Critique of "Platón Karatáev as the New Title for War and Peace"

Critique of "Platón Karatáev as the New Title for War and Peace"

In this paper, Stephanie and Mike argue that Platón Karatáev would be a more appropriate title for War and Peace than “war and peace” because Platón Karatáev is essentially the embodiment of the novel’s philosophy. They point out that while major characters such as Andrew, Nicholas and Pierre attempt and fail to reason their way to happiness, Platón Karatáev, a minor character in the novel, leads a happy life precisely because he does not try to use reason. While the philosophy for leading a content life that Tolstoy espouses in War and Peace necessitates a certain mindfulness and acceptance of the world’s chaos, I do not feel that Tolstoy’s goal in writing War and Peace was to encourage his readers to emulate the lifestyle of Platón Karatáev. For this reason, I feel it would be inappropriate to re-title Tolstoy’s work Platón Karatáev.

Andrew, Nicholas, and Pierre’s failed attempts to achieve happiness through reason and conscious action are well outlined in this paper. In particular, the argument pertaining to Nicholas is exceptionally strong. Nicholas is confused and disillusioned by the peace pact the Emperor Alexander makes with Russia’s archenemy, Napolean. Nicholas is unable to accept chaos in a productive way and chooses to drink away his confusion rather than come to the realization that many of the events of the world are inexplicable, illogical and out of his control. In this instance, Nicholas could certainly have used a dose of Platón Karatáev’s life philosophy.

Than again, while Tolstoy seems to agree that all people need to maintain a certain level of detachment from the events of the world in order to be happy people and accept chaos, he does not seem to be stressing that Platón Karatáev’s life philosophy is the entire way or only way a person should live their life. Platón Karatáev is a peasant who is content because he does not think to heavily about things. One could argue that Pierre is the character in War and Peace who relies most heavily upon reason and logic in order to explain the world around him. Platón Karatáev, who hardly ever reasons, appears in the novel for a brief period of time in order to teach Pierre an essential life lesson, but not the only or most important life lesson. I think Tolstoy would be horrified if we all began acting like Platón Karatáev. In allowing Platón Karatáev to influence Pierre, Tolstoy is advocating the necessity for a mindfulness of the inexplicable and the ability to sometimes accept the illogical, but he is certainly not preaching that we all stop using our reason and start telling stupid peasant jokes. Tolstoy has an appreciation for intellectual cultivation and application, but he wants it to be tempered by a certain humility that allows us to accept the unknowable. No where in Steph and Mike’s paper do they make this point, and although I think Platón Karatáev would be a good name for Book Nine of War and Peace, I do not think it would make a suitable alternative title for the book.

Finally, I felt as though some of the lengthy quotes hurt the paper overall. I spent so much time reading the quotes that I lost track of the argument that the quotes were discussing. Outside of that, I thought the structure of the paper was effective.