کتاب مرغ دریایی

اثر آنتون چخوف از انتشارات بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب پارسه - مترجم: پرویز شهدی-پرفروش ترین رمان های ایران




خرید کتاب مرغ دریایی
جستجوی کتاب مرغ دریایی در گودریدز

معرفی کتاب مرغ دریایی از نگاه کاربران
نمایشنامه های چخوف بیشتر جزو نمایشنامه های مدرنی به حساب میان که دیگه نباید درشون دنبال رخداد خاصی گشت یا توقع تعلیق ماجرایی رو داشت. بلکه عنصر اصلی نمایشنامه های چخوف کنش متقابل انسان ها و روابطشون با همه. برای همین هم معمولا نمایشنامه هاش شخصیت های زیادی داره-البته من با این قضیه مشکل دارم و جز شخصیت های اصلی بقیه رو مدام باید رجوع کنم به فهرست اشخاص تا یادم بیاد که نقششون چیه- و ماجرا در حین گفت و گو و دیدار این افراد با هم می گذره که البته توی این نمایشنامه پرده ها معمولا فواصل زمانی زیادی با هم دارن و از ابتدا تا انتها گذر چند سال نشون داده می شه.
در کل روابط انسانی ای که بین شخصیت های چخوف وجود داره یا پیش میاد رو دوست دارم و سرانجامی که براشون داره.
توی باغ آلبالو و این کار پایان بندی رو به شدت دوست داشتم. نه خیلی غافلگیر کننده و غیرقابل پیش بینی نه خیلی ساده و تکراری. می شه گفت خیلی چخوف وارن.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
دورن: ترس از مرگ یک غریزه حیوانی است و انسان باید بر آن چیره بشود. تنها آنهایی از مرگ میترسند که به زندگی جاوید عقیده داشته باشند،آن هم به علت گناهانشان. و شما اولا این اعتقاد را ندارید،و ثانیا گناهی نکرده اید که از عاقبت آن نگران باشید

مشاهده لینک اصلی
«Στην όχθη μιας λίμνης ζει από τα παιδικά της χρόνια μια κοπέλα,να,όπως εσείς.Αγαπάει τη λίμνη σαν γλάρος κι είναι ευτυχισμένη και ελεύθερη σαν γλάρος.Αλλά κάποιος περνάει τυχαία,την βλέπει,κι επειδή δεν έχει τίποτα καλύτερο να κάνει,της καταστρέφει τη ζωή,όπως σκότωσαν αυτόν εδώ το γλάρο».
Ο γλάρος σ’ αυτό το-κωμικό,όπως ο ίδιος ο Τσέχωφ τονίζει-έργο συμβολίζει την αθωότητα,τις προσδοκίες,την ελπίδα και την ελευθερία που όλοι αναζητάμε.Όμως,όπως ο γλάρος σκοτώνεται,καταστρέφονται.
Εδώ,η πραγματικότητα και το φανταστικό,μέσω του τεχνάσματος «θέατρο στο θέατρο»,γίνονται ένα.Μεταφερόμαστε στη ρωσική επαρχία,όπου σκηνή είναι μια λίμνη.Πρωταγωνιστές,αλλά και θεατές μιας κωμωδίας με τραγικά στοιχεία (ή μήπως ενός δράματος με κωμικά στοιχεία;),4 γυναίκες και 6 άνδρες,με τα δικά τους τραύματα-και όνειρα-ο καθένας.Και ένας γλάρος.
Ίσως το καλύτερο και πιο άρτιο τεχνικά θεατρικό του Τσέχωφ,σίγουρα,πάντως,το αγαπημένο μου.

Νίνα «Το δικό σου έργο είναι δύσκολο να το παίξει κανείς.Δεν έχει αληθινούς ανθρώπους».

Τρέπλιεφ «Αληθινούς ανθρώπους!Πρέπει να δείχνουμε τη ζωή όχι όπως είναι,ούτε όπως θα ‘πρεπε να είναι,αλλά όπως τη βλέπουμε στα όνειρά μας».


Y.Γ.Αναφορά στον Τσέχωφ γίνεται ακόμα και εκεί που δεν το περιμένεις,όπως σένα επεισόδιο του βρετανικού sitcom @The Mighty [email protected] (https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/9a7ca82e...).

مشاهده لینک اصلی
The Seagull is the first Chekhov play I ever saw performed, sometimes in the seventies, in a production by the Stratford Festival Theater in Stratford, Ontario in 1968, when I was 15, and I will never forget the performance of Nicholas Pennell as the playwright Konstantin Tréplev. I saw one other production in the early seventies at my college. I am reading the short stories of Chekhov now, and it is my plan to reread all of his major plays at some point, but I re-read it at this time because the play figures in The Humbling by Philip Roth. Roth loved Chekhov, and his novel ends with his main character, the famous actor Simon Axler, thinking about the closing events of this play. Roth’s novel owes a lot to this play on many levels.

The Seagull is about a playwright who writes a bad play, gets panned for it, becomes distraught and hopeless about it, loses a girlfriend in the process, and attempts suicide a couple times. Konstantin is one of two central unhappy and somewhat melodramatic characters who can’t find ways out of their unhappiness. Konstantin’s play is in the symbolist tradition (the kind of play Chekhov detested), and Chekhovs own play functions as a kind of comic antidote at times to that kind of idealist literature.

There’s another writer in it who is also unhappily successful, the novelist Trigorin, and Konstanin’s mother, the fading actress Irina, is also unhappy! Chekhov doesn’t make a deep critique of any of these sad people, but with him we laugh at them a bit and come to care for (most) of them (okay, not so much for Konstantin, who is kind of annoying). I think Trigorin is one of Chekhov’s great characters, almost despondent about how much his success as a novelist fails to build his confidence as a writer. That he manages to successfully depress the young optimistic actress Nina, too, is sort of humorous.

Chekhov may have seen himself in Trigorin. When he finished the play he said, “I was expecting a failure, and was prepared for it, as I warned you with perfect sincerity beforehand.”

A month later he wrote, “I thought that if I had written and put on the stage a play so obviously brimming over with monstrous defects, I had lost all instinct and that, therefore, my machinery must have gone wrong for good.”

I imagine Roth had in mind Trigorin and Chekhov when he created the famous actor Simon Axler, who suddenly also sees he can no longer act, though Chekhov’s play turns into a kind of tragic-comic farce, and Roth’s novel achieves less obvious humor, playing more like tragic farce.

But I recommend you check out a production of The Seagull sometime. The humor is hard to pick up just reading the play, but Chekhov likes people, you can just tell.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
“A young girl grows up on the shores of a lake, as you have. She loves the lake as the gulls do, and is as happy and free as they. But a man sees her who chances to come that way, and he destroys her out of idleness, as this gull here has been destroyed.”

Nina is a beautiful, young, aspiring actress in love with the author Trigorin who is perhaps only in love with himself. @How easy it is to be a philosopher on paper, and how difficult in real [email protected]

مشاهده لینک اصلی
March 9, 2009

When I read a play, I am always aware of what a limited view I have of the work, knowing that I am seeing a mere skeleton without any flesh, a framework on which must be hung the realization of the work of art; thinking that I have truly experienced the play by just reading it is, I think, much like convincing myself that I know a Beethoven symphony simply because I have read the score. I have never seen Chekhov’s “Seagull” produced, and that is frustrating. I have read about it and can, by my own reading of the play, know that there are important themes present, one of the more interesting being the failure of characters to connect with each other, each loving someone who doesn’t love them, each loved by someone they themselves do not love, resolution of these triangles proving to be futile. I was even more interested in the insights into the role and process of writers, the varying ways they see themselves and what they do; I wonder which, if any, represents Chekhov’s own understandings. A movie of the play was made in 1975, but the reviews suggest that it is unsatisfactory; I don’t know whether to bother watching it.


August 28, 2014

I turn now to this play, five years after my last reading and my last review, and I post these additional comments in part to demonstrate how a work of literature can create such a different impression at a much later date. Here are my current comments:

Anton Chekhov’s play, The Seagull, was first presented in 1896 in St. Petersburg, Russia. Initially received with disappointment, it was soon viewed as a triumph and one of the author’s masterpieces. The play features an interesting and varied ensemble of characters and raises fascinating issues for reflection.

The play includes a play-within-a-play, one of several allusions to Hamlet. In fact, theories of art abound and are articulated by one character after another, although few of the personages seem to listen carefully to one another. Several love triangles are also presented, none easily resolved. Each person in the play seems to expect something different from life and love. Without dwelling on the plot, let me highlight some of the issues that I found most interesting.

Most of the characters are unhappy, each in love with someone who does not reciprocate. Life is tedious, dull and fretful. The sheer banality of life is exquisitely portrayed. Each character seeks affirmation from others, trying in various not very successful ways to be loved and, usually, indulged and cared for. Life is both mundane and melodramatic. Can we live only by turning our lives into productions? Is that the only way to make them seem real and meaningful? The play of desires and aversions flickers across each life, a kaleidoscope of emotions that speaks to the evanescence and unsatisfactoriness of existence. Life is disappointing, and yet each character meets those disappointments and lives on despite them, managing as best they can. Treplyov may be the exception. Nonetheless, for the others there is courage in the midst of banality, as if persistence in the face of what life brings is meaning enough, or at least all there is. Not one of these figures is heroic; they are simply people muddling through. Each is flawed, each is damaged, each hopes to be cared for and nourished by another. Only Dorn seems to be self-sufficient, and he seemingly only out of a sense of resignation and endurance. Chekhov’s view of life is bleak, unflinching, and nonetheless not without a certain compassion. His writing is exquisite, both vivid and moving. The title reference is to the seagull that Treplyov kills and that becomes a sort of light-motif for Nina, whom he loves.

Each time I read a play I am once again made aware of how different reading it is from actually experiencing it in production. One might compare it to the reading of a musical score in place of hearing music performed. There are certainly professionals who can make the synthetic leap necessary to fully appreciating the richness of an artistic work from such a skeletal outline, but I am not one of them. The only time I have seen The Seagull produced was more than fifty years ago at the Loeb Drama Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts (I had forgotten this in my comments from five years ago). I’m am planning to see it again in two weeks at the American Players Theater in Spring Green, Wisconsin, a performance for which I am most eager.

Be it noted that I have now changed my rating for this work from the @3 [email protected] of five years ago to @5 [email protected] The play has not changed, but I clearly have.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
I first encountered Chekhov when I read The Portable Chekhov short story collection. As amazing as those stories are, I had been waiting to introduce myself to what has made him one of the great masters of the arts: his plays. This play, like most Russian art of the 19th century is realism and the influence of Leo Tolstoy is obvious. But unlike Tolstoy, whose works always strived to impart greater ideals and truths to his audience, to preach. Chekhov is not a preacher, but a doctor and he goes about his characters diagnosing instead of trying to @[email protected]

This play has the format of any rom-com, but instead of playing it for laughs and reconciliation it is played for drama. The characters are all either artists or connected to arts and letters in some way. My favorite character is Masha, who was too real and close to home for me...I will leave it there. The ensemble cast is filled with characters who want for someone or something unrequited. I read this while still digesting One Hundred Years of Solitude, so I could not help but notice the overlap when it came to the concept of solitude and the realism in-general. If you enjoy Russian literature and want to find that next step, the plays of Chekhov are there waiting for you.

This was the first time I really went about reading a play translated, that was not in ancient Greek. I read this play as a part of The Major Plays

مشاهده لینک اصلی
کتاب های مرتبط با - کتاب مرغ دریایی


 کتاب سه شنبه ها با موری
 کتاب بیشعوری
 کتاب مرغ دریایی
 کتاب نبرد من
 کتاب کیمیاگر
 کتاب خانه درختی 26 طبقه