Critique of Pierre Bezukov

Critique of Pierre Bezukov

Although the replacement of the title Pierre Bezukov for War and Peace could prove successful and more representative of the central spirit of Tolstoy’s tome, the committee’s argument lacks overall cohesion and persuasiveness and thus fails to defend this new title. The thesis of the committee’s essay proposes that the title should be changed to Pierre Bezukov for two reasons: first that Pierre can be considered the principal character of the novel, and secondly that he “embodies and personifies both Tolstoy’s historical and ethical philosophies.” This thesis and the course of the argument fail to explain, however, the connection between these two statements and Pierre’s search for meaning in life as the central theme of the novel. The connection between Tolstoy and Pierre is shaky at best, and the essay fails to demonstrate the source of this connection.

As to the first point in support of changing the title to Pierre Bezukov, that Pierre is the main character of the book, the essay merely states in the introduction that the title of one of Tolstoy’s books should be the main character because of other examples. It fails to defend this method of titling a work, and I am left with the impression that the title should be changed merely for a parallel structure between all of Tolstoy’s writing.

The main defense that I believe the committee needed to make in changing the title of War and Peace to Pierre Bezukov would be to argue for Pierre’s importance among all of the events in the book. Also, the second paragraph introduces the idea that Natasha and Andrew have the potential to be the main character of the book, but fail to do so for various reasons. In a structural move I fail to understand, these reasons are not discussed until the end of the essay and the committee consequently assumes the main tenet of its thesis. Overall, the committee had a good idea for changing the title of War and Peace to Pierre Bezukov, but through structural weakness and a complete lack of cohesiveness in the paper they failed to defend their change.