Is Dohokhov more than a scalawag in Persian dress?

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleakhills

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

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.

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.

2gladiator
You're right..

Well at least someone understands me)

(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.

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.

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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleakhills

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.

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?"

I'll read Wuthering Heights - it seems interesting to me.

Now, as for Dolokhov - he is much more than a plot device, but he was so different as a character from Tolstoy that he couldn't describe his inner thoughts, altough his deeds were very well described.

Throughout the book i viewed him as quite a childlike figure, due to the ferocity and simplicity of his emotions, e.g Nicolai is an obstacle to Sonya and thus causes frustration which he lets out directly on him through the card game, and his devotion to his mother. A feeling which is emphasized by the fact that we don't know his thoughts and feelings only of his actions like the prank with the bear and policeman (which i would dearly love to see someone try today). On the other hand he seems sometimes to be one of the most superior characters because of his distance to the other characters and the way in which he uses them to his own means and entertainment (helping Anatole) and doesn't think of anyone apart from in relation to himself. However, this could also emphasize his childlike nature. I think i've just confused myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I encourage you to do just that!

I'd be interested to see what you do with it - I like to write short stories about people from books - especially the ones that don't get much attention.

Stories coming from the POV of servants, small people who don't really figure into the major scheme - I think the 'Uncle's' housekeeper (live in lover) would be a fabulous character to base a story on.

Join me at Wild City (Wise Woman's Place). You might like to put stories up there and I'll work along with you.

(And anyone else who would like to do so)

Carly

We have to give Dolokhov some credit - he DID try to talk Anatole out of his scheme to abduct Natasha.

Even though he helped get the transportation together, for the caper, he did see the foolishness of it.

He didn't really care about Natasha or the Rostov family though - he was mainly interested in keeping Anatole out of trouble.

Now, Helene - Anatole's sister?

That, in my opinion, is a villain! She encourages that flirtation between her brother and Natasha! She acts like a '***** in heat', makes a tramp of herself and messes up other people's lives.

Actually, he does have a given name as his mother calls him her "Fedya" which is a nickname for Fyodor. This is in the chapter right after Lise dies but it is not in the character listing, and is not mentioned elsewhere except in reference to someone else.

Disclaimer: I'm only a third of the way through the book

Is Dolokhov an example of the Russian literature archetype of the "superfluous man"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluous_man) I read A Hero of Our Time and the main character, Pechorin, has a lot in common with Dolokhov: the need to control others, a disdain for society and social mores, and the destructive effect he has on both friends and enemies.

If Dolokhov is your favorite character in W&P, I recommend this book by Lermontov.

2JimmyRow:

I don't think that Dolokhov is a superfluous man. The main difference between Pechorin and Dolokhov is that the first one is an observer type while the second one is the man of action.
And superfluous man type suppouses a jaded attitude to life, while Dolokhov is enjoying all the aspects of his existance. Pechorin doesn't esteem his ability to control people, he plays with his life as he playes with other's. Dolokhov is aiming for the top, he values his life and he risks only because he likes the challenge, not because he is self-distructive.

He didn't really care about Natasha or the Rostov family though - he was mainly interested in keeping Anatole out of trouble.

Well perhaps then that simply shows a caring for Anatole. Sure, Dolokhov uses the boy to hi own ends but is always careful that the boy in his childish trustfulness doesn’t suspect a thing. Is it me or does Dolokhov exhibit some feelings of attachment in that scene when he tries to convince Anatole to stay and not ake off with Natasha.

Actually, he does have a given name as his mother calls him her "Fedya" which is a nickname for Fyodor. This is in the chapter right after Lise dies but it is not in the character listing, and is not mentioned elsewhere except in reference to someone else.

Anatole actually calls him by name as well on at least one occasion. Accept his full name is given as Theodore in the translation provided on this site which is the English equivalent of Fyodor. Also the man that is to drive Anatole and Natasha abroad in the same scene refers to Dolokhov by name and patronymic – Theodore Ivanovitch.

If Dolokhov is your favorite character in W&P, I recommend this book by Lermontov.

I read “A Hero of Our Time” and absolutely HATED Pechorin. Though the two may seem alike on first glance they are actually quite different characters with different motives that spring from different life circumstance. And honestly, Dolokhov has a lot more excuses for hi behavior than Pechorin.
Also to add on to what Fairy Wilbury said: Pechorin was born into the court into luxury. He has a feeling of “all will be forgiven” mixed with a prevailing attitude of apathy to himself and even more to others. He is not cruel for the sake of proving anything, for the sake of making a place for himself in society but rather for the sake of the hours enjoyment. He is not cruel because people are in hi way or in the way of his loved ones but for the mere sake of an experiment the way a scientist drugs rants, bunnies, and hamsters to see what becomes of them. He has no remorse whatsoever for anything he does. Dolokhov, on the other had, is constantly fighting. Perhaps fighting a losing battle He is obviously the only provider in his family (we do not know anything of his father but it is reasonable to assume that he is dead) and a family that even though of the gentry is short in funds and social connections – two invaluable things in that society. Dolokhov is smart and ambitious and wants the best out of life/ He is constantly fighting to have the best – money, women, popularity. His cruelty typically comes of the struggle to be the best, to show himself capable and worthy of what he was deprived off by being born into the “wrong” family. In his revenge on Nicholai he making his rival pay for hindering him. In his romance with Helene if he wasn’t temporarily in like – and what we won’t forgive a man in love – he could use the relationship as a step up in society. He help Anatole but this can simply be taken as an act of friendship to the boy who would have never managed the thing on his own given his foolishness. Dolokhov charges ahead in life as he does in war (notable that Pechorin, though not a coward, never quite amounted to the brash heroics that Dolokhov did.) Dolokhov is desperate to make a place for himself, to be someone he wasn’t born to be. He is angry at the world for putting him so far, socially, below people like Anatole who have neither his brains nor his natural talents. And unlike Pechorin, who never would look back at his duel with Grushnitski, Dolokhov apologizes to Pierre about the wrongs done to him. He comes of as genuine even if a little showy. But then everything about Dolokhov is showy, from his Persian attire to his manner.


By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Dolokhov has something of an inferiority complex, at least to some extent?

Dolokhov is exactly the kind of man you'd want on your side - in war or in peace. You might not like him (I find him attractive too, we girls do like our bad boys). But he's smart, calm, capable, effective - and he manages to stay alive when others do not. War (and life) are filled with difficult, brutal moments, Dolokhov is a survivor - very Russian, too. Americans are known for a similar kind of can-do attitude, but Tolstoy has a lot of the ordinary Russians be, well, so simple and direct in their motivations (and not filled with much "can-do" attitude). Dolokhov represents another vivid aspect of Russian life and culture - he keeps his motivations to himself, doesn't run about promoting anything, but he gets things done.

2Alley:

But where is a line between personal ambitions and inferiority complex then?

Yet I agree with the rest you've said about Dolokhov and Pechorin.

Well, ok, let me re-phrase. I’m not saying that Dolokhov definitely has an inferiority complex but I think it’s possible that he does. Why I say this is because of his flashes of cruelty and vengefulness. We can write that off to simple ambition and it makes even more sense with the concept that he’s constant in this battle to be better…However…he comes off as somewhat tragic and lonely to me. A man of simple ambition would not as likely end up so. Dolokhov is so hard core – so unwilling to open up and back down – that it seems that he’s almost afraid that if he shows a soft side people will automatically think worse of him. He seems to be in a constant need to be PROVING something. Not simply REACHING something but proving something. Like he NEEDS to say, “I’m the best. I’m as good as any of you. I can do it too. I deserve to be treated with respect too.” Is this ambition? Yes. Is it healthy ambition? Depends. I see a sort of complex underneath the hard exterior – a sort of doubt that maybe he’s not good enough, that he won’t be respected and liked, and accepted no matter what he does. So he chooses to be feared. I can very much imagine a part of his that thinks that he’s never going to be good enough and so he resorts to extreme means, shuts everyone out – afraid of being hurt? – and enjoys manipulating people – has a NEED for it – because that gives him control, the control he doesn’t normally have over his own life the way he would like to.

This is really just a theory. But overall, when you said that Theodore is “enjoying all the aspects of his existence” -- I don’t really agree. Anatole is the one who’s completely satisfied with himself and life. Is Theodore? I can’t say, but he never came off to me as someone who was “happy.”

Well, probably we have the same opinion. The only difference was that I thought his constant need to prove things for himself is based on a normal reaction for somebody who deserves more than he was granted, being born in a family with lower status.
But thinking about what you've said, I agree, that it may be called inferiority complex brought by the feeling he was deprived. It is still a normal defensive reaction.
I even think that such circumstances do good for daring people like Dolokhov.

And talking about Dolokhov as a tragic figure - he gets that impression because objectively he is lonely. Anatole is no match for him and can't be his trustworthy friend. He fell in love with Sonya, and probably he was ready to fully trust her, yet she refused. And people like Dolokhov do love and hate with all their heart, so he was badly hurt by her refusal. Maybe, this occasion wasn't the first try to open up his heart to somebody, either lover or a friend, and that's what made him distrustful. That is something that usually comes with bad experience.

>>But overall, when you said that Theodore is “enjoying all the aspects of his existence” -- I don’t really agree.

Sorry, I didn't make the meaning clear. What I meant is that he tries to do everything to have an ability to enjoy life. As I tried to show the difference between him and Pechorin.

Well, probably we have the same opinion. The only difference was that I thought his constant need to prove things for himself is based on a normal reaction for somebody who deserves more than he was granted, being born in a family with lower status.

For someone with his personality? I’m sure it’s quite normal and expected

I even think that such circumstances do good for daring people like Dolokhov.

Lol, is “darling” sarcastic/ironic here? (asking for the sake of clarification)
But what exactly do you mean by by “do good”?

And talking about Dolokhov as a tragic figure - he gets that impression because objectively he is lonely. Anatole is no match for him and can't be his trustworthy friend.

Yea…Anatole isn’t someone you’d go confiding secrets to in fear that he’ll go off and blab to someone.
Actually, I wonder what you think as to his friendship with Anatole? On one hand Dolokhov seems to almost have some butter feelings toward Anatole but on he other hand there’s this line in the scene where he’s trying to convince Anatole not to elope with Natasha:

“I helped you, but all the same I must tell you the truth; it is a dangerous business, and if you think about it - a stupid business. Well, you'll carry her off - all right! Will they let it stop at that? It will come out that you're already married. Why, they'll have you in the criminal court...."

“The truth” that’s the key her. Wat’s the truth? Does Dolokhov only care about the “adventure” of the whole thing? But then why tell Anatole about how much of a danger it could be? It almost seems like he was enjpying the whole thing for the time it lasted and pretending that what happened after his part was doe didn’t concern him but then at the last second is unable to simply stand by and watch Anatole mess up so terribly. Dolokhov isn’t about to admit that he cares, maybe even to himself but the danger that Anatole is putting himself in seems to terrify him deep inside.

He fell in love with Sonya, and probably he was ready to fully trust her, yet she refused. And people like Dolokhov do love and hate with all their heart, so he was badly hurt by her refusal.

Here’s a thought I had on that. Do you think that. Was a part of why Dolokhov fall for Sonya have to do with that he saw in her “that divine purity and devotion” that “[he] look[s] for in women”? And as strange as this might sound but do you think that is Sonya had not refused him he would actually come to think less of her than? Because that this aura of purity and faithfulness that she created with her love of Nicholai would be destroyed because if she could leave Nicholai, she could leave himp[Theodore] too.

Maybe, this occasion wasn't the first try to open up his heart to somebody, either lover or a friend, and that's what made him distrustful. That is something that usually comes with bad experience.

Well, that’s possible.
More on the idea of this opening up an loneliness. What as per his blossoming and killed off friendship with Nicholai? What of his ability to have friends in general? Dolokhov does mention in a conversation with Nocholai that he has “two or three friends” that he holds among those he loves but we don’t see or hear anything of them in canon, except for perhaps Anatole (does he count?).
There seemed to be real hope for this friendship too – Dolokhov allowed himself to cry in front of Nicholai (something that I don’t think he’d do in front of someone he didn’t trust, as ppl like Dolokhov seem to be very closed off where emotional displays are concerned) and Nicholai was really one of those ppl who can be trusted and who was ready to forgive Theodore almost everything. But then when Sonya rejects him, Dolokhov seems ready to throw the friendship out the window for the sake of revenge and perhaps out of bitterness.
Which also brings me to another though: Dolokhov tells Rostov that he is among one of those friends that he is close to but then with what happens later – was that a lie? Or is friendship really so meaningless – or rather nonexistent – to him that he is ready to throw it away so quickly?

Here’s a question that comes up too: is his loneliness partially his own doing? Is there some sort of vicious cycle here?

Sorry, I didn't make the meaning clear. What I meant is that he tries to do everything to have an ability to enjoy life. As I tried to show the difference between him and Pechorin.

Ok, that makes sense.

Lol, is “darling” sarcastic/ironic here? (asking for the sake of clarification)
But what exactly do you mean by by “do good”?

I said 'daring' not 'darLing' ;)
People like Dolokhov have a desperate need in overcoming difficulties. Fighting for a goal is essential for them. If he were born in a rich and reputable family, what would he be like? Probably very spoiled. That's an iron-like type of character which needs to be annealed.

Actually, I wonder what you think as to his friendship with Anatole?

I think that first Dolokhov simply used Anatole as he had social connections and so on. After that, he felt simpathy to Anatole, but more as a protector but not as an equal person and a friend. Like an elder brother.
But he has his own moral, which prevents him to refuse the help. It's all about different attitudes: Sonya felt that the right thing is to tell everything to the family after Natasha shared her secret, Dolokhov wouldn't force Anatole, he just alerted yet offered his help. That's his opnion on what friendship means.

And as strange as this might sound but do you think that is Sonya had not refused him he would actually come to think less of her than?

That's an interesting opinion. I've never thought about it before. Now I think you're right.

Dolokhov allowed himself to cry in front of Nicholai

That's what shows that Nicholai was truly close to Dolokhov. Don't think that Dolokhov would lie in such matters.
I'd explain it like this: as Nicholai accidentaly got in the way of his friend, for Dolokhov it was enough to feel that he was already betrayed. So from this moment he moved him from friends category to enemies. Probably being overwhelmed by angriness and his hurted pride.

I said 'daring' not 'darLing'

Oh, lol. Just shows how tired I was while writing this.

People like Dolokhov have a desperate need in overcoming difficulties. Fighting for a goal is essential for them. If he were born in a rich and reputable family, what would he be like? Probably very spoiled. That's an iron-like type of character which needs to be annealed.

Hmm…would he be spoiled? Bored maybe? Are you thinking something along the lines of Onegin? Because that could be a possibility. But it’s hard to speculate on that much because to much of his behavior is motivated by the life bettle of sorts that he’s leading.

I think that first Dolokhov simply used Anatole as he had social connections and so on. After that, he felt simpathy to Anatole, but more as a protector but not as an equal person and a friend. Like an elder brother.

You know, I kind of also see this younger brother/older brother dynamic, probably because how different their maturity levels are. So, it’s definitely very possible that Dolokhov has subconsciously taken on he role of protector.

Dolokhov wouldn't force Anatole, he just alerted yet offered his help. That's his opnion on what friendship means.

And, really, I think this is one of those things that really reflects his personality and outlook on life and people in general.

I'd explain it like this: as Nicholai accidentaly got in the way of his friend, for Dolokhov it was enough to feel that he was already betrayed.

Ironic, sort of, because Dolokhov was really playing the traitor here: Nicholai already was “with” Sonya.
He does seem quite sensitive to these things, which makes me think that you’re probably right about Dolokhov having had some bad experiences in life with friends and such before we are introduced to him in the book, given how easily he blames and suspects and how hard it seems for him to forgive.

Hmm…would he be spoiled? Bored maybe?

Yes, it is hard to speculate... but I'd rather think of him being spoiled. People like Dolokhov would literally die if bored (for example got ill). They can't survive without constant actions. I don't think that Onegin and Dolokhov share the same personality type.

Ironic, sort of, because Dolokhov was really playing the traitor here: Nicholai already was “with” Sonya.

That's true. But he didn't see that or should I say he would never admit. Surely he is an egocentric type.
And yes, maybe a bad expirience has caused such a suspiciousness.

He is believable. Does anyone know the author of the book on Leo Tolstoy himself? I read it once a long time ago and was fascinated by his home life and the fact that he would write on paper all over the place and leave it helter skelter and his wife would go about gathering it up and such. He was as glorious as any of his own characters.

You know....I've always wondered how Dolokhov would react to Anatole's death at Borodino. Essentially, would he care? And if yes, could he admit it, even to himself?

I've found it to be a great fanfic subject but the characterization is hard...given the complexity of Dolokhov's character. Would anyone mind/like to beta my little pet-peace? Just to spot for characterization so that I don't make out favorite bad-boy too out of character in my fangirl quest for sappiness. *glanced at Fairy Wilbury*

I just finished the book and my question about the Dolokhov character is why there was no interaction between he and Pierre near the end, where Dolokhov is part of the force that ends up freeing Pierre. Perhaps it was enough for Tolstoy to have that happen, and there did not need to be any words exchanged between them? I guess I'm too used to Hollywood, and how a movie might do it. It was powerful enough for both of them to just be in that same scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyRow

Disclaimer: I'm only a third of the way through the book

Is Dolokhov an example of the Russian literature archetype of the "superfluous man"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluous_man) I read A Hero of Our Time and the main character, Pechorin, has a lot in common with Dolokhov: the need to control others, a disdain for society and social mores, and the destructive effect he has on both friends and enemies.

If Dolokhov is your favorite character in W&P, I recommend this book by Lermontov.

---

"A Hero of Our Time" is the best book, ever! However, I can't agree with you that Dolokhov is like Pechorin. Pechorin is emotionally crippled. He doesn't love or hate anybody or anything; nothing can arouse his soul.

2Alley

Oh, sorry, haven't been here for more than a year...

If you are still interested in beta reader - I am here for you ;)

I think he does care about Anatole. And he would care about his death. He was kind of protective of this guy. But, yes, I think he would hardly admit that even to himself, 'though probably something would give away his feeling.

2nmstu

I guess it would be far too much. And what could Dolokhov possibly say to Pierre. It's not like he changed his attitudes, he simply let the past events go.