Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I'm sure Laurel will be back with us shortly. In the meantime, here is the thread for Book 4, or Volume 2, Part 1. Lots of action and suspense in this episode! I'm not sure if this is a "War" chapter or a "Peace" chapter....

Thanks, Thomas! Here's a paragraph I borrowed from myself:

Birth, death, gambling, dueling, proposals, breakups, banquets, balls--this week's short section of War and Peace has just about everything in it but war. Part Four (called Volume Two, Part One in the Briggs and Pevear/Volokhonky translations) in its 16 chapters and 50 pages or so manages to pack in some of the most memorable scenes, for me, at least, of this great novel. The most shocking, perhaps, is the revelation of Dolokhov's hidden passion. The funniest, in the midst of terror and grief, is a line from Prince Andrei about a crying baby. Let us know what your favorite scenes are and how this section has enlarged your understanding of various characters. I said there was no war in this section, but that's not quite true, is it?

Questions

1. What are the men celebrating at their banquet? I thought they lost the Battle of Austerlitz.

2. Just how much alcohol did they each consume with all those toasts?

3. Why does Nikolai Rostov turn on Pierre and side with Dolokhov?

4. What is it about men and dueling?

5. Did Helene have an affair with Dolokhov?

6. Why does Pierre always make me smile and think of Winnie the Pooh? (except when he's threatening his wife with a chunk of marble, that is)

7. Why am I not surprised that Dolokhov's mother thinks he is a little angel?

I don't know the answers, Do you?

Laurele wrote: "Questions

..."


#3. I think Rostov sides with Dolokov because the two are brothers in arms. We know that Rostov well understands the concept of honor (he greatly valued his OWN individual honor)...and knows that Pierre's honor (the gossip of Pierre's wife and Dolokov) has been called into question. Yet Rostov sides with Dolokov. The fellow-soldier bond must be more important to Nikolai.

Laurele wrote: "Questions
.."

#5. Does it matter? Everyone in Pierre's circle believes it. Pierre himself comes to believe it. Helene's observable behavior is such that any neutral observer would believe that the rumors were well-founded. Dolokov's public behavior and words imply to everyone that he IS having an affair with Pierre's wife---and he's publicly taunting Pierre. Therefore Pierre's honor--and that of his wife--HAS been tarnished.

From the text, I don't think we can know for certain whether she and Dolokov in fact did or did not physically consummate their relationship..

Laurele wrote: "Questions

..."

#7. Because mother's tend to/prefer to? see the better aspects of their sons and to overlook or downplay the less admirable behaviors. Also, at home, to his mother and hunchback sister, Dolokov WAS "the most affectionate of sons and brothers" as Rostov noted with surprise.

(Tolstoy seems to have made the point repeatedly that people tend to back the interests of "their own"--their own individual self, their own family, their own group...no matter what it might cost "the other"--

And that people tend to believe what they want to believe...until it's simply TOO impossible for them.)

Adelle wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Questions

..."

#7. Because mother's tend to/prefer to? see the better aspects of their sons and to overlook or downplay the less admirable behaviors. Also, at home, to his mother..."

Completely agree. I find myself frequently comparing Dolokhov with some of the boys at the public middle school I work at. It's interesting to see that the same dualities at work in the 19th century are equally present within today.

I don't necessarily see the fault here with Dolokhov's mother, but rather Dolokhov himself, who perhaps acts out in his own way around friends, as an "escape" from the responsibilities of home.

Laurele wrote: "Questions

5. Did Helene have an affair with Dolokhov?

It's interesting that Tolstoy doesn't explicitly say, though the answer seems to be yes, of course. Unless Helene has no interest in men whatsoever, and that does not seem to be the case. I think Tolstoy wants the reader to feel Pierre's position -- he doesn't know for certain either. But he makes the logical conclusion. Pierre is really naive about some things, but he can tell a hawk from a handsaw.

So what is the burden of proof in establishing an affair of the heart? Beyond a reasonable doubt, or will a preponderance of the evidence suffice?

Regarding Dolokhov and Helene.

I notice a line of Dolokhov's from back in Book 2, towards the end of chapter 1:

Zherkov says to Dolokhov: "Come if you need anything..."

Dolokhov responds:"Don't trouble. If I want anything, I won't bet--I'll take it!"

Might this, too, be an illustration of pride?
And an illustration of Dolokhov disregarding proper boundaries? Reacting/overcompensating for his home situation?

If he wanted Helene, might it be in his character to simply go after her? To take her as his own despite the fact that she's married to Pierre?

Oh Dolokhov you rogue.

I am intentionally avoiding reading the above comments until I have finished this part of the book (to avoid spoilers), but I can see his name mentioned quite a bit.

I was really growing to like him in an odd way. He was a different sort of fellow. But to sleep with Pierre's wife - that is a bit rude. Not that I liked her and I still have high hopes for Natasha and Pierre (I keep seeing clues to that effect).

I know lots of people in this group have already read the book making it hard to comment on this sort of conjecture without inadvertently giving away spoilers, but I enjoy this early matchmaking part. Who is worthy of whom. Any first time readers enjoying this too?

I was particularly thinking about who is worthy of Princess Marya Bolkonskaya. I like her, poor thing stuck with her father. After thinking I decided Prince Andrew was the most worthy - oops.
Perhaps Denisov or Boris. Both are sensible and honourable.

Just read my thoughts (previous post) written at the start of this chapter, they are different to now that I have finished the chapter.

I love what Tolstoy did with Dolokhov. He is a complex character and well written.

I was interested in the revelation about his cruel nature. The story of the bear being retold through the eyes of Pierre.

I was sucked in a little as he spoke to Nicholas Rostov about wanting a worthy woman to love. I believed him. Believed that he could and would give up his careless ways for a woman of true worth. Them he fell in love with Sonys and truelly loved her. For those moments I believed he was redeemable. I even wondered if maybe he was the man for Marya Bolonskaya.

Then his cruelty returns. He takes Rostov for 40,000 rubles out of vengeance. I don't know whether he was truelly redeemable or if it was another cold and calculated lie. I never believed he considered Rostov a true friend, I knew he was just using him but I thought maybe he would be true in love.

I am such a fool.

#1

The banquet is a celebration of the Russian army. They suffered a loss, but the war is still going. For a while the bigwigs were silent, discussing the matter privately.

I imagine they were shocked and uncomfortable with the disappointment. As they talked together over time they were able to attribute blame to certain people and in doing so formulate a strong opinion that the army itself was amazing.

Bagration became a figurehead for the worthiness of the army and so they celebrated him.

In doing so they are publicly saying "it was a small defeat, nothing of any importance, we are too busy praising our army to even be bothered".

#7 I loved hearing his mother talk about him.

I don't think this was specific to mothers. I think this sort of conversation is what our society is full of.

That is, an incident occurs and both parties come away feeling wronged. Both parties view the incident differently and retell the stories differently praising the virtues of themselves and admonishing the faults of the other.

How many thousands of times have I heard a tale being told and wondered at what the full story might actually be.

Most people are really bad at accurately and fairly describing a chain of events like this.

#3

Nicholas is still wildly impressionable, as we have constantly seen.

He is not yet mature enough to consider both sides. He sees a jocular confident popular officer and cannot help but side with him over a big stupid looking unpopular man who he barely knows.

Especially one that ignores him and fails to toast the Emperor with enough zeal.

From Rostoves viewpoint he has been polite to Pierre, who has ignored him. Rostov is hurrahing as if he were still on the battlefield and Pierre is across from him looking morosely at the tablecloth. Rostov prods him in disbelief "dude- we are toasting the emperor" as if nothing in the wild could be more important. Rostov was a young man and now he is a veteran sitting beside other veterans toasting the emperor at a banquet to celebrate the war.
The. Pierre picks a fight with the popular Dolokhov.

Rostov wants to be involved. He wants to play with the big boys.

#5 Not sure, I don't think so. I think Helene and Dolokov are each in love with themselves and enjoy toying with people.

#1 the gentlemen are celebrating at their cub, away from distractions. Sir Terry Pratchett has a brilliant opinion on gentlemen's clubs:' These gentlemen were gentlemen of a class who were, on the whole, bullied by ladies from an early age. Their lives were steered by mothers, nurses, governesses, matrons and wives. And after four or five decades of that the average mild- mannered gentleman escaped to his club, where he could snooze the afternoon away in a leather armchair with his top button undone.'
My thinking is that male society contains less gossip, more politics and less flirtatiousness (plus there is no-one to keep them out of trouble!)Then all you need is a bit of alcohol and an idealist like Nicholas Rostov whose Patriotism is catching.
#2 not enough if they were still sober enough to suggest dueling!

Duels make me think of two literary events:

Pushkin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/...

The three Musketeers
http://blogcritics.org/the-great-book...

It is what happens when men are filled with drink, bravado and little sense.

Lisa wrote: "...My thinking is that male society contains less gossip..."

Not at all so sure about that! LOL!

Probably not, the men in the chapter seemed more focused than parties have previously sounded. Obviously the juicy rumor is floating around!

#5
I'm pretty certain that Helene had an affair, it's hinted at fairly well. And poor Pierre is the one who suffers for her avarice

#7
Ahh, mothers and their sons. Dolokhov's is an only son. Brave,beautiful and full of life. I'm sure his mother is excessively proud of him.
So she has one of two views:
1) my handsome angelic son would never have an affair
2) if my handsome angelic son had an affair it's because he loves the woman and the husband is a brute.
We learn consequences at home. I'm sure Dolokhov's as an only son was spoilt and dealt with leniently. His mother probably didn't reign him in. He has learnt to do as he pleases and applies that philosophy as an adult. For his mother to admit that his behavior is wrong, she would be admitting that she failed as a mother.

#3 Nicholai is young and impressionable (I think he is 18). Morally and emotionally he is young although his service as a soldier and title of Count give him responsibilities beyond his years. We see his youth in his child-like adoration of the Emperor, he would die for him with no thought to consequence. He has still to learn about the thoughts and feeling of others and the consequences of his behavior. Yet his parents so far have seemed less all-forgiving than Dolokhov's mother and I think that he will mature into a better man.
Heirs sitting with two fellow soldiers, both of higher rank than him, when he encounters Pierre, a civilian who seems to have everything a am desires and is unhappy. One can imagine that Rostov hero- worships Dolokhov and would chose his side over anyone else.
I think Nicholas has potential though.

Lisa wrote: "...I think Nicholas has potential though...."

Hang on for the ride he gives everyone who respects or loves him.

Lisa wrote: "I'm sure Dolokhov as an only son was spoilt and dealt with leniently...."

Careful, Lisa. Some of us out here have "only sons." LOL!

Lily, I am generalizing. Very much so. I apologize if it sounded mean, it was not meant to. That was just how Dolokhov sounded to me.
He reminds me of the younger of my brothers(I think I said this about the bear-incident), a charming rouge who is always up to something, very secure in the knowledge that he is loved in spite of and often because of his behavior.

Patrice wrote: "Yes, I too have an only son and I think Lisa was right on the mark!"

LOL! Perhaps! I will still "accuse" Lisa of over-generalizing -- with tongue-somewhat-in-cheek. (They may also get unfair demands placed upon them, as sometimes is considered the pattern for "first" children as well. But also may contribute to whom they become.) :-)

Guilty! Guilty! LOL

I think it must be difficult to be an only child (just my thoughts). I'm the eldest of five, my favorite cousin is an only child. An only child can't share responsibilities and expectations, confer with siblings and I think is more closely observed.
One of many gets to share responsibilities and dilute expectations. You can ask siblings their opinions and share the given action. One of many means more divided, less concentrated parental attention. I'm not sure if an only child is closer to their parents. I think that depends on quality of bonding and parenting and individual temperament . I should have critiqued Dolokhov's mother for being over- indulgent, although she would probably do this with a bevy of children too. I think Dolokhov would have been in serious trouble if he had Andrey's father as a parent.

What's also interesting is how little Helene's parents react.

Lisa wrote: "What's also interesting is how little Helene's parents react."

YES!