PDA

View Full Version : Nikolai's Role



sarahtomic
04-06-2006, 10:57 AM
Hello!

I'm wondering what Nikolai's role in War and Peace is. Is he simply a vehicle that takes us from Society to War and back again? He seems to enjoy society when he's there, but he is always reluctant to come back to it. Does he perhaps represent Russia's departure from the aristocracy/peasant dichotomy? I'm not sure if this was intentional, but I never felt sympathetic to him. I had the feeling that he's sort of dumb, wishy-washy, naive, and not too reliable. Perhaps I just associated him too much with rich kids who try to pretend that they're dirt poor, even though they could always ask their dad to morgage one of his homes if they ever got in a forty-three thousand ruble rut.

Lots of thoughts, here. Obviously I am trying to write a paper and am no good at it! :confused:

Boris239
04-06-2006, 11:35 AM
The comparison between Rostov and Bolkonsky families is a big part of the novel, so one of Nikolai's roles is to analyze prince Andrew's character better. Before going to war, both of them had their idols- Napoleon for Andrew and Alexander I for Nikolai. Andrew, even seeing Napoleon in all his glory and winning, realizes how unimportant all this is compared to something eternal and beatiful. Nikolai, after having seen Alexander lose, after having seen his not so attractive persona, remains fanatically loyal to the Tsar. The end of the novel confirms it- he says that he is ready to shoot his friends if ordered.

sarahtomic
04-06-2006, 01:25 PM
How far towards the end of the novel?

Boris239
04-06-2006, 03:24 PM
In the very end

Kafka
05-01-2006, 08:35 AM
Also the growth and developement of Nikolai is crucial.

His death also shows the unnecessity of war to mass murder people. Death is "unglorified". Is he not worthy of an individual death?

Idril
05-01-2006, 04:01 PM
You guys are all so deep, the main reason why I never took to Nikolai is because he kept stringing poor Sonya along. :p He could neither commit to her nor let her go, he understood his "obligation" to marry an heiress but he was going to keep Sonya around just in case he couldn't find one to marry. Shows a general lack of character, I think. ;)

Kafka
05-02-2006, 08:04 AM
Yeah...

I didn't like Nikolai because of that, but I didn't really like any of the characters anyway. :p

But I do feel so sorry for poor Sonja.

I guess the fact that he kept Sonja around while "shopping" for other girls shows humanity and life... :(

Boris239
05-06-2006, 03:30 AM
Also the growth and developement of Nikolai is crucial.

His death also shows the unnecessity of war to mass murder people. Death is "unglorified". Is he not worthy of an individual death?

What do you mean his death? he remained alive - you are probably confusing him with Petya.

I don't pity that much- don't like her either. In fact I'm not a big fan of Rostov family overall, including Natasha.

Idril
05-06-2006, 09:59 AM
What do you mean his death? he remained alive - you are probably confusing him with Petya.


I was wondering about that too, I didn't remember he died but I kept thinking I must've forgotten something. :lol:

Natasha is so typical of many Russian heroines and I don't even know if heroine is the right word, maybe I should just say 'character', those flighty, emotional, self-obsessed, status-obsessed women who can change their minds on a dime. I never know if we're supposed to like them or not, I really don't have a great deal of sympathy for them yet it seems to me that they are often put forth as people we are supposed to care about. And I think it's so interesting that along with that character, the 'Natasha-like' character, you also often have the 'Sonya-like' character, a woman, often of lower class, that is steadfast and loyal and steady that makes the women of class seem that much more shallow. Although that seems to be fairly typical of any literature of the time, not just Russian so I guess it's just a sign of the times.

Kafka
05-08-2006, 12:17 AM
Sorry, Idril and Boris239. :blush:

Yeah... :smash: It seems like I have confused Nikolai with Petya. :idea: I guess I secretly wanted :ladysman: Nikolai to die, then, it would solve the "problem" more fairly for the women and the story would become a TOTAL tragedy. :lol:

Do you guys like any characters from "War and Peace"?

The thing is that - these characters seem to be so possessed with wealth and vanity :rage: and at the same time, always complaining about their money and love "problems" that I have come to hate all of them. :mad: :flare:

I think I came to see Natasha as a kind of Paris Hilton :lol: , except better dressed and slightly better mannered; similarly, Nicole Ritchie could be Sonya. :lol:

Boris239, why do you not like the Rostov family?

Boris239
05-09-2006, 02:36 AM
Natasha is supposed to be some kind of embodiment of a perfect woman by Tolstoy standards. She is certainly not too smart, but Tolstoy thinks that it's not that important- she is able to make her husband happy, create family comfort. She is simple(which is good by Tolstoy standards), kind and funny. It's probably because I'm looking for different things in a girl that I hate Natasha so much.
Every family should be judged by its members. Nobody from Rostov family is worthy of respect- we already discussed Nikolai, Vera is certainly not your favorite character. Petya is too youbg to judge. Their parents are simply not very smart.
I'm Ok with Prince Andrew- he is the most interesting character in the novel for me. Pierre is not too bad either, but he becomes way too like Alyosha from "Brothers Karamazov" in the end.

Kafka
05-09-2006, 07:32 AM
Oops... I guess I have downgraded Natasha by connecting her with Paris in anyway. Apologies to everyone.

Now that you remind me: I do think Prince Andrei and Pierre are the most interesting characters. Although some of their decisions are not the wisest, they have more depth than others and are not afraid to use their brains to think, which I admire very much.

blank_frackis
06-26-2006, 02:42 PM
I think the one character that you have to like is Pierre and possibly Princess Marya, they're the only characters who really seem to have genuine empathy for the rest of the people involved. Andrei makes life better for his serfs about half way through but he's also the same Andrei who treats his first wife so callously and is generally pretty self obsessed. Natasha on the face of it seems generous (for instance in the whole "let the wounded men on the wagons mama!" section) but it's the same Natasha who wants to run off with Anatole on the spur of the moment with no thought as to how it affects the people around her - Andrei and her bankrupt family. Perhaps we're supposed to think that the incident is all Anatole's fault, but that would make Natasha some sort of helpless pathetic figure who can't make her own decisions.

Idril
06-26-2006, 03:21 PM
I think I came to see Natasha as a kind of Paris Hilton :lol: , except better dressed and slightly better mannered; similarly, Nicole Ritchie could be Sonya. :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: I can certainly see the Natasha/Paris comparison but I think the Sonya/Nicole is just mean. ;) :lol: Sonya was not that bad. :p Natasha did mature a bit, by the time she marries Pierre, she's much less obnoxious and I suppose we should remember that at the beginning of the novel, she is quite young...I still don't like her but I don't want anyone to say I'm not fair minded. ;)

I liked Pierre, he had a rough start but I think he always had a good heart, it just took war and tragedy to bring it out. And yes, Princess Marya, I had forgotten about her but she was a very admirable woman.

bazarov
08-25-2006, 06:02 AM
I'm Ok with Prince Andrew- he is the most interesting character in the novel for me. Pierre is not too bad either, but he becomes way too like Alyosha from "Brothers Karamazov" in the end.

I agree! But why Leo kills his main characthers; first Ana and now Andrew?

Boris239
08-27-2006, 12:21 PM
Well, for Tolstoy the main character is probably Pierre, and he obviously wanted him to be with Natasha. It's very difficult to imagine them together with alive Prince Andrew.

samah
08-27-2006, 01:11 PM
Well, for Tolstoy the main character is probably Pierre, and he obviously wanted him to be with Natasha. It's very difficult to imagine them together with alive Prince Andrew.

I agree with you Boris .I like prince andrey and I didnt understand why he liked natasha that much I guess that she was the typical russian girl at that time I mean always stays at home , nice and she can be a good wife ! (Exactly what pierre needs .)
and about nickolai I didnt like him either , for what he did to sonya and other things , but I didnt really like sonya , and looking at all the women in war and peace from helene to maria , its really hard to like any of them ! Wierd :(
(but thats only what I think as a woman who loves to see challenging chracters for women)

and by the way I guess helene would be Paris Hilton

Idril
08-27-2006, 01:12 PM
And I think Natasha needed to experience Prince Andrei's death in order to mature to a point where she could be a good wife and mother. She was very self-centered before that, I can't imagine she would make anyone a good wife much less someone like Pierre who was more concerned with philosophy and goodness than appearances.

And about Nikolai, I'm reading Tolstoy's biography and I've just gotten through the part where he's writing War and Peace and he really thought of Nikolai as a hero and I can't for the life of me figure out why. And he apparently based Natasha on his favorite sister-in-law, Sonya's sister with a little bit of Sonya thrown in there so he had great fondness for Natasha as well and again, I can't quite figure out what is so charming about her.

Boris239
08-27-2006, 11:38 PM
Although it's true that Pierre wasn't concerned with appearances in the end, he did marry Helen. Somehow I doubt that he really appreciated her character.
And Pierre certainly doesn't discuss philosophy with Natasha. Serious subjects must be left for men only- this is Tolstoy's opinion. Woman must be a good wife and mother, and Natasha certainly is able to make sure that Pierre will be happy. Tolstoy's ideal women aren't concerned with philosophy and politics. This is probably the reason that everybody hates Natasha- we judge her by modern criterias. For example, I most certainly wouldn't like marry somebody like her, although some guys are looking for girls like that.
Perhaps we are a bit harsh- after all Natasha is very young when she runs away with Anatol.

bazarov
08-28-2006, 02:07 PM
It was 200 years ago, I think Natasha was a role model in those time society. Too bad for Sonya, Nikolay was a bastard...
About Helena and Paris Hilton, I'm sure that Helena knew who was Russian emperor:crash:

Boris239
08-28-2006, 06:31 PM
But maybe she didn't know who French emperor was? :)
After all I'm sure Paris Hilton has heard about Bush

Idril
08-28-2006, 07:01 PM
After all I'm sure Paris Hilton has heard about Bush

You give her waaayyy more credit than I would. ;)

bazarov
08-29-2006, 04:11 AM
But maybe she didn't know who French emperor was? :)
After all I'm sure Paris Hilton has heard about Bush

No!!! She also thought that Blair is an actor:bawling:

samah
08-29-2006, 05:40 AM
Boris and Bazarov I think you are both harsh on Paris , maybe she knows nothing about politics ( or all the important things in life) but she knows everything about fashion and I guess she knows all the designers names and thats all she needs to know from her point of view of course.
and I know that this happened 200 years ago , but also pride and prejudice was written in the 19th century and the main character is Elizabeth bennet !
so I think that its all about tolstoy , maybe he should have changed his point of view about women .

Boris239
08-29-2006, 08:27 AM
samah, it's Ok not to know a lot about politics, but not to know who Tony Blair is?! Regardless of her knowledge of the fashion industry, she is uneducated and pretty dumb.
Tolstoy certainly was not a big fan of feminism and the image of Natasha clearly show it.

samah
08-30-2006, 09:54 AM
samah, it's Ok not to know a lot about politics, but not to know who Tony Blair is?! Regardless of her knowledge of the fashion industry, she is uneducated and pretty dumb.
Tolstoy certainly was not a big fan of feminism and the image of Natasha clearly show it.

yes I know that and its really a big waste for paris because shes very rich and she can do a lot of things with her money , she can go to harvard and study whatever she wants and she can meet all the politicians and the writers or scientists in the world , and I dont think she was born dumb but it was her choice . and about tolstoy I also think that anna karenina shows that too .

bazarov
08-30-2006, 11:34 AM
I don't think that there is a lot of politicians, writers and scientists who wants to meet her regardles to her money...
Samah, don't be angry, were just joking, I don't care about Paris Hilton at all, but sometimes I just can't believe how someone can be so...I don't know care a lot about fashion, but I still know who was Giorgio Armani and who is Calvin Klein.
Do you think Natasha is similar with Kitty? Alyosha-Andrew, Anatol-Veslovsky, Konstantin-Pierre...??

Idril
08-30-2006, 03:34 PM
Do you think Natasha is similar with Kitty? Alyosha-Andrew, Anatol-Veslovsky, Konstantin-Pierre...??

I think Kitty is a little more grounded than Natasha was, at least at the beginning, Kitty is maybe a more grown up and mature version of Natasha? I know Kitty had her flirtation with Vronsky but I've always looked at that as a momentary weekness in an other wise reasonable and purposeful life where as Natasha was just a silly little girl until Prince Andrei's death brought some sense of perspective into her head. Their ending points are similar though, I do see that.

By Alyosha, I'm assuming you mean the Brothers Karamazov Alyosha? I'm just going to go with that assumption, Andrew isn't nearly as boring as Alyosha and maybe that's because we see his transformation, we see him struggle and we see what brought him to that level of understanding and acceptance. With Alyosha we meet him already in this perfect state of holiness with no discernable personality or opinions outside that realm. I've always thought of him as a very one-note character and that's not how I think of Prince Andrei.

Anatol and Veslovsky....Veslovsky isn't coming to mind, I need a reminder who that is. :blush:

Konstantin and Pierre. I assume, again, that you are talking about Levin? I do think there is a similarity there, Tolstoy based both characters largely on himself and his own ideals so it makes sense they would have similarities. Both struggle to become better people, to become more humble and embrace simplicity, they both hold to ideals they feel are loftier than those around them and both, much like Tolstoy, are consumed with themselves and their struggles and manage to find women they can drag into those struggles with them.

bazarov
08-31-2006, 04:06 AM
By Alyosha, I'm assuming you mean the Brothers Karamazov Alyosha?

Anatol and Veslovsky....Veslovsky isn't coming to mind, I need a reminder who that is. :blush:

Konstantin and Pierre. I assume, again, that you are talking about Levin? .

Alyosha Vronsky, from Ana Karenina. I don't say that Vronsky and Andrew are similar, similar is the result on life of Kitty and Natasha.

Veslovsky is also from Ana Karenina, a guy who tries to seduce Kitty but Levin kicks him out of his house:smash:

Yes, I was thinking of Levin.

Idril
08-31-2006, 08:48 PM
Alyosha Vronsky, from Ana Karenina. I don't say that Vronsky and Andrew are similar, similar is the result on life of Kitty and Natasha.

Oooohhhhh...:blush: :rolleyes: In that case, I agree with you, they aren't similar. I know Andrei wasn't always as enlightened as he was towards the end but I don't think he would've ever pursued a married woman like Vronsky did, seemingly without any twinge of conscience. And I think it's important to note that Kitty was rejected by Vronsky but Natasha did the dumping in the other relationship, at least originally. Maybe Anatol and Vronsky would be more similar in the misery they left in their respective wakes.


Veslovsky is also from Ana Karenina, a guy who tries to seduce Kitty but Levin kicks him out of his house

I'd forgotten about him...obviously. I only vaguely remember that episode, that was after their marriage, right? He was a guest at their home and he was flirting with Kitty outragiously in front of Levin, right? I need to reread that part. :blush:

bazarov
09-01-2006, 03:37 PM
Oooohhhhh...:blush: :rolleyes: In that case, I agree with you, they aren't similar. I know Andrei wasn't always as enlightened as he was towards the end but I don't think he would've ever pursued a married woman like Vronsky did, seemingly without any twinge of conscience. And I think it's important to note that Kitty was rejected by Vronsky but Natasha did the dumping in the other relationship, at least originally. Maybe Anatol and Vronsky would be more similar in the misery they left in their respective wakes.



I'd forgotten about him...obviously. I only vaguely remember that episode, that was after their marriage, right? He was a guest at their home and he was flirting with Kitty outragiously in front of Levin, right? I need to reread that part. :blush:

Yes, he came with Stiva, and they left together...:lol:

samah
09-02-2006, 08:21 AM
Hey Bazarov I'm not angry because of paris I know that you were joking and I'm not a big fan of paris , but I was deffending because she is harmless unlike a lot of politicians ! and about natasha and kitty maybe you are right they are similar but I liked kitty more and about vronsky and anatol I believe that anatole left less misery than vronsky and levin is smarter than pierre.

bazarov
09-02-2006, 03:18 PM
Hey Bazarov I'm not angry because of paris I know that you were joking and I'm not a big fan of paris , but I was deffending because she is harmless unlike a lot of politicians ! and about natasha and kitty maybe you are right they are similar but I liked kitty more and about vronsky and anatol I believe that anatole left less misery than vronsky and levin is smarter than pierre.

Yes, Kitty and Levin are really great couple. I also prefer Levin more than Pierre, Levin was really mens sana in corpore sano:idea: I don't like Anatol at all, but as story goes, I liked Vronsky more and more, he really didn't deserved end like that. In the begining, he really was a bastard, but after falling in love with Ana, he's becoming to look like a real gentelman.

samah
09-03-2006, 07:16 AM
Yes, Kitty and Levin are really great couple. I also prefer Levin more than Pierre, Levin was really mens sana in corpore sano:idea: I don't like Anatol at all, but as story goes, I liked Vronsky more and more, he really didn't deserved end like that. In the begining, he really was a bastard, but after falling in love with Ana, he's becoming to look like a real gentelman.

But at the end his feeling had changed for Ana and I didnt like him because of that , this was one of the reasons why she killed herself , I didnt like anatol either but he didnt get involved with natasha after all !

Idril
09-03-2006, 10:22 AM
Yes, but you have to admit that Anna was getting a little frayed at the end. I think he did the best he could to allay her fears but I think it was her guilt and grief about being separated from her son that ultimately destroyed her, not Vronksy's rejection of her because I don't think he ever really rejected her. He became frustrated with her, with her irrational jealousies and her constant need for reassurance, because no amount of reassurance was ever enough for her but I think that's understandable. She became a completely different person, unrecognizable from the woman he fell in love with and I don't believe he ever stopped loving her, he was just at a loss as to how to comfort her anymore.

samah
09-03-2006, 12:20 PM
Yes, but you have to admit that Anna was getting a little frayed at the end. I think he did the best he could to allay her fears but I think it was her guilt and grief about being separated from her son that ultimately destroyed her, not Vronksy's rejection of her because I don't think he ever really rejected her. He became frustrated with her, with her irrational jealousies and her constant need for reassurance, because no amount of reassurance was ever enough for her but I think that's understandable. She became a completely different person, unrecognizable from the woman he fell in love with and I don't believe he ever stopped loving her, he was just at a loss as to how to comfort her anymore.

yes I guess you are right but he should never have involved with a married woman , and I think that when you are deeply in love with someone you will love them no matter what even if they changed , he could have done much better to help Ana but he focused on himself instead , and thats what I didnt like especially that she left her son and her social life for him , but I guess that was the mistake she could never forgive herself for doing it, I totaly understand Ana but I cant understand vronsky that much I think that he was selfesh.

bazarov
09-03-2006, 03:24 PM
But at the end his feeling had changed for Ana and I didnt like him because of that , this was one of the reasons why she killed herself , I didnt like anatol either but he didnt get involved with natasha after all !

He's feelings didn't change, she's the one who has changed. He also suffered, but he stayed strong, never leaving her.

bazarov
09-03-2006, 03:28 PM
Yes, but you have to admit that Anna was getting a little frayed at the end. I think he did the best he could to allay her fears but I think it was her guilt and grief about being separated from her son that ultimately destroyed her, not Vronksy's rejection of her because I don't think he ever really rejected her. He became frustrated with her, with her irrational jealousies and her constant need for reassurance, because no amount of reassurance was ever enough for her but I think that's understandable. She became a completely different person, unrecognizable from the woman he fell in love with and I don't believe he ever stopped loving her, he was just at a loss as to how to comfort her anymore.

Alyosha gets a :angel: for his patience and love for Anna, many guys would left her a long ago, without many understanding for her jealous reactions.

bazarov
09-03-2006, 03:35 PM
yes I guess you are right but he should never have involved with a married woman , and I think that when you are deeply in love with someone you will love them no matter what even if they changed , he could have done much better to help Ana but he focused on himself instead , and thats what I didnt like especially that she left her son and her social life for him , but I guess that was the mistake she could never forgive herself for doing it, I totaly understand Ana but I cant understand vronsky that much I think that he was selfesh.

I don't think he was selfish. He didn't stay focused on himself, beacuse of Anna he left army, his friends and society. I don't see why you can't stop love somebody if he changes a lot, you fall inlove with somebody and after some time it's completly other person, like Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde.

Idril
09-03-2006, 05:51 PM
He's feelings didn't change, she's the one who has changed. He also suffered, but he stayed strong, never leaving her.

I agree with Bazarov there, I don't think he's feelings for her did change. She become completely irrational. I think he did honestly try to make a home for her but she became so emotional indifferent to everything he tried to do, she was even emotionally indifferent to her daughter, nothing was enough and nothing would be enough without her son or her place in society and those were 2 things Vronsky could never give her.

As for him not getting involved with a married woman, that probably would've been best and I suppose you could say he got what he deserved but I do think he sacrificed a lot for her, not as much as she did for him but that was her choice, not his.

bazarov
09-03-2006, 06:34 PM
I agree with Bazarov there, I don't think he's feelings for her did change. She become completely irrational. I think he did honestly try to make a home for her but she became so emotional indifferent to everything he tried to do, she was even emotionally indifferent to her daughter, nothing was enough and nothing would be enough without her son or her place in society and those were 2 things Vronsky could never give her.


I don't think she became emotionally indifferent to her daughter, she just felt sorry for Seryozha( hope I spell it correct:) because she lost him, she wanted him back, and little Anne was still there with her. It reminds me on Bible story about son who left his father or maybe even better on story aboout shepard looking for his sheep after leaving 99 sheeps in corral.

Idril
09-03-2006, 09:42 PM
I don't think she became emotionally indifferent to her daughter, she just felt sorry for Seryozha( hope I spell it correct:) because she lost him, she wanted him back, and little Anne was still there with her.

I really did get the impression she was less than enthusiastic about Anne. Maybe it was Tolstoy who was indifferent because once she was born, she was barely mentioned. Anna seemed too wrapped up in her own misery to be much of a mother and I always thought it was an interesting juxtiposition that she grieved and pined for her son (you're braver than I, I will make no attempt to spell his name. ;) ), while she had a perfectly healthy daughter with her that she seemingly paid no attention to but maybe I read more into that than was intended. Vronsky seemed the more attentive parent to me.

samah
09-04-2006, 01:51 AM
Idri , Bazarov I think that you are right in your opinions but I still dont like Vronsky , I didnt like him when he pushed Anna to be nvolved with him I know that they are both mistaken in that but I guess its my nature I always take the women's side !:D

bazarov
09-04-2006, 03:57 AM
Idri , Bazarov I think that you are right in your opinions but I still dont like Vronsky , I didnt like him when he pushed Anna to be nvolved with him I know that they are both mistaken in that but I guess its my nature I always take the women's side !:D

Holly Samah from Holly Lands:lol:

bazarov
09-04-2006, 04:21 AM
but I still dont like Vronsky , I didnt like him when he pushed Anna to be nvolved with him!:D

I remember his words: We can't be friends, and you are aware of that. Will we be the most happiest or most unhappiest couple on the world, you will decide...

You can't say he forced her...

Idril
09-04-2006, 10:02 AM
Again, I agree with Bazarov (this is beginning to become a habit!), she made her own choices knowing what the consequences were. I will certainly ackowledge that persuing a married woman isn't a moral thing to do. Anna was in an unhappy, unfulfilling marriage and she was ripe for the picking and a classically "good" man would've left her alone but no one is saying Vronsky was a classically "good" man, we're just saying that Anna had a part to play in the affair as well, she has to take some of the responsibility for what happened after.

I feel like we're ganging up on you Samah and I hate it when that happens to me. Of course you have the right to like or dislike any character and Vronsky certainly should've been more thoughtful of how a break with her son would effect Anna but he wasn't thinking past the here or now and neither was Anna.

samah
09-04-2006, 12:49 PM
anyway Bazarov I didnt say he forced her I said he pushed her its different ! :idea: and thank you Idril for your sympathy and that thing when people are ganging up on me , it always happens me ! I dont know why?! :( maybe because I'm childish little bit :blush: !And i'm not holly ( I dont really know whats that suppose to mean ) but I've seen alot of women who have suffered in their lives mostly because of men , and I guess that explains why I took Anna's side but I didnt take Natasha's side, never , I really liked Prince Andrey. ;)

Idril
09-04-2006, 01:38 PM
... but I've seen alot of women who have suffered in their lives mostly because of men , and I guess that explains why I took Anna's side but I didnt take Natasha's side, never , I really liked Prince Andrey. ;)

That's a good point, everyone looks at characters and situations from their own points of view. I think that's true of me and my interpretation of Anna's mothering skills. As a mother, I understand her desolation at being separated from her son but A.) if I knew by leaving, I would be separated from my son, I wouldn't go. I'd live in a loveless marriage before I would abandon my son so right there, she loses a few points for me, and then B.) she puts all her energy into grieving for her son while her daughter is barely mentioned. I don't understand that ranking of children, that the grief of losing one child should outweigh the joy of the other, more points lost for Anna for me. I should reread some of those parts again and see if the emotional distance is as significant as I remember or if I'm just being more sensitive than necessary.

bazarov
09-04-2006, 04:57 PM
anyway Bazarov I didnt say he forced her I said he pushed her its different ! :idea: and thank you Idril for your sympathy and that thing when people are ganging up on me , it always happens me ! I dont know why?! :( maybe because I'm childish little bit :blush: !And i'm not holly ( I dont really know whats that suppose to mean ) but I've seen alot of women who have suffered in their lives mostly because of men , and I guess that explains why I took Anna's side but I didnt take Natasha's side, never , I really liked Prince Andrey. ;)

Are you trying to say she couldn't resist to him?
Holly; I wanted to say how nice you are, allways defending others, very nice:thumbs_up .
I've also seen many guys suffering because of women, but thats life... You can't say that males are better than females or that females are better than males, it goes from one person to another. I don't like Anna and I don't like Alyosha neither, but it would be unfair to blame him for everything bad what happened to her.
I agree with Idril( and he agrees with me:lol: ), I really can't understand how can mother leave her child and go away with some guy and I definitly can't and never won't sympathise her.
And yes, Andrew rules!

bazarov
09-04-2006, 05:06 PM
As a mother, I understand her desolation at being separated from her son but A.) if I knew by leaving, I would be separated from my son, I wouldn't go. I'd live in a loveless marriage before I would abandon my son so right there, she loses a few points for me, and then B.) she puts all her energy into grieving for her son while her daughter is barely mentioned. I don't understand that ranking of children, that the grief of losing one child should outweigh the joy of the other, more points lost for Anna for me.

A)I completly agree with you, even though I have no wife or children
B) I don't look on that way. Many people, after losing of something, can't stop thinking of that lose, even though they start to bust other things they have and in the end, they lose that also...
It's kind of stupid to talk about children like they are things, but that's human nature:(

Idril
09-04-2006, 07:31 PM
I don't like Anna and I don't like Alyosha neither, but it would be unfair to blame him for everything bad what happened to her.
I agree with Idril( and he agrees with me:lol: ), I really can't understand how can mother leave her child and go away with some guy and I definitly can't and never won't sympathise her.


By the end, I had more sympathy for Vronsky than Anna. She just frustrated me because, in my mind, she herself, all alone, made the decision to leave and join her lot with Vronsky, knowing what that would mean and then when the inevitable happened, separation with her son, loss of status, she fell apart. You have to "do the time if you're going to do the crime". I know it sounds harsh and I know affairs of the heart can be messy and complicated and it's easy to pass judgement and it's not even the fact that she had an affair that I'm passing judgement on, it's the fact that she choose to do it and then whined about the consequences. It's her lack of culpability that annoys me the most about her. It's like the Susan character in Jude the Obscure, if you're going to live with your first cousin in sin and have babies with him out of wedlock, don't complain when society shuns you because that's pretty much a given.

And I'm a "she" by the way. ;)



B) I don't look on that way. Many people, after losing of something, can't stop thinking of that lose, even though they start to bust other things they have and in the end, they lose that also...
It's kind of stupid to talk about children like they are things, but that's human nature:(

You have a point. I certainly know there are women who grieve for the loss of a child to the point of neglecting all else and really, I have no idea what that kind of pain is like, I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose one of my kids, my mind simply will not go there so I suppose I should cut her some slack there...but I won't. :p

And how did a thread about Nikolai from War and Peace turn into a thread about Anna? :lol:

Boris239
09-04-2006, 10:35 PM
Yes, let's better dicuss W&P and not Anna Karenina here.
O, even better let's discuss the coming Russia-Croatia game on Wednesday, Baz! :)

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:23 AM
As a mother, I understand her ...




And I'm a "she" by the way. ;)




And how did a thread about Nikolai from War and Peace turn into a thread about Anna? :lol:

Yes, I realized that already, but Idril sounds like male so...:D

That's advantage of this forum, you can discuss about everything everywhere;)

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:33 AM
Yes, let's better dicuss W&P and not Anna Karenina here.
O, even better let's discuss the coming Russia-Croatia game on Wednesday, Baz! :)

O, football again!!!:banana:What a nice thread:lol: Well, to be honest, after http://www.uefa.com/competitions/EURO/news/Kind=1/newsId=452579.html our chances for win are smaller, but I don't see how we can lose tomorrow. I don't like Olić( he plays for CSKA Mockba:brow: ), he has no brain, but Srna is very important for us. We are already without 3 important defenders, but we have good subs for them. Boris239, be aware of LUKA MODRIĆ, young midfielder, recently he had beaten Italy alone and after game with Arsenal in CL, Wenger and Fabregas talked in superlatives about him. GO CROATIA!!! You know, together with Macedonia, we The Slavs could exclude England from Euro, don't you agree??

Boris239
09-05-2006, 09:45 AM
Well, I think that Russia has pretty good chances. I've heard about Modric, but he had beaten the reserve Italian team. The loss of Srna will really hurt you- Olic and Balaban can be replaced. It's the first offcial game for Hiddink as the Russian coach, so we'll see. Wit all respect to your young coach, Hiddink is much more experienced and talented.
It would be difficult to exculde England, but everything can happen. Don't also forget about Israel- there have a good team and in the last qualifiers they haven't lost a game in the group with France, Switzerland and Ireland.
Anyway, I'll go to the bar to see the game.

Sorry for football interlude in the "War and Peace" discussion.

samah
09-05-2006, 10:21 AM
First of all thanks Bazarov for calling me nice I appreciated ;) and about anna and her son , well I dont have children but theres an old saying in my country that some people once asked a mother who her favourite child was and she answered the one thats away until he retuns snd the one who's sick till he gets better , so maybe that explains her behavoir and war and peace is still my favourite , and about football I dont know much about that but TOTTI RULES! :D

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:11 PM
Well, I think that Russia has pretty good chances. I've heard about Modric, but he had beaten the reserve Italian team. The loss of Srna will really hurt you- Olic and Balaban can be replaced. It's the first offcial game for Hiddink as the Russian coach, so we'll see. Wit all respect to your young coach, Hiddink is much more experienced and talented.
It would be difficult to exculde England, but everything can happen. Don't also forget about Israel- there have a good team and in the last qualifiers they haven't lost a game in the group with France, Switzerland and Ireland.
Anyway, I'll go to the bar to see the game.

Sorry for football interlude in the "War and Peace" discussion.

Well, Italian reserve team is better than many european teams, but you got to see that, everything looks so easy when Luka has ball...I'm hard to fascinate, but he is really good. I see you know a lot about football, I glad to see that. Srna is a key player, he'll miss us a lot, lucky we don't have Olić:lol: . In our papers, you can often see that the best Russian player is - Guus Hiddink! It's not that they don't respect Arshavin, Smertin or Sychev, but his results with PSV, Korea and Australia...really impressive, along with Capello, Wenger and maybe Mourinho, probably the best coach in the world(for me). But he's not playing, and the question is what he could do in only two weeks of training, they didn't play too good agains Latvia. I don't think Israel should be too hard to beat, they best player is Giovanni Rosso, a Croat:nod: , but he couldn't get his place in our national team. Too bad that Russians don't have players like Karpin and Mostovoi any more, I really like that nation. Too much of Dostoevsky, I guess:lol:
I just hope Logos want see this:lol:

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:14 PM
I liked Totti a lot, but after kicking Poulsen in Euro'04, I don't like him any more. He cries too much, and he kicks a lot, most of that are 'dirty' starts, when ref is not looking or he doesn't see it. But of course, he's a good looking. Don't you agree Samah:lol: ?

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:17 PM
First of all thanks Bazarov for calling me nice I appreciated ;) and about anna and her son , well I dont have children but theres an old saying in my country that some people once asked a mother who her favourite child was and she answered the one thats away until he retuns snd the one who's sick till he gets better , so maybe that explains her behavoir and war and peace is still my favourite:D
I guess you think I'm right...Thank you.

Boris239
09-05-2006, 06:35 PM
Totti is a good player, but he is simulating all the time and his character is awful in general.
Israeli team is pretty good- they have a bunch of players in the English Premier League including their captain Youssi Benayoun. Rosso was their best player a while ago.
But regardless, without Srna croatian right side will be very vulnerable, and without Simic and Shimunic, the defense also won't be at its best. Klasnic is not in a great shape right now, and in general our championship is at its middle, so most of the players are in a good shape. Adding all this up with the fact that I consider Russia and Croatia approximately equal teams, I think that in Moscow the hosts have better chances.

bazarov
09-05-2006, 06:42 PM
Totti is a good player, but he is simulating all the time and his character is awful in general.
Israeli team is pretty good- they have a bunch of players in the English Premier League including their captain Youssi Benayoun. Rosso was their best player a while ago.
But regardless, without Srna croatian right side will be very vulnerable, and without Simic and Shimunic, the defense also won't be at its best. Klasnic is not in a great shape right now, and in general our championship is at its middle, so most of the players are in a good shape. Adding all this up with the fact that I consider Russia and Croatia approximately equal teams, I think that in Moscow the hosts have better chances.

Well yes, central defender will play on right back(probably Sablić or Ćorluka) and Niko Kranjčar(great potential, but not enough of working:(, just transfered to Portsmouth) will play on right midfielder, crossing with Rapaić from the left. Klasnić never played for Croatia like he plays for Werder, he have to work to much get a scoring chance. I would be very happy with a draw:)

bazarov
09-06-2006, 05:10 AM
war and peace is still my favourite :D
I prefer Anna Karenina, probably because of Levin.

samah
09-06-2006, 06:13 AM
I liked Totti a lot, but after kicking Poulsen in Euro'04, I don't like him any more. He cries too much, and he kicks a lot, most of that are 'dirty' starts, when ref is not looking or he doesn't see it. But of course, he's a good looking. Don't you agree Samah:lol: ?

Actually yes he is good looking but Beckham is more handsome than him but Totti's attitude is what brought my attention I used to call him " The naughty" and then I found out he is also a good player but sometimes he seems that he doesnt really care about the red card , I love that he makes the game exciting.

samah
09-06-2006, 06:36 AM
I prefer Anna Karenina, probably because of Levin.

but i prefer war and peace because of prince andrey , and I'm wondering about the other nikolai 's role I mean nicolai bolkonsky , what ? will he grow up to be like his father or like Pierre ? and I didnt like the way the story ended with his dream what's that suppose to mean? I dont know !:sick:

bazarov
09-07-2006, 03:01 AM
If you remeber his dream, he's saying he will act like Plutarh's men and he will be brave like Mucius Scevola. Plutarh wrote very famous work called Parallel Lives, a series of biographies of famous Greeks and Romans, including life of Mucius Scevola. Mucius Scevola, was a soldie, his modus vivendi was: ' It is sweet and appropriate to die for one's country. '. He got famous for putting his hand into fire without blink of eye.
Nikolai's father also shows in a dream, he's putting his hand on Nikolai's head, something like : ''Well done, my son, be brave, I'm with you!'' I think that in that dream and in days before he strated to realize the greatness of his father Andrey, noticing how Pierre talks about him with love and respect. After waking up, he said:'' Pierre is a great man, I'll listen him, I'll study more and more, so he and mother can be proud of me, but I want also father to be proud of me!''. I think that Nicolai decided to became a brave and good soldier just like his father, with a wish to do something very brave, which will be rememberd for years and years, something what would do his father very proud.

samah
09-07-2006, 12:41 PM
thanks for the analysis .

olichka
01-16-2007, 03:13 PM
I agree! But why Leo kills his main characthers; first Ana and now Andrew?

Tolstoy killed off Andrew because he was not suited to life in the real world:his great pride and stiffly high standards were his Achilles' heel which prevented him from achieving both professional and personal happiness as demonstrated by his distaste for court intrigues and the banality of domesticity.

Although Tolstoy depicted Andrew as having the latent potential of a Decembrists' leader as evidenced by his high intelligence, his distaste for the idle aristocracy and the Tsar, and his interest in the emancipation of the serfs, Tolstoy felt that he lacked the down-to-earth, human qualities that are also necessary in a leader. And because the Epilogue of W.and P., set in 1820 is devoted to the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Andrew had no place in it. ( As you know, before Tolstoy wrote W. and P., he wrote a novel "The Decembrists" which begins with the return of an amnestied Decembrist from exile. This character is a prototype for Pierre Bezukhov, and the earlier novel is regarded as the foreshadowing of the events that take place after the Epilogue in W.and P. Andrew just doesn't belong in that time-frame, other than as an inspiring memory. )

In the original ending of the novel called "All's well that ends well", Andrew survives the war. His moral transfromation is such that, although he still loves Natasha dearly, he gives her up for his sister's Marya's sake so she could marry Nicholas, the man she loves and so that the fortunes of the Rostov family could improve.

olichka
01-16-2007, 03:27 PM
However, Tolstoy felt that such an ending was not plausible from a psychological standpoint:Andrew would have never given Natasha up and because he would have never been able to make her happy (and Natasha was destined for happiness in the novel), he had to "go", so to speak.

Throughout the novel Andrew is depicted as not enjoying the vissicitudes and the banalities of life much and yearning for the peace and the nobility of death:it is particularly evident from his thoughts on the eve of the Battle of Austelitz in which he expresses the desire to achieve great glory and the love and admiration of men he doesn't know, even at the cost of his life and great suffering. This demonstrates the desire for a POSTHUMOUS life, not an actual one and his separateness from others. So because he doesn't love life, he doesn't belong in it, and, consequently, in the novel after the Napoleonic invasion. He is really a tragic hero who never achieves happiness, even though he has most of the traits that are necessary to achieve it.