I hope that everyone has a very merry christmas, a happy new year abd a great break!!!!!!! My comment on the movie is that i really enjoyed it and I thought it was very sad when Mitya commited suicide because everything that he was doing was a product of Colonel Kotov and even though I do not agree with the fact that they murdered him, I took into consideration the fact that Mitya was obligated to carry out specific orders from his superior officer. I also found that Marussya's character was cold and weak at times because throughout the movie I never felt that she was in love with Kotov, but with Mitya and the way that she allowed herself to give in to Kotov when she was being genuine about her emotions was sad and aggrevating to witness. My favorite characters were Mitya and Nadya because they seemed to be at some point the funniest and strongest characters in the movie. Nadya's comment at the end of the film when she asked the man in the front seat if he was at the zoo had me laughing. once again Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!!!

Homework over Winter Break

Hi Everyone,

Please read through page 66 in Pnin. As last time, you can take a quiz or show me annotations when you get back from break.

On Monday, we will discuss The Master and Margarita. We'll start talking about Pnin on Tuesday.

If you are writing the twelve-page paper, please do some work on it over vacation so that you don't get overwhelmed with work in the last two weeks before finals.

Hope you have a great break!

Jane

I liked burnt by the sun and i think it shows very well the generational devide that occured in russia after the revolution. The characters come from four distinct groups, those who lived most f their lives under the tzar, those who can remember life under the tzar and who fought in the revolution, those who grew up during and after the revoluition, and those bourn in the new soviet state.

That guy is SO the devil. Let's think about this. He's attractive, charismatic, intelligent and decisive. He's trying to tempt the wife and her family away from the husband. He has "evil" intentions. I'm so right.

I enjoyed watching Burnt By the Sun. My favorite character is Mitya. My favorite part of the movie was when he told the little girl the story of what happened to him, but he made the names backward so it would not be as obvious what he was saying. I hope he gets the general back so he can get his revenge.

burnt by the sun

I like the film. The characters are richly etched and the difference between old and new is clearly seen in the older general and the younger secret service agent competing for the woman -- perhaps the woman represents Russia, the older "old" Russian and the newer "new" Russia.


I was just chuckling with the fireball effect. It is supposed to represent the influence of new Russia? Passion? Regardless, I thought it really wasn't necessary for the film and just took the viewer away from it.

The movie was delightful. The dynamic between the older Communist officer and the younger NKVD member made for an interesting contrast between the origins of the revolution and the direction the revolution was heading. Their struggle over the woman could be representative of their respective attempts to curry favor with Stalin/the Politburo.

I wish I had seen the movie.

It is amazing how many characters are in the movie, but while I dislike both guys for different reasons, I really think it is awful that Stalin wishes to destroy such a righteous man, he may have sent the younger man away and stol;e his woman, but he didn't know and he has established a family, and to bring down the foundations... That is just wrong!

I enjoyed this movie a lot. It was intriguing and covered many topics. however, the part i was most interested in was the conversation between the woman and her husband about her old lover that interested me most. The husband seemed to say that he caused her lover to leave, and that he would have done the same thing in his position. He was not at all worried about cuckolding, it seemed, as he did not give many reasons why he was superior. In fact, he gave only one. He said that he was loyal to his country, while the other man was simply a coward. I wonder why this man acted that way, as it is not how I am used to people acting on film. Moreover, was this man intended to be sympathetic or not?

I liked the movie as well. I noticed though when I was watching it I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I felt about whatshisface, the ex-boyfriend of the mother. He's a bit arrogant and rude, but at the same time I think he should have been the one with the woman and not that old guy (I'm sorry I'm really bad at remembering names of characters when they're not written down). The fact that her husband was the one to send him away and destroy their love nudges the reader to side with young guy even though he's a jerk.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to finish reading The Master and Margarita.

Please post a response to the movie we have been watching, Burnt by the Sun.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Sun and Moon

I haven't seen too much of a relation between the two. The first thing that comes to mind are possibly comparing the activities that occur during the nighttime as opposed to those in the daytime. Not too sure, Jane. Not too sure. According to answers.com (I suppose I cheated a bit) The sun is a generally a symbol of logic and rationality while the moon is a symbol of the subconcious. That is most likely an emphasis of the magical realism throughout the novel.

Pontius

I agree with David. Pontius Pilate is politically savvy and has good intentions in exercising his power. Not that his actions are all that admirable, but he at least cares. He is a bit of a coward though, and although he means well that doesn't mean one should shrug off the mistakes of a destructive dictatorship.

I like pontius pilate in The Master and Mararita, he may be a sort of cowarldy character however he has the poltical conciousness to figure out that Criste should not be spared. This is not cowardis but the knoledge that if jesus is pardoned pilate will lose much of his power to a rebellion, however if he frees Bar Rabban then his rule will not be thretaned.

Pontius Pilate is, surprisingly, one of the more sympathetic characters in the book. He is trapped in between being an upper level functionary in a large and powerful empire, and obeying his sentiment that Yeshua is a special human being. He is smart enough to recognize Yeshua as a savior of sorts, but unable to follow his instincts on the issue. This, along with his loneliness and ill health, make Pilate a :( person.

Piltate

I believe Pilate acts rather cowardly, and contrary to his own wishes. As Rianon mentioned, even though he believes Yeshua should be saved, he doesn't. I don't think the reader can look upon Pilate very favorably, given this. He has some sense of morality in wanting to do the right thing, yet he doesn't. Coward.

Pontius Pilate is a man with good intentions but is to worried about his reputation to act. He wanted to save Yeshua but he did not. He was more worried about his reputation than doing what is right. In chapter 25 and 26 he begins to show more initiative, he kills Judas, but it is not certain wheter he actually changes.

Pilate is, in several ways, a coward. Moreover, he is not living in a way true to his beliefs. In other words, he is living inauthentically. This is seen in the fact that, despite wanting to save Yeshua, and in his dream realizing that he would like to risk his career for him, Pilate did not. He begins to change and make up for that by killing Judas, but it remains to be seen whether he has changed completely or whether that was a small, empty gesture.

I agree with trevor and leslie in that the sun and the moon represent the themes of good and evil within the novel. I think the sun and hte moon particularly pretain to the recurring question of whether woland is good or evil within the novel or what isi good or evil in the novel.

To be honest, I haven't really thought to much about the sun and the moon in the novel. They seem to be small details lost among many larger more intricate details that make up the book. The most vivid observation of either's presence would be when Margarita is flying on her broomstick and destroying things. There it has a rather delicate and mystical feel to it which adds to the mysticism of the night.

I agree with Trevor, that the sun and the moon represent the good and evil. I think he sun is good because in pg. 144 I think it's Koroviev that mentions that the sun is setting so it's time to go. I think that now that the "good" is tucking away, they say it's time to go because the moon will be out representing evil where Koroviev and Behemoth will be out performing their evilness.

The sun and the moon symbolize the light and darkness and good and evil.  They are the complete opposites of each other.   Sun is good, the moon is evil.  Why are the sun and Moon used in such a novel that has the devil in it?

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Please read to page 358 in The Master and Margarita.

The question: What do the sun and/or the moon symbolize in the novel? Support your view with a quotation.

OR

Comment on the character of Pontius Pilate in Chapters 25 and 26.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Essay Due Monday

Hi Everyone,

This is a reminder that the final draft of the second essay is due on Monday. Please staple the first draft to the final version.

See you on Monday,
Jane

Margarita is strong, capable, and slightly desperate. She is willing to follow the instructions of unfamiliar, somewhat devious, people; behavior which would be suspect in the majority of societies, but is especially dangerous in the xenophobic Soviet world. In this manner she breaks with the mores of her culture, all for luv. Her luv for the Master conquers her fears and lifts her high up where she belongs.

As unhappy and cruel as she is, she has the capacity to do good. She had the heart to comfort the child she had frightened when she was in that rampant destructive rage. She is also very brave and intelligent. We can see this in her interactions with Satan. She holds herself up well during the ball and keeps her cool under extremely stressful circumstances.

Margarita is a woman who breaks the borders of society. She refuses to accept her life with her husband and goes searching for her happiness and her love. She becomes obedient to Satan in an attempt to save said love, and succeeds in freeing the Master. One committed to something, Margarita remains loyal, subservient, and encouraging to those whom she has a connection to. Margarita is a strong woman who lives with compassion and refuses to live a life without hope.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Please read to page 309 in The Master and Margarita.

Please describe Margarita's character.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

The play was tolerable, but it had too much shouting. Loud noises are generally unpleasant. There were a few loose ends that went either unresolved or ended unsatisfactorily; Jeremy and Molly's departure felt sudden and forced, the weird exorcism/acid freakout at the end was somewhat heavy handed, and the actor playing Harold Loomis bungled a few lines. All in all the dialogue and delivery was good, etc, etc.

Maybeck's response to the questions asked by the cast were actually pretty embarrassing. We had a few good responses but the rest of our answers misrepresented Maybeck in my opinion. I thought the play accurately portrayed our ability to eventually overcome (to an extent) significant problems like racial polarization. Similarly, I liked the theme of self purpose and independence. I interpreted the dancing/singing scene as a moment of solidity amongst the members of the house; I think that if we can agree that song is synonymous with purpose in the play, then the dance would imply that despite individual needs we're fundamentally united in our search for meaning.

I thought the play was great. I really loved the setting because I thought it was beautiful and it was perfect for the play. I liked how that characters act and I thought the play was really realistic and I felt like I could connect with what was going on at some points. I also thought their language was good and the actors were really good with their facial expressions and stuff.

I really enjoyed Joe Turner's Come and gone. For a two and a hale hour play i found that it did not drag on as long as other plays we have gone to see *cough* Mother Courage. I thought there was also some themes of unity in the play, when the Juda music scene was going on it was the first time that the entire house was untied.

Joe Turner's Come and Gone was a beautiful play which showed the importance and/or need in having a purpose in life. The purpose is best signified by finding ones song, as stated by Bindem (sp?). The characters all search for their purpose in life, but is best shown through the main character who finds a resolution at the end of this play.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Please read to page 275 in The Master and Margarita tonight.

Please post a response to the play we saw today.

Thanks,
Jane

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Please read to page 235 in The Master and Margarita. Do not post here, but please choose a passage between pages 118 and 235 to read to the class and comment on tomorrow.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

yeshua / pilate

Pilate is, in a way, naive, as compared to Yeshua. Yeshua assumes that people are fundamentally good (calling people "good men", etc.) Pilate on the other hand has clearly defined rules of right and wrong and wants people to fit into his own predefined categories. I would say the most contrasted point of comparison would be that Yeshua is open minded, whereas Pilate is close minded.

The tone of the pseudo-Biblical passages differs greatly from that of the Moscow narrative. Whereas Moscow seems to be full of hijinks and foolishness, the Yeshua narrative is told in a somber, but not reverential style. Bulgakov, while not a practicing Christian for obvious reasons, nonetheless appears to be communicating the moral seriousness and somewhat divine qualities of Yeshua through the prose he uses to describe him. In contrast, Woland is a figure without a clearly defined purpose, and consequently the Moscow chapters take on a kind of picaresque, satirical air.

Woland and his group aren't exactly evil, but thrive in chaos. It is the mischevious nature that allows them to thrive in their reality. Woland has both a maliciousness and a chaotic side, though one is shown more often than the other. The cat and the other man show the other side,by rude and malicous actions against humanity.

I am going to assume that the Man with the story about the woman with yellow flowers is Yeshua. If this is the case, Bulgakov strives to place Satan and Jesus in very different lights than what people are used to. Satan (Woland) entices people into deceiving themselves, whereas many people put the blame on Satan rather than the people who are weak enough to become victims. Satan is indirectly destructive. Jesus is also put in a very strange light and is described as a participant of an affair between him and Margarita.

I think that Woland's group is more mischievous than evil, though Bulgakov has chosen to clearly portray both traits.  When the old man is talking with Woland, there is an obvious maliciousness that he is treated with--taking into account the multiple stool instances, the wine, the hat/kitten, the rude inquiry into his personal finances, the revealing of his fate, etc.  In addition the hurling of the chicken at Berlioz's uncle, though awesome, was obviously quite cruel not even taking into consideration his treatment of his belongings and his suitcase.  Thinking about it I'd like to change my beginning thought from "more mischievous than evil" to "mischievous in a strongly cruel manner."

Pilate is tied down to the Roman order and is stuck in a rut.  It isn't until he meets a young Jewish man named Yeshua who is idealistic that he begins to realize there might be more... Yeshua is basically the opposite of Pilate for he is a dreamer who hopes of more.  He is quite innocent, and is accused of a crime he did not commit.  Yeshua changes Pilate's view. Pilate is a stoic Roman official.  Yeshua really shakes what is right for him. Yeshua and Pilate are completely opposite sorts of people but Pilate begins to change after meeting Yeshua, who leaves great impressions on people.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Your homework over the weekend is to read to page 214. (Please note: this is a change from the syllabus -- you have reading to do instead of the final draft of the second paper.)

Choose one of the questions below:

1. Do you view Woland and his associates as evil?
OR
2. Pick one topic or pair of characters and compare them:
Ivan/the Master;
Pilate/Yeshua;
Pilate/Woland;
Yeshua/the Master;
style and tone of the Moscow chapters/ those of the Jerusalem chapters.

Have a great weekend!
Jane

The classy cat is pretty boss. I can't figure out exactly what the choice of imagery on Bulgakov's part signifies. I'm hoping that it means something. Please post if anyone has any ideas.

The Master is an unassuming but opinionated asylum inmate. His account of the difficulties of writing his novel about Pontius Pilate, which mirrors Bulgakov's experience, makes the Master appear to be a stand-in for the author himself. For now the Master is remarkable for being the only person to immediately believe Bezdomny's story. This gives him a heightened status in the story because he is cognizant of certain things that the reader knows to be true. In fact, his knowledge of Pontius Pilate makes him nearly on level with Woland on at least one subject, a status which has so far escaped every other mortal character in the novel.

The Master, within the asylum, has a false sense of control. It is the keys which allow him to feel like he knows what is happening at any point, similar to that of God. He is, however, a person who focuses on specific things, such as telling his story to Ivan. He doesn't really allow questions or responses, another form of being, in his mind, in control of his reality.

The Master seems cold and disenchanted with humanity. But he is willing to tell his story to a man he barely knows such as Ivan. He seemed to really care about Margarita and take care of her. When she was with her.

The Master is self centered but self aware.  I really like him, I think he's awesome even though he talks a bit too much.  He accepts his life and all that has come, but I feel like he probably tells his life story to strangers time and time.  The set of keys he owns give him the ability to be instantly informed on any new occurrences in the clinic, allowing him to have a status similar to that of the nurses.  He has false authority as well as seniority.  He's open, honest, sharing, a very genuine character and I look forward to getting to know him better.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read to p. 194 in The Master and Margarita. The post here:

Write a character description of the master OR of your favorite member of Woland's retinue.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Woland has come to Moscow in order to introduce Bezdomny to the Master, and, somehwere along the line, reunite Pilate and Yeshua. His theatrical performance is partially a display of power, but more likely an opportunity for Bulgakov to point out the capitalistic instincts of Soviet citizens (having them clamor for money, expensive clothes, etc.). The satire is slightly more insightful than it initially appears to be; the fact that Soviet citizens are still desperate for material wealth indicates either the populace's (or humanity's) inherent greed, or the Communist regime's inability to adequately provide for its citizens.

Woland, as the devil, causes chaos and discord where-ever he goes. This was his main motivation for the Black Magic show. he wanted to shock and horrify people, and cause unhappiness within them. He came to Moscow to cause discord, but also to observe people during such an important and oppressive time. He wanted to be part of the general discord, and to stir up more trouble besides.

i believe that Wolands motive for the magic show is to create complete choas and distract tha audience from everything that they know to be true. He is the devil after all and his entire motive throught history is to avert people fromwhat they believe and know to be real.

I agree that Woland definitely comes to Moscow and conveys a political message while he's here.  I wouldn't say that this is entirely his reason because I feel that this is more strongly a message from the author which is embodied in his character.  My first guess for his reason is simply boredom.  Ruling Hell for eternity might become rather dull.  Yet, I'm presuming his main function in this novel would be representing Bulgakov's views of current Russian society.

Woland's motives for his magic show are that he wants to expose the greed of people and the inherent failure of mass communism. His motives for coming to Moscow are more shrouded as his actions throughout the story have been based on causing people to change what they believe, whatever they believe having no real favor towards chrisendom or towards sin.

The purpose of Woland's visit to Moscow is to spread evil around. An example is the Black Magic Show, which he gives to cause argument between people because of the money. He also enjoys watching the way people behave because he likes their quarrel. Woland's purpose is to impress the people around him giving them like a tap of evilness. As he goes around Moscow, he is meeting more people to whom he causes quarrel and dislike because he enjoys watching those types of things. He also wants to be a very powerful figure to Moscow to influence his character throughout the city.

Woland's black magic show was an attempt to expose the vanity and greed amongst the upperclassmen of Moscow. He indirectly satirizes their way of life, and brings to attention the flaws in an otherwise though-to-be invulnerable social class.

The reason he puts on the black magic show is to take the opportunity to observe people and their behavior. He positions himself in front of the audience so as to be the audience of an audience. After Bengalsky's head is torn off, Satan makes a comment on the nature of people and money in comparison to people and morality: "'Well, now,' the latter [Satan] replied pensively, 'they're people like any other people... They love money, but that has always been so...Mankind loves money, whatever it's made of-leather, paper, bronze, gold. Well, they're light-minded... well, what of it... mercy sometimes knocks at their hearts... ordinary people... In general, reminiscent of the former ones... only the housing problem has corrupted them...'" (126)

Woland loves to breed caos into the world around him. He enjoys the thrills other people get, and loves to remain an unbiased center of attention. He goes to Moscow in an attempt to make people re-think their morals, and in an attempt to spoil Russian society. He uses the Black Magic Show to breed the caos he so loves, and he uses it to undermine the government and the faith of the people.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Your homework tonight is to read through page 133 in The Master and Margarita. You do not have to post tonight since I am posting so late.

But, by Wednesday, please answer the following question (or post another comment):

Why do you think Woland has come to Moscow? Why does he give the Black Magic Show?

The address for the website I mentioned today in class is:
http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russian/Bulgakov/public_html/
It has lots of helpful information on The Master and Margarita.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Homework

Hi,

Your homework over the break is to read through p. 118 in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. Please start early so that you have enough time to finish the reading.

When you come back, you have to either show me the annotations or take a quiz on the reading.

Hope you guys are having a good break!
Jane

Isaac Babel's description of atrocious violence alongside overwhelming (natural) beauty serves to outline two poles of experience existing in close proximity to each other. It also sets up an opposition between man and nature. The humans are portrayed as a violent, cancerous presence on the earth, while the earth is a mostly passive, benign sufferer of that violence. Babel's battle scenes display this relationship and emphasize the opposition.

Beauty and violence are interconnected within Babel's short stories. He uses imagry of beauty and personification of beautiful ideas to expand the ideas within war. The beauty is a backbone to the violence within his short stories, making the violence more realistic, vivid, and forceful.

Honors / Non-Honors Credit

Dear Students,

We heard from the UC accreditation system, and Russian Literature was approved as a new course. This means that we can now have Honors and Non-Honors sections. Please let me know on Friday whether you would like Honors credit. As I mentioned earlier, the difference is as follows: for Honors credit, you write a 12-page research final paper (with five to ten sources cited); for Non-Honors, you write a seven-page final paper, without doing research.

Thanks,
Jane

The contrast of Babel's descriptions and the actual context of the story behind them create a very eerie feeling to his pieces.  I think that this contrast is something that makes his stories good and popular.  It's something I may have read before, but you definitely don't come across it often.  On the other hand, it makes sense why he combines these two things.  Beauty and violence coexist and with literature you have the power to push them into a space unnatural close together.  I appreciate the steps he took as a writer to create something new and unexpected.

I Red Cavalry Tales language and beauty is used to show the violence in a clearer light and to get the reader to think about the violence in the story more. When one reads Red Cavalry Tales one is struck by how beautiful the immagry in the stories are. When the reader thinks about this beautiful immagry they are lead to the conclusion that while the language is beautiful what the language is describing is horrific. This relization gets the reader thinking about how war is portrayed and how one writes about somthing so terrible, and eventually a realization comes to the reader about war its self.

In Gedali, the old man questions the sanctity of revolution: "Revolution is happiness. And happiness does not like orphans in its house. A good man does good deeds. The Revolution is the good deed done by good men. But good men do not kill. Hence the Revolution is done by bad men. But th Poles are also bad men. Who is going to tell Gedali which is the Revolution and which the counterrevoultion?" (65) In his mind, beauty cannot coexist with violence; but with there being violence in the revolution which is supposedly a good cause, he cannot distinguish the difference between revoultion and counterrevolution because he cannot see past the count of dead bodies.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Tonight, please read the stories "Italian Sun," "Gedali," and "My First Goose" (to p. 365 in the Reader).
By Friday, please finish reading all Babel's stories in the Reader.

By Friday, please post the answer to this question:

What do you think is the relationship between beauty (beauty of language, art, nature) and violence in Babel's stories?

Leslie, Tynan, Trevor, Michael, Kellon, Kat, and Rhiannon will be presenting tomorrow.

I forgot to tell you today that we will meet in Wes. Peach room tomorrow. We are switching with Wendy because she would like to show a movie, and there is not a way to do that in Wes. Peach room. I will post a sign tomorrow to remind you of the room change.

Please e-mail me with any questions / comments.
Jane

Death is rendered in a naturalistic, matter-of-fact manner. This is especially evident in Kurdyukov's letter, where he describes his father as "hacking away" (45) at his brother. The passage is typical in that it offers no psychological insight or explanation for the event, Kurdyukov simply reports the facts. Indeed, most of the stories feature an odd mix of journalistic prose with lyrical underpinnings.

violence is very abrupt, horrific, sudden and is always presented in a very matter of fact way like Marina stated in her post. I don't really have my reader so i cant site and exact quote. i also felt like violence, like in Hadji Murad was almost looked at as a normal fact of life and not acknowledged as a significant occurrence or incident.

The way in which violence is portrayed in Red Cavalry Tales is both glorious and violent. There are many instances throughout the story where a character says something like "We went to valliantly hack him"or something along those lines. This use of language makes violence simply seem like brutatiley coaked in a shroud of superficial glory.

Violence in Babel's short stories is very sudden and it is mentioned in the short stories as a way to grasp the readers and entertain them since the stories are short and don't really have a long plot. I thought it was really cruel how in The Letter, the father would kill his own son in such a horrific way by beating him until his death. This event was very heart breaking to me and I thought is was so awful. Violence in the short stories are a way to call attention to make the stories interesting by portraying them in a horrible way.

Violence within these short stories is meant to be sudden and horrific. The graphic imagery accompanying instances of death and violence exemplify the brutal reality of such acts (in particular the death of the old man). Violence is often left somewhat unexamined in works of literature, from being relatively censored to being simply implied. I believe these short stories serve to uncompromisingly attract the reader's attention to the viciousness of violence and death.

I agree with Trevor in that the violence is stated in a very matter of fact way. The abruptness of it results from a lack of sensitivity. There is no working up to the more violent descriptions, such as the old man hacked up, because it is simply another observation in a setting. The letter which talks about the father and his sons portrays awful events happening even among family members. Considering that this is what happens between blood relation, the reader can only imagine how the author would describe other types of cruelty.

The stories of Babel show violence in a matter of fact way. While it is shocking to the reader who is scandalized by such actions.  The violent actions are very sudden.  It is just a fact of life in the stories about the Red army.  There is a portrayal of this in the killing of horses: "The stench of yesterday's blood and slaughtered horses drips into the evening chill."  This shows the simple fact of life violence is.  Violence is simply part of the culture of Russia in this time period.  Russia is portrayed as brutal during this time.

The violence in The Letter was incredibly powerful and heart-wrenching. When the Father kills Fyodor by hacking him to pieces because of his political belilefs we as readers percieve the emotions hidden beneath the exterior; those whose existence is deticated to family ties. When the narrator is caught right after his father kills his brother, his father begins to shout about his mother and his detestation of her.

The violence in Babel's short stories is very abrupt and takes the reader aback. The violence comes at unsuspecting times, often causing a horror by the surprise of it. "Red Cavalry" is the most shocking of the short stories as the narrator finds "An old man is lying there on his back, dead. His gullet has been ripped out, his face hacked in two, and dark blood is clinging to his beard like a lump of lead"(40). The violence comes as a shock to the reader, causing a further sense of disgust.

Homework due Tuesday

Hi Everyone,

The homework due Tuesday is to read all of Babel's stories until "Italian Sun" on p. 359 of the Reader. The titles of these stories are "Crossing the River Zbrucz," "The Church in Novograd," "A Letter," "The Reserve Cavalry Commander," and "Pan Apolek." (They are all very short.)

The question: How are violent actions portrayed? Please use a quotation in your response.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Your homework tonight is to finish reading "Ward No. 6." You do not have to post tonight.

My daughter is sick, and I will be staying home with her tomorrow. You will have a sub, who will tell you what the in-class work is. You will be doing some writing on "Ward No. 6" and will read Chekhov's story "The Student."

Next week, we will be reading Babel's short stories.

Marina, David, and Asia, you will be reading parts of your stories on Monday.

Everyone, please don't forget that the first draft of the second essay is due on Monday.

Sorry I can't be there tomorrow,
Jane

In the story ward #6 i definitely tend to side with Ivan's character much more than the doctor. The doctor's view on life is very melancholy and non chalant. he regards life as something of little value and thrusts his inner veiw of himself upon other people and projecting his own feelings on his patients. he feels as if life is not worth living because it is all a matter of eternal suffering and therefore there is no point in prolonging ones existence. Ivan on the other hand thinkks that suffering creates a better life and therefore is worth living.

The difference in disposition between the doctor and Gromov presents a somewhat ironic foil-ish relationship. The doctor is a high-minded theoretician with a depth of philosophical understanding, a man of learning, nearly a man of God, etc. Gromov, on the other hand is more interested in "living life", making him the ostensible "man of action" in this relationship. Ironically, our man of action is also confined to a mental asylum. This paradoxical situation presents an interesting subversion of what would otherwise be a somewhat stale instance of opposed characters.

Ivan and the Doctor are two similar characters. They are both well educated, smart, and read a lot. Ivan has a mania of being taken to jail and being accused which is why he distrusts people and has a strict character. The doctor lacks strictness and doesn't know how to exert power because he is too soft. They both criticize the way life is an have many views of the world.

The Doctor is a wealthy, philosophical sort. He is interested in higher thought, but at the same time, is unable to really oppose anyone, and has never really faced hardship. Ivan has faced hardship, and is a bit mad. His philosophies come out of that. As a result, Ivan is much angrier, sharper, and more cynical than the doctor. He is mistrustful of people. Their dynamic can be characterized as the nice one (the doctor) who won't give up on the other person, and the angry, cynical one (Ivan) who slowly begins to trust the nice one despite himself. Of course, Ivan seems to be making a big impression on the doctor as well. Ivan is also more practical.

Ivan Gromov, in comparison with the doctor, views life in an ironic negative manner. The doctor, on the other hand, only wishes to understand the views of life, learning and taking things away from his time with Ivan. The conversations, specifically those on what it is to suffer, leave Gromov frustrated, as he cannot completely comprehend the slant that the Doctor takes with him. The Doctor, with Ivan's lack of understanding, continues the conversations in an attempt to not only brake through to the mad man, but to understand Ivan's philosophy on life.

Both men are well-read philosophers in their own right, both come from well-off families, neither sleeps easily.  The commonalities between them show how little truly separates these two men that, according to their relationship, should be on levels further divided from each other.  Ivan is critical, somewhat pessimistic, untrusting, while his doctor assumes a quieter role; he listens more than speaks, he remains calm even when Ivan becomes upset.  Their conversations are meant to shed light on the nature of people that society has brushed off as no longer functional (Ivan).

Gromov is very interesting to the Doctor, who finds him extremely engaging.  They talk on an intellectual level that is higher than most others. Even though Gromov is mad he is still quite intelligent. The doctor seems to want to help Gromov the most out of all his patients and changes his habits. People begin to worry about the way the doctor is acting.  The conversations are extremely long and discuss philosophical subjects like death and punishment.  The Doctor wishes to understand why he suddenly pushed him away.  He wants to understand the mind of Gromov.  The doctor peruses this interesting psychological case.

"Ward No. 6," to p. 202

Hi Everyone,

Sorry for the late post!

Your homework is to read to the break on p. 202 in "Ward No. 6."

Please compare Ivan Gromov to the Doctor.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

I was only able to watch the second half of the movie so my response will probably be one-sided. The movie supplements Tolstoy's view of the pointlessness of war. We were able to examine several specific stories that each ended in violence or death, both of which are attributed to the war itself. The ending of the movie, however, is hope inspiring in that it demonstrates the capacity for humans to think and act rationally and realize how unnecessary murder and violence for any cause is.

War was portrayed as an impersonal event, wherein a single person has a very slight impact. When opposite sides confronted each other outside of the battlefield they behaved more amicably than one would have expected from their conduct in war. Abdul's daughter is infinitely more sympathetic to the Russian captives than is befitting for an enemy non-combatant. The man that forces Sasha and Ivan to walk through a minefield eventually softens up as well, inviting the men to dance and drink with him, not to mention wrestle, a sure sign of affection. Abdul too is unwilling to consummate his hatred of the Russians. All of these events point to a connectivity on the human level that doesn't mirror the military actions of the respective sides.

I really enjoyed the movie and I thought that Dian's character was very strong, wise and even mature for her age. in the beginning one could see that she was much more inclined to side wuth her father but as the movie progressed and she and Ivan grew to have some sort of love for one another she seemed to really branch out and help him emotionally by making him smile, being his connection to the outside world and keeping his hopes alive and she physically helps him to escape and asks her father, which is a great risk in itself upon her well being not to kill Ivan. She, to me, seemed like one of the heroes in the film. She has a great sense of pride for herself and her country, she has this appealing innocence and youth about her yet she is not naive. She has a wonderful commanding presense, quiet strength and is a very brave young woman. She really is one of the main reasone that Ivan did not lose his mind and helped save his life in so many ways.

I didn't watch the first have of the movie, but from what I watched yesterday, I sympathize more with the Russian guy that survived because I thought that he was very kind. I thought he was respectful of the girl, Dina, and had a healthy relation with her. He wasn't just interested in like raping her or something and instead he really liked her and had respect for her. He cared about her because he didn't want Dina getting in trouble for helping him escape and I thought that was so sweet and nice. I sympathize with him because I thought it was sad that he was all on his own when he was set free by Abdul, and I also thought it was sad how he was about to leave and then the helicopters arrive to bomb the Chechens. I liked how he was yelling out for the helicopters to not bomb the Chechens because it shows his kindness, that even though the Chechens had him as a prisoner, he doesn't hold a really mean, big grudge against them. So yeah...

I sympathized with the Russian who lived. He was an innocent, sent off to war, despite not really being suited for it. Moreover, captured and locked in with the other guy, who, no matter what you think of him, can not be a pleasant person to be jailed with. He was slightly incompetent, and bumbled, but was genuinely kind and wanted to help people. Kinda like a puppy. he was even nice to his captors, and befriended Dina. I was also affected by his simple desire to live. He wasn't going to go crazy, or inconvenience anyone, but he still wanted to live so much. The dilemma of 'get Dina in trouble or get killed' was touching, especially the way he dealt with it. No agonizing over the decision, just the simple truth that he couldn't let her get in trouble because of him. He was a truly good person, and I'm always a sucker for those. I honestly don't know why I'm writing all this.
Also! Dina was awesome. She was very much twelve, with all the selfishness and whimsicality that implies. However, she was also very mature in some ways, due to the situation with her father and brother. She understood many hard truths about life. However, despite her fathers hatred for Russians, she was able to form a friendship with one, a strong enough relationship to risk becoming an outcast to save his life.
What struck me about this movie was how real and believable the characters were. Some I liked, some i didn't, but i believed in them all.

The war has hardened Abdul.  He comes to accept things that to us seem horrible and pointless and wrong, as simply the way things are in wartime.  He captures the men out of desperation, though doesn't treat them horrible.  I think his guilt prevents him from being around them too much but he does not kill them even when he is encouraged.  His emotions lead him, which is something surprising to think about considering his serious and seemingly apathetic character.  His want to kill Ivan, as well as his choice not to are both actions stemmed from feelings (anger/yearning for revenge and then a switch to compassion, maybe empathy).

I sympathize most with Ivan who was cute and innocent.  He truly didn't deserve to be a prisoner in there. He was a good person who wanted to help Abdul's daughter who was teased by the horrible children in the neighborhood.  He was such a nice boy with his fellow prisoner of war.

Sasha and Ivan are two very extreme characters. Sasha, being the architypical experienced soldier, is tough, indestructible and smart one. Ivan is the younger one, lacking smarts and making up with heart. He is more reclusive and is the only friend of Dina,
Abdul's daughter, which shows that he does put himself above others. Sasha, because he was so architypically indestructible, was destined to be the one to die.

Homework -- Chekhov

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read Chekhov's story "Vanka" and the beginning of "Ward No. 6," until the break on p. 268 in the Reader (p. 188 in the xeroxed book).

Please post a short response to the movie. You can answer one of the questions below or post your own observation that does not answer one of these questions.

How was war portrayed? What was the main message about war?
With whom did you sympathize most in the movie, and why?
Describe the relationship between the Chechens and the two Russian prisoners as well as the way that relationship changes.
Compare Sasha and Ivan (the two prisoners).
Describe Dina's character (Adbul's daughter).
Describe Abdul's character.
What were some cultural differences shown between the Chechens and the Russians?

Tomorrow we will finish discussing Hadji Murad and will begin discussing Chekhov's stories.

Those of you presenting on Wednesday, please continue to work on your presentation. I will check in with you tomorrow.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Paper Topics

Hi Everyone,

I will hand out the paper topics tomorrow in class, but I am also posting them here in case you would like to start thinking about your paper this weekend.

Jane

Second Paper Topics

You may write your second paper on Notes from the Underground or on Hadji Murad.
As always, you may choose your own essay topic, but please let me know what it is before the rough draft due date. Your own essay topics may involve comparing.

Length: 1000+ words

Rough draft due date: Monday, November 17.
Final draft due date: Monday, December 8.

Notes from the Underground Topics

1. In the concluding section of Notes from the Underground, the Underground Man writes, “[A] novel needs a hero, and here are purposely collected all the features of an anti-hero, and, in the first place, all of this will produce a most unpleasant impression, because we’ve all grown unaccustomed to life … ” (129). What do you think the UM means by this statement? Do you agree with him? Do you think that the UM characterizes himself appropriately in the novel? (This of this question as a character study of the UM.)

2. Why does the Underground Man reject Liza?

3. What is the relationship between Parts I and II of the novel? How do the Underground Man’s beliefs in Part I reflect his past, described in Part II? What is the effect if the reversed chronology between Parts I and II?

4. Explain how the Underground Man uses symbols and metaphors to put forth his argument about human nature. Focus on several symbols or metaphors, such as “piano keys,” “a stone wall,” “the crystal palace,” “the chicken coop,” “2x2=4,” and “2x2=5.”

Hadji Murad Topics

1. What perspectives on death does the novel present? Use specific examples and analyze passages in your response.

2. How does the novel present Hadji Murad, as a savage and barbarian, as a noble warrior, or as neither? Which characters are foils to Hadji Murad?

3. What is the effect on the reader of the structure the novel uses when it shifts from one setting to another again and again?

4. Does Hadji Murad put forth a moral message? If yes, explain what it is.

Nicholas is a horrible person who is corrupt and likes to have power. Hadji Murad is frustrated at not being able to save his family

Hi Everyone,

You do not have to post over the weekend. Please work on your projects.

See you on Monday,
Jane

My quote is the same as Marina's: "This wound in the side was fatal and he felt that he was dying. Memories and pictures succeeded one another with extraordinary rapidity in his imagination [...] All these images passed through his mind without evoking any feelings within him--neither pity nor anger nor desire: everything seemed so insignificant in comparison with what was beginning, or had already begun, within him" (666-667).
This is significant,considering the portrayal of death in this book as a whole. Specifically, one man's death was referred to as 'the most important part of a man's life'. This implies an important attached to one's last thoughts. In this, hadji Murad's last thoughts were of images of his life. However, he calmly accepts them, and thus accepts his life. Moreover, it presents the idea that death is not a bad thing, and there is something far more important that begins at death.

"All these images passed through his mind without evoking any feeling within him - neither pity nor anger nor any kind of desire: everything seemed so insignificant in comparison with what was beginning, or had already begun, within him"(667). I find this quote interesting because it seems to reflect Tolstoy's views on death. At the time of the passage's authorship, Tolstoy was aware that he would not live very much longer, and the story seems to reflect that dread. Hadji Murad also displays what, in the mystical Christian view of Tolstoy, would be an admirable display of equanimity, or spiritual purity.

My quote is the same as Marina's. I think this quote is really powerful because it mentions the fatal wound that Hadji Murad gets and it's signaling the end of Hadji's life. I also think it's really sad because as Hadji is dying all his memories are rushing through him and he cannot even express any feelings about the images of his family rushing through his mind. and I also think it's really sad that Hadji is dying as a hero, remembering his family yet it's not significant to him at all because he is dying.

"This wound in the side was fatal and he felt that he was dying. Memories and pictures succeeded one another with extraordinary rapidity in his imagination [...] All these images passed through his mind without evoking any feelings within him--neither pity nor anger nor desire: everything seemed so insignificant in comparison with what was beginning, or had already begun, within him" (666-667). I chose this quote because I hadn't really heard of death written about in this way before; I'd seen authors describe characters' lives flash before their eyes, as well as a sense of acceptance, but never the two together. I also found it interesting that Tolstoy uses the word "beginning" in reference to his death. That caught my attention.
ps: yay obama. let's get a no on 8 now.

I actually chose the same qoute as Kat and this passage really focused on the dead and how they lose their character and how death is portrayed in the ending of the story. I als wanted to add that Barack Obama won for the president of the united states of America and that I am very proud and priveledged to be a person of color on this momentous day in history and that Obama has paved the way for all people no matter what their ethnicity can do even what seems to be the impossible. Hope, change and faith have led him to the top and he has proved all those who didnt believe in miracles wrong today and for many years to come. He is a man of integrity, courage, valor, compassion and above all, hope. Barack has inspired me to do things i thought i could not do and show me that the impossible is neverthat of what it seems. His triumph has changed my life and im sure the life of so many otherAmerican citizens. I believe in him and the power of change and even though this has nothing to do with Hadji Murad, i feel this great need to share my joy with all of you. And always keep hope, faith and always remember "Yes we can!"

"But suddenly a shudder passed through him, he staggered away from the tree and fell on his face, stretched out at full length like thistle that had been mown down, and he moved no more. He did not move, but still he felt." (667) This passage focuses our attention back to the beginning with the mention of the tattered thistle. Like the thistle, Hadji Murad is battered and broken, but still he lives until Hadji Aga delivers the finishing blow.

"Karganov and Hadji Aga and Akhmet Khan and all the militiamen gathered together- like sportsmen round a slaughtered animal- near the bodies of Hadji Murad and his men (Khanefi, Khan Mahoma, and Gamzalo they bound), and amid the powder-smoke which hung over the bushes they trimphed in their victory".
The imagry of this passage forces the reader to view Hadji Murad and his men simply as nothing more than game in a hunt. The dead lose all human characteristics of themselves once dead, having thier lives claimed as a victory. It is the imagry which reinforces the concept of inhumanism withing the passage, specifically showcased in the simile.

Hadji Murad; reminders

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to finish reading Hadji Murad.

To post here: Choose a short passage in the last two-and-a-half pages and comment on it.

A couple of reminders: tomorrow, you will watch the movie "Prisoner of the Mountains." It is based on a short story by Tolstoy, called "Prisoner of the Caucasus," but set in contemporary times. It deals with some of the same themes we have been reading about. On Monday, we will discuss the ending of Hadji Murad as well as the movie.

The first draft of the second essay will be due on Monday, November 17. I will give you essay topics on Monday, November 10. Next week we will read Chekhov's short stories, and the week after that Babel's short stories. David, Asia, Marina, Nicole, Rhiannon, and Leslie will present on Wednesday, November 12 (thank you to the early presenters!) ; everyone else will present on Wednesday, November 19.

Unfortunately, I can't be at school tomorrow. Nina will show you the movie. Please e-mail me if you have any questions.

Jane

Shamiel, like Tsar Nicolas, is tyrannical and unnecessarily brutal. Despite leading the side which we sympathize with, Shamiel's murders and exploitation of his subordinates categorizes him as a cruel dictator. Tolstoy intentionally depicts both leaders as incompetent and sadistic to comment on the innate flaws with a hiererchical / dictatorial form of rule.

2 Posts

The Tsar is portrayed as an unapologetically cruel man with a bad conscience. Despite lavish living conditions, he sleeps on a "hard narrow bed", rubs his body with ice, and recites his prayers daily. These practices point to a hint of guilt within his subconscious, indicating some kind of regret over his past and present behavior.

Military action is portrayed with surprising lightness of tone. What should be epic battles are seen by Russian characters as "delightful", not as an opportunity to behave heroically or serve their country. In contrast, the Chechens seem more aware of the graveness of their situation. They refer to hero tropes such as divine will, revenge, and honor. There is much more immediacy in the Chechens' struggle.

I really enjoyed how military action/its consequences were portrayed. The use to two separate perspectives coming from each side gives the story something very unique. Also, I think it was great how Tolstoy decided to include the story about the family and aoul where we had seen Hadji Murad. He seems to focus more on the emotions involved with battle than giving many battle accounts themselves.
And also to comment on Shamil's character, it's interesting how the reader is encouraged to pity him after his portrayal as the enemy. I definitely noticed to mention of his want to spend some time with his family which even gives him something in common with Hadji Murad.

Shamil comes across as a fairly ordinary guy, though he is also very smart and calculating. He runs his campaign, and is quite competent. He does what is required of him as a leader, even when he doesn't want to. He even has to deal with jealousy and squabbling in his personal life. However, all he really wants at the end of the day is good food and the comfort of his wife.

The portrayal of Shamil is one of respect and wisdom. Tolstoy shows him to be a capable military leader, while keeping the ties of his family, particularly with his wives, strong. He appears to be fairly straightforward in his military tact, using manipulation of hostages and a sense of fear to get what he wants. Shamil is a many of strong social efforts, although his moral values seem to be lacking in the department of war.

The first face-to-face view we get of Shamil portrays him as being a pretty chill guy. He seems to just want to get this whole business over with so he can return to his family and normal life. In short, he seems like a simplistic and amiable dude. But then theres the contrast of his treatment towards Hadji Murad's son, who actually likes him and is opposed to his father's nonsense, that really throws off the reader. He orders Hadji Murad's son to write a letter to Hadji Murad that would entail a threat to kill off his family if he does not join Shamil again. However, he seems to not think that he is taking to much and instead, being sympathetic when he reassures Hadji Murad's son that only his eyes would be taken, not his life. The son then proceeds to atempt to kill himself.

the way in which military action is portrayed is in a some what negative light. Although Hadji Murad can be very sweet and maybe even docile and kind at times the actions that have to do with military decisions and actions are some what taken to the  extreme like the passage in prior reading in which Hadji Murad enters a mosque during prayer and his actions are merciless and harsh, cruel even and though the reader might deduce that Hadji Murad is a good and kind hearted man in this sense he creates the feeling that military power has to be something cruel and cold when ti does not always have to be that way. i remember in class Jane gave us the handout about choosing which side to agree with in the description of Hadji murad and i said as did some other people that he has his high and low points in the story when i feel as if he is one way and then is all of  a sudden a completely different way. this relates a lot to how i feel about how military power is portrayed due to the fact that the reasoning behind these harsh and cruel actions can be looked at as noble causes and justify the cruelty and mercilessness but from another standpoint they can be said to be completely immoral, unjust and unnecessary all together.

Hadji Murad, to p. 645

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read pp. 624-645.

You have a choice of one out of three questions (and, of course, you can post on a topic of your own):

1. How is military action portrayed?
2. What is your reaction to Shamil's character?
3. Hadji Murad has stayed in the fort for a week without being able to fight against Shamil. What do you think is his state of mind? Has there been foreshadowing of a resolution?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

The way in which the Tsar is protrayed is in a very negative light. he is very weak, pushy, manipultive, and has very radical ideas and actions that regard the reforms. he seems like a very unhappy person as a whole and that he projects his inner unhappiness on to others in cruel and unusual forms of hatred, ignorance and pure, untamable malice which he decides to realease at the most unexpected moments at times.

The way that Tzar Nicolas I is portrayed in Hidji Morad is as a cruel, conservative, and parinoid man. Nicolas I is seen several times throughout the novel as being very opposed to progress. For example he is bitter about the reforms of 1848 and complains about said reforms throughout the chapter devoted to him. Nicolas I is also very suseptible to sycophants, throughout the description of him Nicolas gives in multiple times to the prais of his army cheif. The effect that this portrayle has on the novel is that it makes all of the events in the novel that take place in the caucases seem very small and uniportant.

Tsar Nicholas is portrayed as tyrannical, close-minded and stubborn. He considers his word law and believes that no matter what he will always be in the right. If anyone is to contradict him or so much as suggest an alternative he would no doubt have them taken care of immediately. If he is to do evil unto another, he must first convince himself that he is in the right. However, he will not accept any outside influence.

Jane, here are the two posts I missed as well as the latest one.

The thistle is used to set the mood of the story. Two ideas are addressed. The first is that things are more beautiful when left alone. The flower which is destroyed by being picked demonstrates this opinion. The second is perhaps the more relevant message, and that is of the flower wounded but still standing. This image later may be parallel the our protagonist after he talks about his wounds after diving into the great abyss (which he accounts for his limp/unhealed leg).

Adeev's story shows the insignificance of a common soldier in war. He dies for no real reason and has no great honor come to him. The first account of him should also be compared to the description of the events which happen while he is away. His father's respect and his mother's weeping portray him on a far less impersonal level. From these two sections a clear distinction is made between the personal and professional lives of soldiers. In addition to this comparison, one should also consider Adeev's portrayal of being a single, unimportant soldier as a contrast to the large amount of leverage, power, and respect given to Hadji Murad.

Nicolas I, is a dick. He is self-centered and arrogant to point of being subconsciously insecure. This insecurity can be seen when Tolstoy mentions his need for praise on him great strategic decisions which, in reality, could be much better. He is racist; he holds grudges against entire countries and anyone of their descent. He doesn't respect woman. He thinks he is the most important man in the world and is doing the universe a favor by ruling his country. But in the end, he makes a fairly decent character because of the hatred he arouses.

Tsar Nick is depicted as tyrannical for the most part. His abuse is felt wholeheartedly by his subordinates, with the intensity of his brutality varying on how he is feeling at that moment. The narrator portrays Nick to be incapable of any form of leadership, militaristic or otherwise. Hadji becomes all the more awesome after he is contrasted with the walking bag of lame known as the Tsar.

My project presentation will be based on Russian Art, mainly on propaganda. I will compare paintings from different artists and compare their mood, colors, and tones. I plan to bring in pictures and show them to the class on a projector.

Tsar Nicholas I is portrayed as a bad character in the novel. He takes advantage of people by scaring and threatening them in order to have them under his power. He treats people badly and is a bad leader for the country and a manipulator. He also lets his mood interfere with the way he treats people.

The tsar is portrayed in an extremely negative light. He uses fear to scare people into listening to him, has regular rendezvous with women, and treats people based on his mood (ex. treats people negatively when he is in a bad mood). He is a liar, to not only his subjects, but to himself. He lacks military tact and is generally portrayed as a horrible leader, especially when compared with Hadji Murad.

The Tsar is portrayed extremely negatively. He is shown to be completely out of control due to the constant praise and non-existent criticism. He makes cruel judgments to justify his past actions, or even because he was having a bad day. He makes decisions based entirely on whim. He is a terrible leader for the country. If that weren't enough, he also has many personal vices. He is fat, cruel, and adulterous.

Hadji Murad, 600-624.

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read to the break on p. 624.

How does the novel portray the tsar Nicholas I?

Hope you are having a good weekend,
Jane

Peter Andreev's story reinforces the author's point of view (first made apparent by the thistle) in regards to war. Andreev's narration is used to illuminate the pointlessness of war--his death is obviously unnecessary and his service in the army does nothing other than divide his family.

The death of Peter Avdeev serves to remind the reader of the very real dangers of war. His death is random and inconsequential, without a single heroic moment or emotional lamentation. This event contrasts with the dinner parties and romantic intrigues experienced by some of the more well-to-do characters. Here, issues of class arise: since princes and commanding officers do not take part in brief and random skirmishes, they have a better chance of dying a dramatic death, obtaining honor, etc.

The significance of Andeev is that he shows the character of the Russian army in the Caucases better than the officers in Russia. With Andeev we the reader see a real story of a struggling family, and not the bright oppulence of a prince or a general. Andeevs story is a touch of realism with in Hadji Mourad.

The significant of Peter Avdeev's story is
Avdeev's story shows the senselessness of war, and its effect on the common person. He died pointlessly: the skirmish didn't need to happen. Moreover, his becoming a soldier damaged his family: the father was dissatisfied with his other son, and the mother was sad even before she found out about his death. His wife left once he became a soldier, and was relieved when he died. The war may be about honor and politics to the higher-ups, but to the common soldier, it is meaningless death and unpleasantness.

Thistle

The thistle is representative of Hadji Murad; because although the thistle has been trampled upon and is not tended to, it still thrives. Hadji Murad is like this in that he flees the seperatist commander and join the Russians in order to spare his family, but still intends to drive his thorns into the Russians out of revenge.

Hadji Murad, to p. 600

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read to the break on p. 600 in Hadji Murad.

As you read, please use the glossary at the end of the story for the Tatar words in italics.

The question: What do you think is the significance of the story of Peter Avdeev?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

The thistle is representative of indisputable consistency in life. The thistle exists in tandem with its surroundings, yet is emphasized by the author specifically to show that certain aspects of nature and the individual will always exist despite temporary circumstance. It could also be seen to show the futility of aggression in that certain things will exist regardless of attempts to alter them.

Hadji Murad, Project

The thistle represents the order of the natural world. Whereas men are constantly at war or dealing with other concerns, the thistle remains as it was, is, and will be. Additionally, the thistle embodies a disposition traditionally attributed to heroic figures- calmness, resilience, etc. - and recognizable in certain characters in Hadji Murad.

For my project I will be giving a summary of the ideas of Mikhail Bakhtin as they relate to Russian literature/the Russian literature we've read in class/literature in general.

thistle / project

I think the image of the thistle shows that for some things, their allure lies in the act of getting them, not having them. Once you have the thing, it's not exciting or beautiful anymore. Though I think another equally viable interpretation would be that we shouldn't interfere with things that our none of our business.

For my project I'd like to compare the literature we've read to Russian cinema: how has Russian literature influenced film -- ideas? visually?

The thistle image's significance is fairly blatant. It is showing that some things are only beautiful when left alone, in their rightful place. If one tries to possess them, they are no longer as beautiful. Moreover, resilience and determination are extremely wonderful qualities, and should be admired.

Projects; Hadji Murad

Hi Everyone,

Please don't forget to post about your projects. Also, I would like to quickly check in with each of you about the project tomorrow or later this week.

Your homework is to read pp. 549-570 in Leo Tolstoy's Hadji Murad. These page numbers are within the xeroxed book; (the Reader page numbers are pp. 194-205.)

Please answer the following question: What do you think is the significance of the thistle image in the opening pages of the story?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

A comparison of Russian dance to the novels we have read: themes & characters specifically. Also, how the novels/ works of prominent Russian writers effected dance. I would like to present on the later date.

THE AWESOMEST PROJECT EVER

Tynan and I are planning to present a rap battle between Pechorin and the Underground Man in both Russian and English (obv incorporating literary themes and characteristics of each protagonist). It's going to be ballinsauce. We also would like to do some sort of creative writing, most likely in the form of a parody. It might take awhile to find the time to write and perfect the former idea, so we'd prefer a later time to present.

I would like to read a philosophical short story such as The Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky and present about it in class. I would read and research it, and perhaps even compare it to the beginning of Notes From the Underground or some other philosophical work.

I'd like to do a short story that is a stream of consciousness that will me and not a fictional character.

Notes from the Underground; projects

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to finish reading Notes from the Underground.

Also, please post a brief description of your project as well as the date that you would like to present it on.

Marina and Asia, thank you for posting about your projects!

Hope you guys are having a good weekend!
Jane

I'd like to write a short story and possibly illustrate it. I'm flexible with time.

I'm planning to write a short story based off Notes from the Underground, though not making fun of it or anything. I won't be in to class Tuesday or Wednesday because I'm in New York City looking at colleges. See everyone Thursday.

Liza is a young girl who seems to have fallen on hard times. She believes in love, and wants to think she is doing nothing wrong. She is essentially optimistic, but deep inside she thinks what she is doing is shameful. The underground man prays on this in an attempt to break her down. He succeeds, to some degree. Her makes her cry. He is not happy though, suggesting that he is using her to work out his emotional problems.

Liza is young, attractive. She is the first character in the book to show any kind of development. Perhaps this is because she is not as set in her ways as many of the other characters. Her depiction evolves from a cut-off short-answering person into one that is in tears and nearly pulling her hair out and she shows a lighter spirit after its all over. Aside from these changes, The Underground Man portrays her in a bit of a condescending way in regards to her age. He portrays her as naive. This assumption may be true to a certain extent and is most obvious in the letter she shows him.

Liza is a young girl, she was sent away to work and be married by her parents, which she is very bitter about. At first she does not want to talk to the Underground Man, she waits long periods of time before answering him and her answers are short and sharp. As the mostly one-sided conversation goes on she begins to answer more frequently, but still with short answers. The Underground man believes he has conquered her but then she tells him that what hes saying sounds like it is coming straight from a book. He is stunned but continues on to make herself break her own heart.

She's rather attractive, which makes me wonder how she becomes so intimate with the Underground Man, considering he is somewhat apparently repulsive. She has two opportunities to voice her opinion and she replies "I don't think anything." and "Not all married ones are happy." She is young and has youthful self-dependent opinions. She, however, begins to tear herself apart before the Underground Man, after he explains to her his views of life.

Notes from the Underground, to p. 106

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read through p. 106 in Notes from the Underground.

Describe Liza. What are her views, and how does she interact with the Underground Man?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

The underground man is extremely self conscious and his fear of others judging him permeates his interactions with his classmates. He views himself as an outsider to them (which I believe he is), not just isolated from them, but on a completely different plane of thinking. He seems to have a fundamentally different view of his earliness to the dinner than the others.

Late Post (absent)

The Underground Man's interactions with the officer in Nevsky Prospect exemplifies the pettiness the Underground Man is capable of. He finds competitive sport in otherwise innocuous daily events. However, it seems as if Dostoevsky is hinting that the officer's posture is no less affected than the Underground Man's. The officer likely has chosen his aggressive disposition in full awareness of its affect on other people. If this is true, then the Underground Man is simply more willing to admit to the significance of the situation.

The way in which the underground man interacts is that he forces himself on people that he hates, because of his need for human interactment, and then he acts in his own anti social way. He does this by assuming the worst in his companions and then acting upon these assumptions.

The Underground Man feels fear when being with other people because he thinks that they will look down on him. During his interaction with his old classmates, he is unable to be social because he just does not know how to behave in conversations with people. The Underground man fails to be social because it just doesn't come in naturally and during the dinner and he is disliked by his classmates because he is speaking with people that don't like him which will not help him learn how to be social.

The Underground Man (rightly) views himself as a hanger-on in regards to peers. He continually feels as if he's being insulted or at least judged in comparison to his companions. Paradoxically he seems to disapprove of the very qualities that bring his friends together, i.e. false bravado, comradery, and garrulousness. In this respect he is certainly similar to Holden Caulfield, and, while we're making comparisons, the main character in Knut Hamsun's Hunger as well.

by the way.

The Underground Man hell of resembles Holden, the protagonist of Catcher in the Rye, in his search for truth and in hiis hatred of a distinguished stereotype of people whom they both describe in great detail. They both hate the same type of person. While Holden most often describes them as "Phony", The Underground Man describes them as "Piano Keys", both refer to conformists of society.

Not very well. Initially, his colleagues are not accepting of him in the least. He often insults and acts aggresively without any provocation required from the opposite party. He takes back his words and saves the most intrusive (and enticing) threats to keep for himself and ultimately rebels against no opposing force other than himself. This is seen as most the unruly and illigitimate actions by his colleagues and by the reader.

The Underground Man lacks any sort of social skills. It is his lack of understanding the cues that his classmates give him which cause the social akwardness. Had he not invited himself to the diner, he would have been able to avoid the ridicule from the other men, and been able to complete his responsibilities. The Underground man is defiant, ignoring the signals that the classmates give him to leave/improve the condition of the diner. He lacks all social graces and makes everyone uncomfortable in the setting.

The Underground Man is quite socially retarded. He is blind to multiple social cues and does not understand most etiquette. This might be excusable if he did not ignore the things he can understand. He sees they do not want him there but he says that he must go. He's aware that he really shouldn't neglect paying his servant but he does anyway. And in looking at his childlike behavior while he's pacing the room in which his classmates were talking, its easy to see that he really never spends time around other people. I think he should stay underground. I don't like reading about all these awkward events.

The underground man is very worried about being seen as inferior, and so he is very touchy. He is also socially awkward, so any interactions he has end up with both parties offended, generally. This leads him to hate them, which in turn leads to him not learning how to interact with people. Thus, next time he interacts with omeone, the same thing happens and it's a terrible cycle.

Notes from the Underground, 60-82

Hi,

Sorry for the late post!

Your homework is to read pp. 60-82.

Describe the dynamics between the Underground Man and his classmates. How does the Underground Man interact with people?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

officer

The undergound man's interactions with the officer shows him to be a hamlet-like figure, always considering the potential consequence of his actions. The letter is an example of this -- he spends the time to write a "beautifully composed" (paraphrasing here) letter and takes such satisfaction in doing so but decides not to send it.

I think it can be frustrating to experience the writing as it's quite passive -- reflective without really anything happening, as in Hamlet.

I believe it shows that he hates the rational men and everything having to do with them.

This depicts his want to defy nature via defying society's unwritten laws. He becomes angry that he can't bring himself to defy an illegitimate unspoken rule. This shows his struggle for truth and how difficult something so seemingly simple is.

The Underground Man's interactions with the officer demonstrate that he is a coward and cannot really approach a person. The Underground Man wants to use physical body language to confront the officer instead of being moral. The Underground Man seems to find his "confrontation" with the officer as a social interaction that he is desperate for because he so lame. The Underground Man's inability to confront the officer shows his weakness and poor will to be socially interacted with any one. 

First off, I'd like to say that the underground man is terribly, terribly pathetic. I didn't really feel this way until tonight's reading. He rambles pointlessly and has this twisted view where he's actually important in the world. Which he is not. He obsesses over these tiny little things. Like bumping into that guy on Nevsky Prospect. Who goes out to buy an outfit to do something like that? Or the thing about wanting to get thrown through the window. But about the guy he finally bumps into and their interactions: they show that our narrator is first off, a stalker, obsessive, invisible, and again a stalker who's obsessive and creepy. And I'm aware my response is redundant and not too formal but I'm trying to avoid talking the way the Creepster does.

The underground man's interactions with the officer on Nevsky Prospect show that he lacks many social skills, and is a man of opposition. While he plans on bumping shoulders with the officer, he cannot,but when he is determined to let it fall to the way side, he sees out his plan. It is this example which shows the Underground man as a hypocrite of sort, doing the opposite of what he says he will. Also, he lacks the skills to understand why the officer moved him aside in the bar. It is his confused way of dealing with things, that get him into the situations within the novel.

The fact that the narrator spends so much time thinking about such a small action, specifically the action of ignoring him, showing that the narrator lives largely inside his own head. In that sense, he is an intellectual, but by the same token, he is not a man of action in the least. The fact that this was all caused by the narrator being offended at being ignored shows that the narrator has a high opinion of himself, and also dearly wishes to be well-regarded by others. It is perhaps a fundamental human desire to be seen and have their existence reaffirmed by others. However, the narrator takes it to extremes, showing both a unstable temperament and a lack of human contact.

Notes from the Underground, 42-60

Hi Everyone,

Your homework is to read through page 60 in Notes from the Underground.

The question: What do the Underground Man's interactions with the officer of Nevsky Prospect show about the Underground Man's character?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

the wall

I think "the wall" represents something that can't be argued with and is therefore "soothing, morally resolving and final" in the sense that there is no point in analyzing or philosophizing about it -- like math or nature.

By "everything beautiful and lofty" the Underground Man means those things that are ideal or at least highly valued. In the context of his monologue, he is addressing people whose concept of the"beautiful and lofty" would include reason, order, structure, and maybe a few classically beautiful things. There is an obvious contrast between the Underground Man's lowly way of life, and the idyllic theories of life proposed by Chernyshevsky and his ilk.

The Underground man says on page 6 that he wanted to become an insect. An insect to him is inhuman, therefore insect wouldn't be too overly conscious like him. He wishes to be an insect and not be too conscious because it's a sickness that he has and it stresses him a lot.

"Two times two is five" is the Underground man's way of challenging the laws of nature. He feels that he has to prove that not all actions that humans do are made for profit. At least, they certainly do things that don't profit them in the way we would consider "profiting". In short, he feels that there is another equation that coexists if not overrides the more commonly accepted "two times two is four".

The Underground man talks of two times two is four quite often in this narratuve piece. He states that two times two is four, but thinks it would be far more interesting if it were sometimes 5. He uses this to express his wish for a change in the roles in society which are often commonly accepted.

The Underground Man's reference to insects comments on both the vulnerability and submissiveness that accompanies what we'd consider a "typical" human being. Drones in particular are usually observed to be superfluous insects, submitting themselves to the will of a higher power (the queen). The Underground Man is drawing parallels between insects and what he would consider weak and fallacious human beings. One may interpret this as typical symptoms of a nihilist, or more realistically commentary from Dostoevsky pertaining to societal flaws.

I think that when the Underground Man says he was not able too become an insect he is saying that he was not able to conform to society and work mindlessly for the government.

Notes from the Underground, 20-41

Hi Everyone,

The homework due Friday is read pp. 20-41 of Notes from the Underground.

The assignment (to post here): choose one of the following words or phrases and explain what you think the Underground Man means by it: an insect (6), "everything beautiful and lofty" (7), inertia (8), the wall (10), the mouse (11), two times two is four (13), pleasure in a toothache (14), the crystal palace (25), piano keys (30), the anthill (33), two times two is five (34), and chicken coop (35).

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Why do you think the narrator wanted to become an insect? What do you think he means by it and why do you think he is not worthy enough to become one?

notes from underground

Is the narrator arrogant about his world-view?

Does the narrator represent everybody, a collective lament?

why does the protagonist refer to himself as wicked when he then soon after stating it says that he is not wicked but only wicked from the affects of life?

Hows does one think this book is being written?

Does your first impression of the Underground Man's nihilistic attitude warrant sympathy or apathy?

Why does the narrator say that living beyond 40 years old is banal and immoral?

Why does Dostoevsky include the footnote at the beginning of the chapter? Why not allow the story to go uncommented upon?

Who is the Underground man speaking to and what point is he trying to make? Is he honest or does he twist his ideas to make us sympathize with him?

Try to interpret how the novel begins. Why do you think the underground man choses to discuss his sore liver a few sentences in?  Do you believe this choice is random or purposeful?

Do you think Dostoevsky uses the Underground man as a personification of modern society?

Notes from the Underground, 3-20

Hi Everyone,

Your homework tonight is to read pp. 3-20 in Notes from the Underground.

Please post a discussion question on the reading (rather than a comment).

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Lermontov's message could be interpreted (obviously) in many ways. I believe that Lermontov is trying to portray Pechorin in a world where fate AND choice is present for two reasons. Pechorin's interactions with women, while differentiating slightly in progression, always have the same end result. Similarly, "The Fatalist" leads us towards believing that Pechorin's impact on others around him was a product of a supreme being. The end result of Pechorin's relationships always led to feelings of pain, confusion, remorse, etc, but Pechorin was put in a position where he COULD have chosen a different path, but from what we've garnered from his character, either way would produce the same negativity (had he chosen to live with either woman, his need to be "free"would have drove the relationship slowly into the same situation he put himself in by being assumed indiffirent).

The story of "The Fatalist" leads me to believe in pre destination as the serbian officer in the story had the look of death in his eyes and then dies. There is no free will involved as it is shown that he will die in the future.

The "Fatalist" leads one to believe in predestination, or fate. The phenomenon's existence is made clear by Pechorin's premonitions of death, and his unshakable belief in said premonitions. Pechorin is unequivocally correct in his convictions, since this novel and novels in general, exist only by virtue of having an author (or god) and a storyline (a narrative that characters are fated to follow). In light of this, the debate (at least in the context of the/a novel) becomes more ironic and metafictive than existential. It is interesting to note that this chapter feature narration by Pechorin alone, making him "the author" at least temporarily. Fittingly, Pechorin is the character with the best intuitions concerning fate. He accurately predicts the death of the Serb, the outcome of his duel, and behaves with a sense of confidence befitting a man who knows he is in charge.

The Overcoat is symbol of status, it is the one thing of value to the man.

The Nevsky Prospect is deceptive, it at first seems good but is not, it is really devilish

Pechorin is a daring character who will go to extremes to get what he wants

The events in "The Fatalist" definitely promote the idea that a man has a certain time he is destined to die, though not necessarily that all his actions are predestined. However, the man Pechorin saw to be about to die did, in fact, die. On the other hand, Pechorin, who, being the main character, was of course not destined to die, survived unscathed. I was about to agree with marina about this being an attempt to justify pechorin's actions, but in the Foreword, Lermontov seems to view Pechorin as representive of a problem in current society. Perhaps, then, it is only an attempt to show Pechorin justify his actions.

I believe that in the book as a whole Pechorin exercises a lot of free will. He schemes to cause mischief and grief to others throughout the book in order to keep himself entertained. But "The Fatalist" seems to be somewhat different from all the other stories, like Kat said Pechorin already knows that Vulich will die; he thinks it will happen a certain way, but it happens differently i think this is a large indicator of fate. Vulich was destined to die and it happened.

I feel like Lermontov's approach leaves the reader fairly free to interpret it as they like. However, this being said, I'd like to guess at the author's intentions in ending the novel in a way that may suggest predestination. This choice was likely made as a way to remove blame from Pechorin for all the things he's done. Reflecting on the lives he ruined during the course of the short work the reader could easily conclude he is an awful person. By suggesting that the narrative operates in a world where fate may exists, the fault is shifted from Pechorin to a (cruel) higher power. I do not know whether or not I feel this is fair.

"The Fatalist" brings one to believe in neither fate or free-will. The actions of Pechorin could be based on either, due to the innemerable insights that can be brought to the novel. The death of Vulich is predetermined by Pechorin, although the manner in which he dies is not the one which Pechorin initially believes in. The novel neither advocates for free will or fate.

"Fatalist"

Hi Everyone,

Your homework: finish reading A Hero of Our Time.

The question: Do the events of "The Fatalist" lead one to believe in predestination or in free will?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

pechorins values

Pechorin seems to value his own pleasure above all else.. his own entertainment. "My chief delight is to dominate those around me" (103) He wants to see other people suffer and manipulate people -- "Vera, on the other hand, is jealous of princess Mary -- I've attained this happy state" (117). He has a deep cyncisim towards human emotion and love.

Pechorin values that which excites him, for he is not easily pleased by what life brings him. He tends to seek entertainment himself or manipulate his situation to suit his pleasure. He prefers to take the road untraveled and perceives reality as a board game in which he fancies making his own rules. He despises the unoriginal and the mundane.

Pechorin, unlike most heroes, does not value morals. Moreover, he refuses to heed them in order to allow himself amusement. He tells himself that he enjoys hatred or other negative feelings from people because it is what he is used to. Whether or not this statement is true is debatable. I think that nonetheless he thirsts for emotion. If not in himself (for he is often indifferent/apathetic/bored) he seeks to bring it out in other people. Because of his interests in these things it is therefore impossible to appreciate values shared by most other men/women.

Pechorin seems to enjoy using people's feelings to play with them to make himself have fun and be entertained. He also likes enemies and he likes to take revenge in order to cause malice and have fun like how he mentions on pg. 113. he also likes manipulating people, having power, and having poeple love him to then dominate them. Pechorin dislikes people like Grushnitsy who are fake.

While I agree that Pechorin lacks virtue, he seems to be somewhat of an idealist. He seems to admire virtue and and dislike vice. Though he excuses it in himself, he still tends to identity it in a negative way, calling it vile or some such. He also despises lack of virtue in others. However, this doesn't show as easily because he also places value on people according to amusement value and intelligence. He especially dislikes falsity, implying a liking for truth, despite the manipulating and deceiving he does. The interaction between his beliefs and actions are very complex.

Pechorin is a man who lacks virtue. He uses the emotions of people to create chaos is society settings. He rejects the idea of passion, as a misfortune of youth while holding tranquility as a sign of great power. Pechorin believes in the absence of severe emotion, however he uses the thing he despises to manipulate those around him

A Hero of Our Time, pp. 101-127

Hi Everyone,

The homework tonight: read pp. 101-127.

The question: how would you describe Pechorin's values? What does he admire, and what does he despise?

Also, could you please bring your Readers tomorrow in addition to A Hero of Our Time-- we will spend some of the time planning the essays. (The first draft of the essay is due on Tuesday, October 14.)

Jane

Is Pechorin's "nonchalant" demeanor a product of past injuries?

How does Pechorin's character reflect on mainstream society in the period where it was written?

Compare Pechorin's portrayal of women to his treatment of them. Compare both of these as well to how other see/treat them.

Does Pechorin have a strong sense of identity?

Does he mis-represent himself?

Why does Pechorin always express his feelings in such a non chalant way in which he becomes so self absorbed and entirely introverted that he disregards the feelings of others, especially of thise who care a lot for him?

Why does Pechorin describe himself as evil even though he all he is doing is creating a small amount of mischief?

Pechorin seems to think that life is a game and mentions on pg. 88, that he has "plans". What exactly are they and how is he going to "enjoy" them?

Pechorin treats those around him as game pieces. What degree do you think Pechorin is a manipulator versus a man looking for entertainment, when discussing his solitude?

Pechorin seems to treat society as a game. Does he also feel that way about Vera, and if so, does that preclude him having real feelings for her?

Homework

Sorry for the late post!
Tonight's homework: Read through p. 101 and, instead of a comment, please post a discussion question for tomorrow.

Asia, thanks for your question and for remembering the homework!

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Although the question hasn't been posted (shame on you Jane : ) it's 7:30) I believe that tonight we are to ask our own topic questions. What I'd like to know is why Lermontov is making a big deal of how those who show their personal diary to friends and aquaintences (such as Rousseau) are bound to censor themselves and instead exaggerate their purpose when he himself is making no point against that with making up the entire diary of Pechorin. Doesn't that seem ridiculous?

I think that reading the journal allows the reader greater understanding of Pechorin by tenfold. He is extremely self aware and admits many of his flaws/prejudices. Also, being able to observe the world around him and the type people he surrounds himself with make him seem more sympathetic/tame. I like him narration but was really disappointed at the inconclusiveness of his first entry. His stories are not in a continuous narration but they flow more consistently than the narrator's telling. He remains in his own character and does not inculde other's stories in his own. I don't know if I prefer this or not.

pechorin's journal

Reading Pechorin's journal gives me more of a sense of who he is, I gathered that he is highly inquisitive which gets him into trouble. It's almost a kind of arrogance. When he meets the girl down at the shoreline, it seems almost obvious to me it's some sort of trap, but not to Pechorin -- she is shown to be so mysterious and capricious, how could Pechorin possibly be sure of her motives? Pechorin seems to be foolish to the point of threatening his own life.

Seeing Pechorin's own account of his experiences provides a context for judgment. His nihilistic tendencies are better understood when provided with information about his past. In fact, the switch from the previous narrator to Pechorin's narration illustrates the previous narrator's warning not to take his judgments at face value. The entire novel hinges on the levels of remove involved in the narration.

The first person view of Pechorin serves to make him seem more sympathetic, reasonable, and normal. It is easy to sympathize with someone as they talk to you about something. Likewise, all actions sound more reasonable from the point of view of the person doing them. When we have Pechorin's point of view, we can hear his reasons for his actions, and, as the narrator says, "we practically always excuse things when we understand them."(56)

Reading the book from Pechorin's view shows yet another viewpoint of his character. Maxim Maxymich's view and the narrator's view of Pechorin are different and gives you two sides of perception but reading from Pechorins view gives the reader an in depth look into how Pechorin feels about himself, his life and his actions.

With Pechorin narrating, we seem to get a better view of the events he went through and how he felt and reacted to them. We get a better understanding of what Pechorin's feeling were and we discover more about his character and personality. Through his narration, we discover lots of more events, which add to the plot of the book and give a more exciting climax of the A Hero of Our Time.

The way in which the narroration of Pechorin helps us understand A Hero of Our Time is that within his manuscript Pechorin adds his own feelings and opnnions to the story and the reader learns more about the story than when Pechorin's story was narrorated by Maxim Maximych. The best example of this is when Pechorin in Taman meets an aquatence from the military and then after a cordial meeting tells the reader that he and the aquatence have a mutual hatred for each other. The story is also told from the point of view of Pechorin and so the story is fuller than Bela as it is in Pechorin's own words.

Now that Pechorin is narrating, although he still has a cold and negative view of the world, we can see the development of his thoughts and why he thinks them. He is no longer an enigma, and we can now understand his reasoning and point of view.

Pechorin's journal shows a different side of himself. Although he is still rather cold, we now understand the reason why he acts the way he does. Pechorin's journal also makes the reader empathize with Pechorin's character.

A Hero of Our Time, pp. 53-77

Hi Everyone,

The homework: Read through p. 77.

The question: What does reading a first-person narrative--hearing Pechorin's voice--add to your understanding of Pechorin's character?

Hope you are having a good weekend,
Jane

Pechorin

When Pechorin is telling the narrator of his boredom with Bela I was very taken back by his non chalant, cest la vie type of attitude. He seemed as if once again he was having a pity party for himself being very selfish and taking the time to mourn the death of the woman that he supposedly loved. I lost a lot of respect for Pechorin at this point in the novel because I interpreted his reaction as a pretty selfish one and even though I took into consideration that this might be the way in which he deals with misfortune and death in his life i still could not find it in my heart to feel any pity or empathy/sympathy with Pechorin. I also noticed thath the Narrator has a very much less judgemental view on things than Pechorin does and it is almost as if Pechorin is a role model or an idol in a way to the Narrator.