Buying Options
Kindle Price: | $10.99 |
Sold by: | PRH UK Price set by seller. |
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Ward No. 6 and Other Stories, 1892-1895 (Penguin Classics) Kindle Edition
Price | New from | Used from |
- Kindle
$10.99 Read with Our Free App - Paperback
$11.99
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherPenguin
- Publication dateMay 30, 2002
- File size3492 KB
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Ronald Wilks has translated many Russian works including, for Penguin, those of Gorky, Sologub, Tolstoy, Pushkin, and Chekhov.
J. Douglas Clayton is Professor of Russian at the University of Ottawa. He is the author of 'Pierrot in Petrograd' about the Commedia dell'arte and the Russian tradition. --This text refers to the paperback edition.
Product details
- ASIN : B002RI97OI
- Publisher : Penguin; New Ed edition (May 30, 2002)
- Publication date : May 30, 2002
- Language : English
- File size : 3492 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Screen Reader : Supported
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
- Print length : 372 pages
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,173,146 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- #610 in Classic Fiction Anthologies & Collections
- #827 in Classic Short Stories
- #14,340 in Short Stories Anthologies
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (/ˈtʃɛkɔːf, -ɒf/; Russian: Анто́н Па́влович Че́хов, pronounced [ɐnˈton ˈpavləvʲɪtɕ ˈtɕɛxəf]; 29 January 1860 – 15 July 1904) was a Russian playwright and short story writer who is considered to be among the greatest writers of short fiction in history. His career as a playwright produced four classics and his best short stories are held in high esteem by writers and critics. Along with Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg, Chekhov is often referred to as one of the three seminal figures in the birth of early modernism in the theater.Chekhov practiced as a medical doctor throughout most of his literary career: "Medicine is my lawful wife", he once said, "and literature is my mistress."
Chekhov renounced the theatre after the disastrous reception of The Seagull in 1896, but the play was revived to acclaim in 1898 by Constantin Stanislavski's Moscow Art Theatre, which subsequently also produced Chekhov's Uncle Vanya and premiered his last two plays, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. These four works present a challenge to the acting ensemble as well as to audiences, because in place of conventional action Chekhov offers a "theatre of mood" and a "submerged life in the text".
Chekhov had at first written stories only for financial gain, but as his artistic ambition grew, he made formal innovations which have influenced the evolution of the modern short story. He made no apologies for the difficulties this posed to readers, insisting that the role of an artist was to ask questions, not to answer them.
Bio from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photo by Unknown[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
In Part I of the story we learned a short background of everyone that was in the ward. For example, “a man who grieves all the time, staring and crying”, that is about all we will ever know about this character. In Part II the main focus is on the character Gromov. He is the sanest of them all. We learn that he had a hard childhood, which then lead into a hard life. He was very well educated and loved to read. So far an outside storyteller who was giving us some basic information that we need to understand the story told these two parts. In part III of the story, that unknown storyteller is gone and Chekhov himself is now the narrator. Chekhov was a doctor in real life and you could see some of his expertise come into the storyline. We learn more about Gromov and how he feels terror and torment all of the time. He feels that the world is against him and that there is no way to stop it. Ivan was taken care of by a doctor even though the doctor does not believe that he needs any help at all. At the end of this part Ivan is forgotten by the people he had known for his whole life. In part IV we get a very descriptive explanation of what the inside of Ward No 6 looks and smells like. Just from the readers point of view it sounds like a horrific place to be. In part V we learn more about the doctor himself. He comes to the asylum and notices how filthy and depressing the environment is. He went along with being the best doctor that he could be, but eventually got tired of doing his daily routine when nothing else at the insane asylum was changing. In part VI Doctor does a lot of thinking about life and the different aspects that are beyond his control. He reads a lot of different philosophy books and talked to a friend about different philosophies.
In Part VII the doctors thoughts become a little more in depth and become almost unclear. It is more of a detailed thought rather then an actual part of the story. Part VIII there is a new younger doctor that is introduced that would love to take the job of Andrei. Part IX is when Andrei starts to actually talk to Gromov and they have a very intellectual conversation about freedom. Part X Gromov and Andrei continue on to have another conversation. XI there is more conversations, they are almost becoming regular. XII: the outside community starts to see the doctor as becoming insane himself from all of the time that he is spending with Gromov. XIII Dr. Andrei and his friend that was mentioned earlier get back together and talk again. XIV: Mikhail borrows money from Dr. Andrei for a debt that he needed to pay off. XV: Andrei decided that he was angry with himself about giving away money that he could have used for something else. He keeps himself relaxed by doing everyday chores. XVI: Dr. Andrei becomes a very angry person and that makes the young doctor (Dr. Khobotov) and Mikhail believe that he truly is becoming crazy. Dr. Andrei defended himself saying that he is not ill. XVII: Dr. Andrei becomes the 6th member of the ward. He doesn’t understand how people could be put in there to stay for the rest of their lives. Finally, Part XVIII, I will not reveal what happens here but the ending is pretty unfortunate from my point of view
I would definitely recommend this short story to other readers. It is not Anton Chekhovs longest story by any means but it keeps your attention throughout. I think that it gives you a great inside view on how all people that are deemed crazy may not actually be crazy. Some people may have their own views and philosophies on life but that does not mean that they should be locked away for that. Dr. Andrei got put away because of the views and knowledge that he had gained from conversing with a “crazy man”. I think that the meaning of their relationship was portrayed very well throughout the story.
Surely there should be a different rating for these classical genuii
Yet, he is not a sullen realist. Some critics have disparaged his bleak view of life, but this is not so. Yes, Russian 19th century peasantry was hard, but such is only the milieu in which the tales play out. Many tales are small triumphs of the volitional spirit against the larger burdens of life. And, as the tales in the collection progressed mathematically their psychological complexity seemed to increase geometrically. Having recently read collections of short fiction by modern American writers like TC Boyle, David Foster Wallace, and Rick Moody, I can say unequivocally that Chekhov is not only much better a writer- to the point that I would argue he is practicing a wholly different art form from these poseurs, but his art is far more modern and gripping, as well as, at times, far more funny. Compared to a TC Boyle, Chekhov's humor flows naturally out of the tales and the reader laughs along with the experience, however humiliated the character feels. In a tale by a `humorist' like Boyle a character is set up for ridicule by being shown as a fool with no redeeming qualities, yet it never verges into pure satire for Boyle has never learned that satire and parody work best once you've created a full-bodied character. Then, the humor resonates within and without. Chekhov's characters cause gutbusters that rumble the diaphragm. Boyle's characters result in an, `Oh, wait, he was trying to be comic here. Oh, yeah....I get it. Really, I do.' Boyle and his ilk self-consciously preen their supposed superiority above characters they largely revile, while Chekhov puts a reader `in the moment' with someone they have come to either care or be intrigued with. The best example is probably the uproarious tale The Dependents, in which a sad and sadistic old man basically disowns his dog and horse. He sells both off to be slaughtered after they refuse to leave him after banishment. After their deaths, the old man, either in stupor or grief, offers himself up for slaughter, too. The end image after it's plain he was not slaughtered, is poignant, yet also humorous. TC Boyle, in a dozen lifetimes, could never write a tale like this. The difference in quality and personal maturity is very telling....He is still vibrant and relevant. By contrast, I recently read a David Foster Wallace book of short stories that, a mere decade and a half after their appearance, are as dated as a John Dryden courtly poem. This is because Chekhov possesses an immediacy in his description that rips a reader back into his world, and lets you not focus away to bring in many assumptions or presumptions of the world outside the story, nor what comes after it, in the narrative line, nor the real world. The Russian Masters- Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev- are often criticized, rightly, for their lack of subtlety, and hammering home points too often, too long, and too stridently. In a sense their art is akin to the Big Box retail stores of today: Wal-Mart, Home Depot, K-Mart. If so, then Chekhov is a fleet newcomer- someone with innovations the others lack, while having all their introspection, yet none of their literary bloat. He is concise, with no pointless nor wasteful digressions. And this is what makes him- even just taking his prose fiction alone- the greatest of the 19th Century Russian Literary Masters. The essential dilemma he presents is a cosmos of its own demarcation, seemingly banal, but highly intimate, for Chekhov rarely imposes more than the basics, and allows imbuement to flower again and again in the minds of every individual reader. This philosophy is best summed up in a quote that reflects Chekhov's approach to art, life, and meaning: `Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.' In such moonshine are masterworks reflected.
Top reviews from other countries




There is a sweet despair in Chekhov's stories. You root for the protagonist, the hero of the story. Only to find out that they are no heroes, but like us, they struggle with the conditions they are in and with the complexity of the inner emotions. This coming together of the two - the conditions and the inner self - leads to stirring but powerful stories. Chekhov analysis the core of human society with the help of brilliantly crafted characters.
In "Ward No. 6", the eponymous short story, he even uses his own medical background for Yefemich(1), making the doctor more real than fiction. We see the descent of a man, whose ideas gain depth but lose clarity. We are privy to the conversations between him and Gromov(2). While horrible conditions of the asylum are laid bare, the doctor, who at the beginning abhors the asylum, still visits it frequently, which leads to self-doubt as the spiral downwards continues. Now I don't want to reveal too much. However, you should be prepared for a tragic end.
It is a beautiful story. Do have a read.
(1) The asylum doctor. The asylum is this story's backdrop.
(2) The sanest patient in the asylum, the doctor like talking to him. A lot.

キリギリス
Ward No.6 (病棟6号)
アリアドーネ
黒衣の僧侶
殺人
女性の王国
The Two Volodyas
三年
学生
前作に収められた作品に比べると読みやすさという意味ではだいぶ劣る印象を受ける。この短編を大きく区分してみると、女性を主人公としたもの(キリギリス、アリアドーネ、女性の王国、The Two Volodyas, 三年)とそれ以外とに分けられるのですが、概して女性を中心としたものが読みにくい。これらに登場する女性たちは概して19世紀末を賑わしたfemale fataleの特徴を色濃く帯びており、それぞれにこれらの女性の抱えていた状況は異なるのですが、どれもストーリは平板なパターンに終始しているようです。男性の存在感の薄さはどれにも共通しているのだが、肝心の女性が魅力的に描けていないようだ。というよりこれらの女性が当時抱えていた煩悶にもはや共感する素地が僕たちにはないのかもしれない。
やはり一番は「病棟6号室」だろうか。ここでは立場の逆転ともいうべき構図が最後に設定されている。この作品をして、ソヴィエト時代の反体制活動家の精神病院への隔離のプロトタイプと捉える見方も前はよく耳にしたが、そこまで歴史の後読みをする必要はないのかもしれない。ソヴィエト体制末期に見られた強制的な形の暴力と欺瞞はこの時代のロシアでは見受けられない。そういう意味ではソヴィエト体制に比べると、まだ「まともな時代」だったのだ。主人公の大学入学が1863年と明示されているので、これは60年代のニヒリストの鳴れの果てのカリカチュアと捉えることも可能だ。過激な社会改造の夢を追いかけた世代も1890年代には変貌するロシアの現実と変わることのない身分格差に疲れ果て、もはや無意味な哲学的な詭弁を弄する人間となり、ちょっとしたボタンの掛け違いで、その立ち位置が倒立して、生のリアルな苦痛を味わうこととなるのだ。
「殺人」や「学生」は宗教的なモチーフが背後に潜んでおり、理解が困難だ。特に前者はロシア特有の分離派などの影が濃厚に漂っており、どうも登場人物の背景の違いがなかなか理解しにくい。後者に至っては、聖書からいくつもの引用が鍵となっており、お手上げ。
これらにの作品にユーモアを感じることは不可能だ。どの作品も終わりは限りなく暗い。そういう意味では作者は次の時代の悲惨さをそこはかとなく感じていたのかもしれない。そして解決策とは決してなりえないが、続いていく生活の明日へのかすかな希望の光の影を与えてくれるのが宗教なのか。