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.

pechorin

Maxim's view of Pechorin is rather judgemental, he treats him like a small child. In the part when Pechorin describes his boredom to Maxim, Maxim views it simply as a "fashion", a style in which to seem cool. Maxim views Pechorin's nonplussed attitude towards Bela as flippant.

The narrator's view of Pechorin is less judgemental and focuses on his physical appearence, and views Pechorin as something of a wonder.

Maxim Maximych's view of Pechorin starts off as a good one. He likes Pechorin, thinks he is an admirable and honorable man. He tells good stories and is an experienced veteran in the army. The narrator begins to view Pechorin as a scoundrel with no heart or morals as the sotries go on. The narrator's view changes from a positive one to a negative one.

The narrorator's preseption of Maxim Maximych and Pechorin change over the course of the reading. At first the narrorator has a good view of Maxim and thinks that he is an expereinced older soldier with many stories of the sort that the narrorator is looking for. After he meets Pechorin the view of Maxim changes and he becomes a sad pityful character in the eyes of the narrorator. Pechorin is admired by the narrorator initialy but later is seen as a cold character towards the end of the story.

The narrator displays far less attachment/admiration for Pechorin. They are strangers, Pechorin is simply the main character in a true story recently told to him. The case is quite different for Maxim Maximych. Maxim holds him in very high regard and has (maybe inaccurately) judged him to be quite a good friend. From the interaction between the Pechorin and Maxim the reader may conclude that the description of Pechorin was with favoring bias. This conclusion further seperates him from the traditional protaganist with respectable traits. Maxim's friendly feelings towards him are damaged and the narrator views him in an increasingly negative light.

The narrator views Pechorin more as a novelistic construct, whereas Maxim Maxymich maintains an (unrequited) emotional connection to him. These differing viewpoints are probably indicative of the level of removal implicit in each man's relationship to Pechorin. The narrator receives information about Pechorin second-hand (from Maxim Maximych or anonymous rumors) and is therefore able to consider him dispassionately but not disinterestedly. Maxim Maximych, on the other hand, has developed affectionate feelings toward Pechorin as a result of Maxim's close proximity with the manduring his time in the army.

Maxim views Pechorin as a comrade. When a lack of emotional attachment was shown by Pechorin, Maxim became angry and withdrawn as his pride had been hurt by the man. Pechorin as viewed by the narrorator is callous in action and reserved in manner. He appears hollow, lacking any sense of social ettiquette towards Maxim Maximych.

The narrator seems to view Pechorin as intriguing, but ultimately a bit off-putting and distasteful. I would guess that he finds Pechorin to be as heartless as I believe him to be. On the other hand, Maxim viewed Pechorin as a close friend, and thus overlooked his faults. Thus, he took Pechorin's behavior as a friend's betrayal. He did not notice Pechorin's faults, and so Pechorin's 'betrayal' made no sense to him.

A Hero of Our Time, pp. 25-53

Hi Everyone,

Homework due Friday -- read pp. 25-53.

The question: Compare the narrator's and Maxim Maximych's views of Pechorin.

If you have other observations about the reading, please feel free to share them; you can answer the question or make other comments.

See you on Friday,
Jane

I believe that Lermontov intentionally constructed Pechorin's character to contrast a traditional protagonist. However, this being said, the author also expresses that Pechorin is based more closely on the average, immoral man. His descriptions is not filtered with a romantic air, but one which focuses on flaws and negative attributes. A Hero of Our Time is written in an attempt to break free from conventional depictions of men. As Kellon said, Pechorin lacks empathy, though he makes up for this in more realistic (though barely admirable) characteristics.

Pechorin appears to lack empathy and in some extents basic compassion. However, charm and charisma are noticeably present with him in his actions and dialogue. Although he falls short in qualities that society would consider "humane", his possession of arguably more powerful and mysterious characteristics portrays him as a literary "Devil". At the very least Pechorin's character is interesting, but I feel more attached to him than say the "Madman". Maybe I'm just weird.