Classics and the Western Canon discussion
War and Peace
>
Book 3
I was glad to see you included Michael Hodge's reflections Laurele. The whole question of Great Men and the individual's relationship to history is the most interesting aspect of the book to me. I was a bit surprised to see it introduced this early in the book.
At this point, however, I want to quibble with a smaller point he makes. He says that coming into money does not change Pierre. Well, in the deeper sense perhaps not; he is still confused about his place in the world. However, on the surface, he seems to fall into the pattern of entitlement that we often see.
At this point, however, I want to quibble with a smaller point he makes. He says that coming into money does not change Pierre. Well, in the deeper sense perhaps not; he is still confused about his place in the world. However, on the surface, he seems to fall into the pattern of entitlement that we often see.
Another Russian, Dostoevsky, on how history works:
... one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat...very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason... (Notes From the Underground.)
I don't think this is a grand theory of forces in the sense Tolstoy explores. But it made me think of many of the seemingly silly choices from duels to battles in W&P.
... one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat...very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason... (Notes From the Underground.)
I don't think this is a grand theory of forces in the sense Tolstoy explores. But it made me think of many of the seemingly silly choices from duels to battles in W&P.
Patrice wrote: "Is Tolstoy saying the opposite? That we can't effect the outcome of things? That can't be right, can it? That would be very Eastern, wouldn't it? Fate and destiny rule so just accept and go with it? Be passive, like Pierre? I don't feel I have a handle on it yet. Tolstoy, in his later years, very actively tried to fight for social justice. I think he may just be saying that we don't have as much control as we think we have. ..."I absolutely agree with you here, Patrice. As I approached the end of this week's reading, I found two events suggesting what you are saying, also pointing to what I am finding as Tolstoy's penchant for utter realism.
First, when Rostov arrives in Hostieradek and unexpectedly encounters his hero, Alexander, his inaction seems to undermine his own self-confidence and even identity. Tolstoy (unlike Dostoyevsky) doesn't seem to regard Rostov's inaction as unacceptable, but rather completely pragmatic. I love that Tolstoy doesn't seem to morally judge Rostov's inability to act on his own desires, but rather simply documents it as happening. In creating the character and (in)actions of Rostov, Tolstoy has identified something very human within all of us.
Second, as Prince Andrei finally encounters his hero face to face (although in somewhat undesirable circumstances), his notion of heroism and the grandeur of significant individual accomplishment comes crashing down as he is faced with the brutal reality of "the insignificance of grandeur, [...] the insignificance of life, [...and] the greater insignificance of death".
In Book III, both Rostov's and Andrei's grand hopes and dreams seem to be brought down to within the realities of this world. I don't see Tolstoy here as fatalistic, but simply realistic, and for me, it is this realism which is making War and Peace so compelling thus far!
Kyle wrote: "...I love that Tolstoy doesn't seem to morally judge Rostov's inability to act on his own desires, but rather simply documents it as happening...."Certainly, when he accomplishes it, one of the great strengths of Tolstoy and his writing. The ability to hold judgment in appropriate abeyance is probably one of the most difficult of moral positions to take and Tolstoy plays with it again and again. Thanks for calling it to our attention, Kyle.
I thought it was rather interesting that in chapters 12 and 13 of this book we see both Andrei and Rostov fantasizing about their forthcoming heroism in battle. Andrei dreams that the battle will be his Toulon, and that Kutuzov, Weyrother and the emperors will see the "correctness" of his thinking, but will not follow up on it. It is up to him, Andrei alone, to take the reins, lead his division into battle and win the war. Nikolai, on the other hand, is in love with the sovereign and dreams of how he will be personally attached to him, protect him from deceivers, and slap the face of the enemy in his presence. The proximity of these fantasies must be intentional, and of course the reality of the battle is quite different from what they imagine it will be. It will be interesting to see how long these romantic notions of war will persist.
Thomas wrote: "I thought it was rather interesting that in chapters 12 and 13 of this book we see both Andrei and Rostov fantasizing about their forthcoming heroism in battle. Andrei dreams that the battle will b..."Good point, and helpful, because Andrei and Nikolai are in such similar situations that we need a way of keeping them apart in our minds.
Chapter 1. Opening paragraph. Wonderful.
"Prince Vasili was not a man who deliberately thought out his plans. Still less did he think of injuring anyone for his own advantage. He was merely a man of the world who had got on and to whom getting on had become a habit. Nor did he say to himself: 'Pierre is a rich man. I must entice him to marry my daughter and lend me the forty thousand rubles I need.'"
But I had been thinking that Prince Vasili was very MUCH a man who deliberately thought out his plans.
So...is this--in effect--Prince Vasili lying to himself? Is this the story he tells himself to make himself look better in his own eyes? I don't think so. I don't think Vasili much cares about how he looks to himself; that doesn't effect his goals. And right now his goal to get his hands on 40,000 rubles. Notice, however, he already knows how to acquire the money. yet.. he doesn't "deliberately" think out his plans.
I haven't had any reason to think that W&P has a false narrator---so the words must convey some truth.
I'm thinking maybe he senses instinctually what he needs before he consciously thinks of what he needs. So when he goes after something, say 40,000 rubles, by the time he's thinking consciously about it, he already has a sense of what has to be done. So he's not "deliberately" planning. He's merely implementing what he already knows must be done. And he's operated this way so long, it's "a habit"/not a plan.
"Prince Vasili was not a man who deliberately thought out his plans. Still less did he think of injuring anyone for his own advantage. He was merely a man of the world who had got on and to whom getting on had become a habit. Nor did he say to himself: 'Pierre is a rich man. I must entice him to marry my daughter and lend me the forty thousand rubles I need.'"
But I had been thinking that Prince Vasili was very MUCH a man who deliberately thought out his plans.
So...is this--in effect--Prince Vasili lying to himself? Is this the story he tells himself to make himself look better in his own eyes? I don't think so. I don't think Vasili much cares about how he looks to himself; that doesn't effect his goals. And right now his goal to get his hands on 40,000 rubles. Notice, however, he already knows how to acquire the money. yet.. he doesn't "deliberately" think out his plans.
I haven't had any reason to think that W&P has a false narrator---so the words must convey some truth.
I'm thinking maybe he senses instinctually what he needs before he consciously thinks of what he needs. So when he goes after something, say 40,000 rubles, by the time he's thinking consciously about it, he already has a sense of what has to be done. So he's not "deliberately" planning. He's merely implementing what he already knows must be done. And he's operated this way so long, it's "a habit"/not a plan.
What a really, really nice 2nd paragraph! Made me smile.
"He [Prince Vasili] had Pierre at hand in Moscow and procured for him an appointment as Gentleman of the Bedchamber..."
And next he will procure for Pierre his own daughter.
Webster: procure
a : to get possession of : obtain by particular care and effort.
b : to get and make available for promiscuous sexual intercourse
"He [Prince Vasili] had Pierre at hand in Moscow and procured for him an appointment as Gentleman of the Bedchamber..."
And next he will procure for Pierre his own daughter.
Webster: procure
a : to get possession of : obtain by particular care and effort.
b : to get and make available for promiscuous sexual intercourse
@ 2 Zeke wrote: he [Pierre] seems to fall into the pattern of entitlement that we often see.
"
I've only finished reading chapter 1, so I can't speak as to how Pierre is after he's had the money for awhile. But I must say that it seemed to me that in Book 1 Pierre had seemed to fall into whatever pattern those around him directed him towards:
He did allow himself to be directed around the salon;
He did go along/agreed/actually promised to stop hanging out with the bad crowd; he did carouse with that same bad crowd when they wanted him to; he seemed his lower-than-others illegitimate status; he went through though corridors to his father's death bed exactly as he was directed to by Anna Mikhailovna; he did allow himself to be married to the beautiful Helene without actually taking any self-initiated action to the end.
I like your word choice: "seems to fall into."
I'm waiting to see Pierre make some sort of effort on his own behalf and strive towards something that he wants. I would even just like to see him actually "want" something.
"
I've only finished reading chapter 1, so I can't speak as to how Pierre is after he's had the money for awhile. But I must say that it seemed to me that in Book 1 Pierre had seemed to fall into whatever pattern those around him directed him towards:
He did allow himself to be directed around the salon;
He did go along/agreed/actually promised to stop hanging out with the bad crowd; he did carouse with that same bad crowd when they wanted him to; he seemed his lower-than-others illegitimate status; he went through though corridors to his father's death bed exactly as he was directed to by Anna Mikhailovna; he did allow himself to be married to the beautiful Helene without actually taking any self-initiated action to the end.
I like your word choice: "seems to fall into."
I'm waiting to see Pierre make some sort of effort on his own behalf and strive towards something that he wants. I would even just like to see him actually "want" something.
@1 Laurele wrote: "to base a marriage on
Didn't you wonder whether Prince Andrew's marriage might have had a similar basis? I did. I thought perhaps Prince Andrew was swept up with the princesses physicality... and then found after the marriage that that wasn't enough... that they had dissimilar personalities.
I even wondered if it weren't her light, flighty personality that first drew him to her. That she seemed so engaging / and he was more tightly wound.
But that after the marriage, he found that very quality of hers to be irritating.
Pierre, remember, (can't look up quote. cat is in my arms) most especially enjoyed the after entertainment when he was out with the bad boys----I thought that that was an allusion women. And Helene, in her very low front and back dresses with the very alluring perfume, is very pleasant to be around.
Didn't you wonder whether Prince Andrew's marriage might have had a similar basis? I did. I thought perhaps Prince Andrew was swept up with the princesses physicality... and then found after the marriage that that wasn't enough... that they had dissimilar personalities.
I even wondered if it weren't her light, flighty personality that first drew him to her. That she seemed so engaging / and he was more tightly wound.
But that after the marriage, he found that very quality of hers to be irritating.
Pierre, remember, (can't look up quote. cat is in my arms) most especially enjoyed the after entertainment when he was out with the bad boys----I thought that that was an allusion women. And Helene, in her very low front and back dresses with the very alluring perfume, is very pleasant to be around.
@1 Laurele wrote:" is it better just to go along with the flow and let things happen? "
Well, it seems to me that the people who just go along aren't the happy people.
Which characters, at this point in the book, strike you as actually happy?
For me, Prince Andrew---once he had left for the war---comes to mind:
"Though not much time had passed since Prince Andrew had left Russia, he had changed greatly during that period. In the expression of his face, in his movements, in his walk, scarcely a trace was left of his former affected languor and indolence....
occupied with agreeable and interesting work...
His face expressed more satisfaction with himself and those around him, his smile and glance were brighter and more attractive." (Book 2, beginning of chapter 2).
Not happy ha-ha; but, I think, happy with his life.
And from Book 2, Chapter 11:
Prince Andrew leaves headquarters and non-effectual fellow officers behind him. "The farther forward and nearer the enemy he went, the more orderly and cheerful were the troops."
I think because these troops were engaged --- they were aware that they were living in life-or-death circumstances, and they were actively taking actions to keep their lives..." dragging logs... building shelters...with merry chatter and laughter..."
And then there was Tushin and his men. Despite the deaths of their fellows they were taking action, "In their childlike glee, aroused by the fire and their luck"...
They replaced horses and carried away the wounded..."but the artillerymen were still as merry and lively as ever"... they were acting/engaging in life.
"The thought that he might be killed or badly wounded never occurred to him. On the contrary, he became more and more elated."
All these people were taking action in their lives---I think they are happier.
Well, it seems to me that the people who just go along aren't the happy people.
Which characters, at this point in the book, strike you as actually happy?
For me, Prince Andrew---once he had left for the war---comes to mind:
"Though not much time had passed since Prince Andrew had left Russia, he had changed greatly during that period. In the expression of his face, in his movements, in his walk, scarcely a trace was left of his former affected languor and indolence....
occupied with agreeable and interesting work...
His face expressed more satisfaction with himself and those around him, his smile and glance were brighter and more attractive." (Book 2, beginning of chapter 2).
Not happy ha-ha; but, I think, happy with his life.
And from Book 2, Chapter 11:
Prince Andrew leaves headquarters and non-effectual fellow officers behind him. "The farther forward and nearer the enemy he went, the more orderly and cheerful were the troops."
I think because these troops were engaged --- they were aware that they were living in life-or-death circumstances, and they were actively taking actions to keep their lives..." dragging logs... building shelters...with merry chatter and laughter..."
And then there was Tushin and his men. Despite the deaths of their fellows they were taking action, "In their childlike glee, aroused by the fire and their luck"...
They replaced horses and carried away the wounded..."but the artillerymen were still as merry and lively as ever"... they were acting/engaging in life.
"The thought that he might be killed or badly wounded never occurred to him. On the contrary, he became more and more elated."
All these people were taking action in their lives---I think they are happier.
Adelle wrote: "...I must say that it seemed to me that in Book 1 Pierre had seemed to fall into whatever pattern those around him directed him towards:"I find the same thing in him. He seems to have no convictions or clear plan for his life, so perhaps it's natural that he follows others, sometimes into not-so-good choices, as when he doesn't go home but goes to the drinking party.
I thought this passage was a very moving depiction of motherhood.
Nicholas' letter was read over hundreds of times, and those who were considered worthy to hear it had to come to the countess, for she did not let it out of her hands. The tutors came, and the nurses, and Dmitri, and several acquaintances, and the countess reread the letter each time with fresh pleasure and each time discovered in it fresh proofs of Nikolenka's virtues. How strange, how extraordinary, how joyful it seemed, that her son, the scarcely perceptible motion of whose tiny limbs she had felt twenty years ago within her, that son about whom she used to have quarrels with the too indulgent count, that son who had first learned to say "pear" and then "granny," that this son should now be away in a foreign land amid strange surroundings, a manly warrior doing some kind of man's work of his own, without help or guidance. The universal experience of ages, showing that children do grow imperceptibly from the cradle to manhood, did not exist for the countess. Her son's growth toward manhood, at each of its stages, had seemed as extraordinary to her as if there had never existed the millions of human beings who grew up in the same way. As twenty years before, it seemed impossible that the little creature who lived somewhere under her heart would ever cry, suck her breast, and begin to speak, so now she could not believe that that little creature could be this strong, brave man, this model son and officer that, judging by this letter, he now was.
Of course, as readers we know that Nicholas has been wounded in battle. Here is what he is thinking in the time the letter is travelling to his mother.
He opened his eyes and looked up. The black canopy of night hung less than a yard above the glow of the charcoal. Flakes of falling snow were fluttering in that light. Tushin had not returned, the doctor had not come. He was alone now, except for a soldier who was sitting naked at the other side of the fire, warming his thin yellow body.
"Nobody wants me!" thought Rostov. "There is no one to help me or pity me. Yet I was once at home, strong, happy, and loved." He sighed and, doing so, groaned involuntarily.
There is a brilliant, painful to read, article in the Sept 9 issue of The New Yorker by David Finkel. It appears to be a chapter from his forthcoming Thank You for Your Service. It describes one soldier's struggle with PTSD.
How many American mothers have felt like the Countess? How many soldiers, like Nicholas? And how many have come home unable to reconnect with family--accompanied only by the demons in their memory?
Nicholas' letter was read over hundreds of times, and those who were considered worthy to hear it had to come to the countess, for she did not let it out of her hands. The tutors came, and the nurses, and Dmitri, and several acquaintances, and the countess reread the letter each time with fresh pleasure and each time discovered in it fresh proofs of Nikolenka's virtues. How strange, how extraordinary, how joyful it seemed, that her son, the scarcely perceptible motion of whose tiny limbs she had felt twenty years ago within her, that son about whom she used to have quarrels with the too indulgent count, that son who had first learned to say "pear" and then "granny," that this son should now be away in a foreign land amid strange surroundings, a manly warrior doing some kind of man's work of his own, without help or guidance. The universal experience of ages, showing that children do grow imperceptibly from the cradle to manhood, did not exist for the countess. Her son's growth toward manhood, at each of its stages, had seemed as extraordinary to her as if there had never existed the millions of human beings who grew up in the same way. As twenty years before, it seemed impossible that the little creature who lived somewhere under her heart would ever cry, suck her breast, and begin to speak, so now she could not believe that that little creature could be this strong, brave man, this model son and officer that, judging by this letter, he now was.
Of course, as readers we know that Nicholas has been wounded in battle. Here is what he is thinking in the time the letter is travelling to his mother.
He opened his eyes and looked up. The black canopy of night hung less than a yard above the glow of the charcoal. Flakes of falling snow were fluttering in that light. Tushin had not returned, the doctor had not come. He was alone now, except for a soldier who was sitting naked at the other side of the fire, warming his thin yellow body.
"Nobody wants me!" thought Rostov. "There is no one to help me or pity me. Yet I was once at home, strong, happy, and loved." He sighed and, doing so, groaned involuntarily.
There is a brilliant, painful to read, article in the Sept 9 issue of The New Yorker by David Finkel. It appears to be a chapter from his forthcoming Thank You for Your Service. It describes one soldier's struggle with PTSD.
How many American mothers have felt like the Countess? How many soldiers, like Nicholas? And how many have come home unable to reconnect with family--accompanied only by the demons in their memory?
Although the incident enables some of the finest thematic statements of the book, I thought it was a bit implausible that Napoleon, in effect, saves Andrei at the end of Book III. Did anyone else think this stretched credulity a bit?
As for those thematic set pieces:
Looking into Napoleon's eyes Prince Andrew thought of the insignificance of greatness, the unimportance of life which no one could understand, and the still greater unimportance of death, the meaning of which no one alive could understand or explain.
And:
"It would be good," thought Prince Andrew, glancing at the icon his sister had hung round his neck with such emotion and reverence, "it would be good if everything were as clear and simple as it seems to Mary. How good it would be to know where to seek for help in this life, and what to expect after it beyond the grave! How happy and calm I should be if I could now say: 'Lord, have mercy on me!'... But to whom should I say that? Either to a Power indefinable, incomprehensible, which I not only cannot address but which I cannot even express in words- the Great All or Nothing-" said he to himself, "or to that God who has been sewn into this amulet by Mary! There is nothing certain, nothing at all except the unimportance of everything I understand, and the greatness of something incomprehensible but all-important.
As for those thematic set pieces:
Looking into Napoleon's eyes Prince Andrew thought of the insignificance of greatness, the unimportance of life which no one could understand, and the still greater unimportance of death, the meaning of which no one alive could understand or explain.
And:
"It would be good," thought Prince Andrew, glancing at the icon his sister had hung round his neck with such emotion and reverence, "it would be good if everything were as clear and simple as it seems to Mary. How good it would be to know where to seek for help in this life, and what to expect after it beyond the grave! How happy and calm I should be if I could now say: 'Lord, have mercy on me!'... But to whom should I say that? Either to a Power indefinable, incomprehensible, which I not only cannot address but which I cannot even express in words- the Great All or Nothing-" said he to himself, "or to that God who has been sewn into this amulet by Mary! There is nothing certain, nothing at all except the unimportance of everything I understand, and the greatness of something incomprehensible but all-important.
Zeke wrote: "Although the incident enables some of the finest thematic statements of the book, I thought it was a bit implausible that Napoleon, in effect, saves Andrei at the end of Book III. Did anyone else t..."A little bit of a deus ex machina dramatic gambit?
Zeke wrote: "I thought this passage was a very moving depiction of motherhood...."That passage startled me with its beauty and veracity on this reading, although I'm certain I must have noticed it in 2008 (last reading). Zeke, thanks for bringing it to our attention and juxtaposing it with the thoughts of the wounded Nikolai. Tolstoy doesn't hesitate to take us inside his character's heads. I'm not observant enough to figure out when he chooses to do so. It feels intuitive.
Before we get too deep into Napoleon's invasion of Russia, I wanted to see if anyone has thoughts about Nicholas's reaction to seeing the Tsar. He is overwhelmed and has a desire to die for him.
Does this ring true to people? We already know that Tolstoy is skeptical of "great" men. Why does he show Nicholas (and if I recall correctly, Andrei) as being under the sway of Alexander's charisma?
There is another great scene of a king encountering soldiers in Shakespeare's Henry V. The most famous is the Band of Brothers speech Henry gives the men. However, I find a different one more intriguing.
On the eve of battle Henry disguises himself and goes among the men. When he speaks highly of the king and of the importance of their endeavor, he discovers what the soldiers are really thinking.
Bates. He may show what outward courage he will; but I believe, as cold a night as 'tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck; and so I would he were, and I by him, at all adventures, so we were quit here.
Henry V. By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: I think he would not wish himself any where but where he is.
Bates. Then I would he were here alone; so should he be sure to be ransomed, and a many poor men's lives saved.
...
Henry V. I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being
just and his quarrel honourable.
Williams. That's more than we know.
...
Henry V. I myself heard the king say he would not be ransomed.
Williams. Ay, he said so, to make us fight cheerfully: but when our throats are cut, he may be ransomed, and we ne'er the wiser.
To his credit, Henry plays his real role better than he played the role of soldier. He delivers the famous speech and leads his men into battle. The English win and he goes down in history as a great king.
In reality, the reason they won despite being totally out manned was that the heavily armed French literally sunk into the mud on the rainy battlefield and were easy targets for the English archers. We will have the opportunity to discuss the role of nature (as opposed to great men) in determining the course of history later.
Does this ring true to people? We already know that Tolstoy is skeptical of "great" men. Why does he show Nicholas (and if I recall correctly, Andrei) as being under the sway of Alexander's charisma?
There is another great scene of a king encountering soldiers in Shakespeare's Henry V. The most famous is the Band of Brothers speech Henry gives the men. However, I find a different one more intriguing.
On the eve of battle Henry disguises himself and goes among the men. When he speaks highly of the king and of the importance of their endeavor, he discovers what the soldiers are really thinking.
Bates. He may show what outward courage he will; but I believe, as cold a night as 'tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck; and so I would he were, and I by him, at all adventures, so we were quit here.
Henry V. By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: I think he would not wish himself any where but where he is.
Bates. Then I would he were here alone; so should he be sure to be ransomed, and a many poor men's lives saved.
...
Henry V. I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being
just and his quarrel honourable.
Williams. That's more than we know.
...
Henry V. I myself heard the king say he would not be ransomed.
Williams. Ay, he said so, to make us fight cheerfully: but when our throats are cut, he may be ransomed, and we ne'er the wiser.
To his credit, Henry plays his real role better than he played the role of soldier. He delivers the famous speech and leads his men into battle. The English win and he goes down in history as a great king.
In reality, the reason they won despite being totally out manned was that the heavily armed French literally sunk into the mud on the rainy battlefield and were easy targets for the English archers. We will have the opportunity to discuss the role of nature (as opposed to great men) in determining the course of history later.
As Cass has said, with Nikolai we are watching a young man learn what the military and war is about. It is useful to Tolstoy in telling his story to have an idealistic young man among his characters; Count Nikolai serves well for that purpose. He is also idealistic in some different ways from Prince Andrei and from Pierre, so he serves as a foil as well. I'll comment in spoiler on a later meeting that will be crucial to the development of Nikolai: (view spoiler)
Post 7 Thomas wrote: "I thought it was rather interesting that in chapters 12 and 13 of this book we see both Andrei and Rostov fantasizing about their forthcoming heroism in battle. Andrei dreams that the battle will b..."Yes, I really enjoyed the juxtaposition of the two fantasies (and subsequent realities) as well. I felt both were worthy fantasies... I mean we all fantasise, Tolstoy doesn't judge our heroes for it.
Gosh, I remember I used to work as a bookkeeper in an accounting firm. I occupied a good deal of my time fantasising about how I would heroically intervene should armed men ever take over the office (usuing all my secret SAS skills).
So I loved that Tolstoy was able to be real, and by showing that both the youthful Nicholas and the more experience Prince Andrew enjoy full fantasies, Tolstoy is telling us that every man in the army is engaging in heroic fantasies, I suspect even the cowardly Dherkhov.
In response to the discussion about Pierre.Money has not changed him... but I am hoping it will.
So far he has allowed himself to be led, and has shown no strength of character, and no ability to think, with conviction, about the consequences of his actions or of the people around him (The incident with the bear, the drinking game, the death bed, his relationship with Prince Vasili, the giving of money to his cousin, his marriage).
The only glimpses of his worth was at the soiree (talking with the Abbe), at home with Prince Andrew, and when he met Boris.
Money has made him a target to be led around by bigger fishes. When he was merely the Count's bastard he was led around by a wild set, now that he has money he is increasingly becoming the target of scheming (Princess Drubestkeja, Prince Vasili, etc).
I am hoping that with money he will begin to see that he cannot behave like this any longer. Because until he changes then his money is going to disappear.
Did anyone discuss the love story between Nicholas and the Emperor?I adored this. I have never seen this sort of adoration written about.... and yet when I read it I can recall several times that I have felt this way about a person.
I loved Nicholas arriving home... I spent my life living away from my family and twice a year I would experience this exact same feeling as the car or bus got closer to the destination and the landmarks became more familiar.
Cass wrote: "Did anyone discuss the love story between Nicholas and the Emperor?..."You mean as in msg 21?
Lily wrote: "Cass wrote: "Did anyone discuss the love story between Nicholas and the Emperor?..."You mean as in msg 21?"
Oops. I missed everything from #16 onwards. I got caught up at #15. Yay. More thoughts to read.
From 16 - Zeke wrote: "I thought this passage was a very moving depiction of motherhood.The universal experience of ages, showing that children do grow imperceptibly from the cradle to manhood, did not exist for the countess. Her son's growth toward manhood, at each of its stages, had seemed as extraordinary to her as if there had never existed the millions of human beings who grew up in the same way.."
I underlined this passage too. I think I wrote "True of all mothers" in the margins. I suppose there is nothing to really discuss about it, but it never ceases to amaze me how Tolstoy is able to get it, to so succintly describe an emotion that you have had a hundred times.
@Zeke, Are you saying that you don't think Nicholas's zeal rings true?I loved it, and the wave of adoration that swept through the entire army as the Emperor rode past ("Hurrah").
For me I think it absolutely rings true, although I don't expect the older and wiser officers to be experiencing this euphoria (I mean we saw Prince Andrew's reaction to Bonaparte, much more sensible). It is very similiar to a crowd of Justin Beiber fans on spotting him walk past. Or the Beatles fans in the old footage.
I have no trouble relating to all of Rostov's behaviours at various times in my past (I hope I have outgrown them, but I recall them still.)
Hi Cass. It's not so much that Nicholas's zeal doesn't ring true to me. I guess what I was suggesting by juxtaposing the scene from Henry V is that his zeal is immature. It's hard for me to imagine a battle hardened veteran indulging such illusions about political leaders.
And, returning to Henry, I think the lesson the soldiers teach him helped him become a better commander. If you think about his "band of brothers" speech in Act IV scene three he uses what he has learned. Instead of appealing to the men's loyalty to him he reminds them of their fellowship with each other. The whole speech is often excerpted and is worth reading. It's conclusion supports my point:
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
And, returning to Henry, I think the lesson the soldiers teach him helped him become a better commander. If you think about his "band of brothers" speech in Act IV scene three he uses what he has learned. Instead of appealing to the men's loyalty to him he reminds them of their fellowship with each other. The whole speech is often excerpted and is worth reading. It's conclusion supports my point:
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Zeke wrote: "Hi Cass. It's not so much that Nicholas's zeal doesn't ring true to me. I guess what I was suggesting by juxtaposing the scene from Henry V is that his zeal is immature. It's hard for me to imagin..."In the Commentaries, we read about the soldiers' devotion to Caesar and willingness to die for him on numerous occasions. Plutarch attested to it in his account of Caesar's life as well, and commented that soldiers admired the most those leaders who did not shun the dangers and hardships of battle but lead them on in person. So its not unusual for the soldiers to feel devoted to the Tsar when they saw him appear in person on the battle field, imo.
Having never fought in a war, I don't know what cause would inspire people to fight and die for it. But it were brotherhood and fellowship, wouldn't it be better to live together as brothers and have fellowship in life?
I think it is pretty widely accepted that, at least in modern warfare, soldiers may join because of a belief in grand causes, but they fight out of solidarity with their unit. They don't want to let their brothers (and, now, sisters) down.
It will be interesting to see how this is developed as War and Peace continues.
If anyone is interested in pursuing this further, I would recommend two books about Iraq, one fiction one journalism.
In The Yellow Birds by Kevin Powers a soldier makes a promise to another soldier's mother that he will take care of him.
In The Good Soldiers journalist David Finkel follows one battalion (and their families) through their deployment and beyond.
It will be interesting to see how this is developed as War and Peace continues.
If anyone is interested in pursuing this further, I would recommend two books about Iraq, one fiction one journalism.
In The Yellow Birds by Kevin Powers a soldier makes a promise to another soldier's mother that he will take care of him.
In The Good Soldiers journalist David Finkel follows one battalion (and their families) through their deployment and beyond.
As an arnchair pacifist, I think if we really care for our brothers (and sisters), we wouldn't let them be sacrificed in a senseless war. Solidarity in crime, especially war crime, is not something to be proud of. Live and let live.
Austerlitz was a catastrophe for the Russians, in part because Alexander was allowed to dictate the battle plan. Abandoning the high ground to descend into fog was obviously not a great idea, but that is what they did, and adoration of the Tsar and deference to his opinion is at least partly to blame. Kutuzov sleeps through the war council, but if the alliance had followed his advice, they would have maintained a more defensible position and perhaps the result would have been different. I think it is meaningful that Tolstoy contrasts the age and infirmity of the wiser Kutuzov with the adoration that Rostov has for the far less competent Tsar and his underlings. The follies of war include this kind of political and bureaucratic bungling. SNAFU is a twentieth century military term, but I suppose it applies here just as well.
Thanks for that explanation Thomas. It bears a lot more discussion as this is the crux of upcoming themes. Up until this point we have seen Kutuzov in a great light. He is a competent commander, experienced and level-headed. Suddenly he is ignored and the arguments of the more experienced men are completely ignored.
Kutuzov sleeps through the war council because he knows that there is absolutely no use being awake. Nothing he says will make an ounce of difference.
An observation about Prince Aandrew. He spent a great amount if time day dreaming about heroism. He was fully convinced and prepared to undertake a heroic deed. He rode past standards of battle and wondered "is this the standard I will take hold of as I lead a great charge". So my question is this.
Do you think this daydreaming. These fantasies of heroism prepared Prince Andrew for the moment of truth. The troops were fleeing and he picks up the standards and charges. The troops follow him into battle.
I believe the daydreaming was a type of mental preparation. He knew what he would do. He didn't need to think about it. He acted.
This book has been full of daydreams and it is easy to mock them. But I think they serve a purpose of mental preparation.
Cass wrote: "An observation about Prince Aandrew. He spent a great amount if time day dreaming about heroism. He was fully convinced and prepared to undertake a heroic deed. He rode past standards of battle and..."
A good observation. In the real world picking up the standard and acting heroically IS something that Prince A would be capable of doing. And having day dreamed of that action, when the opportunity arose he already knew exactly what to do, believed he could, and was able to act very quickly.
I've enjoyed seeing how engaged you are with the story.
A good observation. In the real world picking up the standard and acting heroically IS something that Prince A would be capable of doing. And having day dreamed of that action, when the opportunity arose he already knew exactly what to do, believed he could, and was able to act very quickly.
I've enjoyed seeing how engaged you are with the story.
Cass wrote: "An observation about Prince Aandrew. He spent a great amount if time day dreaming about heroism. He was fully convinced and prepared to undertake a heroic deed. He rode past standards of battle and..."Day dreaming didn't prepare Nicholas for meeting Alexander. I agree with you about Prince Andrew though.
Perhaps Nicholas's youth caught up with him.
This is my first time through War and Peace, and I can't help wondering about Prince Andrew. Assuming he survives, I wonder how much his experience will change him. Andrew is very much driven by personal ambition, and he valiantly lives up to his dream by picking up the standard and rallying those around him. Napoleon seemed impressed when he first sees him laying on the battlefield. In a military sense, Andrew is a hero. And yet at the end of Book 3, he seems to feel small and insignificant.
Personally, this was one of the more striking narratives in book 3.
Dcorter wrote: "This is my first time through War and Peace, and I can't help wondering about Prince Andrew. Assuming he survives, I wonder how much his experience will change him. Andrew is very much driven by ..."
Dcorter, my first time through W&P was also with Laurele, and at that time she suggested we each pick a character to follow. (It was a wonderful way to create a personal perspective on the story.) Prince Andrew was my choice. I won't introduce any spoilers for you, just say that you are watching a fascinating character. As I sit here thinking of the full course of his story within W&P, I don't know what other literary character I would consider analogous to him. I love the contrasts with other characters, at this point in the novel, particularly with Pierre, e.g., dealing with the serfs and other practical matters. (Hope I'm not ahead of the text; I'm not checking. But still have tried to word as only a foreshadowing if I am.) In another contrast, Andrew is given to a bit of hero worship of Napoleon, but Tolstoy draws that quite differently than Nikolai's hero worship of the Tsar.
I look forward to any further comments you may have as Prince Andrew's story unrolls.
Laurele wrote: "Pierre, in fact, seems to represent the very epitome of Tolstoy’s approach to history. We’ve already seen throughout Book 2, that Tolstoy downplays the role that “great men” have in making history. Generals may have made plans and given orders, but we’ve seen that it is the thousands of small decisions by individuals that actually change the course of a battle.So the question is, then – if that’s the case, and you can’t really change the flow of history from the top down – is it better just to go along with the flow and let things happen? What do you think, thoughtful reader?"
I appreciated Pierre's goodness, and I understand the anguish he felt when his father's arm hung limp as they were turning him, and why the father smiled at this. Having said this, I still find Pierre's naive approach to his surroundings to be a bit annoying. Tolstoy notices every detail; his main character notices nothing but the emotional currents in a situation and responds only when there is turbulence. Maybe by the time I get to the end of the book I'll find that trait charming. We'll see
As to Tolstoy's approach to history, and without saying more than has been revealed up to book three (I'm on book 11 now) I'll just say that whenever the author launches into his view of the organic nature of history, I can't help thinking of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how much the role of one man Vasili Arkhipov had to play in the prevention of nuclear war.
Great post @42 Theresa. I know that this theme is going to come up repeatedly as we work through the book.
The question is a great one: go along with the flow since you can't change it?
My tentative answer is qualified. While you can't change history, you cancontrol your reaction to it. As an extreme example, I read once of people in a concentration camp who helped their fellow prisoners with scraps of bread, etc. and went to the gas chamber with their heads held high. The Nazis could kill them, but they could not deny them their humanity.
The question is a great one: go along with the flow since you can't change it?
My tentative answer is qualified. While you can't change history, you cancontrol your reaction to it. As an extreme example, I read once of people in a concentration camp who helped their fellow prisoners with scraps of bread, etc. and went to the gas chamber with their heads held high. The Nazis could kill them, but they could not deny them their humanity.
Zeke wrote: "My tentative answer is qualified. While you can't change history, you can control your reaction to it. I like that! Was that in Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning? It reminds me of it, anyway.
Have reached the first part of book 3. I've also wondered about Pierre's indecisiveness that appears as bumbling. I have wondered if it is maybe because he was raised away from Russian aristocracy and does not really know how society works. To prevent looking foolish and inferior (which I think he feels inside), he allows this around him to make his decisions. He trusts people blindly and does not think that they may be cruel or manipulative. I think he tries to be kind and good and believes that everyone else is so too. He is 'fitting in'.Helene is incredible! She's a lesson as to the dangers of beautiful women and how manipulative they can be. She is an actress playing the greatest role of her life in order to be married to a wealthy, titled husband.
And her family are all as bad as she is!
I a way, Mary has similar qualities to Pierre, she is good and sweet yet incredibly isolated and feels inferior. Thankfully, this helps her to see through Anatole and not marry into the scheming Kuragin family, he would have made her miserable.Lise is always referred to as the little princess. Is this to infantalise her. She seems to act like a spoilt young girl in a grown woman's body.
Lisa wrote: "Lise is always referred to as the little princess. Is this to infantalise her...."I took it more to mean she is petite. It may, along with her other characteristics, lead us to view it as "infantalizing her," but somehow I doubt that was Tolstoy's intention. I do note, while Lise is afraid of the old Count, he seems to offer her the respect you might expect him to extend to a (rather flighty) woman of society. You may remember that he asks her about her father that first dinner. I think Tolstoy was simply portraying a woman that might turn the head of a Prince Andrew.
I'm sure she is tiny, but there's something about her that is so child- like (although maybe she is very young). The constant repetition of 'the little princess' makes me think of a young girl, not a grown, pregnant woman(in action as much as looks)What is your impression of Andrey?
Lisa wrote: "I'm sure she is tiny, but there's something about her that is so child- like (although maybe she is very young). The constant repetition of 'the little princess' makes me think of a young girl, not..."I believe there is some mention of a servant who comes with her -- I'd have to double check. But, as I stated elsewhere, for a woman seemingly so fearful of pregnancy, one wonders where the senior women -- mother, grandmother, godmother, aunt, older servant are in her life. (Maybe her mother died in childbirth, possibly even her own?) She does seem very insecure under her apparent status as a "catch" of Petersburg society. We are not told whether her marriage with Prince Andrew was "arranged," or perhaps as Patrice has suggested, a matter of mutual attraction. But she probably has had relatively little education and may well be a teenager yet. At some level, I find her charming, albeit frustrating, even sometimes irritating. (How might one compare her with Natasha and Boris, perhaps 2-4 years older than Natasha?)
Andrey was the character I more or less followed in my first read of W&P. He was the handsome hero/prince figure to me. I wanted him to be more superhuman than Tolstoy molded him as the story progressed. Except for Pierre, and possibly Natasha, for no other character does Tolstoy so thoroughly lay out the arc of a life. At times I go "yeah, man!" Others, I cry "Get off it. Get with the program!" In the end .... well, we're not there yet.
(It startled me to see the depiction of Andrey that someone posted, wherein he seemed a rather short, although still handsome, man and military officer.)
I think I remember a french teacher explaining how the french describe things as small as a sort of compliment, as a habitual way of saying it is discreet or humble or precious. Americans often describe things as 'great' (not large necessarily) but grand nevertheless.
Thanks Lily, Theresa, PatriceI keep picturing a young, tiny, immature girl who is the 'Belle of the ball' but of little consequence to most people. There is a made with her, but I agree Lily, where are her family, who is supporting her through this?
The lip- thing is pretty comical, like it mars her perfection.
Patrice, I'm pretty short, have always been irritated about being called little, or tiny. Maybe I am projecting that frustration.but I don't think so, because Lise is the only character who has a 'title' like this.
Thanks for language and Andrew insights Theresa and Lily
Somehow, the word "little" relative to Lise created an image for me of someone who needed to be protected, especially emotionally -- and who could pout when she wasn't. That can be both endearing and frustrating -- which I felt I observed even as she moved about the soiree and certainly with Andrew and Pierre afterwards. We saw more of that at Bald Hills, too. Andrew went along with it even to the extent of arranging with his father for a doctor to be brought in when Lise was due to deliver their child. There is a line suggesting some level of agreement between them on Lise's risks at childbirth -- I don't think Tolstoy lets us see what drove it, though. (Some might say she knew how to lay on a guilt trip, but I feel as if such an assessment would be harsh. Even with her chatter, she seemed genuinely fragile and afraid under her tastefully-clothed and sophisticated surface.)
I'm being silly. Description sounds like a hamster though.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage: Stories (other topics)Caesar's Commentaries: On the Gallic War & On the Civil War (other topics)
Chapters 1-5 chronicle Prince Kuragin's (aided by dear old Anna Scherer) schemes to get rich spouses for his beautiful but questionable daughter Ellen and his scoundrel son Anatole. Good reading! I hope we'll get a lot of discussion going.
Chapter 6 is a great segue to get us back to the battlefield and some fascinating human interactions. Here are Briggs's summaries for chapters 6-14.
6. A letter from Nikolay. Sonya and Natasha.
7. Nikolay visits Boris and Berg, and meets Prince Andrey.
8. Nikolay is inspired by a close view of the Emperor inspecting the troops.
9. Boris visits Andrey at Olmutz. Prince Dolgorukov.
10. Nikolay remains ecstatically inspired by the Emperor.
11. Dolgorukov tells of his meeting with Napoleon. Kutuzov is pessimistic.
12. Kutuzov sleeps through a council of war.Andrey thinks things over.
13. Nikolay at the front. Visit of Balgration and Dolgorukov.
14. The Battle of Austerlitz begins.
I will not give Briggs's titles for chapters 15-19. A lot happens there, but you will want to find out for yourself.
Here is Matthew Hodge's blog entry for the first chapter:
---------
One-Year War and Peace 3.1 – Pierre’s New Life
16/08/2008
And so we return to the aristocratic social circles of Russian high society, as we go back to revisit the now-fabulously-wealthy Pierre.
The interesting thing is that Pierre’s character is so naive that money seems to have done nothing to him. He’s still just as confused as ever – and kind of bumbling along from one thing to another. It should be mentioned at this point, that I don’t think this is just a random character attribute that Tolstoy gives him.
Pierre, in fact, seems to represent the very epitome of Tolstoy’s approach to history. We’ve already seen throughout Book 2, that Tolstoy downplays the role that “great men” have in making history. Generals may have made plans and given orders, but we’ve seen that it is the thousands of small decisions by individuals that actually change the course of a battle.
So the question is, then – if that’s the case, and you can’t really change the flow of history from the top down – is it better just to go along with the flow and let things happen? What do you think, thoughtful reader?
Tolstoy plays with this idea throughout the book – I can’t remember from last time I read it, whether he ever comes right out and says that it’s better to just let things happen around you – because that would be a bit stupid. But Tolstoy is fascinated with the idea that history just seems to happen, regardless of people’s own wishes or desires.
So he plays around with it in a way that only a novel-writer can: he creates a character like Pierre. Pierre, at least in everything we’ve seen him do so far (and in today’s chapter) just lets events carry him along. Okay, so Prince Vassily is cheating him out of his money? He’s not sure. He just lets it happen. His architect says he should do up his house? He’s not sure. He just lets it happen. Everyone drops hints that he should marry Helene Kuragin? He’s not sure. He – well, actually, he does fight this one a little bit. By the end of the chapter, he’s debating in his head whether that would be a good idea – the first time we’ve seen him stop and take a think about it.
But then again, as Tolstoy points out, with the incident of the snuffbox – Helene has cleavage.
Is that a dumb thing to base a marriage on? Common sense would say yes, but I’m sure we’ve all seen relationships (especially among young people) that have started on just that shallow a basis nowadays.
Anyway, the point of all that is that Pierre, because he is portrayed as naive, is happy to go along with the flow – and so Tolstoy can use this character as a kind of experiment. “What would happen,” he sorts of asks us, “if a man just let things happen to him, rather than vainly trying to change things?”
After all, Pierre did nothing in Book 1- and he made a major fortune out of it. Not bad for doing nothing, is it?
What do you think? Better to let life run its course? Or jump in and seriously grab history by the horns?
-----------