Irony in W&P

Printable View

08-26-2008, 07:51 PM
curlyqlink

Irony in W&P

I'm finding War and Peace to be surprisingly lively and entertaining, and I think a big reason is Tolstoy's irony. Pierre's involvement with the Masons is absolutely delightful: the absurd rituals, the numerology (Napoleon's "number" is 666-- given enough juggling!) Poor, likable Pierre... he's so serious about the Masonic code... while to everyone else it's just a social club!

I'm now wondering about Tolstoy's treatment of the Tsar and patriotism, and his treatment of religion. At times, he seems to be treating the Tsar with true reverence. But then again, the populace's Tsar-worship seems to be absurdly over the top. And the Tsar himself seems a bit of a goofball at times. Shoving matches in the street as his majesty tosses biscuits to the crowd... old ladies trampled as the mob cries out "angel! father!" It makes the patriotic fervor of 1812 seem more than a little absurd.

Religion takes its knocks also:
But [Natasha] could not pray for the trampling of her enemies underfoot, when she had only a few minutes before been wishing she had more of them to forgive and pray for. But yet she could have no doubts of the righteousness of this prayer that had been read by the priest on his knees.

This is all so absurd, contradiction on top of contradiction, it seems clearly ironical.

I think at this point what I admire most about Tolstoy is his lively ridicule of human folly, which he manages while maintaining a deep sympathy for all of his characters. It's remarkable!
10-26-2008, 07:17 PM
WildCityWoman

Yes, I agree there . . .

But life itself is ironic, and that's what Tolstoy writes from - life!

His time in the armed services is what he's using for the military segments. As for the social aspect, he was a dyed in the cloth 'people watcher'.

There are so many things in the story that can get you angry - people being trampled, well I haven't got to that part yet, but I can imagine.

I'm in the middle of Book 8, where Natasha has been given a huge lesson on the reality of life.

There are people in this book that you'd like to walk up to and give them a big hug. And there are people you'd like to give them a swift kick.

What's wonderful is the way Tolstoy has his characters develop - when I began this book I didn't like Pierre much and I didn't like Andrei. Now, I just love them both.

Helene was somebody I thought I was going to like, but I do not like her at all now.

The men . . . grrrrrr! It annoys me the way Andrei has kept Natasha waiting to hear from him - but I'm sure there's a good reason for that.

And Nicolas - he took all that time deciding about Sonya while the poor girl's growing old waiting for him.

Andrei's father - old Bolkonsky! Arrrrrgh! Somebody needs to bump him off.
10-28-2008, 07:32 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCityWoman

The men . . . grrrrrr! It annoys me the way Andrei has kept Natasha waiting to hear from him - but I'm sure there's a good reason for that.

He didn't like her, neither other womens also. He aimed for higher purpose, only he never got a clue what was he looking for.
It really turned out she did not deserve him, and that she, beautiful like a rose had more then one torn; and luckily, he escaped it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCityWoman

And Nicolas - he took all that time deciding about Sonya while the poor girl's growing old waiting for him.

She was waiting for him, that doesn't necessary means he sees her like best option. That's life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCityWoman

Andrei's father - old Bolkonsky! Arrrrrgh! Somebody needs to bump him off.

Why? He is very realistic, old and traditional, with no women to soft him a little bit.
10-30-2008, 02:19 AM
WildCityWoman

Hey, you don't like women do ya'?

:lol:
10-30-2008, 03:18 AM
JBI

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCityWoman

Hey, you don't like women do ya'?

:lol:

No, he is just familiar with the text. Keep in mind, Tolstoy was writing realism, not romantic literature. I think many of the questions addressed are understood by understanding this distinction.
10-31-2008, 06:18 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBI

No, he is just familiar with the text. Keep in mind, Tolstoy was writing realism, not romantic literature. I think many of the questions addressed are understood by understanding this distinction.

Excellent, mon ami! :)
11-26-2010, 02:14 PM
mouseofcards89

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I'm finding War and Peace to be surprisingly lively and entertaining, and I think a big reason is Tolstoy's irony. Pierre's involvement with the Masons is absolutely delightful: the absurd rituals, the numerology (Napoleon's "number" is 666-- given enough juggling!) Poor, likable Pierre... he's so serious about the Masonic code... while to everyone else it's just a social club!

True enough, that. I got the impression that he was simply grasping at straws in the immediate wake of his duel with Dolohov, looking for some source of higher reason which would empower him and give meaning to his feckless spending on anyone who needed money from him. Not until after his captivity at the hands of the French did Pierre truly become disenchanted with religious institutions. On the one hand, when he joined the Masons, he had a need to see himself as magnanimous, as one who realized the wrong that his wife had done him and retaining his own sense of justice while continuing to concede to the will of others (notably Prince Vasilii). He doesn't learn to think for himself until near the end of the book, to ascribe to a higher way of thinking and really listen to himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I'm now wondering about Tolstoy's treatment of the Tsar and patriotism, and his treatment of religion. At times, he seems to be treating the Tsar with true reverence. But then again, the populace's Tsar-worship seems to be absurdly over the top. And the Tsar himself seems a bit of a goofball at times. Shoving matches in the street as his majesty tosses biscuits to the crowd... old ladies trampled as the mob cries out "angel! father!" It makes the patriotic fervor of 1812 seem more than a little absurd.

This had something to do with Tolstoy's repudiation of the notion of the 'great man,' of a prime mover who really and truly influences history beyond the scope of personal interests. Alexander I was reasonably popular with his subjects during the Sparensky years, although, as Tolstoy himself claimed, he later made several unpopular appointments, gave the Poles a Constitution, etc. As a man, Tolstoy believes that he was less of a prime mover than any one of the private soldiers who engaged in battle with Napoleon. He represented more of a conventional notion of history (or, at least, what was conventional in Tolstoy's day); he was meant to embody the 'great hero,' the figurehead who inspired the masses in place of a direct deity. Of course, Tolstoy tells us that this is not so; he is an ordinary man. I'm not sure if I would call it absurd, given the cult of celebrity that runs rampant in the world today, though it is definitely a very insightful perspective on human nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

Religion takes its knocks also:
But [Natasha] could not pray for the trampling of her enemies underfoot, when she had only a few minutes before been wishing she had more of them to forgive and pray for. But yet she could have no doubts of the righteousness of this prayer that had been read by the priest on his knees.

This is all so absurd, contradiction on top of contradiction, it seems clearly ironical.

I think at this point what I admire most about Tolstoy is his lively ridicule of human folly, which he manages while maintaining a deep sympathy for all of his characters. It's remarkable!

Maybe so, but Catholicism took far worse lumps than the Orthodox faith did. Tolstoy chose to depict it as the faith of harlots, demonstrated by the manner in which Countess Elena Bezuhov converted to it as a way to obtain a divorce. Besides, I see this treatment of the Orthodox faith as almost conciliatory. He openly exposed (and possibly espoused) these contradictons rather than let them pass by unobserved. In my mind, a tactic like this which openly admits contradictions states that there is a well understood place in society for religion.