The ORIGINAL VERSION of WAR and PEACE

[olichka]

Has anyone gotten an original version of W. and P. yet ?
I bought it last week and am reading it right now. It`s actually an interesting read, and gives additional info about the characters, as well as insight into their motivations.

Andrey does survive, but he and Natasha do not end up together --- he gives her up to secure the happiness of his sister Marya who loves Nikolay. However, he realizes that Natasha never truly loved him --- so, is it really a sacrifce then ?

It would be interesting to see what you guys think of this version.

[B-Mental]

Is that the original re-write of War & Peace? I've never heard of such a thing, thinking I already read War & Peace twice now. What were those copies then? I heard there would be some release of the classic in which changes were made. Maybe you could post some information on your ORIGINAL book (publisher, copyright, anything else that might be useful to confirm your books originality).

[olichka]

Is that the original re-write of War & Peace? I've never heard of such a thing, thinking I already read War & Peace twice now. What were those copies then? I heard there would be some release of the classic in which changes were made. Maybe you could post some information on your ORIGINAL book (publisher, copyright, anything else that might be useful to confirm your books originality).


The copies that you read were most likely the FINAL and TRADITIONAL version of W. and P. --- that is, W. and P. as we know it.

Recently ( in March or April ), the original version came out --- that is, an earlier version based on an early draft, parts of which were published before being re-written, changed and polished by Tolstoy into the W. and P. as we`ve known it for the last 140 years.

The version that I have is called the same --- " War and Peace ", with the subtitle " The original version ", published by Harper Perennial, 2007.

The original Russian text is by Zakharov Publishers, 2000.

English translation of the text is by Andrew Bromfield.

It IS an actual book, I`m not making anything up. I bought the book at " Chapters ", if it helps.

For more information, go to www.harperperennial.co.uk and then type in the title in the window.

[Idril]

I don't know that you can really call it an 'original' version when more descriptive word would be 'rejected', wouldn't it? If Tolstoy changed it before it the final publishing, that means he wasn't happy with it and thought better of a few things. It would be interesting to see what his original vision was for the characters but I think publishing it as 'the original version' is a little misleading and just a way of making money off a famous title.

[stankovb]

Has anyone gotten an original version of W. and P. yet ?
I bought it last week and am reading it right now. It`s actually an interesting read, and gives additional info about the characters, as well as insight into their motivations.

Andrey does survive, but he and Natasha do not end up together --- he gives her up to secure the happiness of his sister Marya who loves Nikolay. However, he realizes that Natasha never truly loved him --- so, is it really a sacrifce then ?

It would be interesting to see what you guys think of this version.


Olichka, I am new into these discussions, I have never heard of an "original" version of W. & P. and I can and want to say only what is coming from my emotions. And they are definitely and strongly inclined towards the undoubtedly true love between Natasha Rostova and Andrey Bolkonski. It is not that I have anything against dear and brave guy Pierre; however I feel that he just came as a kind of "consolation prize" to Natasha, once her beloved Andrey was not into our material sphere. To me, the love between Natasha and Andrey was sort of extra-terrestrial divine-type of love and I could never understand why would Andrey (even if he stayed alive) deprive himself of such a happiness and fulfilment, even though he might have been inclined towards the happiness of an otherwise very unhappy person - his sister Maria. Besides, Sonia new that "Natasha has always been loving price Andrey ONLY and she was loving him PERSISTENTLY". I am terribly sorry that this great love could not materialize during their lives at Earth. And I am not sure that Andrey even kissed Natasha "properly" in the whole novel. No, in my opinion it was not possible to sacrifice true love with true woman, such as Natasha Rostova, even on behalf of happiness of the very dear person (Maria). Don't you think so?

[stankovb]

Has anyone gotten an original version of W. and P. yet ?
I bought it last week and am reading it right now. It`s actually an interesting read, and gives additional info about the characters, as well as insight into their motivations.

Andrey does survive, but he and Natasha do not end up together --- he gives her up to secure the happiness of his sister Marya who loves Nikolay. However, he realizes that Natasha never truly loved him --- so, is it really a sacrifce then ?

It would be interesting to see what you guys think of this version.


Olichka, I am new into these discussions, I have never heard of an "original" version of W. & P. and I can and want to say only what is coming from my emotions. And they are definitely and strongly inclined towards the undoubtedly true love between Natasha Rostova and Andrey Bolkonski. It is not that I have anything against dear and brave guy Pierre; however I feel that he just came as a kind of "consolation prize" to Natasha, once her beloved Andrey was not into our material sphere. To me, the love between Natasha and Andrey was sort of extra-terrestrial divine-type of love and I could never understand why would Andrey (even if he stayed alive) deprive himself of such a happiness and fulfilment, even though he might have been inclined towards the happiness of an otherwise very unhappy person - his sister Maria. Besides, Sonia new that "Natasha has always been loving price Andrey ONLY and she was loving him PERSISTENTLY". I am terribly sorry that this great love could not materialize during their lives at Earth. And I am not sure that Andrey even kissed Natasha "properly" in the whole novel. No, in my opinion it was not possible to sacrifice true love with true woman, such as Natasha Rostova, even on behalf of happiness of the very dear person (Maria). Don't you think so?

[olichka]

Olichka, I am new into these discussions, I have never heard of an "original" version of W. & P. and I can and want to say only what is coming from my emotions. And they are definitely and strongly inclined towards the undoubtedly true love between Natasha Rostova and Andrey Bolkonski. It is not that I have anything against dear and brave guy Pierre; however I feel that he just came as a kind of "consolation prize" to Natasha, once her beloved Andrey was not into our material sphere. To me, the love between Natasha and Andrey was sort of extra-terrestrial divine-type of love and I could never understand why would Andrey (even if he stayed alive) deprive himself of such a happiness and fulfilment, even though he might have been inclined towards the happiness of an otherwise very unhappy person - his sister Maria. Besides, Sonia new that "Natasha has always been loving price Andrey ONLY and she was loving him PERSISTENTLY". I am terribly sorry that this great love could not materialize during their lives at Earth. And I am not sure that Andrey even kissed Natasha "properly" in the whole novel. No, in my opinion it was not possible to sacrifice true love with true woman, such as Natasha Rostova, even on behalf of happiness of the very dear person (Maria). Don't you think so?


Stankovb, I agree with you in many ways and I particularly felt that way when I was a lot younger. I also feel that love between Andrey and Natasha was something sublime and special, and that Pierre was just someone appropriate to marry --- financially well off, a friend of the family and someone who saw Natasha through difficult phases of her life ( Kuragin ) and was thus a good friend of hers who understood her well. Frankly, although Pierre and Natasha do share some traits ( such as simplicity, naivete and openness to the world ), I still don't see them as a couple --- I strongly believe that there has to be a physical attraction, and I just can't see how slim, graceful Natasha could be attracted to Pierre.

Love with Andrey was indeed something special; however, I'm not sure if it could survive the marriage. What would they talk about ? Wouldn't he get bored with family life the way he did the first time with his first wife ? How would he react to Natasha's transformation into a frumpy housewife ? How would he be as a father ? Although, mind you, I wished most ardently when I was 16 that they would marry and cried bitterly when reading about his death.

I think that both choices are unrealistic and somewhat " forced " for Natasha --- in Pierre's case, I guess, after the war there were not many men left and you had to marry someone, right ? And Pierre was a good catch considering the circumstances and his closeness to the Rostovs, and Natasha was comfortable with him.

However, all that is in the final version. In the " original " version, Natasha's love for Bolkonsky is not the serious thing that it is in the final version, although apparently he does love her more than anything in the world. It's this realization that she never truly loved him that encourages him to give her up for Marya's sake. Prior to encouraging Marya in Nikolay's direction, he thinks these thoughts " Not my happiness, but other people's happiness " . This new attitude of his is supposed to reflect his moral transformation. And, off course, although it would have been totally unrealistic to give up TRUE love, in the case where one partner is not as committed as the other, it would still be possible. And now I think that it would be a selfless act because a person is still giving up something dear to him.

What do you think ?

[stankovb]

Olichka, first of all thanks very much for your compliment to me; so I gues I have a very young soul and I could feel like I am a 16-17 years old boy. Unfortunately, I am much older and probably older than you. But still, I believe only in true love, like the one between Andrey and Natasha. Or perhaps I may be wrong: maybe this sort of love was coming only from the Anrey's side?

Indeed, after re-reading this part of the novel, I noted some "new" things: Natasha was anxious/worried in expectation of Andrey's inevitable proposal; she became suprisingly calm 2-3 weeks after Andrey's departure to Switzerland/Italy; she was even jealous to Andrey when he was writing his letters from these countries. In the same time, Pierre was both joyful and sad when Andrey shared with him that he was in love with Natasha, that he would soon be proposing her and that he was fully happy for the first time in his life. Was Pierre enviable to Andrey because of his happiness? Why was Natasha so unsteady and capricious in her feelings? Probably because she was barely 17-18 when she was engaged with Andrey.

Taking all of this into consideration, yes, it can really seem that Andrey could have come to the conclusion to selflessly yield the right of marriage to his unhappy sister Mary, had he really stayed alive. But, this would be even more sad end of the story than that in the final version. Maybe this was the reason why Tolstoy decided to "kill" prince Andrey; because it really seems that even his physical death is better than his mental death while still "living" on the Earth.

I agree that Natasha did not have any better choice but Pierre, especially after that bloody damn war. And she was still very young (20 years old) and deserved to live and to give life to others. Besides, Pierre really liked and even loved her very much, although latently, and also Natasha was not at all calm to him. However, I am still not happy about this.

Perhaps I am searching for the same impossible perfect virtues and feelings as prince Andrey had been searching for. Maybe I am too much similar to Andrey, so that I take all of this too much personally. Indeed, some characters (Andrey and Natasha, above all) from the novel will always live in me, like they were real historical characters. The only deficiency of the Andrey's character is his apparent lack of love to his son Nikolenka.

Please, feel free to answer, since it has been really pleasant talking to you.

[olichka]

Stankovb, I share the same thoughts as you about Andrey and Natasha. I too am a lot like Andrey in that I idealize things and search for the same vitues as him. I also like Natasha a lot. Because of that I wished when I was much younger that they get together.

However, after many years have passed and after I re-read the novel several times, I realized that, although they're both excellent creatures, they're not really suited to each other.

Andrey is an intellectual, well-read, pre-occupied with sophisticated ideas, eager to transform society. Natasha doesn't have a very well-developed intellect, despite her other charms. So, although Andrey would have appreciated her poetical, emotionally rich nature, I think he would have grown bored with her pretty quickly --- and he was not a down-to-earth person like Pierre who was happy to discuss mundane, domestic matters. Also, as a family man, he would have been somewhat reserved and undemonstrative, pre-occupied with himself. It's not that he doesn't love Nikolushka, but I think that his constant disappointments prevent him from fully engaging and interacting with his son. So, although he would very likely be very much interested in his children's education, he would not be emotionally close to them. I think that that would cause a rift in his relationship with Natasha.

After reading your comments about the quality of Natasha's love for Andrey, I, too, started doubting whether it was true love from her side. I think her infatuation with Kuragin and her quick switch to Pierre, so soon after Andrey's death prove it. It's as if she was not truly committed to him. Maybe it was just infatuation, since she was only 17-18 when Andrey proposed.

Perhaps Andrey did realize this ( even in the final version ) which is why he lost his will to live. It does seem strange that, although he was getting better physically and overcoming successfully every serious stage of his illness, that he suddenly took turn for the worse and died. The turn for the worse came after he had that nightmare in which he " died ". After waking up, he came to the conclusion that " death is an awakening " --- I take it, he concluded that dying = awakening from the " nightmare " of life in which everything is a disappointment and illusions, true love included. Perhaps he decided that a life without Natasha's TRUE love isn't worth living.

Or, perhaps, he realized that family life would be a disappointment, since he's already experienced so much disappointment in his life, and he just didn't want to live this disappointing life. I think that Natasha's betrayal of him caused him to lose his last ideal.

However, it's really difficult do decide what Tolstoy exactly wants to say because he contradicts himself so often, as well as gives so much information, that you don't know exactly what the characters' true motivations are. I think that readers speculate about the characters' motivations in the same way that people speculate about others in real life --- no-one knows for sure what the other is thinking !!! Right ?!!

[stankovb]

Olichka, I agree with you that Tolstoy often gives so much information that readers might think of his characters as of live people (this is obviously my illusion) and of their lives as of real lives. But then, since we don’t know what exactly to think, how can we, readers, explicitly decide what would have occurred between some of the characters, Andrey and Natasha, for example? We can only speculate, as you said, but we cannot prove anything.
True, Natasha was a charming and not very-well intellectually developed young woman. But, did she really need this to be the kind of “fame fatale” she actually was? My answer is “no”. True women don’t need intellectual power to persuade intellectual and superior men to like them and to fall in love with them. Prince Andrey was convinced and he became a “believer” (after he had danced with her) like that old pop-rock song says. And somehow I am sure that Natasha and he would have had an intensive and interesting marriage, although maybe not a usual and quiet one. But, that does not prove that they would not have been happy and still passionate in their eventual marriage.
I think that Andrey’s “decision” to die was simply a result of worsening physical conditions of his mortal wound and of the associate fever. I cannot imagine why he would suddenly “decide” that Natasha did not love him proportionally and equally to his love to her, or that he “had enough” of her betrayals and therefore “decided” to “awake” from his own life. We ordinary people are not in a position to decide too many things in our lives; especially not the serious issues of life and death. I am sure we all know Who is in charge of these questions.
Therefore, all our considerations regarding success and nature of eventual Andrey’s and Natasha’s marriage are only our speculations and analyses, games of our minds. Like Tolstoy says and similarly like in the war, we cannot predict many factors and enemy’s ideas and plans. The same is with love and emotions, which are so different from mind, intellect and logic. Andrey died because the bloody stupid war was going on – and that’s the life. After that, Natasha decided to love and marry her other sympathy – Pierre – and that’s understandable, because of the same bloody war.
So, at the end I can quote hippies: “Make love, not war!”
And guess what is my wife’s name? Natasha, of course. And I am now in the process of modeling her after her namesake from the novel (she has actually received her name after Natasha Rostova). One of my two kids has name Nikola (Nikolushka). We are of Slavic origin (I think you are also), but not exactly Russians.
So, what do you think?

[olichka]

Actually, Andrey's decline started after that dream he had, namely, his fever took a bad, exhausting turn after that.

Anyways, as you agreed, we can only speculate as to what actually caused his death and whether he actually willed it. That's why literary critics and so many interpretations of literary works exist !

Perhaps you're right, they could have had an interesting marriage. I can see Natasha fully devoting herself to Andrey and his career. But passionate ? As a matter of fact, Andrey didn't strike me as the passionate type --- maybe that's why Natasha became so infatuated with Anatole.

What do you think would have happened if Andrey got involved in the Decembrist activites and got exiled to Siberia ? ( Since he and Pierre shared the same ideas, and Pierre is a leader of one of the circles in the Epilogue. ) What would their life have been like ?

It's interesting that your wife's and your son's names are Natasha and Nikola. I guess in your country they're really interested in Tolstoy. Must be Slavic blood !

[stankovb]

Actually, Andrey's decline started after that dream he had, namely, his fever took a bad, exhausting turn after that.

Anyways, as you agreed, we can only speculate as to what actually caused his death and whether he actually willed it. That's why literary critics and so many interpretations of literary works exist !

Perhaps you're right, they could have had an interesting marriage. I can see Natasha fully devoting herself to Andrey and his career. But passionate ? As a matter of fact, Andrey didn't strike me as the passionate type --- maybe that's why Natasha became so infatuated with Anatole.

What do you think would have happened if Andrey got involved in the Decembrist activites and got exiled to Siberia ? ( Since he and Pierre shared the same ideas, and Pierre is a leader of one of the circles in the Epilogue. ) What would their life have been like ?

It's interesting that your wife's and your son's names are Natasha and Nikola. I guess in your country they're really interested in Tolstoy. Must be Slavic blood !

Olichka, I agree that Natasha was really an archetype of true mother- being a devoted mother and wife to her chosen husband. Strangely, she was very passionate and witty in her young years. Where did all this passion go? I think that Pierre was also not a prototype of a passionate man and even to the lesser extent than Andrey (finally we will end up with Anatole being the only really “passionate” lover?).

However, I kind of sense that Andrey was “latently passionate”; he only needed that trigger to “unleash” his passion – Natasha. Sadly, he discovered passionate love mostly while he was awaiting his physical end. But, he was also “crazy in love” with Natasha and therefore passionate to her – although he maybe did not show it physically proportional to his mental passion. Tolstoy said he was “not really behaving like a fiance”, meaning he was unbelievably shy and extremely delicate to Natasha. My feeling is that their love would have taken some kind of “passionate” course in the future. I only don’t know for how long would this last (perhaps until they had their children?). We all know that real life is so much different from dating, love affairs and ideal relationships.

As for the Pierre’s revolutionary ideas (he was also a fan of the French Revolution), I am not sure that Andrey would have actively participated in the Decembrist movement. Both of them (Andrey and Pierre) were noblemen, but somehow Andrey was more “aristocratic” than Pierre, who was really a true revolutionist (in his heart). Pierre became a member of Russian aristocracy only after the death of his father, old and very rich count Besuhoff, who unexpectedly left almost all of his wealth to Pierre. He was always a “child of fortune”, a lucky guy.

I don’t say that Andrey would not have captured some or all of the Decembrist ideas, but I cannot imagine him, the only son of an old-style Russian aristocrat, Prince Nikolay Bolkonski, being a “revolutionist” against the “bad-behaving” Russian Emperor or some of His majesty’s closest government managers. True, Andrey was really disappointed in all of that, but he would have had much more important job to do – raising his family, trying to educate his and Natasha’s children. Besides, Andrey, as well as Nikolay Rostov, Dolohov, Denisov and even Anatol Kuragin (to some small degree), was highly patriotic soldier of the Russian Empire / Emperor, while Pierre has never been a soldier, even though he was highly patriotic, sometimes a utopian one (he wanted to kill Napoleon – nothing less!).

That’s what I feel. And the ball is in your court again.

[olichka]

You made good points. It's true that sometimes shy people are latently passionate and just need the right trigger to " activate " their passionate natures. Perhaps Natasha would have been that trigger to Andrey by revitalizing him with her liveliness and affectionate nature. It's tragic that that part of Andrey's personality was not realized.

I always wondered why Andrey was so shy with Natasha. As you said, " he did not behave like a fiancee to her ", " he only kissed her hand " and said a formal " You ", rather than " thou " to her. During his proposal, he approached her with downcast eyes and was struck by the " seriousness of the passionate expression on her face ". Natasha herself was struck by his timidity towards her.

Was it just shyness and delicacy ( in view of Natasha's youth ? ), or was he formal and restrained ? Or did his behaviour indicate a somewhat passionless nature ?

It's interesting that during her infatuation with Anatole ( a truly passionate and totally uninhibited animal who, in contrast to Andrey, oggled her shamelessly with his protruding eyes ), Natasha thought of him as a strong and bold man. Could this have indicated that she was dissatisfied and unfulfilled with Andrey's reserve towards her and yearned for a more expressive and sensuous relationship ?

That's why I was doubtful about this aspect of their relationship. Perhaps Natasha was more compatible in this respect with Anatole.

As to Pierre, Tolstoy mentions several times his visits to " women ", perhaps of doubtful virtue and he was, after all, married to that lustful and voluptuous Helene. Tolstoy does mention his coming out of their bedroom with a revelatory expression on his face. So, it's safe to assume that Pierre was quite a " horny " guy, it's just that his lack of attractiveness and debonairness makes his sensuousness somewhat unappealing. And it's rather awkward to imagine him with Natasha.

Andrey is never described as being particularly or passionately interested in women. When he leaves his wife ( whom he doesn't love ) to serve in the army, he is never mentioned taking part in the officers' amusements or conversations about women. After his wife's death, he goes through a long period of mourning and depression during which he shows no interest in anyone.

It's only after his first meeting with Natasha that he starts thinking about the fair sex, the female beauty and love and staring at his handsome face in the mirror. When he finally arrives in St. Petersburg, although Tolstoy does mention that he is happily accepted in female circles there who look upon him as a very desirable bachelor, he still shows no interest in anyone. It's only when he meets Natasha again at that ball, that he finally falls in love again and develops interest in a relationship with her and marriage.

From all these details, it's evident that Andrey is not a strongly passionate man, although perhaps latently he may be ( perhaps he inhibits his drive, considering it sinful and distasteful --- after all, during his " coming to life " phase, he is described as having thoughts and desires which are as " secret as a crime " ) and perhaps with the right person he could have been.

His love for Natasha is of an artistic, aesthetic and delicate nature. He falls in love with her at a gorgeous ball while admiring her graceful dancing. Later he is described as being moved to tears while listening to her singing. The way he describes his emotions to Pierre, it's evident that they're of a poetical and courtly nature. And perhaps, as you've mentioned, later they could have developed into a more passionate kind, although tempered by good taste and a sense of propriety.

[olichka]

Actually, a lot of Decembrists were former soldiers, in particular heroes of the War of 1812 --- namely, Prince Sergei Volkonsky, Prince Troubetzkoy and others.

A lot of the Decembrists were Russian patriots who were interested in improving conditions in their country. Patriotism does not necessarily indicate devotion to the Tsar. As we know, Bolkonsky became disenchanted with the Tsar and refused to serve at the court.

[stankovb]

Actually, a lot of Decembrists were former soldiers, in particular heroes of the War of 1812 --- namely, Prince Sergei Volkonsky, Prince Troubetzkoy and others.

A lot of the Decembrists were Russian patriots who were interested in improving conditions in their country. Patriotism does not necessarily indicate devotion to the Tsar. As we know, Bolkonsky became disenchanted with the Tsar and refused to serve at the court.


I think you must be a man to fully understand Andrey: I am sure he WAS passionate, at least inside his self; he was only waiting for the right person (Natasha) and for the right moment (battle of Borodino?! Joking!). So, his main and ordinary mistake was waiting too long with the Natasha’s type of woman. But frankly: a man can do the same mistake with any type of woman. And I also know it from my own experience. You simply cannot allow too long hesitation/waiting period with women. I think any man can agree with me. For sure, Anatol was not waiting even for one millisecond… and we call him “the most passionate lover” of the Tolstoy’s novel!

For example, what do you think of young Bazarov, from the Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Children”? Was he a cold-blood rational scientist, interested mainly in nothing (a nihilist), except maybe in science and its purpose to the world? Suddenly, our “nihilist” turned into a passionate man, openly declaring love (in Anatol’s style!) to that fatal woman, pretty widow Odincova (“black widow”). Where did all his nihilism go at that time? Was he then a rational scientist or a passionate man? Genial Russian novelist Dostoyevski once commented on Turgenev’s novels/work and said that “he has got a full of passion Bazarov”. Was this genius wrong in his estimate?

On the other hand, I cannot picture Pierre as a “horny” and “passionate” guy. He was passionate just one time – when he saw beautiful Helene from the very proximity, allowing her charm to take his mind, almost similarly (but not to the same extent) as Andrey was driven out of his mind when he was dancing with charming Natasha at that famous ball in Petrograd. I am even not sure that Pierre was sleeping in the same room with his wife “on paper”, except maybe in the very beginning of their “marriage”. And from Pierre’s occasional visits to “women” I cannot conclude too much about his passion. He was there, trying to enjoy his life and trying to have some good time with his friends (was Anatol one of them?). Pierre was much more mental/intellectual/spiritual than passionate. But even his awkwardness was sympathetic to Natasha. She was often looking at him with sympathy, smile and a “slight trace of ridicule”. Where is the passion here?

I thank you very much for outlining some historical data, with which I was not too much familiar. I guess the Decembrist movement was righteous, being led by patriotic soldiers, prince Volkonsky being one of them. In fact, I think that in his masterpiece novel Tolstoy originally planned to describe the aristocratic family “Volkonsky”, but he changed their family name to “Bolkonsky” to avoid any similarities or even identities with the real family Volkonsky. I am also aware of the fact that Andrey was not in great love with the Russian Tsar and was therefore likely to become a Decembrist. However, I personally think that it’s a shame for Russians that so many “revolutions” (being justified or not) took place in their history from 1825 to 1917. I know that the Russian Empire was full of hidden weaknesses and was flickering, but to allow bolshevism and their supporters to dethrone (1917) and later savagely kill the last Russian Tsar – Nikolay Romanov – and his entire family – it is a huge national shame! There is not good excuse for this even though we today know that Germans infiltrated Lenin and his supporters to Russian empire via Finland and even though I know that true organizers of this “bolshevic’s revolution” were free-masons, the same order which once supported our dear and benevolent revolutionist Pierre.

[olichka]

Perhaps you're right : Natasha became dazzled by Anatole because she waited too long for Andrey to come back and was just yearning for passion and affection. Perhaps that incident with Anatole was just a "transference" of her passion for Andrey to Anatole. I'll take your word for it that you have to be a man to fully understand Andrey.

With regard to Volkonsky family, Tolstoy's own mother was actually a Volkonsky (Maria Volkonsky) and in describing the Bolkonsky family, Tolstoy actually used family chronicles. Thus, Princess Marya and Prince Nikolay were based on his mother and grandfather respectively. Except that his mother was an only child and didn't have a brother --- so Andrey is just a fictional character.

Before writing " War and Peace ", Tolstoy wanted to write " The Decembrists " , and for that he interviewed a distant relative of his mother --- Prince Sergei Volkonsky, a Decembrist who had recently returned from Siberia. So perhaps we can surmise that Andrey was destined for a fate of a Decembrist, based on the fact that there was a Volkonsky Decembrist in Tolstoy's family.

Have you read Nekrassov's " The Russian women " ? In it, he describes two women Princess Maria Volkonskaya ( wife of Sergey ) and Princess Ekaterina Troubetzkaya who follow their husbands into exile to Siberia. It's a very interesting read.

With regard to revolutions in Russia, the autocratic regime was so severe and inhuman that all thise revolutions were justified. However, I do agree that the massacre of Nicholas II ' s family was monstrous, particularly of their children ! But, in a way, Nicholas and Alexandra through their own stupid actions contributed to that end --- i.e. Alexandra listening to Rasputin when choosing ministers, Nicholas appointing himself Commander-in-Chief and his inexperienced and unpopular wife to rule the country during WWI, Nicholas' stubborn refusal to create a constitutional monarchy in Russia --- the list goes on !

[bazarov]

What is purpose of October Revolution?

[olichka]

What is purpose of October Revolution?

It was to improve the lives of the Russian workers and peasants by distributing the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and by giving them education, medical care and improving their factory conditions. Frankly, their lives did improve in these particular areas.

I've seen many pictures of the Russian workers/peasants from the pre-revolutionary period , and they do look down--trodden, miserable and over-worked. Compare these images to those of the Tsar's family --- refined, gorgeously-dressed, well--fed and serene ( and not having done back-breaking work to earn it ! ).

This is not to say that I approve of their murder !

[stankovb]

It was to improve the lives of the Russian workers and peasants by distributing the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and by giving them education, medical care and improving their factory conditions. Frankly, their lives did improve in these particular areas.

I've seen many pictures of the Russian workers/peasants from the pre-revolutionary period , and they do look down--trodden, miserable and over-worked. Compare these images to those of the Tsar's family --- refined, gorgeously-dressed, well--fed and serene ( and not having done back-breaking work to earn it ! ).

This is not to say that I approve of their murder !


Bazarov & Olichka: Greetings, Bazarov! I like your nickname and I am sure we both know that your favorite character wanted passionately to become a very successful “nihilist”, but he only succeeded to fall in a passionate love with lady Odintzova.

Just simple explanation: the “Decembrist Revolution” refers to upheaval led by some patriotic-minded Russian war veterans / officers /soldiers against bad internal (perhaps also external?) politics of Russian Tsar, in December 1825. They were unsuccessful in performing of their “revolution” and Tsarist regime remained to reign.

On the other hand, the “October Revolution” was led by Russian social-democratic leader Vladimir Iljic Lenin and his Bolshevistic party in October 1917. As Olichka already said, the main goals of the Revolution were: improvement of lives of Russian workers and peasants by distributing (confiscating) the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and obtaining education, medical care and improvement of factory conditions for them. As we all know, this revolution was highly successful and afterwards a new empire was established – the Soviet Union.

I am sure we all know that the S.U. was “ultimately principled, just and perfect community of happy and successful working people” in Russia and elsewhere in the S.U. It disappeared sensationally in 1990. It lasted only 70 years; so bright, just and prosperous state, the best state ever in the history of Earth. Do we know the reason for its disintegration? Of course, because all the enumerated state virtues were just imaginative, they existed just on paper. In reality, nothing similar took place.

Besides, there was also one more important reason for organizing and launching the October Revolution – making things easier for Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the First World War, 1917. For this reason, Germans logistically supported Lenin and his group, enabling them to entry into Russia (behind the front lines) via Finland. Once into Russia and using that “miserable, over-worked and depressed” workers/peasants and their enthusiasm for social changes, they very effectively ejected Russia from the I WW, captured the Tsar and his family and destroyed old and unjust Russian Empire. So, they built a new kind of state, society and order on behalf of building “better social conditions for all people”. That was really a “revolution”!

But in fact, it is really somewhat similar to French Revolution in 1789. The French revolutionists destroyed French as a kingdom, monarchy and established the “Republic of France”, on the basis of “liberty, equality and brotherhood”.

What is common for all “revolutions”? To destroy existing “evil” states/societies and to build “better” ones in the name of the most humane goals: better life and ample freedom for all people. Like many other systems, this one is also a utopia in practice.

One would also become interested in one amazing revolutionary similarity: all revolutions appear to be attempting to overturn monarchies. Why monarchies? To be able to answer to this question, I would need to open a new topic and to quote many sources, historic and religious above all. But, I will only try to quote one of the greatest ancient-Greek philosophers – Aristotle – from his tract “About State”: “The most just, the fairest mode of state appears to be the KINGDOM. It is based on the rule of only one man – state ruler – which is assumed to be almost perfectly just and gentle. This is something very much resembling God (Zeus - my remark) and His Kingdom (of God, that is, Jesus Christ – my remark). However, in reality, in practice this is very rarely possible and almost impossible. Therefore, A FIRST APPROXIMATION of the kingdom appears to be the democracy, the rule of many.” Today, we all have opportunity to estimate successfulness of democracies as well.

My conclusion would be: though everything in this MATERIAL world is relative and of questionable reliability and quality, we have to try to form creations that resemble the perfect and righteous DIVINE-SPIRITUAL world. This is also true for the state-society modes and configurations.

[olichka]

I think that it's impossible to ever establish a just, perfect state anywhere. Partly, it's due to human nature. No matter what the nature of society is, human beings are such that they always want to impose their will/desires on someone else to assert themselves or to make themselves superior. This type of behaviour appears everywhere : at work, recreation, friendships and family relationships. Everywhere people try to climb over each other to " rise above " whoever is upstaging them ( daughter, son, sister, friend, cousin, co--worker, etc, etc...) at that particular moment. So that there's always conflict and friction and hierarchy even in the most democratic of societies.

[lisahead]

I don't like Natasha. I only liked her right at the beiginning, when her Aunt would point at her and say "Cossack"! She became a bore and Pierre is a bore.

[lisahead]

And what about Petya? A truly loveable although minor character.

[bazarov]

I don't like Natasha. I only liked her right at the beiginning, when her Aunt would point at her and say "Cossack"! She became a bore and Pierre is a bore.

Yeah, like those womens who find boyfriend or a husband and then forget to live, they became like a furniture in their own house. Awful!

[Bleakhills]

Has anyone gotten an original version of W. and P. yet ?
I bought it last week and am reading it right now. It`s actually an interesting read, and gives additional info about the characters, as well as insight into their motivations.

Andrey does survive, but he and Natasha do not end up together --- he gives her up to secure the happiness of his sister Marya who loves Nikolay. However, he realizes that Natasha never truly loved him --- so, is it really a sacrifce then ?

It would be interesting to see what you guys think of this version.

There is an in depth study of all of Tolstoy's early versions of War and Peace by Kathryn Feuer. She traces the evolution of the major characters as they were split joined and mixed. For instance, the original Boris split into Boris Drubestkoi and Andry Bolkonskii; and Anaotole and Pierre came from a character named Petr Mosalskii.

[Belka]

Hi, everyone ! I'm new to this forum. I've heard of the " original version " and have seen it in bookstores. Has anyone here read it ? And is it worth getting and reading it ? Your advice will be greatly appreciated. :)

[Agatha]

Hi everybody, what a interesting discussion. Unfortunately I didn't read The original version of War and Peace. But I've recently read “War and Peace” and I have some conclusion. After reading book I was very sad that Andrei and Natasha won't be together. I felt, exactly like someone wrote before that Pierre was “consolation prize”(but I like him very much and he was my favourite character). And I was very surprised that Natasha has changed from a light-hearted, inexperience young girl to a sedate mother. And besides, I never liked her and I couldn't fully understand some of her actions. But after I watch 2 filming(Russian version and that new) of book and I've been thinking about this matter deeply I changed my opinion. Now I don't regret that Natasha didn't married to Andrei, because I doubt seriously, that so different characters could be happy together. I was wondering that Andrei would be happy with that Natasha form Epilogue- is it possible? Because we know that he wasn't happy in his first marriage- he was disappointed with his wife who liked only going to parties and talking about acquaintances. Lise never tried to understand her husband and Andrei was so miserable in this marriage. But before first marriage Andrei was in love and enchanted by her beauty – it reminds me a bit his feeling to Natasha. But of course he loved more Natasha than Lise- and I think he wouldn't like to make the same mistake again(I mean improper marriage). Maybe Natasha would be a better wife to Andrei, maybe she would try to undrestand his complex nature? We can only guess...

[Swanduckling]

Hello, Belka and Agatha !

This is, indeed, an interesting thread. Everyone has such interesting ideas !

To Belka : I've read the original version, and it's quite interesting, even
though it has an unpolished feel to it. The characters feel somewhat different, but it's also possible to understand them better.


To Agatha : I felt that Tolstoy was right to not unite Natasha and Andrey in incompatible matrimony. Their marriage would probably be only interesting during their honeymoon, and then picky Andrey would probably get bored with Natasha's preoccupation with the ordinary domestic matters. He'd probably become pretty disgusted with her sloppy ways, too !

As one critic has said ( paraphrasing here ) : When reading the Epilogue, the first question that comes to mind is : what would Prince Andrey have thought of Natasha ? I think he would have experienced the same feeling that Denisov did : one of disappointment and surprise.

[Belka]

Hi everybody, what a interesting discussion. Unfortunately I didn't read The original version of War and Peace. But I've recently read “War and Peace” and I have some conclusion. After reading book I was very sad that Andrei and Natasha won't be together. I felt, exactly like someone wrote before that Pierre was “consolation prize”(but I like him very much and he was my favourite character). And I was very surprised that Natasha has changed from a light-hearted, inexperience young girl to a sedate mother. And besides, I never liked her and I couldn't fully understand some of her actions. But after I watch 2 filming(Russian version and that new) of book and I've been thinking about this matter deeply I changed my opinion. Now I don't regret that Natasha didn't married to Andrei, because I doubt seriously, that so different characters could be happy together. I was wondering that Andrei would be happy with that Natasha form Prologue- is it possible? Because we know that he wasn't happy in his first marriage- he was disappointed with his wife who liked only going to parties and talking about acquaintances. Lise never tried to understand her husband and Andrei was so miserable in this marriage. But before first marriage Andrei was in love and enchanted by her beauty – it reminds me a bit his feeling to Natasha. But of course he loved more Natasha than Lise- and I think he wouldn't like to make the same mistake again(I mean improper marriage). Maybe Natasha would be a better wife to Andrei, maybe she would try to [/B[B]]..undrestand his complex nature? We can only guess.



I agree with a lot of your points, Agatha !

The most essential --- that Andrey was much more in love with Natasha than Lise. I think he married Lise because he had nothing else going on in his life at that time and because his father would have wanted him to marry her because of her wealth and connections. And she was pretty and charming, off course, and he became infatuated ( but only just ).


But I think that he would have become very disillusioned with Natasha in the Epilogue. As Swanduckling said, he probably would become disgusted with her sloppiness, since he liked grooming and tidiness, as well as attractiveness in a woman. And he wouldn't be too pleased with her abandoning her singing, etc. But then maybe Natasha would not have changed in this way, maybe she would have tried to please Andrey more than Pierre ? As you said, we can only guess...

You're also right that Natasha would have probably tried to understand Andrey more, since she was so giving. And she seemed to enjoy staying at home and taking care of her family, rather than partying like Lise, so in that respect she would have greatly pleased him.


Maybe someone should write a different Epilogue ... ??

[Swanduckling]

After reading numerous intellectual and grand posts on this thread, I felt that this discussion is getting a bit too serious. So I decided to post some delightful jokes to lighten the mood :


1 ) On the nature of pride :

Natasha is dancing at her first ball with Pierre Bezukhov. She notices dirt on his boots and points it out airily :

" Pierre, you have dirt on your boots ! ". Pierre walks out of the ballroom and, feeling dishonoured, shoots himself.

Next, Natasha is dancing with Prince Andrey. The same situation occurs. Andrey leaves the ballroom and shoots himself out of shame.

Lastly, Natasha is dancing with a simple army officer Rzhevsky. She points out the dirt on his boots. He laughs it off and says : " Oh, it's not dirt, it's " cow-mud " that I stepped in this morning as I was walking thru the cow-shed. Don't worry, as soon as it dries, it will fall off all by itself ! " ;)



2 ) On the nature of romantic love : :angel:


Beautiful lake. Graceful swans floating by. Lovely Natasha and simple army officer Rzhevsky walking by. Natasha turns to him and asks him rapturously :

" Lieutenant Rzhevsky, could you love someone the way these swans do ? ".

Scandalized, Rzhevsky shoots back : " What ?!! Right there... , in the ice-cold water ?!! " :lol:

[jessface]

Aren't the very qualities that Andrei falls for Natasha, her graceful and nimble dancing, her singing, her quick and expressive face and natures, the ones that disappear after she has children? So if Andrei did marry her it would all fall apart once natasha lost such things which attracted him. Pierre, although i still don't quite get how Natasha could have sexual attraction for someone who throughout the book is described as portly and rounded, on the other hand falls for Natasha over a period of years (instead of at one dance) and gets to know her for herself instead of the outside childish exterior.

[olichka]

Aren't the very qualities that Andrei falls for Natasha, her graceful and nimble dancing, her singing, her quick and expressive face and natures, the ones that disappear after she has children? So if Andrei did marry her it would all fall apart once natasha lost such things which attracted him. Pierre, although i still don't quite get how Natasha could have sexual attraction for someone who throughout the book is described as portly and rounded, on the other hand falls for Natasha over a period of years (instead of at one dance) and gets to know her for herself instead of the outside childish exterior.



Here are some excellent ideas, jessface !

I think that Tolstoy wanted to show that real, deep love develops over a period of years and after knowing the person really well, and is not sparked suddenly at one glamourous event.

That's why Andrey rejected Natasha so hastily ( after episode with Anatole ) because he hadn't acquired a deep understanding of her soul and real character. He was only interested in qualities that gave him pleasure.

I think that Tolstoy wanted to show that, although romantic and passionate love is exciting and intoxicating, it's the compassionate love that contributes to a good, long-lasting marriage.

After all, he did marry a woman ( Sonya Behrs ) whose family he had known for a number of years, and they were happy for the first 15 years of their marriage ! And, apparently ( according to some sources ), he wasn't madly in love with her when he married her !

With regard to Natasha falling for the unattractive Pierre, Tolstoy was probably making a case for himself -- he himself was unattractive, yet he made a good match. In general, in Tolstoy's novels, the attractive hero gets the girl at first, but then loses her later on ( e.g. Vronsky and Anna ) and the unattractive hero, although a loser at first, achieves long-lasting happiness later ( e.g. Levin and Kitty ).

Another point for compassionate love vs romantic !

[olichka]

After reading numerous intellectual and grand posts on this thread, I felt that this discussion is getting a bit too serious. So I decided to post some delightful jokes to lighten the mood :


1 ) On the nature of pride :

Natasha is dancing at her first ball with Pierre Bezukhov. She notices dirt on his boots and points it out airily :

" Pierre, you have dirt on your boots ! ". Pierre walks out of the ballroom and, feeling dishonoured, shoots himself.

Next, Natasha is dancing with Prince Andrey. The same situation occurs. Andrey leaves the ballroom and shoots himself out of shame.

Lastly, Natasha is dancing with a simple army officer Rzhevsky. She points out the dirt on his boots. He laughs it off and says : " Oh, it's not dirt, it's " cow-mud " that I stepped in this morning as I was walking thru the cow-shed. Don't worry, as soon as it dries, it will fall off all by itself ! " ;)



2 ) On the nature of romantic love : :angel:


Beautiful lake. Graceful swans floating by. Lovely Natasha and simple army officer Rzhevsky walking by. Natasha turns to him and asks him rapturously :

" Lieutenant Rzhevsky, could you love someone the way these swans do ? ".

Scandalized, Rzhevsky shoots back : " What ?!! Right there... , in the ice-cold water ?!! " :lol:




You have a very interesting, although rather vulgar, take on things, Swanducky ! But I guess your jokes illustrate very vividly how the romantic ideals are trampled upon by the harsh, unpleasant reality of life !

And who is Rzhevsky, anyways ? And where on earth did you hear such jokes ?

[Swanduckling]

You have a very interesting, although rather vulgar, take on things, Swanducky ! But I guess your jokes illustrate very vividly how the romantic ideals are trampled upon by the harsh, unpleasant reality of life !

And who is Rzhevsky, anyways ? And where on earth did you hear such jokes ?


I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else by posting these jokes on your thread, olichka, I just wanted to make fun of Tolstoy's penchant for sappy, " purified " love stories. Real life and relationships, after all, are very different --- " colder " and " muddier " ! ( As you yourself have concluded from the jokes ! ).

As to where I heard the jokes, I stumbled across them accidentally when I was looking up the novel on the Internet. Seems like Rzhevsky is a crude officer character from some Russian movie " Hussar's Ballad " set in 1812.

[WildCityWoman]

I'm in the middle of book 8 where Natasha has just been saved from a terrible mistake.

It seems to me that Natasha (at this point in the story), although she's just learned a big lesson, still has a lot to learn about love.

She seems to fall in and out of love too easily. She seems to have a hard time growing up and facing reality.

And looking forward to watching her character develop further.

[WildCityWoman]

I'd go further to say that I'm kinda' glad Natasha got that kick in that pants! She is one of those people who gets far too much attention.

It seems everything rotates around her - like her problems and feelings are all there is in the world - she seems to think so.

I know she develops further, and I'm looking forward to seeing her do so. She needs a heck of a lot more compassion than she has - so far it's just falling in and out of love.

Tolstoy's doing this well - showing the reader that love is a lot deeper than that.

(I must admit though, I'm a sucker for all those romantic scenes with her and Andrei - especially the guy that plays his part in the 2007 version of the movie - hoo hoo!)

[Swanduckling]

I'm in the middle of book 8 where Natasha has just been saved from a terrible mistake.

It seems to me that Natasha (at this point in the story), although she's just learned a big lesson, still has a lot to learn about love.

She seems to fall in and out of love too easily. She seems to have a hard time growing up and facing reality.

And looking forward to watching her character develop further.



Perhaps a whole year of waiting for a fiance who's away the whole time is too much for a 17-year-old ? Especially since their courtship was only --- what --- 3 weeks ? Can one really cement a love relationship in such a short time ?


Maybe Andrey should have married her first and then they could have gone abroad for his treatments !

[WildCityWoman]

I don't see that as being the only reason - Natasha seems to be easily swayed, it seems to me.

But like you say, she is only 17.

(I don't know why, but I thought she was 20 in this part of the book)

[WildCityWoman]

It's nice that you're still here, Cygnet . . . that's what a swan's duckling is, a cygnet -but you knew that, didn't you?

How far are you in this story - I'm working my way through Book 9 right now.

[Swanduckling]

It's nice that you're still here, Cygnet . . . that's what a swan's duckling is, a cygnet -but you knew that, didn't you?

How far are you in this story - I'm working my way through Book 9 right now.


Hi ! I think that you're confusing me with someone else : I'm Swanduckling, not Cygnet ! And I read the book a long time ago ! But I'm glad you're agreeing with me about Natasha's age being a factor.

[Swanduckling]

Hi again, WildCityWoman !

Actually, you may have estimated Natasha's age a bit closer than I have.

In the summer of 1805, she's described as being 13. In 1809 she's 16 ( but

maybe before the summer ? Please check the season for me ! ). Therefore,

at the time of the ball which is on Dec.31, 1809, she's definitely 17. By Jan.

1811, the time of her infatuation with Anatole, she's 18. But since we don't

know her exact birthdate, she may be 19.


Still, if she was 17-18 at the time of Andrey's proposal, that's still very

young to make a serious commitment, particularly after a very short, 3-week

courtship. And since Andrey was away for a whole year and wasn't " feeding " the relationship,

it's understandable why she got interested in a new person. She also felt neglected by him, as

when she showed displeasure when reading about his travels and so was vulnerable to Anatole's

admiring and flattering attentions.

That's what I think. Anyways, I think that a 3-week courtship is very unrealistic.

[bazarov]

Now days, yes. But, before 80 to 90 years women got married by 14-15, so Natasha was nothing strange.

[Swanduckling]

Anyways, I think that a 3-week courtship is very unrealistic.


I'm reconsidering this statement. Since Andrey spent whole days,

every day visiting Natasha, then maybe it was enough time

for them to get to know each other well.


Tolstoy's courtship of his own wife was only 2 weeks ( and she was 18

at the time ) , but then he had known her since she was a child ! And he

married her a month later, didn't leave her for a whole year !


I think before we decide this question, we need to know more about the

marriage/courtship traditions in Russia at the beginning of the 19th Century.

Does anyone know of a book on this subject matter ?

[WildCityWoman]

Hi ! I think that you're confusing me with someone else : I'm Swanduckling, not Cygnet ! And I read the book a long time ago ! But I'm glad you're agreeing with me about Natasha's age being a factor.

And I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying to you about your user name - swans do not have ducklings - they have 'cygnets'.

Anyway - you don't have to reply - it's more important that we discuss W & P.

[Swanduckling]

1) Poruchik is dancing with Natasha Rostova at a ball. Suddenly he gets the urge to go to the little boys' room. As a well-educated young gentleman he cannot say to his lady where he's going. So he says :


- Natasha, I beg your gracious beauty to excuse me for 5 minutes to go check on my horse if he's being fed properly in the stables.


He returns in 5 minutes wet from boots to the head.


- Is the weather rainy ?


- No, windy.


2 ) Colonel asks Poruchik how he manages to get money for booze and stuff.

- Easy. Come to a woman, grab her tenderly from behind, kiss her neck and she would give you anything you ask for.


The Colonel came home and did what Poruchik said. Colonel's wife :

- Poruchik, love, do you need more money ?


3 ) Natasha calls Poruchik.

- My husband went to play cards tonight.

- Hm.

- He'll return tomorrow.

- Ah ?

- I'm all alone.

- So ?

- I'm lying in my bed, completement au naturel. :blush:

- And ?

- Do you want to come over and keep me company ?

- Gotcha ! I'll be right there !

[Swanduckling]

Hello again !

I posted some jokes on the " Funny jokes to lighten the forum " thread. Go there and regale yourselves ! :)

[Melisande]

I came to this thread to find out more about the publication of "1805" (which must surely be what people mean when they say "the original War and Peace." Has it been published in English? If it was published under the title "War and Peace," then that's not the title Tolstoy used for it (it was published in 1867 under the title "1805"). The serial publication of the novel began in 1865 (Tolstoy started writing it in earnest the year he married, in 1863), and I'm trying to figure out how he managed to both publish an entire novel in a magazine (which then he re-edited, changing substantially many parts of it, including the ending), and publish a separate version in 1869 (the one we all know and love). He was rewriting constantly from 1865-1869, but if an entire version (called "1805") was published in 1867, does it mean that it was only after that publication that he changed the romance between Andrei and Natasha (etc.) I think Feuer's book on Tolstoy has all these details - but I don't have it yet. Anyone know?

[Melisande]

P.S. When I go to the Harper Perennial link posted above as being to the "original version" nothing at all by Tolstoy shows up (or Tolstoi) and nothing shows up under War and Peace. At any rate, Harper Perennial versions (there are some at the local bookstore) are the regular 1869 version - not the version known as 1805.

[cidkid]

Natasha was lovable as a youngster, as a young woman and adult she was the Virgin Whore if you ask me. Her heart is so fleeting and her emotions so impulsive that I don't believe for a second she ever truly loved anybody. I'm glad for Andrei's sake that they weren't married, although in "The Original Version" Bolkonsky's future is left off pretty dissatisfactorily, he neither finds love nor retires from military life, never finds the satisfaction he was searching for, except for some vague brief reference in the last pages to true happiness in life being derived from the happiness of others. I'm annoyed that Pierre marries her.. I'm glad for him, understanding his desire of her, but.. I don't think she comes close to deserving him. Masha the Virgin Whore: evidence that even 150 years ago an inspirational beauty could easily overthrow dark truths of beauty's character. Meanwhile Sonya is left alone. Nikolai.. I won't say I nearly compare his character to his sister's, but I was shocked and saddened for Sonya.