War and Peace Check-In (what should be) #7

It has been a while since I posted about War and Peace, hasn’t it? My last post dates from April. Since that day we have finished Volume II. Plus, a little bit of Volume III for July: Part I.

warandpeace2012

So, to be honest, this part was not the most interesting thing I read in this book since April – that was definitely June’s installment with Natasha’s “disgrace”. But let’s get back to this month’s reading first.

We start Volume III, Part I with four pages of Tolstoy’s observations on history. I know this book has an epilogue that supposedly tells us a lot about Tolstoy’s views on history, so reading this I wondered if we were getting a small introduction to that; is this, then, finally, some clue as to what the book is all about?

In historical events the so-called great men are labels that give the event a name, which, just as with labels, has the least connection of all with the event itself.

Their every action, which to them seems willed by themselves, in the historical sense is not willed, but happens in connection with the whole course of history and has been destined from before all ages.

Interesting. Nevertheless, I do admit I find it all a little bit difficult to make sense of at this point. I completely agree that the big men of history do not equal all of history – thank you for that Tolstoy. However, I do wonder at what exactly he does imagine history to be: is he saying that history is a force in itself? Do I take that in the Hegelian manner of history being predestined to reach a certain point (Hegel = not my favourite. Hah, understatement of the century). Or, is it connected with power and every act of every human adding up to some unknown “force” of history that directs things in a way that makes that no one human is in full control of his abilities. Or is there something else going on? Funny how he makes us see that “[t]he higher a man stands on the social ladder, the greater of people he is connected with, the more power he has over other people“, which we would initially automatically agree with I think, social standing = power = agency, except Tolstoy seems to reverse it: “…the more obvious is the predestination and inevitability of his every action.

Again, interesting. Yet, I am not sure what to think just yet. Moreso, I wonder why it is that he precedes the scenes in this part with these observations? Is it because we receive insight into the personalities of Napoleon and Alexander, with Napoleon in particular claiming the power and agency that Tolstoy wants us to reconsider?

I could talk more on Natasha, Tolstoy’s portrayal of women, and his depiction of religion (does anyone else feel he is not particularly positive about religion and yet never outright rejects it – even has one person ridicule Napoleon for his rejection of religisity as backwards?) but I think I will simply ponder some more on these subjects. There’s always next month, right?

How are you faring with War and Peace? Are you still reading? Is any of this tempting you to read it one day if you have not yet?

4 thoughts on “War and Peace Check-In (what should be) #7

  1. Jenny @ Reading the End (formerly Jenny's Books)

    This is tempting me to read it one day, as I have not yet. I tried to read it last year in advance of seeing a chamber opera adaptation of (portions of) it where you got free vodka shots while you were watching. I did not make it that far into the book, unfortunately. I didn’t even make it as far as the portion of the book that the chamber opera was adapted from.

    And you know, I thought it was going to be the Peace parts that gave me trouble, but it was the War sections that proved insurmountably dull.

    Reply
  2. Kathy Coffee

    I’ve had a funny experience with the book, which was rather personal (and No I didn’t read it). I picked it up when I was about fourteen and just couldn’t keep up with the prose. Tolstoy was quite popular in my culture back then and I felt so bad I couldn’t understand his books. Anyway, your post’s made me think maybe it’s time I should have a serious try at it again :)
    About the quote, I think your reasoning was on the right track. What I get from the quote is that Tolstoy perceives history to be a /force in itself/ set in motion by “the greater people” he mentions. Change is inevitable if there is a perceived imbalance and the power of the majority is what determines where the new equilibrium/ balance is. So-called legends or heroes are but the real change agents, having “the least” to do with the flow of history except for the marking of its timeline with identifiable names and values.
    Now this is a strong opinion I think (and a quite interesting one), if I read him right. I’ll have to go to the book to be sure but thanks for the thought-provoking post. :)

    Reply
  3. Bookworm1858

    I really liked this section-it was short, there wasn’t too much war, and the Napoleon chapters were cool. I definitely preferred it to some of the battle-heavy sections we’ve read.

    Reply

One of the things I love about book blogging is that it enables conversation. Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s