War And Peace is my favorite novel ever. In contrast to the modern style of appearing only to describe events and leaving interpretations to the reader, Tolstoy interprets openly and heavily. And oh what wonderfully insightful interpreting! He usually describe several levels, including what people say, what they think, and what they are doing without realizing. I see homo hypocritus played out in great detail. Here is a section on agency failures in charity:
"Never, never marry, my dear fellow! That's my advice: never marry till you can say to yourself that you have done all you are capable of, and until you have ceased to love the woman of your choice and have seen her plainly as she is, or else you will make a cruel and irrevocable mistake. Marry when you are old and good for nothing--or all that is good and noble in you will be lost. It will all be wasted on trifles. Yes! Yes! Yes! Don't look at me with such surprise. If you marry expecting anything from yourself in the future, you will feel at every step that for you all is ended, all is closed except the drawing room, where you will be ranged side by side with a court lackey and an idiot!... But what's the good?..."
Is there a term, concept, or theory for the proposition all modern problems are new?
It's amazing War and Peace and the ancients, such as Aristotle, so completely abstracted human nature that the vanity of count Pierre is the same as a modern limousine liberal.
I don't think we need more interpretations, but we need more abstraction, assuming interpretation and abstraction aren't the same thing.
The problem with abstraction is it leads to generalization and stereotypes which moderns generally avoid. Why?
If your life arc is predetermined, not by God but by generalizations and stereotypes, then there is nothing special and unique about the individual. This seems like a modern problem, but narcissism has always been a problem.
medicine, education, and alms: 1806 Russia is still fairly local. I think these fashions have changed over more centuries, at least the first two. And a slight problem of fictional evidence: this tells us more about 1860 than 1806.
Ya gotta admit, saying that you like, or have even read "War and Peace" (or pretending that you have) certainly signals one's seriousness as a person, in way that, say, invoking "Anna Karenina" doesn't -- not that you don't get points for having read AK, but those two syllables, "War" and "Peace", resound like cannon shots in a discussion, and effectively silence all non-"War and Peace" readers. I think if the book had been titled "Pink Petunias" (Tolstoy did, in fact, consider alternate titles), it wouldn't have had nearly the totemic power. But it would have been just as brilliant and (like AK and the underappreciated "Resurrection") deeply unsettling in its careful laying out of the strands of morality and consequences of attitudes and behaviors.
Funny post. Thanks.
Advice for singles from War an Peace...
"Never, never marry, my dear fellow! That's my advice: never marry till you can say to yourself that you have done all you are capable of, and until you have ceased to love the woman of your choice and have seen her plainly as she is, or else you will make a cruel and irrevocable mistake. Marry when you are old and good for nothing--or all that is good and noble in you will be lost. It will all be wasted on trifles. Yes! Yes! Yes! Don't look at me with such surprise. If you marry expecting anything from yourself in the future, you will feel at every step that for you all is ended, all is closed except the drawing room, where you will be ranged side by side with a court lackey and an idiot!... But what's the good?..."
Mr. Hanson,
Would you mind sharing your preferred translation/edition for War and Peace?
Many thanks!
I see homo hypocritus played out in great detail.
Sounds like you would enjoy Vanity Fair.
(The novel, not the magazine.)
I fail to see how this represents "homo hypocritus" rather than "blindness to many of the eventual end consequences of one's actions."
A delightful and hilarious passage. Thank you, Robin.
Is there a term, concept, or theory for the proposition all modern problems are new?
It's amazing War and Peace and the ancients, such as Aristotle, so completely abstracted human nature that the vanity of count Pierre is the same as a modern limousine liberal.
I don't think we need more interpretations, but we need more abstraction, assuming interpretation and abstraction aren't the same thing.
The problem with abstraction is it leads to generalization and stereotypes which moderns generally avoid. Why?
If your life arc is predetermined, not by God but by generalizations and stereotypes, then there is nothing special and unique about the individual. This seems like a modern problem, but narcissism has always been a problem.
TGGP: deconstructing narratives rather than reinforcing the pleasant ones will always be a niche market.
medicine, education, and alms: 1806 Russia is still fairly local. I think these fashions have changed over more centuries, at least the first two. And a slight problem of fictional evidence: this tells us more about 1860 than 1806.
Do you think more novelists should try to emulate Tolstoy, or would their inability to do so make the result worse than sticking to the modal novel?
I'll note that I've never read Tolstoy and since I gave up reading fiction, I am unlikely to in the near future.
Ya gotta admit, saying that you like, or have even read "War and Peace" (or pretending that you have) certainly signals one's seriousness as a person, in way that, say, invoking "Anna Karenina" doesn't -- not that you don't get points for having read AK, but those two syllables, "War" and "Peace", resound like cannon shots in a discussion, and effectively silence all non-"War and Peace" readers. I think if the book had been titled "Pink Petunias" (Tolstoy did, in fact, consider alternate titles), it wouldn't have had nearly the totemic power. But it would have been just as brilliant and (like AK and the underappreciated "Resurrection") deeply unsettling in its careful laying out of the strands of morality and consequences of attitudes and behaviors.
I like the part where one diplomat drops his handkerchief and haughtily signals that the other diplomat should pick it up and hand it to him.
The other diplomat one-ups him by pulling out his handkerchief and then using it to pick up the first handkerchief.
And of course Pierre is the character in the novel based on Tolstoy himself.