I enjoyed this short book, which combines some Chekhov biography, some traditional literary criticism, and a little travel writing. Janet Malcolm structures her musings on Chekhov around journeys to Petersburg, Moscow, and Yalta in the company of three female guides, two of whom are kind and helpful while the third's a bit of a bitch. (Of course Malcolm can't help comparing them to Chekhov characters. Unpleasant, controlling Sonia, for example, Malcolm's Moscow guide, is "a dead ringer for Natasha, the crass sister-in-law in Three Sisters, who pushes her way into control of the Prozorov household and pushes out the three delicate, refined sisters.") Overall, she provides an interesting, subtle, and savvy reading of Chekhov - more impressionistic than comprehensive, but insightful all the same.
Many keen observations in this book. Early on, Malcolm quotes from a letter in which Chekhov responded to a fellow author's criticism of the the inconclusive ending to one of his stories. His critic claimed that "it is certainly the writer's job to figure out what goes on in the heart of his hero, otherwise his psychology will remain unclear." Chekhov disagreed, writing : "A psychologist should not pretend to understand what he does not understand. Moreover, a psychologist should not convey the impression that he understands what no one understands. We shall not play the charlatan and we will declare frankly that nothing is clear in this world. Only fools and charlatans know and understand everything." But immediately after quoting this and similar passages, Malcolm writes: "These modest and sensible disclaimers . . . cannot be taken at face value, of course. Chekhov understood his characters very well (he invented them, after all), and his stories are hardly deadpan journalistic narratives."
And yet, Malcolm keeps coming back to Chekhov's inconclusiveness, his reluctance to explain all we'd like to know about his characters and their fates, as the essence of his style. Towards the end of the book, she writes:
"'Life is given to us only once.' This line (or a variant) appears in story after story and is delivered so quietly and offhandedly that we almost miss its terror. Chekhov was never one to insist on anything. He didn't preach, or even teach. He is our poet of the provisional and fragmentary. When a story or play ends, nothing seems to be settled."
As the example, she then compares the ending of Chekhov's "Ward No. 6" with the ending of Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych." Chekhov apparently loved Tolstoy, but the two authors were remarkably different. In the Tolstoy story, the author (with his typical godlike omniscence) enters his dying character's mind and describes the mystical experience that Tolstoy "confidently reports his hero to have had." By contrast, Chekhov (in his proto-modernistic manner) enters his dying character's mind, "but emerges with the most laconic and incomplete of reports" (the dying man's last, unexplained vision is of a peasant woman reaching out to hand him a registered letter).
I'm glad to have read this, as it has inspired me to go back and read some of my favorite Chekhov stories and plays, but also to dig into a few others that I hadn't read before.