The concept of duelling always fascinated me, thanks to myriads of western films and books I was fortunate enough to watch and read in an early age.

Not liking somebody? Feeling remotely threatened? The survival of personal honor is in question?

No problem.

Bring out your pistol. There will be no more pointless talks. The smell and sound of gunpowder blasting off will settle the dispute. Once and for all.
In Chekhov’s novella, the duel is not only there as a metaphor, but also an actual duel takes place as well.

On one side, there is Laevsky. A young, lavish cast out of the bourgeoisie. On the other side, there is Von Koren. A zoologist and a logician. In a soaky, rain kissed, slippery mud-covered morning, the duel will take place. A battle to see whose honor prevails.

However — the duel of guns in this novella is only a plot device. It is used merely to further the story. The actual duel that takes place is a far more brutal one. A duel of ideology and morality.

Laevsky is a gambler, a drunk, a good for nothing washed up young man whose entire life is one big feast of hedonism. He manipulated someone’s wife, making her fall in his love trap from Moscow, held her hands and ran. Now he was hiding in the coastal area of black sea. It’s been two years since then and he’s already bored with his mistress. All he now dreams of is to leave her here and flee somehow and somewhere else. Preferably somewhere less secluded and with more fun things to do. He wants to break free of the bond at all cost. But what of Nadia? The woman who left her life of contentment? What will become of her? Laevsky knew she didn’t have any means to earn her livelihood. She’s entirely dependent on him.
So he turns to his friend Samoylenko and asks for advice.

This is where his adversary, Von Koren comes into play. He and a deacon are paying guests at Samoylenko’s house. Von Koren is a scientist. A follower of Darwin. A realist. He’s an erudite when it comes to philosophy, science, morality. He considers Laevsky and all other hedonists like him parasites of the society. Like viruses or pests that only know how to destroy — contributing nothing in return.

But the battle amongst these two are not the only ideological battle that takes place in the book. The woman Nadia isn’t entirely irrelevant here and she isn’t completely helpless as Laevsky thought her to be. This only goes to show Laevsky’s naive patriarch ideas.

Samoylenko’s good samaritan altruism, Deacon’s teachings of the church — both worked as a bridge (or a no man’s land) between Von Koren’s absolutism and Laevsky’s egotism.

There are countless verbal disputes among the characters and these are what actually gave life and dynamics to the novel. The novella tells how humans form relationships and through what means and how their moral ideas sprout, emerge and inevitably clash among each other, converging all of it into a streaming mess — from which only self reflection and will to change can grant oneself any sort of freedom.
The monologues are immensely thoughtful and I loved reading the contradictory approach from all sides.

Chekhov’s prose is mostly warm and comfortable. Except for the long monologues, it doesn’t become too complex. As far as I know, he only wrote novellas and short stories. This is my first Chekhov and I plan to read more of his works in the future.

---

Thank you for stopping by and reading the blog. :) Have a great weekend.