Review of the book

Review of the book

A big trace in my mind left the novel “The Hero of Our Time” by M. Yu. Lermontov. For me, first of all, it is extremely valuable and expensive that the novel raises vital problems, such as the problem of happiness, the problem of good and evil, the problem of predestination and freedom, self-will. The main character of Lermontov needs a solution to all these problems with a single purpose in order to better understand the meaning of life. After all, the comprehension of truth allows you to approach many of the mysteries of being, and therefore, to the meaning of life.

The flowering of Lermontov’s creativity came in the 30s of the XIX century. On the one hand, this is the period of the Nicholas reaction, which began after the Decembrist uprising; on the other hand, this is the time when the inability to realize oneself in the field of social activity makes the then intelligentsia go into philosophy. Herzen called this era “era of thought and reason.”

These philosophical searches in society are reflected in the novel “The Hero of Our Time”, which, according to Belinsky, “is not a collection of stories and stories, it is a novel in which one hero and one main theme are artistically developed.” It is very important, by the way, that the stories are not in order.

This, I think, allows you to more accurately convey the psychological details that are necessary for revealing the nature of Pechorin. At the beginning

of the novel Lermontov shows the hero of our time through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych in the story “Bela.” I think that here the writer wants to show not only his objective attitude to Pechorin, but also to give an assessment of the person who first saw him. “Yes, with great strangeness, and, probably, a rich man.” Maxim Maksimych saw how contradictory the man Pechorin, but he sees only a superficial layer of this inconsistency. In the disclosure of the character, the story “Maxim Maksimych” plays a big role, where the psychological portrait of the hero, sketched by the author himself, is given. I believe that Lermontov, through such a portrait, conveys some psychological subtleties, for example, the eyes are likened to the gloss of smooth steel, to once again draw our attention to the contradictoriness, ambiguity of his nature. “His walk was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he does not wave his arms – a sure sign of some kind of secrecy of character.” Even in the preface to the novel, the author says that “The hero of our time, my dear rulers, is exactly a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait composed of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” We see that Pechorin is a gifted nature, the author has very thoroughly recreated many of the features and properties of his character’s character. Pechorin has an analytical mind, which gives him the right and the opportunity to fairly and judiciously judge life, about people. Pechorin is distinguished by “reflection”, which generates a critical attitude not only to himself, but also to others. Pechorin is a selfish man, every whim of his should be executed. Our hero admits that he was fighting the light and with himself. Recognizing his own cruelty, Pechorin understands that he is a moral cripple, and Pechorin becomes the only “yardstick” of moral values ​​in the 1930s: “my soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable, everything is not enough for me.” Heart Pechorin cooled. In this sense, it is characteristic, perhaps, to bring the conversation between Pechorin and Princess Mary, where he tries to arouse her interest in himself, he conducts himself here quite sincerely. This is very important for revealing the nature of Pechorin, as sometimes the soul of Pechorin shows through with a veil of selfishness with his weaknesses and with his strengths. Pechorin’s soul is most fully revealed in the story “Princess Mary” , where we see how he is in love with nature. He perceives nature as a poet – light, pure. “The air is fresh and pure, like a kiss of a child.” We see how he spiritualizes her and how inspired by her, we understand that Pechorin is not only the focus of everything bad, but at the same time he has good inclinations. Pechorin does not believe in friendly ties, believing that “two friends are one slave of the other”, also Pechorin does not believe in love. Not finding in his contemporary reality a worthy support, he chose evil and thus signed his soul a verdict. The individualism of the hero is the cause of his spiritual tragedy. The problems raised in the “Fatalist” make it possible to better understand many of Pechorin’s judgments about life. He does not want, for example, to recognize the power of fate over himself. Pechorin loves life, and, rushing constantly into the whirlpool of adventure, he thereby sent a challenge to fate. I think that here Pechorin is right, it’s impossible to look around forever, to be afraid of life forever. “I always go forward when I do not know what awaits me.” Pechorin subjects inevitably to doubt those moral principles that are inextricably linked with God. Solves the problem of good and evil, realizing that this is not only a moral problem, but also a philosophical one. The author’s position is revealed through the system of the hero’s views. Moreover, the author with intent unites all the characters around the main character. Against the backdrop of the “water kingdom” Pechorin looks highly educated. Especially striking is the contrast between Pechorin, who really Pechorin subjects inevitably to doubt those moral principles that are inextricably linked with God. Solves the problem of good and evil, realizing that this is not only a moral problem, but also a philosophical one. The author’s position is revealed through the system of the hero’s views. Moreover, the author with intent unites all the characters around the main character. Against the backdrop of the “water kingdom” Pechorin looks highly educated. Especially striking is the contrast between Pechorin, who really Pechorin subjects inevitably to doubt those moral principles that are inextricably linked with God. Solves the problem of good and evil, realizing that this is not only a moral problem, but also a philosophical one. The author’s position is revealed through the system of the hero’s views. Moreover, the author with intent unites all the characters around the main character. Against the backdrop of the “water kingdom” Pechorin looks highly educated. Especially striking is the contrast between Pechorin, who really Pechorin looks like a highly educated person. Especially striking is the contrast between Pechorin, who really Pechorin looks like a highly educated person. Especially striking is the contrast between Pechorin, who really

Experiencing a spiritual tragedy, and Gruschnitsky who only plays the role of an unrecognized and rejected hero. In the person of Grushnitsky, Pechorin ridiculed those people who trivialized the tragedy of people like Pechorin, who are experiencing a deep spiritual crisis. I think, Lermontov, uniting all the characters around the main character, wanted to paint more fully the extraordinary character of Pechorin. So, we see that Grushnitsky is a vile person, and despite the fact that we also find a lot of shortcomings in Pechorin, nevertheless we treat Petchorin much better than his imaginary friend. I feel sorry for Pechorin, because I believe that this is a deeply unhappy person who can not find an area of ​​application for his abilities. The author tests her hero with love. In the novel Lermontov appears a lot of different characters. So, in the story “Bela” Lermontov draws us the image of a young Circassian. Pechorin fell in love with her, he thought that she was sent to him by a compassionate fate. But I soon realized that I was mistaken that “the love of a savage is little better than the love of a noble young lady.”

Or here is another image of a singing girl. Undine was not beautiful, but she could feel the breed. This is the only heroine who is equal to him and who becomes a victim. The image of Princess Mary is very romantic. She is attractive in her own way, not at all stupid, but there was something missing in her, that pressing charm that could bind Pechorin to this girl. Pechorin brings tragedy to the fate of Princess Mary.

The image of the Faith throughout the novel is elusive. Her attitude to Pechorin is fraught with a mystery. Her love for Pechorin borders on slavery. The main drawback of the heroine, in my opinion, is the lack of female pride.

So, we see the hero of our time, who is struggling with the vicissitudes of fate, but this struggle is fruitless. Pechorin’s individualism is the main reason for his spiritual tragedy. Despite the fact that Pechorin is a controversial, complex person, I still fell in love with this hero. Throughout the novel, I was interested in following his thoughts, his actions. Despite all the complexity of his character, I appreciate in him that he went through life without lowering his head. And do not, probably, strictly judge him, because he is a man woven from the vices of his time, immersed in the eternal search for truth.


Review of the book