A Hero of Our Time

De: Mikhail Lermontov

Narrado por: Clive Chafer

First published in Russia as Geroy Nashego Vremeni, A Hero of Our Time is set in the Russian Caucasus in the 1830s.

In A Hero of Our Time, Grigory Pechorin is a bored, self-centered, and cynical young army officer who believes in nothing. With impunity he toys with the love of women and the goodwill of men. He is brave, determined, and willful, but his wasted energy and potential ultimately result in tragedy.

This psychologically probing portrait of a disillusioned 19th-century aristocrat and its use of a nonchronological and multifaceted narrative structure influenced such later Russian authors as Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy and presaged the antiheroes and antinovels of 20th-century fiction.

Public Domain (P)2016 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Begay! GT Human … all human

Great and deep social and psychological observations. An emotional journey in human mind, interaction and motivation. Pure, at times even cruel realism.

Likeable bastard

The story of a dashing anti-hero, Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin told from multiple perspectives. Captures the spirit of the times - especially in regard to personal honour lost and gained - but just as relevant today concerning our personal choices and their consequences. Once you've finished, look up Mikhail Lermontov's bio for a hard-to-match bitter irony.

One of My Faves

Truly great, Russian nihilist writing. ‘The Fatalist’ is one of the best stories ever told.

Good

Good solid k k k k k k k k j k k
Gfg hhh yeez what

Rising inflection

I had to get use to Clive Chafer's voice. At first it sounded as if he was reading it with the tone of sarcasm. But as the novel progressed I got use to his voice and it did not chafe me as badly. That is not to say I would pick him to narrate any other book I chose. One particular thing he does is end many of his interrogatory sentences with a rising inflection. And so it sounds like a BBC reporter narrating the story. This is very irritating. His voice never got out of the way of the story. It lacked sensitivity. However, it did add a better appreciation to the simultaneous reading of the novel.

An overlooked great literary work

Hard to imagine that this book was written when the author was only 23 and he died at the tender age of 26. Anyway, a compelling story that only gets better as it goes on. I thought the narrator was annoying at 1st but later realised that his delivery fit that of a bored jaded young man thus nicely fitting the narrator of the book.

Genius Presentation of Ywtsaxt fas

genius writing. interesting main character. great description of the soul and inner struggle. well performed and provocative. a hidden gem

A must read.

One of the best books I’ve ever read. Hard to believe it was written in 1839. Highly recommend.

An interesting book, better speed up a little

I did like this book very much. If this author hadn't been killed in a duel at age 26 then I can imagine he would have become one of the greatest Russian writers. I really would like to give this a little over 4 stars, but it's not quite 5 stars for me. Still I would recommend this because it's unusual and interesting. Its structure is different, being in 5 sections, so don't expect a regular plot line. I got this book after seeing it in my Audible suggestions. They know me well - I do like a good Russian novel.

I thought the narration good, but I usually listen a little faster. I listened to a little at regular speed and it's way too slow. I suggest going in at 1.10 to 1.25 speed. He's great with voices at least.

I listened to Novels in Translation all summer and a little beyond. I am late delivering my review.

Can't Understand Why I Enjoyed This One

The hero is a self-absorbed Byronic mess of contradictions, so much so that, near the end of the novel he opines that after his death some will say he was a good fellow while others will say he was a rogue, and that neither will be right. And he's right.

Maybe its the fascination of a bad sort who looks (at times) as if he's about to do the right thing. Maybe it's the morbid charm of a dissolute life. Certainly a man who cannot see the point of being alive (and therefore has no motivation more vital than the pursuit of pleasure) has its voyeuristic attractions. But I think it's the complex, tragic irony of the plot and its denouement that kept me going.

Clive Chaffer does a fine job, but he needs to be sped up a little. 1.1x worked for me.