#ClassicsCommunity 2021 Reading Challenge discussion
Buddy Reads
>
Would anyone like to read War and Peace with me.
Melissa wrote: "in fact, there's a few incidences where this hierarchal structure has been mocked so far in the section: At the beginning there is a section where those in charge don't know what to do so just make the soldiers act ceremoniously."Exactly!
"when there was a theft of a purse and higher authorities were more bothered about the impact a soldiers confrontation had on the organisational structure."
Soooo much like legislation in a subverted form, isn't it? It's not the crime that counts, it's the representation of the community that counts. No one blames the thief, everyone blames the person who points at the thief, because then their "image" is ruined. "There are no thieves in our army, understand?" :(
"What are your thoughts about this secrion compared to the first?"
This is the point I think when I'm beginning to like it. I never thought I would. It's not for nothing I've tried and failed to read this book twice already. But somehow now it feels much better. It must be because now I can compare it to experiences I didn't have previously.
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "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 h..."
Thanks! I'll definitely get back to you on tips on what to read from Eastern Europe!
Also, my copy of War and Peace has finally arrived! It's so pretty that I tried to upload a picture to my profile - but I have no idea if it is actually visible....
Lastly, I think it's great that we can discuss all kinds of bookish issues. I'm always interested in learning from other's perspectives, and banned books, and the implicit censorship that happens when books go out of print, is not something I had considered much before. A couple of years ago though, I came across Persephone Books in London, and that's when I realized that books, even really popular ones, sooner or later go out of print. Which sadly makes perfect sense, since new books are being written all the time.
Neele, yes, it is good that we can all talk about bookish related things. its good to get peoples' thoughts and knowledge; then link to get a better understanding of literature in general.
I too am interested in learning why people are reading the book in English
also, what edition have you got?
Timar_Krisztina,
It is very much like legislation in its subverted form. How Tolstoy speaks in this section is both wry and funny.
Yet, it is also cutting, like he is trying to show a point about how the military runs. He is using his own war experience with research into this war and then combining them both to create a historical account which also entwines his analysis of his own experiences.
I have created an event to discuss part 2 of this book if anyone is interested! just let me know !
Sorry, is that a Facebook event? Are we no longer discussing the book here?
You can discuss here. Most of us here do our discussing here even though some of us did find the FB group. It’s just been slow the last few days as we finish part 2
sorry, yeah, we are !! I just had a messenger thing is all lol how have people found part 2?
i didn't enjoy nearly as much as part 1 but now about halfway thorough part 3 and really enjoying it!!
I am very intrigued by the relationshop between Princess Mary and her father and the complexities behind it. Also, the allusions behind Helene and Pierre being like the characters of Helen and Paris in the Greek myth Helen of Troy! (even the names being explicitly mentioned)
Even the war bits are more intriguing in the third section!! It feels like all the characters and their connections have clicked in my mind and I have a better understanding of what Tolstoy was doing. Isn't his characterisation amazing?
Also, how he represents his views, philosophies etc through the characters (in such clever ways) is phenomenal x
What are people's thoughts?
I partly agree, though I didn't like Part 3 as much as Part 2, but it did give me lots of food for thought. I sped up a bit, because I won't have much time to read or discuss anything next week.
Excellent! Here are my chapter summaries from part 2: 1. In which we learn that the Russian army can be well-dressed or badly dressed at a moments notice, except for the boots.
2. Dolokhov remains a trouble-maker, particularly for himself.
3. In which we learn that the war is going well for Bonaparte, and for Prince Andrew’s personal and professional development.
4. In which Nicholas Rostóv is confronted with the class system reflected in the Russian army.
5. Nicholas refuses to apologize to someone who called him a liar.
6. It’s all fun and games until people start dying around you.
7. In which the Russians are fleeing from the French over the Enns.
8. What a mess.
9. Prince Andrew is not pleased to notice the battle his regiment fought is just another happening to the Minister of War.
10. Prince Andrew learns that Vienna has been taken by the French, and that there is more going on than he knows.
11. Prince Andrew meets a gang of Russian high-society gentlemen from the diplomatic corp.
12. In which we listen to two men who, in their different ways, are solely interested in what benefits them.
13. Prince Andrew is chocked and disappointed that the war is not evolving as he would like, and that right now there is no opportunity to act the hero.
14. In which trickery might still save the Russian army.
15. We witness the strange foreplay before a battle.
16. Prince Andrew contemplates strategy before the beginning of the battle.
17. The battle has started (finally!), and Prince Andrew takes it all in.
18. They go into battle as if they had men to spare, and the leader’s (Prince Bagration’s) best recourse is to keep fear at bay by acting as if battle was a glorious thing to rejoice in.
19. Soldiers die because of officers’ egos and Nicholas experiences the reality of battle.
20. Dolokhov proves himself (for his own benefit), while Prince Andrew arrives at doing what he believes is right, without considering benefits.
21. The aftermath of the battle leaves both Prince Andrew and Nicholas questioning what they are doing there.
I really liked part 2, and I feel that I am getting more and more involved with the characters, so I am really looking forward to the rest of the book!It was interesting to follow Prince Andrew's journy in this part. He seems much younger to me now than in part one. In my opinion he is quite self-absorbed and unforgiving towards others. I'm curious to see how he will develop.
Part two also nicely illustrated how war was viewd in the 19th century (and partly still is today). Frankly, reading this part was a bit like entering the twilight zone. It's all fun and games until people start dying. There was a feeling of levity and an amount of personal ambition that distracted people from the very real threat of death.
I have started part three, and I'm already sad for some of the characters.
That’s really interesting. I wonder if it was intentional to make him seem younger. In times of peace, or at home in his comfortable situation, where he was in control with a wife and a soon to be new baby, it is easy to seem mature. Then you are thrown into war, especially with little experience (he is inexperienced right? Or did I miss something?) you seem infantile. As I read the beginning chapters of part 2, I got a little excited, like “oh! I know him!” Or “I’ve seen him before!” I enjoyed getting to figure out where the characters were and what they were doing now.
I will have to find time to type up my sentences. I never posted the rest of part 1, so I’ll have to do that too!
yeah, it is satisfying when all of the characters click together!!
interesting you would comment on prince Andrew being infantile, have you got to the end of book 3?xx
I haven’t started book 3 yet, but I’m not sure I agree that he seems younger. At the beginning of book 2, yes. When we first see him in the army he’s not established, but by the middle as he’s chosen to send the message of victory and then runs back thinking he can save everyone, he seems more mature. Unless you’re suggesting that his overblown ideas (like saving everyone or trying to gain prestige) are him being immature. I can see that argument and I agree. He’s an interesting character. And I feel bad for his wife. Though she doesn’t seem like a peach herself!
Yes, I think his want of being the hero of war can be seen as being either mature or immature really. I guess that time will tell whether his want of being the saviour has any substance ! His mindset will definitely be an interesting one to watch grow ! In part two, it seems that a big theme is the idea that young men are almost excited by the prospect of war (this grows in book also) and it seen as a growth of their masculinity. However,
it is still early days of the war and it'll be interesting to see how Tolstoy develops the psychology of soldiers as they get more real life experience (will he represent PTSD for example). Prince Andrew is a fascinating character I agree! His wife does seem pretty shallow and I think that she just bores him. Though,I am on the fence as to whether Tolstoy is being sexist within her representation
because it does seem rather stereotypical. However, he also has shallow male characters and strong female characters, making me think its a human explorarion and not a gender one.
Melissa wrote: "interesting you would comment on prince Andrew being infantile, have you got to the end of book 3?xx"No, I haven't, but now I'm very curious!
I think his immaturity, to me, lies mostly in his need for positive attention and fear of negative attention. He wants others to think well of him so badly and he is very self-conscious when he is in situations which might be embarassing for him.
I'm reading part three of book one now, right before the battle of Austerlitz, and there was a part in an earlier chapter about how he cares more about what all these men around him think of him, than he cares for his family.
And I'm not saying that it's not understandable, or that it is not entirely human, but it seems a very "young" thing to me, to care excessively about strangers' opinions, even if these are the strangers you are surrounded by every day. When this has happened in my own life, I've usually thought "I need to get away from these people and gain some perspective."
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "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. ..."I found this very interesting now that we're on the battlefield in part two. More or less the whole time I read that section of the book, I found myself thinking, "wow, I can't believe any of that ever worked". Strategy is one thing, but several of the officers leading soldiers, seem to see their main function in keeping morale at a good level, to make the soldiers believe (!) that winning is really inevitable.
Really makes me interested in reading more on military history.
Yeah, I agree that I was also a little surprised by him prioritising strangers opinions over that of his own family. Though, you are right in connecting this to his youth (his lack of empathy to his wife also seemed relatively immature). It felt like he wanted to be a superhero soldier and still held naive views about what war was in a way... Does anyone know how old he is meant to be ?
I wonder whether Tolstoy was exaggerating the lack of knowledge within the army in certain points. The tone did seem very satirical throughout
and surely officers can't have been as clueless or reliant on soldier positive psychology ...
Neele wrote: "Really makes me interested in reading more on military history."Try reading John Keegan's work, he was a brilliant professor of military history, and knew exactly what words he had to use to make his readers (and of course students) understand everything. Reading "The Face of Battle" really feels like watching a film in 4D.
Melissa wrote: "Fair enough. what did you prefer ?"In Part 2, I liked watching all the minor characters showing their tiny points of view, if for a few lines only. I missed that in Part 3, which was more about the major characters. I like them, too, but not as much as what I saw before. In Part 2, I also liked the way it was shown how it feels to experience real danger for the first time, and how everyone understands Rostov for running away desperately. No one takes him for a coward, only for a beginner, which he is. And he does prove later that he can be brave. (I did like his ride across the battlefield in Part 3, too.)
Now I read through your discussion and I find it surprising and interesting. I never thought of Prince Andrew as immature (though you do have a point there) and his wife as shallow (though I would not go that far). But I won't say a single word about that, because that would be a spoiler. You see, I got ahead of you again, and read Part 4, in spite of my saying I wouldn't have much time this week. My train was unbelievably late, and I found out I had nothing but the second volume of War and Peace in my bag, so I had no choice but read on (or get bored to death).
Now I'll stop reading it for a while, and get back to Victor Hugo, so that I can join the discussion later.
About the character of the Princess, just to be precise: I'm not sure she is shallow, but I AM sure that's how her husband sees her. As I said before, she seems to be nothing more than a pretty face, a pretty body and a gift for small talk, but I do think she IS more, only she doesn't get a chance to show it, simply because no one expects her to show it, including her husband. But we'll talk about that when you're well into Part 4, too.
Melissa wrote: "because it does seem rather stereotypical. However, he also has shallow male characters and strong female characters, making me think its a human explorarion and not a gender one."We agree, at least at this point of reading.
Also, we should always take the social expectations of the age into consideration. There are many characters (both male and female), who do not necessarily show themselves as such but try to follow the current trends, and if the trend says they should be deep or shallow, they do so. (It's of course much more difficult to show yourself deep if you're not deep than trying to do the opposite.)
Neele wrote: "I have started part three, and I'm already sad for some of the characters."Sooooo am I! :( I hate the way Pierre is treated in Part 3, and even more so because I know how typical such behaviour was at the time. :(
(And still is, of course, even if not in the same situation.)
there's some really interesting points being made here !! I need to read more. I am at tje beginning of part 4 and haven't read for 2 days and will pick it up again this afternoon (I find its all aboit the habit of picking it up haha, especially as I'm readong alongside my normal books).
I shall have to look out for less shallow traits of the princess as I read through. Maybe she is more like Princess Mary's perceptions of her rather than that of her own husband x Yes, again you make a very valid point about reading the book within its historical realm of context. I suppose that Tolstoy didn't feel the need to describe social expectations of class, depth and humour because he was writing in his own era for his own era and country (his continual use of 'us' when he is describing Russia is very interesting, especially when contrasted with the constant use of French speaking in the narrative. I'll be interested to see as the novel continues whether Russian is spoken more as patriotism and the war against France grows)
I also liked how people were accepting ij the ways that you point out in part 2.
Strangely, I'm the opposite to you when it comes to who I prefer reading about. I enjoy the continuation of the development of the main characters, though that is a personal preference (for example, I've always preferred characterisatoon over world building. A big bibliophile debate I know lol ). Also, a funny example of it being hard to show depth where there is only shallowness is Anatole (even his father admits he is not the brightest)!!
whay are people's thoughts on Sonya and Natasha and / or Bruno and Nicholas in terms of their own individualism and how their relationships work ??
What Victor Hugo are you reading ?
is it good ? x
Melissa wrote: "What Victor Hugo are you reading ? is it good ? x"
It's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
No, it isn't. I read it once as a child and I didn't like it. I wanted to give it another chance and make myself practise my French at the same time. My opinion hasn't changed. It's just that now I'll be able to put it into words after I finish reading.
Don't take me wrong, it's a great book, very well written, and I can perfectly understand why it is so important. Also, I already know what I'll use it for.
All that won't make me like it, though.
ah, so you're reading it as an intellectual challenge ? x x
Melissa wrote: "ah, so you're reading it as an intellectual challenge ? x x"Sort of. :)
I loved Les Misérables when I was a teenager. I read it twice (in translation) and watched as many film versions as I could find. I bought a French copy a few years ago, started reading it twice, and gave up both times.
When my French started getting better, I wanted to try a shorter novel by the same author, and this one seemed a good choice, as I wanted to give it another chance anyway, and some friends of mine also persuaded me to read it again. I managed to read almost half of it in a few weeks, so I'm getting more and more optimistic. :) I think I'll be able to read Les Misérables this year. Perhaps in November and December.
Wow, reading such books in a second language is so impressive. how many languages do you speak?
Melissa wrote: "whay are people's thoughts on Sonya and Natasha and / or Bruno and Nicholas in terms of their own individualism and how their relationships work ??"I can't say anything about these relationships, but I'm more and more surprised because of the names.
"Sonya" and "Natasha" are absolutely fine, they are the exact phonetic transcriptions of the Russian names. "Andrew" for "Andrei" or "Nicholas" for "Nikolai" are also understandable. But "Bruno" for "Boris"???
Why did the translator Anglicize the names?
Melissa wrote: "Wow, reading such books in a second language is so impressive. how many languages do you speak?"
Only Hungarian and English. :) I don't speak French, I can only read and write (with lots of mistakes). I used to be able to speak, too, but I haven't had a teacher for years, so I don't really understand spoken French, and I wouldn't dare to open my mouth. I read books to keep up my vocabulary at least, so that I can start learning to speak again when I get a chance.
I studied German and Latin and a little bit of Russian at school, and I was pretty good at them, but I don't have enough time for them any more. I've forgotten almost all my Russian, but the other two are quite hard to forget, thank God, so I might refresh my skills some time later. I started learning Spanish last year, because one of my colleagues launched a language course, and I said why not join in. But I haven't tried to read in Spanish yet.
I'm still interested in Russian (and Polish, too), but they are for the very far future. At the present moment I'd be perfectly happy with an intermediate level language exam in French or Spanish.
Wow !! That sounds like you must have a real gift for languages x What country are you from ? what's your first language ?
I only speak English and feel that I mess that up half the time haha x
You're good influence though with W and P. I picked it up yesterday and read a good chunk of part 4 and hope to finish that part today. It always takes ages because I annotate as I go along and write discussion points in a notebook (which takes longer than reading the section in the first place haha).
Melissa wrote: "Wow !! That sounds like you must have a real gift for languages x What country are you from ? what's your first language ?
I only speak English and feel that I mess that up half the time haha x"
I hope I do...
I'm from Hungary, and Hungarian is my first language.
Chapter summaries for book 1, part 3. I might be the only one doing these, but I hope you don't mind. 1. Everybody goes out of their way to manipulate Pierre, and I have a bad feeling about that poor child’s future.
2. Pierre is married off to the beautiful Hélène.
3. Princess Mary feels that she is too ugly to ever find happiness in an earthly love.
4. Princess Mary sees the best in the people around her, and Tolstoy let’s us know that women’s lives without men are bland and meaningless.
5. Princess Mary declines to wed Anatole after catching him and her French friend in the conservatory, and vows to give them their happiness.
6. A letter from Nicholas is received like a treasure by his family.
7. Nicholas recounts his tale of battle to Boris and meets Prince Andrew.
8. Nicholas falls in love with Emperor Alexander, and it is obvious that the key to winning a battle or a war is the belief that it is possible.
9. Prince Andrew tries to help Boris advance his career.
10. Emperor Alexander visits the troops before the battle of Austerlitz, and Nicholas is filled with love.
11. On the eve before the battle, none except an old general seems to think there is a risk of losing, or they don’t care.
12. Prince Andrew dreams of glory and, most of all, of being respected by other men, while realizing that the battle is so badly planned, that it most likely is going to go to hell in a handbasket.
13. Nicholas plays the hero for nothing.
14. Bonaparte is watching his battle plan unfold.
15. The Emperors arrive wanting to see the battle begin.
16. Panic ensues at the encounter of the French, but Prince Andrew manages to mobilize the Russian soldiers for an attack before he is wounded at the end.
17. Nicholas gladly goes on a suicide mission.
18. Nicholas encounters the Emperor but is to shy (!) to deliver his messae.
19. Prince Andrew, badly wounded and capture by the French, comes to realize the insignificance of human action.
I thought this part was really interesting for the development of some of the characters. Prince Andrew I've mentioned before, I find interesting, and like Melissa warned me, there is some development here at the end of part three, where he seemingly matures when he realizes the smallness of human action. I'm curious to see how that evolves.
I feel horribly sorry for Pierre, who is without anybody who genuinely cares for him. Like himself, I also have a bad feeling about his marriage.
Princess Mary I feel even more sorry for, and I found that Tolstoy described her feelings on being unworthy of love because of her looks really well.
Both of these parts were slightly painful to read.
Neele , im so pleased that you're enjoyong it!!
yes, i do feel so sorry for Pierre, no-one seems to genuinely care for him and he is so insular that it is sometimes hard to read about. I do find his thought processes so interesting though!
Yes, i agree also with your point about P. Mary. She is such an indepth female character and Tolstoy has had brilliant intuition about the experiences of women. It has really made me want to read Anna K.
It has intensified my enjoyment of the novel as it continues because I am beginning to see the links between characters and know a lot more about who is who. At the beginning, I foind i had to flip back to remember who certain characters were.
neele, thanks for the chapter summaries also !!!
Neele wrote: "I thought this part was really interesting for the development of some of the characters. Prince Andrew I've mentioned before, I find interesting, and like Melissa warned me, there is some develop..."
I agree with every word you say.
It is clever how Tolstoy Has used characters to represent different aspects of human behaviour and opinions on war xx
Was there a conversation in the first part where Andrew talks about Napoleon. Why is Napoleon his hero? It says that at the end of the 3rd part. All these characters as so funny the way they idolize these leaders and would do anything to talk to them or be near them!
If I just read for story, this novel is not as hard a read as I had feared. So on this first read, I'll just read for story and enjoy myself, saving any analysis for the future if I decide to reread the novel. This means I may be able to finish the novel by the end of August.
I agree with the Bagration statement and analysis of how certain people are meant to lead the army. in fact, there's a few incidences where this hierarchal structure has been mocked so far in the section:
At the beginning there is a section where those in charge don't know what to do so just make the soldiers act ceremoniously.
There is also the fact that their uniforms have to look smart and scrubbed but their shoes aren't workable.
Another that stands out, is when there was a theft of a purse and higher authorities were more bothered about the impact a soldiers confrontation had on the organisational structure.
That is interesting about the military history context!! I do feel that there is a definite theme of confusion through the section and the inability to determine whether something is good or bad or working.
What are your thoughts about this secrion compared to the first?