What do you think?
Rate this book
Ivanov
Ivanov, a driving force in local government and a visionary landowner, feels burnt out at thirty-five. Once the pioneer of scientific farming methods and of education for the peasants, he now drowns in bureaucracy and debt, apathetic to the welfare of his large estate and neglectful of Anna, his terminally ill wife. Sasha, a young educated woman, falls in love with Ivanov and determines to save him.
Set in a country suffering from political, ideological and spiritual stagnation, Chekhov's compelling early play anticipates the explosive revolutionary atmosphere of Russia at the turn of the century.
149 pages, Paperback
First published November 19, 1887
69 people are currently reading
1921 people want to read
About the author
Anton Chekhov
6,001 books9,828 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 280 reviews
July 19, 2024
'Oh, how easy and simple it all is! But you are mistaken, doctor; in each one of us there are too many springs, too many wheels and cogs for us to judge each other by first impressions or by two or three external indications. I cannot understand you, you cannot understand me, and neither of us can understand himself.'
Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull was the first play I attended in out-of- school context, and I was blown away by it (and not just by the gun shot). It affected me so deeply tears rolled down my cheeks by the end of the play. So when I discovered that Chekhov’s 1887 play Ivanov was on the program of the local cultural centre, I jumped on the chance - it looked the perfect occasion as a means to reconnect with theatre, after a pause of seventeen years without attending any play.
As the performance was presented as an adaptation and even a deconstruction of Chekhov, afterwards I was curious to discover the original text –to which the performance stayed remarkably true, apart from removing a few of the numerous minor characters from the plot – and with it obliterating the symbolism of the card playing in the backdrop of the play which serves as a commentary on the unpredictability of life and fate.
'If an intelligent, educated, and healthy man begins to complain of his lot and go down-hill, there is nothing for him to do but to go on down until he reaches the bottom--there is no hope for him. Where could my salvation come from? How can I save myself? I cannot drink, because it makes my head ache. I never could write bad poetry. I cannot pray for strength and see anything lofty in the languor of my soul. Laziness is laziness and weakness weakness. I can find no other names for them. I am lost, I am lost; there is no doubt of that.'
The 35 year old Nikolai Ivanov is a complex and moody man. Is he guilty – as he repeats over and over again himself – or innocent? His environment – his moribund wife Anna, the doctor Lvov who thinks he is a cold and heartless monster and a fortune-chaser, the brash manager of Ivanov’s estate, Borkin, the Lebedevs, the cynic count Shabelsky (Ivanov’s uncle), Sasha wishing to rescue him – everyone is discussing him, criticising him, loving him – Ivanov is the anti-hero at the centre of the play, but no-one seems to hear what he is trying to say – all are too absorbed by their own dreams and little drama’s. No-one understands what is eating him, why he changed into an prickly, paralyzed man outwardly indifferent to his wife dying and his estate going to ruins by debts and neglect. Ivanov’s motives might not be as low as they look at first glance. Depicting Ivanov’s unrest, melancholy, despair and subsequent inability to take care of himself and of others, pushing everyone away in his shame, Chekhov paints a nowadays utterly recognisable, poignant and convincing portrayal of a state of depression – and how difficult it is for others to respond to it in a meaningful way.
Can love save one from depression? What can one do to help a loved one who is struggling with depression cope? Some of the questions Ivanov rises seem timeless – or rather timely, thinking of present day in which so many struggle with the condition and the pharmaceutical industry grows fat on the profits from selling antidepressants. Michel Houellebecq poses similar questions in his latest novel Serotonin. And as far as Houellebecq and Chekhov suggest answers to these issues, don’t expect them to be of the heartening kind.
'I am a bad, pathetic and worthless individual. One needs to be pathetic, too, worn out and drained by drink, like Pasha, to be still fond of me and to respect me. My God, how I despise myself! I so deeply loathe my voice, my walk, my hands, these clothes, my thoughts. Well, isn't that funny, isn't that shocking? Less than a year ago I was healthy and strong, I was cheerful, tireless, passionate, I worked with these very hands, I could speak to move even Philistines to tears, I could cry when I saw grief, I became indignant when I encountered evil. I knew inspiration, I knew the charm and poetry of quiet nights when from dusk to dawn you sit at your desk or indulge you mind with dreams. I believed, I looked into the future as into the eyes of my own mother... And now, my God, I am exhausted, I do not believe, I spend my days and nights in idleness.'
Ach Ivanov, poor Ivanov, how heavy life can weigh on a man’s shoulders!
'The life of a man is like a flower, blooming so gaily in a field. Then, along comes a goat, he eats it, and the flower is gone!'
Once Chekhov told Tikhonov, a young mining engineer, contemplating Russia, ‘Our cities are without paved streets, our villages poor, our people worn. When we’re young we all chirp fervently like sparrows on a dung heap, but we’re old by the time we’re forty and we start thinking of death. What kind of heroes are we?’
Not everyone can carry the weight of the world.
(paintings by Isaac Levitan (1860-1900) - Anton Chekhov was the artist’s closest friend)
Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull was the first play I attended in out-of- school context, and I was blown away by it (and not just by the gun shot). It affected me so deeply tears rolled down my cheeks by the end of the play. So when I discovered that Chekhov’s 1887 play Ivanov was on the program of the local cultural centre, I jumped on the chance - it looked the perfect occasion as a means to reconnect with theatre, after a pause of seventeen years without attending any play.
As the performance was presented as an adaptation and even a deconstruction of Chekhov, afterwards I was curious to discover the original text –to which the performance stayed remarkably true, apart from removing a few of the numerous minor characters from the plot – and with it obliterating the symbolism of the card playing in the backdrop of the play which serves as a commentary on the unpredictability of life and fate.
'If an intelligent, educated, and healthy man begins to complain of his lot and go down-hill, there is nothing for him to do but to go on down until he reaches the bottom--there is no hope for him. Where could my salvation come from? How can I save myself? I cannot drink, because it makes my head ache. I never could write bad poetry. I cannot pray for strength and see anything lofty in the languor of my soul. Laziness is laziness and weakness weakness. I can find no other names for them. I am lost, I am lost; there is no doubt of that.'
The 35 year old Nikolai Ivanov is a complex and moody man. Is he guilty – as he repeats over and over again himself – or innocent? His environment – his moribund wife Anna, the doctor Lvov who thinks he is a cold and heartless monster and a fortune-chaser, the brash manager of Ivanov’s estate, Borkin, the Lebedevs, the cynic count Shabelsky (Ivanov’s uncle), Sasha wishing to rescue him – everyone is discussing him, criticising him, loving him – Ivanov is the anti-hero at the centre of the play, but no-one seems to hear what he is trying to say – all are too absorbed by their own dreams and little drama’s. No-one understands what is eating him, why he changed into an prickly, paralyzed man outwardly indifferent to his wife dying and his estate going to ruins by debts and neglect. Ivanov’s motives might not be as low as they look at first glance. Depicting Ivanov’s unrest, melancholy, despair and subsequent inability to take care of himself and of others, pushing everyone away in his shame, Chekhov paints a nowadays utterly recognisable, poignant and convincing portrayal of a state of depression – and how difficult it is for others to respond to it in a meaningful way.
Can love save one from depression? What can one do to help a loved one who is struggling with depression cope? Some of the questions Ivanov rises seem timeless – or rather timely, thinking of present day in which so many struggle with the condition and the pharmaceutical industry grows fat on the profits from selling antidepressants. Michel Houellebecq poses similar questions in his latest novel Serotonin. And as far as Houellebecq and Chekhov suggest answers to these issues, don’t expect them to be of the heartening kind.
'I am a bad, pathetic and worthless individual. One needs to be pathetic, too, worn out and drained by drink, like Pasha, to be still fond of me and to respect me. My God, how I despise myself! I so deeply loathe my voice, my walk, my hands, these clothes, my thoughts. Well, isn't that funny, isn't that shocking? Less than a year ago I was healthy and strong, I was cheerful, tireless, passionate, I worked with these very hands, I could speak to move even Philistines to tears, I could cry when I saw grief, I became indignant when I encountered evil. I knew inspiration, I knew the charm and poetry of quiet nights when from dusk to dawn you sit at your desk or indulge you mind with dreams. I believed, I looked into the future as into the eyes of my own mother... And now, my God, I am exhausted, I do not believe, I spend my days and nights in idleness.'
Ach Ivanov, poor Ivanov, how heavy life can weigh on a man’s shoulders!
'The life of a man is like a flower, blooming so gaily in a field. Then, along comes a goat, he eats it, and the flower is gone!'
Once Chekhov told Tikhonov, a young mining engineer, contemplating Russia, ‘Our cities are without paved streets, our villages poor, our people worn. When we’re young we all chirp fervently like sparrows on a dung heap, but we’re old by the time we’re forty and we start thinking of death. What kind of heroes are we?’
Not everyone can carry the weight of the world.
(paintings by Isaac Levitan (1860-1900) - Anton Chekhov was the artist’s closest friend)
April 18, 2020
ریویو دوم سال ۲۰۲۰
نکته درخشان این نمایشنامه اینه که چخوف نمایشنامهنویس/پزشک، یه شخصیتی که اون زمان بهش میگفتن مالیخولیایی به تصویر میکشه و به صورت خیلی دقیقی نشونههاش (سیمپتومها) رو شرح میده و انگار میخواد بگه این آدم دیوونه نیست، بلکه دارای یک بیماریه. داستان هم کشمکشهای این آدم با دنیای بیرونه و کارهایی که میکنه تا از این افسردگی بیرون بیاد. شاید عشقی جدید بتونه کمکش کنه. اما جواب اینه که خیر. عشقی جدید هم کمکش نمیکنه. اون باید درمان و درک بشه. اما توی نمایشنامه کسی به چشم بیمار بهش نگاه نمیکنه، کسی درکش نمیکنه، کسی حرفهاش رو جدی نمیگیره و اون لحظه به لحظه غمگینتر و معذبتر و با حسِگناهتر میشه تا این که آخر نمایش میرسه.
به نظرم چخوف حرکت خیلی مثبتی کرده با نوشتن این نمایشنامه.
از طرفی یه قرابت جذاب دیگه هم توی نمایشنامه هست. همسر ایوانف سل داره و دکتر بهش توصیه کرده که بره مسافرت.
سوزان سانتاگ توی کتاب
بیماری به مثابه استعاره، ایدز و استعارههایش
عقیده داره که سل، بیماریایست که به بیمار این امکان رو میده تا از بار مسئولیتهاش شونه خالی کنه. بلیتی برای بازنشستگی از دنیا و رفتن به آسایشگاه. و از طرفی اون رو با ملانکولی مقایسه میکنه که اون هم باعث میشه آدم از بقیه جدا بشه و مسئولیتهاش رو کنار بذاره.
حالا ما اینجا زن و شوهری رو داریم که یکی سل داره و یکی به گفتهی خودش زیر بار مسئولیتها له شده و علاقهاش و شور زندگی رو نسبت به همه چیز از دست داده. جفتشون نیاز به اون سفر دارن. ولی خب پولش رو ندارن و اون سفر انجام نمیشه و در نهایت جفتشون از بین میرن.
شاید چخوف داره یه قیاس انجام میده که اگر ما برای بیماریهای جسمی سفر تجویز میکنیم، برای بیماری روحی هم میتونیم این کار رو بکنیم و اگر این دو به سفر میرفتن شاید مشکل جفتشون حل میشد.
البته قطعا انقدر ساده نیست که یه سفر افسردگی رو رفع کنه، اما دارم از استعارهها و تمثیلها حرف ميزنم و سعی میکنم ببینم چخوف از چی حرف میزده وقتی انتخاب کرده که بیماری همسر ایوانف سل باشه، نه بیماری دیگهای. اون هم چخوفی که خیلی وسواس داشته روی عناصر نمایش و جمله معروفش درباره تفنگ رو همه به یاد داریم.
جدا از مسائل ایوانف، شخصیتهای دیگهای هم با خردهپیرنگهایی توی این نمایش هستن که اونا هم قابل توجه هستن. مثلا بوریکن که فقط به فکر پوله و در تضاده با پزشک که خیلی آرمانگراست اما اون هم به دلیل خامی و تعصب دچار قضاوت اشتباهه نسبت به ایوانف. یا حتا کوسیخ که هیچ کاری نمیکنه و فقط ورق بازی میکنه و نشانهای از افرادی میتونه باشه که زندگی رو فقط به بازی میگیرن. یا دایی، که برای فرار از ملال و پول به جیب زدن میخواد با یه بیوهای ازدواج کنه و کمی درباره مسائل اخلاقی حرف میزنه.
ایوانف، نمایشنامهای عمیق و پرمحتواست به نظرم که خوندنش ارزشمنده. یه تراژدی روانشناختی.
ریویو اول، سال ۲۰۱۸
این نمایش رو خیلی دوست داشتم. متوجه شدم که چخوف چطوری طنز مینویسه و برخلاف تصور قبلیم بود که فکر میکردم نمایشنامههای خشک و رسمیای داره. ایوانف، آدم افسردهای شده. نشونههای افسردگی کاملن توش دیده میشه، افسردگیای که درک و درمان نمیشه و حالا اتفاقات توی نمایشنامه رو جلو میبره. زیاد نمیتونم دربارهش حرف بزنم، که داستان لو نره، اما فکر کنم برای کسایی که درمورد میانسالی، افسردگی یا این قبیل مسائل فکر میکنن نمایشنامه جالبی باشه.
نکته درخشان این نمایشنامه اینه که چخوف نمایشنامهنویس/پزشک، یه شخصیتی که اون زمان بهش میگفتن مالیخولیایی به تصویر میکشه و به صورت خیلی دقیقی نشونههاش (سیمپتومها) رو شرح میده و انگار میخواد بگه این آدم دیوونه نیست، بلکه دارای یک بیماریه. داستان هم کشمکشهای این آدم با دنیای بیرونه و کارهایی که میکنه تا از این افسردگی بیرون بیاد. شاید عشقی جدید بتونه کمکش کنه. اما جواب اینه که خیر. عشقی جدید هم کمکش نمیکنه. اون باید درمان و درک بشه. اما توی نمایشنامه کسی به چشم بیمار بهش نگاه نمیکنه، کسی درکش نمیکنه، کسی حرفهاش رو جدی نمیگیره و اون لحظه به لحظه غمگینتر و معذبتر و با حسِگناهتر میشه تا این که آخر نمایش میرسه.
به نظرم چخوف حرکت خیلی مثبتی کرده با نوشتن این نمایشنامه.
از طرفی یه قرابت جذاب دیگه هم توی نمایشنامه هست. همسر ایوانف سل داره و دکتر بهش توصیه کرده که بره مسافرت.
سوزان سانتاگ توی کتاب
بیماری به مثابه استعاره، ایدز و استعارههایش
عقیده داره که سل، بیماریایست که به بیمار این امکان رو میده تا از بار مسئولیتهاش شونه خالی کنه. بلیتی برای بازنشستگی از دنیا و رفتن به آسایشگاه. و از طرفی اون رو با ملانکولی مقایسه میکنه که اون هم باعث میشه آدم از بقیه جدا بشه و مسئولیتهاش رو کنار بذاره.
حالا ما اینجا زن و شوهری رو داریم که یکی سل داره و یکی به گفتهی خودش زیر بار مسئولیتها له شده و علاقهاش و شور زندگی رو نسبت به همه چیز از دست داده. جفتشون نیاز به اون سفر دارن. ولی خب پولش رو ندارن و اون سفر انجام نمیشه و در نهایت جفتشون از بین میرن.
شاید چخوف داره یه قیاس انجام میده که اگر ما برای بیماریهای جسمی سفر تجویز میکنیم، برای بیماری روحی هم میتونیم این کار رو بکنیم و اگر این دو به سفر میرفتن شاید مشکل جفتشون حل میشد.
البته قطعا انقدر ساده نیست که یه سفر افسردگی رو رفع کنه، اما دارم از استعارهها و تمثیلها حرف ميزنم و سعی میکنم ببینم چخوف از چی حرف میزده وقتی انتخاب کرده که بیماری همسر ایوانف سل باشه، نه بیماری دیگهای. اون هم چخوفی که خیلی وسواس داشته روی عناصر نمایش و جمله معروفش درباره تفنگ رو همه به یاد داریم.
جدا از مسائل ایوانف، شخصیتهای دیگهای هم با خردهپیرنگهایی توی این نمایش هستن که اونا هم قابل توجه هستن. مثلا بوریکن که فقط به فکر پوله و در تضاده با پزشک که خیلی آرمانگراست اما اون هم به دلیل خامی و تعصب دچار قضاوت اشتباهه نسبت به ایوانف. یا حتا کوسیخ که هیچ کاری نمیکنه و فقط ورق بازی میکنه و نشانهای از افرادی میتونه باشه که زندگی رو فقط به بازی میگیرن. یا دایی، که برای فرار از ملال و پول به جیب زدن میخواد با یه بیوهای ازدواج کنه و کمی درباره مسائل اخلاقی حرف میزنه.
ایوانف، نمایشنامهای عمیق و پرمحتواست به نظرم که خوندنش ارزشمنده. یه تراژدی روانشناختی.
ریویو اول، سال ۲۰۱۸
این نمایش رو خیلی دوست داشتم. متوجه شدم که چخوف چطوری طنز مینویسه و برخلاف تصور قبلیم بود که فکر میکردم نمایشنامههای خشک و رسمیای داره. ایوانف، آدم افسردهای شده. نشونههای افسردگی کاملن توش دیده میشه، افسردگیای که درک و درمان نمیشه و حالا اتفاقات توی نمایشنامه رو جلو میبره. زیاد نمیتونم دربارهش حرف بزنم، که داستان لو نره، اما فکر کنم برای کسایی که درمورد میانسالی، افسردگی یا این قبیل مسائل فکر میکنن نمایشنامه جالبی باشه.
September 3, 2023
دوستانِ گرانقدر، نمایشنامهٔ "ایوانف" یکی از شاهکارهای چخوفِ بزرگ است.. ایوانف یا با نام کاملِ «نیکلای الکسیویچ» مردیست که حدوداً پنج سالی است که با زنی یهودی ازدواج کرده و این زن بخاطرِ عشقش به ایوانف، حتی مذهبش را نیز تغییر داده و خانواده اش او را از ارث محروم کرده اند.. ایوانف، در منزلش به همراهِ داییِ خود یعنی «شبیلسکی» یا همان کنت، زندگی میکند..زندگی ایوانف، خسته کننده شده است.. افسرده و ناامید شده و با مشکلاتِ مالی هم دست و پنجه نرم میکند و زمین کشاورزی اش هم در گروِ قرضهایِ اوست
زنِ ایوانف، یعنی «آناپترونا» که پیش از غسلِ تعمید و مسیحی شدن، نامش سارا بوده، بیمار است و به سل مبتلا شده است و بیشتر وقتش را با پزشکِ جوانی که تازه درسش را تمام کرده یعنی «دکتر لووف»، میگذراند.. از سوی دیگر، ایوانف، با آنکه میداند آناپترونا چند وقت بیشتر زنده نیست، ولی هیچگونه عشق و ترحمی نسبت به او ندارد و برای خودش هم عجیب است که چرا نسبت به زنش تا این اندازه بی تفاوت و تُهی از عشق شده است
در بینِ اطرافیان و دوستان نیز رحمی به ایوانفِ بیچاره دیده نشده و باری از مشکلاتش کم نمیشود.. «زینائیدا» زنی پول پرست و خسیس و شوهرش «لیبدف» به او پول قرض داده و ماه به ماه نزولِ سنگینی از او میگیرند
در این بین، دخترِ بیست سالهٔ زینائیدا و لیبدف، که «ساشا» یا شوروچکا، نام دارد، از دلباختگیِ خودش به ایوانف که از او پانزده سال بزرگتر است، پرده برداشته و در میهمانیِ روزِ تولدش به او میگوید که مشکلِ تو در زندگی، نبودِ عشق است.. من از کودکی، دلباختهٔ تو بوده ام.. حال، ایوانف با عشقِ سوزان و باورنکردنیِ یک دختر جوان روبرو شده که این دختر حاضر است با او ازدواج کرده و به هر کجای دنیا که میشود، فرار کند.. حتی به آمریکا
درست زمانی که ساشا و ایوانف، در آغوشِ هم و در حالِ بوسیدنِ یکدیگرند، آناپترونا شوهرش را میبیند... با گذشت روزها، آنقدر اوضاعِ بدنی و روانیِ آناپترونا به هم ریخته، که دکتر لووف هر روز باید با ایوانف بحث و جدل داشته باشد که مراعاتِ حال و روزِ همسرت را بکن. این زن بخاطرِ تو فداکاری های زیادی کرده و تو حتی برای جانِ او نیز ارزشی قائل نیستی و این بی شرفی به معنای واقعیِ کلمه است.. البته دکتر لووف احساساتی نیز نسبت به آناپترونا دارد و آنقدر همچون مگس در گوشِ آنا وزوز میکند که به هر نوعی ایوانف را نزدِ او و دیگران خار و خفیف و بی شرف جلوه دهد
آناپترونا هم تصورش این است که ایوانف به دلیلِ قرضی که به خانوادهٔ لیبدف داشته، قصدِ ازدواج با دخترشان را دارد تا نه تنها قرضش صاف شود، بلکه به واسطهٔ ازدواج با تک فرزندِ آنها، ثروتِ لیبدف ها را نیز تصرف کند
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ تلخِ زندگیِ ایوانف، آگاه شوید
-----------------------------------
جملاتِ انتخاب شده از این کتاب
++++++++++++++++++++
آناپترونا: هیچ وقت برای یک زن از فضائلِ خودت حرف نزن.. بگذار خودشان کشف کنند
********************
شبیلسکی: دکترها، درست مثلِ وُکلا اند.. تنها تفاوتشان این است که وُکلا فقط آدم را میچاپند، در حالی که دکترها، هم آدم را میچاپند و هم میکشند
********************
بورکین: زندگی همین است.. به یک گُل میماند که شاد و خندان در چمن شکفته میشود.. بعد یک بُز سر میرسد و گُل را میبلعد.. و همه چیز تمام میشود
********************
شبیلسکی: جهودِ تعمید داده شده و مسیحی شده، دزدِ توبه کار و اسبی که مریض بوده و خوب شده.. آخرِ کار، همه شان به یک اندازه ارزش دارند
********************
ایوانف: هرجا که میروم، فلاکت، ملالِ محض، ناخشنودی و بیزاری از زندگی را همراه میبرم.. تباه شده ام، ناامیدانه تباه شده ام.. روبرویتان مردی ایستاده که در سی و پنج سالگی، خسته شده، از شور و شوق به در آمده، با تقلاهایِ بی ارزش خُرد شده، از شرم میسوزد و ضعفِ خودش را به ریشخند میگیرد
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
زنِ ایوانف، یعنی «آناپترونا» که پیش از غسلِ تعمید و مسیحی شدن، نامش سارا بوده، بیمار است و به سل مبتلا شده است و بیشتر وقتش را با پزشکِ جوانی که تازه درسش را تمام کرده یعنی «دکتر لووف»، میگذراند.. از سوی دیگر، ایوانف، با آنکه میداند آناپترونا چند وقت بیشتر زنده نیست، ولی هیچگونه عشق و ترحمی نسبت به او ندارد و برای خودش هم عجیب است که چرا نسبت به زنش تا این اندازه بی تفاوت و تُهی از عشق شده است
در بینِ اطرافیان و دوستان نیز رحمی به ایوانفِ بیچاره دیده نشده و باری از مشکلاتش کم نمیشود.. «زینائیدا» زنی پول پرست و خسیس و شوهرش «لیبدف» به او پول قرض داده و ماه به ماه نزولِ سنگینی از او میگیرند
در این بین، دخترِ بیست سالهٔ زینائیدا و لیبدف، که «ساشا» یا شوروچکا، نام دارد، از دلباختگیِ خودش به ایوانف که از او پانزده سال بزرگتر است، پرده برداشته و در میهمانیِ روزِ تولدش به او میگوید که مشکلِ تو در زندگی، نبودِ عشق است.. من از کودکی، دلباختهٔ تو بوده ام.. حال، ایوانف با عشقِ سوزان و باورنکردنیِ یک دختر جوان روبرو شده که این دختر حاضر است با او ازدواج کرده و به هر کجای دنیا که میشود، فرار کند.. حتی به آمریکا
درست زمانی که ساشا و ایوانف، در آغوشِ هم و در حالِ بوسیدنِ یکدیگرند، آناپترونا شوهرش را میبیند... با گذشت روزها، آنقدر اوضاعِ بدنی و روانیِ آناپترونا به هم ریخته، که دکتر لووف هر روز باید با ایوانف بحث و جدل داشته باشد که مراعاتِ حال و روزِ همسرت را بکن. این زن بخاطرِ تو فداکاری های زیادی کرده و تو حتی برای جانِ او نیز ارزشی قائل نیستی و این بی شرفی به معنای واقعیِ کلمه است.. البته دکتر لووف احساساتی نیز نسبت به آناپترونا دارد و آنقدر همچون مگس در گوشِ آنا وزوز میکند که به هر نوعی ایوانف را نزدِ او و دیگران خار و خفیف و بی شرف جلوه دهد
آناپترونا هم تصورش این است که ایوانف به دلیلِ قرضی که به خانوادهٔ لیبدف داشته، قصدِ ازدواج با دخترشان را دارد تا نه تنها قرضش صاف شود، بلکه به واسطهٔ ازدواج با تک فرزندِ آنها، ثروتِ لیبدف ها را نیز تصرف کند
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ تلخِ زندگیِ ایوانف، آگاه شوید
-----------------------------------
جملاتِ انتخاب شده از این کتاب
++++++++++++++++++++
آناپترونا: هیچ وقت برای یک زن از فضائلِ خودت حرف نزن.. بگذار خودشان کشف کنند
********************
شبیلسکی: دکترها، درست مثلِ وُکلا اند.. تنها تفاوتشان این است که وُکلا فقط آدم را میچاپند، در حالی که دکترها، هم آدم را میچاپند و هم میکشند
********************
بورکین: زندگی همین است.. به یک گُل میماند که شاد و خندان در چمن شکفته میشود.. بعد یک بُز سر میرسد و گُل را میبلعد.. و همه چیز تمام میشود
********************
شبیلسکی: جهودِ تعمید داده شده و مسیحی شده، دزدِ توبه کار و اسبی که مریض بوده و خوب شده.. آخرِ کار، همه شان به یک اندازه ارزش دارند
********************
ایوانف: هرجا که میروم، فلاکت، ملالِ محض، ناخشنودی و بیزاری از زندگی را همراه میبرم.. تباه شده ام، ناامیدانه تباه شده ام.. روبرویتان مردی ایستاده که در سی و پنج سالگی، خسته شده، از شور و شوق به در آمده، با تقلاهایِ بی ارزش خُرد شده، از شرم میسوزد و ضعفِ خودش را به ریشخند میگیرد
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
November 29, 2023
This 1887 four act play by Chekhov introduces us to Nicholas Ivanoff, thirty-five years old and married to Anna, who is dying of consumption. Is this the reason Ivanoff is so depressed? Or is his melancholy personality something he is simply no longer able to hide?
During the opening lines I liked Ivanoff because of a statement he makes to his uncle Borkin, who is also his estate manager. Borkin had come tiptoeing in and actually pointed a gun in Ivanoff's face as a joke. After they both settle a bit, Ivanoff says I am reading now. I shall attend to you later. I'm sure we all can imagine how satisfying it would be to say this at least once! We would have to use our best regal manner, of course, but I for one am quite willing to start practicing the proper royal tone.
Anyway, I liked Ivanoff at that point, but then the doctor comes out and is very upset about how Ivanoff's treatment of his wife Anna is killing her. She needs peace and quiet, not the emotional torment the doctor seems to feel Ivanoff is causing her. I thought the doctor might possibly have been in love with Anna himself, because during the entire play he seemed much more upset than he should have been as a professional medical man. He hated Ivanoff with a passion and wanted to let the world know what a scoundrel he truly was.
There is gossip about why Ivanoff married Anna; more gossip about his debts, more gossip about his business dealings, more gossip about his relationship with young Sasha, 20 years old and very much in love with Ivanoff. I got confused about the man, and also noticed that the rest of the cast seemed to carry the story along more than he did. He was mainly silent and brooding, but when he did speak he did so with great intensity, even while he seemed as confused as I was.
I had an idea of how the play might end, but I changed my mind many times right up to the moment of the final curtain. I cannot pretend to analyze this play in any sort of intellectual way; I can only say that for me it was a fascinating glimpse at an unusual life. I am glad I read it, and I hope to read more Chekhov soon.
During the opening lines I liked Ivanoff because of a statement he makes to his uncle Borkin, who is also his estate manager. Borkin had come tiptoeing in and actually pointed a gun in Ivanoff's face as a joke. After they both settle a bit, Ivanoff says I am reading now. I shall attend to you later. I'm sure we all can imagine how satisfying it would be to say this at least once! We would have to use our best regal manner, of course, but I for one am quite willing to start practicing the proper royal tone.
Anyway, I liked Ivanoff at that point, but then the doctor comes out and is very upset about how Ivanoff's treatment of his wife Anna is killing her. She needs peace and quiet, not the emotional torment the doctor seems to feel Ivanoff is causing her. I thought the doctor might possibly have been in love with Anna himself, because during the entire play he seemed much more upset than he should have been as a professional medical man. He hated Ivanoff with a passion and wanted to let the world know what a scoundrel he truly was.
There is gossip about why Ivanoff married Anna; more gossip about his debts, more gossip about his business dealings, more gossip about his relationship with young Sasha, 20 years old and very much in love with Ivanoff. I got confused about the man, and also noticed that the rest of the cast seemed to carry the story along more than he did. He was mainly silent and brooding, but when he did speak he did so with great intensity, even while he seemed as confused as I was.
I had an idea of how the play might end, but I changed my mind many times right up to the moment of the final curtain. I cannot pretend to analyze this play in any sort of intellectual way; I can only say that for me it was a fascinating glimpse at an unusual life. I am glad I read it, and I hope to read more Chekhov soon.
May 6, 2020
ایوانف تاریک ترین نمایشنامه چخوف است,پر از افرادی که نور زندگی از دنیایشان رخت بسته,نومیدی و افسردگی چنان تک تک اجزای ایوانف را در برگرفته که از او شخصیتی ساخته چون یک سیاهچال..شخصی که از شدت تاریکی حتی نور را نیز عبور نمی دهد,در قفسی از ذهن از جنس میله های احساسات چنان زندانی شده که هر چیز ارزشمندی,دوستی,عشق محبت همه و همه ی چیزهایی که برای لحظه ای به ما حس خوب و روشنی می دهند,در یک اقیانوس تاریک دهشتبار غرق شده اند
ایوانف به ما جنبه تاریکی از زندگی را نشان می دهد,به عنوان یک هشدار..حذری که هر یک از ما در هر روز از زندگی,محتاطانه باید آن را انتخاب کنیم,تا که شاید چند صباحی دیرتر غرقه ی این اقیانوس تاریکی شویم..
ایوانف به ما جنبه تاریکی از زندگی را نشان می دهد,به عنوان یک هشدار..حذری که هر یک از ما در هر روز از زندگی,محتاطانه باید آن را انتخاب کنیم,تا که شاید چند صباحی دیرتر غرقه ی این اقیانوس تاریکی شویم..
July 10, 2019
اين نمايش نامه رو بيشتر از دو نمايش نامه " باغ آلبالو " و " " سه خواهر "دوست داشتم.
از نظر من چخوف بيشتر از ديگر نويسنده هاى روس ، متخصص به تصوير كشيدن جامعه خودشه. جامعه اى كه البته ميشه تعميمش داد به جامعه هاى ديگه و باهاش به راحتى همزاد پندارى كرد.
نمايش نامه در مورد مردى به نام " ايوانف" هستش كه در زندگى به بن بست رسيده و اطرافيانش هركدوم متناسب با برداشتى كه از ايوانف دارن، مورد قضاوت قرارش ميدن و سرزنشش ميكنن.
از نظر من چخوف بيشتر از ديگر نويسنده هاى روس ، متخصص به تصوير كشيدن جامعه خودشه. جامعه اى كه البته ميشه تعميمش داد به جامعه هاى ديگه و باهاش به راحتى همزاد پندارى كرد.
نمايش نامه در مورد مردى به نام " ايوانف" هستش كه در زندگى به بن بست رسيده و اطرافيانش هركدوم متناسب با برداشتى كه از ايوانف دارن، مورد قضاوت قرارش ميدن و سرزنشش ميكنن.
August 1, 2024
میدانی دکتر،دارم کمکم به این فکر میافتم که سرنوشت فریبم داده.خیلی از آدمهایی که شاید هیچ برتری هم نسبت به من ندارند،خوشبختند، در حالیکه خوشبختی برایشان هیچ مایهای هم بر نمیدارد.ولی من برای همه چیز از خودم مایه گذاشتهام،کلا برای همه چیز!..
#ایوانف #آنتوان_چخوف ترجمه #سعید_حمیدیان
.
📝ایوانف مردی سی و پنج ساله است که در ازدواج اولش چندان موفق نبوده و حسی به همسرش نداشته، گرچه همسرش به خاطر او تغییر مذهب داده و قید خانوادهاش را زده ولی بعد از پنج سال زندگی او نتوانسته هیچ گونه عشق و ترحمی نسبت به او داشته باشد و متاسفانه همسرش این را در اواخر عمرش که گرفتار بیماری ناعلاجی شده، میفهمد. این موضوع و عوامل دیگر باعث انحطاط روحی و جسمی ایوانف میشود.
.
متن زیر از مقدمهی کتاب ایوانف در مورد کتاب سه خواهر:
در نمایشنامهی سه خواهر پرسوناژهای اصلی از همان روشنفکراناند که هر کدام چند زبان میدانند اما معلوم نیست که این زباندانی در روستایی دورافتاده به چه دردی میخورد و گاها این را به رخ یکدیگر میکشند.آنها گاهی برای دفع ملال گرفتار عشق میشوند، که اغلب هم ناکام یا بیحاصل از آب در میآید...
.
نمایشنامهی ایوانف رو خیلی دوست داشتم.در مورد شخصیت چخوف تو پستهای قبل نوشتم و همچنان برام جالب و دوستداشتنیه.پزشکی که حقایق رو با طنز تلخ بیان میکند و همچنان رئالنویس نگران ولی امیدوار باقی میماند.
#ایوانف #آنتوان_چخوف ترجمه #سعید_حمیدیان
.
📝ایوانف مردی سی و پنج ساله است که در ازدواج اولش چندان موفق نبوده و حسی به همسرش نداشته، گرچه همسرش به خاطر او تغییر مذهب داده و قید خانوادهاش را زده ولی بعد از پنج سال زندگی او نتوانسته هیچ گونه عشق و ترحمی نسبت به او داشته باشد و متاسفانه همسرش این را در اواخر عمرش که گرفتار بیماری ناعلاجی شده، میفهمد. این موضوع و عوامل دیگر باعث انحطاط روحی و جسمی ایوانف میشود.
.
متن زیر از مقدمهی کتاب ایوانف در مورد کتاب سه خواهر:
در نمایشنامهی سه خواهر پرسوناژهای اصلی از همان روشنفکراناند که هر کدام چند زبان میدانند اما معلوم نیست که این زباندانی در روستایی دورافتاده به چه دردی میخورد و گاها این را به رخ یکدیگر میکشند.آنها گاهی برای دفع ملال گرفتار عشق میشوند، که اغلب هم ناکام یا بیحاصل از آب در میآید...
.
نمایشنامهی ایوانف رو خیلی دوست داشتم.در مورد شخصیت چخوف تو پستهای قبل نوشتم و همچنان برام جالب و دوستداشتنیه.پزشکی که حقایق رو با طنز تلخ بیان میکند و همچنان رئالنویس نگران ولی امیدوار باقی میماند.
November 10, 2016
ایوانف : می دانی دکتر ،دارم کم کم به این فکر می افتم که سرنوشت فریبم داده. خیلی از آدمهایی که شاید هیچ برتری هم نسبت به من ندارند ،خوشبختند ، در حالی که خوشبختی برایشان هیچ مایه ای هم بر نمی دارد .ولی من برای همه چیز از خودم مایه گذاشتم ، کلا برای همه چیز!... و چقدر هم برایم گران تمام شده! چرا باید یک چنین نزول کمر شکنی را پرداخته باشم؟
****
بورکین: آه می کشد.
زندگی همین است ... به یک گل می ماند که شاد و خندان توی چمن شکفته می شود : یک بز سر می رسد ، می بلعدش ، و همه چیز تمام می شود ...
****
ایوانف: توی بیست سالگی همه مان پهلوانیم ، چیزی را به عهده نمی گیریم ، کاری ازمان بر نمی آید، ولی توی سی سالگی خسته ایم و به هیچ دردی نمی خوریم. بگو ببینم این که آدم انقدر زود خسته می شود چطور توجیه می کنی؟
****
ایوانف (به لووف) : نه دکتر، ما همه بیش از آن پیچ و مهره در وجودمان دارریم که با اولین اثر یا علائم ظاهری رویمان حکم بشود. من تو را نمی شناسم ، تو مرا نمی شناسی ريال و ما خودمان را هم نمی شناسیم . ممکن است آدم پزشک حسابی باشد- و در عین حال هیچ چیز از انسانها نداند. قبول کن که حق با من است - و این قدر ها هم از خودت مطمئن نباش
****
بورکین: آه می کشد.
زندگی همین است ... به یک گل می ماند که شاد و خندان توی چمن شکفته می شود : یک بز سر می رسد ، می بلعدش ، و همه چیز تمام می شود ...
****
ایوانف: توی بیست سالگی همه مان پهلوانیم ، چیزی را به عهده نمی گیریم ، کاری ازمان بر نمی آید، ولی توی سی سالگی خسته ایم و به هیچ دردی نمی خوریم. بگو ببینم این که آدم انقدر زود خسته می شود چطور توجیه می کنی؟
****
ایوانف (به لووف) : نه دکتر، ما همه بیش از آن پیچ و مهره در وجودمان دارریم که با اولین اثر یا علائم ظاهری رویمان حکم بشود. من تو را نمی شناسم ، تو مرا نمی شناسی ريال و ما خودمان را هم نمی شناسیم . ممکن است آدم پزشک حسابی باشد- و در عین حال هیچ چیز از انسانها نداند. قبول کن که حق با من است - و این قدر ها هم از خودت مطمئن نباش
June 5, 2023
- قبلا خیلی کار میکردم.هیچ وقت هم خسته نمیشدم.
اما حالا،نه کاری میکنم و نه به چیزی فکر میکنم..
ولی روحاً و جسماً خسته ام.
روز و شب وجدانم ناراحت است؛سخت احساس گناه میکنم.
اما این که واقعا گناهم چیست؟خودم هم نمیدانم..
اقای چخوف عزیز
مرسی که با شخصیت هات و پایان کتابات قلب مارو خورد و خاکشیر میکنی..🤝💔
اما حالا،نه کاری میکنم و نه به چیزی فکر میکنم..
ولی روحاً و جسماً خسته ام.
روز و شب وجدانم ناراحت است؛سخت احساس گناه میکنم.
اما این که واقعا گناهم چیست؟خودم هم نمیدانم..
اقای چخوف عزیز
مرسی که با شخصیت هات و پایان کتابات قلب مارو خورد و خاکشیر میکنی..🤝💔
December 28, 2017
من دوست داشتم رفتن زندگی به سمتی - بدون اختیار - و در عین حال چالش های اخلاقی و انسانی پدید آمده در آن را. اینکه ایوانف به سمتی کشانده می شود اما خود دائم از بی اخلاقی با غیر انسانی بودن این مسیر اجباری در زجر و عذاب است. همینطور دوست داشتم پایانش را و تصمیم خودقانونگذار ( اتونوم ) ایوانف را در سلطه بر این سیر قهقهرایی با توسل به خودکشی. همینطور دوست داشتم تصویر دکتر "شرافتمند" را
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 1, 2024
Chekhov's Ivanov is not a prince of Denmark, but his ennui is as potent, his existential malaise as suffocating. We encounter a man drowning in a stagnant provincial life, a Hamlet shorn of grandeur, but no less burdened. We see echoes of the Danish prince in his introspection and despair, but his existential crisis unfolds not in the grand halls of Elsinore, but amidst the petty gossip and suffocating boredom of the landed gentry. His dissatisfaction bleeds outward, poisoning his relationships and leaving a trail of devastation.
Chekhov masterfully paints a portrait of a man drowning in regret. His love for his wife, Anna, has curdled into a weary obligation. Anna, a woman who sacrificed wealth and faith for him, withers under his indifference and occasional, barbed cruelty, a tragic echo of Ophelia. Her illness becomes a constant reminder of his choices, a physical manifestation of his emotional paralysis. Ivanov's descent is laced with moments of self-loathing, his sharp intellect offering no solace, only a harsher spotlight on his failings. His anti-Semitism, a reflection of the prevalent societal prejudice, adds another layer of ugliness to his character.
Yet, Chekhov refuses to paint Ivanov as a villain. We find ourselves oscillating between repulsion and a grudging empathy. His despair is palpable, a suffocating miasma that permeates the play. The supporting characters, sketched with Chekhov's characteristic brilliance, become bystanders to this slow-motion tragedy. Their witty barbs and idle chatter only amplify the hollowness at the play's core.
The play is a tapestry of beautifully wrought dialogue. Chekhov, with his keen eye for human folly, exposes the festering discontent that lies beneath the veneer of polite society and delivers harsh truths that resonate deeply. He forces us to confront the human capacity for self-destruction and the devastating impact of unaddressed dissatisfaction. Ivanov leaves a lingering ache, a reminder of the quiet tragedies that unfold when hope withers and life loses its lustre, and the potential for tragedy that lurks within the seemingly ordinary.
ANNA. I'm beginning to think I've been unlucky, Doctor. There are lots of people, no better than me perhaps, who are happy and whose happiness costs them nothing. But I've paid for everything, every single thing. And so dearly: Why charge me such a shocking rate of interest? My dear, you're all so careful with me, so very tactful, you're afraid to tell me the truth, but do you think I don't know what's the matter with me? I know all right.
Chekhov masterfully paints a portrait of a man drowning in regret. His love for his wife, Anna, has curdled into a weary obligation. Anna, a woman who sacrificed wealth and faith for him, withers under his indifference and occasional, barbed cruelty, a tragic echo of Ophelia. Her illness becomes a constant reminder of his choices, a physical manifestation of his emotional paralysis. Ivanov's descent is laced with moments of self-loathing, his sharp intellect offering no solace, only a harsher spotlight on his failings. His anti-Semitism, a reflection of the prevalent societal prejudice, adds another layer of ugliness to his character.
Yet, Chekhov refuses to paint Ivanov as a villain. We find ourselves oscillating between repulsion and a grudging empathy. His despair is palpable, a suffocating miasma that permeates the play. The supporting characters, sketched with Chekhov's characteristic brilliance, become bystanders to this slow-motion tragedy. Their witty barbs and idle chatter only amplify the hollowness at the play's core.
The play is a tapestry of beautifully wrought dialogue. Chekhov, with his keen eye for human folly, exposes the festering discontent that lies beneath the veneer of polite society and delivers harsh truths that resonate deeply. He forces us to confront the human capacity for self-destruction and the devastating impact of unaddressed dissatisfaction. Ivanov leaves a lingering ache, a reminder of the quiet tragedies that unfold when hope withers and life loses its lustre, and the potential for tragedy that lurks within the seemingly ordinary.
ANNA. I'm beginning to think I've been unlucky, Doctor. There are lots of people, no better than me perhaps, who are happy and whose happiness costs them nothing. But I've paid for everything, every single thing. And so dearly: Why charge me such a shocking rate of interest? My dear, you're all so careful with me, so very tactful, you're afraid to tell me the truth, but do you think I don't know what's the matter with me? I know all right.
February 25, 2016
کاری بود که عمیقا از خوندنش لذت بردم، شخصیت پردازی فوق العاده و پرداخت مفهوم عالی و پیوست داستانی هم، عالی بود....قبلا از چخوف نمایشنامه باغ آلبالو رو هم خونده بودم، و خیلی هم خوشم اومده بود، از ایوانف حتی از اون هم بیشتر لذت بردم...از چخوف عزیزم ممنونم...
December 23, 2017
کرم های شب تاب شب ها می درخشند، فقط به این منظور که پرنده های شبگرد آنها را ببینند و بهتر بتوانند شکارشان کنند؛ فلسفه ی وجود آدم ها ی خوب و درستکار هم این است که مردم از حسادت برای شان حرف دربیاورند و به آن ها تهمت بزنند.
.
در بدبختی هاست که آدم به روح های آبدیده و مقاوم پی میبرد.
.
از کتاب
.
در بدبختی هاست که آدم به روح های آبدیده و مقاوم پی میبرد.
.
از کتاب
April 27, 2019
چخوف چقدراز دست انتلکت ها شاکی بوده:))
خیلی جذابیتی برایم نداشت ولی کار عاقلانه ای که کردم نخواندن مقدمه اش بود چون حدس زدم کل داستان را لو داده باشد و وقتی کتاب تمام شد خواندمش و دیدم حدسم کاملا درست بوده.
خیلی جذابیتی برایم نداشت ولی کار عاقلانه ای که کردم نخواندن مقدمه اش بود چون حدس زدم کل داستان را لو داده باشد و وقتی کتاب تمام شد خواندمش و دیدم حدسم کاملا درست بوده.
November 6, 2021
class play! making the chekhov brand of atmospheric literature my autumn/winter staple just makes perfect sense. i picked up on many themes, motives and cliché commentary but will bring it all up only after a second reading. and thank you to abeer for reading this with me i love you so much!!
“melancholy! noble anguish! inexplicable grief! only one thing’s lacking—i ought to write poetry.”
“melancholy! noble anguish! inexplicable grief! only one thing’s lacking—i ought to write poetry.”
August 23, 2021
آه ایوانف 😔
هم ازت بدم میاد هم نمی تونم بدم بیاد ...
انگار ایوانفُ این روزا، این چن سالِ اخیر نمودِ واقعیشو خیلی اطرافم دارم می بینم، خیلی نزدیکتر از اطرافم، انگار خ و د م م ...
ملال، افسردگی، سکون، غم، نگفتن، نخواستن، نشدن، بی هیچی، اینا توو وجود ایوانف لنگر انداختن.
در این ملالِ لعنتی، زمان از چیزی سرشار نیست... همه ی امکان ها رو کم رنگ می کنه ...
و هر کسی با ملال یه جور متفاوت کنار میاد... ایوانف هم.
هم ازت بدم میاد هم نمی تونم بدم بیاد ...
انگار ایوانفُ این روزا، این چن سالِ اخیر نمودِ واقعیشو خیلی اطرافم دارم می بینم، خیلی نزدیکتر از اطرافم، انگار خ و د م م ...
ملال، افسردگی، سکون، غم، نگفتن، نخواستن، نشدن، بی هیچی، اینا توو وجود ایوانف لنگر انداختن.
در این ملالِ لعنتی، زمان از چیزی سرشار نیست... همه ی امکان ها رو کم رنگ می کنه ...
و هر کسی با ملال یه جور متفاوت کنار میاد... ایوانف هم.
November 27, 2019
(Translated by Ann Dunnigan)
"Anna Petrovna: I am beginning to think that fate has cheated me, Doctor. There are a great many people, perhaps no better than I, who are happy without having had to pay for their happiness. But I have paid for everything, absolutely everything! . . . And so dearly! Why should I have had to pay such terribly high interest?" Act I
This is the best of young Chekhov. All the ingredients that would characterize his later masterpieces are here, but the man is still raw. At this time he was more known for his short stories than plays. Ivanov is the moment when Chekhov the playwright starts to be fully formed. Like all Chekhov plays, it deals with the struggles of normal people trying to live.
The title character is a landowner who is perpetually depressed, while his wife is slowly dying from tuberculosis. There is also the fact that the wife is a convert from Judaism in a time when Russia was rife with anti-Semitism and this is depicted in the play as all the side characters show pity or contempt at Anna for being of Jewish ethnicity. She does her best to be as devoted and kind as possible, but Ivanov is verging on brattish and cruel in showing any concern for his wife. Like most Chekhov works, expect much tears and emotion from the men as well as women. The ending is sudden, but trademark Chekhov. I was impressed by this play as it shows the making of a master.
"Anna Petrovna: I am beginning to think that fate has cheated me, Doctor. There are a great many people, perhaps no better than I, who are happy without having had to pay for their happiness. But I have paid for everything, absolutely everything! . . . And so dearly! Why should I have had to pay such terribly high interest?" Act I
This is the best of young Chekhov. All the ingredients that would characterize his later masterpieces are here, but the man is still raw. At this time he was more known for his short stories than plays. Ivanov is the moment when Chekhov the playwright starts to be fully formed. Like all Chekhov plays, it deals with the struggles of normal people trying to live.
The title character is a landowner who is perpetually depressed, while his wife is slowly dying from tuberculosis. There is also the fact that the wife is a convert from Judaism in a time when Russia was rife with anti-Semitism and this is depicted in the play as all the side characters show pity or contempt at Anna for being of Jewish ethnicity. She does her best to be as devoted and kind as possible, but Ivanov is verging on brattish and cruel in showing any concern for his wife. Like most Chekhov works, expect much tears and emotion from the men as well as women. The ending is sudden, but trademark Chekhov. I was impressed by this play as it shows the making of a master.
Read
June 21, 2017زندگی همین است،به یک گل میماند که شاد و خندان توی چمن شکفته می شود.یک بز سر می رسد،می بلعدش و همه چیز تمام می شود.
May 6, 2019
چخوف چقدر خوب زیر و بم آدمها را می شناسد. ناتوانی آدمها در تغییر تقدیر و تلاششان برای نجات همیشه بی نتیجه است.
November 13, 2021
دقیق نمیدونم چرا از ایوانف خوشم اومده، اما یه جورایی ساختارشکن بوده و صراحتش من رو جذب کرد. بیشتر به خاطر به چالش کشیدن عشق، حس عجیبی به ایوانف دارم. شاید بعداً که بیشتر فهمیدم، این رو ویرایش کنم.
September 23, 2025
Ivanov by Anton Chekhov
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books and plays, short stories by Anton Chekhov and others are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
This is an absolute masterpiece.
Towering over this magnificent play is the extremely complicated hero: Nicolai Ivanov.
He is married to Anna, who was called Sarah Abramson before her nuptials, but changed her name on account of her love for Ivanov.
Not only that, but she gave up her religion- she was born in the Jewish tradition- and her family for this complex man.
Their relationship is complicated…what else.
We could refer to positive psychology and the honeymoon effect that could explain the position that Ivanov is in.
The honeymoon effect says that after about two years, one gets used to the spouse to the point that she can be like scarlet Johansson and one would still be attracted by someone new and tempted to cheat.
- Well, this is my poor rendition of the effect
Nevertheless, Nicolai Ivanov is no longer excited by his wife and he gets into states where he says awful things to her.
I said extremely complicated because I think that Ivanov might cover all the range of human frailties, qualities, skills, idiosyncrasies and virtues…
- He is brave, honest to the point of insulting, progressive in a degree that takes his family to the brink of destitution, modest up to self-destruction, depressed in manner that would solicit an analyst and much more
All the characters are interesting, even the ones that make a near cameo appearance, but entertain with a funny name or comment.
But for me, Ivanov steals the show, especially since the actor playing him in the BBC production that I heard earlier is none other than the fabulous Ralph Fiennes.
On the one hand, Ivanov is above the crowd- he marries a Jewish woman in an époque of awful prejudice and we are told a few times that he is progressive, even when those around mock him for what they see as a failure.
But in moments of despair, anguish and utter desolation he calls Anna a “dirty Jew” which makes my point that this is a man who can be both Superman and Lex Luthor, albeit in consequent scenes and we can see that he is losing it.
His behavior and ultimate destiny argue for a diagnostic that could explain his tendency for self- destruction.
He says at one point:
- I should put a bullet in my head
I may have concentrated too much on Ivanov and indeed, this is such a fabulous play that a real, good and honest review of it would require first a professional and then many pages dedicated to plot, themes, characters…
Anna is also a complex woman, with a strong will and a passionate love for her husband- as aforementioned she gave up everything for him- but she can also be resentful, jealous, demanding and unsympathetic.
But then she is dying, diagnosed with tuberculosis early on in the play- so I am not really telling you how it all ends.
Her recriminations are partly true, given that Nicolai Ivanov is indeed attracted to Sasha- another woman, twenty years old and again a very interesting personage.
Notwithstanding his affection for Sasha, Ivanov is not pursuing the young woman.
On the contrary, he is the one who is strongly rejecting her and pointing out the impossibility of their relationship.
Accusations are flying in the neighborhood, where Ivanov had been the object of gossip and attacks ever since he married Anna:
- Why would anyone marry a Jew?
- He was after her fortune
This again marks a distinctive contrast between the modern, civilized Ivanov and the gentry, who were racist, limited, and fundamentalist and would probably vote for Trump if given the chance, manifesting an outrageous hostility for people of other creeds.
I feel like going on and say much more about a play that had a tremendous impact on me, but I need to stop here…
Flabbergasting, mesmerizing, wondrous play
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books and plays, short stories by Anton Chekhov and others are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
This is an absolute masterpiece.
Towering over this magnificent play is the extremely complicated hero: Nicolai Ivanov.
He is married to Anna, who was called Sarah Abramson before her nuptials, but changed her name on account of her love for Ivanov.
Not only that, but she gave up her religion- she was born in the Jewish tradition- and her family for this complex man.
Their relationship is complicated…what else.
We could refer to positive psychology and the honeymoon effect that could explain the position that Ivanov is in.
The honeymoon effect says that after about two years, one gets used to the spouse to the point that she can be like scarlet Johansson and one would still be attracted by someone new and tempted to cheat.
- Well, this is my poor rendition of the effect
Nevertheless, Nicolai Ivanov is no longer excited by his wife and he gets into states where he says awful things to her.
I said extremely complicated because I think that Ivanov might cover all the range of human frailties, qualities, skills, idiosyncrasies and virtues…
- He is brave, honest to the point of insulting, progressive in a degree that takes his family to the brink of destitution, modest up to self-destruction, depressed in manner that would solicit an analyst and much more
All the characters are interesting, even the ones that make a near cameo appearance, but entertain with a funny name or comment.
But for me, Ivanov steals the show, especially since the actor playing him in the BBC production that I heard earlier is none other than the fabulous Ralph Fiennes.
On the one hand, Ivanov is above the crowd- he marries a Jewish woman in an époque of awful prejudice and we are told a few times that he is progressive, even when those around mock him for what they see as a failure.
But in moments of despair, anguish and utter desolation he calls Anna a “dirty Jew” which makes my point that this is a man who can be both Superman and Lex Luthor, albeit in consequent scenes and we can see that he is losing it.
His behavior and ultimate destiny argue for a diagnostic that could explain his tendency for self- destruction.
He says at one point:
- I should put a bullet in my head
I may have concentrated too much on Ivanov and indeed, this is such a fabulous play that a real, good and honest review of it would require first a professional and then many pages dedicated to plot, themes, characters…
Anna is also a complex woman, with a strong will and a passionate love for her husband- as aforementioned she gave up everything for him- but she can also be resentful, jealous, demanding and unsympathetic.
But then she is dying, diagnosed with tuberculosis early on in the play- so I am not really telling you how it all ends.
Her recriminations are partly true, given that Nicolai Ivanov is indeed attracted to Sasha- another woman, twenty years old and again a very interesting personage.
Notwithstanding his affection for Sasha, Ivanov is not pursuing the young woman.
On the contrary, he is the one who is strongly rejecting her and pointing out the impossibility of their relationship.
Accusations are flying in the neighborhood, where Ivanov had been the object of gossip and attacks ever since he married Anna:
- Why would anyone marry a Jew?
- He was after her fortune
This again marks a distinctive contrast between the modern, civilized Ivanov and the gentry, who were racist, limited, and fundamentalist and would probably vote for Trump if given the chance, manifesting an outrageous hostility for people of other creeds.
I feel like going on and say much more about a play that had a tremendous impact on me, but I need to stop here…
Flabbergasting, mesmerizing, wondrous play
July 14, 2025
_ : هر دختری بیشتر طرف مردی که شکست خورده کشیده میشود تا کسی که موفق است،چون چیزی که او دلش میخواهد عشق پرشور است،عشق برای مرد یک امر فرعی است ولی در نظر ماها عشق حیات است.من تو را دوست دارم،اگر بروی سر کوه دنبالت میآیم،اگر توی پرتگاه بیفتی،همراهتم...
+ : حماقت است،کودنی دخترانه است...یا شاید هم آن طوری است که باید باشد،خدا میداند!
+ : حماقت است،کودنی دخترانه است...یا شاید هم آن طوری است که باید باشد،خدا میداند!
November 7, 2024
آقا بین همهی نمایشنامههایی که این اواخر از چخوف خوندم این رو از همه بیشتر دوست داشتم. خیلی شخصیتپردازی هاش خوب بود. واقعا از نگاه و طرز فکر چخوف خوشم میاد. از تولستوی خیلی بیشتر دوسش دارم اینطور موقعا. آدم هارو خیلی ریزبینانه و دقیق و حقیقی می فهمه و کم موعظه و نتیجه گیری اخلاقی داره. این نمایشنامه یکی از همینا بود. این ویژگی باعث می شه که من بعد چند سده که اینو می خونم کامل درکش کنم و بفهمش و بگم دقیقا و این حرفا. چند تا روایت خوب و موازی رو با هم پیش می بره تو این نمایشنامه. خلاصه که بخوام به ترتیب نمایشنامه های اخیری که از چخوف خوندم رو اولویت بندی کنم اول این، بعد باغ آلبالو و در آخر دایی وانیا.
+پایان بندیش یه ضعف کوچیک داشت. غیر حرفه ای بود. از نویسنده بزرگی که انقد زیرپردازی و گره بلده بعید بود. با این حال انقد تو طول کتاب بهم چسبید که این قابل چشم پوشی بود. بخونید و لذت ببرید ازش خلاصه.
+پایان بندیش یه ضعف کوچیک داشت. غیر حرفه ای بود. از نویسنده بزرگی که انقد زیرپردازی و گره بلده بعید بود. با این حال انقد تو طول کتاب بهم چسبید که این قابل چشم پوشی بود. بخونید و لذت ببرید ازش خلاصه.
April 26, 2024
«انسان اینقدر ساده و مختصر است... نه، دکتر، ما همه بیش از آن پیچ و مهره در وجودمان داریم که با اولین اثر یا علائم ظاهری رویمان حکم بشود. من تو را نمیشناسم. تو مرا نمیشناسی، و ما خودمان را هم نمیشناسیم. ممکن است آدم پزشک حسابی باشد – و در عین حال هیچچیز از انسانها نداند.»
حقیقتش چخوف شگفتزدهام کرد. اولین مواجههی من با چخوف برمیگردد به نوجوانی و دوران دبیرستان که سه نمایشنامهی معروفش را خواندم و خیلی هم بهنظرم جالب نیامدند. بعد از آن همیشه حس نهچندان مثبتی بهش داشتم. اما حقیقتاً اعتراف میکنم که کوچک نادانی بیش نبودم که چنین شتابزده نتیجهگیری کرده و این همه سال سراغش نرفته بودم. «ایوانف» در یک کلمه معرکه بود. باورم نمیشد چخوف در آن سالها این چنین ژرف به مسائلی همچون افسردگی و ملال پرداخته است (که با درنظرگرفتن پزشک بودنش البته خیلی هم عجیب شاید نباشد) و رویکردش در شخصیتپردازی این همه خاکستری است. هیچیک از شخصیتها خوب یا بد نبودند؛ همه انسان بودند و قابل درک و ملموس. شاید در نوجوانی ایوانف را تجسم شوهر افتضاح و بیعاطفهای میپنداشتم، اما حالا بیش از هر کاراکتری ایوانف را در عین حال که لجم را درمیآورد درک میکردم. ملال البته فقط وضعیتی نبود که ایوانف را دربرگرفته باشد، بلکه کل اتمسفر نمایش را انباشته بود. انگار همهچیز بودی نا و ماندگی میداد. بااینکه خود چخوف اصرار داشته بگوید که آثارش طنزند، من حق را بیشتر به استانیسلاوسکی میدهم که برداشت تراژیکتری از نمایشنامههای چخوف داشته. انگار من هم بیشتر تراژیک میفهممشان یا نهایتاً نوعی کمدی سیاه. در هر صورت، چخوف بسیار مورد پسندم قرار گرفت و بیش از همیشه مشتاقم که بیشتر ازش بخوانم.
حقیقتش چخوف شگفتزدهام کرد. اولین مواجههی من با چخوف برمیگردد به نوجوانی و دوران دبیرستان که سه نمایشنامهی معروفش را خواندم و خیلی هم بهنظرم جالب نیامدند. بعد از آن همیشه حس نهچندان مثبتی بهش داشتم. اما حقیقتاً اعتراف میکنم که کوچک نادانی بیش نبودم که چنین شتابزده نتیجهگیری کرده و این همه سال سراغش نرفته بودم. «ایوانف» در یک کلمه معرکه بود. باورم نمیشد چخوف در آن سالها این چنین ژرف به مسائلی همچون افسردگی و ملال پرداخته است (که با درنظرگرفتن پزشک بودنش البته خیلی هم عجیب شاید نباشد) و رویکردش در شخصیتپردازی این همه خاکستری است. هیچیک از شخصیتها خوب یا بد نبودند؛ همه انسان بودند و قابل درک و ملموس. شاید در نوجوانی ایوانف را تجسم شوهر افتضاح و بیعاطفهای میپنداشتم، اما حالا بیش از هر کاراکتری ایوانف را در عین حال که لجم را درمیآورد درک میکردم. ملال البته فقط وضعیتی نبود که ایوانف را دربرگرفته باشد، بلکه کل اتمسفر نمایش را انباشته بود. انگار همهچیز بودی نا و ماندگی میداد. بااینکه خود چخوف اصرار داشته بگوید که آثارش طنزند، من حق را بیشتر به استانیسلاوسکی میدهم که برداشت تراژیکتری از نمایشنامههای چخوف داشته. انگار من هم بیشتر تراژیک میفهممشان یا نهایتاً نوعی کمدی سیاه. در هر صورت، چخوف بسیار مورد پسندم قرار گرفت و بیش از همیشه مشتاقم که بیشتر ازش بخوانم.
July 7, 2018
Life, it seems will fade away
Drifting further every day
Getting lost within myself
Nothing matters, no one else
I have lost the will to live
Simply nothing more to give
There is nothing more for me
Need the end to set me free!
Things are not what they used to be
Missing one inside of me
Deathly lost, this can't be real
Cannot stand this hell I feel
Emptiness is filling me
To the point of agony
Growing darkness taking dawn
I was me but now he's gone
No one but me can save myself
But it's too late
Now I can't think
Think why I should even try
Yesterday seems as though it never existed
Death greets me warm
Now I will just say goodbye
Goodbye...
Metallica
Drifting further every day
Getting lost within myself
Nothing matters, no one else
I have lost the will to live
Simply nothing more to give
There is nothing more for me
Need the end to set me free!
Things are not what they used to be
Missing one inside of me
Deathly lost, this can't be real
Cannot stand this hell I feel
Emptiness is filling me
To the point of agony
Growing darkness taking dawn
I was me but now he's gone
No one but me can save myself
But it's too late
Now I can't think
Think why I should even try
Yesterday seems as though it never existed
Death greets me warm
Now I will just say goodbye
Goodbye...
Metallica
January 16, 2024
"Ivanov" by Anton Chekhov
Who is Ivanov? Is he what people think about him? Like what Lebedevs, Lvov, and the others think he is? Or he is someone else? Chekhov confronts the reader with a vast amount of narratives about Nikolai Ivanov. Ivanov has only a single narrative, therefore, his own voice about himself is not heard easily. People consider him someone who was looking for his wife's dowry and when failed, his love towards her disappeared. They don't even ask Ivanov what he feels and what he thinks. They judge him without knowing his inner intentions.
Lvov, the doctor who treats Ivanov's wife, is a prototype of those people who consider themselves absolutely moral and therefore, let themselves judge other people without knowing the story completely.
Everyone feels pity for Ivanov's wife because she has tuberculosis (TB), but nobody feels pity for Ivanov. That's because depression isn't considered a major illness in the society though it can somehow have more impacts on the patient, his family, and his society. He's depressed and because of that, he feels old while he's just 35. He feels guilty why he cannot love her wife anymore and it seems to be a sign of depression rather than because of his failure to achieve an expensive dowry, as the people say.
Ivanov's wife who converts to Christianity wants to meet her parents in her last months of life, but her parents reject because this is their faith. Alright, keep your faith for yourself.
Ivanov is paralyzed and cannot decide between Anna (his wife) and Sasha (Lebedev's daughter who loves him) and this makes the situation more complicated. By this way, he hurts them in addition to himself. However, it's not in a way that Ivanov shifts the responsibility on concepts like "love" and similar things. In contrast, he accepts the responsibility of his actions and it makes him feel guilty for that, thinking that he is killing his wife by not paying enough attention and love to her.
Ivanov is almost the most incomprehended person in his society. Nobody understands him and empathizes with him, maybe except Sasha. Sasha wants to help him, and I don't know why. Maybe it's due to some kind of so-called Savior complex and by this way, Sasha wants to prove herself by saving and rescuing him from his inaction and depression. In other words, some women (in contrast to the other portion of them) tend to so-called weak lost men. Maybe this is somehow a psychic defensive mechanism and by this way they want to save their own past traumatized self. This is why some statistics show that a higher than average rate of mental healthcare providers have struggled with mental illnesses even before entering the these professions.
Anyway, at last, when Ivanov understands that even Sasha, a new love, cannot save him, he decides to cancel the marriage, but Sasha and her father insist. They think his problem is something other than his mental state, like money. When Lvov comes to marriage party and insults Ivanov publicly, they defend Ivanov and this is admirable. However, Ivanov is tired of all these comedies and decides to kill himself.
Chekhov drowns the reader in the others' narratives about Ivanov, so that at last, it will be hard to hear and notice what he really feels and thinks. This makes him naked and undefended and he chose to end his life because of that. He's surrounded by many, but he is alone.
Chekhov's ability in thinking, creating characters and writing dialogues is impressive. Claps.
Who is Ivanov? Is he what people think about him? Like what Lebedevs, Lvov, and the others think he is? Or he is someone else? Chekhov confronts the reader with a vast amount of narratives about Nikolai Ivanov. Ivanov has only a single narrative, therefore, his own voice about himself is not heard easily. People consider him someone who was looking for his wife's dowry and when failed, his love towards her disappeared. They don't even ask Ivanov what he feels and what he thinks. They judge him without knowing his inner intentions.
Lvov, the doctor who treats Ivanov's wife, is a prototype of those people who consider themselves absolutely moral and therefore, let themselves judge other people without knowing the story completely.
Everyone feels pity for Ivanov's wife because she has tuberculosis (TB), but nobody feels pity for Ivanov. That's because depression isn't considered a major illness in the society though it can somehow have more impacts on the patient, his family, and his society. He's depressed and because of that, he feels old while he's just 35. He feels guilty why he cannot love her wife anymore and it seems to be a sign of depression rather than because of his failure to achieve an expensive dowry, as the people say.
Ivanov's wife who converts to Christianity wants to meet her parents in her last months of life, but her parents reject because this is their faith. Alright, keep your faith for yourself.
Ivanov is paralyzed and cannot decide between Anna (his wife) and Sasha (Lebedev's daughter who loves him) and this makes the situation more complicated. By this way, he hurts them in addition to himself. However, it's not in a way that Ivanov shifts the responsibility on concepts like "love" and similar things. In contrast, he accepts the responsibility of his actions and it makes him feel guilty for that, thinking that he is killing his wife by not paying enough attention and love to her.
Ivanov is almost the most incomprehended person in his society. Nobody understands him and empathizes with him, maybe except Sasha. Sasha wants to help him, and I don't know why. Maybe it's due to some kind of so-called Savior complex and by this way, Sasha wants to prove herself by saving and rescuing him from his inaction and depression. In other words, some women (in contrast to the other portion of them) tend to so-called weak lost men. Maybe this is somehow a psychic defensive mechanism and by this way they want to save their own past traumatized self. This is why some statistics show that a higher than average rate of mental healthcare providers have struggled with mental illnesses even before entering the these professions.
Anyway, at last, when Ivanov understands that even Sasha, a new love, cannot save him, he decides to cancel the marriage, but Sasha and her father insist. They think his problem is something other than his mental state, like money. When Lvov comes to marriage party and insults Ivanov publicly, they defend Ivanov and this is admirable. However, Ivanov is tired of all these comedies and decides to kill himself.
Chekhov drowns the reader in the others' narratives about Ivanov, so that at last, it will be hard to hear and notice what he really feels and thinks. This makes him naked and undefended and he chose to end his life because of that. He's surrounded by many, but he is alone.
Chekhov's ability in thinking, creating characters and writing dialogues is impressive. Claps.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 21, 2023
"Flowers come round every spring, but happiness doesn't."
November 14, 2025
میدانی دکتر، دارم کمکم به این فکر میافتم که سرنوشت فریبم داده. خیلی از آدمهایی که شاید هیچ برتریای هم نسبت به من ندارند، خوشبختند، در حالیکه خوشبختی برایشان هیچ مایهای هم بر نمیدارد. ولی من برای همه چیز از خودم مایه گذاشتهام، کلا برای همه چیز. و چقدر هم برایم گران تمام شده!
December 12, 2014
Pretty somber stuff, centering on a depressed man whose sense of self has completely dissolved whilst he also battles with the guilt of no longer loving his dying wife. The people around him - who for the most part are also bored and disillusioned - are constantly pressuring him for money or questioning him about his intentions and his mental health.
All the same there's some (slight) comic relief in Borkin and Shabelsky, who are generally complete prats throughout the whole play. But for the most part this is a pretty affecting portrayal of depression - the inability of others to understand it, and its ability to destroy the individual and their surroundings. Cheery Christmas material.
All the same there's some (slight) comic relief in Borkin and Shabelsky, who are generally complete prats throughout the whole play. But for the most part this is a pretty affecting portrayal of depression - the inability of others to understand it, and its ability to destroy the individual and their surroundings. Cheery Christmas material.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 280 reviews