Mikhail Lermontov - Exceptional Personality!

“If this boy stayed alive, neither I nor Dostoevsky would be needed! "
L. Tolstoy.
My dear friends, today I am talking about one of my favourite authors, Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov.

[@harmageddon113]

Absolutely friend! I agree with Tolstoy wholeheartedly and wish Lermontov would have lived longer. His grandiosity and Byronic nature has always appealed to me.

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you! And it is very interesting how accurately he depicted the human nature and its inner most feeling during the time of Romanticism. He is special and Tolstoy was absolute right, as you said :)

[@harmageddon113]

@@VadimsOutlook Human nature, yes, but man's nature more so, I think. This is why I believe he did not live long and died as a man of bravado and panache in a duel. A Byronic man in modern civilization would not survive, as he didn't. The Byronic nature would have to survive in multiple personalities, as in Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but would never be fully apparent in either. Perhaps, though, the pendulum is swinging the other way during these times because we need another Lermontov now, more than ever, to remind us of what we've forgotten.

[@VadimsOutlook]

@@harmageddon113 Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy were very very insightful, though they were very different from Lermontov, he was so bold, so clever and so daring, one might say that he was not for everybody. Like Don Quixote went mad because he couldn't separate good book from bad, and bad ideals from good, so unaware reader could draw wrong conclusions from his words. Perhaps we have too many Lermontov's these days, unfortunately their ideals and goals are different from those we would like to see in them.

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you once again, I missed this kind of discussions so much! :)

[@harmageddon113]

@@VadimsOutlook I resonate with Don Quixote because at least he dared to be great when everyone else would consider him an idiot that was unworthy of such a sentiment. At least he embarked on adventures that were doomed to fail. To me Cervantes foresaw the destruction that would come upon women as a result of people like Lermontov not being welcomed in the world and the Byronic hero having to exist in split personalities, thus giving birth to feminism and these women's liberation movements that ultimately destroys the matriarchy, as well as modern society. Don Quixote is emblematic of an old man's heroic failure to save the fair maidens. It comes off as comedy, but at its heart it really is a tragedy. Don Quixote at least tries to save them, while every other man basically collaborates in destroying women. He shows care and concern, as a true friend would. But nobody recognizes this, neither the men, who adopt the perspective of simply letting the women do what they want, nor the women, who are all for women's liberation without having the foresight to see that it is simply women's destruction under a nice name. As for too many Lermontov's, yes I think you are right. But at the same time I think that such is not the real Lermontov spirit, but a bastardized version of said spirit. Every man is daring, as Lermontov was, but in a defeatist way. They will die in a duel, but not by fighting, but by laying down their gun to get killed, and that long before their fighting spirit has left them naturally. The power from within, the effort in the face of all opposition to the contrary, all that is missing. They will be daring after they are defeatist. They will fight, but not for manhood and individual power, but for women's liberation and collectivist movements. The fight is not apparent when it should be apparent. It happens long after man has lost his manhood and woman has been destroyed their feminine and motherly nature and neither have realized it themselves. These are your Lermontov's now. But the Lermontov I am speaking about is a different spirit entirely. It is one that fights at the right time, even if that means that one must lose everything in the process. It means to try at the right time, even if you are doomed to failure. It means that it is okay to have controversial views about everything that modern readily readily accepts because, in doing so, you are actually defending those who are unaware of their own destruction, even if you shall fail in your defense because those who you are seeking to defend will arrogantly tell you that they don't need you to defend them. It means to lay down your sword, not when your body is filled with verve and vigor and your youth is still apparent in you, but only after things have unfolded naturally and your body begins to ache, and you have suffered and lost everything as a result of being the man that our parents wanted us to be all along, after you have lost all motivation, and will have laid it down reluctantly, even then, because you just don't have the strength anymore, and furthermore because you have realized that the world will never welcome you in life. The truth, in all of its terror, will have been revealed to you because of what you been forced to repeat in society, thus never really allowing you to move on to the next thing. But move on you shall, but perhaps too late to become an enemy that women and society perceives to be otherwise. Lermontov was a friend. The Lermontov's of the world now; they are basically enemies who will collaborate in seeing a friend destroy themselves. Thank you, friend, for initiating this conversation. I too miss these types of discussions very much. Cheers!

[@olgalacebreeze3017]

It is very interesting to learn something new that was NOT told about at school:)))

[@VadimsOutlook]

I am happy to be able to make something useful and hopefully interesting :)

[@taylormclachlen4052]

Great Video!

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you very much! 🤗

[@kristijanbenito3892]

He has book "Vadim" like your name. What a book! What a author! Greatest of all time

[@orglancs]

Vadim, I have just discovered your channel. Thank you, it looks very interesting indeed and I look forward to watching all your videos eventually. May I suggest, politely,, I hope, a better translation of your title? It would be, 'If this boy had stayed alive, neither I nor Dostoyevsky would have been needed.' Pushkin House in London has just posted an excellent video of a meeting about Lermontov, too. I think he's a better poet than Pushkin, he's my favourite. Peter.

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you very much Peter, it is very nice to hear that! As for your suggestions they are more than welcome! It is always very helpful to get a feedback and suggestions on how I can improve, in this way I can not make better videos, but can have more interesting discussions, which was the idea behind creating this channel :) Going to watch the video from Pushkin House, and meanwhile, in a way you are right, as a poet he was stronger, but the most interesting thing for me is their optimism, such different approach to the joy and possibilities of life, but raised from such a different perspectives…

[@marcrippee4365]

Terrific!

[@AmbienceNexus]

Russia indeed was deprived of a great literary gem when they placed the weapon in his assasins hands

[@ryanoneiljohnson8743]

Sure. Do more analysis on russian authors especially the father Pushkin.

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you once again Ryan! I do remember your request and already started working on it, though it will take some time to prepare :D

[@christophmahler]

Vadim, since You are interested in psychology and intimately familiar with Lermontov's thought's, I wonder if You would relate his seemingly unique disposition into what is today called _'autism spectrum disorder'_ . It's odd to diagnose the dead - but it seems to me an interesting question, nonetheless - even if one were to reject the idea.

[@VadimsOutlook]

Thank you very much for the comment Christoph, great question. I would not say that he got 'autism spectrum disorder', I'd rather all it obsessive disorder, but very strange form of it, as he fixated strongly on the trauma of his childhood and it stick to him through all of his life, and had the same trajectory which was also destructive in its nature... Extraordinary person!!!

[@christophmahler]

@@VadimsOutlook "(...) he fixated strongly on the trauma of his childhood and it stick to him through all of his life, and had the same trajectory which was also destructive in its nature (...)" Glad, that You seem to be well... Yes - but _'on the inside'_ , this outwardly destructive path made him to produce one of the most _profound_ pieces of modern literature, continuing the 'seriousness' of Pushkin (I can only think of the 'The Prophet', knowing little else) and preparing the cultural discourse for Tolstoj ('War and Peace') and Dostojevsky ('The Idiot') who may have both had 'Decembrist sympathies', but ended their books as 'Slavophiles' - isn't that so ? Someone, so formative for a national tradition can't really be a psychological 'outlier' - but must be perceptive for what forces drive a society and disciplined enough to put it into words ? It reminds me remotely of the Greek author *Nikos Kazantzakis* after he was confronted by the simple George Zorbas - *an embrace of Dionysian passion as an integral part of 'God's will'* . That's just what comes to my mind. I also thought about Andrey Bely ('Petersburg' 1913), Aleksandr Blok ('The Scythians' 1918) - and the earlier Vladimir Solovjov ('A Short Story of the anti-Christ' 1900) during the last years, leading me to Lermontov (by the way a relative of 'Thomas Learmonth, the Rhymer') - as if there were a common theme...