MYP4 English 9

When I was reading “Master and Man”, I found it boring because the story was way different than the books that I read. There wasn’t any action or a lot of scenes with strong emotions. The only scenes with strong emotions were when Vasili and Nikita were reflecting on their past mistakes, and that was a very depressing but touching moment.

I was surprised that Vasili actually helped Nikita out of the snow in the end and didn’t run back to Gorichkino for his life. I was questioning whether or not people can change in a short amount of time, especially when it comes to their order of priority. I was wondering why Vasili didn’t think about money in his final hours after the whole story was based on Vasili’s obsession. One of the things that surprised me the most at the end was the sudden turn of selflessness when Vasili helped Nikita out of the snow, knowing that he will die getting Nikita free.

This surprised me because Vasili was always using Nikita for his kindness and loyalty. It was written in the book ” Vasili Andreyich had also turned him out more than once, but took him back again, valuing his honesty, love for animals, and above all his cheapness. Vasili Andreyich didn’t give Nikita the eighty rubles such as a good worker deserves, but forty, paying it out randomly, eithr in cash, or more often in kind, in goods from his shop charged at a high rate.” [p. 64]. I was expecting Vasili to go back to Gorichkino, and then get someone else to get Nikita out of the snow. Or maybe just forget all about him and then remember to dig up his loyal worker after a few days.`

At the end of the Novella, I have one question. Can people really change over a short amount of time? Can someone suddenly have a different order of priority when they are being forced to choose in-between their priorities or the right thing?

Reading Master and Man made me think a lot about how people treat others when they feel powerful versus when they are vulnerable. At the start, Vassili feels like he is better because of his wealth, and he treats others as though they are not as good. But as the story goes on and they’re trapped in the snow, his attitude shifts, and he realizes that all his money and power can’t save him. What surprised me was how it took a life-or-death situation for him to finally see Nikita’s humanity and even sacrifice himself. This book gives me questions. What if they had stopped in Grishkino for the night, would both of them have survived the night? I feel like if should not have taken a life and death situation for Vassili to realize that Nikita was a person. I also feel as though the story repeated a lot, to the point where it became predictable. if the story changed a bit and did not rush the ending, I feel like I would have enjoyed the story.

The story Master and Man often felt boring, drawn out, and tedious when I read it. Instead of engaging me with the characters by having them progress, it becomes repetitive, reuses the same character roles, and has an ending that takes too long to happen.

The biggest problem is the pacing. Pages are filled with endless descriptions of how Vasili and Nikita are lost. At one point, he writes, “Well, it looks like we’ve completely lost the road—Vassili Andreyich” (p. 72). This is the first time they get lost, and they subsequently went and got lost four more times. Rather than building tension, the story just uses the same thing over and over, making the journey feel slow and repetitive.

The characters themselves are not very engaging. Vasili Andreevich, the “master,” can be summed up as greedy and self-centered, as he “took seven hundred rubles out of his chest, and added to them two thousand three hundred rubles from the church funds in his care” (p. 63) Instead of developing, this trait, it is instead drilled into you over and over until it loses impact. Nikita, the “man”, is equally predictable, always passive and submissive. Vasili knows that Nikita can’t do much, or won’t do much to oppose him and uses that “Of course I understand, Vassili Andreyich, it’s like working for my own father.” ” (p. 65) The lack of variety when they talk together makes them tedious to read.

Finally, the conclusion is obvious long before it arrives. At first, after finishing the book, I thought it was short, but when I went to type this out, I began to change my mind. From the beginning, Vassili is warned many times that a big blizzard is coming, so the reader knows that something bad will happen. At many points, it felt like the pages were filled with filler substance, just getting lost, and then Vassili and Nikita talk about what to do, which is always to try to find the road.

In the end, Master and Man is way too boring, drawn out, and tedious and with all these things trying feebly to make a good story, it makes it more like a slog through a blizzard than a story.

When I read Master and Man, and I get to a section where Nikita and Vasili talk or interact with each other, their relationship feels so one-sided; Nikita’s companionship is often neglected by Vasili’s pride. As a character, Nikita can be described as “Valued everywhere for being hardworking, deft, and strong, and above all for his pleasant, kindly character.”, (p. 64). Vasili’s character can be recognized as thoughtful, for when he “had also turned him out more than once, but took him back again, valuing his honesty, love of animals, and above all his cheapness. Vasili Andreyich didn’t give Nikita the eighty rubles such a good worker deserved, but forty, paying it out randomly, either in cash, or more often in kind, in goods from his shop charged at a high rate.”, (p. 64).

With these quotes, the pair can be seen as two different personalities. One is hardworking, loyal, and good company, and the other is neglectful, ungrateful, and sometimes empathetic. This is why I think Nikita and Vasili are like a dog and an old man. Nikita is the dog who always follows the man, always hardworking, and always in a good mood. As well as Vasili, the dog’s owner, or “Master”, who always pushes the dog away when it gets too close, takes the dog’s companionship for granted, and only sees the dog as just an animal, or “servant”.

This story raises questions about who we are and where we are by presenting us with a perspective of less unfortunate poverty, and rich fortune from Nikita and Vasili. Who we are is not to be defined by our class, like judging a book by it’s cover, and where we are is never permanent. This story also raises questions about what we are doing and what we should be doing, by demonstrating the poor and rich. One scrapes for breadcumbs, one owns the bread loaf making factory, but they didn’t choose to be born into this life. That doesn’t mean the poor should be envious and jealous, and it doesn’t mean the rich can be greedy and gluttonous. What we should be doing, no matter what spot we are in life is being grateful, just for life itself, for some people might live in severe or worse conditions, but still work with a smile on their face. Like Nikita, who is a 50 year old peasant, who gets cut of his pay from his Master, but still is kind and enjoying of his presence. With all the flaws in Nikita’s daily life like his financial situation, alcohol problem, and no homeownership, he pushes through and doesn’t let it get to him, not taking anything for granted, like his kids and wife. Overall, this book, or section of a book, was only around 50-60 pages, and while that is short, each page had a new situation and even maybe a lesson to learn from.

While reading the first few pages of Master and Man, the contrasting personalities of Nikita compared to Vassili were obvious. Vassili was a rich  Merchant, who cares only for money. I believe his thoughts, and actions are not morally correct, or in any way ethical. I maintain the thought, that Vassili see’s religion as a way of stealing money, and raising his image amongst other people (pp. 63-65). My thoughts on Nikita are more complex, Nikita shows compassion for the horse Muckhorty, (p. 66), and he is respectful of other in his interactions with them. Nikita demonstrates that he may have an intelligence higher than others, as he sees through vasilli’s snake like way of speaking (pp. 64-65). One thing that bothered me throughout the book, was that Nikita understands the underhanded way Vassili treats him, and takes no action to try and better his position. While I believe that Nikita is not inherently a weak man, I will not say that he is a strong man, he is flawed in ways but is trying to get rid of those flaws, but he does not attempt to get paid what he is worth. this reminded me very much of the society we live in, Nikita is a rare man who understands his flaws and try to improve, while others like Vassili deal with others in an extremely unethical way.

Vassili at the start of the book was so focused on making a profit that he was ignorant to the danger the storm posed to himself, and Nikita. As I continued reading, I saw the gradual development of Vassili’s thought process. He slowly realized the danger he was in, and came to the understanding that wealth, and power are of no use when faced with terror. These thoughts that Vassili had imprinted in me the thought that, when people are faced with death they care not for their treasures, or achievements (pp. 107-108). They think about the stuff that truly matters to them, when all the insignificant thoughts, or prides are stripped away.

VasSili’s final act of the story, saving Nikita from the deadly cold, with his own life warmth (p. 106), left me wondering. If someone is close to death, do most feel at peace with the life they had like I believe vassili did, or do they feel their life was left unfulfilled. When people are faced with an inescapable situation, what they do will give you a deep look into who they are. Tolstoy did a very good job, of showing that people who have lived a life with little morality, are almost never beyond redemption for their actions.

The book itself was not the longest, or most interesting read, but it had very deep, and thought provoking ideas, if you look deeply enough. The book helped me understand that though someone may have many flaws, there is always a chance to redeem themselves, even with just one action.

I personally did not enjoy master and man, it felt like a very short story and quite repetitive with how Vasili and Nikita kept getting lost when they could have just stayed the night at Grishkino and waited out the blizzard. disregarding that I though it was not a bad story it was just different from the rest of the the stories i’ve read as of late, the stories i’ve read are more action and suspense compared to this book which is quite a bit slower and less action and more story building about 2 men who get lost in a blizzard. id say that this story would be very interesting when it was published but compared to today it is quite a different experience compared to books that have been published as of late they are a lot more into action when this book is a slow story and doesn’t have much action. master and man is a book that i would not read usually cause i dont like this kind of book I like books that are longer and have more action but still a lot of story building, I also dont really find russia in the 1700s very interesting compared to other countries at that time such as Great Britain, Spain and France. if i were older and like these types of books I think it would be a great read but these kinds of book are just not my type.

I find that master and man is a interesting story that has some moments that make you think why are the characters not doing this or this instead. I did like how master and man shows how people can change like how Vasili saves Nikita at the end of the book instead of leaving him there to die like he probably would have if that were to happen in the beginning of the book.

over all I find this interesting book but it is just not for me but I see how it could be apealing to other people.

Reading master and man, by Leo Tolstoy it made me really question the inequalities in the world around us and notice that not everybody is being treated the same. It also came to show me that people can change at the very end of their life. At first my opinions on Vasili were controversial, I found his need for gold and riches amusing, and his attitude towards hard work and dedication very admiring. I began to question Vasili when I noticed how he treated Nikita like he wasn’t even a person. For example, when he insisted to keep going even due to a blizzard and put both his life and Nikitas life in jeopardy just so that he could make it to his deal in time (p. 85). This made me think about how people now are choosing money over spending time with loved ones and even others’ well-being.

Another idea I came up with was about the snowstorm itself. I realized that nature doesn’t care about social class or wealth, as you could see in story both men were equally powerless against it, and that in those moments when you feel like everything’s starting to fall apart it can be a chance for you to unlock a completely new side of yourself you never knew existed.

The ending stayed with me the most though and made me ask the biggest question: Can a person truly redeem a lifetime of terrible deeds and harm to the world with one small act of kindness? Towards the end of the story Vasili lies down on Nikita to save him, it came across as his first kind deed of the story (pp. 108-109). Part of me even wanted to forgive him because his final action showed that he understood he had lived an inconsiderate and dishonest life but had excepted it and wanted to redeem himself at the end of his life with one final kind act.

In the end, Master and Man left me asking three big questions. What truly matters more in life, chasing wealth or relationships? How does adversity reveal a person’s true personality when status, money and power no longer matter? And can a person truly redeem a lifetime of sins with one final act of kindness?

While I read Leo Tolstoy’s Master and Man novella, I found it a boring book. I probably wouldn’t ever read such a short book like Master and Man on my own. But it did lead me to notice how much greed could change or impact someone. In my life I have never met someone who is truly greedy like Vassili Andreyich was, I mean I have always known that people like that were out there but reading about someone who was so greedy was eye-opening. I don’t understand how someone (Vassili for example) could steal from a church for their own personal reasons (p. 63), also how he could dismiss someone’s life just because they would be considered a lower wealth class than himself (p. 99). But at the end of the book, he does a selfless thing, Vassili ends up dying while saving Nikita’s life (p. 108).  

When Vassili lays on top of Nikita to keep Nikita warm (p. 106) even after trying to leave him in the snow but having to come back, it leads me to ask, can someone truly change at the end of their lives? For the whole book Vassili was greedy and selfish, but in the end, he did something for the well-being of someone else which ended up costing him his life (pp. 106-108). Which makes me wonder, if someone like him (greedy, cold and someone who believes that a peasant’s life would be lower than his own) could really change, or if they would only shift their actions in extreme moments (facing death in this moment)?  

Even though I didn’t truly enjoy this book, it still made me think deeper about how Vassili could look at Nikita (who is a lower wealth class than Vassili) like a tool rather a real person. Also, if someone who could act similarly like Vassili could or would only change their actions towards others before it’s too late. I may not read this book again, but it did help me understand more about how greed and power could take over someone’s ability to see everyone as equal.  

Leo Tolstoy’s “Master and Man” was, admittedly, quite the uninteresting story to read. Not once did it peak my interest like other books have. Although it wasn’t entertaining, I can say that it has the ability to raise many questions if your mind is open and looking for them. For example, when Vasili and Nikita get stuck out in the blizzard, both realize the reality of their situations “…—to wait for certain, swift, and meaningless death” (p. 104). They knew they were going to die. Nikita accepted it first, then Vasili shortly after. Vasili fights the thoughts, stuck in a stage of denial, then is later overwhelmed by them. “If I’d stayed the night at Grishkino, none of this would have happened” (p. 96) and “They say drunks freeze to death,” he thought, “and I’ve had a drink or two.” And scrutinizing his sensations, he felt that he was beginning to tremble” (p. 98) are both examples of how his mental state becomes increasingly more aware of his own situation. But does this situational awareness change him later? Does it change the way he thinks? How does he think and what goes through his mind as he does so now, and how does it change later? Nikita, on the other hand, is much calmer. He does all he can to calm the situation by setting up a camp of sorts, a handkerchief flag and setting down the gear in one place, establishing some sort of familiarity in the frigid wilderness. He lies and sleeps in wait of dawn as he prepares to simply endure whatever fate he is given. Even in his most dire moments, he’s focussed on his faith in God “O God, O heavenly father, you must be calling me too” (p. 109). His trust in a higher power that has control of his fate. His faith and acceptance is immediate and calm in his straight-forward thinking head. Why is it that he thinks so much calmer than Vasili? Was it his experiences? The way he was brought up? Or maybe it’s simply the same cause for both of them to think in such a way—he thinks he will die “I—I’m dying, that’s what” (p. 105). In summary words, this story does raise a decent amount of questions about character and situation and the connection between two such concepts, but in itself, is pretty unentertaining.

I did not really enjoy reading the book Master and Man. I found that the book was not very entertaining. In some books even if the book is not entertaining it gives you some thoughts and feelings but even this book didn’t make me think or give me feelings.

I thought the books story was not well written at all. I found that the story was very repetitive and very predictable. For example, before Nikita and Vassili left to go to Goriachkin the book kept repeating people talking about the weather. So it was quite easy to predict that the weather was going to be a problem during the journey. They also just kept getting lost in snowstorm after snowstorm it was the same thing every time. So that was also very predictable.There was no variety in events, no excitement.

The characters did not help the story because they were very boring. The only character that was a little bit interesting was Nikita because we could see that he was clever. It shows that he was clever when he doesn’t argue with Vassili about how much he’s underpaid because he knows that if he quits, he would have no where else to go. That’s why he is an interesting character to look at. Vassili on the other hand is quite boring. He’s just an arrogant rich guy like every other rich character in any other book. He always looks to make money because that’s all he cares about. There was a little interesting part when he helps Nikita but that was only because he knew that he was going to die. Other than that he was just anther bring rich character.

That’s why the book didn’t make me think or feel anything. Because there was no type of excitement at all.

When I read Master and Man, I kept noticing the difference between being selfish and being unselfish. Right away Vasili Andreevich, the rich merchant, came across as bossy, greedy, and kind of rude. He only cared about money and his own status, and he didn’t even notice how bad the storm was getting or how much Nikita, his servant, was suffering. At first that really annoyed me. The way he treated Nikita like his life didn’t matter made me think about how, even today, people sometimes treat others like objects instead of real people.

As the story went on, my feelings about him started to change. When Vasili realized he might actually die in the snow, I could almost feel his panic. The heavy snow and freezing wind made it clear that nature doesn’t care how rich or important someone is. Everyone is fragile when they face death, and that idea kind of unsettled me.

The part that stayed with me most was when Vasili finally gave up his own warmth and life to save Nikita. It wasn’t just the action itself, but the calm and peace he felt once he let go of his greed and showed real kindness. It made me wonder if people only find real freedom when they stop worrying about money and control. I liked that Tolstoy shows that someone can change for the better, even after a lifetime of being selfish.

In the end, I wouldn’t say this was the most exciting or fun book I’ve ever read, but it had a strong message. It made me think about what really matters in life and how we can always try to do better.

When I read master and man I felt myself thinking a lot about the contrast between selfishness and selflessness. Vasili Andreevich the wealthy merchant, immediately struck me as rude disrespectful greedy and arrogant. His obsession with profit and status makes him  blind to the impending danger the of the storm and even to the suffering of Nikita his servant/slave. At first, I felt kinda annoyed with him. The way he treats Nikita as if his life is not very important or like expendable made me reflect on how often people, even in our world today, treat others as tools rather than as human beings with equal worth. Tolstoy’s description of Vasili’s cold indifference left me feeling sad at how people like that are still today because it reminded me that selfishness is not always extreme or dramatic it can creep into ordinary decisions we make every day (pp. 65–66).

As the story developed, however, my feelings shifted. When Vasili begins to realize his own vulnerability in the snowstorm, I could almost feel his panic pressing in. The setting itself the blinding snow, the endless cold made me think about how nature levels us all. No matter how rich or powerful someone may be, they are still just as fragile when facing death. That thought filled me with a sense of unease (pp. 78–80).

I think the most meaningful moment in the story for me was Vasili’s final act of sacrifice when he gives his own body warmth and life to protect Nikita. What really stuck me was not only what Vasili actually did but the sense of peace and fulfilment he experiences as he lets go of his greed and embraces compassion (pp. 107–108). It made me wonder if real freedom and dignity only come when we stop clinging to wealth or control. I felt nice here, because Tolstoy seems to suggest that redemption is always possible, even for someone who has lived most of his life in selfishness.

Ultimately, the text left me reflecting on what it means to live a meaningful life.now I dont think this was the most interesting of fun book ive read but the deeper meanings in this book are subtle but quite powerful. That, for me, is the emotional power of Tolstoy’s story it makes us confront our own flaws while also offering the possibility of transformation.

To start, Master and Man is a story that provokes many different emotions in readers, many of which you would likely not expect. In the beginning, we do not see very many of these emotions as it is shown more towards the end where we see how the characters actually feel.

For me in the beginning, Vassili did not seem like a very good person, he seemed to not care about anyone else but himself and that is the impression I had for the majority of the book. Not only did Vassili act this way, but he also portrayed himself as the good person on the outside. Nikita, on the other hand, showed me that he is a kind, generous and empathetic man, almost the complete opposite of his Master Vassili. The more the story goes, the more invested I felt as I read about Vassili and Nikita trudging through the winter storm. The story gets really interesting, especially near the last portion of the story. The end of the book actually surprised me quite a bit, as I was not expecting Vassili to sacrifice himself for his friend. It was not something I really saw somebody like him doing, especially after he tried running away and abandoning Nikita. I think that this was really heartwarming as it was almost Vassili’s apology for trying to manipulate Nikita. In the end, I really do think that the experiences of Vassili and Nikita had together made Vassili have this change of heart.

Even though both of these characters are extremely different from one another, they both have a really interesting dynamic, as Nikita is quite selfless while Vassili only thinks about himself. Although Vassili may not seem like the nicest person ever, I feel like the story does a good job of showing that even with all that selfishness deep down he still has some empathy that does eventually start to show. Nikita is always the one who tries to help others, and this is what really separates him from Vassili. It was obvious from the beginning that Nikita was going to survive no matter what because the writers made him the more likeable character. This story makes me think about two really good friends who are on an adventure but the sad part is one of them has to say goodbye even through all of the hardships. One of them still has to go, and that’s the sad part about all these different stories.

In conclusion for me Master and Man was a very enjoyable read that provoked many different emotions, primarily feelings of sadness, I think that it is a very captivating book that keeps the reader hooked.

I did not enjoy reading the book Master and Man. In my opinion, the book had too many small events that did not build character or influence the story in any way. The book was also set in a time period I do not care much about. Russia during the ~1700s was not too interesting; though it was different, it was overall a very boring time. I also prefer longer novels instead of short novels like this one.

The book may have been good when it was released, as the books that people looked for were probably similar. The book does not hold up today. I also did not like that there was a lack of character arcs; given the book was short, I would still like some strong character arcs. The main storylineof the book also seems quite repetitive, with them getting in a snowstorm every single time and nothing else happening. I know this is not the author’s fault, but the English language has evolved, and some of the words are now not commonly used. There is also no exciting moment, like a plot twist or an exciting battle.

The characters were also not enjoyable. Vassili seems like a rich, ignorant noble, not listening to his guide. Evil characters can be good for a story, but bad characters like Vassili seem usually not useful to a story. If Vassili were a more interesting person, the story could perhaps be interesting. Other events would also be mandatory to make it up-to-date. Slow-paced stories like Master and Man are not fun to read.

Overall, too much of the story did not mean anything or develop character; the annoying characters did not help make it fun to read, but it may have been good when it was first released.

Personally, I did not enjoy reading “Master and Man.” I understand that this book is considered a classic, offering lessons about life, greed, guilt, and societal status. However, the book did not resonate with me.  The story and parts of the book felt very slow and dragged in my opinion. An example of this is when the narrator describes the snow and harsh conditions. At the start of the book, I didn’t mind reading it, but as the book progressed, I quickly felt myself losing interest, as it seemed repetitive, constantly filled with descriptions of the weather and hopelessness.

Additionally,  I didn’t like the story of Vasili, who was a selfish, greedy, and mean main character throughout the majority of the book. “Vassili Andreyich was lit up by wine he had drunk with his guests and consequently extra satisfied by everything that belonged to him and everything that he did” (p.67). He was a challenging character for me to connect with; this includes the changes his character undergoes at the end of the story, when he sacrifices himself to save his servant, Nikita. You would think that when the author tries to redeem the character at the end, I would feel more sympathy for him, but I still couldn’t connect with him, and I had no interest in him at all.

Overall, the tone of the story, my inability to connect with the characters, and the pace throughout the book made reading Master and Man was a struggle for me to enjoy or even finish reading. Even thought I can see, how some people reading might find meaning it the storys lessons, but for every reason, I would not consider the story “Master and Man” a book I would read again, or recommend to other students and kids my age.

In my opinion, Master and Man is a decent book. While the story may not be very interesting itself (to most people but I like it), it is interesting comparing how people interacted in different parts of the world like serving Vodka before tea in Russia (p.81). It was also cool comparing the world today to back then like how people were using horses instead of cars, talking in different ways, and problems that don’t exist today like losing road markers in the snow (p.72). It’s also weird to think that books like this used to be how people entertained themselves and considered unhealthy kind of like technology is today but also weird because reading is seen as good for you nowadays. The plot itself though, is pretty good. It does a good job showcasing the characters and what their personality is like. For example, you can tell Vasili is greedy when he uses Church money for trying to buy the forest (p.63). Tolstoy did a good job at making characters feel human as well, such as when Nikita gets uncomfortable and doesn’t really talk too much about his wife’s situation with the barrel maker after Vasili brought it up but wants to talk immediately after he brings up horses (p.70). This makes it feel like they have interests and adds personality to the characters. Also, I like how when Vasili acts annoyed at women, it felt more like Tolstoy only wrote that to show Vasili wasn’t really kind more than what he actually thought (p.68). A few things I didn’t like were how sometimes there were wasted characters. When Nikita and Vasili met Isai, he was introduced as a horse thief (p.75). He could’ve been a memorable character, but instead, he was barely there for a page and was only used as a way for them to get directions. The same goes for Marfa, she could have been a big character, however, they didn’t even interact with each other and was only used as a personal problem of Nikita’s. 

To be honest, i understood the messages of sacrifice, redemption and all, but i was never really too invested in the book, i see the appeal but the story and why people may like it, but for me the story went a little too fast from exiting the home of the family straight to freezing to death it felt kind of rushed, though there were some parts i found to be good, like Vasili contemplating if he should abandon Nikita or not (p. 104) .

But thats really all there is that i could find good, the chapter lengths were also incredibly inconsistent. The first four chapters being 3-4 pages and then theres only one page between page 7 and 8, this inconsistency makes the added chapters just feel like filler to add more chapters for the sake of it, and makes the books pacing horrible.

Another issue i had with the book is that there was no explanation or story development for the family at the village, the oldest son wanted to sell something but the family was objecting. I really think that story arc could’ve been interesting and thought they would so something with it, but it never happened so why even add it at all if your not going to expand on it??

The story itself was also very confusing, some things just happened that did nothing even slightly important, like the peasants before they arrived at the Kashino Village, why we’re they there?? It was extremely confusing and unnecessary.

One last issue i felt is that Nikita felt like a side character, Vassili has this entire arc about selfishness and redemption meanwhile Nikita’s story is basically just him refusing a drink, it felt like Vassili was the main character and Nikita was just there to be someone Vassili could sacrifice himself for.

To be fair, I honesty found the book entertaining. I am pretty lazy so I could not bring myself to reading everyday but once I started reading, I would usually daze off until I read to what I was supposed to. The book was not bad but there were some parts I found pretty boring like when the got lost the first time. That part was pretty boring and I didn’t find much interest in it but my favorite part was when they were resting in the snow trying to get sleep, and I liked it a lot because I was always on the edge waiting for the plot twist of someone freezing or something happening to the horse or maybe someone even finding them and helping them, so I was really engaged  in that.  “Nikita is alive, then that means I am living too.” (p.108.)  I found this quote really nice as it shows that just as everything was going wrong Andreyich decided to sacrifice his life for Nikita because Andreyich knew that he had done a lot wrong in life and this was his way of paying god to relive his sins to send him to heaven. Another part/chapter I didn’t really enjoy reading was when they stopped at the house in Kashino because it was pretty boring  and not a lot of action had happened there because they just talked about like where they were headed and how they might get lost even worse then they already had if they didn’t stay the night. I wish we could’ve got more action or context with the family’s of both andreyich and the family of the people in Kashino. The story was also pretty short itself and i wish it could’ve been longer so the story could’ve better and had more info and context. Overall  found it pretty good but there are some parts where they could’ve made it more interesting then it already is but yea I found it pretty good.

My thoughts about Master and Man are leaning towards boring. I will probably forget about it in a few months although I do not think it is bad. What I enjoyed was Vassili’s character development. From being shown to be greedy and not caring towards his family by trying to buy land on Christmas (Pg. 63). Then saving Nikita by laying on top of him when they are both buried in the snow, dying in the process “But Andreyich does not answer, and his belly and legs are solid, cold and heavy as iron weights.” (Pp. 107-108). Vassili is a semi complex character as he is not a horrible person but in no way he is good until the end of the story I guess.

Nikita on the other hand I find to be far more boring. I find his only character development is him getting over being an alcoholic. But to be fair it is a forty-seven page novella so I do not expect some of the most complex well developed characters to ever exist. Again I do not think he is a bad character, just not a very good one. Nikita clearly wants to be with his family. And because of his alcoholism his wife and children are living in a separate household. “Nikita was not invited to live with her.” (P. 64).

I do like the story. The relationship of a land owner and his laborer going on a journey through a snowstorm ending up with the “Master” of the story dying for his “Man.” all because Vassili wanted more money and land. I would like to read some of Leo Tolstoy’s other works like “The death of Ivan Ilyich.” because I think Leo is a good writer and Master and man was even just a few pages longer, like 60 or something. I think it would be amazing.