The genre diversity of A.P. Chekhov's work and his vision of reality

Shagbanova Khabiba Sadyrovna ORCID: 0000-0001-5549-4819 Doctor of Philology Assistant professor, Professor of the Department of General Humanitarian Disciplines, Law Institute (St. Petersburg) 199106, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Gavanskaya str., 6 khabiba_shagbanova@list.ru Other publications by this author

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a great representative of Russian culture of the late XIX– early XX centuries, who managed to create a "new word" in drama in an era of social, political and scientific changes ^[13]. It is no exaggeration to say that the entire world culture today remains under the unrelenting influence of the extraordinary personality and multifaceted creativity of the Master.

The creative individuality of the author is expressed in special artistic techniques in the texts, in the way in which he achieves the disclosure of the plot of the work. As V.K. Sigov rightly notes, stylistics itself is located on the border of linguistic and literary perception of the text, and the ultimate goal of stylistic analysis is to clarify and detail the overall impression, figurative-emotional and logical content of a work of art as an integrity ^{[12, pp. 188-189]}. A detailed analysis of the author's style of a work of art is possible only with full immersion in the philosophical understanding of the unity of its content and form, with the identification of genre affiliation and the artistic method of the writer. By drawing a parallel between the work of the author in general and a particular work in particular with the works of other writers, one can understand the author's intention of the master.

 We mean not only his unique character structure, description of life conflicts or individual artistic and aesthetic techniques, but also A.P. Chekhov's qualitatively changed semantic attitude, which can be described as "Chekhov's discourse". This is a kind of frame of reference in which intercultural communication takes place with unexpected meanings born of decades of Chekhov's attention and comprehension ^{[5, p. 121]}. 

Chekhov's work seeks to awaken a "living soul" in the reader, simply showing the person as he is, without flirting with the audience, without trying to offend it, without embellishing anything.

It is also important to note that Chekhov's work is characterized by a concise, restrained narrative, paying a significant role to small details. They are not just present in the works, but also serve as a hint to his main ideas. Thus, Anton Pavlovich's style is distinguished by the impartiality of the description, the conviction that the conclusions should be drawn by the reader himself. In his work, Chekhov combined the objective attitude of a scientist and a doctor with the sensitivity and psychological understanding of the artist ^{[7, pp. 25-26]}.

An interesting fact is that Chekhov almost never wrote for children ("Kashtanka" and "Beloloby" are exceptions). He believed that for a child to read, it is simply necessary to choose the best of "adult" literature.

Chekhov clearly understood how difficult the task of changing people's minds was in practice: thinking independently, making the right decisions and refusing to live a lie was not easy in the bureaucratic world of tsarist Russia. The search for tools to convey his thoughts and beliefs to readers, to establish him as an artist, contributed to the construction of an individual style of presentation, which is an expression of his own worldview. The individual style of the writer expresses his civic position, philosophy of being, psychological maturity of a person, accumulated experience, intellectual abilities, manner of artistic presentation of thoughts and feelings ^{[14, pp. 66-68]}.

Chekhov often depicted the life of a small Russian city where tragic events take place as part of everyday life. A typical Chekhov story most often consists of what happens inside a given character, and this is conveyed indirectly, through internal dialogue or substantial details.

There is an opinion that, often, nothing significant happens in Chekhov's stories and plays, there is not enough tension, passion, and the plot develops with insufficient brightness and elaboration, but he compensates for the lack of external manifestation with original methods of developing internal drama.

Many researchers of Chekhov's work called him a writer who causes apathy, tears in the eyes of the public, but he categorically rejected this point of view, stating that he never wanted tears, but sought to make the reader think about his own life, and perhaps fix something in it for the better the side. His observation and honesty allowed him to create characters in which it is easy to recognize people who are sharply individualized but representative. 

Literary critics of Chekhov's work also note the common features of the genre component of his tragic, dramatic and epic works, emphasizing the formation of a new style of Russian drama, a new way of storytelling. The originality of Anton Chekhov's literature in this case may be associated with a predilection for the theatrical stage, an actor's worldview ^{[11, p. 144]}.

It should be noted that, even as a teenager, Chekhov worked on his compositions in several genres simultaneously, developing prose and drama in parallel. This can be observed in his play "Fatherlessness", written in 1877-1878, which worthily occupies a special place in the perception of drama in his works. In it, the writer develops a unique formula for the symbiosis of tragedy and comedy.

An interesting fact is that in Chekhov's works there is practically no description of vivid quarrels, disagreements, conflicts, rapid development of the plot, thereby refuting the idea that the more intensely the emotionality and conflict of human nature are shown, the more their visible external expression should manifest itself.

The dramatic nature of the works is reflected in the increasing importance of the dialogue, in the exceptional style of revealing the content. Thus, the writer departs from the traditional types of drama, prose, creating his own unique system of drama, in which one can see an "undercurrent", a certain psychological factor indicating the spiritual meaning of everything that is happening.

Of course, Anton Pavlovich was a representative of a new generation, his creative path was strikingly different from the work of his predecessors. Solely thanks to his multifaceted talent and hard work, Chekhov, from comic journalism, rose to the highest level of Russian literature and literature.

The end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century in Russia is characterized by a serious reassessment of the genre teaching of literature, taking place simultaneously with cultural and historical transformation. The ongoing changes gave rise to the development of journalism, initiated the emergence of fiction created for a wide range of readers.

Chekhov found and adapted a narrative style that began to gain great popularity at the end of the 19th century. In Chekhov's works, a spontaneous incomplete picture of the world appears, and at the same time, it turns out to be the most logical and accurate, this is where the seriousness and profundity of Chekhov's literary works are manifested. Chekhov avoids evaluating what is happening, allowing the reader to reflect alone. This manner of creativity can be noticed even at the very beginning of Chekhov's work as a writer, even in small episodes that appeared on the pages of the magazines "Dragonfly", "Alarm Clock" and "Fragments".

Cooperating with A.S. Suvorin's Novoye Vremya publishing house, a new stage of Chekhov's development as a writer arises. Novoye Vremya gave the writer the opportunity to appeal to more serious and thoughtful readers, the rejection of a creative pseudonym shows the seriousness of the attitude to the importance of the scientific method in his work ^{[6, p. 53]}.

Chekhov created a new style of storytelling, choosing suitable ways of poetic imagery. As mentioned earlier, unique genre techniques are manifested even in the early work of the master, the style and originality of Chekhov's stories are being formed. It is unusual to convey the inner mood of the hero through the verbal abilities of the heroes. In the dialogues of Chekhov's stories, the character of a person is revealed, and the author's assessment is dissolved in the character's voice, and only occasionally we see it in footnotes. Anton Pavlovich masterfully uses the ability to present the essence in dialogues, in movements, in manners, skillfully noticing unusual details and details, complementing the holistic impression of what he has read.

Dramaturgy is present in most of Chekhov's short stories, which were published from 1885-1886. The story "Psychopaths" is also narratively written, in which the author introduces the characters to the reader at the beginning, then depicts a dialogue, and at the end of the work we can see an ironic author's summary. This style of "narrative-scene" at that time was perfectly worked out by the author.

 In 1886-1887, stories with an epic, descriptive beginning were increasingly born, the plots were based on the presentation of the author-narrator, and the culmination took place in the dialogue itself. Over time, more and more space in the work of the writer-playwright is captured by large stories, with a detailed description of the author's state of mind, for example, "Tina" (1886), "Cold Blood" (1887), and at the same time, skit stories do not leave Chekhov's work ^{[10, p. 135]}.

Skillfully using a monologue or conversation, the author reveals the characteristics and temperament of the characters, the dramatic beginning is filled with a poetic, lyrical beginning. The author tries to show the present from the position of the hero himself, to show his inner worldview, the picture of the world is seen through the understanding of the hero, his life worries, psychological torments ^{[4, pp. 566-567]}. 

It should be noted that the author sometimes uses the technique of an invisible observer, i.e. there is a personal and lyrical invisible connection between the author of the work and the main character.

Later in Chekhov's work, new techniques can be seen, the master transfers a dramatic conflict from the position of an established human collision into the spiritual world of the character, simultaneously peering into life experiences, psychological problems of the personality. At the same time, the dramatic differences between man and the outside world are described in Chekhov's prose from the point of view of the hero.

This kind of literary techniques allowed many names of Chekhov's characters to become household names in real life.

After a trip to Sakhalin in 1890, the idea of showing life "as it is" transformed into the fact that "a work of art should express some great rule of life," for example, that people should work hard and that their work should be accompanied by faith in the usefulness of this work, faith in the future. It should be noted that in all his plays there are themes of work, faith and purpose, and in all there is disappointment at the realization of how often people are inactive, how many people do not work enough, how few those who have faith, and how fleeting all human happiness is. Chekhov's goal was to convey to his readers and viewers the stagnant and mediocre life they live, and thereby make them understand that this is not the inevitable fate of mankind ^{[9, p. 134]}.

For Chekhov, it was crucial to convey to readers and viewers that they can actually be free and masters of their own destiny. The ridiculous picture of the clerk from Sneeze, who is so upset that he sneezed in the back of one of his superiors at the theater that he eventually goes home and dies, is just one example of how Chekhov uses the classic scourge — the absurdity of such servile behavior. He believed that a sense of personal freedom is necessary not only for creative artists, but also for people who want to change their world ^{[14, pp. 76-80]}.

In the literature of the late 19th century, along with the previous patterns of genres, narrative and descriptive genres were also formed, the epic, dramatic, and lyrical are side by side in an unconventional literary unity. In the stylistic artistic skill of that time, there is both a differentiation and a fusion of styles, as a result of which new, "capacious", artistically perfect ones appear. Chekhov's short stories of the 80s of the century before last were written in this style, they contain both dramatic and lyrical components along with an epic description.

In the end, Chekhov found a way to fulfill his dream by capturing real life on stage, abandoning the dramatic conventions of his time. Although the dramaturgy of contemporaries focused on action, often melodramatic, Chekhov's latest plays are primarily works of inaction, works in which the necessary action takes place behind the scene with an emphasis on the inner content of their characters, touching on the most burning problems of social life.

It should be noted that Chekhov's contemporaries often mention Anton Pavlovich's dissatisfaction with the theater of that time. He could harshly respond to various correspondents about the selfishness and stupidity of the actors, not to mention their incompetence; about the limited repertoire, the mediocrity of the directors, as well as the passive reaction of the audience. At the same time, it should be noted that even today there is no generally accepted approach to the critical and scenic interpretation of plays ^{[14, p. 112]}.

The statement that Chekhov's plays are often misinterpreted clearly does not correspond to those postmodern theories that deny the very possibility of a reliable interpretation. Consequently, there are two separate but related components of theatrical art: the written text and the text of performance. The author's play text is inevitably mediated in the production of the text of the play. And the author's vision may be lost or distorted in the production. Chekhov, for example, constantly expressed deep dissatisfaction with what the directors and actors were "doing" with his plays.

Like his character Treplev, the exhausted playwright in The Seagull, Chekhov saw widespread negativity in the theater of his time. And the need to find the right balance between authenticity and originality of interpretation is a constant goal of the director. Therefore, a unique Chekhov linguistic code is created, created by chains of words that will eventually be spoken by the actors and interpreted by the reader, critic or director. In the case of the director, this interpretation is then recoded in terms not of a written code, but of a performance code that includes the cast, vocal interpretation, facial expression, gesture, make-up, costume and movements in a dramatic space.

This general execution code, or execution text, is then interpreted by each member of the audience. The first involves the task of interpretation and translation performed by the director. Initially, the director analyzes the text of the play to find out what, in his opinion, the author's play is about: what constitutes the overall action of the play and what vision of reality is expressed in it. Then, having explored these issues of interpretation, the director proceeds to the second task — to translate his understanding of the literary text of the play into the text of the play, using the codes of the play embodied in the work of actors, set designers, lighting designers, etc.

Thus, the director has to not only interpret the meaning of the play, but also find suitable theatrical means to translate this intellectual and emotional understanding into a "readable" text of the play.

Chekhov felt pain and disappointment when he saw that his own plays were misinterpreted. The gap that he felt between his plays and the texts of the plays into which they were transformed led to the fact that he partially lost his original love for the theater. In a letter to his friend and publisher A.S. Suvorin on October 18, 1898, Chekhov wrote: "I will never write plays or stage" ^{[15, p. 197]}. The author was so disappointed in the incorrect theatrical interpretations of his plays.

In fact, in this case, a metamorphosis occurs: the director treats the play as his primary source, as a blank, and can do with it as he wants. Critics for a long time could not understand why Chekhov called "The Seagull" and "The Cherry Orchard" comedies and insisted that they were not tragic. 

Indeed, many of the characters in his plays are absurd: their fears are ridiculous, but a rare viewer was able to remain indifferent to Chekhov's characters. The audience is simultaneously aware of the stupidity and humanity of the characters, they are touched by the realization of how real the problems of the characters are for them, how difficult it is for the characters to find a way out of their situation. Some of their dreams are absurd, but they don't know how to help themselves, and so life passes them by without teaching them how to live. Chekhov convincingly shows "what fools these mortals are", but the viewer often feels pity, not laughter ^{[14, p. 77]}.

Undoubtedly, Chekhov made a significant reconstruction of the comedy genre, and not just combined dramatic genres, as critics often claim, sometimes defining his plays as tragicomedies, satirical dramas, and melodramas.  Chekhov's comedy was innovative for various reasons: firstly, he developed a positional writing style; secondly, he switched the emphasis in comedy from external features (laughter, survival, chance) to internal ones (reflections of the characters) ^{[14, p. 80]}.

Such distinctive features of Chekhov's narrative as "slowly developing" storylines, "excessive", "unnecessary" characters, episodes and details unrelated to the main events stand out in most of his works. Unlike the plot-combination style of writing, which focuses on intrigues and clashes, the positional style in literature is characterized by the presence of digressions, descriptions, details, symbols and characters that are not directly related to the plot, but are mainly intended to create the main thread of the narrative. 

Chekhov's style required a new theoretical explanation, and the existing empirical approach, which equated the comic with the ridiculous, was not enough to explain his innovative ideas.  The empirical approach has a greater number of criteria and features, but cannot provide a holistic view.  Chekhov did not conceptualize his style, but made several significant analytical remarks about how to treat his characters.

 Only such a unity of analysis and synthesis can shed light on the quasi-dramatic nature of the Chekhov intelligentsia, who loves to philosophize and often makes fiery speeches against slavery, discrimination, wars and the like, but in fact only repeats some popular slogans. The question of what should be considered first of all when analyzing such characters has been discussed for a long time; Some critics say that Chekhov's heroes should be judged by their actions; others insist that words are more important ^{[14, p. 79]}.

The study of the character's inner world includes features in decision-making, human values, the ability to set goals, willpower, and everything else that may not be explicitly disclosed in the text.  The conditional value of the characters is transmitted through specific episodes, the principle of integration of part and whole finds its further development in Chekhov's plays, in which a group of characters becomes the main character ^{[14, p. 78]}.

In this case, the group can be considered either as an aggregate or as a system: both represent different representations of the whole. The difference is that if only the objects of the group are considered, then we are talking about the aggregate. The introduction of relations between objects forms a system, taking into account the intelligence of the characters, their education, experience, etc. As a system, Chekhov's groups often turn out to be untenable, eventually turning into a self-destructive unity.  The group in the "Three Sisters" is relatively strong in aggregate: it includes teachers, military personnel, doctors — smart, educated people, but as a system, alas, it is not viable ^{[2, p. 70]}.

It should be noted that Chekhov did not immediately find a dramatic form that could serve as an ideal objective correlate of his vision of reality. He began his career as a playwright by adopting the conventions of previously established dramatic genres. As with short stories, Chekhov went through a period of literary training before he could free himself from the use of these archaic techniques. It can be argued that it was in "The Seagull" that this liberation first took place, a creative breakthrough that made Chekhov as much an innovator in the field of drama as he already was in artistic storytelling. Chekhov has developed new techniques suitable for conveying his vision in two completely different genres — short story and drama.

Gradually, from The Seagull to The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov made his texts more and more realistic, abandoning many of the mechanical theatrical techniques of a well-staged play that he had used in earlier plays such as Ivanov. After Ivanov, Chekhov adheres to his own theory of drama, according to which life should be presented on stage "exactly as it is, and people should be as simple as in life."

The tragic subtext of unfulfilled desires is adjacent to the comic text of stupid trivial behavior, and the viewer's perception of the gap between the external and internal lives of the characters generates that synthetic tragicomedy, which we can now safely recognize as Chekhov's ^{[3, p. 320]}.

The interpretation of Treplev's key role allows us to draw conclusions that this is a complex and ambiguous character who should not be interpreted as an misunderstood genius or an incompetent fool. It contains some of the ideals of the playwright, but it also has some flaws that Chekhov saw in the intellectuals of his time.

Chekhov's extraordinary attitude to both life and art makes any classification of his vision of reality completely inapplicable. The new form of drama that he brought to life depended in itself on the formal duality of the text/subtext.

The form and content of Chekhov's plays depend on the interconnection and tension of the polarities of gloomy negativity and light optimism. Indeed, the central unifying thread connecting all Chekhov's works is his attempt to recognize, connect and reconcile a number of dualisms. Chekhov systematically creates a gap between the two lives of his characters. The gap between the inner world of his characters' personal beliefs, goals and hopes and the outer world of their social actions and relationships with other characters is presented in the context of the inability to realize their aspirations.

Productions that allow viewers to see the missed potential of the characters help bring to life the main idea of the writer — to attract the attention of the viewer and show all the stupidity and worthlessness of the trivial life of the characters. The feeling of waste and uselessness is felt due to the fact that Chekhov also points to the possibility of a better life, which can be achieved through human efforts.

This was the innovative nature of Chekhov's use of subtext, which is now sometimes overlooked as it has become commonplace in modern drama.

Before Chekhov, the subtext was emotionally reinforced and consistent with the stated meaning of the text. The characters meant what they said and said what they meant.  In Chekhov's plays, the text and the subtext are fragmented and often contradict each other. It was precisely because of this innovation that, when delivered, it was difficult enough for many actors to portray this double life. Accustomed to acting in plays where characters say what they think and mean what they say, many early performers of Chekhov's plays, especially those who did not know the acting system developed by Stanislavsky, did not realize the implied subtext of his character's inner life.

Of course, few of the first performers had the acting technique to play such a subtext. Brooks Atkinson, a theater critic, reviewing the production of The Cherry Orchard in New York in 1928, focused the audience's attention on the fact that the actors and the production managed to convey only the objective surface of reality that exists in the text, and pointed out the difficulties that the actors playing in Chekhov's plays had to face ^[16].

In addition to the context, Chekhov actively used symbolism in his works, despite the fact that, at first glance, symbolism may seem incompatible with realism, however, we know that the writer was attracted to some aspects of the symbolic form.

Chekhov in the early 1890s concentrated more on the story, nevertheless he continued to reflect on the problems of dramatic composition, especially those related to the transmission of an unspoken thought.  Often, when we talk about symbolism, we mean something unrealistic, intangible, for example, Treplev's symbolist play in The Seagull; but the trees cut down at the end of the Cherry Orchard certainly serve as a symbol of the end of the landowner era, and even Epikhodov's tearing string.

As mentioned earlier, the modern literary process is inextricably linked with the legacy of the great predecessors. The versatility of Chekhov's talent continues to live in the reception of the master's dramatic works by modern directors, playwrights and writers.  Directors become not only interpreters, but also a kind of co-authors of the work, bringing their own nuances to reading and understanding the plays, placing their accents during the production. 

In recent decades, another version of "co-authorship" has been established: remakes of Chekhov's plays were created by such contemporaries as B. Akunin, L. Ulitskaya, L. Petrushevskaya, N. Moshina and others. The authors, taking a literary source as a basis, write their works "based on" canonical plays ("The Seagull", "Three Sisters", "The Cherry Orchard"); placing the characters in another time (usually in modern reality); they conceive dramatic collisions and resolve the key conflicts of the plays ^{[8, p. 72]}.

Of undoubted interest are dramatic experiments on transferring the action of Chekhov's plays into a modern context, a kind of "transfer" of the past to the present. The characters of the new dramatic works are "inhabited" by the counterparts of Chekhov's plays, but they exist in a different reality, simultaneously solving artistic problems, consciously connecting to the perception of the modern reader and viewer.

The great writer, realizing his creative mission, wrote in a letter to A. Lazarev on October 20, 1888: "Everything that I wrote will be forgotten in five or ten years, but the paths that I paved will be safe and sound – this is my only merit ..." ^{[14, p. 106]}.

Chekhov's dramaturgy has long been an integral part of world culture and is of constant interest in the form of numerous modern theatrical interpretations, various types of co-authorship and modern remakes of Chekhov's prose, comedies and dramas. Undoubtedly, Chekhov is today one of the most famous and beloved Russian classics abroad.

"Co-authorship" with a writer can be viewed in two ways. The first, the most widely presented, is the numerous director's interpretations of the plays. The directors consider the written texts of Chekhov's plays not to be a finished work, but only the basis, which is formed thanks to the creative collaboration of the author, director, actor, production designer and costume designer.  The purpose of the statement is to give a clear meaning to a text that is "silent" without interpretation ^{[1, p. 292]}.

Recently, Chekhov's relevance has often been emphasized by moving the action to the present moment.  One example of this kind of theater direction is the production of "Three Sisters" by Yuri Labetsky ^{[3, p. 320]}. The director managed to bring the textbook images alive, the mise-en-scenes perfectly illustrate the director's idea. Everything is according to Chekhov: people drink tea, and at this time their lives are collapsing and their hearts are breaking.

The researcher comprehending this modern trend uses the term "transference", emphasizing its interrelation and understanding of intertextuality, but also reveals their fundamental differences. The transformation of a classical text always includes the meaning of transference in the sense of transition from one cultural environment to another or from one era to another.  The transfer occurs when a literary test is parodied, forged, or travestied. If intertextuality concerns the issues of the text, mainly the equivalence of the secondary text to the primary one and how the meaning of the secondary text expands, then the transfer deals with the problem of how the primary text changes when its elements are transferred to another temporal or cultural context ^{[4, p. 566]}.

Questions arise as to what genre and stylistic features of the great writer's plays make it possible to introduce a new word into his texts and what exactly makes it possible to fill the rarefied atmosphere of Chekhov's dramatic action with modern realities. It is important to understand whether these secondary changes and layers are always organic, whether they create new works in meaning and spirit, without becoming a rewrite of Chekhov's dramas.

Chekhov's dramaturgy has been studied by Russian and foreign literary critics for many years. Special attention in scientific works is paid to the subtext of the plays and the impressionistic beginning in the writer's work. It seems that these concepts, which characterize the peculiarities of the style of Chekhov's dramatic works, can be considered deeply interrelated, almost identical.

The subtext is a complex artistic phenomenon that has not received an exhaustive theoretical understanding and definition. A variety of motifs, nuances, artistic details, replicas, "rhymes" and inconsistent phrases of heroes and characters, interacting with each other, create a deep, hidden meaning, suggesting many readings ^{[1, p. 298]}.

The artistic fabric of Chekhov's plays is woven from many nuances, all of them working in unison, creating a unique Chekhov intonation. The characters are "here and now" in the stage space, they are connected by invisible threads with their own past by nostalgic associations. All artistic means contribute to the creation of a special, melancholic mood, a huge role in the play is played by emotionally colored replicas that do not have a clarifying, detailed character.

Obviously, it is the subtext, the presence of a special atmosphere of Chekhov's works, full of innuendos, semantic and emotional gaps, fragmentation, understatement, clipping of plot conflicts, that push and provoke modern authors to an original understanding and emotional "replenishment" of Chekhov's creation ^{[4, pp. 566-567]}.

There is no doubt that Chekhov loved his people and his country very much, in his works he showed how pathetic a person can be, while realizing his potential greatness. He depicted the life of society in such a way that in the reader's mind there was no doubt about the need for transformations in everyday life, depicting individual characters in such a way that each person could understand that only he himself is capable of radically changing his fate.

The perception of Chekhov's work in world culture shows that it was considered in the context of socio-political tasks, readers around the world were attracted by his deep understanding of social problems, an accurate recreation of the inner world of a person, as well as the "hidden" position of the author, which allowed transferring the content of the text to a variety of phenomena of modern reality.