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