War and Peace: Book 1 Discussion

Hello, everyone! As promised, here is the discussion thread (WITH SPOILERS) for Book 1 (Parts 1-3) of War and Peace! Here's where we are, plot-wise:

- Pierre Bezukhov has inherited his father's fortune and is being maneuvered into marriage with Helene Kuragin.
- Most of the young male characters are off to war, hoping to win fame and glory, although none of them have shown much heroism yet.
- Prince Andrey Bolkonsky has been seriously wounded and left at Austerlitz, where the Russian army has suffered a crushing defeat.

And that's essentially all that has happened in 300+ pages! But of course, we've been introduced to a variety of characters as well. Do you have any favorites or least favorites? Which characters (if any) do you think Tolstoy wants us to sympathize with? Are you enjoying the book so far? Do you like your translation? Tell us what you think about these or any other topics that struck you!

Parking here. Be back when I finish book one.

I like it...so far. I'm a bit flummoxed by ALL the characters. I got a character list from Wikipedia and was a little miffed that it spoiled some destinies--character marriages, deaths, and the like. I guess a measure of that is inevitable.

>3 weird_O: Ugh, I hate when they do that!

So overall, I'm liking the book more than I thought I would! There's lots of fun comedy-of-manners stuff, especially in the beginning. The battle stuff is...less interesting, for sure. I tend to enjoy books more when they focus on dialogue and character interaction. Some of W&P is like that, but the battle scenes are either very history-textbook-ish or stuck in one character's head (such as Nikolay Rostov's). I still don't have a very good sense of anyone's personality, although I do quite like Prince Andrey. Can't wait to have a few more women in the book, though!

I've been struggling a little with this one. It's been one of those books that I enjoy while I'm reading it, but that I'm not eager to pick up. That said, I'm liking it more than I thought I would. I've given up on keeping track of who is who and am just going with the flow and trust that I pick up on the characters as I'm reading - which has worked pretty well so far, so I'll continue with that. My book has that characters-list in the beginning, but everyone is called my five different names (it seems) so it takes too much time to find them in the list every time they come up in the book. :)

I've no favorite characters - they all are a little annoying in their own way. Although, I did like Marya Dmitryevna Ahrosimov, "le terrible dragon" - Natasha's godmother - because she just speaks her mind and everyone is a little scared of her. I'm not sure she'll be back, though, as she's not listed among the main characters.

The most surprising for me is how much I enjoyed the battle scenes - not that I enjoyed them SO much, but because I had expected them to be really hopeless to read. I really liked that we got a view of the battle from a very human angle - lost of confusion and smoke and pain and not knowing what the heck was going on. It felt "real" in a way a bigger overview of the battle wouldn't have been able to convey.

Onward! :)

I chose the P&V edition for my reread and was a little apprehensive, as this is supposed to be the most "scholarly" edition. However, I'm finding it very readable. Despite W&P's length, it's not a chore to read, and I agree with >6 -Eva-: that even the long battle scenes are tolerable.

I'm glad that, this time around, I have an edition that includes the French in-line. My command of French is not great, but I can understand most of it and need to jump to the footnotes only about a third of the time. I also like the fact that, on my e-reader, the footnote appears as a pop-up if I touch the screen. When I had read W&P the first time, I had a very primitive e-reader and jumping to footnotes was a pain.

I don't really have a favourite character, but I think it's interesting how much several of the characters change from the beginning to the end of part 1.

The names of each character had me puzzled at first until I started taking notes. As I sorted out who was who I started to enjoy it and like some of these people. So for me my reading experience is a case of so far so good...

I also had a hard time getting in to the pacing of this book, but once I convinced myself that this first section was really only the opening of the book (even though it's 300 pages) I sort of gave in to the length.

It is hard to get all the characters straight. My book's character list helped a lot.

I'm finding as the book goes on (I'm a bit ahead but this isn't a spoiler) that that war parts become more blended with the rest of the book as it goes on. I do like that Tolstoy creates the French even more as the "other" by using "we", "our", and "us" as he describes the movements and decisions of the Russian army.

>1 christina_reads:

I'm really enjoying all of the characterizations.

I'm not sure who Tolstoy would want us to sympathize with but I think that Andrey and Pierre are central to the worldview he is presenting. Marya and Natasha are important as well, although I would hasten to add that you really can't dissect a work of art like this in such a manner.

Immensely.

I read the Garnett and now I'm reading P&V. I may have some more to say after I compare specific passages. I also don't want to say anything just yet out of fear of spoilers.

>1 christina_reads:
Thanks to my Penguin edition, I am thoroughly enjoying this novel and I don't foresee any reason why I would put the book down for even one day.

I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of humor in Volume/Book 1. Not the dry historical fiction I was expecting.

I do have a favorite character, Denisov. Yes, a minor character but in my edition he is unable to pronounce the r sound and it is replaced with w sound. It makes him endearing and sympathetic, at least to me.

Pierre seems to be easily manipulated.

I am enjoying reading the Maude version, I like the battle scenes and those introductory scenes where you get to see some of the different family relationships. I like the humour in some of the interactions.

Its a much easier read than I expected and I think its been built up into some huge, difficult novel when in fact there are plenty of good books that are long and worth the reading time.

No favourite characters yet but am interested to see how things pan out for Pierre, I think hes probably pretty naive about those around him, so sure to be taken advantage of.

>12 Jan_1: Its a much easier read than I expected and I think its been built up into some huge, difficult novel when in fact there are plenty of good books that are long and worth the reading time.

I agree whole-heartedly!

Finished Book I and I fairly agree that not many characters have stood out except Pierre and Andrey. They are still developing though.

>7 mathgirl40: I don't really have a favourite character, but I think it's interesting how much several of the characters change from the beginning to the end of part 1. I completely agree!

>9 japaul22:
"by using "we", "our", and "us"
YES! I agree - I liked that too!

I'm nearing the end of Book 1. My book is the Wordsworth Classics version, which is, apparently, the translation that Tolstoy approved. But, it doesn't say anywhere (that I can find) who did the translation.

Some observations:

-- I'm enjoying the specific details that Tolstoy gave to all his characters, major and minor. That helps, given the large cast.

-- There are many smaller, tableau scenes that may not necessarily move the story along as much as reveal character. And, they do so beautifully, I think. Especially the little scenes during Natasha's Name Day.

-- The women are more sharply-drawn, it seems to me, while the men (other than Bolkonsky and Pierre) seem to get broader brushstrokes.

-- Opening the story with the party at Anna Scherer's allows us to both get to know a lot of characters quickly and, through their chatter, the socio-political issues they're dealing with. This party scene has been done so many times in fiction and is a difficult one to manage. But, we're in the hands of a master who knows exactly how to use dialogue, detail, comedy, and drama in just the right proportions to keep that "what-happens-next" tension alive throughout.

-- I'd read somewhere that Tolstoy was rather afraid of death through most of his life. And, one of the reasons he wrote so much about it was to try to get over his own fears/fixations. We see, in the scenes of Count Bezukhov's dying, such a careful handling for, perhaps, that reason. I know that the death scenes will get more frequent and more graphic as the book goes on, and I'm curious to see how he manages to keep them from becoming too overwhelming or over-cooked (for lack of a better word).

So happy to have found people talking about this book. I'm also trying to watch the TV series alongside but want to read the book sections before the episode-viewing.

I have little new to add to this discussion. I did find that for me a "cheat sheet" book was needed so I have not only a list of characters but some short summaries of each section. I'm listening in the car and sometimes I miss parts due to road noise, or needing to put my mind on the road due to driving conditions. Having the summaries makes it so I do not have to rewind constantly. Whew. Progress is being made and I'm glad for it.

I keep meaning to ask, does anyone understand Russian aristocracy titles? There seem to be a lot of Prince and Princesses around. Are they close to the throne in terms of relations or is it just a top level of aristocracy?

I'd read somewhere that Tolstoy was rather afraid of death throughout his life.

"And then what happens to everyone stricken with a fatal inner disease happened to me. At first minor signs of indisposition appear, which the sick person ignores; then these symptoms appear more and more frequently, merging into one interrupted period of suffering. The suffering increases and before the sick man realizes what is happening he discovers that the indisposition is in fact that the thing that is more important to him than anything in the world: it is death.

This is just what happened to me. I realized that it was not just a casual indisposition but something very serious and that if the same questions kept repeating themselves they would have to be answered. And I tried to answer them. The questions seemed so stupid, simple, and childish. But the moment I touched upon them and tried to resolve them I was convinced, firstly that they were not childish and stupid questions but where the most profound and important questions in life, and secondly, that however much I thought about them I could not resolve them."

Tolstoy A Confession

>19 March-Hare: thank you for that.

>18 japaul22: It's the top rank in the aristocracy, equivalent to German "Fürst", which is usually translated as Prince, for lack of a better word. In Russian it's knyaz/knyaginya (the stress is on the i).

>18 japaul22: I also wondered about that. There are quite a lot of Princes and Counts etc...

>16 jennybhatt: Wonderful observations! So well laid out. Thanks for sharing.

>16 jennybhatt:
I think that's the Maude translation - the Wordsworth edition I looked at (before settling on the P&V) was a Maude translation.

>23 Smiler69: thanks.

>24 -Eva-: Ah, good to know. I wonder how much difference there is between the Maude and the P&V. I read the latter's Anna Karenina and enjoyed it. I'll check out the P&V for W&P from the library at some point just to compare.

I have finished the novel and reviewed it, and part of what I addressed in my review was the difference between the Maude and the V&P translations. Here's what I said (no spoilers):

"The other thing I want to address are the translations and the audio versions of this book. I listened to the version that is narrated by Neville Jason - this is a five star listen if you are judging the narrator's performance. I cannot recommend this version highly enough - he is fabulous! Every character has a unique voice, and that's saying something right there because there are a LOT of characters in this novel. Jason also does a great job with all of the accents and with reading all of the French in its original form and then directly translating it without it becoming awkward or weighty. Don't be intimidated by the fact that the combined audios (it's in two separate books) are more than 60 hours of listening time. I listened at 1.25x speed for the peace parts and 1.5x speed for the war parts. Ha! This audio version is from the Maude translation, which brings me to the final thing I wanted to address - in my opinion, the Maude translation is superior to the P&V translation. Just saying. I often followed along in print, and what I had was the P&V translation - this allowed me to see the variations between the two, and I was amazed at what a difference the translation makes. The Maude version is so much more lyrical - much better use of language and word choice. Because after all, cudgel and club bring to mind different images in my head even though they are synonyms. The same thing with flushed and embarrassed. SO I am thankful that I chose to listen to Neville Jason because I liked his voice and his style - if not, I would have missed out on the lovely Maude translation and been stuck with the much drier and less poetic V&P version."

Just my opinion, but since you were discussing it, I thought I'd chime in.

>26 Crazymamie:: thanks for that explanation re. the difference between the two translations. I'm liking the Maude so far, no complaints.

The edition of War & Peace that I am reading (published first in 1938 for the Limited Editions Club, then in the 1950s for the Heritage Press) has a number of pen-and-ink drawings by Fritz Eichenberg. Let me share three that appear the the book's first three parts.

  

>28 weird_O:: Those are terrific. Thanks for sharing.

great to see those illustration, thanks!

I just started and am most of the way through book 1. I really like the Maude translation and am having a lot of fun with the characters so far. Over the last few years, I have tried reading more Russian literature and am pleasantly surprised to find that I really like most of it.

The illustrations are neat - thanks! :)

>28 weird_O:
Those are beautiful.

I'm about to start Book 2 and am looking forward to "seeing" the characters again after my little break from them.

I have just finished book 1, this time I seem to be getting into the book a lot more. I suspect this is because I have been watching the BBC series and so I am finding it easier to hold on to who is who.
A friend is also reading it and she thinks it is a lavish soap opera, but I am enioying the histrorical detail as much as the interactions.

I finished book one and then read the summary on shmoop.com - very amusing and highly recommended. I will try for book two this weekend.

>33 soffitta1:, I have to admit that Book 1 was mostly soap-opera-ish. But, I believe that changes as the book goes on.

>34 Yells:, that shmoop.com summary is terrific. Thanks for pointing us to it.

Can't take total credit... Nickelini pointed me there in the first place and now I am rather addicted :)

So I have ploughed ahead and am now finished book four (I won't spoil anything). I am really loving this book! When he writes about family life, it really is like a lavish soap opera. And a stark contrast to the dark, battle scenes.

I have just come my first death scene and it was very matter-of-fact, almost clinical. It will be interesting to see how he handles the next one.

I'm still working my way through Volume I. I wanted to mention how much I enjoyed the first big battle scene where Bagration is trying to stall the French so that Kutuzov can get the Russians to Znaim. The descriptions are so thorough that it's like being on the battlefield in the action. And, with each character who has a particular part to play -- Bagration, Kutuzov, Tushin, Andrew, Dolokhov, Rostov -- we get inside his head to understand what's driving him. Amazing to be able to move so many levers at the same time. Can you imagine if Tolstoy was a movie director in today's world? He'd be way, way better than Spielberg and that lot, wouldn't he?

This description of Bagration, by the way, reminded me of a couple of my favorite bosses at work, from whom I learned a lot:

"Prince Andrew listened attentively to Bagration's colloquies with the commanding officers and the orders he gave them and, to his surprise, found that no orders were really given, but that Prince Bagration tried to make it appear that everything done by necessity, by accident, or by the will of subordinate commanders was done, if not by his direct command, at least in accord with his intentions. Prince Andrew noticed, however, that though what happened was due to chance and was independent of the commander's will, owing to the tact Bagration showed, his presence was very valuable. Officers who approached him with disturbed countenances became calm; soldiers and officers greeted him gaily, grew more cheerful in his presence, and were evidently anxious to display their courage before him."

Of course, Bagration goes on to lead by example by going straight to the front after this, with Andrew by his side.

I'm not a fan of war at all, but, reading this makes me see what drives some men to the need for heroism. It's not a justification for killing another human being, of course, but it does show us how, for some men, victory or heroics on the battlefield can often seem to be a validation of their existence. And, we have to remember that this was before the World Wars and the Holocaust. I think Tolstoy would have written about war a lot differently if he was writing about these latter events.

The Bondarchuk version of this episode is on YouTube. The fidelity to the text is striking.

>38 jennybhatt:
I also appreciated how he shows that each soldier's action on the field matters and, even though they get the glory at the end, the generals don't have moment-to-moment say over how things go on the battlefield.

>39 March-Hare:: Thanks. I will definitely check that episode out.

>40 -Eva-:: Yes, exactly so. Of course, wars are fought differently now because of the way generals can communicate in real-time with technology, and so on. But, back then, it must have been chaos in the front ranks because, though they likely started off following orders or plans, on a minute-by-minute basis, all you can do is react to how the enemy is behaving. The presence of mind, then, of someone like Tushin was rightly admired by Andrew. Even Dolokhov's opportunistic capture of the French officer was inspired and commendable.

I haven't come across it yet, but I know that, at some point, Tolstoy uses some of the battle scenes as extended metaphors for how-to-live and how-to-die. I'm looking forward to reading those.

Again, none of this means I'm "for" war, by any means. Just for how Tolstoy has portrayed the complexities and intricacies in words and made it all come to life for someone like me.

I wanted to add a bit about the party and dinner party tableaux that Tolstoy did so well. I wonder: did he go to many of these society events himself? Don't know but he does portray so many details that it makes me think he must have observed them first-hand. What blows me away even more than the physical details is how cleverly he shows us both what's happening on the surface but also the underlying subtext going on throughout with the actions/words of various people. Take, for example, the dinner party at Prince Vasili's where Pierre and Helene are brought together. Tolstoy does a bit of head-hopping here with different characters' brief POVs but he does it so smoothly because everyone is thinking on the same thing (in different ways, of course). For writers of any era, doing this kind of subtext and head-hopping, while keeping the surface story moving along is a very tricky thing. Those who try, don't always succeed. Yet, here, Tolstoy makes it look so effortless.

I can see why people keep wanting to re-read this book. There are things you can miss in a first read because there's just so much going on with each scene.

Just: wow.

>42 jennybhatt: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am really enjoying your commentary.

Yes, that was his milieu.

One more quote from A Confession:

"Some day I will relate to you the story of my life, and how touching and instructive were those ten years of my life. I think a great many people must have experienced something similar. I longed with all my soul to be good, but I was young; I had passions and I was completely alone, completely alone in my search for goodness. Every time I tried to display my innermost desires--a wish to be morally good--I met with contempt and scorn, and as soon as I gave in to base desires I was praised and encouraged. Ambition, lust for power, self-interest, lechery, pride, anger, revenge, were all respected qualities. As I yielded to these passions I became like my elders and I felt they were pleased with me. A dear old aunt of mine, the purest of creatures, with whom I lived, was always saying that she wished for nothing as much as that I would have a relationship with a married woman. 'Rien ne forme un jeune homme comme une liaison avec une femme comme il faut.' Another happiness she wished for me was that I should become an adjutant, preferably to the Emperor. And the greatest happiness of all would be for me to marry a very rich girl and acquire as many serfs as possible through marriage.

I cannot recall those years without horror, loathing and heartache. I killed people in war, summoned others to duels in order to kill them, gambled at cards; devoured the fruits of the peasant's labor and punished them; I fornicated and practiced deceit. Lying, thieving, promiscuity of all kinds, drunkenness, violence, murder...there was not a crime I did not commit, and yet I was praised for it all and my contemporaries considered me a relatively moral man.

For ten years I lived in this fashion.

>43 March-Hare:: Terrific excerpt. Thank you for sharing. Yes, I can see that old aunt being, perhaps, a model for some of the older women in War and Peace.

>42 jennybhatt: I can see why people keep wanting to re-read this book. There are things you can miss in a first read because there's just so much going on with each scene.

Absolutely! I enjoyed reading your comments on the war scenes. I've been kind of trudging through them while trying to take in the great insights Tolstoy puts into his character's minds and your comments help me appreciate that aspect of the novel all the more, even though I'm now nearing the end.

>43 March-Hare: Wonderful! You do get a sense as you read W&P and Anna Karenina as well that Tostloy is writing about things he was intimately familiar with.

>45 Smiler69:: Oh, you're way ahead of me then if you're nearing the end. I'm at the 200-page mark.

I'd read somewhere ages ago that if there's one book all writers should study, it's W&P because Tolstoy incorporated every possible theme, plot device, archetype, narrative style, POV, and so on. So far, that's proving true. I am also finding the descriptive passages, particularly the battle scenes, sort of musical. I don't mean in terms of word choice because I'm reading a no-frills translation, but in terms of a rhythmic beat or tempo -- not able to describe this well enough.

I think this is going to be my life-changing book of the year. :)