Category: To Change, or Not to Change

I think An Enemy of the people by Henrik Ibsen was a pretty good book to read. I don’t know why but I love old fashion books, it’s just something about the way they talk, and it makes me think about how things were back then. This story makes mainly makes me think about how no matter what someone goes through they usually fight for the thing they think is right. Dr. Stockmann, throughout the entire book, faced multiple road blocks, and failed multiple times, but he never stopped doing what he thought was right. Kind of near the end though he started to forget what he believed in and he started to get a little bit violent. When he was doing the violent actions near the end and not just leaving and doing what was probably the right choice he stayed for the action and the public war. at the start and middle of the book I loved Dr. Stockmann and what he fought for but near the end of the book he started making all bad decisions so my thoughts for him could go either way. Just like stated, near the end of the book he starts making bad decisions by staying in his hometown and fighting the public in a battle he can’t win. Near the end though at least from what I saw, it seemed that some people that were against him, had a change of heart and was on Dr. S’s side, like Hovestad, Aslasken, and Morten Kiil, and it surprised me to see Morten Kiil change, I kept thinking “is he faking?”. To finish this off, it really made me think about how, even if everyone is against you, you have to fight for what you believe in. And just like in previous books, and maybe in real life too, the worst people you know, and the ones you wouldn’t expect to change for the better, could change.

 

I feel that I didn’t like most of the characters, the only one I liked was the Major. He is the only character that I don’t feel is hypocritical, he may be a bad person but he is someone who shows his intentions. Thomas Stockmann is a reckless person who doesn’t have a good objective, he is a person who doesn’t think about his own, he doesn’t think about his family. Hovstad and Aslaksen are extremely hypocritical people who only follow people and are never the leaders. I feel that I didn’t like the plot, we went from two brothers fighting over a bath and then one of them wanting to be a teacher, it’s a story because it could happen, but it is not likely to happen. The setting was in a small town in Norway before the 2000s, in some places it was at the home of the characters, like at Dr. Stockmann’s home, at his studio, and at Captain’s Horsters home. The language is a formal one from the past years that uses too many metaphors, some of them are difficult to understand and that’s why I have to read it twice. I don’t like this language because it is complicated and being a student whose my second language is English it makes it much more difficult to understand it. Some image that were imagined for me was the physique of Peter Stockmann, I imagine him as a slim and imposing man, who has a rather distinguished mustache, he is always dressed in a suit. Another one that intrigued me a lot was Thomas Stockmann’s physique as I feel that he must look like his brother but they are completely different in physique because their personalities are not similar. I also imagine how nice the town in Norway must be as they say it is beautiful, I imagine it is a little old but nice. I feel that the story can be similar to real life because the story talks about how there will always be people with much more power who will manage to manipulate and abuse their power. That there are going to be people who are just going to be followers of the wrong and corrupt one. In life, there will be people who want to improve and make this world a better place but they can’t rise above the people with power because they simply won’t succeed they would lose more than they gain by trying to do good for a cause. I feel that I am a combination of Peter and Thomas. Peter because I am a person who thinks about his family, and has priority in it, but I am not a selfish person and I question moral decisions. I am similar to Thomas in the sense that I always seek to tell the truth and be straightforward with people, sometimes I am a reckless person but I am not self-centered in the fact that I know that we are all alike.

As a reader, An Enemy of the People was quite an interesting book, with an intriguing storyline. The story shows how people can change simply from fear of not fitting in, as it was shown countless times between multiple characters. If the majority was leaning one direction, everyone would move that direction, regardless of their true opinion. For my remarks about Dr. Stockmann, I think that he stood out from the rest of the characters in the book. Him and Mrs. Stockmann were the only individuals in the entire town that stood by the truth. Despite the distinct possibility that he wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the town, he still spoke the truth. Even after he lost everything, including his occupation, he still didn’t budge. To me, this shows a unique level of bravery that most are too afraid to express. I think that he was quite an honest character, as he always said what he thought with no fear. When the conduits were discovered to be unsanitary, Hovstad and Aslaksen were both in Dr. Stockmann’s favour of the truth. As soon as they were faced with the chance that they could lose everything, they all of a sudden switched sides to simply please Peter Stockmann, the mayor. Even once Hovstad and Aslaksen backed away, Dr. Stockmann showed perserverance and determination to speak the truth, and do what was right for the community. Which even for Hovstad and Aslaksen, I can’t even blame them. I would never risk throwing my life away, even if it meant the truth, and this is why I found Dr. Stockmann to be such an interesting character in the book. Even after the accusations, branding, violence, and dismissal of his job, he still stood strong with the truth, and I respect that he was one of the few to stand away from the compact majority to do what was right. For the setting of the story, I found the environment described through what happened to be almost like a dictatorship. When Dr. Stockmann spoke out about the truth, he was simply put down and shunned because of Peter Stockmann’s selfishness. This showed that the community really had no freedom of speech, and Peter Stockmann just portrayed it that way, and it really reminds me of a dictatorship. It sounds scary that one could not express an opinion for the health and well-being of the community without having their life ripped into pieces, all because of financial reasons. Of course, if Peter had publicly announced that Dr. Stockmann’s observation of the filthy conduits was true, he would be under obligation to replace them immediately. If he would not replace them after the announcement, people would point fingers at the mayor. He decided the easiest way to pass on the blame was to dismiss the claim, and make Dr. Stockmann sound crazy. And it worked, everyone was too scared of speaking the truth, and Dr. Stockmann stood alone, as he was branded, which refers back to my point of a dictatorship. In conclusion, An Enemy of the People was an eventful, surprising, and well-written piece. It was very compelling to show how leadership and fear can brainwash everyone.

“Enemy of the People” is play written by Henrik Ibsen in 1882 that talks about  corruption and fight for truth. The story takes place in a small town where the protagonist, Dr.Stockmann, discovers that the Baths of the town, which are the main public attraction; are contaminated. As telling the people about it would put people in a terrible danger, he had to make an important decision; he had to chose whether or not to reach to authorities or not. The play talks about the conflict between truth an self-interest, as well as corruption and manipulation in society. though this story, Ibsen rises important questions about morality and individual responsibility in the fight for justicie.{]]

 

The book “An Enemy of the People” was written as a play mainly about the contaminated water in the Baths and Dr. Thomas Stockmann. I had never read a book that was written as a play before, but I enjoyed some parts of it. I found that there was a lot of information at once, and their vocabulary was different then how someone would speak now. I had to read some sections twice to fully understand what was happening but once I started to get further into the book, I started to read and a quicker pace. It wasn’t until later in the book when the enemy came into perspective, which was Dr. Stockmann. During the meeting in act IV, I found that it started getting very fast paced for me. There was a lot of different vocabulary than I was used to and a lot of information in a small amount of text. I feel like the story ended suddenly. I felt like I missed something when Dr. Stockmann announced he was going to teach Morten and Eilif himself. It didn’t seem to slow down until the last three sentences. The book for me felt different to read then I’m used to but I enjoyed reading most of it.

Enemy of the People is an interesting book, but i have to say it was quite fast paced. The books i usually read are around 200-300 pages, maybe even more, and overall it was kind of boring. The story’s main problem was set around a town issue that could probably have been avoided or altered in several ways. Maybe it is because it’s simply not my type of book, but the thought of such a small political issue (in terms of others) being told as such a big disaster is downright… bad. I mean i have read two sentence horror stories that had a bigger affect and better plotline then this 82 paged book. The old way of speaking was such a hassle to understand and i had to look up the meaning of words over and over again, i also just thought it could have been better structured. I know it is an old book that was also translated from a different language, but i honestly think having a bunch of 14 year old’s read about something they genuinely have a hard time understanding is sort of ridiculous. The open ending was cool and all but the obvious disaster i noticed was when Dr. Stockmann told his kids that he would raise them to be smart and good men, then proceeded to say he would open a school is troublesome, because not only do we know most people in the town hate Dr. Stockmann now, but we also know him, his daughter and friend got fired because of his shenanigans. This raises the question: “how will they make a school if no one has a job to get money to make or even FUND that school???”. I also think the kids should NOT need to follow in Dr.Stockmanns path and do stuff for him, because if he has a problem he should solve it himself, and it’s obvious the boys are nervous about it too. Overall i think this book was unamusing and didn’t make much sense both story wise and just how it is held up. It obviously raises more questions then answers.

This book offered fresh perspectives and new insights into the workings of small towns. I was certain that Peter Stockmann was the “enemy” of the people, and I’m sure many agree, though that was only because we knew the information; the residents of the town were not made aware that there was a real issue and were instead led to believe that this was all nonsense. Before the meeting between Dr. Stockmann and the town’s residents, they had already formed an impression of him after learning through the people’s messenger that Dr. Stockmann’s report was full of nonsense. When the conference came to a conclusion, he was seen as an “enemy of the people” since he was unable to persuade them that it was for their benefit rather than to destroy the town. The entire book is filled with chaotic situations, and with so many switches turning on and off at the same time that everything seems to be going well, it was challenging to keep track of everything, but that’s exactly what made the play entertaining—making you want to flip to the next page as soon as you finish the previous one.

An Enemy of the People is a very interesting political piece. Throughout the story, there seems to be a preference towards sudden change within characters, as opposed to gradual, multifaceted change. What I personally found most interesting was the utterly baffling change in heart Dr. Stockmann had near the end of the story. From the beginning, the Dr. was very interested in spreading values to help the common people, or “compact majority”. After he is opposed, harassed, and threatened by the same populous he sought out to help, something snaps in his mind, and his values completely shift. “Dr. Stockmann: ‘The majority never has right on it’s side!'” pg. 59, line 5. Whether warranted or not, this change created quite a bit more intrigue and dimension in the story, as he begins despising the populous, and saying that the only people with true liberal values are those richer and more educated than the general population. After the climax of the story (in which Dr. Stockmann is proposed an enemy of the people), the aftermath leaves him even more changed. For example, he threatens Hovstad and Aslaksen after they show up in his home and tries to push them out of the window with an umbrella. However, despite all of this, his family is happy with him and begin to support him even more. I found this play to be very unconventional in a political sense, as the belief that the only people with left-wing/liberal values are those that are rich seems a bit redundant, however, the unconventional politics were probably just a product of the time it was written. Nonetheless, this was an incredibly interesting play that kept me intrigued until the very last page.

The play An Enemy of The People by Henrik Ibsen is a unique and unconventional insight into political matters such as the rights of the compact majority. Instead of being a lighthearted play as many were at the time, it forces on Doctor Thomas Stockmann, a captivating and direct medical officer who finds the prize possession of his hometown has been contaminated by an animal tannery. Throughout reading this play, I began to question democracy and how most governments are run present day. As demonstrated myriad of times, following Doctor Stockmann’s discovery the compact majority rather than disagreeing openly with what is spread through the town, choose to oblige with whatever is agreed upon in fear of punishment. This more than ever before, is relevant to our global status in the invention of phones and other technology which has stripped mankind of our individuality. An Enemy of the People, therefore, serves as a cautionary tale that will be cherished by future generations, just as it has been by previous ones before it.

One of the things the book master and man makes me think about is how sometimes someone in a lower position can be smarter than someone in a higher position. This is significant because it means that the social hierarchy can be wrong and contributes greatly to many other things. Another thing the book Master and Man makes me think about is what makes a servant a servant and what makes a master a master and why.

‘Master and Man’ was a boring story for me, it wouldn’t be a book I would pick willingly. Tolstoy made a really good story and plot. I feel as though as both of the MC’s should’ve died, it definitely would’ve made an interesting story. Vasili was selfish throughout the entire book while Nikita the complete opposite, he didn’t even think of himself while he was dying. Vasili was obsessed with money, I still can’t believe he tried to work on Christmas holiday! My feelings through-out the book stay the same, bored, expected, and ‘oh wow’; I did feel a bit more when the horse died, I wanted to shed a tear.

The ending was soooooo “A Christmas Carol” coded, Vasili reminds me of Scrooge. I didn’t really like the ending, it was kinda ‘oh wow… expected.’, I was just really uninterested in this book overall.

This story strikes me as more unrealistic, the way Nikita is like a ‘saint’ and Vasili is so money-hungry. The title of the story totally threw me off when I found out it was more ‘Nikita and Vasili as man and God as master’.

There is a scene in this article that impressed me very much. The owner and a derelict worker were trapped in the snow and lost in the wilderness on a snowy night. After a long period of hard work, we were tired and exhausted, so we finally decided to stop for the night and wait for dawn. The hired worker Nikita comforted the yellow zebra (Mukhorty) with words, but the yellow zebra did not calm down due to Nikita’s words. “It was nervous, switching its hooves, and squeezed the sled. , turned around so that his butt was facing the wind, and rubbed his head on Nikita’s sleeve. ” In this novella titled “Master and Man”, Tolstoy applies his good psychological description to a horse, which undoubtedly better exaggerates the dangerous and tense atmosphere at that time. This paragraph also The part that impressed me the most.

Especially the way he writes when encountering danger makes me feel immersed in the situation when I read it. In the end, although the protagonist of the story did not change his life much, he was also very cheerful and thought about many things and reconciled with his wife. I think This is the best ending. I also feel that this article is more like a fable. Every difficulty encountered in the article tells us a different truth.

Ever since I finished the book, I was pretty devastated that Vasili froze to death. He was more on the antagonist side, challenging the route by rushing. (When I was growing up, I was always taught that balance is key to success, as disbalance may lead to major problems) I am a very sensitive person, so reading or even seeing a person die (yet alone experience it (be it in a movie, book, or real life)) will kind of cause grief, especially if I connected with the characters and lore of the story. If they were more thoughtful, or thought about the whole situation twice, they would have made the choice of staying the night.

Furthermore, I got really attached to the horse, as throughout the whole book it is used in ways that are sad (for example, I think that riding or using a horse for labour is torture, that was why we developed the Sterling engine, Diesel engine, and electric engines as well as turbines to improve transportation and labour. Nowadays especially, horses are used for rides; be it in a Club or in Downtown near the Legislative building.) Nikita and Mukhorty bonded very well in the story, and it was very significant to me that their connection was so superior.

I know that the two established a big relationships because when Vasili tries to save himself, the horse, despite Vasili’s efforts, decides not to leave Nikita, as he, the horse’s whole life, taken care of it.

The story reminds me of a quote I heard from when I was little: “Don’t Underestimate Nature, or else the price you will pay is drastical.”

I can relate this story to a real life incident which has occured in open waters:

In 2013, a man by the name of Harrison Ockene and his crew sunk down to a depth of 30 metres, near the cost of Nigeria. After 3 days, when he along with his 11 crew members were thought to be dead, a crew of divers were sent to retrieve the bodies of the passed, however, when they were swimming by the kitchen, a hand stuck out and grabbed them. Turns out, this 29 year old survived using only an air bubble and Coca cola.

This story has shaken me, and what’s even crazier is the man himself swore that he would never come near to open water ever again.

Master and Man, by Leo Tolstoy.

This story of the two characters, Master; Vasili, and Man; Nikita. In this story it’s a tale between these two characters that slowly over time become more than just Master and Man. At the beginning you find that Nikita is a character with one weak trait that slowly contains who he is as a person, and you begin to lose sympathy points for his ways of being. Vasili is a very uptight character who cares about himself, and money. My first impression of the book was that Master was Vasili and Man was Nikita but near the end Vasili changes his ways of being and cares for another being, which makes you rethink his actions before where you find that his traits weren’t as bad, he just had nothing to really care for. Nikita was a character who never cared for himself and too much for the unimportant.  Vasili always cared deeply for those around it just was never portrayed in his character. At the end when Vasili risks himself for Nikita and prays to god for the chance of saving Nikita and for forgiveness of the wrongs he’s done within his life, the title “Master and Man” loses meaning from what it once was and becomes Master meaning; God Himself, and Vasili being “Man.” When Vasili changes his ways and saves Nikita you almost lose all meaning of the whole story, you think; “Thats not Vasili. What’s the catch?” And you look back and realize he was never a horrible human he just wanted to have it all, which deep down is the most humane trait in society, is to be the “Master.” Which makes me feel more for Vasili in the whole story compared to Nikita. Nikita was so selfless, you lose all sympathy for him and his character. The ending of the story made me have hope for the worst in people, even in real life I believe in change. This story just goes to show that the character you root for in the beginning you won’t always root for, and the character you had hoped to be removed, you wish had stayed. I do not believe that the story is too realistic but, the characters and the incidents of alcohol and abuse is very real. The way the characters are represent life as a whole and they just went all in with who they were and how they wanted to be seen by the reader. Over all I would recommend this story to someone who can hold out till the end.

Throughout the story “Master and Man” by Leo Tolstoy,  it made me think about many things and reflect. First of all, the story talks about a relationship between a master and a worker, which made me think about how they relate and contrast in many ways. Also, the different perspective of the world that each of them has, and the different reactions for different things. The story made me reflect about how we do need people who serve and not only rich people because if there was only rich poeople in the world, who would do the works that no one else wants to? and poor people would not do those works if they didn’t have to. This thoughts made me feel intrigated by all things we don’t normally think about and how things we think should be solved are actually necessary. The story in general almost always made me feel reflective because the author’s meaning can be different from how the readers interpret it. The book emphasised a lot the thoughts of the characters, and this could be because the author wanted to compare and contrast the thoughts of both of them and let the readers see how one of them for example thinks about his family when he thinks he is going to die, and how the other one only thinks about his money and doesn’t even care about his family. At the end, when Vasili sacrifices for Nikita, the change the character shows in that moment is an example of how someone can be completely different when other people’s life is in their hands, or in life-death situations in general. By doing this, the author maybe wanted to show the evolution of Vasili’s character and how at the end of the day, we can all change. He could have meant other things that I dont understand, but I feel that the message of this story is personal and different for everybody.

 

 

What does this story makes you think about? I think is very intresting how Vasili change a lot in a very short time, I mean, all the story his been a very egoist and rude with other people, is it possible to change in such a short time? I don´t think so… . Maybe he realized what he had done all his life and through that the “Master” (God) was going to punish him when he died so he decided to give his life for other person to compensate for his actions, giving me to understand that he did it thinking about himself again , or he just become a good person out of nothing?. I don´t like Vasili but I don´t like Nikita to because the story and the narrative shoes him as a very good person , the opposite of Vasili. Nikita is not a very good person either, he also did bad things like hitting his wife, in the past he was an alcoholic, he worries about his family and gets depressed because of the person he is, minimizing himself in front of others (with Vasili) and does nothing about it. Regarding this, at least Vasili supports his family and does something for his son and wife, not Nikita , he just says and thinks things but he dosen´t solve anything , he dosen´t even try.

But that is only my opinion.

To start off, Master and Man as a story had mixed emotions for me. It started off pretty tame, for the first 5-10 pages, and to be honest, I wasn’t very engaged in the story near the beginning as it just outlined Vasili’s and Nikita’s personal lives.

As it progressed, the story became more interesting and tense as Vasili and Nikita embarked into the snowstorm. To me, Vasili Andreevich was a selfish character for most of the story. He only cared about money, used Nikita as well as not paying him what he was worth, and along with this, he portrayed himself as a kind, generous being. The ‘payment’ that Vasili would provide was almost all goods from his own store, and at high prices. However, it threw me off near the end of the story when he sacrificed his life for Nikita, as he never seemed like that type of person during the other parts of the story. Along with this, Vasili never showed intentions of saving Nikita, as he even mentioned how he would take the fall if Nikita returned deceased. This begs the question; did Vasili change, or not change? Was he rather sacrifice his life because he wouldn’t have buisness upon his return because Nikita died? In my opinion, I think that Vasili would actually do this. All he cared about was money, and if there was no more money to be made, why bother? It might’ve seemed pointless to Vasili to stay alive if he was poorly looked upon and suddenly poor.

Contrary to what one may think, the story seemed realistic. This very well could’ve happened in real life, and it may have just gone undocumented. As for Nikita, I looked upon him as a very selfless character, completely opposite to Vasili! When him and Vasili are stuck in the snowdrift, Nikita doesn’t think about himself once, and he almost shows no survival instinct, which is quite odd to me. The bond between these two characters during the story works almost because of their traits that are completely opposite to each other. Both of them worked well together as they fulfilled each others greatest wants; Vasili’s want being money and wealth, and Nikita’s want to provide for everyone else but himself. Nikita demonstrates he selflessness many times in the story, but the most significant time for me was when he noticed that Vasili stopped breathing whilst laying on Nikita in the sledge when Nikita says “He must have died! May the kingdom of heaven be his!” The setting of the story really interested me, as it isn’t a world I’ve lived in, but rather a world that I’ve experienced, and the setting does seem appealing to me.

In conclusion, Master and Man was an engaging, well-written, and surprising piece of writing. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Master and Man

This story makes me think about different points of view in a story and how different people see the world differently like Nikita and Vasili which are two very different characters with different perspectives, thoughts and beliefs which makes us see the story in two different points of view or different ways this story also makes me feel thankful for life and teaches us to appreciate every day and be thankful for what we have, the end of this story made me rethink about who was the master and who was the man in the story at first I thought the master was Vasili and the man Nikita but as the story goes by u start thinking about how the Master is god and the man is Vasili, the end of the story also strikes when Vasili died and Nikita didn’t so we see how Nikita was always grateful and the world paid off his kindness, that doesn’t make Vasilis death right but I think Nikita deserved more to live because he was nice, kind and grateful . I personally liked this story and how it makes us think about death and how we should be kind in life, I think this story is a fable since at the end of a story fables are supposed to teach us a lesson and in this story at the end it teaches us about death and how we should appreciate life since we do not know how long we are going to be here.

Master & man was a good but somewhat boring story, at first I was a little entertained but as it progressed I got more and more bored, in general I was not bad but not entertaining and that made me get tired of reading it and the language of the story was sometimes difficult to understand as it had co old-fashioned words.

From the beginning I hated Vasili, is a selfish, egoist and aggressive person, but Nikita from the beginning I liked him very well he is respectful and sympathetic even though he had problems with alcohol managed to leave him and that makes me see that he is a strong and determined person, i liked the ending of the story because it was not an ending where everyone survived and that made it realistic, i think that the kind action that Vasili did at the end does not make him change as a person, he is not going to become a better person from one second to the next i feel that he knew he was a bad person and he enjoyed it but deep down he had guilt and since he knew he was going to die he decided that his last action would be kind so that he would not end up being a bad person, I feel like that doesn’t work and that he didn’t really change, he just knew he was going to die anyway.

This story is a realistic story because these are things that could happen even though only dumb people would make many of the actions made in the story it could happen in real life, Vasili reminds me of many people nowadays, selfish and only looking out for themselves, they only care about money and do whatever it takes to have it but when it suits them they change just for an instant.

in conclusions the story is not so bad but I would not read it again and I would not recommend it to friends or family.

 

Personal Response—Master and Man by Leo Tolstoy

In my point of view, the best character was Vasili, although he was the bad guy in the story he had a good development because we saw how he treated Nikita, we saw how he really was as a person, how the little details made him; his wife was irrelevant to him because we don’t even know her name, also how at the beginning he was always thinking about business and at one point he started to think it was his fault that they where on the snow storm and tried to think about him again but he couldn’t. It is a character that the small details give us an idea of what he is like and what he is capable of doing because of his selfishness. Nikita is a good character but nevertheless, he stresses me out too much, because he lets himself be treated badly by Vasili and thinks that Vasili is making him any good. He is always on his own world and has no direction in life, no goal, not even his family, Vasili knew where he wanted to go but he didn’t. Besides he is very naive and never thinks about himself and what his actions can lead to. I understand that people should not be selfish but they should think about themselves also.

I didn’t like the story because I felt it was moving too slowly. In the end I liked it because at last there was some action, in the previous chapters it was always the same, Vasili was selfish, worried about money and treated Nikita badly and Nikita left that attitude to him because he was a very blind person. The story is not realistic at all because a person can’t change from one moment to another, also a person can’t be so unintelligent not to feel hate for someone who did you a lot of harm, almost letting you die.

The ending was a little bit strange because the bad guy became good, but sometimes it made me doubt if Vasili was going to change. I liked that they added Nikita’s faith, this gave us an idea of what was kind of his goal of life, and who was really his Chief Master. I would have liked to know a little more about his life after Vasili’s death and what changed in him, a little bit of after story and was aspects changed in his personal life, like little bit more of context. I didn’t like the language at all because it was difficult to understand, and since English is my second language, it is quite difficult to understand reading with that weird formal language.

One of the most shocking images for me was how I imagined that the two of them were super bad from hypothermia and that Nikita was about to die. Also Vasili hugged him and waited for himself to die to save hugging his friend. I was also very intrigued by Nikita’s physique, I imagined him as a tall person but with a warm and beautiful smile, someone fat but strong, always wearing the same clothes, I amigined Vasili as a skinny and verb tall person, he never had a smile and wore expensive clothing.

I liked the structure because it was given in chronological order, there were no big time jumps and it was quite well organized.

One of the connections that I feel are left in the world is how there are bad people who don’t care about all the bad they can do, I feel that we also live in a world where power matters a lot in how you treat people; people are corrupted by money and think that you don’t matter for the social and economic status. Also conniving people know with whom it is convenient for them to deal badly and well without treating all people with respect. Nikita’s character is very unrealistic to me because he’s so good and there aren’t many of those people in the world anymore. Also, there are no people who don’t know the dangers that are out there.

One connection with the characters that I see myself in is that Vasili is not a hypocrite, he could be the worst person that you are going to know but is going to show himself of how he really is. Also Nikita is a person who doesn’t like seeing people suffer even when I don’t like that person I don’t like seeing them suffer.

 

Master and Man was a book written by Leo Tolstoy. When the teacher told us that we had to read a book and that book was Master and Man, I didn’t like the idea very much, the truth is that the book didn’t sound, but almost reaching the end and the end of the story I liked it a lot.

For me, the character that I liked the most and that caught my attention the most was Nikita because despite everything that Vasili did to him, he continued to believe in him or not, but he continued with him and cares about other people before him and that is what I liked most about him as a person.

For me, this story makes me think a lot about how people can change, like Vasili, of course the situation has a lot to do with it, but for me it makes me believe that there are people who can change. And that makes me feel happy but sad at the same time, happy because I know that there are people who can change, sad because Vasili and the horse died.

I think that the end of the story was something that impacted me the most, one why Vasili sacrifices himself for Nikita, how people can change to a certain extent, I would not be able to tell you if the meaning of the title changes much but I think so, from the point that someone who was interested went on to sacrifice his life for someone else and the truth is that I was very impressed by the ending.

For me it is realistic but in certain aspects there are things that do not add up 100% but there are also many things that are very realistic from my point of view from my life experiences but it is also valid that many people think that it is not but for me it is realistic.

Master and Man was a book written by Leo Tolstoy. At the start of this book it kind of bored me, but as I reached the end I liked it more and more.

I loved Nikita in this story because he was great to everyone but himself, he was “selfless” and it made him such a likeable character. Surprisingly, Vasili was probably my favorite character in the book because I knew that the writer was trying to make him the worst character and then give him a huge redemption ark, even though at the start, some people might say they hate Vasili but for some reason I liked who he was and how he acted and one thing that really made me like him is how determined he is. He went through so much just to try and close a deal and he even went all the way to heaven for someone he showed no care for.

This Story made me think about how it was like in the early times for some people and it gives me an idea of how they might have talked old fashion. This book was basically all about how people change. For instance, the way how Vasili Andreevich changed also made me think about how even the people you would expect least to change, can change for the better. When I saw how Vasili sacrificed himself, a rich person, for a peasant, a guy with a not so great life, it made me feel confused, sad and happy. It made me feel confused cause out of everyone that would have sacrificed themselves Vasili was the last person I would’ve thought to because he only really cares about money. I was sad because even though he was a bad person I liked Vasili because when he was going to sacrifice himself, the way he talked was like he was happy he was going to die for someone that didn’t have a great life as him, to show how much he cared for Nikita. And lastly I was happy because he almost never prays but seeing him pray made me hope that after all the good he’s done he will go to heaven. I also think the reason he sacrificed himself for Nikita is because Nikita was a great person to everyone and Vasili probably wanted to return the favor.

The only unrealistic part of this story, was the intense amount of snow and weather. It might actually be like that some places but not anywhere that I’ve been so it doesn’t seem very normal to me.

The ending made me change my thinking of the title too, because at the start you think it would be like master and peasant, but as you get to the end you start to think as if it could be God and men (Vasili & Nikita).

The story “Master and Man”, written by Leo Tolstoy, makes me think about how different it was in the early days (1895) compared to nowadays. It makes me feel thankful for what we have now. Especially when Vasili and Nikita are riding on the sledge with the ice-cold air constantly blowing on their faces and their limbs numb. Now we don’t need to worry about that because of our recent inventions.  At the end of the story, after the pheasants dug them out of the snow, Nikita is the only one that lived, thanks to Vasili, and he had to go to the hospital for two months.

I think the end of “Master and Man” changes the meaning of the title, even though the story still addresses Vasili as Nikita’s “dead master”.  I think this because of the situation they were in could have changed the way Vasili thinks. The amount of time that they both spent in thought in an environment where they both think they are going to die. Vasili had time to think about what he should do. His attempt to find a nearby village only lead him back to the sledge with Nikita. I think once he got back and saw how Nikita was nearly dead made him think fast. He could have been giving his life to save Nikita’s because Vasili may have thought he had more to live for, and at the very end of the story, Nikita changes as well by asking for forgiveness from his wife and taking leave of his son and daughter-in-law.

Overall, I enjoyed reading “Master and Man” and having class discussions about each section which helped clear any confusing parts or moments up.

As I first started flipping through the pages of Master and Man, I felt a sense of confusion and wonder by the overall speech and descriptive wording used by Leo Tolstoy. However, as I started reaching the end of this inventive fable my mind and perspective changed drastically. This sense of mystery Leo Tolstoy gave me no longer stayed; it was as if Leo Tolstoy himself was speaking directly to me as he would to an old wise friend.  

Puzzling, one of the countless different words I would have used to describe how it felt reading Master and Man. At first, I hated the fact we were reading a translated book. It was extremely old for my taste and the bulk of my class could not even pronounce the year it was published in. The wording particularly provoked me to feel this type of way. Nonetheless, there was one thing that changed my point of view completely in one swift motion. That being the death and or end of the “master” and ”man”, I had been reading so much about.  

The “master” at first is portrayed as Vasili Andreevich, a rich and greedy merchant who cares for only his riches. Despite that, later it is significantly implied Vasili Andreevich has never been the “master” at all, yet God himself has always been. Who is consistently portrayed as being quite the opposite of Vasili Andreevich. Yet, the “man” in this story has always been portrayed as being Nikita, one of multiple servants who works for Vasili. 

The ending starts when the first original “master” comes to think of his soon-to-be death. He tries with all his might to think of any feasible way to change the situation he put himself in, going as far as to leave the one companion his wife forced him to bring. These pages were horrific for me to read, I had never once read such a deliberately dreadful character in my life. From the very first to the very last page of Master and Man, I had come to love both Vasili and Nikita with all their faults. Hence, I could have never prepared myself for Vasili’s wrongdoing or moreover Nikita’s wrongful belief. Instead of despising Vasili because of his actions, Nikita comes to reason and agrees with them. This infuriated me, and at first, made me think Nikita was dumb-witted. Regardless, I tried to organize my thinking and comprehend what Leo Tolstoy was trying to convey. Despite the countless hours Nikita had been mistreated by Vasili and the world around him, Nikita tried to seek refuge from his true ”master” whom was God and tried to understand Vasili. The same way I was trying to understand Master and Man. 

In defiance of their social divisiveness and Vasili’s sinful behavior, Nikita stays true to his generous nature and never changes. From one perspective, Vasili is a perfect example of a character who needs to change for the betterment of the people around him. However, Nikita is an example of a character who should not change despite the people who surround him. This begs the question of whether to change or not to change? Thus, the same question that defines the peculiar message Leo Tolstoy wanted to convey throughout this whole story. This ending without knowing saved this fable for me, and I appreciate how it is written with all its mysterious twists and turns. 

Master and Man is seemingly designed to illicit a strong response. Every point in the story is very potent, especially the end, and they all make you ask many questions. As the story progresses, I would like to shed some light on two main elements make themselves very evident. The two main elements I would like to shed some light on are the theme of peasant vs. master and the way the ending of the story completely changes that theme.

The strongest element in this story is the concept of differences and injustices between peasants and the wealthy. While Vasili cheats Nikita out of his money, Nikita is moral, honest, and works hard, even though his wages don’t even go to him. It’s Vasili’s greed that pushes the story forward: From the loathing we feel for his dishonest practices in the beginning, to the sudden, radical change we see in his mannerisms. On the side of Nikita, he is complacent with all of the horrible decisions Vasili makes, and feels sorry for him when he meets his doom, even though he had cheated Nikita for years.

But what if the theme was not differences between the poor and the rich? What if the theme was humans and God? After all, nearing the end of the story, God is referred to as the Great Master. Thinking this way, we could reason that the story is about humans and God, and the characters’ relationship with religion. Maybe Vasili’s sudden change in heart was by the will of God, or maybe his faith was restored, or maybe, while watching Nikita freeze to death, he found some decency buried deep in his soul.

Throughout the story, throughout all of the emotions it evokes, and everything that is up for interpretation, there are two element’s I’m sure of: the theme of the poor and the rich, and how the ending completely changes that theme into god and man. Although I am sure of these elements, they may not be part of the story, and we will never know if they are, or if Leo Tolstoy even intended to look into the story this way. Even though we will never know what Leo Tolstoy intended for the story, we can still appreciate his storytelling prowess, and wonder what his intentions were.

The story: “Master & Man”  by Leo Tolstoy, Is a short story, which I believe to be written extremely well, for the short, 48 pages the book has. The plot of the story seems extremely realistic, and its almost like the author watched something happen, and created an extremely accurate depiction, even though the story is fictional. The way that Leo Tolstoy builds suspense, or creates emotion in his writing is done very well, and it differs from a lot of books that are out there. Instead of going overboard with suspense, or level of emotion, Leo Tolstoy goes for a much more accurate depiction of it. Leo Tolstoy perfectly depicts the thoughts that would be going through the average persons head when they are in a scenario that is life-threatening. He makes the characters be frantically thinking for the first part of the situation, but as the situation gets worse, and they realize that there is nothing they can do, their thoughts get more calm. This is shown during the time Vasili and Nikita are stuck in the snow.

The ending of the story particularly stood out to me. Vasili is a character known for his selfishness, he rarely tries to help others, but, at the ending of the story, Vasili sacrifices his life in order to save Nikita. I think that the message Leo Tolstoy was trying to convey was: “Anyone can change if put in a certain situation”.

Adding on to Vasili being known as selfish, he is also very greedy, which gives the reader a bad impression about Vasili. Nikita, is quite the opposite. Nikita is not greedy, which makes sense for the circumstances he is placed in. Nikita, being a poor person, naturally cant be greedy, as he has lived his whole life without knowing what it’s like to have a lot of money. Even though Nikita isn’t greedy, it doesn’t mean he is 100% nice. also has a very important negative quality: his alchoholism. His alchoholism makes his wife afraid of him, and when he is drunk, he will sell his clothes for alchohol. The reason that these character traits are important, is because it shows how Leo Tolstoy is skilled in character creation. Leo Tolstoy made it easy to feel empathy for Nikita, because of the situation he is in, but he also made it possible for the readers to dislike him because of his alchoholism.

The Author, Leo Tolstoy also shows his superb writing skills in just the title, “Master & Man”. During the beginning of the story, we automatically assume that Vasili is the “Master”, and Nikita is the “Man”, but towards the end of the short story, Nikita refers to God as the “Chief Master”, which makes the reader contemplate if Vasili is really the “Master”, or if God is the “Master”. This is a good technique that writers use, where the author lets the reader come up with their own explanation for part of the story.

To sum everything up, The story: “Master & Man” written by Leo Tolstoy, is an extraordinarily well crafted piece of literature, even for the short, 48 pages that it covers. And I was impressed by the level of writing.