoyed the spotlight on a belabored sense of duty, and to the theme of great art requiring great sacrifice.
Mrs. Warren's Profession-George Bernard Shaw
Delightful. A brazen exposition of moral hypocrisy and the slippery slope that leads thus. Sharp enough, in especially perceptive moments to set one's teeth on edge, and a bloodless slashing of the superiorities and ingenuous pretentions of propriety. I'll take Vivie's whiskey and cigars and good conversation any day.
Red Roses for Me- Sean O'Casey
I think I long to see this one performed the most; much nostalgia and music and working class Irish language. A perspective on trade union unrest, Protestant/Catholic antagonisms and the early genesis of Irish nationalism.
All My Sons-Arthur Miller
The stage directions! Miniature portraits of deep psychological evaluation. Categorization of the newly emerging middle class . . . sometimes terrifyingly recognizable. I am assuming Mr. Miller had some strong opinions regarding capitalism and war profiteering. Tragic and chilling.
The Glass Menagerie-Tennessee Williams
So awful. I read this play in High School, and coming back to it now, the details were very foggy but not the feeling I remember: just desperately awful. Every single one of these characters makes my hair stand on end.
In summary, an astonishing variety of method, subject and setting presented in this collection and it makes me feel that the world is a better place for having been flooded with cheap paperbacks that stand up and hold their own.
May 24, 2017
Three great ones (Williams, Miller, O'Casey) and three not-so-great ones (the other three).
May 7, 2023
This is one of those books you set out to read because you want an education on what is considered classic in a specific genre; these are Six Great Modern Plays written by six masters of the modern period. It did not disappoint me as a good survey, but gave me a feeling as I was reading that this was required reading, when in fact I was reading for enjoyment.
The masters represented were Ibsen, Chekhov, Shaw, O'Casey, Miller, and Williams.
I spent some time considering what made these plays innovations for their time, and this is a big topic since each of these masters are probably notable not only for what they wrote, but the way they wrote for theatre.
Academics aside, the two plays that I most enjoyed reading were the last two " All of my Sons" and "The Glass Menagerie". These two I liked because I could see how the tension would work on stage in the Arthur Williams, and in the latter case, understand how the Tennessee Williams play could be staged as a memory.
The other plays jumped out less for me. They had merit but I found I could not enjoy them as much on the page, and wished that I was in a theatre. I found the Sean O'Casey play full of rich language, irish lore, metaphors and melodies, but still a little slow to read through. The Bernard Shaw play was progressive on women's issues for its time and had a quick wit to it that I can see would make it funny and fresh to watch live. The Chekhov was a slow moving read, but I could understand that on stage the subtlety of the dialogue would work; the sobre reflections on the change from an old world Russian aristocratic society to an industrial one would be beautiful, not plodding. I think the Ibsen too, was full of intriguing symbols of how society is changing; personified in the decline of the master builder.
I don't really have the experience or knowledge to evaluate how one of these writers changed drama as a form, but I take it that each one of them was an innovator. I was impressed on a technical level, but not moved. It was so obvious that these plays were written to be on stage and exploit every dynamic possibility that the actors could bring to the roles.
Further, I often reflected that what differentiates our era from the "Modern" era reflected in this book, is that a contemporary reader would seek out diverse writers in terms of gender, race and sexual orientation, and consider this a prerequisite. Basically, the "dead old white men" is not enough argument is true for this book. That more identities should be represented, if not taken for granted, has become more common place in post-modern (post-post modern?) readers.
The masters represented were Ibsen, Chekhov, Shaw, O'Casey, Miller, and Williams.
I spent some time considering what made these plays innovations for their time, and this is a big topic since each of these masters are probably notable not only for what they wrote, but the way they wrote for theatre.
Academics aside, the two plays that I most enjoyed reading were the last two " All of my Sons" and "The Glass Menagerie". These two I liked because I could see how the tension would work on stage in the Arthur Williams, and in the latter case, understand how the Tennessee Williams play could be staged as a memory.
The other plays jumped out less for me. They had merit but I found I could not enjoy them as much on the page, and wished that I was in a theatre. I found the Sean O'Casey play full of rich language, irish lore, metaphors and melodies, but still a little slow to read through. The Bernard Shaw play was progressive on women's issues for its time and had a quick wit to it that I can see would make it funny and fresh to watch live. The Chekhov was a slow moving read, but I could understand that on stage the subtlety of the dialogue would work; the sobre reflections on the change from an old world Russian aristocratic society to an industrial one would be beautiful, not plodding. I think the Ibsen too, was full of intriguing symbols of how society is changing; personified in the decline of the master builder.
I don't really have the experience or knowledge to evaluate how one of these writers changed drama as a form, but I take it that each one of them was an innovator. I was impressed on a technical level, but not moved. It was so obvious that these plays were written to be on stage and exploit every dynamic possibility that the actors could bring to the roles.
Further, I often reflected that what differentiates our era from the "Modern" era reflected in this book, is that a contemporary reader would seek out diverse writers in terms of gender, race and sexual orientation, and consider this a prerequisite. Basically, the "dead old white men" is not enough argument is true for this book. That more identities should be represented, if not taken for granted, has become more common place in post-modern (post-post modern?) readers.
September 16, 2015
This will not be a review of stunning creativity.
Like most other reviewers, I felt that "great" was too strong an adjective for most of these plays. In order of preference:
- The Glass Menagerie - Williams did a great job creating tension, atmosphere, hope, and devastation. I liked my mental image of the set and his insistence that dreamlike distortions must give insight into reality.
- Mrs. Warren's Profession - an interesting and oblique take on prostitution and women's independence
- The Master Builder - I don't think I got this completely - I couldn't tell what was mental illness versus dream or metaphor for inner turmoil. Anyway, Ibsen caught the tension between reality and aspiration, and how small-minded people can act when they have big dreams, and how dull duty can seem when inspiration calls. Parts of it seemed extraneous or poorly integrated, like the Builder's relationship with Kaia.
- All My Sons - Miller somehow foreshadowed Joe's dishonesty so I stopped liking or trusting his good ol' boy facade well before I realized he actually was responsible for the cracked engine turbines that caused the death of 21 air force teams in Vietnam and for which his partner was wrongfully imprisoned. Regardless, the characters are all identifiable American types. And it's possible to empathize with all of them. Which is the real root of the tragedy: each has principles that are fundamentally at war with those of the others, in a way that drives the misery of all.
- Three Sisters - I lacked enough historical anchor for this. The sisters are allegories for crumbling parts of the Russian aristocracy I think around the end of the 1800's. The action is somewhat disconnected. The dialogue is very disconnected. And nothing of significance really happens. It felt more like a character study than an actual finished work.
- Red Roses for Me - This might be quite effective in an actual play instead of my head. A few of the images stuck, anyway, and I liked several of the characters. But again, nuances of how Ayamonn symbolized Ireland during the Troubles escaped me.
Like most other reviewers, I felt that "great" was too strong an adjective for most of these plays. In order of preference:
- The Glass Menagerie - Williams did a great job creating tension, atmosphere, hope, and devastation. I liked my mental image of the set and his insistence that dreamlike distortions must give insight into reality.
- Mrs. Warren's Profession - an interesting and oblique take on prostitution and women's independence
- The Master Builder - I don't think I got this completely - I couldn't tell what was mental illness versus dream or metaphor for inner turmoil. Anyway, Ibsen caught the tension between reality and aspiration, and how small-minded people can act when they have big dreams, and how dull duty can seem when inspiration calls. Parts of it seemed extraneous or poorly integrated, like the Builder's relationship with Kaia.
- All My Sons - Miller somehow foreshadowed Joe's dishonesty so I stopped liking or trusting his good ol' boy facade well before I realized he actually was responsible for the cracked engine turbines that caused the death of 21 air force teams in Vietnam and for which his partner was wrongfully imprisoned. Regardless, the characters are all identifiable American types. And it's possible to empathize with all of them. Which is the real root of the tragedy: each has principles that are fundamentally at war with those of the others, in a way that drives the misery of all.
- Three Sisters - I lacked enough historical anchor for this. The sisters are allegories for crumbling parts of the Russian aristocracy I think around the end of the 1800's. The action is somewhat disconnected. The dialogue is very disconnected. And nothing of significance really happens. It felt more like a character study than an actual finished work.
- Red Roses for Me - This might be quite effective in an actual play instead of my head. A few of the images stuck, anyway, and I liked several of the characters. But again, nuances of how Ayamonn symbolized Ireland during the Troubles escaped me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 7, 2011
I often find it difficult to read plays. Obviously, they are created for presentation from the stage, so it don't judge the play out of a paperback and usually choose to avoid trying to make such a presentation my first impression for a play. However, this seemed like a good way to dip into the deep well repertory theater without ever buying a ticket.
I wish the work provided some context. There is no annotation about the world and society the play was written for and why the play was important then and now, I could have used that.
Tennessee Williams provides that himself in the extensive stage directions and afterword to The Glass Menagerie. All My Sons, the 1947 play by Arthur Miller, I found the most difficult to enjoy. Basically this is three acts of a group conversation. I'd like to experience the verbal choreography and rhythm from a theater seat. Chekov's Three Sisters seems a quaint time capsule: Ibsen's The Master Builder and Mrs. Warren's Profession (George Bernard Shaw, 1893) both slowly but efficiently revealed engaging mysteries. O'Casey's Red Roses for Me was alive with Irish dialect and family energy.
I wish the work provided some context. There is no annotation about the world and society the play was written for and why the play was important then and now, I could have used that.
Tennessee Williams provides that himself in the extensive stage directions and afterword to The Glass Menagerie. All My Sons, the 1947 play by Arthur Miller, I found the most difficult to enjoy. Basically this is three acts of a group conversation. I'd like to experience the verbal choreography and rhythm from a theater seat. Chekov's Three Sisters seems a quaint time capsule: Ibsen's The Master Builder and Mrs. Warren's Profession (George Bernard Shaw, 1893) both slowly but efficiently revealed engaging mysteries. O'Casey's Red Roses for Me was alive with Irish dialect and family energy.
November 15, 2014
More like "One Great, and Five Also-Ran Modern Plays." They're all name players in this collection, but with the exception of Williams' The Glass Menagerie, this collection is strictly lesser-known works, which are lesser-known for good reason. Chekhov specializes in being excrutiatingly boring, but even he looks good next to the real dog of this collection, O'Casey's Red Roses For Me, a ham-fisted Irish parable determined to club you death with symbolism. Menagerie easily leads the pack, though (excluding that damn O'Casey) the rest all having their moments. A collection strictly for completists.
August 4, 2010
This was one of the editions used for English classes at Maine Township High School South in Park Ridge, Illinois. We read at least the Arthur Miller and Henrik Ibsen plays contained within. Both are reviewed elsewhere under the authors' names and play titles.
May 6, 2010
Liked glass menagerie; others were shrug
June 21, 2010
still havent finished this one. the chekov play is good though
August 22, 2013
could had done without three sisters, byt a well rounded view if contemporary theatre.
September 13, 2007
They really are six great modern plays!
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews