Living in New York is literally a movie, every day there’s something new. Everyday there’s a new family moving in. Every day, there is a child being born and everyday there is a taxi cab being called. New York is  like a mixture of every nation and every culture all weaved together  in one section of the world. Zadie Smith says, “We were white, black, Asian, tall, short, male, female, young, very young, and old.” (2) The diversity is fucking immaculate in New York, Zadie Smith didn’t lie.

 New York is resilient and beautiful, one of the most gorgeous things in the world. New York has everything one can imagine to have. But at the same time, every good thing has its flaws. Its like a atom, every proton has a electron; a plus for a minus. That’s how things are supposed to be, that’s just how life is.  My life in New York is like a film, a complicated but beautiful film. In her own text, “Goodbye To All That” , Joan Didion states, “I never felt poor: I had the feeling that if I needed money I could always hustle. I could write a syndicate column for teenagers…” and this shows that in New York, no matter what age, even if you’re a teenager or not, everyone here is always hustling, trying to make money by any means necessary.(229) Everyone in New York is relentless, and Didion is absolutely correct about that. Everything that happened to me here was  for a reason. I’ve seen it all and I’m only seventeen. My experiences here cannot be just simply written, because there has been a lot of awesome shit. For me however, an old white woman and soccer were very significant to me so far in my time at New York. These two aspects were two of the many very important highlights in my life.

An aged woman walks past everything that’s colored. The bodegas, the ninety nine cents stores, and past the old ice man, gloomy because he has yet to spit out, “coco mango,cherry.”  This old woman is indeed white, pure cocaine. Blue eyes and all. She was carrying baggage, striving but struggling.

            People all around were insulting her, insults and so on, for no reason. It was like this woman was walking uncomfortably, on a path of hot coal and fire. She walked as if her people were the ones who were segregated. If I had the ability to read her mind, it’s obvious that she required help.  Everyone was doing their own thing, no one cared to help her.

            I walked up to her, all positive. And I asked her how her day was going. She said, “ Im very tired my darling, I wish someone could carry my bones.” I then said, “ Yes, ma’am, I can really see that, that’s why I’d like to take your bags.’’  I then grabbed her bags, gratefully, similar to the way I’d grab my high school diploma, and then I walked alongside her, contently, like how I would walk on my first day of college. Before this woman could even spew a word, I thought about what my mother had told me repetitively, in her vigorous accent   “ If someone, is a different race and you don’t even know them and they needs help, don’t hesitate to reach out. It’s a small world; you might receive some need to receive such help someday.” These words have stuck onto me. It became a part of me.

        The lady had a victorious look on her face, as if she achieved something great.  I achieved something as well, because I was the only one to help her when she needed it the most. “Thank you so much my darling. God bless you! You’re going to be a great person when you age.” These were words by the old woman. 

Many people say that soccer is the world’s sport, the most aggressive sport known to man, or a game made for violence. People have both negative and positive connotations for this sport. It makes sense because the world is full of pluses and minuses; everything must be balanced out. This is how we live, and that is just how life is. With every good thing, there is always something bad. But to me, soccer has made my life a bunch of pluses. 

Soccer isn’t really popular in Manhattan. It’s mostly basketball. My old neighborhood was in between two opposing gang neighborhoods. Every now and then there’d be deaths and shootings, at basketball courts, parks and so on. A day never went by without an innocent candle being blown out. I’ve even seen people of my age picking up guns and knives. They picked up their fists, I picked up a soccer ball.

In my old neighborhood, I have always wanted to go to the park to play and kick about, but my mother worried that I’d end up on the news dead. I didn’t listen to her at all. I was hard-headed. I picked up my ball and played with whomever I found. Although I played street games, I played with all my heart, as if I was playing for my academy team. I played as if I was protecting my neighborhood .  But guess what, I didn’t care, the ball was my everything. It was my favorite pistol. The ball served as an escape for me. It was a way of escaping this cruel world. 

            Growing up, I really was a weird kid. Weird in the sense that I didn’t like things that others adore. I grew up in a black and Latino community, so everything was either basketball or basketball. There was no room for accepting golf or tennis. Every conversation was about basketball. The word  “NBA” was the new hello. 

            Soccer is my therapy. It has allowed me to get better grades, as well as pave my future. I could’ve been another teen, with a terrible mindset, and lack of knowledge, but it all turned around. It has allowed me to improve in many branches, academically and in the outside world. Soccer has allowed me to become a gang member; I care so deeply about where I’m from, and the things I do. I help those around me first before I help myself. That’s my rep. Life is really much like soccer, everyone and I, have goals to achieve. These goals are set on treacherous paths; a bunch of pluses and minuses, but we must get stronger and push through.

            “I suppose that part of the city’s magical beastliness is the fact that you can show up with the best of intentions, do what’s considered to be all the right things, actually achieve some measure of success and still find yourself caught inside a financial emergency.” (15) This quote from Meghan Daum “My Mispent Youth” relates to almost any new yorker. Although my experiences here were impactful and great, money is always the issue. New York is extremely expensive, and no matter what you do, money is always being spent, or owed. Money literally has New York written all over it.

FIQWIS 10105 with Mr Fetherolf has taught me a lot, from the significance of turning your camera on to the technicality of writing and how it relates to literature. Before I came to this class, I was almost just like a regular “standardized writer”. I was just someone who has written in a way that follows regents and common core writing styles. It was like wrote when I was told to because my free write wasn’t “worthy” in a sense. Writing has always been presented to me as something technical. But in FIQWIS 10105, I’ve discovered that writing although technical, is also very vibrant and enjoyable. An example of this was with the Diagnostic Essay, which I was able to express my life in New York, as well as compare it and contrast from Joan Didion’s and Megan Stacey’s experience. This is one of the essays that were very significant to me because it allowed me to express something important to me, with minimal writing boundaries, and that’s something I’m very comfortable with. Ever since this class, although we met twice a week, I’ve become a more avid reader. I pay more close attention to certain paragraphs and try to elaborate more on what I’m reading. My way of thinking has also become diverse in a sense because I can understand perspectives that are different from my own, and expand on it. Additionally, the persuasive Essay has strengthened my writing, and in writing this essay, I was able to clearly see my flaws and pros when writing. In conclusion, throughout this class, I have better understood why reading, writing, and thinking go hand in hand, as they are all very important components in life. These three components are essential to one’s character and a few of many significant things when it comes to education.

Esso Patasse

Due Date: 12/13/2020

Essay Assignment 2- Research Critical Analysis Essay on Dueling

FIQWS 10005/10105 Composition for Russian Literature

            A duel is an arranged combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, either with swords or firearms, and rules that are agreed upon by both parties, to fairly settle a dispute. Each side has a witness, called seconds. The usual cause of a duel is an insult given by one person to the other or over a question of honor. The challenged person has the right to set the place, time, and weapons. The goal of a duel is not to kill the opponent, but to defend the honor of the nobleman that declared for the duel to happen. Duels, which weren’t official laws, were practiced in the 15^th to the 20^thcentury mostly in western societies and in Europe. Noblemen dueled for financial reasons, verbal conflicts, or for a women’s romantic interest. Ivan Turgenev’s, The Torrents of Spring and A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, consists of two protagonists, Pechorin and Sanin, who performed duels for the sole purpose of obtaining a women’s interest. Pechorin fancied Princess Marie’s attention, while Sanin proposes a duel for Gemma’s sake. Although these characters participated in something that’s labeled to be honorable and noble, these two literary texts depict why the duel is an unnoble act because of how debasing the characters in each text presented dueling to be with the way they conducted themselves.

            Dueling to avenge one’s honor has never been legal, it has been marked by laws opposing it. The practice became popular in Europe after the famous challenge between King Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France around the 16^thcentury. Dueling became a technique for resolving political disputes. Legislation during the 17th century had little effect on suppressing the practice. The English Common Law declares that killing in a duel to be held as murder, but juries rarely convicted in cases of dueling until the custom had ceased to be popular during the reign of Queen Victoria. The duel was intensely popular in England, during Restoration. The combatants had to guarantee their participation by throwing down a gauntlet ( a special dueling glove made of metals) and his opponent accepted by picking it up. It was believed in such a situation that the right could not be beaten and the loser, if still alive would be dealt with by the law this was thought to be the judgement of God and could not been wrong. This form of trial was open to all free men. (Britannica Duel)

            A Hero of Our Time is about Grigory Pechorin, a young army soldier, lonely, self-centered and arrogant, who believes in nothing. He plays with impunity, with the affection of women and with the goodwill of men. He performs risky adventures impulsively, risks his life, and destroys women who care about him. While Pechorin is able to feel deeply, he is unable to express his emotions. One of the novel’s most important scenes is a duel between Pechorin and a fellow soldier, Grushnitsky, that ends with Grushnitsky dead and Pechorin shrugging meanly. Pechorin is brave, ambitious, and persistent, but eventually his efforts and potential are lost.

            Dueling isn’t  as noble as it appears to be in the text A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, because it is a very brutal act, in which firearms are used to settle a dilemma between two individuals. With the use of a pistol, shots must be fired at the arm, the torso, or the legs. Any other shot is considered a foul, especially a shot to the head. Duels can also end up very bloody and casualties aren’t at all rare. When dueling, the setting can be as dangerous as the lead from the pistols. Duelers must settle at a place in which is discrete so government authority won’t be able to figure out such thing. This sense of brutality is seen in A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, when Pechorin describes the scenery of the duel, “There is a drop of about three hundred feet or more from there; below, there are sharp rocks. Each of us will take his stand on the very edge of the shelf…and in this way even a light wound will be fatal. The one who is wounded will inevitably topple down and will be dashed to pieces…and then it should be very easy to ascribe this sudden death to an unfortunate leap.” (Lermontov 150) From this, it is quite evident that the area in which the duel is taking place is very dangerous, close to brutal, because these men are fighting at the edge of a cliff, with minimum distance to safety. Guns aren’t even in the discussion yet, but the lives of the two men are already in great danger. Another example in which the text portrays brutality in duels is when Pechorin explains Grushntsky’s intent during the duel. Pechorin says, “to kill me like a dog, for if I had been wounded in the leg a little more severely, I would have certainly fallen off the cliff.” (Lermontov 153) Grushnitsky shot Pechorin on his leg, a shot that wasn’t so risky, but had it been more sever, he would’ve simply fell to his death. Pechorin didn’t even receive a shot to any vital spots, like the head, or his heart, but a more severe shot to his leg would’ve resulted to an ever so simple death. This is very brutal in itself.

            In a duel, both parties are supposed to be given fair rules, as well as weapons that are equal to one another. These weapons must have the same qualities. For a sword, the blades for both parties must be the same length, and for pistols, the guns must be of the same power and must contain an even amount of ammunition. Each party must experience the same set of rules. Lermontov quotes “To your places, gentlemen! Doctor, have the kindness to measure off six paces.” Both Grushnitsky and Pechorin were six steps from each other, and this ensured that the distance between them was fair. (151) Although the two were in equal distance from each other, the duel was never completely fair because Grushnitsky and his captain never loaded Pechorin’s pistol, leaving him at a great disadvantage: “Doctor, these gentlemen, no doubt in their hurry, forgot to place a bullet in my pistol. Please, load it again and properly!… That is not my fault! And you have no right to reload … no right whatsoever…I shall not permit it . . .” (Lermontov 154) Not only was Pechorin’s pistol missing a bullet, it was also rejected from being reloaded. Grushnitsky and his captain both wanted to cheat Pechorin for their own benefit, and this is very unfair. “And still it is utterly against the rules.” (Lermontov 155) Even after having Pechorin’s  gun reloaded, allowing the duel to be set on fair terms, Grushnitsky’s captain still believed that Pechorin’s gun shouldn’t be reloaded, even after he cheated Pechorin, and this illustrates more unfairness.

            The text The Torrents of Spring by Iven Turgenev, talks about 23 year old Dimitry Sanin’s journey to Frankfurt. There he met the stunning Gemma Roselli, who worked in the patisserie of her parents, and for the first time fell intensely in love. Convinced that nothing will get in the way of lifelong love with his fiancée, Dimitry unexpectedly agrees to start a new life and to sell his Russian estates. But when he sees the prospective buyer, the intriguing Madame Polozov, his youthful vulnerability makes him a victim to a deeper, more destructive obsession.

        In one significant scene, Gemma is mocked by a drunken German officer named von Donhof in Frankfurt. The Torrents of Spring states, “the officer stopped before Gemma, and in an unnaturally screaming voice.. he articulated, “I drink to the health of the prettiest confectioner in all Frankfort, in all the world (he emptied his glass), and in return I take this flower, picked by her divine little fingers!” He took from the table a rose that lay beside Gemma’s plate. At first she was astonished, alarmed, and turned fearfully white … then alarm was replaced by indignation; she suddenly crimsoned all over, to her very hair—and her eyes, fastened directly on the offender, at the same time darkened and flamed, they were filled with black gloom, and burned with the fire of irrepressible fury.”(Turgenev 18)   Kluber wanted to disregard the situation and exclaims “Unheard of! Unheard of! Unheard of impertinence!” but Sanin, rebukes Donhof and accepts his duel challenge. “I am a Russian, but I cannot look on at such insolence with indifference; but here is my card and my address; monsieur l’officier can find me.” From this, it is cleart that Sanin is very uspet at the officer’s actions. He feels as if the officer has disrespected Gemma, a women he has deeply fell in love with at first sight. Sanin also proposes for a duel to be held, thus why he propels his address card at the officer (Turgenev 19).As this portion of the text continues, the duel between Donhof and Sanin himself was presented. This part of the text was very significant because during the duel, an unnoble act was conducted, an offense to the duel. Turgenev quotes, “The first shot was Sanin’s, and he missed. His bullet went ping against a tree. Baron von Dönhof shot directly after him—intentionally, to one side, into the air.” (Turgenev 30) Although Sanin was willing to actually take a shot at his opponent, he honestly  just missed. On the other hand, Donhof purposely shoots in the air. In 19^th century dueling codes, shooting into the air was considered one of many greatest offenses in a duel. Paul Robinson’s journal Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army:The Slavonic and East European Review explains how this act of purposely missing was considered dishonorable and was considered an insult to not only the opponent, but to the doctors and seconds. (Robinson 709)

 In addition to this, Donhof expresses his apologies towards Sanin and wishes for the duel to discontinue. Although this was a genuine act, he harmed his honor as he withdrawed himself from the duel. Instead of defending himself, as one is suppose to in a duel, and carrying on with actually executing a shot, he decides to damage his honor by proposing an apology. This was seen as very unnoble in the 19^th century duel convention. Sanin, who once felt anger towards this officer, also acts unoble as he accepts simple apology and proceeds to stop the duel.

            It can be argued that dueling is a noble act because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15^th to the 20^th century.  The journal article The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently 

by Warren F. Schwartz, Keith Baxter, and David Ryan quotes, “They embraced personal relationships, most critically those between men and women, and implied a set of attitudes about acceptable forms of personal advancement, aesthetic preferences, appropriate manners…” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,322) Although a duel was performed in order to settle exchanged slander or just any dispute between noblemen, it was a way for one to yield honor. Honor is very important in this sense because having honor under ones name carried an individual throughout all aspects of life, including wealth. Dueling plays a huge rule in the idea of receiving honor.

 On the contrary, dueling is not at all noble because it was illegal, and this act went against the government. The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently explains the legality of duels, and states “One other important feature of the larger social context was that the duel was explicitly made illegal and subjected to severe penalties.” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Dueling was made illegal in many parts of western and European societies because it was seen as violent and unjust. One shouldn’t ever be wounded or killed unlawfully by someone else’s weapon. Additionally, individuals who participated in duels were given sever consequences, things such as large fines or imprisonment. “ Specific laws prohibiting participation in the dueling convention were enacted in the Southern states.”(Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Many governments in western territories, specifically the south of the United Sates, disallowed dueling to the point where laws were established against it. Eventually, many governments in Europe started to practice these similar laws, because dueling wasn’t seen as noble, but as something unjust and brutal. 

In conclusion the two texts The Torrents of Spring by Ivan Turgenev and A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail.Lermontov both support why dueling isn’t a noble act. These texts consisted of male protagonists, Sanin and Pechorin, who debase the act of dueling by amplifying the brutality, the unfairness, and offenses within their duels. Pechorin deliberately wounds and kills his old comrade Grushnitsky, who also tried to cheat Pechorin in the duel, while Sanin accepts his opponent’s offense, which was shooting into the air and discontinues the duel. These are just a few of the many unnoble acts within each of the characters own duel. Others may conclude that dueling is a noble act because an individual can restore or obtain honor, and honor is a significant part of life. Honor bares ones name. But this is absolutely wrong because how can something be labeled as noble if it isn’t even legal? Overall, both of these primary sources expressed the idea of how dueling bares no honor and is ultimately unnoble because of the way the characters acted in their duels.

Works Cited

A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov

“Duel.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/duel. 

“Mikhail Lermontov.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/biography/Mikhail-Yuryevich-Lermontov. 

Robinson, Paul. “Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 2006, pp. 708–728. JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/4214361. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

Schwartz, Warren F., et al. “The Duel: Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 321–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724239. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

The Torrents of Spring by Ivan Turgenev

The essay, “The Brain in Love” focuses on the subject of romantic attraction and brain chemistry. In this article, the author, Benedict Carey, explains the various research done by different scientists to decipher the brain and its role on love and affection. Some scientists may say that love is about understanding an individual in many different ways, while others may conclude that love is about romantic attraction. Scientific research suggests that romantic attraction is primitive, that its in the biological nature of humans, just like hunger or sex. Carey, strongly believes that through biology and scientific research, romantic attraction is strictly because of human nature.  Carey states, “While lust makes our eye wander, they say, it’s the drive for romance that allows us to focus on one particular person” and this suggests that although having a very strong sexual desire from the things we physically see, which is   Eros love, makes us attracted to a person, it’s the authentic love, and many more factors than just sexual desire, that allow a person to prioritize just one person instead of having their eyes on multiple individuals (400). But yet again, it is human nature for one to be in any form, attracted to more than one person at once. Carey also explains how romance is the reason why “ we might travel cross-country for a single kiss, and plunge into blackest despair if our beloved turns away”, which implies that having a strong connection towards someone allows one to go to high extents and have very strong emotions towards the individual (400).  

            Carey believes that romantic attraction is a biologically based human drive, and he starts his essay of by explaining how “The neural mechanisms of romantic attraction are distinct from those of sexual attraction.” In this section of his essay, he describes a MRI research study from Bartels and Zeki, which compared brain scans from things like romantic love and sexual attraction. The study shows that the brain scans reflected many strong emotions all at once, that these young people were “practically willing to die for their lover” (Carey 401) The same concept is mentioned in Alexander Pushkin’s poem “I love You”, in which the poet loved the woman so much that he would’ve basically died for her. “I love you, and the feeling…May not quite be extinct within me yet” The poet, although can’t get his love back, wishes nothing but the best for the woman and her future love. He’s almost willing to die for his love. In this section, Carey brings up a strong idea, of how love almost obligates one to go to the extreme for those that one loves. I agree with this idea because if you strongly love someone, you’d do anything and everything to replicate that affection to them.

            “Some idealization may be crucial to building a longer-term relationship.” In this section of the essay, Carey explains how psychologists in their studies have proven how lovers idealize their partners. The lovers emphasize the others good qualities and explain their flaws (402). When it comes to idealizing one’s partner, many things must be taken into consideration, such as if the partner is just sexually attractive, mentally attractive, or just attractive in every category. This can either lead to a long term or short term relationship. In comparison, the “Nikolai Gogol’ Nevsky Prospect” novel, contains the protagonist Piskarev, who in contrast, idealizes a prostitute to be this beautiful and pure figure that he deeply loves. Piskarev describes her as “…loveliest brow, of a dazzling whiteness, was overshadowed by beautiful agate like hair”           ( Gogol 253) He considers the women to be graceful and pure, but this isn’t all true. Piskarev doesn’t know the woman on a personal level. Most of his views on the women are what he idealizes her to be. In term, his relationship with the woman had only last for a day. Additionally, this idea of idealizing a significant other corresponds well with this idea, “If you think of romantic attraction as a kind of drug that alters how you think, then in this case it’s allowing you to take some risks you wouldn’t otherwise” and this proves how attraction that is understood to be as something short term, like a drug, can lead to a short term relationship, and if it’s understood as a long term thing, then this would establish a long term relationship. I strongly agree with Carey in this section because when it comes to romantic attraction, idealization can be either a negative or positive aspect of someone’s concept of a relationship.

            Carey states that passionate romance, if labeled as a drug, can lose its kick overtime. Scientific studies have shown that couples who experience feelings of passionate love, tend to lose their feelings for each other in a year or two. Furthermore, having a strong romantic drive says nothing about how wisely or on who someone uses it on ( Carey 403) Carey says this, “But seeing romance as a biologically based, drug-like state can at least provide some balm for a broken heart”(403) and here, Carey suggests that biology and research play a huge role in understand romantic attraction and even love itself. Research can allow us to better understand how individuals feel towards their peers and how authentic their love is, and in that way, people won’t experience as many broken hearts. Overall, I agree with Carey’s ideas because humans tend to possess characteristics that are hard to understand. These characteristics are also unpredictable as well as intangible, and this is why science and research are needed to understand these natural human attributes. Science and love do go hand in hand in most ideas.

.

Works Cited

Benedict Carey The Brain in Love

Gogolʹ, Nikolaĭ Vasilʹevich, and Carl R. Proffer. Letters of Nikolai Gogol. University of Michigan Press, 1967. 

Johnston, Charles, et al. Narrative Poems by Alexander Pushkin and by Mikhail Lermontov. Random House, 1983. 

Imagine getting into a dispute with a grown man or woman, middle age, tall, and muscular, and being obviously the less stronger person, you literally can’t do anything besides shout. You’re at a great and deadly disadvantage. A fist fight definitely wouldn’t work, and so wouldn’t verbal exchanges. What if you choose to settle whatever dispute you have with this physically stronger individual , with the draw of two guns, a duel, with a settled score and all. Would you defend your honor with such a “noble” act? A duel is an arranged combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, either with swords or firearms, and rules that are agreed upon by both parties, to fairly settle a dispute. The goal of a duel is not to kill the opponent, but to defend the honor of the nobleman that declared for the duel to happen. Duels, which weren’t official laws, were practiced in the 15^th to the 20^th century mostly in western societies and in Europe. In the discussions of dueling, one controversial issue has been if dueling is a justified act. On the one hand, the literary text, A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, argues that dueling is an act that appears to be noble, while in reality, dueling isn’t at all justified. The reasons being are  dueling is very brutal, it is never completely equal, and it is illegal by the government.

            Dueling is not as noble as it appears to be in the text because it is a very brutal act, in which swords or firearms are used to settle a dilemma between two individuals. With the use of a pistol, shots must be fired at the arm, the torso, or the legs. Any other shot is considered a foul, especially a shot to the head. Duels can also end up very bloody and casualties aren’t at all rare. When dueling, the setting can be as dangerous as the lead from the pistols. Duelers must settle at a place in which is dangerous and discrete so government authority won’t be able to figure out such thing. This sense of brutality is seen in A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, when Pechorin describes the scenery of the duel, “There is a drop of about three hundred feet or more from there; below, there are sharp rocks. Each of us will take his stand on the very edge of the shelf…and in this way even a light wound will be fatal. The one who is wounded will inevitably topple down and will be dashed to pieces…and then it should be very easy to ascribe this sudden death to an unfortunate leap.” (Lermontov 150) From this, it is quite evident that the area in which the duel is taking place is very dangerous, close to brutal, because these men are fighting at the edge of a cliff, with minimum distance to safety. Guns aren’t even in the discussion yet, but the lives of the two men are already in great danger. Another example in which the text portrays brutality in duels is when Pechorin explains Grushntsky’s intent during the duel. Pechorin says, “to kill me like a dog, for if I had been wounded in the leg a little more severely, I would have certainly fallen off the cliff.” (Lermontov 153) Grushnitsky shot Pechorin on his leg, a shot that wasn’t so risky, but had it been more sever, he would’ve simply fell to his death. Pechorin didn’t even receive a shot to any vital spots, like the head, or his heart, but a more severe shot to his leg would’ve resulted to an ever so simple death. This is very brutal in itself.

            In a duel, both parties are supposed to be given fair rules, as well as weapons that are equal to one another. These weapons must have the same qualities. For a sword, the blades for both parties must be the same length, and for pistols, the guns must be of the same power and must contain an even amount of ammunition. Each party must experience the same set of rules. Lermontov quotes “To your places, gentlemen! Doctor, have the kindness to measure off six paces.” Both Grushnitsky and Pechorin were six steps from each other, and this ensured that the distance between them was fair. (151) Although the two were in equal distance from each other, the duel was never completely fair because Grushnitsky and his captain never loaded Pechorin’s pistol, leaving him at a great disadvantage: “Doctor, these gentlemen, no doubt in their hurry, forgot to place a bullet in my pistol. Please, load it again and properly!… That is not my fault! And you have no right to reload … no right whatsoever…I shall not permit it . . .” (Lermontov 154) Not only was Pechorin’s pistol missing a bullet, it was also rejected from being reloaded. Grushnitsky and his captain both wanted to cheat Pechorin for their own benefit, and this is very unfair. “And still it is utterly against the rules.” (Lermontov 155) Even after having Pechorin’s  gun reloaded, allowing the duel to be set on fair terms, Grushnitsky’s captain still believed that Pechorin’s gun shouldn’t be reloaded, even after he cheated Pechorin, and this illustrates more unfairness.

            Although dueling is actually an unnoble act, others may argue that it is noble because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15^th to the 20^th century.  The journal article The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently 

by Warren F. Schwartz, Keith Baxter, and David Ryan quotes, “They embraced personal relationships, most critically those between men and women, and implied a set of attitudes about acceptable forms of personal advancement, aesthetic preferences, appropriate manners…” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,322) Although a duel was performed in order to settle exchanged slander or just any dispute between noblemen, it was a way for one to yield honor. Honor is very important in this sense because having honor under ones name carried an individual throughout all aspects of life, including wealth. Dueling plays a huge rule in the idea of receiving honor. On the contrary, dueling is not at all noble because it was illegal, and this act went against the government. The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently explains the legality of duels, and states “One other important feature of the larger social context was that the duel was explicitly made illegal and subjected to severe penalties.” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Dueling was made illegal in many parts of western and European societies because it was seen as violent and unjust. One shouldn’t ever be wounded or killed unlawfully by someone else’s weapon. Additionally, individuals who participated in duels were given sever consequences, things such as large fines or imprisonment. “ Specific laws prohibiting participation in the dueling convention were enacted in the Southern states.” Many governments in western territories, specifically the south of the United Sates, disallowed dueling to the point where laws were established against it. Eventually, many governments in Europe started to practice these similar laws, because dueling wasn’t seen as noble. 

            You’re done imagining the scenario of you in a slander with the grown adult. You’re clearly at a disadvantage. Do you choose to propose a duel, or do you not? Well, its quite evident that you shouldn’t. In conclusion, dueling is not a noble act for many reasons. It is known to be very brutal, in most cases it is not equal, and it is illegal.  Others may conclude that dueling is a noble act because an individual can restore or obtain honor, and honor is a significant part of life. Honor bares ones name. But this is absolutely wrong because how can something be labeled as noble if it isn’t even legal. Now think about it again. Would you want to participate in something illegal? Would you be willing to be cheated? Will you want to injure yourself or experience something close to death unlawfully by a random stranger’s weapon?

Bibliogrpahy 

Robinson, Paul. “Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 2006, pp. 708–728. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4214361. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

Schwartz, Warren F., et al. “The Duel: Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 321–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724239. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

Imagine getting into a dispute with a grown man or woman, middle age, tall, and muscular, and being obviously the less stronger person, you literally can’t do anything besides shout. You’re at a great and deadly disadvantage. A fist fight definitely wouldn’t work, and so wouldn’t verbal exchanges. What if you choose to settle whatever dispute you have with this physically stronger individual , with the draw of two guns, a duel, with a settled score and all. Would you defend your honor with such a “noble” act? A duel is an arranged combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, either with swords or firearms, and rules that are agreed upon by both parties, to fairly settle a dispute. The goal of a duel is not to kill the opponent, but to defend the honor of the nobleman that declared for the duel to happen. Duels, which weren’t official laws, were practiced in the 15^th to the 20^th century mostly in western societies and in Europe. In the discussions of dueling, one controversial issue has been if dueling is a justified act. On the one hand, the literary text, A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, argues that dueling is an act that appears to be noble, while in reality, dueling isn’t at all justified. The reasons being are  dueling is very brutal, it is never completely equal, and it is illegal by the government.

            Dueling is not as noble as it appears to be in the text because it is a very brutal act, in which swords or firearms are used to settle a dilemma between two individuals. With the use of a pistol, shots must be fired at the arm, the torso, or the legs. Any other shot is considered a foul, especially a shot to the head. Duels can also end up very bloody and casualties aren’t at all rare. When dueling, the setting can be as dangerous as the lead from the pistols. Duelers must settle at a place in which is dangerous and discrete so government authority won’t be able to figure out such thing. This sense of brutality is seen in A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, when Pechorin describes the scenery of the duel, “There is a drop of about three hundred feet or more from there; below, there are sharp rocks. Each of us will take his stand on the very edge of the shelf…and in this way even a light wound will be fatal. The one who is wounded will inevitably topple down and will be dashed to pieces…and then it should be very easy to ascribe this sudden death to an unfortunate leap.” (Lermontov 150) From this, it is quite evident that the area in which the duel is taking place is very dangerous, close to brutal, because these men are fighting at the edge of a cliff, with minimum distance to safety. Guns aren’t even in the discussion yet, but the lives of the two men are already in great danger. Another example in which the text portrays brutality in duels is when Pechorin explains Grushntsky’s intent during the duel. Pechorin says, “to kill me like a dog, for if I had been wounded in the leg a little more severely, I would have certainly fallen off the cliff.” (Lermontov 153) Grushnitsky shot Pechorin on his leg, a shot that wasn’t so risky, but had it been more sever, he would’ve simply fell to his death. Pechorin didn’t even receive a shot to any vital spots, like the head, or his heart, but a more severe shot to his leg would’ve resulted to an ever so simple death. This is very brutal in itself.

            In a duel, both parties are supposed to be given fair rules, as well as weapons that are equal to one another. These weapons must have the same qualities. For a sword, the blades for both parties must be the same length, and for pistols, the guns must be of the same power and must contain an even amount of ammunition. Each party must experience the same set of rules. Lermontov quotes “To your places, gentlemen! Doctor, have the kindness to measure off six paces.” Both Grushnitsky and Pechorin were six steps from each other, and this ensured that the distance between them was fair. (151) Although the two were in equal distance from each other, the duel was never completely fair because Grushnitsky and his captain never loaded Pechorin’s pistol, leaving him at a great disadvantage: “Doctor, these gentlemen, no doubt in their hurry, forgot to place a bullet in my pistol. Please, load it again and properly!… That is not my fault! And you have no right to reload … no right whatsoever…I shall not permit it . . .” (Lermontov 154) Not only was Pechorin’s pistol missing a bullet, it was also rejected from being reloaded. Grushnitsky and his captain both wanted to cheat Pechorin for their own benefit, and this is very unfair. “And still it is utterly against the rules.” (Lermontov 155) Even after having Pechorin’s  gun reloaded, allowing the duel to be set on fair terms, Grushnitsky’s captain still believed that Pechorin’s gun shouldn’t be reloaded, even after he cheated Pechorin, and this illustrates more unfairness.

            Although dueling is actually an unnoble act, others may argue that it is noble because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15^th to the 20^th century.  The journal article The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently 

by Warren F. Schwartz, Keith Baxter, and David Ryan quotes, “They embraced personal relationships, most critically those between men and women, and implied a set of attitudes about acceptable forms of personal advancement, aesthetic preferences, appropriate manners…” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,322) Although a duel was performed in order to settle exchanged slander or just any dispute between noblemen, it was a way for one to yield honor. Honor is very important in this sense because having honor under ones name carried an individual throughout all aspects of life, including wealth. Dueling plays a huge rule in the idea of receiving honor. On the contrary, dueling is not at all noble because it was illegal, and this act went against the government. The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently explains the legality of duels, and states “One other important feature of the larger social context was that the duel was explicitly made illegal and subjected to severe penalties.” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Dueling was made illegal in many parts of western and European societies because it was seen as violent and unjust. One shouldn’t ever be wounded or killed unlawfully by someone else’s weapon. Additionally, individuals who participated in duels were given sever consequences, things such as large fines or imprisonment. “ Specific laws prohibiting participation in the dueling convention were enacted in the Southern states.” Many governments in western territories, specifically the south of the United Sates, disallowed dueling to the point where laws were established against it. Eventually, many governments in Europe started to practice these similar laws, because dueling wasn’t seen as noble. 

            You’re done imagining the scenario of you in a slander with the grown adult. You’re clearly at a disadvantage. Do you choose to propose a duel, or do you not? Well, its quite evident that you shouldn’t. In conclusion, dueling is not a noble act for many reasons. It is known to be very brutal, in most cases it is not equal, and it is illegal.  Others may conclude that dueling is a noble act because an individual can restore or obtain honor, and honor is a significant part of life. Honor bares ones name. But this is absolutely wrong because how can something be labeled as noble if it isn’t even legal. Now think about it again. Would you want to participate in something illegal? Would you be willing to be cheated? Will you want to injure yourself or experience something close to death unlawfully by a random stranger’s weapon?

Bibliogrpahy 

Robinson, Paul. “Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 2006, pp. 708–728. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4214361. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

Schwartz, Warren F., et al. “The Duel: Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 321–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724239. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.

A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov