War and Peace Group Read 2011 - Vol 2, Part II

A new thread for your thoughts on War and Peace Vol 2, Part II

And here's the thread for part III: http://www.librarything.com/topic/111216

One important aspect of this part is the confrontation of Pierre and Andrej – two men with different experiences. One of them fought in the war, the other one stayed in Russia. One has a family, the other one is a loner and his marriage is over. Consequently we learn about two different philosophies of life. Pierre is still an idealist who thinks about the possibilities to improve the people’s life, about his contribution to society. But Andrej has experienced (the absurdity of) war and he got disillusioned. He doesn’t “believe” in war anymore, because he fought for a “bigger cause”, but in vain. So Andrej’s main goals stay on a very personal/private level: “a good conscience and health”.

But there’s another confrontation of two different characters: Napoleon and Alexander. The first one arouse from the people because of his strategic genius, the second one was appointed by god. – But still they are each other’s equal. And even the godlike Alexander’s powers are limited: "I cannot do it, General. I cannot, because the law is stronger than I," and he raised his foot to the stirrup.

Some noteworthy quotes:

“(…) I have promised myself not to serve again in the active Russian army. And I won't- not even if Bonaparte were here at Smolensk threatening Bald Hills- even then I wouldn't serve in the Russian army!” (Andrej, Chapter 10)
We'll see about that!

Pierre was maintaining that a time would come when there would be no more wars. (Chapter 12)
It’s sad to realize that even 200 years later, nothing has changed and this thoughts are still a Utopia.

The regiment was also a home, and as unalterably dear and precious as his parents' house. the whole world was divided into two unequal parts: one, our Pavlograd regiment; the other, all the rest. And the rest was no concern of his. (Chapter 13)

Rostov was therefore unpleasantly struck by the presence of French officers in Boris' lodging, dressed in uniforms he had been accustomed to see from quite a different point of view from the outposts of the flank. (Chapter 14)
How weird must it have been, when enemies suddenly became friends/allies.

I guess some of the others will have some knowledge about freemasons. I have almost none, so I will just say that I am not sure if this is the right way for Pierre. Could he be more clueless? And helpless? Will there be a sudden, significant change?

His discussion with Andrei is a discussion you could have probably anytime in human history. Thinking about my old job where the work was given gradually to companies in Russia and India or the current situation with the refugees from Northern Africa.

And I really should start taking notes while reading...

Thread for Part III: http://www.librarything.com/topic/111216

Thoughts on this Part--
--Pierre at first seems so easily swayed to become a mason. And yet, he holds his own in his discussions with Andrei & Andrei's father.
--I was struck how the Bolkonsky family loved Pierre--no one had a bad word to say about him when he left. The family did not seem so kind-hearted to me before Lise's death and Andrei's return--are they changed?
--Rostov goes through all kinds of changes in this section. Up to this point, he always seems to get caught up in events that are out of his control. Which is why the regiment is such an island of security for him--no decisions to make. By the end, he is just as antagonistic to loyalties and war, it seems, as Andrei, but from different circumstances.
--Tolstoy brings us the real war--the starving men, the hospital stench, the repulsiveness of the Enemy. (Side note--back in the late 1980s, I knew a Vietnam Vet who couldn't deal with Vietnamese refugees in our workplace--the same visceral reaction as Rostov--they were still the Enemy, even here on American soil).
--Question--at the end of this section, a soldier named Lazarev gets rewarded, seemingly at random. Was Lazarev mentioned in the text before, or is this the first time he appears? I couldn't remember.

I'm in the middle of this part still, so I have skimmed the spoiler-y parts above, but have just finished the part about Pierre becoming a freemason and (unless something changes soon) I was amazed at how readily Pierre decided to join them. Some guy turns up at the railway station and talks you into it? Geez, he is so gullbile. But I did love how he finally told Prince Vassily to vamoose.

My only exposure to freemasons is that when I was little, the venue for my speech exams was in the Freemason's Lodge in Dunedin. It was a very intimidating waiting room and I still remember heavy wooden panelling and my mother trying to explain that masons were a secret society of some kind.

I was finding this part very easy to read but now am back into a war part - Bilibin's letter. I am so far behind but at least I'm still reading I suppose.

Speech exams? That sounds scary (I hate oral exams).
I first read about the freemasons in Foucault's Pendulum, but I have better memories of the 'Simpsons' episode where Homer becomes one.
There will be more easy parts in volume 2 (I hope this isn't a spoiler).

People generally seem to like Pierre despite his looks and clumsiness, maybe because he is so approachable and easy to influence and mostly friendly and interested. And he avoids confrontations. In the beginning I thought he was the typical rich, spoilt and useless young man (he was involved in that bear story). But he just seems to be one of those people who can't say 'no' to others and that gets him into difficult situations (or impossible marriages).

Oh good, glad there are some easier parts coming up (really should GET OFF reading and posting on here and sit in my W&P chair.)

I quite like Pierre because from the start you could see that he thinks about politics and philosophy, so he didn't strike me as the typical rich brat. But now I'm finding him so amazingly stupid and gullible that I'm liking him much less.

Anna Pavlovna is really a piece of work - she dumped him so quickly once she'd gone through all the drama with making sure he got the inheritance.

I thought there was a lot of character development in this section – Pierre and Andrei both become more serious and philosophical, Boris makes his slimy way up the social ladder, Rostov learns more about the cynicism and hypocrisy of the world, and old Prince Volkonsky shows some of the qualities that made him a respected public figure in his younger days.

But…while I’m sure Pierre’s conversion to Masonry is meant to be deeply meaningful, I thought this section was terrible, plotwise, and badly written, – if it wasn’t War and Peace, and if I didn’t think it would get better again quickly, I might have stopped reading at this point. What a coincidence, to meet a famous mystic in a coaching inn! (or was it a coincidence?) And a single conversation convinces him to abandon his former agnosticism or atheism and go completely over to the opposite extreme? Yes, I know this can happen, and I know Pierre is searching for some meaning - any meaning in his life, but honestly, what a clunky plot device – the “chance meeting”.

This made me think about other places where the writing bothered me, and for a couple of days I was worried that W&P really is “just a soap opera”. The whole life/character/death of Lise is one example, but also things left hanging (unless they come back later, but that will be too late) – why did Andrei marry Lise? What happened to the Anatole/Mme Bourienne romance, which when we left it, Maria was promising to herself to encourage?

On the other hand, I like Pierre and Andrei’s philosophical discussion and their growing friendship, and I also liked Bilibin’s sarcastic letter to Andrei – the Russian army really is hopeless. I wonder if this was a brave thing for Tolstoy to include, politically?

Thanks for saying it openly, Janet. I also feel that Pierre is sometimes not so much a character, but some clumsy technical literature device. It keeps switching - often he is a real man with all his flaws and then I feel for him. But sometimes he is placed in some unreal situation and then takes the position of the uninstructed, unknowing, observing reader.

I often feel sorry for Pierre because he is so alone in the world. The other male characters all have family and got some guidelines in their youth. But he is so aimless, clueless, forever searching. Generally liked but not respected. It's a miracle he hasn't lost all his fortune yet to ... I'd guess he'd give it to anyone if they were asking nicely.

Anatole/ Mlle Bourienne - I must have missed that Marya was planning to further encourage it. Must check again. I won't say anything about the other questions here, but I found the remaining parts of volume 2 easy to read, though maybe also a bit soapy. Was Gone with the Wind influenced by W&P?

Don't know about any influence on GwtW, but it certainly reminds me of it sometimes!

Yes, the Anatole/Bourienne/Maria bit is right at the end of Book I Part 3 subsection 6 (not sure all the versions have the same subsections? right after Maria refuses Anatole).

Janet, that's what I thought too (still in this bit). It reminded me of Coronation Street and I thought that if anyone else had written it I'd be giving it 2 stars at that point.

Just finished this part (at last!!!) and found the last 20 pages so fast to read. The difference between Alexander's army and Russia's (and everyone else's) ruthless professionalism 130 years later in WW2 really struck me - Rostov's regiment getting left behind because they hadn't recruited enough men, then the palaver with Denisov stealing the infantry's food, the appalling state of the hospital... the contrast with the iron discipline that Antony Beevor described in Stalingrad was huge, even though conditions were at least as grim.

It looks like something is going to happen with Pierre and maybe Marya. I'm still feeling like it's all quite soap-operaish - I'm enjoying it but not really seeing why it's considered a masterpiece of literature. (That sounds arrogant - it's not intended to be!)

I guess it's the mixture of highly emotional romance and detached history narration /philosophical theories that makes W&P special, and in volume 2 Tolstoi was in full romance mood.

I read half of this section, then set the book aside to read other things before finishing it yesterday and now have a very hazy recollection of what happened at the start!

Pierre's sudden and chance conversion to freemasonry seemed to me very typical of Tolstoy and I shall forgive him for it because there are so many other interesting things going on, but, again, I was annoyed by Pierre's naivety and willingness to submit so easily to the ideas of others. However, if his new beliefs helped him to tell Prince Vasili where to go, then they can't be all bad!

The descriptions of the poor state of the Russian army and appalling hospital conditions were well done, and I can understand Nikolai's frustration at the peace between Napolean and Alexander - were all those deaths for nothing? My knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars is really limited to this book, but I find it strange that Napoleon should have been so revered by some Russians (I suppose it's less surprising in the case of the Poles, as Poland was itself partially occupied by Russia (and Prussia and Austria), so it's hard to know how much loyalty there was there). Anyway, I liked Nikolai much better in this section and am fearful for Denisov.

Edited to correct idiotic spelling mistakes!

I am currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and in one chapter the half-religious 'cult' is mentioned that many followers started around Hitler and Stalin in the 1930/40s. People were reportedly expressing a 'love' that is usually reserved for a god or a saint. I felt reminded of the glorification of the leaders - Napoleon and Alexander - here in War and Peace. I am wondering if in times of crisis some kind of 'auto-brainwash' is taking place, where people who are ordered to do horrible things (like soldiers) try to find some justification in the quasi religious love to their leaders.
And what a disappointment must it then be, when after all this bloodshed your idol suddenly presents the enemy as friend.
Probably Napoleon had the unusual role of a glorified enemy - being killed by the troups of someone who had overthrown Europe was maybe almost an honour.

Interesting, Nathalie. I think you're right about the necessity of glorifying leaders. Nikolai's hero-worship of Alexander is irritating but understandable. And I could understand the admiration of Napoleon, though I would expect it to be somewhat grudging.