Critique of Pierre Bezukhov

Critique of Pierre Bezukhov

In their paper, Alyssa, Rob, and Tim argues that Pierre Bezukhov is a superior title that should be used to replace the current title of War and Peace. By referencing Tolstoy’s later works like Anna Karenina, they argue that Tolstoy would have been better served by using the name of the main character. In this case, they argue that the premier character of Tolstoy’s work is Pierre as he most closely represents Tolstoy’s ideas in the work and has the most prominent storyline and development. Overall, this paper was grammatically well-written and the thesis, clearly defined. On the other hand, however, this paper suffers from numerous logical leaps that severely weaken the arguments in this paper. Although they make several good arguments for why Pierre Bezukhov should be the title, they also fail to recognize the title’s restrictive quality as well as to completely convince the audience that Pierre is in fact the main character who represents Tolstoy’s.
My first concern was that the logic for Pierre as the main character was incomplete. Alyssa, Rob, and Tim argue that the main character is the primary person in the story and around whom important themes are developed. They argue that Pierre is the primary character because he shares Tolstoy’s ideas. There is a twofold problem with this assertion. First, although Pierre embodies several important themes, he is not the only main character. A novel centers around a specific character, but Tolstoy himself did not see War and Peace as a novel. It is rather a mixture of the novel and the epic. In virtue of the novel also being an epic, it is difficult to pin down the broad themes of the book on one character, for it disregards the experiences and the development of the all the other characters. Although Pierre is a main character, it is difficult to identify him as the main character, as he only inhabits a plurality of the story line rather than a majority.
This being said, I believe that the criteria for dismissing Andrew and Natasha as primary characters are arbitrary and incomplete. Rob, Alyssa, and Tim argue that Pierre most closely embodies Tolstoy’s view because throughout his development, he realizes that often the world is out of one’s own control. One can only focus on one’s individual life, seek love, and understand that only the divine can see the motions of history. Although this is well taken, it seems rather arbitrary to say that Andrew does not qualify as a primary character because he is too reliant on reason and does not develop is affective side. Then, Natasha is dismissed for being too impulsive. Both characters, especially Andrew, encounter significant development. Their dismissal is incomplete.
It was also asserted that Pierre most readily embodies Tolstoy’s philosophy of history because Pierre is guided by fate rather than free will. This, however, is not exclusive to Pierre because the other characters also seem to be the subject of fate as well.
Finally, the structure could have been tighter and more focused. I felt that the argument wandered from the original thesis. Also, the discussion regarding Natasha and Andrew should have occurred at the beginning. They were dismissed as primary characters at the beginning of the paper, and the rationale for their dismissal was reintroduced until the very end. It would have been best if the rationale were introduced at the outset.
Overall, the paper was well-written. Creating a new title for a magnum opus is not a walk in the park.