What do you think?
Rate this book
Tales of Chekhov #2
Eine langweilige Geschichte / Das Duell: Kleine Romane I
While his restless wife watches, the chemist snores contentedly, smiling at his dream -- that the whole village has a cough and are buying his curative syrup Then she hears outside two shadowed figures, a doctor and an officer, talking between themselves . . . about the chemist with the oversized jaw of an ass, and his ever-so-contrasting, so-fetching wife Then the doorbell rings.Soon the chemist's wife finds herself hosting a small midnight party, gazing upon their ruddy faces and listening to their chatter -- and soon she, too, grows quite lively. Oh, she feels so gay The dead weight pressing her down on this heavy summer night lifts completely . . .Chekhov's unerring insight into the turbulent emotions that stir men and women, in "The Chemist's Wife" and the others to be found within "The Duel and Other Stories," instills his gemlike fiction with a still-undiminished power.
245 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1891
160 people are currently reading
998 people want to read
About the author
Anton Chekhov
5,969 books9,785 followers
Antón Chéjov
(Spanish)
Dramas, such as The Seagull (1896, revised 1898), and including "A Dreary Story" (1889) of Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, also Chekov, concern the inability of humans to communicate.
Born ( Антон Павлович Чехов ) in the small southern seaport of Taganrog, the son of a grocer. His grandfather, a serf, bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught to read. A cloth merchant fathered Yevgenia Morozova, his mother.
"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloomy to me." Tyranny of his father, religious fanaticism, and long nights in the store, open from five in the morning till midnight, shadowed his early years. He attended a school for Greek boys in Taganrog from 1867 to 1868 and then Taganrog grammar school. Bankruptcy of his father compelled the family to move to Moscow. At the age of 16 years in 1876, independent Chekhov for some time alone in his native town supported through private tutoring.
In 1879, Chekhov left grammar school and entered the university medical school at Moscow. In the school, he began to publish hundreds of short comics to support his mother, sisters and brothers. Nicholas Leikin published him at this period and owned Oskolki (splinters), the journal of Saint Petersburg. His subjected silly social situations, marital problems, and farcical encounters among husbands, wives, mistresses, and lust; even after his marriage, Chekhov, the shy author, knew not much of whims of young women.
Nenunzhaya pobeda , first novel of Chekhov, set in 1882 in Hungary, parodied the novels of the popular Mór Jókai. People also mocked ideological optimism of Jókai as a politician.
Chekhov graduated in 1884 and practiced medicine. He worked from 1885 in Peterburskaia gazeta.
In 1886, Chekhov met H.S. Suvorin, who invited him, a regular contributor, to work for Novoe vremya, the daily paper of Saint Petersburg. He gained a wide fame before 1886. He authored The Shooting Party , his second full-length novel, later translated into English. Agatha Christie used its characters and atmosphere in later her mystery novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd . First book of Chekhov in 1886 succeeded, and he gradually committed full time. The refusal of the author to join the ranks of social critics arose the wrath of liberal and radical intelligentsia, who criticized him for dealing with serious social and moral questions but avoiding giving answers. Such leaders as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Leskov, however, defended him. "I'm not a liberal, or a conservative, or a gradualist, or a monk, or an indifferentist. I should like to be a free artist and that's all..." Chekhov said in 1888.
The failure of The Wood Demon , play in 1889, and problems with novel made Chekhov to withdraw from literature for a period. In 1890, he traveled across Siberia to Sakhalin, remote prison island. He conducted a detailed census of ten thousand convicts and settlers, condemned to live on that harsh island. Chekhov expected to use the results of his research for his doctoral dissertation. Hard conditions on the island probably also weakened his own physical condition. From this journey came his famous travel book.
Chekhov practiced medicine until 1892. During these years, Chechov developed his concept of the dispassionate, non-judgmental author. He outlined his program in a letter to his brother Aleksandr: "1. Absence of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature; 2. total objectivity; 3. truthful descriptions of persons and objects; 4. extreme brevity; 5. audacity and originality; flee the stereotype; 6. compassion." Because he objected that the paper conducted against [a:Alfred Dreyfu
Dramas, such as The Seagull (1896, revised 1898), and including "A Dreary Story" (1889) of Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, also Chekov, concern the inability of humans to communicate.
Born ( Антон Павлович Чехов ) in the small southern seaport of Taganrog, the son of a grocer. His grandfather, a serf, bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught to read. A cloth merchant fathered Yevgenia Morozova, his mother.
"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloomy to me." Tyranny of his father, religious fanaticism, and long nights in the store, open from five in the morning till midnight, shadowed his early years. He attended a school for Greek boys in Taganrog from 1867 to 1868 and then Taganrog grammar school. Bankruptcy of his father compelled the family to move to Moscow. At the age of 16 years in 1876, independent Chekhov for some time alone in his native town supported through private tutoring.
In 1879, Chekhov left grammar school and entered the university medical school at Moscow. In the school, he began to publish hundreds of short comics to support his mother, sisters and brothers. Nicholas Leikin published him at this period and owned Oskolki (splinters), the journal of Saint Petersburg. His subjected silly social situations, marital problems, and farcical encounters among husbands, wives, mistresses, and lust; even after his marriage, Chekhov, the shy author, knew not much of whims of young women.
Nenunzhaya pobeda , first novel of Chekhov, set in 1882 in Hungary, parodied the novels of the popular Mór Jókai. People also mocked ideological optimism of Jókai as a politician.
Chekhov graduated in 1884 and practiced medicine. He worked from 1885 in Peterburskaia gazeta.
In 1886, Chekhov met H.S. Suvorin, who invited him, a regular contributor, to work for Novoe vremya, the daily paper of Saint Petersburg. He gained a wide fame before 1886. He authored The Shooting Party , his second full-length novel, later translated into English. Agatha Christie used its characters and atmosphere in later her mystery novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd . First book of Chekhov in 1886 succeeded, and he gradually committed full time. The refusal of the author to join the ranks of social critics arose the wrath of liberal and radical intelligentsia, who criticized him for dealing with serious social and moral questions but avoiding giving answers. Such leaders as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Leskov, however, defended him. "I'm not a liberal, or a conservative, or a gradualist, or a monk, or an indifferentist. I should like to be a free artist and that's all..." Chekhov said in 1888.
The failure of The Wood Demon , play in 1889, and problems with novel made Chekhov to withdraw from literature for a period. In 1890, he traveled across Siberia to Sakhalin, remote prison island. He conducted a detailed census of ten thousand convicts and settlers, condemned to live on that harsh island. Chekhov expected to use the results of his research for his doctoral dissertation. Hard conditions on the island probably also weakened his own physical condition. From this journey came his famous travel book.
Chekhov practiced medicine until 1892. During these years, Chechov developed his concept of the dispassionate, non-judgmental author. He outlined his program in a letter to his brother Aleksandr: "1. Absence of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature; 2. total objectivity; 3. truthful descriptions of persons and objects; 4. extreme brevity; 5. audacity and originality; flee the stereotype; 6. compassion." Because he objected that the paper conducted against [a:Alfred Dreyfu
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
August 12, 2012
I enjoyed all of Chekhov's stories in this book but his short story The Duel is the best. Set in the seaside town of Caucasus (interestingly, as I write this, in 2012, one is highly discouraged by the U.S. government from visiting this area, which is a shame, because it is, from Chekhov's description, quite beautiful), it is centered on a small group of people but primarily on Ivan Layevsky, a self absorbed and selfish 28 year old minor bureaucrat, who ran off with another man's wife and is living with her in what fellow townspeople think of as 'living in sin'. When the story begins, their love affair has started to wane, and Ivan is looking for a way out. There IS a duel in the story but I think for the most part the dueling referred to in the title is metaphorical: dueling, or conflicting, emotions, ideas, and principles. Great story, with vivid characters. I've only read Chekhov's plays before and had no idea his short stories were so well written. Highly recommend!
February 28, 2016
Прво морам да нагласим да као и обично нисам успио да нађем "своје" издање (а то је она нека Џепна књига), па сам морао да изаберем неко које је најприближније. У овом "мом" издању се поред двобоја налази само још једна приповијетка / новела / који-већ-ђаво, под називом Мој живот. Због тога ћу у тексту да се позабавим равноправно објема приповијеткама / новелама, а и коначна оцјена узима у обзир обје, а не само Двобој, јер искрено речено мени се ова друга више свидјела.
Кад сам прочитао феноменално Гогољево ремек-дјело Мртве душе, осјетио сам велику тугу у срцу јер је манијак који је писао поговор то урадио тако проклето феноменално да ја заправо нисам имао шта да пишем, али сам ипак успио нешто да склепам и те неке моје утиске можете да прочитате нешто ниже, није да сам ја сад неки не знам ни ја какав критичар, заправо сам потпуни буздован за лијепу књижевност, али није то поента, тј. не знам шта је поента, заборавио сам. Углавном, прибојавао сам се да би слично могло да се деси и овде, али срећом није. Поговорац је успио да састави три или четири стране потпуног непостојања БИЛО ЧЕГА и да неко успије толико да меље а да не каже апсолутно НИШТА о књизи коју "описује", то је заиста феномен. Ево, иако то није тема ове емисије, цитираћу у интересу објективног извјештавања неколико реченица из поменутог поговора, да видите о чему се ту наиме ради:
"Извлачећи у први план својих атмосфера баш такве ситуације Чехов страсно устаје против њих; он их жигоше и њима супротставља свјетлије, човјечније видике. Он их уочава, прецизно и несентиментално, да би их разобличио. У прецизности своје слике он је беспоштедан; у томе је његова снага. У мирној артистичкој осмишљености атмосфера, у сигурном оцртавању ликова, у финој тананој, продуховљеној, прозирној и готово чипкастој психолошкој мотивизацији и анализацији поступака и душевних стања, у дочаравању животних ритмова. А над свим тим шири се неодољива чеховљевска сјета, једна врста жали, тихе патње, горчине; она је, уз иронију, уз потсмијех, Чеховљева моћ да каже своју мисао, своју критику, р е в о л т и н а д у. Свој став, укратко. Снага његове поетске поруке лежи у дну његова опредјељења за извјесне ситуације и извјесне нарави; у стилу, у методу, у начину како саопштава себе и своје мотиве."
И тако даље и тако даље, још једно десет-петнаест пута оволико... овога. Што се све заправо своди једноставно на то да је Чехов феноменалан писац, ко да то нисмо знали.
Елем, кад је о Чехову ријеч ту има једна (са моје субјективне стране) врло незгодна околност, коју ћу сад да опишем. Наиме, ја сам прије извјесног броја година прочитао нешто што се звало "Степа и друге приповијетке" (то је она црвена књига, мислим да је вјероватно свако ко држи до себе има у свом дому) и ту је стрпан велики број Чеховљевих прича, које су, ако се добро сјећам, поредане хронолошки. Тенденција која се читањем те књиге врло лако уочава јесте да је у раном периоду свог стваралаштва Чехов био један прилично вицкаст лик и те прве приче му одишу хумором. Касније је постајао све озбиљнији и озбиљнији и та књига се завршавала чувеном мегаозбиљном новелом под називом (погађате) Степа. Без обзира на то, ја као велики љубитељ комедија, навикао сам да сваки пут кад набасам на Чехова очекујем некакву врсту хумора и да се разочарам кад је не нађем. А с друге стране, на то набасам тамо гдје никад не бих очекивао (рецимо код Достојевског).
Сад кад смо то скинули с врата, да кажемо нешто укратко о причама (коначно!) па да могу да се торњам да поједем пудинг од чоколаде који ме чека у фрижидеру.
Двобој је прича која ме није превише одушевила, тј. рецимо кад бих је оцјењивао самостално, дао бих јој четворку. То је прича о ликовима који су ми на неки начин били сви одреда тако одбојни да ми читање није представљало никакво задовољство и кривицу за то сам свалио на Чехова а не на ликове. И код Гогоља су ликови сви одреда стока, па опет не можете да не обожавате рецимо Собакевича или Ноздрјова или шта ти ја знам. Овде је било некако другачије. Значи имамо тог неког лика вјетропира Лајевског који живи са женом која је због њега оставила мужа (нису се вјенчали, што доводи до уобичајених мрких погледа конзервативне средине). Тај Лајевски је у суштини обична будалетина и љенчуга која само филозофира и ништа не ради (осим што се карта и пије), за све му је увијек крив неко други, према цури се понаша као бахати грубијан и свашта томе слично. Укратко - потпуно непотребно трошење ресурса планете. Тог Лајевског из дна душе због његових мана мрзи извјесни зоолог фон-Корен (Лајевски је некакав чиновник ваљда), који је упркос необичном презимену Рус, али боравио је једно вријеме у Њемачкој. Фон-Корена нервира све што Лајевски говори и ради, нервира га што се овај прави паметан, нервира га његов "неморалан" живот итд., а с друге стране фон-Корен сам је сто пута гори од њега јер сматра да једноставно треба побити све који не задовољавају неке принципе које је он сам одредио. Прави проклети нациста, иако је тај покрет заживио тек неколико деценија након Чехова. Ако сте код описа Лајевског помислили "Јадна његова цура, како издржава с том будалом" (одбијам да користим имбецилни оксиморонски термин "невјенчана жена"), можете себи одмах да уштедите труд. Врло ми је непријатно да се ружно изражавам о женама, па нећу да пишем неки обимнији коментар њене личности, само да споменем да дотичног Лајевског она вара уздуж и попријеко са разноразним будалама које ни помена нису вриједне. Е сад, шта је ту узроковало шта, тешко је одредити, али у сваком случају све те три личности до сада описане су потпуно невриједне папира утрошеног на њих. Једини добар лик је извјесни доктор који је пријатељ са свима и који сваком жели да помогне и који не воли да осуђује људе и назива их погрдним именима (сушта супротност фон-Корену, или рецимо мени). Има и некакав помало шашави ђакон, али он није толико битан лик.
И тако у једном тренутку дође до тога да Лајевски и фон-Корен одлуче да иду на двобој. Углавном се њихови сусрети своде на то да фон-Корен отворено изражава своју мржњу, док се Лајевски повлачи и избјегава сукобе, што због неспремности да улази у такву врсту конфликта (да не кажем сукоба), што због одређеног страха од фон-Корена, кога сматра себи интелектуално супериорним. Међутим, у том једном тренутку деси се да му је једноставно пукао филм и да је том кретену потпуно оправдано истресао у фацу све што мисли о њему и да су се тако договорили да све то ријеше на двобоју. Како се све то завршило описано је на крају књиге и то ћу сад укратко да опишем, а означићу као спојлер, пошто је спојлер:
и мада иначе нисам баш обожавалац таквих завршетака, у овом случају ми је некако пријало што је све тако испало.
Новела Мој живот је феноменална. Имамо ту главног лика који је племић, а досадни су му сви ти "озбиљни" послови које му строги отац налази, он (херој) жели да се бави физичким радом, а отац сматра да је то потпуно недостојно једног племића, тако да је херој у врло лошим односима са оцем, а такође није баш одушевљен ни средином у којој живи, све му се то управо гади. Наравно, ако смо ишта научили од Кафке и Достојевског, то је да нараторима ништа не вјерујемо, дакле ако се појави неко ко се жали на све, тај гарант има неку ману. Због тога сам помно пратио да ли наратор има какву душевну болест или неке друге мрачне тајне, али нисам успио ништа да нађем. Тај лик ми је био једноставно симпатичан и његова згађеност средином ми је изгледала потпуно оправдана. Нажало0ст, о овој новели тешко је неком овако неуком као што сам ја рећи било шта паметно. Радњу фабуле нема смисла описивати, јер она није поента. Поента је у стилу писања, који је знатно зрелији него у Двобоју (па цијеним и да је ова новела каснијег датума), много да тако кажем "поетскији" и успијева не само страховито убједљиво да дочара оно што описује, већ и да клепи читаоца некаквом тугом по фаци, бар је тако било у мом случају. Није то сад некакав подвиг јер сам ја иначе крхка и емотивна душа, али је факат да ово дјело има нешто дубоко тужно и песимистично у себи, реда величине да га прочиташ и да одмах пожелиш да се суновратиш с балкона. Овде нису у питању толико саме људске судбине (мада има и тога), као рецимо у Викторији Кнута Хамсуна, већ прилике и ситуација и амбијент и како ли се то већ зове. Да ја не бих даље баљезгао, ево да вам цитирам неки пасус па да видите како то изгледа:
"У селу новајлије дочекују нељубазно, готово непријатељски, као и у школи. Тако су дочекали и нас. Прво време гледали су на нас као на глупе и припросте људе, који су купили имање јер нису имали куд новац да дену. Смејали су нам се. У нашој шуми, па чак и у парку сељаци су напасали своју стоку, одводили у своје село наше краве и коње, а затим долазили и тражили оштету (сиц, као и све остало што сам цитирао, а што може да вам се учини необично или као штампарска грешка). Долазиле су нам у двориште читаве групе и с грајом изјављивале, да смо ми при косидби захватили и део Бишевке или Семенихе који нам не припада; а како ми још нисмо тачно знали границе наше земље, веровали смо им на реч и плаћали казну; доцније би се показало да смо косили правилно. У нашој су шуми гулили младе липе. Један сељак из Дубечње, зеленаш, који је трговао ракијом без дозволе, поткупљивао је наше раднике и заједно с њима варао нас на најиздајничкији начин, нове точкове на таљигама замењивао је старима, узимао наше амове па нам их после продавао, итд. Али најгоре се догађало у Куриловки на грађевини, тамо су жене преконоћ крале грађу, цигле, плочице, гвожђе, претседник је са присутним грађанима вршио код њих претрес, општинари их кажњавали сваку по две рубље, а затим тај новац од казне цело село би пропило."
Тако главни лик описује сељаке, који су му иначе дражи слој становништва. Можете мислити како то изгледа код племића.
А ево и једног упечатљивог пасуса о њему и његовој жени, који се налази пред крај књиге, па ћу опет да га утрпам у спојлер тај:
Ето и не знам шта још да додам, па ћу сад да се одјавим и да поједем свој пудинг.
Кад сам прочитао феноменално Гогољево ремек-дјело Мртве душе, осјетио сам велику тугу у срцу јер је манијак који је писао поговор то урадио тако проклето феноменално да ја заправо нисам имао шта да пишем, али сам ипак успио нешто да склепам и те неке моје утиске можете да прочитате нешто ниже, није да сам ја сад неки не знам ни ја какав критичар, заправо сам потпуни буздован за лијепу књижевност, али није то поента, тј. не знам шта је поента, заборавио сам. Углавном, прибојавао сам се да би слично могло да се деси и овде, али срећом није. Поговорац је успио да састави три или четири стране потпуног непостојања БИЛО ЧЕГА и да неко успије толико да меље а да не каже апсолутно НИШТА о књизи коју "описује", то је заиста феномен. Ево, иако то није тема ове емисије, цитираћу у интересу објективног извјештавања неколико реченица из поменутог поговора, да видите о чему се ту наиме ради:
"Извлачећи у први план својих атмосфера баш такве ситуације Чехов страсно устаје против њих; он их жигоше и њима супротставља свјетлије, човјечније видике. Он их уочава, прецизно и несентиментално, да би их разобличио. У прецизности своје слике он је беспоштедан; у томе је његова снага. У мирној артистичкој осмишљености атмосфера, у сигурном оцртавању ликова, у финој тананој, продуховљеној, прозирној и готово чипкастој психолошкој мотивизацији и анализацији поступака и душевних стања, у дочаравању животних ритмова. А над свим тим шири се неодољива чеховљевска сјета, једна врста жали, тихе патње, горчине; она је, уз иронију, уз потсмијех, Чеховљева моћ да каже своју мисао, своју критику, р е в о л т и н а д у. Свој став, укратко. Снага његове поетске поруке лежи у дну његова опредјељења за извјесне ситуације и извјесне нарави; у стилу, у методу, у начину како саопштава себе и своје мотиве."
И тако даље и тако даље, још једно десет-петнаест пута оволико... овога. Што се све заправо своди једноставно на то да је Чехов феноменалан писац, ко да то нисмо знали.
Елем, кад је о Чехову ријеч ту има једна (са моје субјективне стране) врло незгодна околност, коју ћу сад да опишем. Наиме, ја сам прије извјесног броја година прочитао нешто што се звало "Степа и друге приповијетке" (то је она црвена књига, мислим да је вјероватно свако ко држи до себе има у свом дому) и ту је стрпан велики број Чеховљевих прича, које су, ако се добро сјећам, поредане хронолошки. Тенденција која се читањем те књиге врло лако уочава јесте да је у раном периоду свог стваралаштва Чехов био један прилично вицкаст лик и те прве приче му одишу хумором. Касније је постајао све озбиљнији и озбиљнији и та књига се завршавала чувеном мегаозбиљном новелом под називом (погађате) Степа. Без обзира на то, ја као велики љубитељ комедија, навикао сам да сваки пут кад набасам на Чехова очекујем некакву врсту хумора и да се разочарам кад је не нађем. А с друге стране, на то набасам тамо гдје никад не бих очекивао (рецимо код Достојевског).
Сад кад смо то скинули с врата, да кажемо нешто укратко о причама (коначно!) па да могу да се торњам да поједем пудинг од чоколаде који ме чека у фрижидеру.
Двобој је прича која ме није превише одушевила, тј. рецимо кад бих је оцјењивао самостално, дао бих јој четворку. То је прича о ликовима који су ми на неки начин били сви одреда тако одбојни да ми читање није представљало никакво задовољство и кривицу за то сам свалио на Чехова а не на ликове. И код Гогоља су ликови сви одреда стока, па опет не можете да не обожавате рецимо Собакевича или Ноздрјова или шта ти ја знам. Овде је било некако другачије. Значи имамо тог неког лика вјетропира Лајевског који живи са женом која је због њега оставила мужа (нису се вјенчали, што доводи до уобичајених мрких погледа конзервативне средине). Тај Лајевски је у суштини обична будалетина и љенчуга која само филозофира и ништа не ради (осим што се карта и пије), за све му је увијек крив неко други, према цури се понаша као бахати грубијан и свашта томе слично. Укратко - потпуно непотребно трошење ресурса планете. Тог Лајевског из дна душе због његових мана мрзи извјесни зоолог фон-Корен (Лајевски је некакав чиновник ваљда), који је упркос необичном презимену Рус, али боравио је једно вријеме у Њемачкој. Фон-Корена нервира све што Лајевски говори и ради, нервира га што се овај прави паметан, нервира га његов "неморалан" живот итд., а с друге стране фон-Корен сам је сто пута гори од њега јер сматра да једноставно треба побити све који не задовољавају неке принципе које је он сам одредио. Прави проклети нациста, иако је тај покрет заживио тек неколико деценија након Чехова. Ако сте код описа Лајевског помислили "Јадна његова цура, како издржава с том будалом" (одбијам да користим имбецилни оксиморонски термин "невјенчана жена"), можете себи одмах да уштедите труд. Врло ми је непријатно да се ружно изражавам о женама, па нећу да пишем неки обимнији коментар њене личности, само да споменем да дотичног Лајевског она вара уздуж и попријеко са разноразним будалама које ни помена нису вриједне. Е сад, шта је ту узроковало шта, тешко је одредити, али у сваком случају све те три личности до сада описане су потпуно невриједне папира утрошеног на њих. Једини добар лик је извјесни доктор који је пријатељ са свима и који сваком жели да помогне и који не воли да осуђује људе и назива их погрдним именима (сушта супротност фон-Корену, или рецимо мени). Има и некакав помало шашави ђакон, али он није толико битан лик.
И тако у једном тренутку дође до тога да Лајевски и фон-Корен одлуче да иду на двобој. Углавном се њихови сусрети своде на то да фон-Корен отворено изражава своју мржњу, док се Лајевски повлачи и избјегава сукобе, што због неспремности да улази у такву врсту конфликта (да не кажем сукоба), што због одређеног страха од фон-Корена, кога сматра себи интелектуално супериорним. Међутим, у том једном тренутку деси се да му је једноставно пукао филм и да је том кретену потпуно оправдано истресао у фацу све што мисли о њему и да су се тако договорили да све то ријеше на двобоју. Како се све то завршило описано је на крају књиге и то ћу сад укратко да опишем, а означићу као спојлер, пошто је спојлер:
и мада иначе нисам баш обожавалац таквих завршетака, у овом случају ми је некако пријало што је све тако испало.
Новела Мој живот је феноменална. Имамо ту главног лика који је племић, а досадни су му сви ти "озбиљни" послови које му строги отац налази, он (херој) жели да се бави физичким радом, а отац сматра да је то потпуно недостојно једног племића, тако да је херој у врло лошим односима са оцем, а такође није баш одушевљен ни средином у којој живи, све му се то управо гади. Наравно, ако смо ишта научили од Кафке и Достојевског, то је да нараторима ништа не вјерујемо, дакле ако се појави неко ко се жали на све, тај гарант има неку ману. Због тога сам помно пратио да ли наратор има какву душевну болест или неке друге мрачне тајне, али нисам успио ништа да нађем. Тај лик ми је био једноставно симпатичан и његова згађеност средином ми је изгледала потпуно оправдана. Нажало0ст, о овој новели тешко је неком овако неуком као што сам ја рећи било шта паметно. Радњу фабуле нема смисла описивати, јер она није поента. Поента је у стилу писања, који је знатно зрелији него у Двобоју (па цијеним и да је ова новела каснијег датума), много да тако кажем "поетскији" и успијева не само страховито убједљиво да дочара оно што описује, већ и да клепи читаоца некаквом тугом по фаци, бар је тако било у мом случају. Није то сад некакав подвиг јер сам ја иначе крхка и емотивна душа, али је факат да ово дјело има нешто дубоко тужно и песимистично у себи, реда величине да га прочиташ и да одмах пожелиш да се суновратиш с балкона. Овде нису у питању толико саме људске судбине (мада има и тога), као рецимо у Викторији Кнута Хамсуна, већ прилике и ситуација и амбијент и како ли се то већ зове. Да ја не бих даље баљезгао, ево да вам цитирам неки пасус па да видите како то изгледа:
"У селу новајлије дочекују нељубазно, готово непријатељски, као и у школи. Тако су дочекали и нас. Прво време гледали су на нас као на глупе и припросте људе, који су купили имање јер нису имали куд новац да дену. Смејали су нам се. У нашој шуми, па чак и у парку сељаци су напасали своју стоку, одводили у своје село наше краве и коње, а затим долазили и тражили оштету (сиц, као и све остало што сам цитирао, а што може да вам се учини необично или као штампарска грешка). Долазиле су нам у двориште читаве групе и с грајом изјављивале, да смо ми при косидби захватили и део Бишевке или Семенихе који нам не припада; а како ми још нисмо тачно знали границе наше земље, веровали смо им на реч и плаћали казну; доцније би се показало да смо косили правилно. У нашој су шуми гулили младе липе. Један сељак из Дубечње, зеленаш, који је трговао ракијом без дозволе, поткупљивао је наше раднике и заједно с њима варао нас на најиздајничкији начин, нове точкове на таљигама замењивао је старима, узимао наше амове па нам их после продавао, итд. Али најгоре се догађало у Куриловки на грађевини, тамо су жене преконоћ крале грађу, цигле, плочице, гвожђе, претседник је са присутним грађанима вршио код њих претрес, општинари их кажњавали сваку по две рубље, а затим тај новац од казне цело село би пропило."
Тако главни лик описује сељаке, који су му иначе дражи слој становништва. Можете мислити како то изгледа код племића.
А ево и једног упечатљивог пасуса о њему и његовој жени, који се налази пред крај књиге, па ћу опет да га утрпам у спојлер тај:
Ето и не знам шта још да додам, па ћу сад да се одјавим и да поједем свој пудинг.
June 17, 2015
Le droit à la médiocrité
« Lorsque pour un effet déterminé on met en jeu le minimum de gestes, cela s’appelle la grâce. » (Anton Tchekhov)
J’avais oublié l’ineffable atmosphère de la littérature russe, avec ses héros à au moins trois noms (sans compter les diminutifs) parmi lesquels tu risques de te perdre si tu ne fais pas attention en tout temps, avec ses paysages qui alternent l’étendue infinie des steppes et l’encombrement claustrophobique de petites villes, avec ses maisons où les domovoi, ces mystérieux esprits du foyer, accompagnent de leur chant plaintif au fond de la cheminée les discussions interminables sur le progrès, l’âme russe et le destin.
Cette atmosphère commune à toute la grande littérature russe bien que rendue unique par chaque auteur, on la retrouve pleinement dans l’anthologie d’Anton Tchekhov, Le duel et autres nouvelles, recréée dans des lignes si simples, si austères, si dénouées du tragisme, qu’à la fin de la lecture on est émerveillée d’avoir presque tout compris, d’avoir presque tout saisi, bref, d’y être. Mais peut-on vraiment comprendre ce qui l’auteur même appelait, dans une lettre à Gorki, l’état de grâce de l’artiste ?
On a beau remarquer cette apparente simplicité, ce « minimum de gestes » des récits tchekhoviens, où les personnages ratent de près un destin héroïque, en effleurant la tragédie sans jamais y plonger et qui se sauvent pourtant de l’insignifiance par la calme dignité (la même dignité dont feront preuve plus tard les dublinois de Joyce) avec laquelle ils se revendiquent le droit à cette même vie humble et terne, à la douce médiocrité. Il y a toujours un je ne sais quoi qui s’échappe à notre interprétation, à nos essais de rentrer les personnages dans des typologies, de les comprendre à fond.
Prenons Laïevski, le protagoniste du Duel, un jeune intellectuel qui mène une vie de vaudeville avec toutes les stéréotypies délicieuses du genre, qui en plus a un penchant pour le mélodrame, posant en victime de la civilisation et enclin à trouver les autres coupables de ses actions déshonorantes et qui change complètement de caractère après un duel qu’il ne redoutait pas vraiment et dont il ne sort pas blessé. C’est un changement en registre mineur, enrégimentant le héros dans une vie humble et ordinaire pour laquelle il sacrifie, sur l’autel des conventions sociales qu’il méprisait tellement autrefois, ses croyances et ses rêves. C’est comme s’il devient d’un coup une preuve vivante que le caractère peut changer et gagner sa place dans la société, en infirmant ainsi l’opinion de son adversaire von Koren qu’il n’est qu’un parasite qui devrait être éliminé par la sélection naturelle, étant donné que :
Il est nuisible avant tout parce qu’il a du succès auprès des femmes et menace ainsi d’avoir une descendance, c’est-à-dire de faire cadeau au monde d’une douzaine de Laïevski débiles et pervertis comme lui.
Et qui est Ananiev, de Lueurs, sinon un Laïevski vieilli, qui après un geste reprobable envers une femme dans sa jeunesse s’est confronté avec un portrait de lui-même dont il n’est pas fier, se rendant compte que sa moralité était fausse, car construite sur des « contes de nourrice » qui offraient une vision schématique, superficielle, du bien et du mal. Lui aussi s’est résigné à ne jamais trouver le sens de l’existence humaine, mais il acquiesce pourtant un certain pouvoir de la pensée à jeter des lumières, quoique faibles, dans le néant de l’ignorance :
Voyez-vous, les pensées de chaque individu sont pareillement éparpillées en désordre, mais tendent vers la même direction, au milieu des ténèbres, et, sans avoir rien éclairé, sans avoir illuminé la nuit, elles s’évanouissent quelque part, loin derrière la vieillesse…
Par contre, Nicolaï Stépanovitch, d’Une banale histoire, professeur émérite, décoré, célèbre, a tout réussi sur le plan professionnel, et cela lui a suffi jusqu’à ce qu’il découvre qu’une maladie incurable va le tuer bientôt. Les ténèbres d’outre-tombe le forcent de regarder de près sa vie personnelle, de reconnaître son aridité, le manque d’amour pour sa famille. Une froideur invétérée l’empêche quand même de s’ouvrir même devant sa pupille, la seule qu’il paraît admirer. Pourtant, bien qu’il semble rater les deux relations essentielles de son existence – avec Katia (qu’il ne veut pas ou peut-être n’ose pas empêcher de ruiner sa vie) et avec la mort (qu’il redoute piteusement) la fin du récit suggère que la raideur de son esprit est plutôt une façade que son vrai être, et qu’il est dans le fond capable d’aimer :
Je l’accompagne à la porte, sans rien dire… la voilà hors de ma chambre, elle suit le long couloir, sans se retourner. Elle sait que je l’accompagne des yeux et se retournera sans doute à l’angle.
Non, elle ne s’est pas retournée. Sa robe noire m’est apparue une dernière fois, ses pas se sont évanouis… adieu, mon incomparable !
Si Stépanovitch fait partie de l’élite intellectuelle, Missaïl, de Ma vie fait partie de l’élite sociale qu’il méprise, en la considérant fausse et malhonnête. Au chagrin de sa famille et à l’étonnement de ses amis et connaissances, il veut changer de classe sociale, en devenant ouvrier, puisqu’il se considère sans aucun talent et ne veut pas devenir un parasite. Finalement il va rester en limbe, comme un martyre raté, ne réussissant à s’identifier avec aucune des deux catégories. Mais la paix de la vie banale qui était dans le fond son but existentiel est suggérée en final dans l’image quelque peu brouillée d’une famille toute faite : lui, une fille qui l’aime mais a honte de son mode de vie et sa petite nièce. Cette image est comme un faible espoir qu’il va ainsi trouver le code de vie qu’il a tant cherché, vu que :
…la question de faire le bien ou le mal, chacun la résout pour soi, sans attendre que l’humanité en arrive à la solution de cette question par la voie d’un développement progressif.
La fiancée, la dernière nouvelle du volume et la dernière œuvre tchekhovienne, se construit autour du destin de Nadia, jeune fille qui, sur le point de se marier, se rend compte de la vie monotone qui l’attend et s’enfuit pour étudier et découvrir le monde. Sa rébellion ne provoque pas de grands ennuis, ni lui apporte la révélation attendue. Son histoire est comme une image en négatif des autres – elle semble la seule à avoir réussi dans sa révolte. Mais la fin jette un doute sur sa victoire :
Elle monta dans sa chambre pour faire ses préparatifs, le lendemain matin elle dit adieu aux siens et, pleine de vie et de gaieté, elle quitta sa ville – à jamais, à ce qu’elle croyait.
Je me rends soudain compte comment il est approprié, le titre du volume – il y a, en effet, dans chaque nouvelle, un duel entre le protagoniste et une valeur soit-elle morale, sociale, philosophique, ou émotionnelle qu’il convoite et redoute en même temps : entre Laïevski et les contraintes de la société, entre Ananiev et le sens de la vie, entre Stépanovitch et l’amour, entre Missaïl et l’injustice sociale et entre Nadia et la liberté de l’esprit. Chacun jette le gant, se bat en duel et y est défendu. Ou l’est-il ? Comme je disais tout à l’heure, il y a une marge de silence qui se refuse et qui promet, et qui séduit et qui trompe toujours. Et alors ? Finalement, comme disait Roger Grenier dans sa préface extraordinaire, il suffit de s’accorder l’âme au rythme du récit, et se contenter d’attendre une autre révélation après chaque lecture:
Le dialogue sans fin de la tristesse et de la joie, voilà le rythme même, le battement de cœur que nous devrions sentir en lisant ces nouvelles.
November 26, 2018
In a brisk 142 pages we have the 6 short stories in The Duel and Other Stories by Anton Chekhov. Consider that the title story, The Duel is 88 pages and brisk is indeed very fast.
The title story is not my favorite. As seems to be the case in short story duels, the cause is hard to consider as worth a life and the characters are not sufficiently clownish for this to be a complete burlesque. That the principals and their seconds have to guess at the details of the code duello is rather funny, but I cannot believe Chekhov was going for an 80 page joke.
My favorite is The Kiss. A very young officer is by accident given a kiss in the dark. He knows not from who nor has he reason to believe it was intended for him. However he builds a romance around it and later has to face the return to a less romantic world. Entirely believable and easy to read sympathetically.
"Anna on the Neck" is a lovely little farce and one many of the ladies will enjoy.
Several other reviewer mention banal as descriptive of the stories. Surely none are heroic but events need not be earth shattering to be worth reading.
Chekhov is worth reading.
The title story is not my favorite. As seems to be the case in short story duels, the cause is hard to consider as worth a life and the characters are not sufficiently clownish for this to be a complete burlesque. That the principals and their seconds have to guess at the details of the code duello is rather funny, but I cannot believe Chekhov was going for an 80 page joke.
My favorite is The Kiss. A very young officer is by accident given a kiss in the dark. He knows not from who nor has he reason to believe it was intended for him. However he builds a romance around it and later has to face the return to a less romantic world. Entirely believable and easy to read sympathetically.
"Anna on the Neck" is a lovely little farce and one many of the ladies will enjoy.
Several other reviewer mention banal as descriptive of the stories. Surely none are heroic but events need not be earth shattering to be worth reading.
Chekhov is worth reading.
September 21, 2015
I had always wanted to read Chekhov. However, I hate to admit that if not for the tag 'Contemporary Anton Chekhov' on Alice Munro, I wouldn't have started this book yet. All of a sudden, I wanted to read a Munro, then the meticulous me ended up landing here.
Halfway into the book, I thought I would point out a few stories which are much reads. I ended up liking almost all the stories :) I haven't read enough short stories or enough Chekhov to share my thoughts on the name 'Master of Short Stories'. The thing I liked most about this collection was, all the characters are relatable. Their thoughts, confused ideas, dreams, sorrows, everything! Can't wait to start the next collection.
Halfway into the book, I thought I would point out a few stories which are much reads. I ended up liking almost all the stories :) I haven't read enough short stories or enough Chekhov to share my thoughts on the name 'Master of Short Stories'. The thing I liked most about this collection was, all the characters are relatable. Their thoughts, confused ideas, dreams, sorrows, everything! Can't wait to start the next collection.
August 6, 2008
Some great stories in here, though I'm not convinced yet that Chekhov could pull off a long piece (the title story takes some great directions, but overall doesn't compel). But my main quibble here has to do with some translation choices--some of what was probably colloquial Russian was translated into odd English phrases that came across more silly than thoughtful.
July 21, 2011
J'aime bien Tchekhov
November 23, 2022
Duel is a superbly imagined study of post-religious worldviews (amoral selfishness, social Darwinism) and their failings. Next best: Neighbours.
January 25, 2022
Coming in at over 100 pages and by far the longest piece here, 'The Duel' is a superb piece of work. I loved the way Chekhov shifts the perspective between the four main chatacters and I was pleasantly surprised at how hopeful the ending was - anyone looking for some great literature which is not a also a total downer should seek this out! However, there is plenty of bleakness and despair in the rest of the collection. 'My Wife' is a very interesting first-person narrative, but I'm not sure I really understood where Chekhov was coming from with that one. 'Murder' is a well-drawn tale about a particularly senseless killing and has a memorable ending set on Sakhalin Island, the far-flung former penal colony about which Chekhov wrote a long and fascinating book. 'The Black Monk' was another surprise, reminding me of something from Algernon Blackwood, although Chekhov takes the apparently supernatural occurrences down a quite different path. The final two stories, 'Terror' and 'The Two Volodyas', are only 10 pages each and both concern infidelity; although they're relatively minor works, even minor Chekhov is well worth reading and tells us something about the human condition.
September 7, 2022
This was my introduction to Anton Chekhov in any format, and I was thoroughly impressed. The short story is indeed an art form that few people do well. There are a number of genre writers (Stephen King, David Morrell, Ray Bradbury, Robert McCammon) who do quite well, but in literary fiction there aren't that many who keep me riveted from story to story. I certainly don't feel that way with Hemingway. O. Henry is certainly a master, as is Edgar Allan Poe and Flannery O'Connor (though I much preferred her longer novel, Wise Blood, than her acclaimed short stories). Chekhov is good because he doesn't try to do too much. He knows the best he can do is show a scene or two that reveals an internal struggle or a theme, and gets the most out of it. "The Princess" is a masterpiece of late 19th century stories, showing a textbook narcissistic personality before it was even a common description, with the reader discovering the contrast of how great the girl thinks she is in contrast with what is learned from a second character about her actions. In one story, it is enough to learn how one character discovers a truth only to find her husband is indifferent or does not notice. Chekhov writes powerful, relevant themes with beautiful language that is still quite readable. I regret that I didn't catch the name of the translator, but he/she did a wonderful job.
The bulk of this collection is the novella, The Duel. This story is long enough to allow for a plot, some great dialog scenes, and some suspense (yes, there is a duel). There are some great observations through characters, including the reflections of one who believes evolution should be allowed to weed out the weak, the stupid and the careless. Then there is this character's dislike of the protagonist, who seems to have no regard for his blessings. The protagonist's friend is a man who refuses to see the negative side that everyone else sees so easily. In all this, almost none of the characters stay stagnant from start to finish. All of them learn through their experiences and varying degrees.
For an intellectually satisfying, not necessarily demanding, read when you're not looking for a story with some action, this is a gem of a collection. Audiobook readers, the Tantor Media recording with William Dufris is superbly performed.
The bulk of this collection is the novella, The Duel. This story is long enough to allow for a plot, some great dialog scenes, and some suspense (yes, there is a duel). There are some great observations through characters, including the reflections of one who believes evolution should be allowed to weed out the weak, the stupid and the careless. Then there is this character's dislike of the protagonist, who seems to have no regard for his blessings. The protagonist's friend is a man who refuses to see the negative side that everyone else sees so easily. In all this, almost none of the characters stay stagnant from start to finish. All of them learn through their experiences and varying degrees.
For an intellectually satisfying, not necessarily demanding, read when you're not looking for a story with some action, this is a gem of a collection. Audiobook readers, the Tantor Media recording with William Dufris is superbly performed.
March 6, 2023
Chekhov awakens the long dormant parts of your soul life inevitably kills off and let’s you see the ways in which life is at once terrible and yet also tragic, beautiful. Tragically beautiful.
September 30, 2018
"The Duel and Other Stories" is a collection of stories about Russians behaving badly and having long, philosophical discussions about their bad behavior.
Some of the men have aquiline noses. Some of the women have heaving bosoms.
Bosoms seem to heave often in Russian fiction, or at least in translations of Russian fiction.
The first story, "The Duel," runs 150 pages in this edition. That's quite a long short story, but perhaps not for a Russian author. At the risk of generating a spoiler alert, I'd just like to say that the duel referenced in the title, when it finally happens, doesn't amount to much.
Some of the men have aquiline noses. Some of the women have heaving bosoms.
Bosoms seem to heave often in Russian fiction, or at least in translations of Russian fiction.
The first story, "The Duel," runs 150 pages in this edition. That's quite a long short story, but perhaps not for a Russian author. At the risk of generating a spoiler alert, I'd just like to say that the duel referenced in the title, when it finally happens, doesn't amount to much.
April 24, 2011
رواية عظيمة..
من لافيكسى الذى غاب نجمه و انخرط فى حياة تافهة من السىء إلأى الأسوأ إلى عالم الحيوان الذى ظن أن مهمته فى الحياة تطهير العالم من المخطئين!!
أعجبنى فى الرواية فكرة الوصاية و اعتقاد بعض الأشخاص أنه حقهم أن يحكموا وينفذوا أحكامهم على غيرهم من الأشخاص بقاونو الانتخاب الطبيعى!
من لافيكسى الذى غاب نجمه و انخرط فى حياة تافهة من السىء إلأى الأسوأ إلى عالم الحيوان الذى ظن أن مهمته فى الحياة تطهير العالم من المخطئين!!
أعجبنى فى الرواية فكرة الوصاية و اعتقاد بعض الأشخاص أنه حقهم أن يحكموا وينفذوا أحكامهم على غيرهم من الأشخاص بقاونو الانتخاب الطبيعى!
May 5, 2020
The only story this edition shares with the free Gutenberg edition is the title story, The Duel. I enjoyed The Duel, Neighbors, At Home and The Princess.
May 29, 2020
I’m not usually a fan of short stories, but this was very good. Six tales from the master of short stories, Chekhov - The Duel; My Wife; Murder; The Black Monk; Terror and The Two Volodyas. The reason I have only given it four stars is that I did not much like the translator. He missed out patronymic names and did not feminise women’s surnames, for example, which I felt let it down - I want to be in Russia when I read these stories, not feel dumbed down to. However, as I said, I really enjoyed all six stories - my favourite being My Wife.
May 8, 2020
Chekhov illustrates the complexities of the dynamics in 19th century Russian society in an impossibly effortless way. He does it so well precisely because he refuses to acknowledge just one absolute truth about life: humans are complex, and so the world they create must be one too.
May 7, 2023
Cu toate că ambele povești sunt în mare parte despre personaje negative, mi-a plăcut la ambele scrieri cum autorul a construit fiecare rol și povestea în sine. Mi-a făcut plăcere să cunosc una dintre scrierile lui Cehov. Chiar eram curioasă dacă îmi va plăcea și iată că așa a și fost.
Read
November 23, 2013My favorite in this collection is At Home (full story). Vera Ivanovna Kardin is a young woman who has finished university and whose father has just died. She goes to home to her grandfather's estate, an isolated steppe far away from the city, to make a life of her own. As she leaves the train, she is fetched by a carriage. All at once she is taken back to memories of her childhood, for the last time she'd been here was when she was still a child. She murmurs, "Lord, grant that I may be happy here."
She welcomes the isolation and solitude at first, but she finds herself bored—similar to the boredom experienced by a medical student after months of taking the year off from school. How to while away the time is her greatest problem.
She is being paired off with Neshtchapov, a handsome, charming man who bores her. He falls in love with her. With nothing else to do she decides to marry him.
She welcomes the isolation and solitude at first, but she finds herself bored—similar to the boredom experienced by a medical student after months of taking the year off from school. How to while away the time is her greatest problem.
The space, the lovely peace of the steppe, told her that happiness was hear at hand, and perhaps was here already; thousands of people in fact would have said, "What happiness to be young, healthy, well-educated, to be living on one's own estate!" And at the same time the endless pain, all alike, without one living soul, frightened her, and at moments it was clear to her that its peaceful green vastness would swallow up her life and reduce it to nothingness.
She is being paired off with Neshtchapov, a handsome, charming man who bores her. He falls in love with her. With nothing else to do she decides to marry him.
September 6, 2012
Even when you listen to this on LibreVox with some irish guy reading, the emotions of the characters goes to the depths of you. The long, slow buildup to the climactic point might seem dull to some, and sure, Chekhov is chatty, but on the way you get some magnificent rants and some wonderfully nasty lines, like this one: "He would not murder her, of course, but if he had been on a jury now, he would have acquitted the murderer.".
A lot of this book revolves around characters that are either morally weak and irresponsible (Laevsky) or fanatical and judging (Von Koren). The unhappiness and sheer nastiness can be quite hard to bear sometimes. Luckily there is hope. Samoylenko is a bumbling, good-hearted man that reminds me of some of Dostoyevskys characters and the Deacon is a ray of light with his warm humanity and common sense. Chekhov also has a certain sardonic wit that lightens the mood.
This is a book about taking responsibility for your life and using it for the betterment of yourself and others. Happines lies in being humble and true to yourself, rather than in living for physical pleasure or fashionable idéas.
A lot of this book revolves around characters that are either morally weak and irresponsible (Laevsky) or fanatical and judging (Von Koren). The unhappiness and sheer nastiness can be quite hard to bear sometimes. Luckily there is hope. Samoylenko is a bumbling, good-hearted man that reminds me of some of Dostoyevskys characters and the Deacon is a ray of light with his warm humanity and common sense. Chekhov also has a certain sardonic wit that lightens the mood.
This is a book about taking responsibility for your life and using it for the betterment of yourself and others. Happines lies in being humble and true to yourself, rather than in living for physical pleasure or fashionable idéas.
January 9, 2013
The story primarily focuses on Ivan Andreich Laevsky and Nadyezhda Fyodorovna, lovers who have moved to the Caucasus. Nadezhda is married to another man and some townspeople disapprove of the couple living together. Laevsky confides in his friend Samoylenko that he no longer loves Nadyezhda. Laevsky drinks, gambles, and lacks direction.
The scientist Von Koren feels that Laevsky's slovenly lifestyle is worthless. In fact, Von Koren feels killing Laevsky would be beneficial to society, an act of natural selection. Von Koren's dislike builds until he formally challenges Laevsky to a pistol duel.
The tension at the duel steadily increases. None of the men in attendance, with the possible exception of Von Koren, want to see the challenge completed. Fortunately for Laevsky, a deacon stops the duel before either man is slain. Laevsky's near-death experience leads him back to Nadyezhda.
The scientist Von Koren feels that Laevsky's slovenly lifestyle is worthless. In fact, Von Koren feels killing Laevsky would be beneficial to society, an act of natural selection. Von Koren's dislike builds until he formally challenges Laevsky to a pistol duel.
The tension at the duel steadily increases. None of the men in attendance, with the possible exception of Von Koren, want to see the challenge completed. Fortunately for Laevsky, a deacon stops the duel before either man is slain. Laevsky's near-death experience leads him back to Nadyezhda.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 20, 2017
I liked "The Duel," the first and longest of these short stories. I wouldn't call it thrilling, but I thought it had a lot of clever character study and I looked forward to it being the first of many writings I'd enjoy from Chekov. However, upon reading further, I found that each of the other stories seemed very much the same. I mean, it's inevitable and perfectly okay that an author repeat themes from work to work (like, come on, my favorite writer is Flannery O'Connor), but the way Chekov does it, to read his short stories in succession is like getting hit repeatedly over the head with a very dull and very Russian hammer. After I'd read two, I'd read enough, and everything after that was a chore to get through. So I've given up on reading the last of the book, and I'm confident that I won't be missing much.
July 25, 2016
I love the short story format and, when I spotted this in a bookshop, took the chance to finally read from one of the masters. I had seen Chekhov's major plays, but had just not got around to reading his short stories.
At first, I wasn't sure if I was a philistine or if the short story had, well, improved since the late nineteenth century. The initial stories seemed a little obvious and dated in their social commentary, and even a little sentimental.
But as I read more of them, they gathered a cumulative effect. What had felt like social commentary seemed more like the local leading to the universal. And what had felt like sentiment became a moving compassion for the human condition. I want to read more Chekhov.
At first, I wasn't sure if I was a philistine or if the short story had, well, improved since the late nineteenth century. The initial stories seemed a little obvious and dated in their social commentary, and even a little sentimental.
But as I read more of them, they gathered a cumulative effect. What had felt like social commentary seemed more like the local leading to the universal. And what had felt like sentiment became a moving compassion for the human condition. I want to read more Chekhov.
March 3, 2025
A Review of Anton Chekov’s THE DUEL
This one is a book that has consistently challenged me and my beliefs throughout. Boi porar somoy kotobar je mone hoise amakei gali ditese author :)) recent books I've read, I kept thinking about other people; this one, after a long time, has made me question myself. Gotta thank my bro Anik for recommending this gem.
The protagonist is Laevsky who's had a failed marriage and left his wife for another woman, and that woman, Nadya, has left her husband for Laevsky. We see Laevsky thinking that if only he leaves his wife for Nadya he'll be content and happy; then comes a time when Laevsky starts imagining only if he could leave Nadya, he'd be able to live a life of serenity.
Nadya too, had serious psychological tremors.
///Nadyezhda Fyodorovna reflected that she really had not lived. She had finished her studies in a boarding-school and had been married to a man she did not love; then she had thrown in her lot with Laevsky, and had spent all her time with him on this empty, desolate coast, always expecting something better. Was that life?///
If you're distressed all the time, is that life? Difference of experiences enriches one's life. One needs some negative experiences, but when the weight is heavier towards the positive counterpart, that, is life.
Nadya and Laevsky didn't have any endpoint to their desires and distresses. They were both living in a prison of their own making, and constantly tormenting each other because of this inner trauma; because of the instability within.
At first there's lust. Then there's this unmistakable thirst to control each other. If the duo get past that stage at one point of the innumerable times together, there's a detente and love blooms.
There's even a scene where Laevsky knows Nadya wants an explanation for a particular act he did, but Laevsky decided he wasn't gonna provide the explanation cuz it would be tiresome. But at the same time there was a wonderful thing. “his heart was heavy because he had lost control over himself and been rude to her", why was he worn off in the first place? Cuz he behaved inappropriately with her and was blaming himself, that is what made him wearisome and stopped him from apologising. Inner demons destroy humanity in curious manners, and in turn diminishes connection with others.
///his viciousness and falsity—and that was all she had had to fill her weak, listless, pitiable life. Then he had grown sick of her, had begun to hate her, but had not had the pluck to abandon her, and he had tried to entangle her more and more closely in a web of lies. . .///
Evolution. The way everything fell apart, the way everything was always broken, this development was phenomenal.
///we lied to ourselves and made out that we ran away from the emptiness of the life///
I used to shut people out. Regularly. Had a fuss with one person and I shut myself in my room, not interacting with anyone whatsoever. But that's not how life's supposed to work. People will make you feel empty. But you'll feel the emptiness when you're alone for too long as well. Gonna change circles? The new people will make you feel empty as well. Running away is for cowards. Face your fears. There's no fulfillness, you just have to pick your poison.
///She realised instantly that she had gone too far, had been too free and easy in her behaviour///
Every single one of us feel that, I guess. Poignant way to point that out. This is insufferable, it's so unimaginably suffocating. People who constantly have to live in a state like this, hell on earth. No matter what position you're in, if you're leading your life like this, it's not worth it.
///What's so curious in an attack of hysterics is that you know it is absurd, and are laughing at it in your heart, and at the same time you sob.///
Ikr? It's…painful. You want to burst out, you turn into flames but at the same time you know you're spouting bullshit that you don't mean. You feel this remorse that you shouldn't have but you also feel better after letting the devil out.
///As for love, I ought to tell you that living with a woman who has read Spencer and has followed you to the ends of the earth is no more interesting than living with any Anfissa or Akulina///
Fr?? I thought it'd be different.
///confident belief that the duel would end in nothing///
At the very end, all the quarrelling, manipulating, gaslighting, tripwires are destructive for both. You fight with the people you spend most of your time with. You fight with the people closest to you. You fight with the people you care about. Duels always end in emptiness for both. If it's possible, do your best to sort it out; at least don't let ego be the reason for the divide.
///what is the meaning of softening of the brain?///
Alright topic changes here. Book also has some other magnificent theses. Brainrot. A word I've become very fond of. Constant scrolling in Facebook, we're feeding ourselves low value. With time, the processing ability of our brains softens. This is brainrot. This is the softening of the brain.
///To be in continual ecstasies over nature shows poverty of imagination///
Following the previous quote, I, as a person who's travelled quite a bit, can confirm this is true. It's freakishly intricate, but it's true. If you try to notice, it's always the insipid and mediocre people who're jumping up and down about going places all the time. The better ones always have more awe-inspiring voids to get lost in. If you equate this with brainrot and then look around, you'll have a reckoning. And Anton Chekhov had it way back. Genius.
This one is a book that has consistently challenged me and my beliefs throughout. Boi porar somoy kotobar je mone hoise amakei gali ditese author :)) recent books I've read, I kept thinking about other people; this one, after a long time, has made me question myself. Gotta thank my bro Anik for recommending this gem.
The protagonist is Laevsky who's had a failed marriage and left his wife for another woman, and that woman, Nadya, has left her husband for Laevsky. We see Laevsky thinking that if only he leaves his wife for Nadya he'll be content and happy; then comes a time when Laevsky starts imagining only if he could leave Nadya, he'd be able to live a life of serenity.
Nadya too, had serious psychological tremors.
///Nadyezhda Fyodorovna reflected that she really had not lived. She had finished her studies in a boarding-school and had been married to a man she did not love; then she had thrown in her lot with Laevsky, and had spent all her time with him on this empty, desolate coast, always expecting something better. Was that life?///
If you're distressed all the time, is that life? Difference of experiences enriches one's life. One needs some negative experiences, but when the weight is heavier towards the positive counterpart, that, is life.
Nadya and Laevsky didn't have any endpoint to their desires and distresses. They were both living in a prison of their own making, and constantly tormenting each other because of this inner trauma; because of the instability within.
At first there's lust. Then there's this unmistakable thirst to control each other. If the duo get past that stage at one point of the innumerable times together, there's a detente and love blooms.
There's even a scene where Laevsky knows Nadya wants an explanation for a particular act he did, but Laevsky decided he wasn't gonna provide the explanation cuz it would be tiresome. But at the same time there was a wonderful thing. “his heart was heavy because he had lost control over himself and been rude to her", why was he worn off in the first place? Cuz he behaved inappropriately with her and was blaming himself, that is what made him wearisome and stopped him from apologising. Inner demons destroy humanity in curious manners, and in turn diminishes connection with others.
///his viciousness and falsity—and that was all she had had to fill her weak, listless, pitiable life. Then he had grown sick of her, had begun to hate her, but had not had the pluck to abandon her, and he had tried to entangle her more and more closely in a web of lies. . .///
Evolution. The way everything fell apart, the way everything was always broken, this development was phenomenal.
///we lied to ourselves and made out that we ran away from the emptiness of the life///
I used to shut people out. Regularly. Had a fuss with one person and I shut myself in my room, not interacting with anyone whatsoever. But that's not how life's supposed to work. People will make you feel empty. But you'll feel the emptiness when you're alone for too long as well. Gonna change circles? The new people will make you feel empty as well. Running away is for cowards. Face your fears. There's no fulfillness, you just have to pick your poison.
///She realised instantly that she had gone too far, had been too free and easy in her behaviour///
Every single one of us feel that, I guess. Poignant way to point that out. This is insufferable, it's so unimaginably suffocating. People who constantly have to live in a state like this, hell on earth. No matter what position you're in, if you're leading your life like this, it's not worth it.
///What's so curious in an attack of hysterics is that you know it is absurd, and are laughing at it in your heart, and at the same time you sob.///
Ikr? It's…painful. You want to burst out, you turn into flames but at the same time you know you're spouting bullshit that you don't mean. You feel this remorse that you shouldn't have but you also feel better after letting the devil out.
///As for love, I ought to tell you that living with a woman who has read Spencer and has followed you to the ends of the earth is no more interesting than living with any Anfissa or Akulina///
Fr?? I thought it'd be different.
///confident belief that the duel would end in nothing///
At the very end, all the quarrelling, manipulating, gaslighting, tripwires are destructive for both. You fight with the people you spend most of your time with. You fight with the people closest to you. You fight with the people you care about. Duels always end in emptiness for both. If it's possible, do your best to sort it out; at least don't let ego be the reason for the divide.
///what is the meaning of softening of the brain?///
Alright topic changes here. Book also has some other magnificent theses. Brainrot. A word I've become very fond of. Constant scrolling in Facebook, we're feeding ourselves low value. With time, the processing ability of our brains softens. This is brainrot. This is the softening of the brain.
///To be in continual ecstasies over nature shows poverty of imagination///
Following the previous quote, I, as a person who's travelled quite a bit, can confirm this is true. It's freakishly intricate, but it's true. If you try to notice, it's always the insipid and mediocre people who're jumping up and down about going places all the time. The better ones always have more awe-inspiring voids to get lost in. If you equate this with brainrot and then look around, you'll have a reckoning. And Anton Chekhov had it way back. Genius.
July 17, 2017
The strange thing with Chekhov's short stories is that it feels like it doesn't happen a alot... but at the same time they always feel so complete. Like, the princess have just gone out for a walk and listened to an old doctor tell her she is spoiled, but it feels like a lot of things have happened. Maybe it's because the characters both happens to become three-dimensional characters and have some kind of epiphany, or character growth (or just do something stupid).
I like it. You can read a 20 page story that gives you the impression of being 120 pages... in a good way.
I like it. You can read a 20 page story that gives you the impression of being 120 pages... in a good way.
May 30, 2011
I am quickly becoming a fan of Anton Chekhov. This is the thrid story I've read by him, and while this one takes the cake, the others were good, too.
This was a great story, where the title is a little misleading. The duel, itself, is fairly unimportant (though, it does make for an intersting climax). The portraits of Chekhov's characters are outstanding. They were very real and flawed.
This was a great little piece of literature.
This was a great story, where the title is a little misleading. The duel, itself, is fairly unimportant (though, it does make for an intersting climax). The portraits of Chekhov's characters are outstanding. They were very real and flawed.
This was a great little piece of literature.
March 16, 2018
I think this is the first of Chekhov that I’ve read, and I’m wondering how I could have not read him earlier. Masterful dialogue and character descriptions with incidents that provide enough information to draw your own conclusions, which are only implied by the author’s story endings. The Wife struck me by the way the narrator is exposed to be such a dislikeable character bye his interactions with others.
July 19, 2007
of the older translations of chekhov, i like this guy's best. ronald wilkes i think? he brings an elegance to the stories that may not really reflect chekhov's voice, but the brilliant stories still come through. if you like classic russian lit and shit. chekhov is just more humane and modern and sane and not so pyschotically depressed like dostoyevski. know what i'm sayin?
August 29, 2016
This is a wonderful collection of short stories including some of Chekhov's finest. It is popular to belittle Constance Garnett's translation, but I don't want to read 130 year old stories in modern language. I want an old translation that feels in English like the writings of the era. I think this translation is great.
January 4, 2013
Although in my book stories aren't the same as in this, I understood that Chechov is worth his fame. But what I personaly don't like about Chekhov's style is his attitude to characters. He talks about them like about someone distant, just describes them. Seems like he has writeen already about so much personalities that don't bother himself to reveal them too much.
June 25, 2010
Another dip into the classic literature pool. Chekhov's short works are where he shines, if you are to believe the foreword, and I love short stories. Sadly, pretty much nothing in this collection appealed to me on any level.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews