Is Dohokhov more than a scalawag in Persian dress?

[Bleakhills]

I'm glad there are so many of you who love War and Peace as much as I do. Ths last time I read it, I was struck by how often Tolstoy used Dohokhov whenever he need an antagonist: Dohokhov goads Pierre into a duel, entices Nikolay Rostov into a huge gambling debt, helps Anatole Kuragin in his attempt to abduct Natasha and carelesly leads the naive Petya Rostov behind enemy lines. Dolokhov has no Christian name or patronymic. What do you all think? Did Tolstoy pull it off? Is Dolokhov a contrivance or a believable character?

[Fairy Wilbury]

He is a believable character. And there are, in real life, people like him. I admire that character, he is my absolute favorite there.
And what he's done is not evil things. He just has a contrary to Tolstoy's attitude to life.
For example, you say his carelesly leads to Petya death. But why should he care about Petya? He said that he cares only about those whom he loves. "I don't care a straw about anyone but those I love; but those I love, I love so that I would give my life for them, and the others I'd throttle if they stood in my way." - that's his attitude.

[Bleakhills]

I agree with you that Dolokhov is a believable character, but I don't admire him! Tolstoy makes a striking figure out of him, even on paper. I'm not sure what a Persion costume of the day looked like, but I can see Dolokhov lounging at the opera, dressed in something unusually colorful with his shock of hair combed upward. In the dual with Pierre, I can't help but be on the side of the good-natured Pierre. After all, Dolokhov started the fight and then against the odds ends up being the one who gets shot! It is Tolstoy's genius that as Dolokhov is carried away, he is not thinking of his injury or a girl friend but his mother! This makes Dolokhov a fully rounded character, but it also fits in with Tolstoy's view of humanity - that there is some redeeming feature in everyone, even the worst of us. I think that things that Dolokhov did to the Rostov family WERE really wong, but you'll notice that Tolsoy also gives us the reason behind Dolokhov's aciton - his need to control other human beings.

You include the quote from Nietzsche that 'fear is the mother of morailty." but I believe that the control of one human being by another limits human potential far more than moral codes. Ultimately, morality means more freedom for the individual because it frees him from his own passions and allows him to create his essense with integrity. I would counter Nietzsche's mottos with one of my own: "The selfish life is not worth living."

[Fairy Wilbury]

As for me, there are no good and bad people. But there are cowards and brave people, there are weak people and strong people. For example, Pierre is no coward but he is weak. Anatol is weak and he is a coward - horrible type, really. But Dolokhov is no coward and he is strong. What was wrong with the duel? Why Dolokhov has had no right to take risks - he does what he wants, Pierre wasn't one of the closest people to him (as only his mother and sister were)? And Rostov was standing in his way to Sonya, that's why he did that to him. But as he said "and the others I'd throttle if they stood in my way".

I admire his courage, his strong will. All other people in the book are weak. Dolokhov always has a purpose and gets what he wants. Fir me he is kinda of ideal character ( it could be 'to good to be real', if I hadn't met such people in the real life).

It seems, for Tolstoy himself Dolokhov was really a kind of an opposite to Pierre character and Pierre was his favorite.

As for morality. Well, for me it works that way - all the moral rules and morality itself exist only to subdue strongest people by others... That's why fear is the mother of morality. But it doesn't mean that all people should be heartless. No, their passions (from which you think one should be free) will show the direction. Not pity should rule in hearts of people but love as a strong passion. Love not for everyone but for few people who are close to you, whom you love so that you can't see them struggling. So if you think that "The selfish life is not worth living." - for me it is - you have to love one another, but as an individual, you have even to give your life for one another, but only if you love him, if your feelings are telling you to do so - that all comes from a selfish attitude.

[andre]

Wow! That really does run counter to Tolstoy's suggestion that we should love everyone and not judge. I can hardly believe that anyone could admire Dolokhov. Remember the chilling way he looks at the French once they become his prisoner. Unfortunately he is all too believable a character.

[Fairy Wilbury]

I've never said, that I agree with attitudes of Tolstoy. I am not) I like this book for it's colorfull description of the characters, not for his ideas...

Yes, I remember.. That was scary for prisoners, but those were his enemies.. He will do anything for those who are close to him, but all the others should beware... I don't think it's bad. It's an honest position of a strong man.

By the way, why "unfortunately"?.. I would be in desparation if such characters were only a fantasy...

And we all judge people - when you say "Unfortunately he is all too believable a character" you judge him =)

[Etienne]

You include the quote from Nietzsche that 'fear is the mother of morailty." but I believe that the control of one human being by another limits human potential far more than moral codes. Ultimately, morality means more freedom for the individual because it frees him from his own passions and allows him to create his essense with integrity. I would counter Nietzsche's mottos with one of my own: "The selfish life is not worth living."

Well what you said hasn't much to do with the quote, but that was only his signature, so no pertinence in discussing that here

As for Dolokhov, I don't think we can judge of the characterfrom what we know in the book. Also I believe (I can't go check as I don't have my book anymore) that after the duel we learn that he regrets the duel and his wound only because he might hurt his mother's feeling and that he takes care of his old mother and a sick sister or something?

[bazarov]

Also I believe (I can't go check as I don't have my book anymore) that after the duel we learn that he regrets the duel and his wound only because he might hurt his mother's feeling and that he takes care of his old mother and a sick sister or something?

Yes, those are only person who he really cares for.

[gladiator]

Dolokov is the most interesting character in the book. Andrei, Pierre, and Nikolai are weak by comparison. Dolokov is the only real and modern character. The rest of the leading men are almost jerks. Andrei mistreats his wife, abandons his son, defers weakly to his dad, and cannot be big enough to give Natasha another chance. Pierre is an overweight, dopey joke who can barely think straight. Nikolai starts off childlike, never fully matures or manages events in a strong way. I shall write an additonal book and call it DOLOKOV'S STORY.

[Fairy Wilbury]

2gladiator
You're right..

Well at least someone understands me)

[Alley]

(Disclaimer—I am only half way through the book so far so I will write going from what I know so far.)

Ah, Dolokhov…the man who all too quickly stole my heart. And sometimes I feel guilty for this feeling.

After what he did with Nicolai I wanted to hate him… and couldn’t. There’s something about this boy – man – that is just so grasping and inspiring. Yes, he acts like a jackass at times and I understand that and I wish he didn’t. but maybe, if he didn’t act like he does, he wouldn’t be so thrilling. All the leads (even though I like Pierre and Nicolai) pale in comparison to him. Anatole is not nearly as smart and shrewd as Dolokhov and Boris is just too flat and not nearly as exciting as Dolokhov.

I think the main thing that gets me with him is not the duel with Pierre (Pierre’s reaction to Dolokhov’s teasing was fairly immature) and not for his help to Anatole (after all Anatole was a friend, or at least a buddy while Natasha was nothing at all to him). But rather the story with Nicolai. There he truly was in the wrong. Maybe the only time he truly was in the wrong but in what a wrong! From his courtship of Sonya to the vengeful card game its all messed up. And I think what makes it worse was that he told Nicolai that he was among the friends that Dolokhov loves and would protect. Of course, it would be a fool not to assure the boy of his “friendship” but the lie, given that it was that, is not something that I can respect or admire.

He’s selfish and ruthless. Sometimes too selfish, too ruthless, too vengeful. I can’t admire him in the sense that I think he is right in the way he leads his life and I wish he wasn’t so cruel with people who are loyal to him (ie Nicolai) but I can’t hate him and can’t help loving him.

[Fairy Wilbury]

I don't think he was lying to Nicolai claiming him among his friends. Possibly that was the way he felt then, but after he understood that Nicolai is standing in his way to Sonya, he totally changed his position. He is the type of person, who is always heading for the top and he could not keep the rival close to him.

[Bleakhills]

He’s selfish and ruthless. Sometimes too selfish, too ruthless, too vengeful. I can’t admire him in the sense that I think he is right in the way he leads his life and I wish he wasn’t so cruel with people who are loyal to him (ie Nicolai) but I can’t hate him and can’t help loving him.[/QUOTE]

So he's a man you love to hate - maybe a Russian version of Heathcliff (of Wuthering Heights)?

[Alley]

So he's a man you love to hate - maybe a Russian version of Heathcliff (of Wuthering Heights)?

I've actually read Wuthering Heights but it was a long while ago and I don't remember the book that well so I don't dare compare but really I don't think its as much of a love-to-hate feeling as a hate-to-love feeling.

[Prole]

It's impossible to hate anyone involved in a prank that involves a bear and a policeman. Tolstoy makes it impossible to have anything but pity for everyone in the book at some point. While the lack of real depth to his character (other than alluding to looking after his mother) in the story might make him seem like a plot device rather than a person, I know real people like that. The only way that he really gets along in the social sphere he finds himself is to play the antagonist. If he wasn't constantly messing with people in one way or another, there would be no place for him.

He sort of reminds me of Begbie in Trainspotting; "He really is a **** ay the first order. Nae doubt about that. The problem is, he's a mate n aw. What kin ye dae?"