Hero+-+Class+notes+20112

Please paste your notes here....

**RESPONSE TO ARTICLE ABOUT "A HERO OF OUR TIME"**
Iván Bosch Chen

This article seems to place a large emphasis on the effect of the Russian Autocracy on the Russian youth population. Considering this, I find two aspects of the article interesting. The first, is in the choice of quotes related to the notion that ambition and disappointment cause the bitterness and cruelty in Pechorin. There is a focus on the parts of the diary in which Pechorin victimises himself. When reflecting on his own position in life Pechorin notes, “As a boy I was a dreamer... restless eager fancy. And what did it bring? Weariness... And when I came into this real life... found it boring and disgusting...” This, and when Pechorin blames people’s interpretation of evil in him to be the cause of his development of “evil traits”, shows clearly how he blames society for his actions. Since Pechorin shows an awareness to his cruelty and its cause, it seems to me that he and the generation he represents, could easily rebel against their behaviour to make an attempt to not act so malicious, especially when considering reflections Pechorin makes wondering why people often have a sense of aversion towards him. The second aspect that I found intruiging, highlighted in this article is the response the Russian generation has towards their “fate” under the Tsar. Unlike Winston in, “1984”, the “superfluous generation” develop a sense of helplessness and hopelessness because of the autocracy, and their inability to join the “political and intellectual life.” Winston though, believes that he is fated to die in rebellion, but still chooses to fight and does not become complacent with his situation under the party rule.

Jack

Pechorin seems almost impossible to categorise or quantify. The article seems to suggest that Pechorin can be interpreted as a superfluous man, along with Pushkin's Onegin. However, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a superfluous man as “aware of the stupidity and injustice surrounding him,” but “remains a bystander.” This definition seems to contradict Lermontov's portrayal of Pechorin. The article itself cites Pechorin as a man of action, “an army officer in an imperial army” who takes part frequently in skirmishes with the local population.” Pe chorin displays qualities identifiable with both Byronic heroes and ‘superfluous man’. What is most intriguing, however, is Pechorin as a symbol and his relationship with wider society. It seemed many contemporary Russian readers found it difficult to accept Pechorin as a symbol for a whole generation of men, especially one that should display such morally unattractive characteristics without the comment afforded by the a third- person narrator. Additionally, Pechorin seems to rely on society to kick against. He is a prisoner of his own will and thus a victim rather than the one in control. His power seems to be imagined rather than real. This quote below shows his reliance on others;

“I’ve an insatiable craving inside me that consumes everything and makes me regard the sufferings and joys of others only in their relationship to me, as food to sustain my spiritual powers.”

The article seems to paint a rather negative portrait of Pechorin, exposing his flaws of lust and power seeking, linking him to fatalism. However an interesting aspect of Pechorin’s character is his ability to synthesise his feeling and emotions in response to nature; the changes that occur in the setting. His character development is therefore partially dependent upon the setting. In my opinion, Lermontov uses this to introduce the idea of Manichean duality, which enables him to commence his critique of society. For example, we can see how when Pechorin refers to society or the idea of socialising, his tone becomes sharper and darker. “However, enough of that.” In contrast, the romantic side of his character is conveyed through his love of nature, and consequently, the reader can detect a change in the pace of his narration. He seems to become excited and joyful, which is reflected in his syntax and diction. “It’s a delight to live in a place like this. Every fibre of my body tingles with joy.” Through inserting these contrasting changes in tone and syntax, I think that Lermontov is providing the reader with insight into Pechorin’s character. Through the symbolism of his character, the author is explaining to the reader that despite the darker negativities that characterise everyone, the is still an essence of emotional beauty within us. This idea is reinforced through the juxtaposition of negative and pejorative semantic fields of emotions and inspirations. For example, “fear, power, evil, suffer, torture” is contrasted with “inspire, love, devotion, triumph, happy”. Despite the extremity of Pechorin, we can generalise his character to represent the whole body of society. It appears to me that this is Lermontov’s voice; and I think that he successfully initiates his commentary on the banality of society, which is permitted through the opposing contradictions of Pechorin’s character.
 * JOEL**

Alice In reference to the mentioned externality of Onegin’s characterization, it is undoubtedly true that the inclusion of Pechorin’s diaries in A Hero of Our Time adds another dimension to his character. As readers, we are presented with the most intimate depiction of Pechorin: his own. However, whilst Pechorin’s diaries may give us better insight into his disposition, it is essential to bear in mind that though Pechorin has no reason to lie in his journals, Lermontov’s character is certainly capable of self-deception. Thus Pechorin’s conclusions and thoughts on his own character should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as fact; advice the article seems to give concerning the portrayal of Onegin’s character. Pechorin is fascinatingly incomprehensible - even to himself. Thus the dichotomies in his character are formed, such as his audacity and yet his self-doubt. Acknowledging Pechorin’s aforementioned capability of self-deception allows consideration of Pechorin as a fatalist. Is he really? The article seems to dismiss any presence of irony or self-deception in Pechorin’s statements on fatalism, which I feel is a superficial assessment of his character.

**Anna A.**

** Response to the article: ** __ Pechorin as a fatalist __

T hroughout __ A Hero of Out Time __ , but particularly in the last chapter titled rather adumbratively ‘The Fatalist’, Lermontov propounds Pechorin’s misguided conception of fate as a scapegoat for his cruel and harsh actions; thus, Lermontov is arguably emphasising that, although able to control and manipulate others, Pechorin is ultimately dominated by his own exploits without having a genuine understanding of the consequences of his decisions. Furthermore, the ease with which Pechorin places the blame of his actions on fate implicitly reveals his inability for self-reflection and evaluation: whilst he is infinitely critical of others, Pechorin is unable to take responsibility for his behaviour and objectively consider his crucial involvement in the despair of those around him. For instance, in ‘Taman’, Pechorin asks himself: // “Why did fate toss me into the peaceful midst of these honest smugglers?” // regardless of the fact that it was his own curiosity that induced him to follow the blind boy. Similarly, in ‘Princess Mary’, Pechorin writes in his journal that, “ // fate always seems to have brought me in for the dénouement of other people’s dramas,” // thus admitting to his superfluity in society, but accusing fate for being the reason he continues to interfere in the affairs of others. In fact, he becomes even more hyperbolic as the novel continues, eventually asking: // “How many times have I been in the axe in the hands of fate?” // He has convinced himself that, not only is fate to blame for the misery he causes others, but his own unhappiness too. However, we later see a contradiction in Pechorin’s belief in fate as he wonders, // “why didn’t I choose to follow the path that fate had opened to me?” // when pondering his decision not to marry Princess Mary; thus, we see him acknowledging his free will in the defiance of fate and we are led to doubt his belief in fate. Ultimately, it is arguable whether or not Pechorin himself truly believes that his life has been predestined—another insurmountable ambiguity of Lermontov's protagonist.

**Mukundwa Katuliiba**

**//Pechorin and lust//**

Pechorin is a superfluous man, “a portrait composed of the flaws of our whole generation in their fullest development”. It could be argued that Lermontov chooses to focus on the “two main temptations for the superfluous man: lust and power”, as each of the novel’s five chapters illustrates Pechorin’s unwarranted thirst for control over others and insatiable lust for women. This is seen when he selfishly barters a horse for Bela and manipulates princess Mary’s interest in him as a means of annoying Grushnitsky, devastating her and her mother. It must be noted, however, that there are instances when we doubt that Pechorin’s affections are totally insincere. In //Princess Mary// Pechorin rekindles lost love with the ailing Vera. When she is introduced and elicits emotional rumination in Pechorin the reader is struck with a sense of hope: perhaps all Pechorin’s affections are not completely ephemeral. However, we soon learn that even Vera is merely an object that Pechorin reacts to rather than loves earnestly. This is seen when whenever she dotes on him he becomes irritated and emotionally distant, yet when she doubts her feelings for him he actively pursues her. Like his hunting, he is only interested in that which he must fight for. Thus, by the end of the novel we have no doubts that his affections are fickle. In this way he transforms entirely into a superfluous man in the reader’s opinion. Anna T. The article compares and contrasts Lermontov's Pechorin and Pushkin's Onegin, explaining their characters in highlight of 1800 era Russia. It describes how Pechorin and Onegin are derrived from the same idea of a protagonist, yet they deviate from eachother in several different points. Mainly, Pechorin's character has a lot more phsychological complexity, reflected in the scenery and encounters around him, whilst Onegin is more straight forward and explicit. On a similar note, Pechorin's character seems harder to understand, and has more layering of troubles, including frequent torment: //" My whole life has been nothing but a series of dismal, unsuccessful attempts to go against heart or reasons." //Lermontov, contrary to Pushkin, seems to use more desriptive prose with romantic tones at times, whilst Pushkin prefers to get straight to the point: " //Pushkin was no word painter in his prose - in contrast to his poetry, where his word painting is sublime- and his prose moves swiftly and sparely from incident to incident." //

Halina Sillence

This article on "A Hero of Our Time" shows the close relationship between Lermontov’s character Pechorin and Pushkin’s character Onegin. Both characters are representatives of the superfluous generation in 1800s Russia. T he article seems to explore the idea the Lermontov’s Pushkin is Onegin, but taken one step further, perhaps a more explicit version of Onegin. This encourages the idea of Lermontov taking up Pushkin’s role after his death. While the article states there are similarities between both, it also suggests that Lermontov’s aim is to view the concept of fatalism in relation to the individual and history. Lermontov himself appears to have been exposed to these ideas throughout his life. The article calls it “reconciliation of reality.” “The individual is powerless to effect change in the face of historical circumstances which are governed by ineluctable laws; therefore, to struggle against historical circumstances (autocracy) is pointless and achieves nothing; better then to reconcile oneself to reality.” This paints both a rather dismal view of both Lermontov and Pechorin, but through this the article points out the strong similarities between Lermontov and his character Pechorin. Perhaps the article draws out too many similarities between the two, as Pechorin should be viewed as more of a symbol of the lost generation as opposed to a characterisation of Lermontov. Laura Mulder

In Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" Pechorin's character is described in two different ways; the way those taking part in society around him view him, and the way he sees himself. This article describes him as representative of the superfluous generation in Russia during the 1800s, and compares him to Pushkin's character Onegin in the idea that they are both victim to "Spleen and ennui as a result of their alienation from political and intellectual life in their country". It is said that Pechorin's character was evolved from Onegin's character, but developed to focus not only on how he is viewed externally, but also on Pechorin's own self-image and psychological analysis. However we must take into account the fact that even though "A Hero of Our Time" may contain a great deal of self-analysis on Pechorin's part, there are certain contrasting aspects of himself he is still unable to explain. "There are two men within me – one lives in the full sense of the word, the other reflects and judges him". This lack of self-comprehension on Pechorin's part could explain his strong belief in fate, and that everything is written. It appears as though he uses fate as a means to justify actions for which he is unable to fully explain. **THESIS STATEMENT HOMEWORK**
 * Mukundwa Katuliiba**

As humans there are undoubtedly many aspects of life that we love and similarly hate. Pechorin is a character that mostly bears antipathy for people and rather than expresses a love for anything, he has a great need for certain things; like adventure and women. It can be argued that his lack of earnest love makes it difficult for a reader to relate to him. Hence, to make his character more believable Lermontov made him deeply connected to natural setting. His urgent sense wanderlust and profound appreciation of nature is the one true, unselfish bond Pechorin has. Without it, this character that is more an amalgamation of traits than an independent person, would be largely unbelievable and unsympathetic. Conversely, setting in “1984” plays a completely different role as Winston already has that which he detests (the Party) and that which he loves (Julia). While it is used in Lermontov’s novel to vivify his protagonist, Orwell uses it as a persuasive tool. If the setting of Oceania was not as derelict and decrepit as Orwell has presented it, the Party’s aggressive and ironic rule would not be believable. The Party’s rule and setting go hand in hand. Ingsoc is synonymous with contradiction as it instills in its followers incorrect information: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”. Hence, like all the party teachings, and like the vile victory gin and victory cigarettes, the setting of Oceania does not reflect a society that is in constant ‘overproduction’. Therefore, like most other elements influenced by the party, Orwell creates a decrepit setting in order to reflect the irony of the party. Hence, setting in both novels both aim to create a believability; one aims to humanize the protagonist and the other to reinforce the irony of the totalitarian party.
 * Setting**

//1984// follows the life of Winston Smith, a man stifled by the ubiquitous presence of the oligarchic Ingsoc. Conversely, //A Hero Of Our Time// depicts a man awarded absolute freedom of which the consequence is ennui and resulting destructive behavior. Despite these two characters being the product of complete freedom and lack thereof, they ultimately have the same goal; they desire total freedom. Hence, while these two novels differ greatly in subject matter they both address a similar theme: the innate desire for independence and self-governance.
 * Theme**

Both Winston and Pechorin live in societies where human interaction is calculated. The former must remain guarded and wary of forming friendships as it could cost him his life, whereas the latter chooses to be calculative and manipulative in order to make his relationships feed his ego and abate his ennui. These two characters differ in that, ironically, Winston’s treacherous environment he is a terrible judge of character whereas Pechorin, who need not be suspicious of people is acutely perspicacious.
 * Character**

//1984// features a profuse amount of decrepit imagery due to the decaying physical state of Oceania, while //A Hero of Our Time// has painterly descriptions of the Russian plains and tundra.
 * Imagery**


 * __Jack__**

__Setting__

In 1984 Orwell refines the setting to add to the particular nature of the nightmare world Winston inhabits, setting provides a sense of realism and context to a novel that can lose some of its verity in a paranoid fantasy. In A Hero of Our Time nature and setting can symbolise freedom from social constraints, the sublime descriptions of the Caucasus mountains emphasise Pechorin's sometimes hyperbolic and melodramatic nature, whilst the “foul” setting of 'Taman' foreshadows Pechorin's defeat. It can therefore be assumed that Lermontov equates Pechorin with nature.

__Themes__

At their core both novels seem to address the question of the individual or a small group against the wider context of each respective society. If both characters are assumed to be symbolic then the two authors seem to have political concerns at the forefront of their writing, the two novels were written in the context of war and upheaval. 1984 in the aftermath of World War II and A Hero of our Time in the Decembrist revolt.

__Imagery__

Orwell's use of imagery often coincides with him trying to pertain to a political or social comment. The image created by O'Brien's 'boot' stamping on a face is an allusion to the Master-Slave complex. Whilst, Lermontov uses imagery to allude or develop Pechorin’s character

__Character__

The two authors through techniques such as rhetorical questions, inquire into their readerships by asking them to identify with their respective protagonists. During the torture scenes in 1984, Orwell through free indirect discourse, asks us to place ourselves in Winston's shoes and to question how we would react to O'Brien's inquisition. Lermontov uses Pechorin's moments of self-doubt to add to the realism of Pechorin. At times Pechorin can seem in this world, but not of it. His moments of hesitation firmly ground him in a common level of humanity.


 * Anna A.**

//__Setting __// In both __A Hero of Our Time__ and __Nineteen Eighty-Four__, Lermontov and Orwell use descriptions of setting to reveal internal facets of Pechorin and Winston respectively. In particular, Pechorin’s sublime portrayal of nature compared to his disdainful approach to people in the journal sections of __A Hero of Our Time__ expounds Pechorin’s duality and inner contradictions, whereas in __Nineteen Eighty Four__, changes in setting—and especially Winston’s reaction them—can arguably be considered as representative of Winston’s state of mind: when Orwell describes the setting as tranquil and harmonious, we see an articulate Winston thinking clearly and independently, with an increasing sense of hope and self-confidence. Setting is therefore symbolic in both novels for psychological freedom, or lack thereof: in __A Hero of Our Time__, freedom from social restrictions and customs, and in __Nineteen Eighty-Four__ freedom from the Party’s dominance of thoughts and beliefs.

//__Theme __: the dangers of a misguided sense of fatalism // Lermontov’s Pechorin and Orwell’s Winston Smith are two protagonists that have a misguided perception of fate: Pechorin uses his superficial belief of fatalism as a scapegoat for his emotional exploitation and abuse of others, whereas Winston equates fate with the Party’s actions. Consequently, Pechorin is never able to truly look within himself and be as critical of his own flaws as he is of those of others: he is never able to realize the cruelty of his actions and hold himself accountable for them, he is dominated by his own actions and contradictions. Conversely, by having Winston assimilate fate with the Party, Orwell is emphasizing the power and utter control that the Party has over its citizens; even in Winston’s moments of believed freedom and individuality, the ubiquitous Party is an underlying presence in his thoughts and decisions. Subsequently, whilst Lermontov can arguably be propounding the consequences of not taking responsibility for one’s actions and behavior—an indifference to the sufferings of others—, Orwell appears to be highlighting how the notion of fate can be manipulated to control the thoughts and actions of others.

//__Character __: the role of the protagonist with regards to the author’s overarching purpose // Although both Lermontov’s __A Hero of Our Time__ and Orwell’s __Nineteen Eighty-Four__ are two novels that revolve around a single, central protagonist—Pechorin and Winston Smith respectively—the role of the main character is subtly different. The purpose of __A Hero of Our Time__ is to paint a portrait of Pechorin as an amalgamation of various character traits that dominated the ‘lost generation’ of Russian history­: ennui and the subsequent craving for excitement, manifested by Pechorin into the emotional torture of those around him. Contrarily, Orwell’s overarching purpose in __Nineteen Eighty-Four__ is seemingly to propound the dangers of a certain type of societal structure—totalitarianism—rather than of a certain type of individual. It is therefore understandable why __A Hero of Our Time__ focuses specifically on Pechorin’s inner workings and motivations, whereas __Nineteen Eighty-Four__ is centered towards Winston’s relationship with the Party.

//__Imagery __: // In __Nineteen Eighty-Four__, Orwell uses decrepit imagery to describe the derelict streets and buildings of London in order to implicitly convey the Outer Party’s degenerating state of mind, whereas in __A Hero of Our Time__, Lermontov juxtaposes Pechorin’s use of beautifully sublime imagery when he describes the Caucasus mountains with the dull and dreary portrayal of people that no longer satisfy Pechorin’s desire for excitement. Subsequently we see that whilst Orwell mainly uses imagery to portray the issues present in a society utterly controlled by a totalitarian government, Lermontov uses this same narrative technique to depict the superfluous nature of. and the contradictions present within, one type of individual: a young man pertaining to the ‘lost generation’ of nineteenth century Russia.

__Setting__ - Setting plays a key role in both novels; In 1984, the setting of Air Strip one serves to reflect the state of its population: “everything had a battered, trampled-on look”. Similarly in A Hero of Our Time, setting described in the first few pages serves to forebode the narrator’s introduction to Pechorin’s character through it’s mysterious and yet sublime depiction: “unassailable mountains”, “another nameless rivulet which noisily unearthed itself from a black and gloomy chasm, extends like a silver thread, glittering like a scaly snake”. In both novels, the setting is largely symbolic. In 1984, Airstrip One symbolizes the state of its occupants and The Golden Country symbolizes hope; in A Hero of Our Time, Pechorin’s adoration of the setting reflects aspects of his personality, and the setting of the Caucauses at times serves to forebode Pechorin’s character. Obviously Pechorin finds unquenchable challenges in nature, and he admits that this is the “remedy” to his “insatiable heart”: “to travel”.
 * Alice**

__Theme__ - Both characters Winston and Pechorin have misguided views of fate, and their stories both explore the idea and effects of freedom, or lack of it. Winston is an inhabitant of a totalitarian, unfree society, and Pechorin is a free agent in quite a personally liberal society – despite the presence of autocracy. However, interestingly, Winston through his confined, stifled state finds himself optimistic, whereas Pechorin develops a strong sense of nihilism from his surplus of freedom.

__Character__

- The symbolic nature of both protagonists, Winston Smith and Grigory Alexander Pechorin, allows for interesting comparison. Pechorin’s character is skillfully hyperbolic, whereas Winston remains quite average; both of these observations support their symbols – Pechorin as an amalgamation of the “lost generation” and Winston as an individual in a totalitarian society. __Imagery__ ? --> lol

The reader can see how both the protagonists of A Hero of Our Time and 1984 are influenced by setting. However, they differ in terms of the internal changes that are influenced by setting. Winston seems to become more optimistic as his relationshiop with Julia progresses, giving a sense of hope to the novel. However, Pechorin’s frequent changes in setting reflect the inner conflict that is occuring within him, and through this, Lermontov introduces a sense of duality to his charatcer.
 * JOEL**
 * Setting:**

Individualism vs. collectivism is a theme that is explored by both Orwell and Lermontov (Pechroin vs. society and Winston vs. the Party). However, the perspective of the theme is different in each novel. For example, A Hero of Our time involves Pechorin rebelling against society : the individual betrays the whole. In contrast, 1984 involves the Party acting wrongly against Winston : the whole betrays the individual. The purpose of the theme is juxtaposed when comparing the novels and in this way, the authors are able to carry out a commentary of society and its members at the time each novel was written.
 * Theme :**

Both Orwell and Lermontov seem to play on the idea that the protagonists of their novels, Winston and Pechroini are heroes or have elements of heroism. However, the realism of the novels (the time period, the setting and the events that occur during the narrative) affect our views of each character, and this enables the reader to question what they would have done in the character’s place.
 * Character :**

In a Hero of Our Time imagery is related to character, the reader can the positive effect of the Caucasus mountains and the setting on Pechorin’s charcter, introducing the duality of personality and seemingly focusing on the individual and their role in society. However, in 1984 Orwell uses negative imagery to reflect the destruction and oppression that the Party brought onto its people and country, enabling Orwell to focus, and comment on, the role of the collective and totalitarian rule.
 * Imagery:**

Iván Bosch Chen

Setting: In both novels, "1984", and, "A Hero of Our Time", the authors use descriptions of setting as a symbol for freedom in the protagonists' lives. In Orwell's novel, descriptions of setting become more serene as Winston believes he is drifting away from the control of the party. In a similar manner, Pechorin illustrates a more sublime setting when he encounters a freedom from the superficiality of the Russian society

Theme: Fatalism The authors George Orwell and Mikhail Lermontov both explore the theme of fatalism in their novels but through different perspectives.Lermontov analyses the belief of fatalism as an excuse Pechorin uses for his malicious behaviour. On the other hand, Orwell portrays a belief in fatalism as a representation of the helplessness that dissident outer-party members feel under the abuse of the ruling power.

Character: Orwell develops his protagonist from a naive party member to a perceptive rebel and finally turns him into a destroyed man under the abuse of the Party. Lermontov on the other hand illustrates a perceptive and cunning man throughout the novel. The development of these characters are therefore contrast in the sense that Winston's character represents the Party's attempt to limit thought process whilst Pechorin represents the wasted potential of the Russian middle class.


 * Selam**

**Themes**- A theme which is pervasive throughout //A Hero of Our Time// is the superficiality of society this is expounded through the use of irony and. This irony is demonstrated through Pechorin’s hypocrisy, another way in which the superficiality of the higher classes is shown is through the focus and emphasis on clothing which is an indication of rank.
 * Setting ** - throughout //A// //Hero of Our Time// Setting influences the feelings of the characters; this is shown mainly through the protagonist Pechorin. It is increasingly evident that when the characters are isolated the mountainous setting has a calmative effect; this is shown through the description of the setting. Primarily, through the use of sublime and euphonic diction and this is further emphasized through the juxtaposition in portraying urban scenery and the people.
 * Imagery ** - throughout the Novel //A Hero of our Time//, Lermontov uses imagery which is associated with freedom. This is shown through the liberating diction, more specifically adjectives and verbs that Lermontov uses when describing the setting in the Caucasus.