Pechorin going places?

Pechorin is the ‘hero’ in Lermontov’s novel, A Hero in Our Time.  It’s a strange book, a series of small stories set in a shifting time-frame of multiple narratives.  We learn of Pechorin’s exploits from people who knew him and tell tales, and from lengthy excerpts from his journal, found by one of the narrators.  The setting is the Caucasus, an exotic locale where Imperial Russia meets the mysterious Orient, and seeks to subject it to military authority.  Thus, we have a mixture of Romanticism, Realism, and fictional experimentation.

I must confess, after hearing of this book for so long, I was a bit under-whelmed.  Not that I didn’t enjoy it a great deal, but I am a little jaded with the romantic-cynic-rake-Don Juan hero type.  The novelty of the style was refreshing, despite the irritating and deprecatory notes by the translator, V. Nabokov, which I couldn’t keep myself from reading.  There was something about it that was very direct and powerful:  definitely not a ‘typical set piece’ of ‘tales of the people.’

Pechorin is one of a long line of army officer rakes.  Army life, besides the effect of the pool from which it draws its recruits – often the idle sons of the rich and aristocratic – is mostly boring and routine:  the thrill of battle is sharp and infrequent.  What’s a young man to do with his time but gamble, drink, womanize, and, if the spirit is in him, engage in duels and other futile expressions of personal vanity.  Pechorin is unusual for the depth of his alienation from normal life, his lack of empathy, his egoism – perhaps narcissism is a better word – and his commitment to his sensibility.  He’d rather die in a stupid duel than compromise his ideas on life.  He is heedless of morality, lives for the moment, and cares nothing for the consequences of his actions.

Is he a Byronic hero or a ‘superfluous man’?  I tend towards the former in Pechorin’s case, but so what?  Why is a Byronic hero a positive type?  Thus my lack of enthusiasm.  No, I’m not plunking for simple, utilitarian morals and calculation, but after these egoistic, self-absorbed grand characters, Dostoyevsky’s men of humility, humiliation, and spiritual redemption are looking better and better.  On the other hand, the title, ironic as it is, indicates that Lermontov was thinking of a man and his feelings rendered superfluous by society…maybe.

The more I think about this book and the film Going Places, the more I feel that there is a connection.  Is Pechorin the spiritual ancestor of the two hoods in Blier’s film?  That doesn’t reflect badly on Lermontov at all, but it shows what we have come to.  The Byronic hero, rejecting norms, morality, the ‘superman’ has been democratized and completely watered down.  There is no comedy in A Hero; Going Places is actually funny at times, but mostly, it’s one long jeer.  In our modern urban industrial world, everyone is alienated, everyone can be a Pechorin – just take to a selfish life of crime and flick your nose at society.  More than a century of social critique and rising consumerism has reduced Lermontov’s social discomfiture and rebellion to this weak and paltry ‘rebellion’ of the lumpen

Advertisements

3 Responses to Pechorin going places?

  1. I think what I found particularly interesting about Pechorin, and what him more than the stereotype of the bored Byronic hero superior to and disdainful of everything around him, is that, despite his undoubted intelligence, he doesn’t understand himself as well as he thinks he does. He feels he is above everything – above even the emotions that lesser mortals feel: but when he loses Vera, he experiences emotions that he had thought he had been superior to. And he cannot understand this himself – he cannot account for it.

    He seems to me very obviously a predecessor of Turgenev’s Bazarov.

    • Lichanos says:

      …a predecessor of Turgenev’s Bazarov.

      I’m reading a lot about nihilists these days, and I just can’t see this. I guess you mean that Bazarov would never have believed he could be romantically entangled, Other than that, and that’s hardly an unusual situation for a male character, I don’t see much similarity. Pechorin really doesn’t have an idea in his head, and doesn’t want one. He’s pathetically self-unaware, but he isn’t scary, is he? Bazarov is scary, insn’t he?

  2. Grace says:

    I liked the book when I read it, although I didn’t read Nabokov’s translation. It’s been a few years though. I saw Pechorin as more the superfluous man–his adventures and attitude stemmed largely from boredom and from a lack of anything meaningful to do. I do see a connection to Bazarov, although Bazarov took the same feelings and channeled them into science. He seemed to be a bit more positive than Pechorin, and to be at least in some ways beginning to adapt to the future. Oddly enough, I’ve always been rather partial to Bazarov.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: