History tells the tale—I can’t help but think of Ukraine as I read this passage:
Vol IV, Pt III, Chap 2
Men with the greatest desire to fight always steal the advantage when it comes to fighting. Morale is the factor which, when multiplied by mass, gives you the strength of the force. The intellectual problem is to define and express the significance of this unknown factor, morale…Most of all in wars where nationality is at stake.
I’m behind and this comment may be a little spoilery but I think that’s fair game since the sections are clearly labeled. At any rate here’s fair warning!
The last few sections seem to be a redemption arc for at least a couple of the characters. Am I the only one having a hard time buying into these extreme personality swings after pretty much despising them for 1000 pages? I realize this book needs heroes and now that we have seen the early leaders in that category fall on the battlefield or its periphery, sights have now turned to others. I’m kinda not down with it. Anyone want to convince me otherwise?
I also sort of love this quote at Vol IV, Part IV, Chap 4:
“…posterity and history have labeled Napoleon ’a great man’, and as for Kutuzov, foreign writers have him down as a crafty debauchee and feeble old courtier; whereas Russians see him as a rather nondescript character, a kind of puppet with the sole virtue of having a good Russian name…”
The following chapter seeking to justify Kutuzov is really interesting as it seems full of contradiction. Again, we are being convinced to think differently about a character who had earlier earned our scorn.
Pierre’s transition, in my opinion, was conceivable given all that he experienced on the battlefield, during the fall of Moscow, and his imprisonment. Also, while he was happier and more outwardly interested in people, I didn’t feel that his basic “clueless” character had changed that much to be unrealistic. However, Natasha’s shift towards a slightly more altruistic woman (for example, wanting to move soldiers into their house, making room for soldiers on the wagons, etc.) was a harder change to swallow.
I hear you about Pierre but I just wonder if it will stick. He seems to move pretty fluidly from one state to another. I think I’m just going to have a hard time with accepting him as my hero after all we’ve been through. . Maybe I should stop at calling him a good man instead of hero. I think I can live with that.
I found myself wondering if Pierre, at least in some elements, was Tolstoy.
On a totally different note, I recently read Trollop’s “The Warden,” written slightly earlier. Both books illustrate the subservience of the lower classes, and a character that in America would be termed “The Happy Negro” or an “Uncle Tom”. Trollop in the 1850s seems to favor the status quo, while Tolstoy, through Pierre, seems to be working toward change.
That’s a great observation, @Rannie! It prompted me to do a Google search, and apparently in some respects, yes, Tolstoy reflected many of his beliefs through Pierre:
How Pierre Mirrors Tolstoy
Spiritual and existential searching: Pierre’s journey—moving from youthful dissipation and confusion to Freemasonry, existential despair, and a simplified, grounded understanding of faith—closely tracks Tolstoy’s own lifelong spiritual evolution.
Moral contradictions: Like Tolstoy, Pierre is born into immense wealth and privilege within the Russian aristocracy, yet he is deeply uncomfortable with it and constantly searches for a more authentic, meaningful way to live that connects him to ordinary people.
The search for meaning: Pierre’s internal monologue and his quest to understand his place in the universe and the nature of goodness reflect Tolstoy’s own philosophical preoccupations.
A couple of years ago I was reading Trollope’s Barchester series. I made it through the first three. I should go back and finish it one of these days.
After finishing the book, I have been reading reviews and character analyses. Many have suggested that Pierre is considered at the end to exhibit the moral heart, the philosophical anchor, and the spiritual surrogate of Tolstoy hymself.
I was looking for and reading about some of the biographies of Tolstoy and ran across this description of the one by AN Wilson:
In this landmark biography of Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, Wilson narrates the complex drama of the writer’s life and sweeps away the long-held belief that Tolstoy’s works mirrored his life.
Seems maybe he differs with some of what we’ve been talking about at least in a general sense. I’m sort of curious about Tolstoy’s life as well as Napoleon’s.
. Maybe I should stop at calling him a good man instead of hero. I think I can live with that.