Saturday, January 31, 2009
“War and Peace,” Part I: It’s the Little Things
A synopsis of Part I of Война и мир (War and Peace): three parties, two partings.
Only my second reading, albeit enhanced with the V and P translation, yet I remain struck with the Dolokhov epsiode and the wager in the window. Revisiting such last weekend I was rather enamored. I hope to larder the disucssion of Natasha in the near future. cheers
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Jon!
ReplyDeleteI agree about the window scene: there's something rather haunting about it, what with the bet, the bear, the bottle, and the possibility of falling. I don't understand how that scene didn't stick with me until I read the book for a third time.
Yes, please do add your thoughts about Natasha later on!
L
I find Natasha hard to take this time around (I liked her a lot better the first time I read the novel, in college 40 years ago). I admit part of it may be that she now reminds me of my first wife, an impulsive, free-spirited lass whom I first met when she was in her late teens, but I think it's mainly that I've grown to recognize the harm that such free-spiritedness can cause. Sure, it would lift your spirits to see her running around jumping into people's arms and batting her wide eyes, but living for the moment can really mess things up, as she and those who love her discover. She's a great character, but I'm glad she's neither my daughter nor my wife.
ReplyDeletePrince Nikolai may be "kind at heart," but otherwise he's pretty much a complete jerk. Hell, those close to all the famous dictators claimed that they loved a good joke and were good to their dogs or whatever, and of course we all think we're acting on the best of motives ("Tout le monde a ses raisons"), but (SPOILER for those who haven't read the novel yet!) his treatment of poor Marya, whom Tolstoy keeps telling us he loves, and his senseless refusal to let his son marry Natasha, which has such drastic consequences, are unforgivable in my view. I don't care if he loves them in his own special, unique, princely way; Stalin loved the Russian people so much he killed tens of millions of them to make their lives better and more radiant. The Prince represents everything that was reprehensible in the autocratic, patriarchal Russian system (and in patriarchy in general); he makes me want to bring Valerie Solanas back from the dead and let her run the world. In my view, if you "love" people but ruin their lives, you're not a gruff charmer, you're a poor excuse for a human being.
Pierre, on the other hand, is a genuinely good person; sure, he screws up, does silly things, and is generally ineffectual, but he tries not to harm anyone and is a good friend. He's probably the W&P character I'd most like to hang out with.
You read fast, by the way! You'll probably catch up with me in a couple of weeks.
--LH
I'm glad to see your comments on the characters, Languagehat! First, I have to say that, if War and Peace characters were to show up, as real people, here in Portland, I would most want to invite Pierre over for dinner. Not just because he's obviously not a picky eater: I agree with you that Tolstoy draws him as a genuinely good person. And I would avoid Prince Nikolai for the same reasons as you would.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think Tolstoy gives Prince Nikolai that slight glimmer of heart for plot/character development reasons that will become clearer later in the book. (I don't want to say too much because I don't know how far you've read or what you remember from your first reading.) In general, questions of regret, repentance, forgiveness, and his relationship with Mar'ia will come up. Though I will never like Prince Nikolai as a (fictional) person, I think he's an interesting fictional character -- the family tree dating back to Riurik is a nice touch -- who shows Tolstoy's ability to create characters with ambiguities and quirks that feel so oddly real we have visceral reactions to them.
L
P.S. I'd forgotten who Valerie Solanas was!