Originally Posted by Karen 5th October 2006


Since this was introduced tonight in another thread, I thought I'd go on and post this question now instead of at the wrap up since we are so close to the end anyway.

So, what do you think the title meant?

Herestoyou


Oops, I think I answered this elsewhere. The People's Act of Love I think mainly has to do with the passage where Samarin is talking to Anna on p.259. The "acts of love" here are the revolutionary actions that must be taken for a higher cause, some of which would be considered evil under other circumstances. Balashov committed an extreme "act of love" for God by undergoing castration. Matula's "acts of love" are directed toward himself---he's the megalomaniac that loves himself and commits "acts of love" that he believes serve him the best. Mutz's "acts of love" involve not only Anna but whatever he must do to help his men get back to their country, even if it involves killing Matula.

That leaves Alyosha, possibly the only character not flawed in the book?

Nurseanne8


The title never made sense and it still does not-I have reread parts of the book and have thought about herestoyou comments and I wonder if the title actually means that the actions of people are not acts of love. Towards the end of the book Balashov questions if he was ever really an angel and if the act of castration purified him-he questions the "lies" he has maintained for years-regarding his family in Yzayk. Matula's actions were governed by the thirst for power and antisocial behavior. Mutz is probably the person with the puriest motives-yet he stood by while Matula slaughtered the unarmed prisoners-and he has not made attempts for an investigation-he walks a line between rightous and evil-so when he has plans to put in place a mutiny-against Matula is it for the good of the villege people and the Legion or to save his own skin? I still am wrestling if Samarin was a true revolutionary or simply utilized the identity as a "cover" for his evil deeds. The brief description of Samarin's youth illustrates someone who had no real connections to a cause or to people for that matter. The long speech that Samarin unloads on Anna may be his way of rationalizing his behavior so it seems honorable and gives himself permission to enter Anna's bed. Anna's actions throughout the book illustrate to me a woman deeply scared by her lifelong encounters with men-basically she is selfish and maintaining her self-gratification motivates her at the expense of her son. The climax of the book in which both Balashov and Matula meet their demise-may be the only "act of love" I can see-the people of the villege were no longer under the rule of Matula and the Legion could head to their homeland. Samarin does return a wounded Alyosha to his mother but was it because he could not safely escape from the Red army and therefore provided him avenue for escape? It was noted by herestoyou that Meek may have been saying that "the end justifies the means" possibly so-but I still wonder if Meek was again challenging the reader with the title-since all his characters were flawed-but as humans-we make mistakes- learn from them and "keep moving forward" hopefully with honor and compassion for others-as JD has been quoted in multiple interviews. I really look forward to viewing the other posts- the "why" of this title "bugs" me. Anne r

Herestoyou


I think you're right that in our view, these aren't acts of love, but in the characters' framework, they are. And these "acts of love" change, as you pointed out, towards the end of the book. Even Samarin commits an "act of love" by returning Alyosha to Anna instead of leaving him to die. So all in all, I think Meek intended the title to be a contradiction as all of the characters showed in their actions throughout the book. I still find the parallels to today's groups that supposedly commit acts "in the name of love".

As for Samarin, I think that he finds himself at odds with his beliefs as it's a woman that makes him act the opposite of what a "true revolutionary" would act for the "cause." I can't remember the girl's name at the start of the story, but it's because she was imprisoned that he decided to make that dreadful journey to the White Garden. Then, it's Anna/Alyosha that make Samarin confront his extreme ideals, and he again goes against his ideals and returns Alyosha to Anna as I think he did have some feelings for her and her son. There are some more parts in the chapter with Balashov/Samarin at the end, but I don't have my book handy right now. Even though Samarin is this terribly extreme character, I noticed that he maintains some shred(be it small) of decency due to the women in the book. He still has that vulnerability when it came to women.