Critique of "The Man Delusion"

Critique of "The Man Delusion"

This is an excellently written paper with an accurate thesis and a clever title. The striking point of the thesis, that the general force of the novel is this idea of turning away from the self, or realizing the falsity of holding ourselves as idols or heroes, is in my understanding the most narrow yet still comprehensive way of looking at the novel's diverse themes. The title they chose is particularly clever, though of course anachronistic.

I feel that this paper does not contain very terrible flaws; in fact, it is very nice. Nevertheless it does lack some important and necessary aspects of the book which could have been but were not addressed. The themes of Napoleon and Kutuzov were fleshed out very well; those of Pierre and Andrew, however, lacked some important themes. Furthermore, there existed some crucial aspects of the book which were not addressed at all.

The discussion of Andrew glosses over his struggle with death. The horror of impending death, and the pressure this exerted on his thoughts and actions, is a crucial theme of the book which could have been related to their title. As for Pierre, his life did not end after Platon, and it did not end with the main part of the book. He has some development in the first epilogue which is could have been useful to their thesis.

The most crucial error of the paper is: what about Nicholas? What about Mary? Natasha? Vasili? Old Bolkonski? Mary's struggle to balance God and earthly loves continues even beyond the book's last page. Natasha's personal journey is probably the most emotional, and one of the most dynamic; she finds a solution to her difficulties as well. There are themes in War & Peace which, though able to be related, are not covered in this paper. This is an excellent paper, especially given the time and space constraints; but we were asked to critique the paper's argumentative faults, and this argument's problem is its lack of sufficient breadth.

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.

Critique of Finding War in Peace

Critique of Finding War in Peace

Critique of Finding War in Peace: Andrew’s Journey of Introspection

Firstly, I thought that paper focused not on the finding of war in peace, but rather the finding of peace in war. I think that this title implies a different argument than the one that was laid out in the paper.

I thought the paper also didn’t make enough of an effort to explain why war was a necessary occurrence for peace to ensue. They discuss Andrew’s contemplative and transcendental moments that occur during various points in the war, but these passages seemed to make more of a statement concerning Andrew’s character than the necessity of war to bring about such realizations. I think that a compelling argument concerning the necessity of war in human life and in Andrew’s intellectual journey would have been interesting and could have added more merit to the argument that they were trying to convey.

Also, I think that Tolstoy himself would take issue with having a “title character.” One of the main themes of the work is the falsity of the “great man.” I don’t think that makig Andrew a title character is equivalent to making him a great man, but I do think that Tolstoy wanted to stress the impact of everyman on the course of history and human events. By focusing on one particular character this crucial theme is completely ignored.

Critique of Finding War in Peace

Critique of Finding War in Peace

     The thesis of this paper states that War and Peace is the story of individuals finding peace through inner or outer turmoil. This is something I can agree with, and is somewhat similar to what we wrote in our own paper. The problem with the paper is its scope. Using only one character from such a large book is not enough to prove that this theme pervades all the characters.  The paper is also lacking evidence for the fact that Andrew is the best example of the thesis, or why they chose Andrew over other characters for the title role of the book. The analysis is incomplete without more evidence of the theme in other aspects of the book. 

     It would be particularly useful to show examples of inner turmoil in characters that weren't directly involved in the war. These are the characters where the theme is less visible and thus must be illustrated to prove the argument. Starting with Andrew as a clear example is the perfect beginning to proving their thesis, however I am not convinced that all characters, especially Mary and Natasha, went through this change. I would have liked to see how they would have interpreted their situations to prove the thesis.

Critique: The Army is Soldiers

Critique: The Army is Soldiers

First, I must note that the new cover is very well done, very original, so bonus points for that. Right from the get go, I was on board with your ideas. "Renaming the novel The Army Is Soldiers keeps true to Tolstoy's original title and to the main action of the novel while also incorporating what we believe is the central and unifying motif: turning away from the self and finding meaning in others. Tolstoy's original title War and Peace, while incorporating one theme of the book, does not fully attest to this central spirit of the novel. The Army Is Soldiers as a title is both obvious and nuanced, stating that an army is comprised of soldiers, but also reminding the reader that an army is composed of individuals each with experiences and concerns." A point well taken. One must realize that while reading "war and peace" that there is in fact a large group to be focused on, but the individual characters have emotions that seem to take precedent, and show that the individual does go through traumatic situations: In that aspect the title was very witty, and well thought out. The essay itself was also well done. I thought all your main points came together nicely at the end for well written conclusion. I felt that at times you were a bit broad in the description of each characters progression through the novel. That being said, I thought it was great how you sort of created a community to talk about (Pierre, Andrew, Natasha, Nicholas and Mary), but were still able to zero in on details of their character in the book. Well done!

Critique of "The Man Delusion"

Critique of "The Man Delusion"

In their paper, Jim and Emily argue that The Man Delusion is a more effective title for Leo Tolstoy’s opus than the original title, War and Peace. In general, their argument is very well organized and is consistently substantiated with relevant and pithy citations from Tolstoy’s novel. Nevertheless, condensing or perhaps altogether eliminating the first three or four sentences of the paper would make it much more concise and effective as a whole. While this material is by no means irrelevant, it does seem a bit too abstract, does not flow well with what immediately follows it and lacks the clear focus that characterizes the rest of the paper.

Much more importantly, there are a few key flaws with regard to the ideas of the paper that detract from its otherwise well-established thesis. For instance, Jim and Emily contend that The Man Delusion is a more effective title than War and Peace because it encapsulates the themes of Tolstoy’s novel more fully. However, I would argue that while The Man Delusion certainly does encapsulate many of Tolstoy’s themes, it does not necessarily encapsulate his themes more fully than War and Peace. Though it does address Tolstoy’s broader historical themes, it seems to lose sight of the struggles, both internal and external, that are also a very key part of the novel. The Man Delusion’s focus on Tolstoy’s broader historical themes does, by definition, include these struggles in a more limited sense. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to recognize that changing the title from War and Peace to The Man Delusion essentially brings about a shift in the thematic focus of the title rather than a definitive improvement in it. Furthermore, only about half of the paper’s argumentation is focused on the “man delusion” itself. The other half of the paper discusses characters’ varying attempts to lose themselves in the universal and avoid the man delusion. Despite the fact that this theme is discussed quite extensively and seems to be at least as important as the themes represented by the man delusion itself, it is not strongly emphasized by the title that Jim and Emily have chosen.

Analysis of Army is Soldiers

Analysis of Army is Soldiers

My three fine compatriots have made an admirable effort in attempting to rename Tolstoy's War and Peace the new title The Army is Soldiers. This title, however, is ultimately unsatisfying. They suggest in the beginning of their essay that the title must focus on war because war is the focal point of the text. This idea is debatable. Tolstoy's original title acknowledges war as only half of the scope of the text. By focusing on the army and war, my colleagues seem to be ignoring the entirely realm of the epic outside of war. Yes, the war has a great effect on those living in society, but this is merely one external factor in their lives. Surely Pierre, Andrew, and other prominent characters would have many of the same deeper issues if the war was not happening. One could easily argue that this is not a novel about war, but about something greater and more profound than that and that Tolstoy merely employs the war as a tool to get across his greater message. The other main issue is that my colleagues say that the main theme of the novel is the outward turning of the self toward love. I can acknowledge that this is one of the work's main themes (perhaps not THE main theme), but how exactly does this connect to the title. Yes, both have a sense of community and the collective, but why armies exactly. My friends do not seem capable of leaving the motif of war. Isn't Tolstoy's masterpiece about more than a war? It was a valiant effort, but sadly these young scholars have fallen short in their effort to rename War and Peace.

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.

Critique of The Man Delusion

Critique of The Man Delusion

First of all, I would like to commend you on your writing style. This essay is sufficiently clear, and well organized; your thesis is well-supported. However, there are a few questions and recommendations I have regarding your argument. You begin with the premise that “A firm understanding of a book is realized once the analyzer is cognizant that multiple literary components are acting in tandem to produce a more significant meaning,” and then continue on to say that “a well-chosen title will encapsulate the work’s themes” and that Tolstoy’s original title War and Peace fulfills that parameter successfully. But if you make this claim, the argument ends.

It seems to be a retraction to say that the original title addresses some themes but not others. Subsequently, it is not clear to me that you choose the title The Man Delusion because it encapsulates all of the work’s themes and the book as a whole, but rather, this title seems to address the missing themes from the original title you identified previously. Forgive me if I am wrong, but is that not just replacing one insufficient title for another? Or are you saying that there are many elements to this novel, but Tolstoy’s fatalistic concept of history and rejection of the great man trumps them all? The problem I see with this argument is that it fails to defend the preeminence of this theme among the rest.

As for the title itself, wouldn’t it be more advantageous to have entitled the book The Hero Delusion, since the type of man Tolstoy condemns is not the common one, but the great man. I believe it might be a more effective way of getting your point across to readers.

Platon For Title Critique

Platon For Title Critique

The paper's thesis is well supported, that there is a strain of Platon's life throughout the novel, however I agree with Caitlin that Platon's life does not represent the "central spirit" of the novel. I believe the paper does a good job of showing how the model of Platon's life can be seen to be a part of the improvement of the main characters in the novel, however the paper does not convince me that to live as Platon is Tolstoy's overarching message in the novel. The novel certainly does not explain, for instance, Andrew's epiphany, as it were, at his death to be simply a direct result of giving up reason and forsake any attempts to understand, and ultimately accepting something beyond human understanding. Where Platon merely accepts that he cannot understand, the journeys of Pierre, Nicholas and Andrew seem to emphasize the importance of that journey to the end, and suggest that just skipping to the end result leaves the character with an empty and incomplete shell of the potential reward found in that end. Other than that, the paper felt slightly short in terms of explaining the main characters' trials and even Platon's brief existence in the novel.

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.

New Critique of "The Army is Soldiers"

New Critique of "The Army is Soldiers"

Overall, I think that your argument makes several solid points. Military actions do seem to drive much of the plot, and there is certainly a major focus on the communal over the individual throughout the novel. First off, the plot is not entirely, nor even perhaps mostly, driven by war. Much character development takes place wholly removed from a military milieu (i.e. Pierre's iniation with the Freemasons, his freeing his serfs, meeting Platon, etc.). Overlooking this aspect, without at least admitting this fact, detracts from the argument. Furthermore, I am not sure that you adequately prove how Pierre's focus changes from the individual to the community. Certainly you say it happens, but I do not think that you show it. In fact, the quotation that you use to validate your claim stresses that Pierre loves Natasha, who I do not think can be seen as representative of a community as a whole. The Natasha exposition is your strongest argument for this movement from self love to communal love. You demonstrate well how she has moved from infatuation to a deep love of her family and Pierre. One final minor critique is that you discuss religious sentiment throughout your argument, but do not include it in your introduction.

Critique of "Pierre Bezukhov by Leo Tolstoy"

Critique of "Pierre Bezukhov by Leo Tolstoy"

To put it in my own words, Gallic, Gallo, and Novak are arguing three things: first, that Leo Tolstoy intended to write a book centered on his concepts of ethics and the philosophy of history. Second, that these ideas are embodied by a central character whom they argue is none other than Pierre Bezukhov based on his embodiment of the themes of the text, his role in advancing the action of the story, and his prevalence within the novel. And third, that Pierre is also the embodiment of Tolstoy himself within the novel.

Now, from the beginning one of these goals is in error. To suggest that Pierre can be equated with Tolstoy is an argument that can never be absolutely confirmed. It would be better to say that Pierre embodies some of Tolstoy's own ideas, but even then, how can anyone determine where the fictional character ends and the real man begins?

As for the point that Pierre embodies the central theme of the text, there seems to be in confusion about what this theme is. Our authors explicitly write that the theme is "Pierre's search for meaning in life," yet the essay focuses more on his quest for spiritual fulfillment and for happiness than for meaning in life. Which is the real central theme of the text? If the answer is all three, then that is what should have been explicitly stated.

And finally, the essay concludes with points that have completely departed from the introduction and thesis of the paper. While I was impressed with the idea that Tolstoy's intention is to write about his ethical and historical philosophies, which I think may be true, in the beginning of the paper it says that Pierre embodies these ideas and is therefore the central character of the text. Yet, the conclusion says:

Thus the only character in War and Peace that can justifiably be called the main character is Pierre. Pierre is a balance between Andrew's reason and Natasha's passion, using both as a guide to his actions. As the novel progresses, he learns how to use each of the traits at the appropriate moment. Pierre makes many mistakes over the course of the book, but he learns from them and eventually experiences a change within himself and uses this new realization to bring change to Natasha and other characters in the novel. Tolstoy presents Pierre’s struggle and movement toward faith as redemptive and positive. For these reasons, Pierre Bezukhov, and not War and Peace, is the more adequate title for Tolstoy’s novel.

I don't at all see the connection between the original points and the concluding ones. The essay never completes its original argument and instead finishes with an off-topic conclusion.

Sincerely,

F. R. Leavis

Critique of "The Army is Soldiers"

Critique of "The Army is Soldiers"

There are several problems with renaming Tolstoy's masterpiece “The Army is Soldiers.” First, this title suggests an entirely military plot. While the military is an important part, much of the action of this novel takes place in Russian drawing rooms and is centered around intrigue in Russian high society. Also, this title seems to place a stress on the individuality of people (or the army), rather than their communality, and seems to backfire if its chosen purpose was to stress Tolstoy's focus on community. Furthermore, it seems to lack any spiritual aspect, which is a central motif of the book, especially in Pierre's struggle to discover meaning in life. Finally, “The Army is Soldiers” is an aurally awkward sounding title which detracts from Tolstoy's beautifully written prose.