Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We're nearing the shore! A glance at the discussion schedule shows that we'll be doubling up after this week:

12-13. Nov. 6
14-15. Nov. 13
Epilogue 1-2. Nov. 20

But now for book 11 (3.3 in Pevear/ Volokhonsky.)

To begin this section, Tolstoy treats us to a lecture on--calculus. If you don't understand it all, take heart; it's a short lecture, and our author moves on to some of the most touching scenes in the novel. There's a lot here about renunciation, redemption, resurrection. One hundred pages or so that are well worth reading many times over.

For the mathematical among us, here are two excursions into the mathematics of War and Peace:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~thk/fict...

http://www.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/v...

For the rest of us, romance, plunder, treachery, adventure, poignancy abound.

You might want to check the analyses of this book over at SparkNotes and CliffsNotes:

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/warandp...

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature...

Have you noted any changes in your views of Natasha? Sonya? Pierre? Others? Has Tolstoy changed his attitude toward the French or the Germans?

Laurele wrote: "Have you noted any changes in your views of Natasha? Sonya? Pierre? Others?"

Natasha is still a tiny bit self involved and she enjoys being adored by her brother. Nevertheless, when it comes down to what matters she rises to the occasion and takes over the packing and unpacking of the carts to make room for the wounded. She knows the difference between right and wrong and doesn't need to think it over. She acts.

Pierre is shown to be more French than he realizes. The way his upbringing kicks in and he manages the situation with the French officer is interesting. He knows his way around those situations if the need arises. That doesn't mean he has his feet on the ground of course, he has still got some crazy idea of going after Napoleon himself.

In chapter 12 Tolstoy writes this about Sonya:

sonya felt that this was true: that the only possibility of retrieving the Rostovs' affairs was by Nicholas marrying a rich woman, and that the princess was a good match. It was very bitter for her.

This is the first we've seen of Sonya being bitter. Yet she also has a practical side and is open minded enough to see the big picture in terms of what will have the best outcome for everyone else.

Another thing I enjoyed in book 11 was the analogy of the beehive. I've never seen a beehive or a war torn city, but after Tolstoy's description I feel very much like I do understand what a living city is and how it differs from a dead city.

I also found the ordeal of Count Rostopchin's journey into the dark side of his soul to be quite fascinating.

Can't say I found the calculus examples all that fun but I will give it another chance.

I haven't done calculus in 10 years and when I heard the calculus in the book it put a rather bad taste in my mouth from days of doing four pages of work to find the correct answer to be there is no answer. I like my math to be more numbers and less letters and solvable luckily Tolstoy chose a pretty basic equation and nothing too complex.

Theresa wrote: "Sonya felt that this was true: that the only possibility of retrieving the Rostovs' affairs was by Nicholas marrying a rich woman, and that the princess was a good match. It was very bitter for her.

This is the first we've seen of Sonya being bitter. Yet she also has a practical side and is open minded enough to see the big picture in terms of what will have the best outcome for everyone else...."

My heart breaks for Sonya. Even a bit for Nikolai.

Lily wrote: "Theresa wrote: "Sonya felt that this was true: that the only possibility of retrieving the Rostovs' affairs was by Nicholas marrying a rich woman, and that the princess was a good match. It was ver..."

Great characterisations,Theresa! I'm not sure that something' seeing bitter for her is quite the same as her being bitter. What do others think?

Laurele wrote: "Great characterizations, Theresa! I'm not sure that something' seeing bitter for her is quite the same as her being bitter. What do others think? ..."

Laurele -- can you make your suggested discernment with some other words? I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that even though the situation was "very bitter for her," Sonya herself managed to avoid being bitter as a state of feeling and acting out of?

Laurele and Lily: Indeed, it was a bitter pill to swallow.

Agreed Sonja basically is forced to pull the short steaw

Laurele wrote: "https://sites.google.com/site/jbolfro..."

Thanks for that link, I found it very interesting, even though I'm not big into math! :-)

Lily wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Great characterizations, Theresa! I'm not sure that something' seeing bitter for her is quite the same as her being bitter. What do others think? ..."

Laurele -- can you make your ..."

That's it, Lily and Theresa. Spell-mangler did it again.

The calculus metaphor is wonderful because we have already seen that Tolstoy doesn't believe that it's possible to isolate individual causes for historical events. This is a little troubling, because without particular causes we cannot assign responsibility to particular individuals. The inference would then be that it is human nature itself, rather than particular individuals who are responsible. But Tolstoy doesn't believe that either. Then could it be Providence? He suggests that as well, but to say war is God's will is also difficult to accept. (For me, anyway.)

The calculus metaphor suggests that none of these explanations is adequate. It is rather all individuals taken together. Not Napoleon alone, not Alexander alone, but all the infinitesmals acting as one. Each person who decides to enter this fight makes an individual decision to do so. And history is an expression of the differential change -- the motion created by the decisions of all of the individuals involved.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since some individuals without a doubt have more influence than others, but it's brilliant nevertheless.

Thomas wrote: "the motion created by the decisions of all of the individuals involved.
.."

That makes perfect sense. Thanks!

I am still wondering about those cuban misile crisis submarine captains and their decision not to release the weapon(which I mentioned in another thread). Perhaps nuclear war is a whole other ball game from Napoleonic wars and is really more like an accident than a historical movement? I can't square that in my mind with what Tostoy says about whether or not a war happens.

I also enjoyed the love story in book 11. I enjoyed not only the romantic love story but also the discussion of the difference between human love and divine love.

Theresa wrote: "Perhaps nuclear war is a whole other ball game from Napoleonic wars..."

I fear that is probably true... Whether more like an accident, I am not so certain.

But, we really can't expect Tolstoy to provide a view towards nuclear war any more than we can look to him for perspectives on facebook. There may be some, but...

Thomas wrote: "...This is a little troubling, because without particular causes we cannot assign responsibility to particular individuals...."

Doesn't humankind still use hierarchical organizations to assign responsibility, even without (absolute) control of causes?

Theresa wrote: "

I am still wondering about those cuban misile crisis submarine capta..."

This is a good point. Firepower today is so massively out of proportion to the number of people making the decision to strike that one person could conceivably destroy the planet, even if the rest of the world refuses to participate (which seems unlikely.) This upsets Tolstoy's calculus pretty profoundly.

Lily wrote: "Thomas wrote: "...This is a little troubling, because without particular causes we cannot assign responsibility to particular individuals...."

Doesn't humankind still use hierarchical organization..."

That is the Great Man theory, if I understand you correctly. It's always the guy (or in the case of divine providence, The Guy) at the top who gets the final praise or blame. But Tolstoy appears to reject this theory.

Thomas wrote: "...That is the Great Man theory, if I understand you correctly. It's always the guy (or in the case of divine providence, The Guy) at the top who gets the final praise or blame. But Tolstoy appears to reject this theory...."

All I am saying is -- if there is a need to assign responsibility to particular individuals (note the "if"), then one way to do it is with hierarchical organizations. Now whether that is just or appropriate or useful seems to me is a whole set of other questions, none of which are necessarily dependent on that individual being able to have control of the causes, whatever they all might be.

Lily wrote: "But, we really can't expect Tolstoy to provide a view towards nuclear war any more than we can look to him for perspectives on facebook. There may be some, but...
"

Well sure we can, if he is trying to discover some kind of laws that govern how and why wars happen or don't happen. One test of whether some book is a 'classic' is the test of whether it is still relevant to our current time and our current challenges.

Another more current example might be the recent situation with the US president wanting a military strike against Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. Without question, the 'Great Man' had the power to do it but the mass of public opinion wasn't on his side. So what? He didn't need public opinion to win another election. He had the power to do it, he thought it was the best course of action, so why, went he went on TV to make his case, did he look like he was facing a brick wall that was somehow preventing him from carrying out the strike? I don't think that what was stopping him was his personal sense of the morality of ignoring the will of the people, I'm pretty sure he makes decisions every day that need to be kept secret from the public in fear of public outrage. It seems in this situation that something more was preventing war with Syria. I think in this situation Tolstoy ideas can be used to partly explain and understand why it didn't happen. Why it couldn't happen. On the other hand, in the moments after the terrorist attack on the twin towers, was there anyone living who wasn't fully aware that war was inevitable? "The wine had been poured and must be drunk", as Tolstoy would say..

I would equate the President's "decision" to not strike with the "decision" of Kutusov to not defend Moscow after the Battle of Borodino - there was no other choice, there was simply no energy for it. It couldn't be done.

All of the preceding events that led up to the junction of the so called decision were not events that could lead to action.

Theresa wrote: "I also enjoyed the love story in book 11. I enjoyed not only the romantic love story but also the discussion of the difference between human love and divine love."

I enjoyed that as well!

On another note, I'm wondering if anyone here can help me out. I felt a little left in the dark as to why Napoleon felt it a humiliation or a rebuff or whatever that Moscow had deserted instead of sticking around and sending a convoy to ask what he wanted. Was there a norm and a precedent for taking over a city that decided not to take up arms? Kind of like rules for war and engagement and such? Excuse my ignorance, but if anyone could help me on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Laurele wrote: "I'm not sure that something' seeing bitter for her is quite the same as her being bitter. What do others think? .."

Something being bitter to us and we being bitter are not the same thing, just as feeling pain is not the same as causing pain.

Jeremy wrote: " I felt a little left in the dark as to why Napoleon felt it a humiliation ..."

It was his bruised ego. He thought he was the conqueror and the Russians the conquered. There is no glory for the conqueror if nobody acknowledges his victory.

Nemo wrote: "Jeremy wrote: " I felt a little left in the dark as to why Napoleon felt it a humiliation ..."

There is no glory for the conqueror if nobody acknowledges his victory. "

This is what I'm confused about. How is the act of abandoning the city related to refusing to acknowledge the victor? He got the city, did he want the people too? So since he didn't get the people did that mean he wasn't the victor, because he didn't cut the people off before they were able to leave the city? Is it like a stale mate or something?

Another point about it that confuses me that I'm having a hard time understanding why he would have expected them to not to have abandoned the city?

Theresa wrote: "...One test of whether some book is a 'classic' is the test of whether it is still relevant to our current time and our current challenges..."

Just as part of the challenge for the current time is discerning what is relevant and what is not -- and in what circumstances.

Jeremy wrote: "He got the city, did he want the people too?"

There is no king without subjects. No city without people and the booties. By abandoning the city, the Russians denied him both. He gained nothing but cold, empty space.

Jeremy wrote: "Another point about it that confuses me that I'm having a hard time understanding why he would have expected them to not to have abandoned the city?
"

That is a really good question. Why did the Russians abandon the city and why did the urban populations of other cities not abandon? Maybe the other European capitol cities Napoleon had conquered didn't have as large a hinterland to escape to? Maybe the Russian aristocracy considers the countryside to be as much symbolic of the nation as they consider the main cities to be?

Theresa wrote: "Why did the Russians abandon the city and why did the urban populations of other cities not abandon?..."

Good question indeed. The Russian aristocrats were all landowners. The land was the source of their income and sustenance, whereas the other European cities were relatively more industrialized and the people were more dependent on the cities.

The Russians could abandon the cities and disperse into their houses in the country, and life would go on as usual with a few more mouths to feed; the French army, OTOH, had to stay together in one place, without (logistics to get) provisions of food and clothing to fend off the hostile Russian weather.

Come to think of it, Tolstoy must have drawn a parallel between the French invasion of Russia and the British occupation of India decades later, and envisioned that the Indians could gain independence if they so wish because of the strength of their land and their people.

And perhaps the example set by the aristocrats inspired the less wealthy people to follow, so long as they had somewhere to go outside the city. I imagine a lot of the poorer people were connected with the aristocracy through family or as household serfs (or family of serfs).

Not yet halfway through this section. Helene leaves me shell- shocked! I need to think before I say more.

Lisa wrote: "Not yet halfway through this section. Helene leaves me shell- shocked! I need to think before I say more."

What did you think of Count Rostopchin and the incident with Vereshtchagin? The conversations between Pierre and the occupying french officer? These incidents came up in the conversation that evolved out of the book 12 discussion thread so, good to think about them now while reading.

Sometimes group members opinions affect each other a bit (at least I feel this happens to me). I'd be curious to see your opinion on those two incidents before you read the discussion of them in book 12.