War & Peace

so it is my intention to write a little about the book War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy which i just finished a week or so ago, but first i want to give an update on the last post.

first of all, i must say that i am a bit disappointed with the fact that i got only one response. i figured with the scandalous topic i brought up, and the fact that about half the people i alert about this blog about are in what would be considered 'adult' age range, i would get alot more controvercy. perhaps people done know about the 'comment' feature at the end of each post. if so, its not to late to put in your two sense (or is it two cents?). i am just shocked that not a single person objected to what i said. is it that everyone wholly agrees with me, or that they dont think im worth the trouble to convince me otherwise (how dramatic)? i suspect that mostly it was from a sort of apathy. perhaps you were thinking: 'there goes that crazy kid again, i hope he gets his head screwed on strait at some point', or 'at this rate, hes a lost cause' (very dramatic, i know). but yea, i would greatly appreciate if you could take them time to say something about it, and i really think that just about all of you must have something to say.

so anyway, its been like 10 days since the festival, my sister has come and gone, and i must say that i have been experiencing what i would consider a high-hangover. its a week after the equinox, and the sun is already setting at 830 at night, the weather is fantastic and i just dont seem to have the motivation to do 'unpleasant' things as much as i have all year. ive just been getting the urge to go out and enjoy the sunsets, smoke a joint, and just tune in (or tune out some might say) to the 'zone'. i have smoked 5 days or the 10 since the trip, and while that pales in comaprison to my earlier 'habbit', it certainly is alot for my most recent state of mind. ive just been wanting to sit back and smell the roses, and havnt had much appreciation for the self discipline that i was so proud of before. today is in fact an effort in getting shit done, i have my to do list action packed and time stamped. i am not giving myself any time for zoneing, although i may go watch the sunset, its just so perrty. i find it funny how quickly the nice weather and all can do away with notions of hard work and sacrifice. it pains me to admit this defeat of sorts, but i guess i would by lying to you, but mostly to myself if i did not admit it, and its always best to do this kind of thing publicly. so there it is.

and now for the War and Peace bit which i have been putting off for a while because of my recent spurt of chilling.

first off let me say taht this book is fantastic, secondly let me say that it is MADDDDD long. ive been reading this book for a good 2 months (ive read a bonch of othors in between) and after page 30 there wasnt a dull moment in it. i think that what makes this book so special is that it has it ALL. the characters encompass the bredth of the human soul (although perhaps it is very presumptuous and naive for me to say that). there is a complete abcense of black and white, there are no ultimatley good or bad characters, it is just a bunch of people swimming around in the chaos of life, each living in their own little world, trying to live out their hopes and dreams, mostly obliviious of how they fit into the grand scheme of things. i think that this has been tolstoys triumph, the novel is epic without being epic, there are no superheroes and supervillains, no orcs and elves, just normal people, trying to do what they can to be fulfill themselves and between them is laced the web of history. epic events happening completely out of the control of all of those who participate in them (despite what they may think) molding the fate of peoples and nations. tolstoy says a great deal about this, the novel is interlaced with essays regarding his theories of history.

he thinks taht history is basically what happens while we are busy making other plans. that despite all the hopes and intentions that we may have, what happens only correlates with the few wishes that happen to coincide with events. that despite the will and decrees of monarchs and generals, war and peace follows in a way taht can only be understood as the product of all the the wills or all the people that participate in any given event. he looks back at history and does not ascribe it to any particular thing, but rather states that it is the only thing that could have possibly happened, that it is impossible to think of how it could have turned out differently. i particularly agree with this notion, although as i am presenting it it seems a bit simple, but i think that there is alot of wisdom to it. it is impossible to speculate about what would be different if any particular event were to change. i like to think of it like this: you dont know how many times you have dodged death thus far, you dont know how many times you havnt beeen in a car accident. you dont know how many times that an event that you percieved (and may still percieve) as negative actually saved your life. your parents grounding you and not letting you go out where u may have been killed by a drunk driver. my example may seem a bit extreme, but the fact that it is a perfectly plausable possibility, and that there are in fact an infinite amount of them, from getting hit by a meteorite to contracting west nile virus, to winning the lottery, make it impossible, and pointless to speculate about what if. because the answer will always be, who knows u could be dead. and i dont say this in a morbid and fatalistic way, but simply acknowledging the inherant unpredictableness of life. so in this point i agree with tolstoy. whenever we look back on our life we are able to see how the events that we did not understand or were not able to put into the jigsaw puzzle were essential to our being here today. and it is this understanding that gives us the power to accept all the things that we do not understand, to accept all the 'bad' things that happen to us, because it is what happened, and it could not have turned out any other way. and if we can understand this, when we can accept all the cards we were dealt and how they played out, then i think that we are much closer to true happiness (or suicide if the inevitable present is unbearable).

another point of tolstoys is that people who appear to be in power have no real control over how things play out. that they have their intentions and those have their place in the web of fate, but that they have no more influence than anyone else. i am more inclined to disagree with him hear, or perhaps i have misinterpreted him here. i think that people who have 'power' (and the definition of power would make for another blog entry in itself) have more influence than those who dont. i think that he would say despite what truman might have wanted, the atomib bomb would have inevitably been dropped, but i dont think that you can deny that he made a decision to drop it. i think that it is unfair to humanity to rid them of the power to bring things into existence. heres what i mean, everything we see seems to be a product of another cause, it is an effect world we live in, as everything has a cause external to it. i think that the exception to this is our thoughts. i think that most of the time even our minds are governed by the laws of cause and effect, but we have the possibility to insert our own creations into that (i may be wrong, and perhaps what i see as original creations are in fact nothing more than a more complex effect, but i htink that the fact that a child essentially comes in with no causes working on his mind, despite what may be added on afterwards, there is still hope for originality.

connected with this is tolstoys notion that history as we learn it and know it is completely unrelated to the truth of events. history is written by the winners and they also make it alot more epic than it was at the time. events can only be epic in hindsight, when they happen they are just a blur, that we can neither see nor comprehend. yet when we read history, events are always portrayed as if they were directly intended to lead to those that followed, when in reality it is an inexaustable stream of intentions mixing together and giving rise to what happens.

the beauty of this book is how it is able to illustrate all of these theories/realities/aspects of life, while making a story about real people in real places and real time. there is the epic large scale 'war' aspects of life, and interwoven in them is the moment to moment 'peace' aspects that make it all up. and when we look at these together, the little things building on one another making up the lives of people and nations, we have the reality of life as we know it. and this is captured oh so beautifully by leo (yes were on first name basis).

perhaps we can see this in our own lives, i am certain we can if we really try. we are constantly hoping for things to happen, and sometimes they work out like we planned, somtimes partially, and somtimes completely different, so how much did our intentions have to do with it? we can always look back and see a complete life (relatively complete, depending on how old you are) and everything that has happened fits perfectly into that, but i dont think anyone could have predicted that theyed be where they are. perhaps you have the job you always thought u would, or u married the girl u grew up with next door, but there is now way that you could have seen the inside of your brain as it is now, you could not have predicted your reaction to unforseeen circumstances and how that makes you who u are today. this seems to be a feature of our existence, so it seems to me that it is best not to fall in love with our hopes and dreams, or at least leave them open to adjustment and adaptation to reality, or better yet, it is best to wish for what we already have, that is a foolproof method to have everything we want.

i think that the main characters in the novel are worth mentioning as they are so important to the development of the moral of the story. i think that they all epitimize some aspect of our selves, yet it is quite remarkable how human they all are, there is no 'hero' or villain. no one does things that are out of character (painfully frustrating at times). there is none of that otherworldy good or evil present in them, they are simply living, loving, and trying to be happy, jsut like the rest of us:


DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT AND INTEND ON READING THIS BOOK AS THERE MAY BE SOME PLOT SPOILERS. IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO READ THAT BEHEMOTH OF A BOOK ONLY TO ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS

Pierre Bezuhov- this is what i suppose would be considered the main character of the story, although it is hard to tell when there are hundreds and hudreds of pages where he does not appear at all, but nonetheless his life is central to the message that tolstoy conveys. pierre is the ilegitimate son of a count who inherits a fortune when his father dies. pierre is constantly plagued by a sense of hollowness, that his life is pointless. he is trying to find his way through temptation. he suffers the fate of trying to be a good person, tries do be as perfect as he can, in a tragically imperfect world. i think that this character would most closely resemble tolstoy himself, from what i know of him. a person who happens to be extremely wealthy, and understands that he is not special in any way, but taht he has inexplicably befallen his fate. he joins the masons in an attempt to find help in fulfilling his ideals, only to be let down when he realizes that most of the people are there for the high class connection and dont particularly beleive in the ideals of the brotherhood. he has a high regard for humanity, in a rather naive way. he thinks that people are fundamentally altruistic and he is often seen as a good hearted bafoon. in the end he is able to 'let go' in a way that i cannot describe, but tolstoy conveys to perfection. he is finally able to be the man he has always dreamed and it is by letting go of all his illusions of grandeur. i must say that i quite identify with pierre in many ways. he is a dreamer and an idealist, who has trouble turning thoughts into actions and manifesting the things that dwell inside him.

Prince Andrey- he is Pierre's best friend and he serves as a foil to him. he is much more sceptical about people and life in general, but he has much more ease in acting in a way that is consistent with his beliefs. all the things that pierre talks and dreams about doing andrey is able to do without much fuss. if pierre is a thinker, then andrey is much more of a doer. i think that he is somewhat similar to my sister in this regard. andrey is able to see into the heart of many issues without much trouble. he is not so naive as to beleive that men are so good, although he does the best he can. he does not expect much from other people and as with any good self fulfilling prophecy he is seldom disapointed. i would characterize him as a bit of a 'cold' person who has not seen much of the sweetness of life. his one hope for happiness, his engagement to natasha, blows up in his face when she breaks it off. this leads to a profound disdain for love and he gives up hopes for personal happiness. it is only on his deathbed that he is finally able to find peace, when is able to let himself love natasha again.

Natasha Rostov- natasha is the main female character in the story. for most of the book the was the epitome of youth and impulsiveness. she is an extremely passionate person who goes all out into whatever catches her attention. she is completely at the mercy of these impulses and one of them, the decision to break off her engament with andrey in order to mary anatole, who proposed to her practically as a joke, essentially leaves her on the verge of death and takes the passion out of her. she is finally able to find happiness by marrying pierre, settleing down, and starting a family. finding something larger than herself to take up her time allowed her the peace of mind she needed.

Elena Kuragin- helene is pierres first wife. he is seduced by her and compelled by her father to marry her, much to his regret. elena epitomizes sex appeal. she is considered one of the smartest and most charming women in russia despite the fact taht she is not especially intelligent. her presense is the most desired, her parties the most prestigious. she dominates russian 'society' mostly on account of her looks and seductive power over men.

Anatole Kuragin- Elenas brother. if there were any villains in the story it would be him, followed by his sister. despite taht they are not bad people, they are simply quite egotistical. anatole is the personification of hedonism and egoism run amok. he spends his time seducing women (ideally married women) and living off other people. he is portrayed as a fool, but extremely confident and his confidence (along with his good looks) go a long way in impressing people. he has no notion for how his actions affect other people, or even himself in the long run. hey, at least hes living in the moment. hes most impactful action is when he quickly seduces and proposes to natasha under the pretense that he is in love with her (despite the fact taht he has a secret wife in poland) while she was engaged to prince andrey. they are discovered and she is nearly ruined, although he still considers it a victory to have gotten her to ascent.

Nikolay Rostov- Natashas older brother. he is a man of honor, and he decides to join the army in the low ranks rather than use his noble birth to obtain a high status, low risk, position. throughout the story he is constantly torn between marrying his cousin sonya who he truly loves, or marrying a wealthy heiress in order to save his familys ruined fortunes. he considers it to be truly cowardly, although in the end he is able to find a wealthy heiress and truly fall in love with her and save his family in the process. he is the opposite of his father, who squandered the family fortune by being overly generous and not keeping an eye on finances.

Sonya- Nikolays beloved. she was orphaned at a young age and grew up almost as a sister to natasha in the rostov household. she feels an extreme debt to her benefactors and she is in a difficult position because the countess wants nikolay to marry a wealty heiress despite the fact taht they love eachother. she finds meaning in her life through sacrifice, mostly for the rostovs. she has a secret motive however, through her sacrifice she maintains a secret hope of making herself more and more worthy of nikolays love. when she is asked to sacrifice his engagement to her it is almost impossible for her to do, although in the end she is able to rise above.

Princess Marya- Prince Andreys sister. she has lives with her father until he dies. she is constantly psychologically and emotionally abused by him. she finds the meaning of her life in this suffering. she is able to ennoble it and glorify it. she revolves her whole life around sufferig and the notion of her being happy totally scares her, and she feels she is very undeserving. she is a genuinly good woman, who finally finds happiness in her marriage to Nikolay.


i hope that you enjoyed this, and that it wasnt too boring for those of you that read the whole thing. i hope that you all find a few months in your life to read this book. its not considered one of the best books in history for nothing.
peace
E