#ClassicsCommunity 2021 Reading Challenge discussion
Buddy Reads
>
Would anyone like to read War and Peace with me.
message 51:
by
Melissa
(new)
Jul 07, 2020 10:12AM
yeah, that makes sense!
reply
|
flag
I would love to. But I'm currently drowning in trying to keep up with my other challenges.
Li wrote: "I finished 10% of the book today."6% today - which seems a ridiculous number, but I'm almost 100 pages in, and consider how long it is.....
So far, I quite like it, although it feels a bit like a very long introduction with new characters being added in almost every chapter.
I've never read it before. The size is very daunting.
Li wrote: "Just finished Chaper 6 (Anthony Briggs) in which Andrey advised Piere not to marry and Pierre went to Anatole's place where Dolokhov performed a derring-do.Chapter 7, in which Prince Vasily fulfi..."
Wow your chapters are very different! The summary of chapter 7 coincides with my chapter 10!
Here are my summaries of the first 10 chapters. I'd love to see the rest of yours too!1) Anna Pavlovna and Prince Vasili, friends, talk about politics and the problems the prince is having with his sons, Hippolyte and Anatole.
2) Anna proudly introduces everyone at her party to her aunt and then continues to micromanage the conversations. Princess Bolkonskaya is pregnant and very upset her husband is leaving for war. Pierre looks for intellectual conversations where he can share his opinion (against the abbe).
3) Anna shows off her guests, the vicomte and the abbe, for their stories and political opinions. She breaks up a heated discussion between Pierre and the abbe.
4) Prince Andrew (Princess Bolkonskaya's husband) arrives and is annoyed by everyone except Pierre, then Princess Drubetskaya (Anna Mikhaylovna) begs Prince Vasilito to get her son Boris into the Guards.
5) Party guests debate whether Napoleon deserves the throne of France and whether Russia should get involved.
6) More political discussion at the party leads us to learn that Pierre is supposed to be picking a career, but is instead avoiding the military.
7) Princess Bolkonskaya confronts her husband about why he's been acting poorly toward her and why he insists on going to war with "no pity for me".
8) Prince Andrew lectures Pierre about not marrying because a woman will hold you down and prevent greatness.
9) Pierre goes to another party at Anatole Kuragin's to play cards. It turns into a drunken mess the involves a bear and Dolokhov doing a drinking stunt on the roof.
10) Princess Drubetskaya's son Boris get the promotion to the Guards. Countess Rostav tires of so many guests coming and going, but admits Marya Lvovna Karagina and they talk about the antics of the drunken bear party as well as Count Cyril's many alleged illegitimate sons (including Pierre).
Ashley wrote: "Here are my summaries of the first 10 chapters. I'd love to see the rest of yours too!1) Anna Pavlovna and Prince Vasili, friends, talk about politics and the problems the prince is having with h..."
Thanks for sharing this! I'm afraid I didn't keep up with the summary, but seeing that you are doing it, I will start from next chapter.
I think I will also start reading Brideshead Revisited. Are you doing that?
Ashley wrote: "Here are my summaries of the first 10 chapters. I'd love to see the rest of yours too!1) Anna Pavlovna and Prince Vasili, friends, talk about politics and the problems the prince is having with h..."
The chapters are different in my edition, too. What you're summarising is the first eight chapters, not ten. I'm really surprised. I wouldn't have thought the ordering of the chapters can be rearranged so.
I finished chapter 18 yesterday, about two relatives of the dying count talking about who'll inherit his money.
Neele wrote: "So far, I quite like it, although it feels a bit like a very long introduction with new characters being added in almost every chapter."And it's going to remain so for a long time.
It's the product of an age which believed in literature representing society as such, built up of lots of little personal points of view. Whenever a new character is introduced, it's a new personality, a new viewpoint, a whole new world view.
If you think of what these people are preoccupied with, it's all the same for everyone, regardless of birth or rank: money, love, sex (read between the lines), social advancement. Only a very few will start thinking about the meaning of life. (So watch out: some of those viewpoints will get very important.) Most of them only see war as a continuation of all that. And of course it isn't.
The trick is (as I heard, because I haven't read that far yet) that Tolstoy does the same with the characters who go to war. I've recently read a very interesting book by John Keegan on military history, which says after War and Peace people had to stop thinking war was the time of the Great Man. Tolstoy says the opposite: whether in war or peace, there are lots of tiny viewpoints that make up the whole picture.
I agree. tolstoy has made the characters as diverse and people are in real life. he is exploring life events and historical context through humans and their viewpoints. which is fascinating because that is what life is made up of really. are they any characters so far that people are feeling connected to ?
Melissa wrote: "are they any characters so far that people are feeling connected to ?"Pierre. Always. :) So much like me at that age, including the glasses. :)
I am about half way through Brideshead Revisited. I really like the writing!
Ashley wrote: "I am about half way through Brideshead Revisited. I really like the writing!"When you say 'the writing', do you mean the language, the prose?
One of his books, The Black Mischief, was mentioned in another Goodreads group as a book that will boost one's vocabulary. So I bought that book and read it. I didn't like the story, but this one is obviously totally different.
I read brideshead revisited at the beginning of the year. It was beautifully written a good depiction of university mindset x it has made me want to read more of his work.
His writing just flows. It’s beautiful, but not flowery or too prosaic. I do love prosaic writing. Sometimes I can drift off while reading and be enjoying the beautiful words, and then realize I have no idea what is going on. I was just reading pretty words. Haha. But I also like his style of writing. Simple and easy to read, but also well constructed and complex and beautiful. He doesn’t “write down” to the audience as if we were unintelligent. But he writes in a simple, beautiful way. I probably just repeated the same thing 8 times. But that’s the best I can do to explain!
haha, I get what you mean and I agree. I have just finished lannie and am currently by my shelf deciding my next read ...
I would love to do this. At the moment involved with two other readalongs which may not allow me to keep to schedule. Will certainly be watching progress. Is that ok. My youngest daughter is named for one of the characters in War and Peace and seeing she is in her forties you can imagine how long ago it was that I read it.
Thanks, Ashley. I think I will probably read that book twice instead of reading two different books by the same author, because I, too, sometimes realized I had no idea of what I had just read, and this mostly happens only on the first reading.Other renowned prose stylists that I've heard include Nabokov, James Joyce, Nabokov. They are all on my 'to-be-read' list. Any other writers that stand out in your memory?
I’m re-reading Steinbeck for the first time since high school. Im blown away by how smooth he is to read also. I have read snippets of Joyce, but haven’t committed to him yet. Some day! I’d have to go back through GR reviews to jog my memory of other authors who’s “flow” I love!
Back to War and Peace: My chapter summaries for book 1:
1. Anna Pávlovna Scherer lets us know she wants war with the Antichrist Bonaparte, and she and Prince Vasíli Kurágin plan to marry his vastrel son Anatole to the poor (but rich) Princess Mary Bolkónskaya.
2. At Anna’s party, both the Princess Lise Bolkónskaya and Monsieur Pierre leave an impression, though for entirely different reasons.
3. The Abbé and Pierre become to animated in their discussion of Bonaparte for Anna’s taste.
4. Lise’s husband Prince Andrew arrives and makes me wonder about his relationship to Pierre, and Prince Vasíli feels compelled to give a promise: to help get Princess Dubretskaya’s son Boris transferred to the Guards).
5. Pierre reveals himself as a “man of the people”, or at least their interests.
6. Pierre is (unsurprisingly) as uneager to join the war against Bonaparte, as Prince Andrew is eager.
7. Prince Andrew and his wife Lise argue in front of Pierre about Prince Andrew’s coldness towards her and him joining the war.
8. Prince Andrew is not happy with how married life turned out and recommends Pierre never to make such a mistake since women are “selfish, vain, stupid, trivial in everything”.
9. The stupid things Pierre, Anatole and their friends do when drunk (risking their lives and manhandling a bear).
10. Apparently, Pierre and Prince Vasíli are in competition to inherit from Count Bezukhov (Pierre is his illegitimate son).
11. And 12 introduce the Róstovs: the Count and Countess, the oldest daughter Véra and youngest Natásha; the oldest son Nicholas (who wants to join the army) and the youngest Pétya. And Sonya, the Count’s niece.
12. See above.
13. Boris and Natásha decide to marry in four years – when she will be sixteen.
14. Count Bezukhov is Boris’ godfather, and Véra is unpleasant towards her siblings.
15. Boris and his mother (Princess Dubretskaya) visit Count B – everybody wants the Count’s money.
16. Boris meets Pierre and I don’t understand what happens.
17. Countess Rostóva gives her friend Princess Dubretskaya the money to outfit Boris for the Guards, despite the obvious signs that money is or will soon be a problem for the Rostovs.
18. We meet Véra’s intended – Lt. Berg – who only speaks when about himself, and the “dragon lady” Máry Dmítrievna Akhrosímova.
19. War is discussed at the dinner party – some for and some against.
20. Sonya loves Nicholas and cries because he is going to war. (Also, I find the language used about girls and women somewhat problematic).
21. Count Bezúkhov is close to dying and Prince Vasili and the Counts oldest daughter are worried about the huge estate going to Pierre.
22. Pierre arrives at the house of his father together with Princess Drubetskaya – he seems in chock and she is leading him (literally).
23. Pierre meets his dying father, together with everyone else who fits in the room.
24. The Count passes away while everyone except Pierre squabbles over his money.
25. At Prince Nicholas Andrévich Bolkonski’s estate (Prince Andrew’s father), Princess Mary (Prince’s Andrew’s sister) receives a letter from her friend Julie Karágina, informing her of the plan to marry her to Anatole. The religious princess will acquiesce to her fate.
26. Prince Andrew and his wife arrive. He and his father discuss the strategy for the upcoming war.
27. Prince Bolkónski doesn’t think very highly of Bonaparta, and is unhappy about his son going to war.
28. Prince Andrew goes to war.
I realized my summaries where not really informative when I put them together in a word-document, but I didn't want to rewrite anything......:)Question: what is going on when Boris meets Pierre and tells him he is not interested in his money? I find that interchange confusing - as I find Pierre somewhat confusing. It seems like he never nows what's going on!
As for the characters, I am interested in seeing how things go for Prince Andrew. His opinion on women is something else, and he doesn't take a lot of responsibility for his choices - but then I am only assuming he married Lise out of choice.
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "So far, I quite like it, although it feels a bit like a very long introduction with new characters being added in almost every chapter."And it's going to remain so for a long time. ..."
Thank you! I appreciate getting some context :)
hello, neele these are fantastic summaries! I found them informative and they definitely triggered some memories. haha.
i agree that pierre does seem very unaware of what is going on. I get the impression that he lives very much inside his own head (he likes to discuss philosophical quandries often) and oftentimes is confused and overwhelmed by the outer world.
I find all of the different viewpoints on war very interesting and its amusing how little has changed: the world is always made up of such varying opinions but when it comes down to it people have to get on with it. in this case, regardless of whether they agree with war or not all of the male characters will go to war.
I find the representation of women contradictory. on the one hand, Tolstoy very much stereotypes them and makes them silly and mocks that (eg lise) whilst also using them as important givers of information throughout the text. such as, Anna p is almost like the hostess of the book (as she is the party) because it is through her that we meet the main characters of that section. also, at the end of book one a lot of important information is shown through Mary's and Julia's letters to each other.
also, I wonder whether Boris is aware that Pierre will become heir to a fortune when his father dies this and this provokes him to state that he isn't interested in his money. on top of this, his mother has been asking for many favours in this section (such as for money and for boris's army position) and maybe his pride dictated that he had to show pierre that he isn't the same. I am most interested in the development of pierre and Princess Mary. the former because I'm interested in his personality and character arc after his status has changed so much; the latter because she seems to have a more authentic self and is stronger than she appears x
Neele wrote: "Question: what is going on when Boris meets Pierre and tells him he is not interested in his money? I find that interchange confusing - as I find Pierre somewhat confusing. It seems like he never nows what's going on!" It does, and he doesn't. :) I agree with Melissa: he lives inside his own head.
"As for the characters, I am interested in seeing how things go for Prince Andrew. His opinion on women is something else, and he doesn't take a lot of responsibility for his choices - but then I am only assuming he married Lise out of choice."
He may have. Based on the matchmaking which keeps going on in the first part. I agree again with Melissa that the women figures are sometimes stereotypical, and they shouldn't be. But I also think that Andrew's wife is really not more than a pretty face, a pretty body and a gift for small talk. I don't think they really knew each other when they got married.
It's another question that whenever she shows deeper feelings (like being afraid of childbirth), he doesn't react any differently. On the contrary, he gets even more impatient. If she is more than a surface he doesn't really care to know.
yeah, it seems that mismatched marriages have ill impacts on men and women. I agree about Andrew's wife not being for when she's being either deep or shallow.
she seems more comparable with antolexx
Neele wrote: "Back to War and Peace: My chapter summaries for book 1:
1. Anna Pávlovna Scherer lets us know she wants war with the Antichrist Bonaparte, and she and Prince Vasíli Kurágin plan to marry his vast..."
What language are you reading it in? You're from Sweden, right? Is it a Swedish translation? I'm asking because of the names. In the Hungarian edition every name is spelt phonetically, in accordance with its Hungarian pronunciation.
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "Back to War and Peace: My chapter summaries for book 1:
1. Anna Pávlovna Scherer lets us know she wants war with the Antichrist Bonaparte, and she and Prince Vasíli Kurágin plan to ..."
I'm reading in English.
Neele wrote: "I'm reading in English."Can I ask why?
I'm really interested. And I'm not asking only you but the others, too.
Because I can see the people here are from very different places and speak very different languages - yet there are at least two of you who chose to read the book in a language which is not your mother tongue. Why?
I mean I wouldn't think of reading a book in English which was not written in English originally as long as there is a translation in my mother tongue. If I can choose between a translation and the original, of course I'll choose the original. But if it's only a choice between two translations, I wouldn't think of choosing an English-language translation. So I'm really surprised.
(Unless I know for certain that there's some problem with the Hungarian text. When I wanted to read the Norwegian Nobel-prize winning classic Kristin Lavransdatter I found out soon enough that the Hungarian translator had not been working from the Norwegian original but from a German translation, which had already been seriously cut. On the other hand, the new English translation was reported to be faithful to the original, so I chose that, and did not regret my choice for a moment.)
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "I'm reading in English."Can I ask why?
I'm really interested. And I'm not asking only you but the others, too.
"
I want to improve my written English. So if something is written in any European language and then translated into English, I'll read in English.
Li wrote: "I want to improve my written English. So if something is written in any European language and then translated into English, I'll read in English."Oh, I see.
can we do this in August? I'll refrain my reading challenges.
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "I'm reading in English."Can I ask why?
I'm really interested. And I'm not asking only you but the others, too.
Because I can see the people here are from very different places and..."
It's funny you're asking, because I've been asking myself the same lately. My mother tongue is actually German, and Swedish is my first language (the one I know best).
This is really the first year that I'm reading more extensively, to try to get back to the joys of reading, and I've noticed that I have difficulty distributing the books evenly among the languages - I end up mostly reading in English.
I started reading a lot more in English when I was 17 years old and spent a year in the US. This in concurrence with the fact that I feel steeped in anglican culture, means I read a lot of books in English (written by UK och US authors), because I know English and I try to read books in the original language (if I know it).
So after some years, I think I just got used to reading in English, and now I feel very comfortable reading non-English books in English. Also, it's such a pleasant, literary language.
I think that's the main reason, really. Also, we have a great English bookshop where I live, and I love the editions from Everyman's Library (which is what I'm going to get for all the Russian literature).
Occasionally, I read books that were written in English in other languages. Mostly because it's either a series that I accidentally started in the "wrong" language (such as Ray Celestins' books), or because I've had them in my bookshelf forever (such as Tariq Ali, whom I read in German). I also read Imre Kertész in German, but that's because I don't speak Hungarian :)
Next year I'll try to read more from your neck of the woods (Eastern Europe), and I suspect I'll do that in German rather than English.
Neele wrote: "Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "I'm reading in English."Can I ask why?
I'm really interested. And I'm not asking only you but the others, too.
Because I can see the people here are from v..."
That sounds great! :) I mean the part about reading in English because it is pleasant. So it is. :) And so many great books have been translated into it several times, you only have to pick and choose.
(I've also been planning to read Ali's Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree for a while. I've done quite a lot of work reading different literatures of the world, and that's the most interesting book I found by a Pakistani author.)
I'm glad you've read Kertész. :) And I'm sure you'll find great books in German translation. More than in English. When I started reading Eastern European literatures systematically, I sometimes found that when I wasn't able to find a Hungarian translation of a book I wanted to read, there usually was no English version either, but there was a German one (I'm not that good at reading in German, but I might get better one day). Once I was really surprised that I was able to find a French translation only. It was a Bulgarian novel.
So if you need recommendations, you can always turn to me. :) I especially loved the literatures of the Baltic countries.
Also, I hope to write a roman à clef based on my experience growing up in China. But I wouldn't be able to write freely if I was to do it in Chinese. Just this month, my government removed George Orwell's '1984', along with many other books in the same vein, from shelves in China's bookshops and public/school libraries.
Lena we have already begun. Please catch up when you can if you want!I wish I was educated enough to join in the language conversation! I can understand a fair amount of conversational Spanish, but that’s about it. My dad is fluent, but I haven’t lived at home for 16+ years, and I took classes in high school but stopped 18 year ago. I did purchase scriptures in Spanish a few years ago and started reading them, but haven’t gotten far. I should make it a priority again to read regularly. If I had the chance to read in the original language I definitely would. I understand that! I also understand reading a translation in a language you are working on mastering. So exciting!
I am way behind due to other reads, but I’m still plugging along and will be caught up soon as I only have 30 pages left in Brideshead Revisited and I finished 2 books last week, so I have more time!
When I read Anna Karenina, I remember thinking how amazing Tolstoy was because he was able to capture the thoughts of a woman so well. Not everyone can put themselves in the mind or body of another as well as he can. This came to mind again as I’ve been reading about all the love affair and “crushes” of the young people in the novel. I’m still settling into the read and has been thinking about how strange it is that this book about politics and war and mature things is focusing so much time on teenagers. Pierre and those young adults will obviously play a role in the main plots, but I’m pondering why the younger teens like Natasha and Sonya are included. As I thought I realized the same thing. Tolstoy is a master at relating the thoughts and experiences of young men (which he once was) and teenage girls (admittedly confusing- haha). It funny to hear of Sonya getting jealous of Julie and Nicholas chasing after her as she runs away crying. It’s something different that is not always included (at least in this way) in classic literature, especially that written by men. So I don’t have an answer as to why it’s included. But I do know Tolstoy is a master and brilliant and not many compare!
Li He I don’t think I ever asked if you lived in China. You say your government and I’m not sure if that means your current government or not. China is so interesting, especially to Americans! So many people like to use it as a negative example in politics. And there obviously are things like censoring books. But we also can learn so much from not only the culture, but the society and political choices and things like maintaining a global virus. Interesting times. And interesting that they are still removing things. It happens here in the states too, but it’s much more subtle. I am in many social media groups that focus on “rescuing” (aka purchasing) old literature so that it does not get disposed of. These people have huge libraries full of books that most people have never heard of, some of which would be thrown away for being politically incorrect or offensive. I see the value of having these texts and do think it’s important to keep track of our history, including mistakes, but my purchasing decisions are much more practical for now- will I or my kids read it in the near future? We already have a huge library and I try to only being home things we are sure to use!
Ashley wrote: "Li He I don’t think I ever asked if you lived in China. You say your government and I’m not sure if that means your current government or not. China is so interesting, especially to Americans! So m..."I grew up in China and moved to Australia when I was in my 30s. I still hold Chinese passport and maintain a residence there.
I see what is happening in the states (and to a lesser degree, in Australia as well), and I'm trying to make sense of what I see as some disturbing trends in both China and America.
I guess Black Mischief by Evelyn Waugh would soon be banned in the west, if this has not been done already. I wish I had kept my copy. I donated it to a streetside library when I finished it because I didn't like what I see as lame humour that the book was based on.
Li wrote: "Also, I hope to write a roman à clef based on my experience growing up in China. But I wouldn't be able to write freely if I was to do it in Chinese. Just this month, my government removed George O..."Good gracious...
That's frightening. :(
It has happened a few times in this part of Europe, too, and it was equally frightening.
Ashley wrote: "Li He I don’t think I ever asked if you lived in China. You say your government and I’m not sure if that means your current government or not. China is so interesting, especially to Americans! So m..."But you don't think that these old books are going to be banned, do you? I'm really interested.
People keep saying this or that book or film is (or is going to be) banned in the US, and I keep replying I don't believe it. Why would they be? I mean if you forbid people to read something, that will only make them more eager to read it.
I agree with you, it's also silly to throw something away just because it contains offensive material.
First, there are too many books to throw away when it comes to that. (I've been reading books offensive to women all my life, and I'm not saying I've been enjoying it all the time, but I've learnt to deal with it. I know you're not talking about misogyny only. It's just an example.)
Second, it just doesn't make sense to throw them away - what you need to do is discuss them. (How happy would I have been if anyone had taken the effort to do so before I was eighteen. Unfortunately, it was only at university that I met people who could help me, and now I have learnt to help others, too.)
Third, people from different ages and cultures DID and DO think offensively, so how would we learn how to deal with them if not from books written in the same way? (Throwing such books away is like trying to strengthen someone's immune system by keeping them in a sterilised room all the time.)
And fourth: of course such books have aesthetic value, too, which usually means that beside the offensive material there is something perfectly un-offensive in them as well, counterbalancing and sometimes even blotting out the offensive part.
Ashley wrote: "Li He I don’t think I ever asked if you lived in China. You say your government and I’m not sure if that means your current government or not. China is so interesting, especially to Americans! So m..."And fifth - which goes without saying, and so I forgot to mention it - instead of throwing them away people should discuss them AND place other books/films next to them which are NOT offensive at all. There are such ones, even among the classics. Sometimes you should only look into the ones less well known.
Sorry for being so lengthy about it, and in a buddy read. After all, this is not about Tolstoy at all. It's just something really important to me. I guess you can see that. :)
No I don’t think they will be banned anywhere in the developed west, but the books these people collect are getting harder to find because they are not being published. Sometimes it’s because they are offensive or something, but usually it’s that they don’t make money printing them. Lesser known and old titles don’t make money. Modern best sellers do. And eventually books get thrown out when schools or libraries or even booksellers don’t have space for them anymore. That’s not always a bad thing. Some books are outdated and we do need room for the things people use and want. But it is also a more subtle way to limit what people have access to. A type of censorship, even if unintentional. The good thing it we have companies like Google publishing digital copies of these books. But because they have control of them, one click and they are gone. You can’t get rid of hard copies of books in people’s homes (at least not in all countries). Internet Archive is a great source for free online books. But they recently got into some trouble for trying to make make books available during the pandemic than they were previously allowed to do and it broke some copyright rules and they are in danger of losing licenses to all sorts of books now. So I see the trouble in just relying on that. But I do agree with all you said. And I do think it’s a good discussion to have, even in a buddy read, as we are all educated adults who appreciate things like this. So I say share away!
Ashley wrote: "No I don’t think they will be banned anywhere in the developed west, but the books these people collect are getting harder to find because they are not being published. Sometimes it’s because they ..."You can't even begin to imagine how happy I am to read your reply. :)
"The good thing it we have companies like Google publishing digital copies of these books. But because they have control of them, one click and they are gone."
Sure, but if anyone downloads them before they are deleted, lots of copies can be made. I agree with you that digital copies are vulnerable, because they can be disposed of all too quickly. But on the other hand they can also be durable, because they can be copied and saved even more quickly.
Now come to think about it, this kind of discussion is actually relevant in a thread organised around a book by Tolstoy: cultural material to be retained and shared all over the world. And it's great to see how it has brought together people with very different backgrounds.
This is true. You can save your own digital copies! That would be a good thing to do!
Hello, Ashley, I thought that I would give my ideas about why Tolstoy goes into so much detail about the teenagers at the beginning of the novel.
Firstly, it was a book to represent the development, actuality and after effects of war to Russia. Not just those fighting but those who were alive at the time, the teenagers will grow with the war and we as readers shall see the psychological impact.
Secondly, it is a book with sections on war and peace.
Thirdly, his historical philosophy was that historians shouldn't just think of the 'big names' but about the forces that shaped them and the events that allowed them to take power. He believed this because he saw seemingly insignificant people as affecting history. As such, the soldiers were affected by the women in their lives and therefore they were important in the whole experience of Russia at that time.
Also, I was interested to learn that when Tolstoy set out to write the novel it was supposed to be about Napolean's 1812 campaign in Russia. However, after doing (literally years) of research (scrolling archives, visiting battlefields and analysing letters etc) he found that he could not discuss that tone without first describing the build up and latterly exploring the repercussions. As such, maybe the maturation of the characters is a mirror image of the maturation of the war. as readers we shall see them grow.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Melissa wrote: "Thirdly, his historical philosophy was that historians shouldn't just think of the 'big names' but about the forces that shaped them and the events that allowed them to take power. He believed this because he saw seemingly insignificant people as affecting history. As such, the soldiers were affected by the women in their lives and therefore they were important in the whole experience of Russia at that time."I think you are right.
And when it comes to "seemingly insignificant people", it's not just the teenagers of Part 1. It's also the soldiers of Part 2. I don't know how far you've got into the second part; I finished it last night. After realising how important these "seemingly insignificant people" are really like in Tolstoy's world, I began to really like the way he shows now this soldier, then that, just a few seconds while one is marching, the other is running, the third one is giving a strange look, and they are all parts of the picture.
There is a paragraph in Part 2 saying that Bagration, who is supposed to lead the army, doesn't seem to be leading anything. He looks like he was there just by accident, and actually works as some kind of a catalyst only. When a soldier looks at him, he (I mean the soldier) becomes more enthusiastic and valiant again - and that's about it. It's the officers who give out orders, and sometimes not even those orders are heard.
The book I've read recently on military history says that this was the age when people first realised that the battlefield had simply grown too big for one person to see and direct. And because of all the smoke coming from gunpowder, most of the time it was literally very difficult to see anything at all. Soldiers didn't even realise whether they were winning or losing.
