The main character is so non-judgemental, manifests no bitterness – such graceful acceptance of both the horror she's undergoing and the inevitable eclipse that has to follow. The cats, the 'wild-haired, exotic daughters', the vivid dreams (especially of the Riley boys, circa 1955), all of it vignettes but so central to the story, the story itself kind of ethereal or, as Mary put it so well, "Because they refer to traveling 'somewhere' in a strangely outfitted conveyance, for example a body. Or a self. All alone".
'She needed a haircut more than a mammogram' -- maybe the slightest tinge of regret, of 'why me', in Cheri -– sums up the human condition in general, how things creep up on us unawares and how, mostly if not always, we are invariably too late.
The bit about resting one leg on the floor (nicely juxtaposed to a hangover and to more 'chaste' times), such a banal act but in the context of this story acquiring the significance of a grounding ritual. Finally, the brevity of it is slightly disappointing! As though the door opened a bit, creating a lozenge of light and then quickly shut again.
In Gusev, the contrast of everyday life (recounted so realistically, the granular details in the sick bay and on the deck) and the indifference of the universe (both sea and steamer making no distinction whatsoever of "saints and sinners") is striking. The final scene indeed seems some kind of ascent to heaven, maybe consistent with what the narrator says earlier in the story: "Overhead deep sky, bright stars, peace and stillness,exactly as at home in the village, below darkness and disorder".
Thank you for this reply, it is so generous and appreciative, of both stories and the song plus my words. They were hard to write about because they are so simple and complicated at the same time.
Thanks for these touching and powerful stories. I went and bought the Beard book to finish reading Cheri. Some thoughts (these are at a high school level rather than a grad seminar level, as I studied in the sciences):
The effect of time, or maybe 'historical period' is better. We could save Gusev, now (isoniazid and rifampin); perhaps in 100 years we will be able to save Cheri. (Whether the Russian army would have bothered to save Gusev is another question, though presumably they treat TB in their soldiers now.)
Similarly, the racist attitudes Chekhov is trying to satirize would make Gusev a villain rather than a flawed protagonist as he was in Chekhov's era. One wonders what they will make of Cheri in 100 years! I don't see anything negative, but who knows what values people will have in 2120. (She might be judged harshly for all that driving, for instance, once the polar ice caps have melted.)
The different ways gender and social position affect their common journey to the thing that awaits us all (to paraphrase Laird Barron). Gusev's stuck in the military, so he wastes away in a hospital bed, but Cheri gets to say goodbye to everyone and surrounded by her friends. She has more emotional support than Gusev, who's stuck shuffling off this mortal coil next to someone he doesn't even *like*. Even chooses her time of passing, to some degree...
...but not completely, which points up the role of the surrounding society in determining end-of-life. Cheri is constantly aware of her declining supply of oxygen--a little more money and she could have a lot less stress in those final days. Not to mention the whole rigmarole of having to hide what they're doing from most of society. Gusev, of course, is a miserable unit of the Russian military who is no longer useful and can be discarded.
The metaphors of passing into another world in both cases. Gusev metaphorically passes into heaven, Cheri slips through the ice. You could argue that reflects the declining religiosity between one era and the next (Gusev is Russia and Cheri American, but Russia is actually less religious than us now)... nobody (who writes these sort of stories, anyway) really thinks you're going to a better place when you die anymore. Few expect the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns to have any dreams that may come, good or bad.
Thank you for these meaningful observations of “Gusev.” Chekhov’s character descriptions often seem on the edge of some kind of metamorphosis (Anyuta or Ward No. 6). Your summary caught what Chekhov does so well:
"His corpse is thrown into the sea like the object it is, but Chekhov refers to him by name until the point of view switches to that of the fishes, emphasizing his transformation from a human with a social identity to matter that may be eaten; in between, the author gives his character serendipitous dignity, wrapping him in sea foam that looks for a second like lace. Gusev, dispersed in natural beauty, has become beautiful too."
Loved Gusev, will read Cheri when I can get a copy of the whole thing. Chekhov himself died of consumption in his 40's and also endured a long voyage home from the Russian far east after difficult service on a prison island . He was also a medical doctor. His description of death feels real and Gusev's mental journey is vivid yet unadorned by a frisson of mysticism like you might experience in a Herzog movie. But a movie-like it is- very cinematic all the way though, especially at the end you so love, Mary G! I thought the translation missed the light toss-off of ironic Russian humor in a few places. The seamless segue into G's death was beautifully non-melodramatic. Chekhov's dramas, written toward the end of his life, were brilliant, true-to life subversions of dramatic expectations. Thanks Mary!
Thanks Kestutis! I was wondering if I should include that Chekhov died of consumption (the story was written 14 years before he died) and that he had possibly based the story on that trip home; I decided not to because I was worried about going on too long already. I believe I used the Pevear and Volokshonsky translation--do you like the Garnnet better? I've heard different opinions about it and in the case of Lady with the Dog I prefer the Garnnet--but since I don't speak Russian my opinion isn't worth much and the P&V version seems to have the most support now. But what do you think? What were the muffled sections?
Hi M! I've only read a few of his stories. But I've read a great bio (Rayfield) and worked on all his plays. In theatre, the best US translations (like Paul Schmidt) use plain American language w/o exoticism,"foreign" affect or persistent moods. I read Lithuanian, not Rs. but having lived over there, certain things seem like quick jokes; like the benefits of prayers by a priest's many relatives (or "connections get you ahead in heaven")-also, calling the "horsey" a brute, and the act of saving a "Christian" vs. a Chinese or German. These absurdities should transform the mood. Garnnet is too heavy-handed. C's plays follow the flow of real speech, unlike his vividly cinematic stories. Also to do with his bio: Chekhov taught the medical students corpse dissection in school, so he knew how things connect! Just one fan's opinion...Love you XO, K
Thanks! I actually got that the Christian s. Chinese or German was meant as absurd, or to illustrate ridiculousness; when I used to teach that story I would read parts of it out loud and I always read that part for comedy. Quoting Nabokov on Chekhov: "Chekhov's books are sad books for humorous people; that is only a reader with a sense of humor can appreciate their sadness."
Yes to Nabokov! And I also chuckled at the “Christian” gag (do your students?) but I wonder if more subtle jokes lie buried. Peter Brook’s Cherry Orchard at BAM (80’s) was masterful, lightly flipping hilarious/heartbreaking/absurd moments. But story reading is solitary/subjective with no audience for instant corroboration. . I love that you are doing this! And always loved your work too. Thanks. “His heart burst smilingly “-From King Lear
Thanks so much for the intro to Ms Beard, the Iowa piece is brilliant, Cheri also. Great look at the comparison w/Chekhov. So glad I subscribed to your whatever-this-is, have always been amazed by your stories.
Terrific essay, especially about the lit. mag. where Jo Ann Beard's "Cheri Tremble" essay/story appeared. I gave you, Mary, a callout here: https://marytabor.substack.com/p/literary-magazines-why-bother-lagniappe and hope you will take a look and let me know what you think. Long time reader of your work and true fan here. xo Mary Tabor
I just read your piece, its lovely. The lit magazines were important for a lot of people--I actually got rejected by almost all of them until after I had published my first book (my trajectory was unusual, I didn't get into any magazines until I published a book) but since I've published sporadically in the quarterlies--Tin House, Zoetrope, Conjunctions, Electric Literature, Three Penny Review, some others that have since gone under. I consider them an honorable place to be with generous and dedicated editors...
Yes, I noticed exactly that when I did my research on you--and then fab places that are so hard to get into took you. I think your writing is amazing--and particularly loved _Bad Behavior_! You are one of my favorites and I read bunches and bunches of fiction. So glad you joined here!
thanks so much for these two brilliant stories. i. am a big chekhov fan more the plays but also love his stories. also his life and his letters. never read this one though. i appreciate the way you set it up but glad i read story before second part of its article. such a wacky mix of life and dreams and death both within and outside his head. and thet ending! i am still reeling from the second one. unbearable pain and loss amidst the daily grind and half life. and the overlap of slow and lightning death.
I will never forget the second one. thanks again. john sweeney
Oh, I did that audio book. Kind of embarrassed about it. I did it because in general I'm a good reader. But its one thing to read for 20-30 minutes from a section you've picked with only two voices, in front of people so you can feel them responding--its something else to read a whole book alone in a studio with a tech staring at you. Or at his equipment. It was way harder than I thought it would be and I didn't like the result. Just pay attention to the content! Not the person behind the curtain!
"I’ve never read a more fully realized end to a story. It makes room for everything." That is pretty powerful in itself. Have never read Gusev or even much by Chekov. This is motivation to do so. Thanks, Mary!
I read Chekhov first in my late 20s and thought he was really dull. Then I tried again in my 40s and my mind was opened. You have to catch him on the right wave-length but when you do, he's really beautiful. Happy reading!
What did Amy Hempel say somewhere, about how watching people enjoy the concert is more fascinating the the actual concert itself. I feel like that about some of the classics. Seeing people in love with the work is sometimes the most enjoyable thing. I don't always feel called to re-read them for them. But I am slogging through BLEAK HOUSE bit by bit because of you(r) passion in regards to it. (Didn't you do a foreward for one of the editions of that book? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Maybe it was only in your book of essays SOMEBODY WITH A LITTLE HAMMER)
Hi that essay was published as an intro to Bleak H but years ago maybe the edition no longer exists. I hope you actually like it. Its hard to sync with something that old, but once I did I was enthralled.
I loved it so much! But can't find it anywhere! I keep trying to find the one with your voice in it but keep bumping into Terry Eagleton instead! Gah! Your love for it really spills off the pages!
Neither have I read much of Chekov yet. I kind of love reading about how much people love his work. I almost enjoy that as much if not more than reading the work itself directly. Also Chekov reminds me a lot of Edward Nortons face. Certain pictures especially.
'Cheri' is so unsentimental yet so moving.
The main character is so non-judgemental, manifests no bitterness – such graceful acceptance of both the horror she's undergoing and the inevitable eclipse that has to follow. The cats, the 'wild-haired, exotic daughters', the vivid dreams (especially of the Riley boys, circa 1955), all of it vignettes but so central to the story, the story itself kind of ethereal or, as Mary put it so well, "Because they refer to traveling 'somewhere' in a strangely outfitted conveyance, for example a body. Or a self. All alone".
'She needed a haircut more than a mammogram' -- maybe the slightest tinge of regret, of 'why me', in Cheri -– sums up the human condition in general, how things creep up on us unawares and how, mostly if not always, we are invariably too late.
The bit about resting one leg on the floor (nicely juxtaposed to a hangover and to more 'chaste' times), such a banal act but in the context of this story acquiring the significance of a grounding ritual. Finally, the brevity of it is slightly disappointing! As though the door opened a bit, creating a lozenge of light and then quickly shut again.
In Gusev, the contrast of everyday life (recounted so realistically, the granular details in the sick bay and on the deck) and the indifference of the universe (both sea and steamer making no distinction whatsoever of "saints and sinners") is striking. The final scene indeed seems some kind of ascent to heaven, maybe consistent with what the narrator says earlier in the story: "Overhead deep sky, bright stars, peace and stillness,exactly as at home in the village, below darkness and disorder".
Both are stories to cheri-sh.
Thank you for this reply, it is so generous and appreciative, of both stories and the song plus my words. They were hard to write about because they are so simple and complicated at the same time.
Thanks for these touching and powerful stories. I went and bought the Beard book to finish reading Cheri. Some thoughts (these are at a high school level rather than a grad seminar level, as I studied in the sciences):
The effect of time, or maybe 'historical period' is better. We could save Gusev, now (isoniazid and rifampin); perhaps in 100 years we will be able to save Cheri. (Whether the Russian army would have bothered to save Gusev is another question, though presumably they treat TB in their soldiers now.)
Similarly, the racist attitudes Chekhov is trying to satirize would make Gusev a villain rather than a flawed protagonist as he was in Chekhov's era. One wonders what they will make of Cheri in 100 years! I don't see anything negative, but who knows what values people will have in 2120. (She might be judged harshly for all that driving, for instance, once the polar ice caps have melted.)
The different ways gender and social position affect their common journey to the thing that awaits us all (to paraphrase Laird Barron). Gusev's stuck in the military, so he wastes away in a hospital bed, but Cheri gets to say goodbye to everyone and surrounded by her friends. She has more emotional support than Gusev, who's stuck shuffling off this mortal coil next to someone he doesn't even *like*. Even chooses her time of passing, to some degree...
...but not completely, which points up the role of the surrounding society in determining end-of-life. Cheri is constantly aware of her declining supply of oxygen--a little more money and she could have a lot less stress in those final days. Not to mention the whole rigmarole of having to hide what they're doing from most of society. Gusev, of course, is a miserable unit of the Russian military who is no longer useful and can be discarded.
The metaphors of passing into another world in both cases. Gusev metaphorically passes into heaven, Cheri slips through the ice. You could argue that reflects the declining religiosity between one era and the next (Gusev is Russia and Cheri American, but Russia is actually less religious than us now)... nobody (who writes these sort of stories, anyway) really thinks you're going to a better place when you die anymore. Few expect the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns to have any dreams that may come, good or bad.
Thank you for these meaningful observations of “Gusev.” Chekhov’s character descriptions often seem on the edge of some kind of metamorphosis (Anyuta or Ward No. 6). Your summary caught what Chekhov does so well:
"His corpse is thrown into the sea like the object it is, but Chekhov refers to him by name until the point of view switches to that of the fishes, emphasizing his transformation from a human with a social identity to matter that may be eaten; in between, the author gives his character serendipitous dignity, wrapping him in sea foam that looks for a second like lace. Gusev, dispersed in natural beauty, has become beautiful too."
thanks Mary. Lovely to read JoAnn next to Chekov! reading your analyses is like being in a really great comp lit class at berkeley 50 years ago.
Loved Gusev, will read Cheri when I can get a copy of the whole thing. Chekhov himself died of consumption in his 40's and also endured a long voyage home from the Russian far east after difficult service on a prison island . He was also a medical doctor. His description of death feels real and Gusev's mental journey is vivid yet unadorned by a frisson of mysticism like you might experience in a Herzog movie. But a movie-like it is- very cinematic all the way though, especially at the end you so love, Mary G! I thought the translation missed the light toss-off of ironic Russian humor in a few places. The seamless segue into G's death was beautifully non-melodramatic. Chekhov's dramas, written toward the end of his life, were brilliant, true-to life subversions of dramatic expectations. Thanks Mary!
Thanks Kestutis! I was wondering if I should include that Chekhov died of consumption (the story was written 14 years before he died) and that he had possibly based the story on that trip home; I decided not to because I was worried about going on too long already. I believe I used the Pevear and Volokshonsky translation--do you like the Garnnet better? I've heard different opinions about it and in the case of Lady with the Dog I prefer the Garnnet--but since I don't speak Russian my opinion isn't worth much and the P&V version seems to have the most support now. But what do you think? What were the muffled sections?
Hi M! I've only read a few of his stories. But I've read a great bio (Rayfield) and worked on all his plays. In theatre, the best US translations (like Paul Schmidt) use plain American language w/o exoticism,"foreign" affect or persistent moods. I read Lithuanian, not Rs. but having lived over there, certain things seem like quick jokes; like the benefits of prayers by a priest's many relatives (or "connections get you ahead in heaven")-also, calling the "horsey" a brute, and the act of saving a "Christian" vs. a Chinese or German. These absurdities should transform the mood. Garnnet is too heavy-handed. C's plays follow the flow of real speech, unlike his vividly cinematic stories. Also to do with his bio: Chekhov taught the medical students corpse dissection in school, so he knew how things connect! Just one fan's opinion...Love you XO, K
Thanks! I actually got that the Christian s. Chinese or German was meant as absurd, or to illustrate ridiculousness; when I used to teach that story I would read parts of it out loud and I always read that part for comedy. Quoting Nabokov on Chekhov: "Chekhov's books are sad books for humorous people; that is only a reader with a sense of humor can appreciate their sadness."
Yes to Nabokov! And I also chuckled at the “Christian” gag (do your students?) but I wonder if more subtle jokes lie buried. Peter Brook’s Cherry Orchard at BAM (80’s) was masterful, lightly flipping hilarious/heartbreaking/absurd moments. But story reading is solitary/subjective with no audience for instant corroboration. . I love that you are doing this! And always loved your work too. Thanks. “His heart burst smilingly “-From King Lear
Thanks so much for the intro to Ms Beard, the Iowa piece is brilliant, Cheri also. Great look at the comparison w/Chekhov. So glad I subscribed to your whatever-this-is, have always been amazed by your stories.
Thank you--I love the connections you make here, and I haven't thought about East River Pipe and that song in a while. I love it.
Terrific essay, especially about the lit. mag. where Jo Ann Beard's "Cheri Tremble" essay/story appeared. I gave you, Mary, a callout here: https://marytabor.substack.com/p/literary-magazines-why-bother-lagniappe and hope you will take a look and let me know what you think. Long time reader of your work and true fan here. xo Mary Tabor
I just read your piece, its lovely. The lit magazines were important for a lot of people--I actually got rejected by almost all of them until after I had published my first book (my trajectory was unusual, I didn't get into any magazines until I published a book) but since I've published sporadically in the quarterlies--Tin House, Zoetrope, Conjunctions, Electric Literature, Three Penny Review, some others that have since gone under. I consider them an honorable place to be with generous and dedicated editors...
Yes, I noticed exactly that when I did my research on you--and then fab places that are so hard to get into took you. I think your writing is amazing--and particularly loved _Bad Behavior_! You are one of my favorites and I read bunches and bunches of fiction. So glad you joined here!
thanks so much for these two brilliant stories. i. am a big chekhov fan more the plays but also love his stories. also his life and his letters. never read this one though. i appreciate the way you set it up but glad i read story before second part of its article. such a wacky mix of life and dreams and death both within and outside his head. and thet ending! i am still reeling from the second one. unbearable pain and loss amidst the daily grind and half life. and the overlap of slow and lightning death.
I will never forget the second one. thanks again. john sweeney
Great great great great great great great.
I said this aloud on reading the last line. Beautiful piece! Thank you.
Amazing reviews, full of wonder and yet an edge...sunlight fractured over iron gunnels.
hi Mary, Ive never read any of your work but these 2 story recommends, but just started your audiobook of Bad Behavior.
Oh, I did that audio book. Kind of embarrassed about it. I did it because in general I'm a good reader. But its one thing to read for 20-30 minutes from a section you've picked with only two voices, in front of people so you can feel them responding--its something else to read a whole book alone in a studio with a tech staring at you. Or at his equipment. It was way harder than I thought it would be and I didn't like the result. Just pay attention to the content! Not the person behind the curtain!
I get it. I think Ill read he rest from the page then iif you feel that way about the result. So exciting to share your thoughts though.
"I’ve never read a more fully realized end to a story. It makes room for everything." That is pretty powerful in itself. Have never read Gusev or even much by Chekov. This is motivation to do so. Thanks, Mary!
I read Chekhov first in my late 20s and thought he was really dull. Then I tried again in my 40s and my mind was opened. You have to catch him on the right wave-length but when you do, he's really beautiful. Happy reading!
What did Amy Hempel say somewhere, about how watching people enjoy the concert is more fascinating the the actual concert itself. I feel like that about some of the classics. Seeing people in love with the work is sometimes the most enjoyable thing. I don't always feel called to re-read them for them. But I am slogging through BLEAK HOUSE bit by bit because of you(r) passion in regards to it. (Didn't you do a foreward for one of the editions of that book? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Maybe it was only in your book of essays SOMEBODY WITH A LITTLE HAMMER)
Hi that essay was published as an intro to Bleak H but years ago maybe the edition no longer exists. I hope you actually like it. Its hard to sync with something that old, but once I did I was enthralled.
I loved it so much! But can't find it anywhere! I keep trying to find the one with your voice in it but keep bumping into Terry Eagleton instead! Gah! Your love for it really spills off the pages!
Neither have I read much of Chekov yet. I kind of love reading about how much people love his work. I almost enjoy that as much if not more than reading the work itself directly. Also Chekov reminds me a lot of Edward Nortons face. Certain pictures especially.