Scan barcode
A review by antiheroine
A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov
/Thematically, The Hero of Our Time is a socio-psychological character study. The uniqueness of this work is situated within its context, already past the romanticism and not yet realist, indebted to Byron and Pushkin and yet rejecting them; one foot here, the other there. The novel is a question - it poses no answers.
/Formally, it is uneven and underdeveloped, lacking in cohesion, yet achieves precisely what it aims to – a character study through multiple lenses. The shifting timeline allows Lermontov to manipulate focus from distant to close up, to yet again a different angle altogether. The format develops into an experimental montage that creates the protagonist. It is almost as if the plot is irrelevant, and the episodes exist purely to create an image of a character the author is interested in.
Curiously, the most ostensible unevenness is demonstrated through the use of language. Lermontov cannot separate himself as a poet from the narrative – his antihero, an emotionally coarse and unfeeling man describes the landscape lyrically.
/Contextually, Lermontov was much influenced by the liberal (i.e. post Decembrist uprising’s anti-tsarist and anti-serfdom) sentiment in his poetry, which would explain the depiction of aristocracy as rotten through. However, in alliance with many colonial novels, it portrays cultural differences and other nations in an inferior light – a surprising development, albeit not in the context of recurring fatalistic themes favoured by the author.
Pechorin’s situation is atypical – whether the intent here is to suggest that he is an anomaly in the provinces or war-torn regions, or an anomaly amongst high society in the cultural capital is unclear. For every romantic statement, he brings down the prosaic.
//
The protagonist, Pechorin is the 18th century emo boy. He is lonely, alienated and therefore universally relatable. He is also handsome, able, intelligent, and irresistible – an 18th-century bad boy, that is, the Byronic romantic hero. Yet for Pechorin, his entire effort and endeavours are wasted playing games, a narrative that subverts and shatters the nobility of the romantic persona. Kierkegaard’s aesthetics games in Either/Or spring to mind – published whole three years later. In both works, the main (anti)hero seduces a young girl – deviously he makes her fall in love with him and then leaves her, albeit for a different reason. For Kierkegaard’s hero, the epitome of aesthetic love had to be terminated before the banality of marriage tainted it. For Lermontov’s hero, the idea of fatalistic boredom terminates all endeavours.
Pechorin simultaneously presents a human being who genuinely suffers(from being misunderstood) from emotional immaturity, is infinitely at odds with society and himself and yet is capable of great generosity. There are many contradictions of character – he is capable of love, sacrifice, honour, betrayal, lies, pettiness, and maliciousness. It is this multifaceted realism situated within the Romantic convention that is so fascinating; a hero merely in that he is the main character of his own story.
The novel's genius is in presenting a fully formed character through unconventional chronology without ever delving into the origins of his being. He merely hints at past slights, but what are they?
//
The chronology:
- St. Petersburg affair, for which he is presumably sent to the Caucasus (referred to only)
(Vera affair) (referred to only)
- Contrabandist (chapter 3)
- Military involvement, then recovery at the Pyatigorsk
Mary/Grushnitsky (chapter 4)
- Sent to the Caucasus again, as punishment for the duel (chapter 1, Bella)
- Fatalist, brief sojourn whilst at the Fort with MM (chapter 5)
- Georgia, then back to St. Petersburg
- On the way to Persia (Maxim Maximich, chapter 2)
- Back from Persia (Introduction to Diaries)
//
The final chapter, Fatalist leaves a hanging question: is our fate predestined?
Pechorin, an epitome of scepticism, is fully in control of his actions but is unable to answer them. When an officer dies, Maxim Maximych dismisses the fatality as an accident, and then off-hand, leaves us with ‘god’s will’. As with the protagonist’s character, the paradox of this contradiction within the novel is intentional – there are no clear set answers.
It is a great tragedy that Lermontov died at 26 and it will never be possible to truly understand the full intent and possible maturation of his ideas. In a truly fatalistic turn of events, his death in a duel with his friend mirrors that of his characters Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
//
The novel is a system of mirrors, aimed to confuse and obfuscate, create memories of a memory, trickery of the idea of a hero given himself and others.
/Formally, it is uneven and underdeveloped, lacking in cohesion, yet achieves precisely what it aims to – a character study through multiple lenses. The shifting timeline allows Lermontov to manipulate focus from distant to close up, to yet again a different angle altogether. The format develops into an experimental montage that creates the protagonist. It is almost as if the plot is irrelevant, and the episodes exist purely to create an image of a character the author is interested in.
Curiously, the most ostensible unevenness is demonstrated through the use of language. Lermontov cannot separate himself as a poet from the narrative – his antihero, an emotionally coarse and unfeeling man describes the landscape lyrically.
/Contextually, Lermontov was much influenced by the liberal (i.e. post Decembrist uprising’s anti-tsarist and anti-serfdom) sentiment in his poetry, which would explain the depiction of aristocracy as rotten through. However, in alliance with many colonial novels, it portrays cultural differences and other nations in an inferior light – a surprising development, albeit not in the context of recurring fatalistic themes favoured by the author.
Pechorin’s situation is atypical – whether the intent here is to suggest that he is an anomaly in the provinces or war-torn regions, or an anomaly amongst high society in the cultural capital is unclear. For every romantic statement, he brings down the prosaic.
//
The protagonist, Pechorin is the 18th century emo boy. He is lonely, alienated and therefore universally relatable. He is also handsome, able, intelligent, and irresistible – an 18th-century bad boy, that is, the Byronic romantic hero. Yet for Pechorin, his entire effort and endeavours are wasted playing games, a narrative that subverts and shatters the nobility of the romantic persona. Kierkegaard’s aesthetics games in Either/Or spring to mind – published whole three years later. In both works, the main (anti)hero seduces a young girl – deviously he makes her fall in love with him and then leaves her, albeit for a different reason. For Kierkegaard’s hero, the epitome of aesthetic love had to be terminated before the banality of marriage tainted it. For Lermontov’s hero, the idea of fatalistic boredom terminates all endeavours.
Pechorin simultaneously presents a human being who genuinely suffers
The novel's genius is in presenting a fully formed character through unconventional chronology without ever delving into the origins of his being. He merely hints at past slights, but what are they?
//
The chronology:
- St. Petersburg affair, for which he is presumably sent to the Caucasus (referred to only)
(Vera affair) (referred to only)
- Contrabandist (chapter 3)
- Military involvement, then recovery at the Pyatigorsk
Mary/Grushnitsky (chapter 4)
- Sent to the Caucasus again, as punishment for the duel (chapter 1, Bella)
- Fatalist, brief sojourn whilst at the Fort with MM (chapter 5)
- Georgia, then back to St. Petersburg
- On the way to Persia (Maxim Maximich, chapter 2)
- Back from Persia (Introduction to Diaries)
//
The final chapter, Fatalist leaves a hanging question: is our fate predestined?
Pechorin, an epitome of scepticism, is fully in control of his actions but is unable to answer them. When an officer dies, Maxim Maximych dismisses the fatality as an accident, and then off-hand, leaves us with ‘god’s will’. As with the protagonist’s character, the paradox of this contradiction within the novel is intentional – there are no clear set answers.
It is a great tragedy that Lermontov died at 26 and it will never be possible to truly understand the full intent and possible maturation of his ideas. In a truly fatalistic turn of events, his death in a duel with his friend mirrors that of his characters Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
//
The novel is a system of mirrors, aimed to confuse and obfuscate, create memories of a memory, trickery of the idea of a hero given himself and others.