War and Peace: Book 3 Discussion

Welcome to the spoiler-filled discussion thread for Book 3 (Parts 9-11) of War and Peace! Sadly, I have fallen behind the group read schedule, but I'm still hoping to finish the entire book by the end of March. However, if you have finished Book 3, please discuss below! I'll be sure to come back to this thread once I've caught up. :)

Well, I'm still hanging in there... :)

I am enjoying following the various characters around, but don't have a favorite yet/still. I get invested in whichever character is in my current chapter and then drop them as soon as another character comes around. Not a bad thing - I guess I'm equally interested in all characters.

I could do without the looong discussions about battlefield strategy, but Tolstoy's idea about writing a novel that's not only a novel, but a history and a philosophical, religious, and political discussion as well is growing a little on me. A little.

Well, one more book to go. And two epilogues... :)

>2 -Eva-: - wait until you get to epilogue two. That whole thing is one long analysis of war. :)

>3 Yells:
Oh. Yey.

That is pretty much my reaction as well :)

Epilogue one starts off that way but by chapter three'ish, he goes back to talking about the families again.

>3 Yells: Thanks for the warning! I may skip it. ;-)

I'm currently in the middle of book 15. I can say that I found none of the characters particularly likable except for Pierre, because he tries so hard to "do the right thing". All of the Rostovs are spoiled including Sonya to a degree. She plays the martyr and counts on getting her way (Nikolai). I don't blame her for not wanting to marry Dolohov but to insist that she would not marry anyone but Nikolai seems unreasonable if the Rostovs are broke. Prince Andrei acts like a manchild with his judgements and actions. He's a chip off the old block. Poor Marya, I did feel sorry for her, even when she was mean to Natasha because she was right after all about her at the time.

I finally finished Book 3! Sadly, I found this section pretty tough going, what with all the battlefield scenes, military strategy, and the philosophy of history. I now perceive Tolstoy as a crank who thinks he's the only person who knows how to do history the "right" way, and he's very strident in his efforts to prove everyone else wrong. All those digressions into the way history "should" be done frustrated me a LOT.

I did get more interested when we were back following one of the central characters (i.e., when the book becomes more like a novel and less like a history textbook). Prince Andrey is still my fave, and I still find Pierre very annoying most of the time. I'm also not a fan of Natasha anymore...I know she's supposed to be charming and youthfully innocent, but I'm starting to find her very selfish! I'm especially thinking of the scene where the Rostovs are packing to leave Moscow, and Sonya is doing everything she can to help, while Natasha is so overcome by her emotions that she literally does nothing. She reminds me of Marianne Dashwood at her most melodramatic.

Sorry this post is so rant-y! I don't dislike the book as much as it may seem from this post, but I am starting to get very eager to finish it. Fortunately, I'm into Book 4 now and can see the light at the end of the tunnel!

I now perceive Tolstoy as a crank who thinks he's the only person who knows how to do history the "right" way, and he's very strident in his efforts to prove everyone else wrong. All those digressions into the way history "should" be done frustrated me a LOT.

Pretty much. He has some really strong opinions on war, Napoleon and just about everything else :)

>7 christina_reads: >8 Yells: That is what I remember most vividly and why I was loth to pick it up for a re-read.

I didn't take many University level history classes, and so I found his take on history interesting. How did his views on history compare to the 19th century norm?

>7 christina_reads: I'll also be glad to finish it, but I'm having more and more trouble picking it up to continuing reading. I'm finally on the last section of the last book - and then 100 pages of epilogue.

>10 streamsong: What I gleaned from the book is that Tolstoy was very critical of the "great man" theory of history that was prevalent in the 19th century. The Wikipedia article specifically mentions War and Peace as a work that "features criticism of Great Man Theories as a recurring theme in the philosophical digressions. According to Tolstoy, the significance of great individuals is imaginary; as a matter of fact they are only history's slaves realizing the decree of Providence."

>7 christina_reads:, >8 Yells:, >9 MissWatson: Agreed

Honestly if Tolstoy had written his criticisms and opinions in an entirely separate book then I could see calling War and Peace a great, almost perfect novel. It is/was too much.

>11 christina_reads: Ah ha - I'm on the second part of the epilogue which seems to be all about how Tolstoy views history and the forces of history. Things are becoming clearer.

He gets rather long-winded by the end but the second epilogue really helps explain his stance on war/history. It helped explain some of the 'asides' that he had throughout the novel.

For what it's worth, Tolstoy made a point of writing that War and Peace was not a novel.