Reviews

O Duelo by Anton Chekhov

haroshinka's review against another edition

Go to review page

Very similiar to Fathers & Sons in a way. What I like is it sets the scene of these two ideas - which appear to you, as if so self-evident, so logical, so thorough. And those who espouse them have no modesty or humility - to either the possibility that they cannot possibly hope to exhaustively define the entire human experience, nor what the consequences of implementation of their doctrines require. (just look to the Russian revolution)

The duel this dramatizes is among the many conflict of ideas between the Russian intelligentsia in 19th century.
First, the liberal idealism of the 1840s.
Second, the rational egoism of the 1860s, who here, takes the form of Laevsky. A self-styled "superfluous man" (the very kind christened by Turgenev in 1850) and von Koren, a zoologist, and Social Darwinian with a fittingly German name. These are the spiritual Fathers of communism - which arrives in Russia and is received as the sociological, enlightenment equivalent of what Darwinism was for biology.

The closing line - "no one knows the real truth".

h0m3r's review against another edition

Go to review page

reflective medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

memita's review

Go to review page

4.0

Li duas colectânea de contos do Tchekhov há uns tempos e adorei. Tenho-o como um dos escritores mais geniais que já existiram pela sua capacidade de contar histórias curtas ao mesmo tempo que mostra tanta verdade acerca da humanidade, sem necessidade de grandes alaridos. O Duelo é considerado uma novela, uma vez que é maior que um conto, mas mais curto que um romance. Gostei bastante da forma como o autor desenvolve as personagens e como cada uma tem a sua parte no enredo. Todas as personagens têm defeitos, julguei-as várias vezes pelos seus pensamentos e decisões, e não há aquela personagem principal pela qual nós devemos torcer. No entanto, Tchekhov escreve de uma forma que, apesar de as nos dar a conhecer tal como elas são, também não nos impõe um filtro, no meu entender, deixa-nos olhar para elas como bem entendermos. Gostei bastante desse aspecto. Apenas senti falta das histórias curtinhas que causavam um grande impacto e me deixavam a olhar para o último parágrafo como se tivesse acabado de ter uma epifania.

paulataua's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

The novella is set in a seaside town in the Caucasus and involves two duels. The first is one of opposing ideas, and the second is an actual duel between two men. It seems straightforward, but nothing in Chekhov is ever that simple. The more I read him, the more I am impressed. Worth reading!

stevequinn's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

Chekhov is the bomb.

shannon_jayne1's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? N/A
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? N/A
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A

4.0

An enjoyable short story, excited to read more Chekhov.

h1914's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

“‘Here’s what he used to say: in family life, the most important thing — is patience. Do you hear me, Vanya? Not love, but patience. Love can’t endure for long. You’ve lived in love for about two years, but now, evidently, your family life has taken a step into that period when you, let’s say, so as to maintain equilibrium, must put forth all of your patience...’
‘You believe your little old envoy, but his advice is meaningless to me. Your little old man could have been a hypocrite, he could have exercised patience and all the while looked at the unloved person, as he would at an object integral to his existence, but I have not sunk so low yet. If I feel the urge to exercise patience, then I’ll buy myself a set of dumb-bells or a pummel-horse, but I’ll leave the person in peace.’”

tellerf's review against another edition

Go to review page

hopeful reflective medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

jasonfurman's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

What made The Duel so interesting is that all the characters have read--or meant to have read--the major earlier Russian works and are fashioning their lives in relation to them. In particular, the protagonist is a self-styled superfluous man who was reared on Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoyevsky, and Turgenev--and instead of authentically sharing the impulses of the characters in these novels/stories, he is a pale imitation of them--and most of all when it comes to his duel which is a pale imitation of the earlier ones as well. Like Tolstoy, this novella inhabits the mind and psychology for a sequence of different characters, presenting all of their perspectives of the conflicts at the heart of it which, like Tolstoy, are related to marriage, infidelity, and falling out of love from that infidelity (which itself is perceived by the character through the eyes of Anna Karenina). In many ways, it makes it a fitting capstone to 19th Century Russian literature.

amorasad's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

#readathonclassics - 01
ডুয়েলের ব্যাপারটা খুব রোমাঞ্চকর লাগতো। বনিবনা হলো না? বেশ, তোমার পিস্তল বের করো। মুখে মুখে আর কথা হবে না, হবে বারুদ ফাটার শব্দে। চেখভের ডুয়েল উপন্যাসিকার ডুয়েল কেবল রূপকই না, সত্যই আছে।
একদিকে লায়েভসকি—অভিজাতশ্রেণীর দুলাল। অন্যদিকে ভন করেন—প্রাণীবিদ, লজিশিয়ান। কোন এক বৃষ্টিস্নাত সকালে কাদাপানি মাড়িয়ে লড়াই হবে।

তবে কী—উপন্যাসিকার এ বন্ধুকের লড়াই প্লট ডিভাইস মাত্র। সত্যিকারের ডুয়েল আইডিওলজির। লায়েভসকি জুয়াখোর, মদপিপাসু, আমড়া কাঠের ঢেঁকি। মস্কো থেকে অন্যের সুন্দরী বউ নিয়ে ভেগে এসেছে কালো সমুদ্রের তীরে। দু-বছর ফুরোতে না ফুরোতেই মোহ কেটে গেলো। এখন মুক্তি খোঁজে। যে কোন উপায়ে বাঁধন ছেঁড়ে ভাগতে চায়। কিন্তু যাকে নিয়ে ভেগে এসেছে, নাদিয়া, তাঁর কী গতি করা যায়? লায়েভস্কি ওয়াকিবহাল নাদিয়ার করে খাওয়ার মত কোন উপায় নেই। সে পুরোপুরি লায়েভস্কির উপর নির্ভরশীল।
বন্ধু ডাক্তার সাময়লেঙ্কোর পরামর্শ চায়। সাময়লেঙ্কোর বাড়ির পেইং গেস্ট ভন করেন আর ডিকন (ধর্মপ্রচারকারী পদবিশেষ)। ভন করেন বিজ্ঞানী। ডারউইনের অনুসারী। বাস্তববাদী। দর্শন, বিজ্ঞান, নীতি নৈতিকতা নিয়ে অগাধ বিদ্যে ধারণ করেন। তিনি লায়েভস্কি ও তাঁর মত মানুষদের ক্ষতিকর ভাইরাস মনে করেন, যারা বিন্দুমাত্র ভূমিকা না রেখে সব নষ্ট করে যায়।

তবে এ দুজনের ন্যারেটিভ উপন্যাসিকার একমাত্র সংঘর্ষের জায়গা নয়। সাময়লেঙ্কোর গুড সামারিটান ভাবনারীতি, ডিকনের চার্চীয় বিদ্যে—উভয় ভন করেনের অ্যাবসোলিউটিজম আর লায়েভস্কির ইগোটিজমের মধ্যিখানে ভাসমান বাঁধ বা অনিকেত প্রান্তর। যে কোন বাকবিতণ্ডায় মতামতের ভিন্নতাই দ্য ডুয়েলের প্রাণ। মনুষ্য প্রকৃতি আর পরস্পরের ভেতর সম্পর্কের মাত্রা নিয়ে সাজানো গল্পটা। লম্বা লম্বা মনোলগগুলো মনে রাখার মত।