War and Peace readalong thread 2022 - thread 3

[VikingNorthUtsire]

Welcome to the third thread. Please see the OP in threads 1 or 2 for the full info.on the readalong, links to different editions and translations, blog posts, etc.

I think most of us are established now so for this post I'll just re-shsre the reading schedule

Different editions name and number their chapters differently - some refer to four books divided into parts (as below), others refer to fifteen books although it's essentially the same structure just with different numbering. Hopefully there's enough info below to keep us all in sync, and always happy to let anyone know via PM what's happening in today's chapter so we can keep together.

Book 1: 1805
Book 1 Part One (25 chapters): 1/1 - 25/1
Book 1 Part Two (21 chapters): 26/1 - 15/2
Book 1 Part Three (19 chapters): 16/2 - 6/3
DAY OFF: 7/3
Book 2: 1806-1812
Book 2 Part One (16 chapters): 8/3 - 23/3
Book 2 Part Two (21 chapters): 24/3 - 13/4
Book 2 Part Three (26 chapters): 14/4 - 9/5
Book 2 Part Four (13 chapters): 10/5 - 22/5
Book 2 Part Five (22 chapters): 23/5 - 13/6
DAY OFF: 14/6
Book 3: 1812
Book Three Part One (23 chapters): 15/6 - 7/7
Book Three Part Two (39 chapters): 8/7 - 15/8
Book Three Part Three (34 chapters): 16/8 - 18/9
DAY OFF: 19/9
Book 4: 1812-13
Book Four Part One (16 chapters): 20/9 - 5/10
Book Four Part Two (19 chapters): 6/10 - 24/10
Book Four Part Three (19 chapters): 25/10 - 12/11
Book Four Part Four (20 chapters): 13/11 - 2/12
DAY OFF: 3/12
Epilogue One 1812-20 (16 chapters): 3/12 - 19/12
Epilogue Two (12 chapters): 20/12 - 31/12

I've been a lurker on this thread. I haven't contributed anything since the beginning of the second thread. Still slogging through the second appendix. I have enjoyed keeping up with the comments here and very much appreciate all the effort and thought put in. I have had the year from hell to be honest, but this little oasis of calm (even the war stuff🤣) has given me structure and kept me a little bit saner than I otherwise might have been.

Good to hear from you ClinkeyMonkey and wishing you a happy new year a few days early :) * *

I’m finished. I opted out of the Second Epilogue since I’ve read it before.

Good to see you Clinkey well done on persevering, here’s to a happy 2023.

Thank you @IsFuzzyBeagMise and @CornishLizard😊😊 Best wishes to you too!

Just realised I said second appendix rather than second epilogue! I'm definitely stopping after the epilogues!

I think Anna K wins then! With possibly another book if we finish early?

Yes please @StColumbofNavron!

Thanks, Tarahumara! I was kind of afraid I’d killed the thread by proposing that we follow up Anna K with yet more Tolstoy later in the year. Obviously we don’t need to do that, ha. I do get carried away sometimes 😀

I am really excited about reading Anna K and very grateful to StColumbo for offering to set up the thread.

I’ve watched the first BBC episode of War and Peace so far on Amazon Prime. I have mixed feelings. I love some of the casting (Jessie Buckley as Marya, Brian Cox, whom I know from the TV series Succession, as Kutuzov). But I’m not convinced by Sonya or Helene. Sonya seems too self-interested and petulant (her secondary status in the family isn’t made clear) and Helene strikes me as too accessible and flirty. I thought she was more of a beautiful, enigmatic ice queen?

Thanks, Tarahumara! I was kind of afraid I’d killed the thread by proposing that we follow up Anna K with yet more Tolstoy later in the year. Obviously we don’t need to do that, ha. I do get carried away sometimes 😀

I am really excited about reading Anna K and very grateful to StColumbo for offering to set up the thread.

I’ve watched the first BBC episode of War and Peace so far on Amazon Prime. I have mixed feelings. I love some of the casting (Jessie Buckley as Marya, Brian Cox, whom I know from the TV series Succession, as Kutuzov). But I’m not convinced by Sonya or Helene. Sonya seems too self-interested and petulant (her secondary status in the family isn’t made clear) and Helene strikes me as too accessible and flirty. I thought she was more of a beautiful, enigmatic ice queen?

Anna Karenina thread ready to chat editions, covers, translations.

I don’t mind the Helene casting, but I think Jessie Buckley, Paul Dano and James Norton were perfect. Having seen this before I read it for the first time I think it definitely impacted the way I viewed the characters, largely more favourably because of it.

Brilliant @StColumbofNavron Thank you for setting this up. I'm very excited to move onto Anna K in the new year! * *

Thank you for the new thread StColumbo :) I've still not finished the second epilogue - I'm determined to do it though before the end of the year for the sake of completeness!

Thank you for the new thread @StColumbofNavron.

I read Anna Karenina quite a few years ago and loved it. I'm happy to be sticking with Tolstoy, even though I slipped into a coma several times during some of the war parts!

I think all the casting is perfect - apart from Lily James as Natasha.
But that's probably just me I find all that ingénue, wide eyed, breathless, lip biting that she does irritating in most roles. (Although worked well in The Pursuit of Love adaptation having said that)

I really enjoyed that adaptation of The Pursuit of Love. Largely for the discovery of Fabrice (Assaad Bouab).

@VikingNorthUtsire Thank you for all the work and effort here. I realise that above I got confused and thanked Piggy who is not even on this thread, but convened The Woman in White. It has been wonderful.

Thank you and you're welcome, StColumbo. The real effort has been the brilliant regular posters who kept the thread momentum going throughout the year. I am so grateful to you all.

I only skim-read the second epilogue I'm afraid. He has some great examples and analogies to make his point but just seemed to be going over the same ground repeatedly (one of his more annoying habits from the main book too).

I felt that neither the main book or either of the epilogues ended very emphatically. They all just petered out. If you're going to write a huge novel (not a novel) epic (not an epic) work of writing that covers massive themes, I think you need to give it a proper ending so your readers can finish with a sense of satisfaction.

Brian Cox as Kutuzov sounds perfect!

I've finally got through the second epilogue, also with a fair amount of skim reading. To be fair, I imagine when the book was written the question of (lack of) free will vs religion was a more burning issue. But even so, as you say Viking neither the main book nor the epilogues came to a satisfying conclusion.
Definitely looking forwards to Anna Karenina next year, and I'm glad to have read W&P though it definitely won't be added to my personal list of favourite classic novels.

I’ve finished now too - skimmed the early part of ep 2 then pretty much gave up the attempt, read the introduction instead! My dad is known in the family for having read all but the last 50 pages of W&P which always seemed comical but I get it now.

Thanks to everyone for the company over this year and for all the insights and commentary. It’s always been a vague ambition of mine to read it but I don’t think I’d ever have got round to it, and I certainly wouldn’t have finished it, without you. Not going to gush, it is a bit of a slog - the last time it really made my heart sing was when Pierre told Anatole that he could do what he liked with Pierre’s wife but not touch Natasha, just before the comet. I had the bbc series on dvd for Christmas, looking forward to that, and to the Anna K read along next year, thanks again for setting that up StColumb!

Loved rewatching the first episode of 2016's W&P, some thoughts:

Love the long opening tracking shot where we're introduced to many of the movers and shakers at the soirée whilst eavesdropping on conversations.
I remember watching this for the first time and being totally lost as to who was who - but watching it again after our read along it all slots beautiful into place.

Boris looks totally embarrassed by his mothers manoeuvring, but my god she gets things done. His guards commission - in the bag, and this adaptation makes perfectly clear that Pierre has her, and her alone, to thank for his newfound wealth and powerful position as Count Bezukhov. (In fact does she ever get any real recognition for this in the book? I don't think Pierre does see her or Boris right financially does he? There position improves because of Boris's supreme social climbing skills.)

Watching the Rostovs all together and happy is bitter-sweet.
Count Rostov, on 'hail fellow well met' form, performing the Daniel Copper dance to much acclaim, Sonya and Natasha as thick as thieves, Nikolai entranced by poor cousin Sonya and Petya full of life and energy.
With the benefit of hindsight we know the toll this war is going to take on this family and it will be changed forever.

The scenes set in, and flashbacks to, the gambling den very much depict it as the Moscow Bullingdon club, they really bring it to life and demonstrate what a debauched life style the 'Naughty Boys' are leading. As I said upthread Dolokhov is brilliantly realised by actor Tom Burke, definitely mad, bad and dangerous to know.

The Hélène/Anatole incest innuendo is very much front and centre in this adaptation too, no room for doubt in the viewers mind.

The scene with Denisov and Nikolai on horseback talking about war makes me laugh - comparing going into battle as being like making love to a woman for the first time is very 'Swiss Tony' from The Fast Show.

Andrei is very world weary isn't he? But then the pregnant chipmunk is pretty unbearable, that scene where he has he prise her off him to go to war ....

And doesn't it move fast! We go from Anna Pavlovna's soirée to Pierre's forced engagement in the space of an hour.

Anyone watching/has watched episode two. I probably won't get chance today but will definitely be watching tomorrow.

Finished the second epilogue 🥳 Mainly let it drone on in the back ground on Audible. Mega dull, never again, but at least I can say it's done.

The only bit that really struck a chord with me was this description of the need for dictators and war mongers to find justification for their wars of aggression:

“For various reasons known and unknown, the French set about butchering and destroying one another. And with the event comes a corresponding justification in the expressed will of certain men who believe it to be necessary for the good of France, or in the interests of freedom or equality. The butchery stops, and along comes a corresponding justification of this event in terms of the need to centralize power, resist Europe and so on. Men march from west to east, murdering their fellow creatures, and this event is accompanied by fine words about the glory of France, the vileness of England, and so on. History shows that these forms of justification are no less nonsensical and contradictory than, for instance, murdering somebody as a declaration of his human rights, or murdering millions in Russia in order to take England down a peg or two. But these justifications are very necessary at the time, shifting moral responsibility away from the men who produce the events. These short-term measures operate like brushes on the front of a train clearing the rails ahead: they sweep away men’s moral responsibility. Without this kind of justification there would be no answer to the simplest question that arises the moment you start to examine any historical event: why do millions of men commit crimes collectively, murdering, fighting wars and so on?”

With the Kremlins claims to be de-natzifying/de-militarising/de-satanising Ukraine to offer a justification for their acts of genocide on a sovereign neighbouring country and it's claims of an existential threat to Russia to encourage conscription and justify the death of thousands of their own people in battle it seems that we haven't really moved on at all from Tolstoy's time.