A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life
George Saunders
4.55
14,280 ratings2,690 reviews
Goodreads Choice AwardNominee for Best Nonfiction (2021)
For the last twenty years, George Saunders has been teaching a class on the Russian short story to his MFA students at Syracuse University. In A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, he shares a version of that class with us, offering some of what he and his students have discovered together over the years. Paired with iconic short stories by Chekhov, Turgenev, Tolstoy, and Gogol, the seven essays in this book are intended for anyone interested in how fiction works and why it's more relevant than ever in these turbulent times.
In his introduction, Saunders writes, "We're going to enter seven fastidiously constructed scale models of the world, made for a specific purpose that our time maybe doesn't fully endorse but that these writers accepted implicitly as the aim of art—namely, to ask the big questions, questions like, How are we supposed to be living down here? What were we put here to accomplish? What should we value? What is truth, anyway, and how might we recognize it?" He approaches the stories technically yet accessibly, and through them explains how narrative functions; why we stay immersed in a story and why we resist it; and the bedrock virtues a writer must foster. The process of writing, Saunders reminds us, is a technical craft, but also a way of training oneself to see the world with new openness and curiosity.
A Swim in a Pond in the Rain is a deep exploration not just of how great writing works but of how the mind itself works while reading, and of how the reading and writing of stories make genuine connection possible.
GenresNonfictionWritingShort StoriesEssaysRussiaBooks About BooksLiterature
...more
403 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 12, 2021
Book details & editions
George Saunders121 books8,486 followers
Follow
George Saunders was born December 2, 1958 and raised on the south side of Chicago. In 1981 he received a B.S. in Geophysical Engineering from Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. He worked at Radian International, an environmental engineering firm in Rochester, NY as a technical writer and geophysical engineer from 1989 to 1996. He has also worked in Sumatra on an oil exploration geophysics crew, as a doorman in Beverly Hills, a roofer in Chicago, a convenience store clerk, a guitarist in a Texas country-and-western band, and a knuckle-puller in a West Texas slaughterhouse.
After reading in People magazine about the Master's program at Syracuse University, he applied. Mr. Saunders received an MA with an emphasis in creative writing in 1988. His thesis advisor was Doug Unger.
He has been an Assistant Professor, Syracuse University Creative Writing Program since 1997. He has also been a Visiting Writer at Vermont Studio Center, University of Georgia MayMester Program, University of Denver, University of Texas at Austin, St. Petersburg Literary Seminar (St. Petersburg, Russia, Summer 2000), Brown University, Dickinson College, Hobart & William Smith Colleges.
He conducted a Guest Workshop at the Eastman School of Music, Fall 1995, and was an Adjunct Professor at Saint John Fisher College, Rochester, New York, 1990-1995; and Adjunct Professor at Siena College, Loudonville, New York in Fall 1989.
He is married and has two children.
His favorite charity is a project to educate Tibetan refugee children in Nepal. Information on this can be found at http://www.tibetan-buddhist.org/index...
Community Reviews
4.55
Marchpane
293 reviews · 2,086 followers
Follow
January 28, 2021
A book that achieves exactly what it sets out to, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain is essentially a writing class in book form. Your instructor is George Saunders, and while his personality shines through, please note that this book could not be further from the experience of reading Saunders’ fiction.
For a start, a good chunk of this book is not by Saunders at all, but a bunch of dead Russians. Seven short stories by Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev and Gogol to be precise and no, you can’t skip the homework. I’ll be honest and admit that I didn’t always enjoy the homework, but Saunders’ breakdown and analysis of the stories more than made up for that. And while this is specifically a class about the short story form, and specifically about these Russian authors, the insights provided here apply to any kind of fiction.
Forgoing lofty academic concepts, Saunders focuses on just the important stuff: What makes a story work? What makes it good? What makes a reader want to keep reading? What makes the reading experience satisfying (and what doesn’t)? It’s both a practical approach for aspiring writers, and a fascinating exercise for readers who like to think about what they read (hello Goodreads friends!). Take George’s class and come out of it cleverer than you were before.
2021-releases ibr-challenge-2021 read-in-2021
303 likes
21 comments
Like
Comment
Katia N
569 reviews · 621 followers
Follow
December 4, 2021
Reading this book I was acutely aware that I was not the main audience for it. It is written as a result of the course Saunders is teaching for many years to the aspiring young writers as a part of MFA program. I am just a reader. And, if I would want to write a story (unlikely), I would definitely stay away from any formal advice on the matter. Saunders, and presumably the majority of his students do not speak Russian. So they read these stories in translation. I am a native Russian speaker so I can read the original. But I like Saunders’s previous work. And when the one of my wonderful friends here (Hi, Vesna!:-) has nudged me towards reading this book with her, I did not hesitate.
The book has amused me. At the end, it was a very unusual, but fruitful reading experience, though I disagreed with quite a few interpretations of the individual stories. And I ended up writing the longest review ever (sorry for that)! It made me think again about many issues such as the process of translation, the value of professional creative writing programs (MFA) and what is that thing that makes a story special.
The book consists of 3 main parts. Saunders would start with the story. It would be followed by the essay of its closed reading. In the essay, Saunders would underscore the angles of the story which would show some technique or observation useful for an inspiring writer. Then, Saunders would comment in a separate short chapters -“afterthoughts” about his own process of writing. The comments would be inspired by the story in one way or another.
I’ve enjoyed the most when Saunders was talking about himself. Here, the book was becoming alive. His sincere desire to show how he does his craft was evident. Also his thoughts about human nature, ageing, the meaning of life were interesting and fresh.
I struggled more with his analysis, and respectively with his attempt to teach how to write creative fiction based upon those stories. But I admired his passion and love for Russian literature throughout.
The review did not fit into the box. So I've split it in two parts. The first part is the comments on some individual stories. And the second part is my reflections on professionalisation of writing through MFA degrees. This part is in the first comment's box.
Individual stories
Saunders has picked 7 individual stories for his book. He looks at 3 stories by Chekhov, 2 by Tolstoy; Gogol and Turgenev have a story each. I’ve read only 3 of the stories before. It was amusing to see the reactions of a writer from a very different linguistic tradition. Especially, he could only read these stories in translation. Sometimes, it has affected his interpretations. In the case of “The Darling”, the English version got him quite derailed from the original in my opinion. However, it was a fascinating and enjoyable experience to accompany him on his reading journey compare my notes with his.
Singers by Turgenev
This story is a part of ‘Sketches of a hunter”. It is sketchy indeed and very descriptive. Turgenev spends the bigger part of it painting with words his numerous characters for them only to meet once in a village pub to enjoy a signing competition. I thought the story was dull unless you are interested in the anthropology and the ways of the entertainment between the Russian lower classes circa mid 19th century. But Saunders used it rather successfully to show that a writer cannot totally define his style. And even if Turgenev would want to write like someone else, he would very likely come back to write like Turgenev: ie put a lot of descriptions even if he does not need them for his plot. And if he, Saunders, once wanted to write like Hemingway, it did not work until one day he tried to write like Saunders. And it was liberating. That was the lesson. But in terms of Turgenev, there are much better stories to read and enjoy. In his short stories, he is brilliant in creating complex portraits of romantic love. Asya and Faust are good, for example, if someone wants to taste how deep Turgenev could go beyond the sketches.
Tolstoy
I do not have much to say about the Tolstoy’s stories. I thought Saunders analysis was quite profound. This is his thought about the first one:
“Master and Man,” we begin living it; the words disappear and we find ourselves thinking not about word choice but about the decisions the characters are making and decisions we have made, or might have to make someday, in our actual lives.”
But the stories he has chosen did not moved me deeply enough to make a wider comment. It is a well known fact that Tolstoy idealised peasants. In the last story, “Alesha the Pot”, he talks about a young lad who subdued his personality to the desires of his superiors. Saunders grapples with this character and tries to find the complexity and double meanings. Also it is the story when Saunders brings some Russian speakers to help him with translation. Well, in terms of the complexity, the only complex thing in that character is his natural simplicity. He is as simple as any part of nature. And he is closer to the natural world than to any modern Western person.
The Darling by Chekhov
This is a relatively famous story. Even Tolstoy has devoted an essay to it in his days. The main heroine is a woman called Olga (or more softer - Olenka). The story is about her ability of fully merging herself with her love interest. She can only imagine her existence while she is a part of the whole with someone else. And, when she loses this person she feels totally empty, unable to find any sense in her life. She sees herself as a mirror for her love, the organic extension of the person she loves. It is as if her soul imbeds the soul of her partner. In Russian original she is called “Dushechka” which could be literally translated as a “little soul.” And there is not a notch of any egoistic motive in her.
I think we all intuitively sense what she feels. Anyone who has ever loved knows how the part of one’s identity inevitably surrenders. It might be a natural process, it might be a series of compromises or a scandal. But the bottom line when we are not alone, we share our essence with someone else. We become a bit alike. Often in a relationship, one person sacrifices more than another. But it is not necessary even an acknowledged sacrifice. It just happens. Olenka is an extreme of this process. She talks only about the topics valued by her love interest. She does it in a way how he would talk about it. She thinks like him and she cannot do otherwise. It is a little tragedy for her. But Chekhov being Chekhov introduces some comic undertones. After the premature end of two marriages and one romantic liaison, Olenka goes through a crisis and cannot see her future. But then the fate brings a school boy under her wing, the son of her ex-lover. And Olenka uses all the power of her devotion on this boy. The end is a bit open to interpretation. Did she found the power of motherly love? Is it temporary? She was always slightly over the top. Can the boy give her respite from feeling empty for a long time?
This is the story.
Now, I think this is an example when the nuance in translation (or the lack of it) has played its role in Saunders’s interpretation of the story. First, the title “Darling” is not ideal. Even ‘The Soulmate” would be better by playing on the Russian relationship between ‘Dushechka” (the original title) and dusha (the soul). But that is just the beginning.
The cornerstone is the relationship between Olenka and the boy. Boy is 11 year old. She wakes him for school, makes sure he does his work, worries about him like a real mum. The boy being boy is a bit sloppy and stroppy. He does not like her seeing him off to school and shows it. That might create an impression that he feels overwhelmed by her love and attention. But in Russian it is very slight undertone. He behaves like any real son would behave in this age. She behaves like many good mothers would; she puts him to bed, she checks on him sleeping. The last sentence of the story she overhears him saying in his sleep in English version:
‘I’ll give it to you! Scram! No fighting!’
On the basis of this ending and one more phrase before that, Saunders seems to be reevaluating the whole story. He judges the phrase in a Freudian way that it was addressed by the boy to Olenka. He is not alone in this either. He quotes Eudora Welty who says: “The last words of the story are the child’s and a protest”. Respectively, Saunders raises the point of indignation calling Olenka “oppressive” and “vampirically feeding upon whomever she designated as her beloved”. He goes on and concludes:
“By the end of the story, we feel that her tendency to become that which she loves is innate, a fixed trait of her character that has manifested, naturally, on a series of love objects.”
Earlier, but I think after forming his judgement about the ending he goes on mocking her for trying to identify the cat as her love interest. But the cat in the story is actually a female, which is not obvious in English. And such an identification seems to be far fetched and simply fantastical. Olenka does not fall in love with cats.
When I’ve read all of this, I thought something very wrong. Based upon my Russian reading, Olenka came across as the kind, slightly unfortunate and absolutely selfless person. I went back and check the ending. In Russian the boy says:
Я тебе! Пошел вон! Не дерись!
As well - 3 sentences. Literally it translates:
Я тебе! - I - to you! (In a sense I would get you or I would hit you).
Пошел вон! - Get lost addressed to a male. The verb ending in Russian is very clear. It is get lost, man. Not get lost, woman. It cannot be unless the boy is not Russian and speak in some weird dialect!
Не дерись! - It is an imperative verb form. One can translate it: “Do not fight!” But it would be better: “Do not squabble” or “Do not bicker” in a sense like the boys do in a school yard.
It is crystal clear to me that the boy is having a school yard fight in his dream. It is nothing whatsoever to do with poor Olenka.
It is really a pity that one sentence so much derailed the story for the English audience. It is so even if it has made the story more interesting for the interpretation on vampiristic and egoistic transformation of love. But those things are not there I am afraid.
Nose
In my opinion, Gogol stands out with his unique ability to create distinctive voices in his prose and in his anticipation of the 20s century absurdism. “Nose” is the story for example about the disappearance of a nose from the face of a low level St Petersburg’s official. One can find traces of Gogol in Kafka or Okutagawa. Saunders analysis is quite entertaining. He talks a lot about how Gogol creates a distinctive narrative voice for the story. But I was surprised he calls the genre of Gogol stories a “skaz”. Skaz in a traditional Russian meaning is a story based upon a rural legend or a fairy tale which is often being retold orally. It is soft of an epic tale. Leskov, the another Russian writer of the 19th century is famous for using the element of skaz in his short stories. One could say Gogol used some element of this in his “Mirgorod” stories. But here, in St Petersburg stories, it is hardly a skaz in the definition known to me. Gogol indeed uses unreliable narrator and he is excellent in it. Maybe the term “skaz” was redefined somehow in the Western Canon. I do not know. But I certainly would classify Gogol as early absurdist rather than a “skaz” writer.
Gooseberries
This is the one of my favourite Chekov’s stories. So I am quite passionate about it. In its core is a monologue of Ivan, the one of the characters on the possibility of happiness. Among other things Ivan is saying:
‘It is obvious the happy person feels this way only because the unhappy ones carry their burden in silence, and without this silence the happiness would be impossible.”. He continues that it should be someone with a little hammer standing behind and knocking to remind the happy people about this fact. He also appeals to his friends to do good and acknowledges that he is not able of doing it properly which keeps him awake at night. At the same time, Ivan gives the title to the Saunders’s book. He swims in a river under rain and he truly enjoys the moment. He is totally radiant and amazingly full of life.
It seems to me that Saunders thinks that Ivan is a bit of a hypocrite on the basis that he enjoys his swim and is content while preaching the impossibility of happiness. Saunders also picks up the detail of a stinking pipe left by Ivan that disturbs the sleep of his friend. On this basis, he think Ivan is somewhat “narcissistic”.
I am simplifying a bit his argument, but this interpretation made me smile. No Russian I know would assign the stink from the pipe to any egoistic impulses of Ivan. In fact, no Russian would find this detail so significant in terms of Ivan/s character. ‘Swimming in the pond”, is more complicated though. It is not about happiness for Ivan and it is definitely not about being content in spite of believing that it is no-one should be happy. No. It is about feeling alive. As simple as that. It is about knowing that life is full of tragedy, but feeling that a person cannot do much but live in full swing.
“There is no strengths to continue living, but in any case one needs to live and one really wants to live!” - says Ivan later.
He is a contradictory character. But he is not a hypocrite. He does not allow himself being happy in spite of what he says. He just lives. That is why he is in the pond under rain.
199 likes
83 comments
Like
Comment
Cheri
1,690 reviews · 2,242 followers
Follow
January 13, 2021
If you’ve never had the pleasure of taking a course in creative writing from George Saunders, this is your chance to take advantage of what he has to share without spending a semester in Syracuse, New York. This time of year, especially, it makes sense to opt out of the chillier weather and sit in on some of the lessons, virtually, as Saunders’ shares with his Syracuse students, in a master class on the Russian short story.
He includes two stories by Tolstoy: Master and Man and Alyosha the Pot, three stories by Anton Chekhov: In the Cart, The Darling and Gooseberries, one by Ivan Turgenev: The Singers and one by Nikolai Gogol: The Nose.
Each story includes Saunders thoughts, musings on these stories, which are, for the most part, quiet, domestic, and apolitical...resistance literature, written by progressive reformers in a repressive culture... The resistance in the stories is quiet...and comes from perhaps the most radical idea of all: that every human being is worthy of attention and that the origins of every good and evil capability of the universe may be found by observing a single, even very humble, person and the turnings of his or her mind. Following each story, are his Afterthoughts.
His enthusiasm sharing this is palpable, and more than a bit contagious. Those unfamiliar with these authors and or Russian literature needn’t feel overwhelmed, Saunders breaks it all down, sharing his thoughts and showing what makes a story worth reading with undisguised joy. I enjoyed reading the stories themselves, but even more than that, I enjoyed reading Saunders break it all down and share his thoughts on what makes each story work, and how variations from the story would alter it. His love of teaching really made this an absolute joy to read.
Published: 12 Jan 2021
Many thanks for the ARC provided by Random House Publishing Group - Random House
2021 arc netgalley
...more
127 likes
48 comments
Like
Comment
carol.
1,510 reviews · 7,584 followers
Follow
February 4, 2023
Suffice it to say that I have 177 highlights on this book.
“This is a resistance literature, written by progressive reformers in a repressive culture, under constant threat of censorship… The resistance in the stories is quiet, at a slant, and comes from perhaps the most radical idea of all: that every human being is worthy of attention and that the origins of every good and evil capability of the universe may be found by observing a single, even very humble, person and the turnings of his or her mind.”
I have almost no interest in literary fiction. But this attracted me in a friend’s feed because of it being short stories; the stories are from the greats in Russian fiction; Russia being what it is, I thought her literature might give me more insight into her people; and while I seem to do a lot of reviewing, sometimes I feel like I lack the tools to be as specific as I would like. Saunders has even more insight on why we (I) study the way we (I) read:
“To study the way we read is to study the way the mind works: the way it evaluates a statement for truth, the way it behaves in relation to another mind (i.e., the writer’s) across space and time.”
There are seven short stories here: In the Cart by Anton Chekov, The Darling by Chekov, Master and Man by Leo Tolstoy, Nose by Nikolai Gogol, Gooseberries by Chekov, Alyosha the Pot by Tolstoy and Singers by Ivan Turgenev.
‘In the Cart’ is the only that he walks through like a professor, page by page. Saunders acknowledges the reader must be fretting with impatience, and notes that the better the story, the more annoying the exercise is. I’ll be honest; this part was the most tedious and was one of my stopping points before the library recalled the ebook. But the value of what he does here is makes the reader think what words have been chosen that carry the reader forward? What has been written that makes us want to continue reading?
“We might imagine structure as a form of call-and-response. A question arises organically from the story and then the story, very considerately, answers it. If we want to make good structure, we just have to be aware of what question we are causing reader to ask, then answer that question.”
In contrast to the stories, he speaks very colloquially and, at times, playfully. He knows his audience is not just students of literary fiction, but also writers and ordinary readers. Throughout the analyses, he will drop various bon mots; one of the lessons in the first is:
“Earlier, we asked if there might exist certain “laws” in fiction. Are there things that our reading mind just responds to? Physical descriptions seem to be one such thing. Who knows why? We like hearing our world described. And we like hearing it described specifically.”
'The Darling' proceeds faster, but along similar analysis, showing a more dialed-out view of the rhythm of a story. Saunders notes callbacks and parallels, and the way reader expectations are set up from this structure and then changed to create greater interest.
“This complicates things; our first-order inclination to want to understand a character as “good” or “bad” gets challenged. The result is an uptick in our attentiveness; subtly rebuffed by the story, we get, we might say, a new respect for its truthfulness.”
Saunders continues through the stories, vacillating from a literary-analysis viewpoint of ‘what could this mean.’ But he understands that some of his audience are writers and so he speaks often to this aspect as well:
“I feel qualified to say that there are two things that separate writers who go on to publish from those who don’t. First, a willingness to revise. Second, the extent to which the writer has learned to make causality.”
‘The Nose’ is the story that feels most uncharacteristic in the collection, perhaps because as satire, it takes everything less seriously. In a book of Very Serious Narrators, it allows Saunders to introduce the dual ideas of consensual reality and narrative bias–important concepts, to be sure, but interestingly at odds with what I’d call the social realism of the other six stories. However, it also allows Saunders to digress a bit on following one’s own inner style/voice for trueness.
“Every story is narrated by someone, and since everyone has a viewpoint, every story is misnarrated (is narrated subjectively). Since all narration is misnarration, Gogol says, let us misnarrate joyfully.”
The stories themselves were… curious. Since I haven’t read literary fiction since high school, I can’t speak to their representation for their class or culture, but Saunders does share some of his thoughts on each as well. He’ll note what Chekov may have thought about his own works, particularly comparing them to Tolstoy, or how Tolstoy’s changing religious beliefs, as documented in personal journals, came to impact how Saunders interpreted 'Alyosha the Pot.' That story actually is the one that undergoes the most detailed literary analysis, as he shares different translations of phrases from the original Russian.
What I ended up doing after laboriously working through the first three stories, is reading Saunder’s analysis and then going back and reading the stories. Somehow it worked much better for me. Unfortunately, it gave me a bit of bias to interpretation, but I think it allowed me to actually finish the book in a more timely manner when there was so much I wanted to ponder (ebooks being subject to a two-week loan).
Did I read it for a class? No. But it was an excellent exercise in both thinking and reading.
For an excellent review discussing more about the individual stories and Saunder's approach, read Katia's thoughts: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The story is not there to tell us what to think about happiness. It is there to help us think about it. It is, we might say, a structure to help us think.
lit-fiction non-fiction short-story-collections
92 likes
16 comments
Like
Comment
Adam Dalva
7 books · 1,487 followers
Follow
February 14, 2021
I was lucky enough, a couple of years ago, to attend a Saunders masterclass on"Gooseberries" - he was an unforgettably good lecturer, and conjured a warmth in the room that I recall happily, often. I've seen him talk a couple of times since, and both times radically amazed me, though slightly less so than the "Gooseberries" lecture. There is something about those sparking experiences, perhaps, that led to me feeling a slight disconnect from this charming, smart writerly analysis of stories by Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gogol, and Turgenev, which are provided, and which make for wonderful reading. The Saunders analytic style, so quippy and likable, somehow works perfectly out loud, and slightly less so on the page - but here comes a second confession: I think people who have taken an MFA, or a college writing class, may find less here, just because many of the reveals will be familiar to them. As a peek behind the veil, it could very well be fascinating; for a dweller behind the veil, the revelations are in the stories themselves.
91 likes
2 comments
Like
Comment
Anne Bogel
7 books · 50.8k followers
Follow
March 23, 2021
Though I've enjoyed Saunders' work in the past, I wasn't eager to pick up anyone's hefty analysis of Russian short stories. I'm so pleased that I listened to my writerly friends who said "this is fascinating, you have to read it!"
In this workbook-like book (Saunders's phrase), Saunders explores the craft of writing through the lens of four Russian short stories. It's surprisingly engaging, especially on audio, with narrators like Nick Offerman, Rainn Wilson, Glenn Close, and Renee Elise Goldberry to read you the old stories. Listening felt like sitting in a fantastic lecture hall with my favorite literature professor, and now I want a physical copy for making notes.
You don't need an English degree or any interest in Russian lit in order to pick this one up—a healthy dose of nerdy curiosity will do.
81 likes
1 comment
Like
Comment
Diane S ☔
4,690 reviews · 14k followers
Follow
April 8, 2021
I've taken several literature courses through the year, but never one just centering on the short story. Now I have and though of course there is no feedback I do actually feel like I've taken a class on deconstructing a short story.
The first story the author chooses is, In the cart, by Chekhov. This is the only story out if seven he takes us through page by page. His thoughts on reading, and he does teach this class in person, and what and why the author uses the words he does. What do they mean, why is this or that scene included? What makes a short story? So we also learn about what it takes to write a successful short.
The other stories are by Gogol, Tolstoy, Turgenev and another by Chekhov, all able story tellers. I'm looking forward to my next book on short stories. Will be a good test to see if I learned anything. I think I have but we'll see.
nf-2021
76 likes
18 comments
Like
Comment
Melissa
10 books · 4,206 followers
Follow
January 28, 2022
This might be my all-time favorite book on craft. It's just so generous and gentle, so easy to get your arms around George Saunders' ideas of what makes good writing. This book will ACTUALLY convince you it's okay to write a sh*tty first draft, and why, and will take away any lingering sense of shame you might have around "bad" writing (which is just writing that hasn't yet been revised to express the fullness and specificity of your writer self! Thank you, George!).
My personal writing approach, which I've suspected might be a little low-rent, is to say, "You know what would be cool?" and go from there, continually trying to figure out what I, personally, think would be "cool." Seeing Saunders confirm (in smarter, more illuminating words) that he basically approaches his work the same way really made me happy. Maybe one day I, too, will stumble into writing Lincoln in the Bardo. (Just kidding.)
Reading short stories with George Saunders over my shoulder helping me to appreciate and unpack them is now the only way I want to read short stories? Dammit.
62 likes
2 comments
Like
Comment
Lisa
1,387 reviews · 524 followers
Follow
December 30, 2021
[4.5] More Professor Saunders, more! Saunders heightened my appreciation and understanding of each of the 7 stories (by Chekhov, Turgenev, Tolstoy and Gogol) contained within this volume. A Swim in a Pond in the Rain is geared towards writers but is perfect for readers who wish to look deeper. Saunders' commentary is NOT "literary criticism" but is everything literary criticism should be - readable, witty, useful and very enjoyable. How wonderful it would be to have a selection of other classic stories with Saunders' conversational analysis. I am craving more...
(I listened to the audiobook, very well narrated, but also referred to the print copy)
2021-favorites audiobook essays
...more
62 likes
17 comments
=====
Top reviews from Australia
Hazel P
5.0 out of 5 stars Rekindle my love to Russian literature and works like a self-help bookReviewed in Australia 🇦🇺 on 2 July 2021
Verified Purchase
I like the second last story "Gooseberries" by Chekhov so much and overall it's a nice book contains valuable information regarding how a masterpiece story may be written by an author, the psychology of the writer, the controllable and uncontrollable elements in the process of story-writing etc etc. Also author of this book writes with such humour that I time to time feel he's my best pal back to high school, constantly saying, "righttt" in our conversation during lunchtime when talks about influencers, motivation and other common topics amongst youngsters. As a graduate who recently finished 5 years of school and sometimes feel lost, this book is also like a self-help book to me and I felt less anxious after finish reading.
Read this book also helps me rekindle my habit, partially love in reading Russian literature, reminiscing the carefree time I spent in bachelor and I'm happy that now I've got more tools learnt from the book that can be used for assisting me to understand the materials I read better.
HelpfulReport abuse
Chris Huxley
5.0 out of 5 stars A thoughtful and valuable reflection on short stories and their writing.Reviewed in Australia 🇦🇺 on 27 April 2021
Verified Purchase
It was a valuable thing to be reminded of the skill in many Russian short stories. George Saunders reflects on them and their composition as well as teaching and writing. I found some of his thoughts on teaching writing relevant to teaching more generally and I was left thinking about the stories and his reflectins for more than a few days after finishing the book.
HelpfulReport abuse
C.Eckhart
5.0 out of 5 stars A masterclass in writerly reading !Reviewed in Australia 🇦🇺 on 18 May 2021
Verified Purchase
Reignited my interest in Russian Literary masters and very useful tips for teaching creative writing to senior secondary students.
HelpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
N. Tucker
5.0 out of 5 stars Don't judge a book by its torn coverReviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on 14 January 2021
Verified Purchase
I will never understand people who leave reviews of books/products based on its condition when it arrives. This is a review about the contents, which are brilliantly illuminating, warm, generous and humane. This is a must for any would-be writer, but also a superb way to become more present as a reader. And those Russians could write!
65 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Tom Ryan
3.0 out of 5 stars An appetiser for the short stories of the great Russian writers of the 19th centuryReviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on 31 January 2021
Verified Purchase
There are probably two distinct audiences for this book. The first is aspiring writers, seeking to improve their writing by learning from Saunders the writer and academic. The second is people who are attracted by the promise of an introduction to the short stories of some of the greatest Russian writers of the 19th century – and an understanding of why they work.
The short story has been a core part of 20th century Irish literature, so I came to enjoy the format in my teens. I was also fortunate enough to spend a significant amount of time across Russia in the late nineties and early noughties, so I feel some affinity with the country. However, I have never associated Russian literature with the short story, but more with the grand novel, designed to while away long winter days in that country. So, I fall very clearly into my second category above.
With that perspective, the book has two components. The first is seven short stories from writers such as Tolstoy and Chekov. The second is Saunders observations on these stories and the lessons for aspiring writers and for us as individuals. I very much enjoyed the stories – in many cases they transported and moved me. Reading them has encouraged me to seek out more short stories from Russian and other writers.
I have more mixed feelings about the other part of the book – Saunders observations and lessons. His analysis of the technique evident in the different stories enriches my reading of them and others. In some, what at first appear to be digressions turn out to be fundamental to the essence of the story and to the final ‘punch line’. In others, he shows that the use of patterns and variations (with parallels in music) helps make the story work. He admits that there is little record of the process by which the authors wrote these stories, but pushes ahead with his opinion of how they must have done it – based on how he works and how he hopes they did not work. In particular, he wants to believe – and have us believe – that the story simply emerged as the authors started to write and revise. This may be plausible in the age of the word-processor, but less so at a time when people wrote by hand: starting without a plan would seem like a great way to waste time. As the analysis and observation proceeded through the book, I found Saunders increasingly tiresome. The word ‘smug’ comes to mind. He casually and for no obvious reason dismisses poetry in a couple of paragraphs. He is equally contemptuous of the person familiar with the original version who suggests he is missing out on a valuable part of these stories (the rhythm and music of the Russian words chosen by the authors). However, he is in no doubt about his moral and intellectual superiority to at least some of these writers and most of mankind. There is almost a suggestion that only superior persons such as himself should write. Perhaps an excursion from his academic ivory tower into the real world might refresh his perceptions and temper his arrogance. I find myself with no interest in reading his own work.
In summary, this book is worth reading as an introduction to the short stories of some great Russian authors and this would have merited five stars. For me, Saunders self-indulgent pontificating gets in the way of the insights into why these stories work and needs to be skipped over – which brings down my rating of the complete book.
Read less
53 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Mr. P. F. Harrison
1.0 out of 5 stars A bit of a swizReviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on 8 February 2021
Verified Purchase
Saunders tells us at the beginning of this book that it’s a selection of Russian short stories which he has taught his creative writing students about for over 20 years, with his teaching points added at the end of each story. That in itself is something of a confession. In crude terms, he’s saying, “these are recycled class notes” which is, at the least, pure cheek. Further, it never seems to occur to Saunders that teaching the same stories for 20 years might be seen as a symptom of wholesale academic collapse. Who does such a thing? The answer, “A man who long ago ran out of ideas” leaps to the reader’s mind. Not to Saunder’s mind, however. Oh no, we are treated to a parade of his accomplishments: the grateful students, the years of insight, etc. That classics of literary style such as the short stories he selects should be subjected to the pawing and prodding he considers to be critical analysis is bad enough, but for Saunders to arrogate to himself even an atom of the luminous intelligence so richly displayed in these texts is insupportable.
20 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Dermot
2.0 out of 5 stars The stores are - mostly - excellent; the analysis is so so.Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on 24 February 2021
Verified Purchase
I liked the stories (I've got two to go) and some are classics. Having said that you don't need an 'instruction manual' to read and enjoy them. The Freytag Triangle - a method to analyse the flow of a story from Exposition through Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action and Resolution - was useful and I checked some of my own stories against it.
What was most jarring was the insertion of the writer, George Saunders, into the commentary and criticism, something that he rightly points out as a weakness in short stories where this happens. I bought the book partly on the rave review it received in a magazine and I certainly cannot go anywhere near that. We have Saunders being 'right on' in his politically correct observations and there is one scene where someone in his class dismisses the Gogol story Nevsky Prospect because it is sexist. This leads on to the ludicrous suggestion that we should check stories for whatever phobia we get upset about and rewrite it to make it better! Shades of the Salem witches there. My own suggestion is to read the stories for what they are and to be thankful that we had these great writers to describe the world in which they lived.
20 people found this helpfulReport abuse
lilysmum
5.0 out of 5 stars Sublimely beautiful writingReviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on 27 June 2021
Verified Purchase
What a joy to read this book. It’s sublime. Saunders takes you through a small collection of Russian short stories and explores the craft of writing in minute and spellbinding detail. There are stories by Chekhov, Tolstoy and Gogol included, and each story is printed in full so that you can first of all read it and reach your own conclusions and then compare your reactions to Saunders’ own.
There are fascinating insights into the writers’ lives. For example, did you know that Gogol was obsessed with noses, afraid of leeches abs could touch the top of his nose with his tongue? Or that his nickname at school was “the mysterious dwarf”? I didn’t either. Did you know Tolstoy had 13 children? (His poor wife). There’s so much humour, too. I laughed out loud.
There are also delightful comments about life in general which seem to speak to me: ‘Power is held by shitheads; virtuous people suffer unfairly. Happy, fortunate people, to whom everything has been given, preach positivity to sad, unlucky people, who were given nothing. We push the button labelled ‘I Need Help’ and one of those boxing gloves comes out and hits us in the face as the machine lets out a comic farting noise.’
Although I didn’t always agree with the author’s evaluations and deconstructions of the texts, I found his insights and analysis totally fascinating, and the experience of reading this book has made me: more aware of what I need to do to improve my writing (basically, revision and causation); more aware of the body of Russian literature that I need to read; burn with desire to attend a series of lectures with the author and engage with his teaching in greater depth. Which isn’t likely to happen. But that’s life.
Read less
10 people found this helpfulReport abuse
