Hero+-+notes+Year+13+2009

__** 'I'm still in love with her...I'd give my life for her. But she bores me.' **__


 * Link to extensive study guide...**

[|**http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/291/2019/frameset.html**]

__**Irony in A Hero of Our Time**__

Literary background and main lines of interpretation Regarded as the first truly significant Russian novel; marks a transition from romanticism to realism not only in the history of Russian literature, but also within Lermontov's own work. Still rooted in Lermontov's earlier romanticism / Byronism, but makes creative use of romantic commonplaces and stereotypes. Pechorin – a post-Byronic hero? (Main features of the traditional Byronic hero: moodiness; sense of mystery; alienation from society and rebellion against social convention; strong desire for personal freedom.) Structuralist reading: the narrative structure of the novel and the question of structural unity: consists of five interconnected stories, with the central character, Pechorin, as the main unifying element; four of the stories could perfectly well be read independently of the whole). Three different narrators: the primary narrator (presents himself as a travel writer: narrates 'Maksim Maksimych' and the frame tale in 'Bela'); Maksim Maksimych (the main story of 'Bela'); Pechorin himself (the diary: 'Taman', 'Princess Mary', 'The Fatalist'). Theory of diminishing narrative distance: in 'Bela', Maksim Maksimych's recollections of Pechorin as reported to us by the primary narrator; in 'Maksim Maksimych', first-hand observation by the primary narrator; in the remaining stories, Pechorin in his own words). Psychological reading: widely regarded as the first example of psychological realism in Russian literature; an extended character study of Pechorin (often seen as a self-portrait, though this was denied by Lermontov in his preface). Sociological reading: Pechorin seen as a typical 'superfluous man' (лишний человек) - a representative type embodying the sense of alienation and futility felt by many intelligent young aristocrats, unable to find an outlet for their talents in contemporary society. Metaliterary / poststructuralist reading: the importance of irony; Pechorin as a mock-Byronic anti-hero; most of the stories as parodies of popular genres ('Bela' – the Byronic / Oriental tale; 'Taman' – adventure story; 'Princess Mary' – society tale); discrepancies between appearance and reality; the dubious reliability of the narrators. __**Irony in A Hero of Our Time**__ Two prefaces: Lermontov's preface to the novel as a whole and the travelling narrator's foreword to Pechorin's journal; irony referred to in both, plays an important role in the novel; in the author's own preface (added after first publication), contemporary readers castigated for failing to recognize irony. The classical view of irony: a rhetorical device, saying one thing while meaning another; reader invited to uncover the true meaning by rejecting the literal one. The title of the novel may be intrepreted in this way, but... Romantic irony: based on the recognition that values may be relative; literal and ironic meanings may coexist, alternative interpretations may not be mutually exclusive; the title perhaps better interpreted from this standpoint (cf. the prefaces: neither the author nor the narrator willing to offer a definitive interpretation of the meaning of the title) Manifestations of irony in the novel: //'Gentle irony'// – e.g. in the travelling narrator's patronizing but by no means hostile presentation of Maksim Maksimych //'Cruel irony'// – more appropriately described as sarcasm: e.g. in Pechorin's first description of Grushnitsky in 'Princess Mary' (openly hostile attitude; in this context, remarks which could otherwise be construed as neutrally descriptive seem to invite an ironic reading) //Irony as an attitude of mind// – characteristic of Pechorin's view of life, society, and human relationships; has no faith in human virtue, love, friendship ... takes a coldly detached view of the people around him, which often manifests itself in ironic / sarcastic remarks and black humour //'Wicked irony'// – Lermontov's own ironic vision which lends itself to interpretations based on a postmodern view of irony – goes one step beyond the ambiguities of romantic irony, calling into question the very existence of ultimate truths and meanings (whether single or coexisting ones); raises questions in the reader's mind but frustrates the quest for (the) answers – this ironic vision inherent in the narrative structure: distinct clues suggesting that none of the narrators is to be considered reliable; the final story ('The Fatalist') may be seen as Lermontov's //coup de grace//, a final refutation of the notion that literature ought to provide answers to metaphysical or moral questions. Pechorin's Journal – sincerity or self-deception? In his foreword to the extracts from Pechorin's journal, the narrator is at pains to convince us of Pechorin's sincerity: a private document which Pechorin never intended to publish – therefore had no reason to misrepresent the facts. However, our existing familiarity with the narrator should lead us to question his judgement and to 'read against the grain'; in fact, the narrator's insistence on Pechorin's sincerity should alert us to the possibility of the contrary being true – even if writing 'for his own eyes only', Pechorin might be consciously or subconsciously engaging in self-deception. 'Taman': presented as a story, not in the form of diary entries (cf. 'Princess Mary'). Most commentators take it for granted that the events narrated actually took place (i.e., they are 'real' events in the context of the imaginary world of the novel – Pechorin provides a factually accurate account of what happened, even though his interpretation of the facts may be suspect). This assuption may not be entirely justified: Pechorin might have been trying his hand at creative writing, in which case we have no way of knowing how much of the story is based on real events and how much is pure fiction. The story has affinities with popular adventure tales and a strong sense of literariness (creation of a sinister atmosphere; dramatic plot, sentimental ending; a seductress figure whose stratagems prove nearly fatal for the hero; literary / mythological allusions central to her portrayal). Assuming that first-person narrator in 'Taman' is to be equated with Pechorin, his self-portrayal appears reasonably honest: willing to present himself in a distinctly unheroic light, capable of irony at his own expense, aware of his own imperfections such as a tendency to hold preconceived opinions. It is hard to avoid the impression that this story was written several years after the events took place – and written by a more mature Pechorin than the one who appears as a character in the story; the older Pechorin (the narrator) asserting his superiority over the young Pechorin (the character). Towards the end of 'Taman' we can see Pechorin's tendency to blame fate in situations where he is ultimately a free agent with only himself to blame. More of the same is to be found in 'Princess Mary', where Pechorin's apparent sincerity in the confessional passages is undermined by a fundamental contradiction inherent in the theatrical imagery which provides the central metaphor for Pechorin's relations with fate and with other people: his natural impulse is to manipulate others, to be both the playwright and the director in the 'theatre of life'; yet when his manipulations cause suffering to those around him (or even bring about somebody's death), he tries to absolve himself of all blame by suggesting that he is a mere character in the play, deprived of free will and obliged to perform his predestined role. Pechorin – a walking contradiction The most prominent manifestation of Pechorin's propensity for contradiction is the way in which his attitude to fate and predestination (предопределение) varies according to circumstance. In moments of self-assurance, he likes to think of himself as being 'in control' (sees himself as a free agent who is able to determine his own course of action, and, indeed, to manipulate others). This attitude alternates with a tendency to deny his own responsibility when things go wrong, and to lay the blame for his own failings on other people, his upbringing, society, or (at last resort) fate (or God). Note his 'confession' in 'Bela' (quotation 1), and his grievance against fate towards the end of 'Taman' (quotation 2). In 'Princess Mary', Pechorin explains his moral deformity in terms of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' –blaming other people's attitude to him (quotation 3). A recurrent metaphor for Pechorin's dual attitude to fate is based on the commonplace notion of human life as a stage play. There are several theatrical references in 'Princess Mary', showing that Pechorin is inclined to view life as drama (quotation 4), and can be absolutely callous about this (quotation 7). He wants to be the playwright / director as well as the hero of his own drama (quotation 5), but shirks responsibility when his actions cause suffering or even death: prefers to think of himself as merely performing a role assigned from above (quotation 6). Quotation 8 is a fine illustration of Pechorin's aptitude for self-contradiction. Honest self-analysis is combined with an almost ritualistic abdication of responsibility: Pechorin (for once) acknowledges his own failure to fulfil his potential, rather than blaming others for frustrating his efforts; also recognizes the egoistic nature of his 'love'; but in between he blames fate for turning him into a passive instrument of arbitrary destruction (or a deadly stage prop in the drama of life). Quotation 9 also shows how merciless Pechorin can be in his self-analysis ... at times! But he himself implicitly admits that even his private diary may contain attempts at self-deception (//pace// the primary narrator) - though even on this point Pechorin, characteristically, contradicts himself (11 May: //[я] привык себе во всем признаваться//; 14 June: //Я боюсь показаться смешным самому себе//). The last extract from Pechorin's diary – 'The Fatalist' – is Lermontov's final distillation of the spirit of contradiction which permeates the novel. This story seems to be identified by its title as a further exploration of the theme of fate; but the outcome is a total sense of ambivalence and uncertainty (quotation 10).

**Pechorin's Journal – sincerity or self-deception?** In his foreword to the extracts from Pechorin's journal, the narrator is at pains to convince us of Pechorin's sincerity: a private document which Pechorin never intended to publish – therefore had no reason to misrepresent the facts. However, our existing familiarity with the narrator should lead us to question his judgement and to 'read against the grain'; in fact, the narrator's insistence on Pechorin's sincerity should alert us to the possibility of the contrary being true – even if writing 'for his own eyes only', Pechorin might be consciously or subconsciously engaging in self-deception. 'Taman': presented as a story, not in the form of diary entries (cf. 'Princess Mary'). Most commentators take it for granted that the events narrated actually took place (i.e., they are 'real' events in the context of the imaginary world of the novel – Pechorin provides a factually accurate account of what happened, even though his interpretation of the facts may be suspect). This assuption may not be entirely justified: Pechorin might have been trying his hand at creative writing, in which case we have no way of knowing how much of the story is based on real events and how much is pure fiction. The story has affinities with popular adventure tales and a strong sense of literariness (creation of a sinister atmosphere; dramatic plot, sentimental ending; a seductress figure whose stratagems prove nearly fatal for the hero; literary / mythological allusions central to her portrayal). Assuming that first-person narrator in 'Taman' is to be equated with Pechorin, his self-portrayal appears reasonably honest: willing to present himself in a distinctly unheroic light, capable of irony at his own expense, aware of his own imperfections such as a tendency to hold preconceived opinions. It is hard to avoid the impression that this story was written several years after the events took place – and written by a more mature Pechorin than the one who appears as a character in the story; the older Pechorin (the narrator) asserting his superiority over the young Pechorin (the character). Towards the end of 'Taman' we can see Pechorin's tendency to blame fate in situations where he is ultimately a free agent with only himself to blame. More of the same is to be found in 'Princess Mary', where Pechorin's apparent sincerity in the confessional passages is undermined by a fundamental contradiction inherent in the theatrical imagery which provides the central metaphor for Pechorin's relations with fate and with other people: his natural impulse is to manipulate others, to be both the playwright and the director in the 'theatre of life'; yet when his manipulations cause suffering to those around him (or even bring about somebody's death), he tries to absolve himself of all blame by suggesting that he is a mere character in the play, deprived of free will and obliged to perform his predestined role. **Pechorin – a walking contradiction** The most prominent manifestation of Pechorin's propensity for contradiction is the way in which his attitude to fate and predestination (предопределение) varies according to circumstance. In moments of self-assurance, he likes to think of himself as being 'in control' (sees himself as a free agent who is able to determine his own course of action, and, indeed, to manipulate others). This attitude alternates with a tendency to deny his own responsibility when things go wrong, and to lay the blame for his own failings on other people, his upbringing, society, or (at last resort) fate (or God). Note his 'confession' in 'Bela' (quotation 1), and his grievance against fate towards the end of 'Taman' (quotation 2). In 'Princess Mary', Pechorin explains his moral deformity in terms of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' –blaming other people's attitude to him (quotation 3). A recurrent metaphor for Pechorin's dual attitude to fate is based on the commonplace notion of human life as a stage play. There are several theatrical references in 'Princess Mary', showing that Pechorin is inclined to view life as drama (quotation 4), and can be absolutely callous about this (quotation 7). He wants to be the playwright / director as well as the hero of his own drama (quotation 5), but shirks responsibility when his actions cause suffering or even death: prefers to think of himself as merely performing a role assigned from above (quotation 6). Quotation 8 is a fine illustration of Pechorin's aptitude for self-contradiction. Honest self-analysis is combined with an almost ritualistic abdication of responsibility: Pechorin (for once) acknowledges his own failure to fulfil his potential, rather than blaming others for frustrating his efforts; also recognizes the egoistic nature of his 'love'; but in between he blames fate for turning him into a passive instrument of arbitrary destruction (or a deadly stage prop in the drama of life). Quotation 9 also shows how merciless Pechorin can be in his self-analysis ... at times! But he himself implicitly admits that even his private diary may contain attempts at self-deception (//pace// the primary narrator) - though even on this point Pechorin, characteristically, contradicts himself (11 May: //[я] привык себе во всем признаваться//; 14 June: //Я боюсь показаться смешным самому себе//). The last extract from Pechorin's diary – 'The Fatalist' – is Lermontov's final distillation of the spirit of contradiction which permeates the novel. This story seems to be identified by its title as a further exploration of the theme of fate; but the outcome is a total sense of ambivalence and uncertainty (quotation 10).

**Key Quotes**

= =
 * (Please add discussion in bold on what type of essay these quotes could be useful for) **

Back to top =** Setting **= Descriptions of setting are often sublime and often reflect Pechorin's personality to some degree, for example: 'Inaccessible mountains on all sides, red-hued cliffs hung with green ivy...' = = Back to top =** Pechorin **= Pechorin is a complex character who is meant to be representative of the 'lost generation of Russians'. He is shown to be bored and indifferent towards much of this life, this is sh own by the following quotation: "I'm lke a sailor, born and bred on the deck of a privateer. Storm and battle are part of his life, and if he's cast ashore he pines in boredom, indifferent to the pleasures of shady woods and peaceful sunshine." Furthermore, Pechorin's treatment of Bela also shows the fact that he rapidly loses interest in what he has. In addition, the fact that he only seems to show any love towards Vera when he realises that he can never be with her (when he races towards her residence after Werner gives him her letter). Back to top =Description= It is interesting to note that Bela is compared to a goat several times in the first part of the novel, for example: 'She certainly was good-looking - tall and slim, with black eyes like a mountain goat's...' =** Preface **=
 * My whole life has been merely a succession of miserable and unsuccessful denials of feelings or reason.
 * ...I am not capable of close friendship: of two close friends, one is always the slave of the other, although frequently neither of them will admit it. I cannot be a slave, and to command in such circumstances is a tiresome business, because one must deceive at the same time.
 * Afraid of decision, I buried my finer feelings in the depths of my heart and they died there.
 * It is difficult to convince women of something; one must lead them to believe that they have convinced themselves.
 * What of it? If I die, I die. It will be no great loss to the world, and I am thoroughly bored with life. I am like a man yawning at a ball; the only reason he does not go home to bed is that his carriage has not arrived yet.
 * When I think of imminent and possible death, I think only of myself; some do not even do that. Friends, who will forget me tomorrow, or, worse still, who will weave God knows what fantastic yarns about me; and women, who in the embrace of another man will laugh at me in order that he might not be jealous of the departed--what do I care for them?
 * Women! Women! Who will understand them? Their smiles contradict their glances, their words promise and lure, while the sound of their voices drives us away. One minute they comprehend and divine our most secret thoughts, and the next, they do not understand the clearest hints.
 * There are two men within me - one lives in the full sense of the word, the other reflects and judges him. In an hour's time the first may be leaving you and the world for ever, and the second? ... the second? ...
 * To cause another person suffering or joy, having no right to do so-- isn't that the sweetest food of our pride? What is happiness but gratified pride?
 * I'll hazard my life, even my honor, twenty times, but I will not sell my freedom. Why do I value it so much? What am I preparing myself for? What do I expect from the future? in fact, nothing at all.
 * **Grushnitski** (to Pechorin): "Mon cher, je haïs les hommes pour ne pas les mépriser car autrement la vie serait une farce trop dégoûtante." ("My friend, I hate men to avoid despising men because otherwise, life would become too disgusting a [|farce].")
 * **Pechorin** (replying to Grushnitski): "Mon cher, je méprise les femmes pour ne pas les aimer car autrement la vie serait un mélodrame trop ridicule" ("My friend, I despise women to avoid loving them because otherwise, life would become too ridiculous a [|melodrama].")
 * "Passions are merely ideas in their initial stage."
 * I believe that there is a contrast between the scenery and Pechorin's character to an extent they to reflect some of his personality traits however at times the scenery seems almost the ideal, what Pechorin longs to find, beauty and a challenge.**
 * I also noticed this and found it very interesting, the fact that Pechorin or Maxim describe her as a goat give off two feelings: First of all she is described as a rural animal that is vital for the survival of a village---> in this case to an extent she is vital to Pechorin. The second thing that I found interesting was that since Goats are used for sacrifices in certain cultures, she in return is sacrificed for the Pechorin's entertainment.**

The preface is the first and at the same time the last thing in any book. It serves either to explain the purpose of the work or to defend the author from his critics. Ordinarily, however, readers are concerned with neither the moral nor the journalistic attacks on the author--as a result they don't read prefaces. Well, that's too bad, especially in our country. Our public is still so immature and simple-hearted that it doesn't understand a fable unless it finds the moral at the end. It fails to grasp a joke or sense an [|irony]--it simply hasn't been brought up properly. It's as yet unaware that obvious violent abuse has no place in respectable society and respectable books, that education nowadays has worked out a sharper, almost invisible, but nevertheless deadly weapon, which behind the curtain of flattery cuts with a stab against which there is no defense. Our public is like the person from [|the sticks] who, overhearing a conversation between two diplomats belonging to hostile courts, becomes convinced that each is being false to his government for the sake of a tender mutual friendship. This book recently had the misfortune of being taken literally by some readers and even some reviewers. Some were seriously shocked at being given a man as amoral as the Hero of Our Time for a model. Others delicately hinted that the author had drawn portraits of himself and his acquaintances. . . What an old, weak joke! But apparently Russia is made up so that however she may progress in every other respect, she is unable to get rid of foolish ideas like this. With us the most fantastic of fairy tales has hardly a chance of escaping criticism as an attempt to hurt our feelings! A Hero of Our Time, my dear readers, is indeed a portrait, but not of one man. It is a portrait built up of all [|our generation's] vices in full bloom. You will again tell me that a human being cannot be so wicked, and I will reply that if you can believe in the existence of all the villains of tragedy and romance, why wouldn't believe that there was a [|Pechorin]? If you could admire far more terrifying and repulsive types, why aren't you more merciful to this character, even if it is fictitious? Isn't it because there's more truth in it than you might wish? You say that morality will gain nothing by it. Excuse me. People have been fed so much candy they are sick to their stomachs. Now bitter medicine and acid truths are needed. But don't ever think that the author of this book was ever ambitious enough to dream about reforming human vices. May God preserve him from such foolishness! It simply amused him to picture the modern man as he sees him and as he so often--to his own and your own misfortune--has found him to be. It's enough that the disease has been diagnosed--how to cure it only the Lord knows! Back to top