The Superfluous Men By Ivan Turgenev

The end of the nineteenth century marked a brilliant period in Russian literature defined by innovation and experimentation. With political and economic changes sweeping over Russia, its literature displayed the anxious, even hostile reaction to the modernization of a nation that hadn’t seen transformations in decades. The Petty Demon, Wings, and Petersburg considered to be some of the greatest works of the time, were unique pieces of literature in the decadence period, although they borrowed and built on elements from other authors of the time. The analysis of these novels, in terms of conventional categories of literary analysis, including thematics, narration, and setting is not only a means to display the uncommon structure of the novel, but also to demonstrate its association with other influential authors. In the writings of The Petty Demon, Wings, and Petersburg these authors dismantle the ideas of other authors and then parody them, therefore subverting the norms of realist pros and making reader think of a particular style of writing and then goes to write the complete opposite.

A Few Good Men portrays the importance of military orders, the reality of the ranking system and how much military leader’s authority can cloud their judgement. Former psychology professor at Yale, Stanley Milgram sought the reasoning behind the blindness of individuals when ordered to perform a task for someone who seems to be an authority figure. His infamous experiment was and is currently being dug through and examined thoroughly. Milgram’s research caught the attention of fellow psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo conducted an experiment with similar interests in mind. He collected 21 men from newspaper advertisements to live in a false prison and live in the prison for two weeks. The experiment lasted six days due to how quickly the experiment escalated and transformed the “prisoners” and “guards” (Zimbardo 116). Their conclusions from both experiments are that power and stress can transform even the strongest willed people. Zimbardo and Milgram discuss the same sort of entitlement Colonel Jessup presumes to order an illegal code red due to his position on the base at Guantanamo Bay; also the entitlement Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee had over the case due to the position his father once had.

In many books, like Crime and Punishment by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky the main character usually faces both good and bad influences from supporting characters. In this book, mainly Svidrigailov and Sonia influenced Raskolnikov who presumed to be the main character. The influences from Sonia and Svidrigailov both shape and change Raskolnikov and develop the plot of the book. Since Raskolnikov was a character being mixed of good and bad traits, it allowed him to easily be influenced in which are expressed as the book progresses.

In 1994, a conflict the US couldn't understand, between clans and tribes it didn't know, in a country where there were no national interests, occurred. The Rwandan War of 1994 did not deserve US intervention. There are four contentions on why the US should not have gotten involved in this Rwandan war. The Black Hawk Down incident, how the UN was there previously there, there being no Possible Gain, and having nothing to do with us. Through the examination of the novel, An Ordinary Man by Paul Rusesabagina, it is Obvious that these key points are valid.

In the novel Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning there contains a thesis in which the novel is centered around. This thesis is the theory that these ordinary people could commit these atrocities in the Holocaust because of the pressure from their peers and country that were participating in these appalling acts of violence and massacres of innocent people.

The purpose of history is to understand the past so that we can take wisdom from those experiences and improve the present and the future. The events that occurred during the Final Solution are so horrendous that often it is viewed as so repugnant that we label the people involved as purely evil, they are dehumanized. This is dangerous, as it doesn’t allow us to obtain wisdom, perspective, and empathy for those involved. Ordinary Men allows an opportunity to see these events from the eyes of the perpetrators and their journey that led to what seems to people today as ruthless, unscrupulous murder. When in fact these people were literally ordinary men who were introduced to unordinary circumstances which caused them to abandon their humanity. If we discredit these people as inhuman we fail to learn the lessons of human nature so we can avoid them in the future. Winston Churchill embodies the lessons learned from Ordinary Men as he said “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Imperial Russian society during the time of serfdom was characterized by constantly changing social order. The society experienced a complex social change at the threshold to emancipation. It was undergoing many changes with increasing westernization and serfdom culture that gave rise to formation of new classes (raznochintsy) during the nineteenth century. Many authors have reflected and emphasized this component of change in the structure of pre-emancipation Russian society. This paper will examine how two writers: Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, in their novels, Dead Souls and Fathers and Sons depict the society’s constantly changing nature through the relationships between their characters and the development in their beliefs and ideas. Although both the novels explore societal change during the pre-emancipation of serfs, the emphasis of change is different in both the novels. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev oversees shifting values prevalent in the society. He explores the shift in generational values by depicting the difference in beliefs of characters like Bazarov and Nikolai. On the other hand, in Dead Souls Gogol focuses on issues of morality in society. He depicts a struggle for morality and portrays a corrupt society through the landowners and the protagonist, Chichikov, in his book.

“Master and Man” by Leo Tolstoy is a story that explores the dynamics between a peasant, Nakita and his master,Vasillii Andriech. Andriech foolishly risks both of their lives, when they venture to another town in inclement weather to secure a business deal. Unfortunately, Andreich's impatience and greed ultimately leads to his demise. At the end of the story Nikita dies and is denied the same bliss that Vasillii Andreich experiences in death; in order to solidify the dichotomy between these two men, demonstrate how Andriech cheated Nakita, and he uses Nakita's lackluster death to amplify Andriech's extraordinary passing.

In this paper, I plan to explain Dostoevsky’s criticism of Western Individualism. Dostoevsky’s first criticism resides in the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it, “which is presented by the character Alyosha (Dostoevsky 3). Allowing this character to discuss this topic, along with the commentary of Ivan, demonstrates their mindset to solely focus on their own lives, opposed to caring for others. This leads to them living for the now, and not focusing on how their decisions will affect their future or others. Dostoevsky disapproves of this notion because living by this mentality encourages the guidance of logic, which is dangerous because it could tell you to kill yourself. From Dostoevsky’s Eastern Orthodox background, he believes that the only way from living from this situation is to deny it. By denying this way of living, the focus toward life will not be directed toward yourself, but toward the way you can impact the environment around you. Ivan clearly does not believe in these values, due to his intentions to commit suicide at the age of thirty. As said before, living by the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it” leads to death, and Ivan indulges in this to the fullest (Dostoevsky 3).

The stories of Anton Chekhov mark a focal moment in European fiction. This is the point where 19th realist caucus of the short stories started their transformation into modern form. As such, his work straddles two traditions. The first is that of the anti-romantic realism which has a sharp observation of external social detail. It has human behavior conveyed within tight plot. The second is the modern psychological realism in which the action in typically internal and expressed in associative narrative that is built on epiphanic moments. In consideration of the two sides, Chekhov developed powerful personal styles that presage modernism without losing traditional frills of the form. This essay will discuss the Chekhov's portrayal of women.

Popular descriptions of Alexei Karenin label him as a cold and passionless government official who doesn’t care about his wife or family. Indeed, he is viewed as the awful husband who is holding Anna hostage in a loveless marriage. However, this is a highly exaggerated description, if not completely false, analysis of Karenin. Upon careful analysis of Karenin’s character and his actions, it is clear that he is not the person Anna makes him out to be. In fact, with thorough examination of the passage on pages 384 and 385 of Anna Karenina, it is clear that Alexei Karenin can be considered the hidden tragic hero of the novel.

Sylvia Plath’s husband, Ted Hughes, and Buddy Willard have a lot of similarities. Buddy Willard is a pompous doctor that is somewhat of a love interest to Esther, but Esther dismisses him as a potential mate when she finds out that he isn’t a virgin but acted like he was. She describes him as a hypocrite because he acts pure and perfect but is really not at all. He is kind of the “ideal mate”, being athletic, good-looking, and intelligent. However, Esther sees right through his mask and dislikes his personality.

Mikhail Lermontov’s ‘A Hero of our Time’ is set in the 1840s, a crucial time in Russian history. Pechorin was a revolutionary character in Russian literature due to his cynical and amoral personality that alienates him from all social strata. ‘A Hero of our Time’ generated a large amount of outrage from the public due to Lermontov, claiming Pechorin to be the ‘hero’ of our its time. ’Bela’ is a framed narrative portrayed from the views of an old friend, Maxim Maximych, however, the story told by Maxim Maximych suggests it is an unjust and biased view of our ‘hero’ thus we as readers are to depict the true ‘hero’ Pechorin is. Examining the chapter ‘Bela,’ his actions signify his capability to damage a society, demonstrating him to be the callous and manipulative character he is.

Nihilism in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons has several characters that hold strong views of the world. For example, Pavel believes that Russia needs structure from such things as institution, religion, and class hierarchy. On the other hand, Madame Odintzov views the world as simple so long as she keeps it systematic and free from interference.

The author showed his opinion on the structure of the society, social norms and beliefs. He expressed his disagreement with “The Extraordinary Man Theory”. He told the audience that all people have feelings and emotions and cannot rely only on logic and calculations. People cannot hurt others and go unpunished. The ending of the novel helped to strengthen his ideas and convictions. In the end, everyone in the novel received the deserved punishment assigned either by the law or by fate. Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov realized that their actions were wrong and contradicted to the all social norms. They recognized that they were not extraordinary men. Dostoevsky made this novel very educative and filled with morality. It is great for people of all times and generations. It reveals what is good and wrong; it teaches how to be a