Pechorin seems to not care too much about anyone else other than himself. He is manipulative towards Bela and expressive in what he wants. He doesn't seem to be that bad of a guy, just poor in character and oblivious to others' needs. He doesn't seem like too much of a dirtbag; he cared for Bela when she became ill (although she dies not too much later)

Pechorin is the sort of man who will do anything to get what he wants, regardless of rules or morality. He is confident and unconcerned about getting in trouble with anyone. He has a lot of charisma, which helps him in his plans. This sort of man can be very appealing to some people. However, he kidnapped a woman and coerced her into becoming his wife. While technically she agreed near the end, I hope no one is honestly going to argue that that act was totally fine, morally. (On a side note, I'm thinking she had Stockholm Syndrome.) In short, I view him as intensely charismatic and appealing, but ultimately distasteful man.

Pechorin seems to be a standard Romantic figure. He is mysterious, carefree, persuasive, handsome, and clearly has a way with (kidnapped) women. Meeting his somewhat whimsical desires appears to be his main objective, which leaves him seeming unconcerned with the morality of a situation. Pechorin has a near complete lack of empathy, and the reader can't help but feel the same toward him.

A Hero of Our Time

Hi Everyone,

Homework tonight: read through page 25 in A Hero of Our Time.

Question: What is your view of Pechorin's character so far?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

(late post) As mentioned in class, I believe the overcoat to be symbolic of one man's overemphasis on artificial items. By routing the cause of the protagonist's death to his obsession over his overcoat, Gogol is portraying (in an extreme fashion) consequences of relying on superficial possessions rather than more concrete characteristics of ourselves. The overcoat itself could be observed as a protective item, which may also serve to display the protagonists obsession over his coat (HAHA) as a device to shelter himself from reality.

symbolism

In The Overcoat, i feel that the overcoat was a symbol of power and dependence.Akaky seemed to be very attached to teh overcoa and when the tailor was not able to repair the coat he slpis into a sort of depression in which he does not come out of until basically the end of the story. the tailor knows this fact and seems to manipulate the feelings of Akaky with this knowledge.

the overcoat

I think the overcoat in the story can be said to represent a sort of personal sense of security, the things we build our self confidence on and build our sense of self. Akaky is a very meditative, meticulous person who has planned out all his expenses to a science, and now the concrete things in his life has been removed.

The overcoat might be the material constraints that are placed upon us and represent ways in which we are not free, in this case financially.

The Overcoat represents the spirit of the characters in the story. When Akaky was told that his overcoat could no longer be fixed, he seemed to become depressed and sad because he has to buy a new one and he doesn't have the money. Then, when Akaky had his new coat, he was very happy an even engaged with the other clerks. The new overcoat brought Akaky's spirit up and made him feels good. Later on, when his overcoat was stolen, his feelings went down and was in a really like depressed mood where he even got a fever and died. 

The Overcoat could represent power, as someone has said, or it could represent the idea of trying something new. It takes effort to decide or be convinced to try something new because it's risky. However, the new thing can be great, and bring many blessings. In this case, warmth and the opportunity to be social. However, that new thing can easily fail, and if you let it bother you that much, terrible things could happen to you. The story shows that you can't let yourself fall into a rut, or you will be ignored and forgotten, but neither can you trust completely in some new thing, for if it fails, you will be worse off than you started.

To me, the overcoat is representative of power. I presume that it was made simply because Akaky Akakievich's tailor knew he could get more money by saying the old one was not fixable. Here, control is demonstrated. When Akaky owns the jacket he becomes quickly accepted among his once rude comrades. After the jacket his stolen, he becomes powerless again which is obvious in his attempt to recover his overcoat. Finally, as a ghost, Akaky regains his power and steals the jacket of a man once more influential than him.

as for Nevsky Prospect

The Artist was very much a hypocrite and an idealist to a grotesque extreme. He would judge those of lesser classes when he himself was of a fairly low class. And he suffered from disbelief when he was so certain that a beautiful woman can only exist in the highest of classes.

The overcoat seemed to resemble a depiction of a person's soul. The author goes into detail of the various overcoats, that one would come across when walking throughout the specified town, as if describing the various types of people that would accompany those overcoats. Also, the attachment that the protagonist had developed for his overcoat was not unlike how he would refuse anything new in his life; and with the appearance of the new overcoat came a change in his lifestyle, and he was as accostomed to the coat as he was to the lifestyle. With the loss of both overcoats, his life fades away, as if the loss of the overcoat was cause of that.

Instead of answering the posted question (This is allowed, right?) , I'm going to discuss the similarities between "The Overcoat" and Franz Kafka's "The Trial". "The Overcoat" (particularly the episode in which Akaky tries to retrieve his stolen coat) resembles "The Trial" in its portrayal of bureaucracy. Both protagonists are low-level functionaries (Akaky Akaievich a clerk, Joseph K. a bank clerk), and are therefore identified within their respective bureaucracies. Akaky Akakievich believes bureaucrats of lower rank to be ineffectual and therefore brings his problem to a disinterested higher-up; Joseph K. must transfer his case from one uncaring level to the next, with neither receiving a definitive answer. Finally the crisis moment in each story takes on a mysterious air, since the attackers remain unidentified in both cases.

"The Overcoat"

Hi Everyone,

Homework due Monday -- read Gogol's "The Overcoat."

The question:

What do you think the overcoat might be a symbol of?

Hope you are having a good weekend,
Jane

Nevsky Prospect and the city of St. Petersburg are most frequently characterized by a high level of mystery. Most obviously there are the examples of women disappearing into alleys and later doorways, followed by intrigued men. Here mystery takes on the air of adventure, which, although sinister in consequence, at first appears fruitful and exciting. A less welcoming form of mystery is presented by Gogol in the final paragraphs of the book. In this instance, the author speaks to us directly and despairingly about the unknowable nature of those who frequent Nevsky Prospect.

At first the Nevsky prospect is said to be good and pleasant. But then at the end it is said to be false and bad. This probably applies to all of St. Petersburg

Petersberg (namely Nevsky Prospect) is not described in a singular way. The narrator chooses to define the environment according to different times of day. There are waves of overwhelming commotion that engulfs the street, though these are separated by periods during which there is a feeling of desolation. Nevsky Prospect is quite obviously commercial and so it is unsurprising that a good amount of the people on the street do not belong to the upper class. The story creates an air to this district with a renassaunce-esque quality. The portrayal of the area includes both positive and negative description.

St Petersburg is only mentioned once or twice. The story instead focuses on Nevsky prospect, a certain part of St. Petersburg. However, it is mentioned that St. Petersburg is full of officials and practical jobs, and thus artists are rare. Nevsky Prospect is presented as a street that is full of wonders and delights, a place everyone loves. However, it is also shown to be deceptive. It promises much, but gives little. Though it displays many beautiful things, only harm comes from pursuing them. This does not exactly fit with the idea that St. Petersbug is unfriendly to artists, though it does suggest that only the practical people (and artists are not practical people) will prosper, because only they will not pursue the beauties of Nevsky Prospect.

Nevsky Prospect is portrayed in the story as a place of grate comotion with many waves of people moving at the same time at different hours of the day.  What is really striking about Nevsky Prospect is how it seems to be the setting for so many stories by Gogol.  Not only are the two stories of uriquited love within Nevsky Prospect set within the street but also the first scene in "Diary of a Madman" where the reader first begins to think of the main character as mad is on the Nevsky Prospect.  In addition at one point in the barber in "The Nose" goes to the Nevsky Prospect.  In short I think that what Gogol sees in the Nevsky Prospect is such a grand street that everyone must go there.  

time portal prospect

This story seemed to be like a transport into a different stsate of being. In Nevsky prospects inthe beginning it seemed to me to be a pretty nice and quaint place to live but the more i read the more i felt as if i was in the twighlight zone. when people seemed to become residents of the propspects their lives as a who;e seemed to completely morph into strange and disturbing things that seemed so far from what they were to begin with.

Nevsky Prospect is a place that leads characters into different paths. At the beginning, Nevsky Prospect seemed to be an enjoyable and decent place as described by the narrator, but it's also a place hat changes characters' lives like mentioned: "How many changes it undergoes in the course of a single day and night!" (246). Nevsky Prospect seems to be a place that once you pass through, your life changes. Piskarev's life changes because he meets the brunette girl at Nevsky Prospect and he falls into another world full of desire for the girl and dreams. But after he realizes what she is really like, he is upset by her way of being and becomes really upset which leads to his suicide. Pirogov is also affected because he gets beat up for kissing the blond girl he meets at Nevsky prospect who was already married. Nevsky Prospect is only a place of falsehood, dreams, and deceptions.

Homework

Hi Everyone,

Wonderful posts on "The Diary of a Madman"!

Homework tonight: read Gogol's "Nevsky Prospect," through p. 68 in the reader.
Homework due Friday: finish reading "Nevsky Prospect."

You only have to post once for this story. Please post your comment before Friday's class.

The question:

The stories we are reading are from a collection of short stories called Petersburg Tales. The portrayal of the city of Saint Petersburg is an important aspect of all of these stories. "Nevsky Prospect" is titled after one of the main streets in Saint Petersburg. How is the city portrayed in the story? What kind of atmosphere do the descriptions of the city create?

See you tomorrow,
Jane

Like "The Nose", (where there is also a possibility of the narrator's mental imbalance) Gogol's "Diary of a Madman" satirizes the delusional tendencies of the landed gentry, specifically those working within a governmental bureaucracy. The narrator's main obsession remains his social standing. With nearly every description of character, the madman includes a mention of rank or status. The narrator wonders about the thoughts of his superior officer at work, and criticizes those beneath him. Even the illusory speech and writings of the dog take on a class aspect. He is concerned that the dog is a better writer, (and therefore of higher status) and the animal itself offers his/her opinion on class-related matters such as diet and appearance.

diary of a madman

I would describe his madness as a sort of impressionistic hash of his life, combined with obsessive tendencies of loyalty -- he describes events as they seem to come to him, referencing images, sounds, sensations, and other sensory input impressionistically. He also has an odd obsessive, scheming quality, talking about the loyalty to his master and how he can higher his status at work.

madman

this story almost made me feel as if i was going insane due to the downward spiral of madness the narrator is headed down. i enjoyed the story because of its eccentricity but at the same time it seemed quite scary to think that someone could lose thier mind like that of the narrator. even though the mad element of this story was overwhelming to me at times it made me as the reader become very engrossed in the reading becaulse it created a strange element of mystery and misfortune in which you can witness the insanity of a man so clearly.

I agree with Kat and Kellon. The narrator does become more and more senile throughout the story. The last part of him that isn't completely mad is his common sense which he still uses at points in the story. I also agree with Kellon in that it seems that the narrator has obsessive compulsive tendencies when it comes to details and attention.

The madness of the main character is a doliosional madness.  He believes in things that are not real, like the correspondence between the dogs and that he is next king of Spain.  There is little else to suggest a different type of madness, it is simply that the main character believes his own insanity, and then acts upon it.  

The narrator's madness is due to the love he had for the director's daughter. I noticed that his love blinded him, which led him into hallucinations of dogs talking and writing letters. The narrator was just trying to find out a way to discover things about the director's daughter, which led to his hallucinations. Also, I noticed that after reading the "letters" and finding out that the director's daughter was going to marry, the narrator fell into further insanity and started supposing things, that weren't true like him being the king of Spain. 

The main character at first seems sane, with slight delusions of grandeur. However, these grow to obscure reality, while meanwhile he begins to decide things have happened or will happen with no evidence or reason to think so at all. Finally, his declarations lose meaning altogether. Far from being false, they are no longer even understandable. He is incapable of recognizing his true position or responding appropriately. He is very traditionally mad, in that he does not understand the world around him, and in fact thinking his is someone and somewhere else. Thus, he is mostly harmless, despite his incomprehensibility and general strangeness.

Madness roots itself in the disorganization of the mind. This disorganization is actually quite literal; the neural pathways are scattered for a schizophrenic, unlike unaffected individuals. The date on page 299 is a good example of the scattered thought process. To an observer someone may look and sound as though they are making no sense. In reality, this person posses altered sensory pathways. Their mind will attempt to apply logic to the information they receive from the world around them. Therefor, an observer may hear Aksenty Ivanovich Poprishchin refer to himself as Ferdinand VIII, king of Spain, but would not understand his time spent reflecting on empty thrones and social classes and how the anouncement that the throne was occupied somehow translated to his new identity. It's difficult for me to imagine how the narrator acts or how I'd view him. He has brought the reader into a world which where interpretion of events is so different from the way in which most are accustomed that it's challenging to translate back into reality.

The main character appears to slowly lose his mind. He becomes the King of Spain, after reading in the paper that the country has no king. It's a slow spiral downward into the main characters delerium, even though he appears to keep some of his common sense.

On the Nose

It seemed to me that the author was making less of a political statement than a statement on literary structure and on art itself. He spends pages telling a story that he destroys in the end without it ever acheiving any sort of resolution because he felt the need to excersize his power as an author. He doesn't seem to care whether or not people attempt to analyze the meaning behind the story because he doesn't see the point either. So boss.

The narrator's madness is multifaceted to say the least. Considerably a more archetypal symptom of madness are instances of meticulous attention to seemingly irrelevant details throughout the narrator's writing. Also a common portrayal of madness is Poprishchin's constant obsession over Sophia, to the point of being consumed by his need to be noticed by her, possibly expediting his plunge into a deeper insanity. If I were to observe Poprishchin, I probably wouldn't classify him as typically "mad". Although he undeniably exists in his own separate reality, his writing depicts him as more emotionally stable and sedated than a stereotypical insane person.

Diary of a Madman

He is enfatuated with his employer's daughter and in search of more information about her he searches through her pet dog and it's companion's letters to eachother. The idea that dogs can even write letters is enough evidence to assume that that situation was derived from his imagination. He also begins to claim to be the king of Spain and frightens his employer's daughter and soon after he finds himself in court. It's likely that he had assulted her somehow without realizing his forward actions. He then begins to loose sight of the structure of our time and annual calendar and begins to make tangental and random assumptions of tangental and random subjects such as the moon and it's nosy residents. It eventual ends in his pleads for his mother when he's remained in the asylum for a period of time.

Hi Everyone,

Gogol's "Diary of a Madman" is due tomorrow. The question:

Imagine that you are a character observing the narrator of the story. How would you describe his madness?

Jane

Nikolai Gogol's "The Nose" comments on the importance of class in Russia at the time it was written. In the short story Kovalev is constantly running into issues pertaining to his class. He cannot ask people who could help him for help because he is not high class. The nose serves as irony because it disapears one day and the next becomes a statesman, this comments onthe ridiculousness of Russian society at the time.

social status

From the very beginning of the story we are led to believe that Kovalev is a man greatly concerned with his social status and perceived importance. Perhaps the nose running away suggests how easily and quickly our self-conceptions and perceived self-importance can vanish overnight from a simple, superficial change, or perhaps how superficial people are in their perceptions of themselves and others.

the nose

I was really amused by this story becuase it was so odd and quirky. i noticed that every time that Ivan or his wife was mentioned their full names were used which i wasnt sure was an important theme or just something that the author randomly did. i found this story almost like a russian Sherlock Holmes tale in that from the beginning everything is described in great detail. Things that people would usually overlook like the fact that Ivans house didnt bear his family name or the signboard which depicts a man with a soaped cheek made the me as the reader pay very close attention to the details becuase they seemed very emphasized purposely. what also gave me the Sherlock Holmes feeling was the fact that he did not remember how or why the nose was in the bread, which i also found quite interesting because neither did his wife, Praskovya and yet she was the one who prepared the bread. the entire beginning set up a wonerfully mysterious feeling in which in my mind everyone was suspect especially Praskovya. i really enjoyed reading the nose and i found myself very confused, amused, anxious and suspicious of each character which increased my level of interest greatly.

The nose in the story seems to represent high class people because as Kovalev loses his nose, he finds the need to say his important acquaintances and to have people call him "major" feeling that without his nose, no one will know him as an important character. Also, I noticed that during the loss of Kovalev's nose, none of his important acquaintances addressed him, since his nose had run off. The nose was representing another high class character and was noticed around quickly by having people identifying it as an important officer ( later discovered a usurper). Then, when Kovalev recovered his nose, he had the power and courage of an important major to address himself to the wife of some officer in which Gogol uses the nose as a symbol of high class and power. 

The man who loses his nose is quite obsessed with status. this is made clear when we are told that he prefers to be called a major. This is also shown by how much he feels he cannot do once he does not seem as dignified as usual (due to his loss of nose), and how much he wants it back. It seems to him as if there is nothing without that status. His one goal in the story is to return the status he has lost, which shows the desperate desire for status and fear of losing it, as well as the arbitrary nature of status: it could disappear or reappear at any time with no warning. Moreover, the barber, who found the nose, thought chiefly of protecting his status as a reputable barber, despite the relative lack of status. Thus, this story shows how afraid of losing status people are and were, regardless of how much status they actually had.

Gogol's "The Nose" opens a discussion pertaining to the density and solidity of Russia's social structure in said time period. By contrasting a somewhat "socially immobilized" man with a being (the nose) that has no difficulty in maneuvering through Russia's social and bureaucratic network Gogol is revealing to the reader possible flaws within Russian society at that time. Similarly, the Nose may serve to be a symbolic "equalizer" (in that all humans have a nose) that challenges the seperation between the powerful and powerless that is common in all societies.

Gogol's "The Nose" speaks to the unusual obsession with rank that permeated much of 19th century Russia. Although there does not seem to be any unifying metaphor attached to the nose, (Get it? That was a pun. Laugh. Please laugh.) it could be seen to represent the self-conscious concerns of the nobleman, (Okay, it wasn't a pun per se, but it was still amusing. Right? Wasn't it amusing? It was.) who first believes his status to have taken a small blow (in the form of a pimple) and then realizes he has been wholly dispossessed of it. By losing his nose, the protagonist becomes painfully aware of his lessened status, mirroring the kind of worthlessness or unimportance that was probably felt by the underclass in dealing with their superiors.

Using the nose helps to demonstrate how the society is set on specific classes. The main character feels set in a social structure, even without his nose. He states that he cannot call upon the chancellor's wife, etcera, and although he physically can, he chooses not to. He is the one who sets himself into a place of social status where he cannot move.

Two additional articles on the same topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2291483.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3062059.stm

Jane

I don't agree. I think that a quite defined social structure is shown in character interactions, but the nose is not a metaphor. The disappearance, reappearance, and disguise of the nose are simply key events in a story reflecting a classist society. Kovalev repeatedly announces the important acquaintances he has in attempt to gain cooperation from those who cannot help him with his predicament. The fact that the nose is a state councillor is not a coincidence, however. Gogol uses this opertunity to demonstrate Kovalev's altered behavior when speaking to men in positions higher than himself.

What "The Nose" says about social class is very interesting in that while many of the characters seem to be stuck in thier positions, the barber, the major( he may be up for a permotion but he is still stuck withing the ranks of beurocracy) etc. the nose is able to jump from being just a nose to being a high ranking official. What Gogol seems to be saying about Russian social stratifacation of the time is that it is so absurd for one to easily move between social classes that a nose could do it but for the owner of the nose it requiers a large dowery and five years of hard work to move between classes.

news article

Hi,

I wanted to share a news article with you. Here is the link:

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=11234

It relates to the reading.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

"The Nose"

Hi Everyone,

Due Monday is Nikolai Gogol's "The Nose." The question:

What kind of commentary does "The Nose" offer about social class and social climbing?

If you have other comments about the reading or questions about the homework, please feel free to post them here.

Hope you have a great weekend!
Jane

Asia's Post

The fact that Hermann fell so easily into a state of delirium after loosing the gamble leads me to believe that he was so unstable that he failed to uphold his perception of reality when he saw the ghost of the old countess. The fact that he was the only one to see the corpse of the countess wink at him during the funeral when plenty of other people were there to see it proves it.

supernatural events

I believe he imagines them. The language of The Queen of Spades, to me, is highly metaphorical, and the ghost and other events seem to be his slow descent into insanity, rather than the supernatural events occurring externally of his perception.

On the other hand, if we take the world presented at face value, supernatural events do seem to occur regardless of the perception of the main character: the "secret" of the cards seems to work, as the countess was able to dispense with her debt, and it did work for the main charactter until the queen "haunted" him in the game. I think it's difficult to say whether the supernatural events actually happen or whether they are imagined.

I think that the ghost in "The Queen of Spades" is real within the story. Given that Hermann does not have any gulit or regret over the death of the countess the ghost cannot be a mainfestation of the guilt or regret that he feels. Therefor the ghost is real. The Countess also gets revenge upon Hermann by making him lose in his final game and the later causing him to go insane. If the countess's ghost was not real the first two cards would not have been the right ones.

Hermman has hallucinations of the supernatural events that occur in "The Queen of Spades". While he is playing the last game against Chekalinsky, Hermman "sees" the queen of spades wink at him thinking it's the old woman, which is only occurring in his mind because the people around him watching do not notice anything. Also,Hermann's desire to win while he is playing, is causing the supernatural forces because they did not occur ealier in the story since he had never played.
On my own thoughts, I think Hermann is a corrupt character because he hurts Lisaveta by making her believe that he loves her in order to get close to the countess which I think is very disturbing. He is a cold character because he does not care about Lisaveta's feelings and he doesn't really repent for I guess causing the countess a heart attack. It says, "Although unrepentant, he could not altogether silence the voice of conscience..." (299). Analyzing this quote, it shows that Hermann feels guilty but does not repent because he is cold hearted and attends the funeral in vain.

On one hand, Hermann seems unstable. He is obsessive enough to wait for hours under the one girl's window and, once he learns the three cards he must play, they "never left his thoughts, were constantly on his lips." (301) He comtemplated becoming the old lady's lover so as to learn her secret, and he is described as very superstitious. It is hard to believe a narrator such as that, especially when the supernatural things he sees are (as Marina said) so cliche. However, it is clear there is something going on with the three cards, as other people mention the story of how the countess won, and she seemed to obey the rules she told him. Thus, one would have a hard time claiming everything supernatural in this story happens in hermann's head. Either way, this story is mostly about Hermann's greed and ruthlessness, and how destructive that is.

The supernatural occurrences in the "Queen of Spades" are imagined by Hermann. Others do not see the occurrences, and it is only after the Countess has passed that they begin to happen. Also, Marina's comment on the conscience and torture of Hermann's mind shows that he felt guilty and began to go insane. It is the supernatural occurrences which force Hermann into the nut house.

It's unimportant whether or not supernatural events occur, the important thing is that Hermann is confined to a mental hospital. The reason Pushkin's story lacks all subtlety is because it exists in service of a hoary old moral: greed and ambition lead to ruin (roughly). As Hermann pursues the secret of the three cards (i.e. wealth) he disappoints a woman who is at least somewhat enamored with him, becomes complicit in the death of an old lady, and ends his life in a kind of monomania (picturing people as cards, repeating sequences of cards etc.). For these improprieties Hermann is punished, whereas Tomsky, who abstains from the search, is promoted. Clearly Pushkin the moralist is trying to tell us something.

Supernatural Events

I agree with Marina i thought that the super natural occurrences in the book took away from the story as a whole. I thought that the story would have been much better had these occurrences been less ridiculous. When i read this story it sounded like one of the stories that had a moral for children in it. The Countess's return as a ghost seemed very out of place and i was disappointed by the ending of the story, which had me interested until the end.

ps: I think that Hermann imagined them, if anything, because no other character observes anything like this. The ghost, however, I see as necessary to the plot and don't mind her. I also think that she is acceptable because she appears after Hermann's conscience has begun to torture him.

I strongly disliked the "supernatural occurrences" in "The Queen of Spades." I thought that a lot was taken away from the story with these events and felt dramatic moments became overplayed. I underlined "it seemed to him the dead woman gave a mocking glance, and winked at him" (300) and next to it wrote "cliche." When this happened again with the card I had to roll my eyes. The lack of this type of illusion in any other part of the decently sized narration makes these two isolated instances seem out of place. There is an art in subtlety and by neglecting to realize this the story was destroyed. I enjoyed a lot of the text but by making the key moments implausible with random paranormal events it tore down the respect it had earned.

Nicole's post

I agree with Marina's comment about how at times in The Queen of Spades therer were moments in which things seemed to be very over the top. i felt at times they were so much over the top that they were humorous and that didnt seem to me to be the appropriate reaction that would be associated with this story. The passage that Marina used as an example was indeed the part that made me chuckle instead of shiver. But, despite those moments, I thoroughly enjoyed the story.

"The Queen of Spades"

Hi Everyone,

These are great, thoughtful comments on "The Blizzard"!

Due Friday is "The Queen of Spades." The question:

Do you believe that supernatural events happen in the story or that Hermann imagines them?

On Friday, we will begin with a discussion of "The Blizzard" and then will discuss "The Queen of Spades," possibly continuing on Monday.

Jane

nicoles entry

fate and chance play an extremely important role in The Blizzard. i found it very interesting how even though Marya loses her first lover, Vladimir she still has Burmin. the Blizzard struck me as a very differetn type of love story because the plot really strayed away from the conventional love story. i recall reading Micheals bolg and completely agreeing with his observation of having the scenarios of the traditional romantic stories and this story is almost in a way a hybrid in that it combines both of the scenarios and making them extremely relevant to one another.

I do not believe that chance exists in this short story. The high unlikeliness of the concluding discussion proves that fate is the leading factor and coincidence is not plausible. The blizzard is used as a force to divert events from their first intended course. Maraya's separation from her first true love is not a traditional occurrence in a romantic story; moreover the incorporation of a second man (the stranger she married instead of Vladimir) pushes the narration further from conventional plots. The chance that this man returns as her second romantic interest is so unlikely that the reader is forced to assume the story is existing in a world where things are predetermined.

I believe fate and chance play an important role. The girl marries by chance a man who she later ends up falling in love with. She doesn't know at the time that her real lover has died. The man, Burmin feels remorse for playing such a cruel trick of fate on her. Though she eventually accepts him.

Fate in the short story plays a major role. The blizzard was an obstacle throughout the story that separated Vladimir and Marya from each other. Chance however, united Marya and Burmin through the blizzard that occurred during the night they married and brought them together at the end. Fate also played a role in their unification by Burmin finding the women he married through his feeling of love for Marya and Mrya still having hope in loving someone after Vladimir's death.

Fate and Chance

I think fate and chance play a huge roll in the short story "The Blizzard." The blizzard that occurs before their secret wedding has a very small chance to happen. When Vladimir is lost in the blizzard it just so happens that there is another man driving a sledge at this time of night. Maraya marries Burmin, but then he does not remember who she was and he goes to war. Years later they find each other.

In this story, fate causes the girl to marry the man she later grows to love without ever meeting him. it is terribly convienent, because it means that there is no need to marry her love, for they are already married, and simply did not know it. Moreover, her other possible love, Vladimir, is killed offscreen, so as to be no impediment when Burmin came along. Whether it is chance or fate, one of the two seems to have positively conspired to bring Burmin and Marya together. Fate brought Burmin to marry her, fate killed Vladimir, and finally, fate brought Burmin to Marya again, where they could finally fall in love. Fate must have worked overtime on them.

Fate in "The Blizzard"

Fate plays a major role within "The Blizzard". When Vladimir arrives in Zhadrino, the priest and his bride to be are missing. The blizzard, the major obstacle in the short story, forces the young lovers apart. Had Vladimir been able to meet Marya at the chapel on time, she would not have been married to a different man. Though she is upset by this, she falls in love with Burmin, whom happens to be the man that played the trick onher in the chapel. She is truely upset at the end of the short story when he does not realize it is her. Burmin and Marya were tied by fate to be together, though they don't find a love with one another until the end of "The Blizzard".

the blizzard

Fate and chance propel The Blizzard. The central event that sets up the intrigue in the story is the blizzard, which is very much a chance based event -- the fact that it occured at all, on that night. That relatively unusual event then leads to Vladamir and Marya missing each other and Marya marrying, without her knowledge, Burmin. Likewise, when Vladamir arrives Zhadrino and finds Marya already married to another man (?), he leaves, heartbroken and angry.

The Blizzard

The tragic overtone of the story was definitely due to the slight yet immoveable obsticles that protruded in front of the protagonist's self-chosen road. The blizzard, an obsticle placed merely by nature which is a constant in our daily lives, drastically altered the destiny of the two lovers. Along with the blizzard were her parents and her long-lost legal husband. Although the parents and the unfortunately placed husband seemed to be manageable, The blizzard would have altered the future of her life with Vladimir regardless of the other obsticles.

In "The Blizzard", fate serves as the guarantor of irony. In what appears to be a moderately satirical version of Romantic fiction, the protagonist ends up not with the man she loves, but the man she married while trying to marry the man that she loved. In other words they were meant to be together. A typical Romantic storyline often goes one of two ways: the man and woman marry and live happily ever after, or one or more lover dies tragically. The efficacy of Pushkin's satire is to invent a circumstance where both scenarios take place: the woman's (first) lover dies tragically, but she still gets her man in the end.

The story of "the Blizzard" is a very romantic one, and fits well with the romance literature of the time. For this reason I would say that the force behind the entire story is fate, this in keeping with the romantic literature of the era. At the begining of the story Pushkin even tells us that the girl Marya Gavrilovna has a mind for romance and with her lover "Vowed eternal love, bemoaned their lot and made all kinds of plans"(83). And her story is a very romantic one, that being the story of two people on love seperated by class, and later war, in the end only to have on of the lovers die tragicaly. "The Blizzard" is not a partialy realist story like "The Shot" but is instead pure romance and so is a fatilist story.

"The Blizzard"

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for your great comments!

The next question is

What is the role of fate and chance in "The Blizzard"?

Tomorrow we are going to spend some time on editing the summer essays as well as talk about the story.

See you tomorrow,
Jane

I don't think Silvio is a hero or a petty. Silvio is a strong character and is not a petty in the story but he does not perform as a heroic character.Silvio is jealous of the count and is makes him a weaker person not allowing him to be a hero. He refuses to kill his opponent symbolizing himself as a weak character for not having the ability and guts to shoot his enemy. Also, Silvio let a lot of time pass by since he made the count his enemy, and was still not capable of murdering the count having him in front of him. also, Silvio had refuse to duel at the small town he lived in with the narrator of the story, in order to stay alive in order to take revenge, but did not take the risk. heroes take risk!

Silvio's motivation stems entirely from maliciousness and pride. Although these two characteristics could be considered intrinsic to human beings, Silvio's role in the story revolves around these "negative" characteristics and the only resolution presented was one that served purely to satiate his sadistic intentions. If anything, the count should be considered the hero in this story for his seemingly invulnerable demeanor, his social attractiveness and his positive outlook on life.

I think that Silvio began as a petty person. He challenged the Count to a duel because he was jealous of him, but he does not kill him because he sees that the count does not care that he might die. When Silvio goes into to hiding he does not become a hero, but i do agree with David and Mike that he becomes a man of morals. He returned to kill the Count but he ended up proving the point he wanted to prove and he left it at that.

Silvio is not a hero, as, while he did not kill the Count, it was not for any heroic reason. It seemed to me that he did not kill the Count because he was more interested in making the Count react to him. if the Count died before doing that...he would not be satisfied. Thus, he instead delays taking the shot until the Count finally reacts. At that point, he has achieved his objective, and needs no more. Nothing about that is particularily heroic. However, it is not precisely cowardice either. Moreover, he claims that he did not fight because he didn't want to risk losing his life before taking his revenge on the Count. It was a tiny risk, implying he had other reasons not to get into that duel, but if it was simple cowardice, he would never have gone to the Count to take his revenge the second time around. Desire not to kill is also a possibility, but if that is the case, he is much too confused about such a feeling that it hardly merits giving him the title of 'hero'.

jealousy

I think Silvio is an interesting character because he seems to be perhaps satisfied with only the potential to do something rather than actually do it. The fact that he's no longer interested in shooting at the count because he is so non chalant about the duel shows a certain primitive nature to his thought process, but on the other hand he decides that he must seek his revenge upon the count after he decides not to shoot. 

I suppose Silvio could be  considered to be petty in the sense that he becomes involved in the duels with the count because of simple jealousy -- of the count’s “youth, intelligence, good looks, boundless gaiety, reckless courage, a great name, [and] inexhaustible supply of money”.

Silvio is regarded with great esteem by the narrorator, due to his age and the mystery of his life experience. Though he is regarded so highly, Silvio is petty, as shown in his actions against the Count. In example, Silvio holds a grudge, filled with malice, because the Count is more popular in his regiment than he is. Many may call Silvio "heroic", but this is not so. Silvio allows the Count to live, not out of any upstanding morality, but rather because he is too much of a coward to attempt to take the mans life.

Silvio is a morally courageous figure in that he transcends the social mores/ethics of his time and adopts his own conception of honor. By declining the opportunity to fire at his opponent Silvio subverts the tradition of the duel and calls into question both the act of killing and the act's esteemed place in society. For Silvio, any type of murder, even in ritualized form, is unthinkable. Furthermore, Silvio's admission of cowardice (a tacit admission in the case of the card game-related duel, as well as the earlier incident recounted to our narrator) represents an extreme challenge to the standard view of honor, wherein abstention from violence is indicative of an ignominious character flaw. Ultimately, Silvio maintains a kind of saintly heroism instead of the blood-stained Hussar's code of honor.

I disagree. I believe that initially his comrades place Silvio on a deserved pedestal.  His high respect, however, is lost when he does not initiate a duel (an action that is seen as essential in their society to protect one's pride). After Silvio explains his reasoning, the narrator again views him with great esteem, understanding that his moral code is different from the narrator's own. Soon though, the reader is temporarily led to believe his intentions are to take a man's life only when it is valued by others outside the man himself.  A confidence is quickly regained in our protagonist and his original ethics upon discovering his inability to shoot his opponent.  Lastly, the bullets received by Silvio prove courage.  Along with honorable morals, this trait is a classic characteristic of heroic figures.

To Comment on the Character of Silvio in Alexander Pushkin's "The Shot", I would say that Silvio is nither a hero nor a coward, he is instead, simply, a very honorable character. Silvio has enough honor to not kill a man who he considers to not take his life serously enough for a duel to be worthwhile, for if a man does not concider death to be punishment than the point of the duel is moot. Silvio also has enough honor to not kill a defenceless man and to instead give him as much of a chance at life as Silvio himself. He also has enough decency to allow his enemy to live and to not kill or discrace the man infront of his wife, and instead to forget his need for revenge and to leave the house without killing the man. Silvio is not a hero because of his flaw of a petty need for revenge, but at the same time is not a coward as he is willing to risk his live for the sake of a fair fight.

Welcome!

Hi Everyone,

Welcome to our class blog!

Your homework tonight: read Pushkin's "From the Editor" and "The Shot" in the Reader.

The question you should answer here:

How do you view Silvio's character, as heroic or petty (or neither)?

Your entries should be approximately between 80 and 120 words long.

E-mail me if you have questions.

Jane