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.