War and Peace: Book 2 Discussion

Welcome to the discussion thread (with spoilers!) for Book 2 of War and Peace! I have to admit, I'm not *quite* finished with Book 2 yet, so I won't be checking this thread for a little while. But what did you all think? Did you find it more or less enjoyable than Book 1? Have any favorite characters or plot lines emerged? What about least favorites? Personally, anytime Freemasonry was mentioned, I just wanted to roll my eyes and yell, "Shut UP, Pierre!" But I'm liking Alexey and Natasha more and more, and even Nikolay Rostov is a bit more sympathetic to me (although he still has a long way to go). Please share your thoughts and opinions below!

I think I did enjoy this volume more than the first, or rather I enjoyed it in a different way; the first volume I enjoyed because I was so surprised it was easier to read than I thought it would be, but volume 2 is "better" for me because I know the characters better (although I'm not sure I like any of them yet...) and there aren't as many battle scenes!

This volume seems to have a little of an overload on philosophical/religious discussions, which are interesting of course, but, let's be honest, don't exactly move the story along.

I do like opera very much, so those scenes were great for me, but I wish Tolstoy had described a real opera (or perhaps it's real, but I don't recognize it). Does anyone know? I've done the Google-thing, but all I'm getting is Prokofiev's opera! :)

Argh, I take it back about Natasha! I was excited when she and Andrey got together, but then she had to go and make a fool of herself about Anatole! I guess it's understandable, since she's still so young and naive about the world, but I'm really disappointed with where things stand right now! And I'm beginning to suspect that nobody is going to get a happy ending...

>3 christina_reads:
I agree - I wanted to reach into the book and slap some sense into her!

I'm reading What is Art? now. Opera gets a shellacking from the late Tolstoy. Another item to file under the Tolstoy as artist/Tolstoy as preacher heading.

>2 -Eva-: yes, it took me a lot of time to develop any kind of sympathy for pretty much any of the characters (with the exceptions of Pierre and Sonya). I found them really quite unpleasant, although I did find that many of them grew on me as I read on.

Just peeking in here though I am way behind on my reading.

>5 March-Hare:: I have a copy of What Is Art? too but have not read it entirely, just random pages. I was thinking of getting to it after I'm done with War and Peace. But, please do share anything that relates to our current reading. Thanks.

As I see it, the connection is sincerity.

In What is Art? Tolstoy is developing the theme that art is defined not by beauty but by the communication of feeling.

“The chief peculiarity of this feeling is that the perceiver merges with the artist to such a degree that it seems to him that perceived object has been made, not by someone else but by himself, and that everything expressed by the object is exactly what he has long been wanting to express. The effect of the true work of art is to abolish in the consciousness of the perceiver the distinction between himself and the artist, and not only between himself and the artist, but also between himself and all who perceive the same work of art. It is this liberation of the person from his isolation from others, from his loneliness, that constitutes the chief attractive force and property of art.
…

Art becomes more or less infectious owing to three condition: (1) the greater or lesser particularity of the feeling conveyed; (2) the greater or lesser clarity with which the feeling is conveyed; and (3) the artist’s sincerity, that is, the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself experiences the feeling he conveys.
…

I am speaking of three conditions of infectiousness and worth in art, but in fact only the last is a condition, that the artist must experience an inner need to express the feeling he conveys. This condition includes the first, because if the artist is sincere, he will express his feeling as he perceived it. And since each man is unlike all others, this feeling will be particular for all other men, and will be the more particular the more deeply the artist penetrates, the more heartfelt and sincere he is. And this sincerity will force the artist to find a clear expression of the feeling he wishes to convey.

And therefore, this third condition—sincerity—is the most important of the three. This condition is always present in popular art, which accounts for its powerful effect, and it is almost entirely absent in our upper class art, ceaselessly fabricated by artists for reasons of personal gain or vanity.”

Early in the essay, Tolstoy lambasts opera for just this sort of snobbery.

I cannot help but see sincerity as a theme in War and Peace. I keep thinking about this line:

“Pierre was one of those people who could be strong only when he felt himself to be perfectly pure.”

The resonance is of the construction of the self and the life narrative as a work of art.

I think you can see where this is going. Where does Anatole seduce Natasha? At the opera. This is reinforced by the occasion of their second meeting when the background is the recitation by the actress and so forth.

>8 March-Hare::

Thanks for that. I wonder how he would see opera now, not so much simply an upper-class art but, really, almost a dying art.

And, how he would see Hollywood studio movies (sincerity is not their aim; profit is).

I don't know that I agree with him that opera is devoid of feeling or sincerity. But, I do see how he aims for sincerity with War and Peace.

I haven't got to the Anatole seducing Natasha scene but that's interesting that he used opera as the backdrop. I wouldn't have thought much of it if you hadn't shared this tidbit, which gives more context. So, thank you.

Oops. Sorry for the spoiler.

He doesn't dislike all opera. There is another section where Wagner gets a drubbing and Mozart is mentioned favorably.

Don't feel bad for any favorites. They are in good company. Baudelaire, Mallarme, and Verlaine come up short too.

>10 March-Hare:: Oh, no worries re. spoiler at all. I knew there might be some already when I chose to visit this thread.

I'm going to have to get to What is Art? soon, I see. :) Thanks.

>8 March-Hare:
That's quite funny to me, especially since opera does evoke those feelings for me, but War and Peace for sure does not. :)

I take it you won't be sticking around for the second epilogue? ;^)

I'm too far ahead to recall exactly what happened in part 2 now, but since I see comments about Natasha and Anatole, it's safe to say that I too felt like screaming at Natasha to run the other way, but then keeping in mind that she is so very young during this period in her life, felt her reaction to him was very understandable, if completely maddening for a bystander! Without giving away any spoilers, I can say that the end of part 2 kept me on the edge of my chair/recliner with the culmination of the drama between the two lovers and I wasn't able at all to stick to my ration of 20 pages that day, but kept going for about 50 or 60 pages till the very end of that section of the book.

>13 March-Hare:
Wait, what? There's more than one? :)

You folks really know how to sell those epilogues :)

I am in the middle of book ten are am now fully immersed in the war. It's a lot more exciting than I first thought. One thing I have noticed is that Tolstoy will devote ten chapters to one plot line (ie Natasha and Anatolye) but while he writes about that, he is setting up ten other minor plot lines. The writing is deceptively simple yet extremely complex.

I'm really enjoying all the comments.

I'm still contemplating the chapter about the wolf hunt. Hunting is sport among the aristocracy. (Check). Wolves were hated as livestock predators, and possibly even gnoshing on the occasional human. (Check). But the decision to take the wolf alive and torture it a bit - while I know this was also not at all uncommon in the US West, I can't help think I'm missing a metaphor here. Do you see the wolf as any particular group? Did it matter that it was a she-wolf described as well fed and having cubs?

Interesting question. I hadn't thought about that but you might be on to something. I'd be curious to know as well. Later on Tolstoy does have some interesting things to say about different ethnicities so the wolf might be a metaphor for one or all of them.

Enjoy!

Tolstoy the Spiritual Anarchist: On "A Confession"

I have to admit that I skimmed the descriptions of the hunt because I was worried about details like this. And yes, I do think this is part of a larger metaphor that Tolstoy is developing about power, who has it, who doesn't and why.