Thank you to everyone who participated in the first on-line chat session on Wednesday evening! It was wonderful to connect with people all over the country, and also great to see everyone's excitement about Tolstoy's book. For anyone who missed the first session (or if you just want to review some of the points made), here is a summary of some of the main topics we touched on and observations made:
Pierre: Pierre seemed to make a big impression (no pun intended!), since his character was the first topic raised. Which seems only natural, since he will emerge as one of the primary characters of the book. A question was raised about his name being obviously foreign, and whether Tolstoy seems to be characterizing him as a an outsider, somebody who doesn't really act or think like a Russian. The question of his name (as well as whether he acts and thinks like a Russian) is something I'll address in another post, but several people noted that Pierre is indeed an outsider in his attitudes, in having a foreign education, and in being born out of wedlock. One participant noted, "In the crowd at Anna P's he is impulsive and frank. His ideas, however loosely formed, are often at odds with those around him and are accentuated by his lack of accepted manners in such a formal setting." Another participant described Pierre as "authentic," which reinforces the depiction of him as impulsive and frank, and not completely comfortable with the formal manners of Anna P's salon. The point was also made that Pierre seems ineffectual, especially compared to Andrei and his will power. Pierre doesn't keep his word about not going to Anatole's party, but then again, honor perhaps seems like a flexible idea to him (keep in mind this question of Pierre's flexibility as you read). He was also described as a "lovable bear-type, bumbling but kind."
The incident with the bear and the policeman: This scene really seemed to capture everyone's attention and imagination! I see this scene as being the opposite of the falseness of Anna Pavlovna's society salon at the beginning of the novel, with its rough and rowdy good times. There is a sort of life force in this scene that is missing from AP's salon. It also marks the Rostovs and how different they are from AP - as much as they pretend to be outraged by the incident for the sake of propriety, they really think it's funny and laugh at it. Other participants at the session noted that bears themselves are often unpredictable, mean, and violent - much, I would add, like the incident itself and Anatole's party more generally - which could be seen as somehow symbolic of the unpredictability of life at the time and the fact that many will soon be swept up in the war, a bigger event they will have little control over. The point was made that if the policeman is a force of law and order, he is basically made ineffective by this incident. But another person stated that the scene seemed more surreal and not entirely suffused with a sense of danger - so I will leave it to you all to decide for yourselves about the significance of this scene. Bears are natural and authentic - so it makes sense that Pierre would be associated with one in this scene, since he himself is described by Prince Vasily as being a bear (he says to Anna Pavlovna Scherer: "Can you please train this bear for me?").
Here we get into three different issues that are actually all related. So I will take them one by one, but keeping in mind that they relate to each other.
The Rostov family: On one hand, several people noted that the Rostovs are clearly a kindly, loving family, especially when compared to AP's party or the scenes of family life that revolve around the Bolkonskys (think of Andrei's attitude towards his wife, as well as how Old Prince Bolkonsky relates to his daughter, and everyone else in his household, for that matter). They seem to love life and enjoy society - one participant particularly pointed to the scene when the children come bursting into the room and the coziness of the scene with the doll. At the same time, however, the criticism was leveled that the Rostovs seem ineffectual (except perhaps for Natasha) and that they don't seem to do anything but entertain. They seem to live a lifestyle that is fundamentally undisciplined and beyond their means, a lifestyle that will disappear soon. One participant noted, "The fashion is changing in thought but they aren't sharp enough to see that they are heading into rough waters." Personally, I do think that it is important that Tolstoy depicts the Rostovs as a loving, caring family, full of energy and, again, life force. This is a novel about war, peace, and history, but it is also the quintessential family novel, with the Rostovs giving us a warm model of the family. But the criticisms raised are extremely valid. Which leads us to...
The aristocracy: The question was raised of how the aristocracy is depicted in the novel, whether it is being caricatured, and whether we will see it depicted as ineffectual. This is an interesting question. On one hand, Tolstoy was from one of the oldest and most noble of Russian families - the cream of the cream of the upper crust. In many ways, he was proud of his class and its contributions to the nation's history. On the other hand, by the time Tolstoy wrote the book (1865-68), the nobility as a class was starting its path toward decline, mainly due to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Their lifestyle was, as noted above, threatened and starting to disappear. All the living beyond their means, and off the backs of peasant labor, had caught up to them. So, in my opinion, Tolstoy seems torn with regard to the aristocracy. The Rostovs are depicted lovingly, but they are frivolous. Anna Pavlovna's salon is false and hypocritical, but such salons, with their networking and personal connections, were how things got done back then. During the chat session, the point was made that in War and Peace Tolstoy was depicting the life he knew, and the life of the nobles was generally filled with entertaining, networking, education, gossip, and the arts. This is absolutely true - in his letters and essays, Tolstoy made no bones about the fact that for the most part he's limiting his perspective to that of the nobles in this book. And it's no accident, I think, that the question of the aristocracy is intimately tied in the novel with the question of national identity. One participant pointed out that the aristocracy speaks French, acts French or European, and in some ways their life is diametrically opposite to the native Russian way of life. All of this is extremely true, but at the same time it is important to remember that one of Tolstoy's goals in War and Peace was to depict the whole of life, all of its facets. The aristocracy itself was a varied group, with upper crust members (like Anna Pavlovna) who were close to the tsar and his family and circles of power more generally (AP is a lady-in-waiting at the court, and she serves up the most fashionable political and cultural figures as enticing tidbits at her party), while some members of this class were more like country bumpkins (like the Rostovs with their more free and easy manners). There were also people like Anna Mikhaylovna Drubetskaya, who used to be part of the prominent circle of aristocrats but has since lost all of her connections and her money. So whereas French is, indeed, spoken at AP's salon and the guests at her party try to act European, the Rostovs speak French badly. One member stated that this question of Russian vs. French/European is reflected in the party scenes - Anna Pavlovna's party is like a French salon, while the Rostovs' party is more earthy and Russian. And it's no accident that AP's salon takes place in Petersburg, while the Rostovs are connected to Moscow...
Moscow vs. Petersburg: As historical background, it's important to keep in mind the huge difference between the two cities in the Russian cultural consciousness. Even today, there is still a rivalry between Moscow and Petersburg. Moscow is seen as a more natural, truly "Russian" city, that grew up organically (this is actually a myth, if we get into historical truth, but that's a whole other long story!). Petersburg, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of all that. Created in 1703 by the will of one man, Peter the Great, Petersburg was often seen in Russian literature and culture as a planned, rational city, both because of the physical aspect the city eventually assumed and because it was the seat of the bureaucracy. Peter created it as his "window to the West," a way to open Russia up to European culture and technology. Originally, it wasn't much more than a fort and a few huts, but as later 18th-century rulers began to build it up, they did so along Western lines - the streets are for the most part constructed on a grid, as in many European cities, and the architects and artists brought in to design buildings, statues, and other decorative elements were almost all Europeans. Peter also transferred the capital of the country from Moscow to Petersburg, and it remained the capital until the Bolsheviks moved it back to Moscow. So not only was it a highly European city, it was also the seat of the court, the bureaucratic administration, and political power. So it is significant that, as one of the participants noted, it is the elite in Petersburg who speak French and try to remake themselves as French, while the Muscovites mainly speak Russian. There is a hierarchy in the book between Moscow and Petersburg, but the question came up about the countryside, and where that fits into this hierarchy. The picture of the countryside seems to change - in Anna Karenina the countryside is very obviously a place of naturalness and simplicity, a country idyll. But in War and Peace the countryside seems to be a more ambivalent place - Old Prince Bolkonsky's regimented lifestyle is hardly the height of simplicity, and there was a belief among the hierarchy at the time that the country needed to be tamed, reigned in, and civilized. But as one person pointed out, there will definitely be scenes of the beauty of nature or natural elements, the ability of characters to be close to nature and be aware of it will be highlighted.
Napoleon: Not surprisingly, people were curious about the figure of Napoleon. One person observed that she had always thought of Napoleon as a monster - and Tolstoy's narrator will certainly indulge that perspective later in the book. But at the same time, it's important to realize the mystique that the figure of Napoleon enjoyed in Europe and Russia. Not only was he of common origins but managed to elevate himself to the position of Emperor - a fact that Count Rostov notes when he states that this fact has turned Nikolai's head, as well as the head of many young men - he was also seen by many as a genius. Pierre and Andrei both express this sentiment - admiration for Napoleon was quite common among young men of that class at that time in Russia. More importantly though, in Tolstoy's book Napoleon is the embodiment of both will and the traditional image of a "hero." One person pointed out that Napoleon seems so far to be viewed through a romantic lens, as is war itself.
War and Gender: I find it fascinating that during our discussion the issue of war was bound up with the question of gender. The question was raised of the types of masculinity and femininity that are portrayed, and that men and women so far seem to be more interested in roles that individual personalities. Some men, like Andrei, don't want to be in the drawing room, they just put up with it, but really they would prefer to be "real men" in battle. But the very valid question was raised of how much do these men really know about actually being in war? They seem almost to regard it as a game. The issue of men going to war and not finding it grand but brutal is a theme in many novels, and one participant pointed out that in War and Peace they seem to see it through a romantic lens, as a way to prove themselves more than to fight for a cause. These are all questions that will be at the forefront in Part II, as we move from "peace" scenes to "war" scenes, but that is the subject of my next blog entry!
Until next Wednesday!
No comments:
Post a Comment