Sonya in "War and Peace"

[olichka]

As much fun as conjecture can be (hence the vast web of fanfiction based on many a cult classic) I think this thread is innappropriate for this particular novel.
I've read war and peace in its entirety several times and I frequently return to bits and pieces of it when I am between books or merely nostalgic. One of the most important themes in W&P is that there is no point in trying to divine the path a person may have followed had they made a difdferent choice. On the contrary, Tolstoy reiterates the inevitability of all that has happened and the utter irrelevence of contemplating "what-ifs"
Furthermore, it is natural for every character to behave as they do. There are no inconsistencies in any character in War and Peace, I suspect resulting from a deep understanding of human nature on the part of Tolstoy as well as much observation of men and women in his society.
Thus I don't think this question is worth discussing.

Also, the idea that Tolstoy intended that Sonya's life was wasted because she was not married is categorically untrue. He does clearly emphasize the sanctity of family love, but his definition of family includes not merely traditional nuclear families, but the "family" created by the web of love and loyalty developed through all the characters' respective relationships. (ie the lack of familial feeling demonstrative in the Kuragins' blood and marital relationships versus the fraternal love between the unrelated parties, Pierre and Prince Andre) To say that "Tolstoy clearly believed she chose the wrong path" is simply not well supported.

That's true, Tolstoy's definition of family is not just the traditional nuclear family, as demonstrated in his earlier works " Childhood ", " Youth ", etc. However, in these earlier works, which are also autobiographical, he is describing his own feelings of comfort and gratitude at having unmarried aunts in the family. To him, these aunts were of value. However, do we know how these aunts themselves felt ?

Why is he describing Sonya as bored and unappreciated then ? She may be an important part of the family, but her existence is still subordinate and even humiliating.

[conniekat8]

You make a good point. However, why is Tolstoy then describing Sonya sitting with a bored look by the samovar ? Why is he saying that her help is received with too little gratitude ? Why are Natasha and Marya pitiying her, comparing her to a fruitless raspberry blossom ?

Also, who else are you referring to when saying their life didn't reach their full potential, but, nevertheless, their lives weren't lost ? Is Prince Andrey one of those people ?

I'd like some to hear some insights from you with regard to this character's unrealized potential and the reasons for it.

Good questions you ask here.
here are my thoughts for Sonya's boredom, and for her work not recieving the gratitude it deserves and being pitied etc...
Even though her role is a necessary one in life, in general, some of those roles do not allow indioviduals to develop their self esteem and self efficacy (I think as Maslow calls it in hierarchy of human needs) to it's fullest, or even to that of Princess Maria or Natasha.

Unfulfiled lives, even though I don't consider them, wasted do carry a lot of hardships. Sonya, probably in order to reinforce her security and value within the family took on somewhat a martyr like role, and secured her position within the famuly, but at the sacrifice of her fuller personal development of other kinds.
What I think Tolstoy depicts very realistically that when we overdo humility, or overdo any aspect of our personality, it hinders development of other facets. Sonya was so selfless that even though she contributed to the family, she also allowed herself to be trampled, and even encouraged it.

Most people, even if unable to put their finger on it and describe what they're feeling, can sense when someone doesn't value themselves, and it prevents us from valuing them and getting closer to them. If Sonya had learned to value herself more, somewhere along the way, she would have probably been more attractive to Nikolay. But, that would require some serious learning and 'behavioral' change, therapy of today. Back in those days, personal emotional development was mostly left to chance and circumstance. Given Sonyas chance and circumstance, she could not have developed much differently then she has.

Now, does not securing a husband and having a child or having some regrets or unfulfiled desires and having longings make one's life of no value. That I don't believe. Being of no value, to me, would me that if she didn't exist, things would have worked out the same. Within the book, this is nowhere near true. Without Sonya, lot of more develped characters probably wouldn't have developed, or the family that she stayed with perhaps wouldn't have stayed together.

About pity for Sonya, Maria and Natasha may nave seen and recognized Sonyas longings, and perhaps even disrespected her life choices in some small form (where tolstoy says how it was hard for people to like sonya, it's hard for us to like people whom don't respect themselves). Another component to that would be that to a degree Natasha and Maria were assuming and projecting that what they desired in life is the same thing that Sonya was desiring. Nowdays too many people make the same sort of an assumption when trying to decide on a value another individual. We tend to think that what is interesting and important to us is or should be interesting and important to them, and make conclusions accordingly.

I'm sorry if above is little jumbled up, I'm trying to say a lot of what I'm thinking about in a short amount of time.

About prince Andrey, he too ended up not reaching higher levels of self efficacy, because of not letting himself get too close to people. Again, a combination of chance, upbringing, emotional makeup and circumstances. But, without him, several of the characters, like Pierre, Natasha, Nikolay and princess Maria could have fallen short of their fulfilments.

For example, without Andrey and his impact on natasha's life, Natasha may have developed to be more like Pierre's first wife, which she was a little bit on her way of becoming. Without Andrey, prioncess maria may have not have had the courage to accept and be interested in Nikolay... Princess Maria and Sonya have a lot of parallels in personality characteristics, but living in different circumstances, and having little different emotional support to develop more self value.

Andrey sort of fell victim of his choices, but not without making an impact. For example, when he was offered a safer post, rather then going into battle, he chose battle saying that he is more needed there. Yes, people like him were needed in the battlefont too, but, also people like him were needed at the helm too. Andrey could have gone either way and made an impact, but he made a choice to stay father away from the political and circumstances needing more emotional finesse... in large due to his personality. So, even though he made impact among his men, he also met his end.

With his like of distance and detachment, as much as I like Prince Andrey's character, long term, his and Natasha's personality wouldn't have been a good match. Natasha wanting and 'living for' a close knit family, and Prince Andrey cherishing his space, freedom and distance, it is likely that they would have drifted apart pretty quickly, a lot like Andrey and his first wife.

But, at the time they were infatuate with one another, Andrey and Natasha were exactly what each of them needed to progress. Andrey for some revived interest in life. Natasha needed maturing... and so did Pierre, in order to become interesting to Natasha.

Anyway, rather then determining value or no value, it is more interesting for me to see the interplay of characters and how they each affect one another. Almost as a fairly in depth analisys of the old saying 'everything happens for a reason'

[conniekat8]

Why is he describing Sonya as bored and unappreciated then ? She may be an important part of the family, but her existence is still subordinate and even humiliating.

LEts look at it in an oversimplified way... When I wash dishes, I'm bored out of my mind, hate doing it, don't feel appreciated... But the act of washing dishes and having clean and sanitary sink is certainly of value.

Not everything that is of value is fun and exciting or glamorous.
And a lot of fun, glamorous and exciting things are of a lot of value... like Natasha's potential eloper (can't recall his name this very minute).

Why is Sonya unappreciated... most of us fail to appreciate a lot of things and people worth appreciation. Why, lack of time, lack of interest, preoccupation with self.... this is just why self appreciation is so important. If one doesn't value themselves, they're not likely to find it elsewhere.
Those whom value themselves end up projecting an aura of satisfaction that so many people long for, and that makes them interesting to others. Most fairly balanced people like to associate themselves with those whom will enrich their emotional and spiritual existence, and tend to keep distance from those whom theu sense will become a drain.

Also, martyrdom is a two edged sword, on one side it helps many people, on the other hand a lot of those whom get in contact with it end up feeling guilty for not making a bigger sacrifice themselves. Especially since for most people it's vary difficult to find balance between give and thake, between all of our needs and feelings. We don't like to be around something that may make us thing we're failing in some way. Especially those 'society' people that Tolstoy describes, whom either think of themselves or their social position demands that they portray themselves as above the average human fallability.

[olichka]

About prince Andrey, he too ended up not reaching higher levels of self efficacy, because of not letting himself get too close to people. Again, a combination of chance, upbringing, emotional makeup and circumstances. But, without him, several of the characters, like Pierre, Natasha, Nikolay and princess Maria could have fallen short of their fulfilments.

For example, without Andrey and his impact on natasha's life, Natasha may have developed to be more like Pierre's first wife, which she was a little bit on her way of becoming. Without Andrey, prioncess maria may have not have had the courage to accept and be interested in Nikolay... Princess Maria and Sonya have a lot of parallels in personality characteristics, but living in different circumstances, and having little different emotional support to develop more self value.

Andrey sort of fell victim of his choices, but not without making an impact. For example, when he was offered a safer post, rather then going into battle, he chose battle saying that he is more needed there. Yes, people like him were needed in the battlefont too, but, also people like him were needed at the helm too. Andrey could have gone either way and made an impact, but he made a choice to stay father away from the political and circumstances needing more emotional finesse... in large due to his personality. So, even though he made impact among his men, he also met his end.

With his like of distance and detachment, as much as I like Prince Andrey's character, long term, his and Natasha's personality wouldn't have been a good match. Natasha wanting and 'living for' a close knit family, and Prince Andrey cherishing his space, freedom and distance, it is likely that they would have drifted apart pretty quickly, a lot like Andrey and his first wife.

But, at the time they were infatuate with one another, Andrey and Natasha were exactly what each of them needed to progress. Andrey for some revived interest in life. Natasha needed maturing... and so did Pierre, in order to become interesting to Natasha.

Anyway, rather then determining value or no value, it is more interesting for me to see the interplay of characters and how they each affect one another. Almost as a fairly in depth analisys of the old saying 'everything happens for a reason'

Thanks a lot for your analysis, I enjoyed it. You make excellent points.

With regard to Natasha developing along Helene's lines, perhaps you're right, if she married a permissive individual ( like Pierre ) without first experiencing a judgemental and unforgiving individual like Prince Andrey. Andrey`s rejection of her illustrated to her that her behaviour with Anatole ( her eloper ) was stupid and immoral which eventually led to self--evaluation and maturity. Remember when after his declaration of love for Natasha Pierre is announcing that he`s leaving for St. Petersburg, and Natasha is disappointed, but then realizes that it`s necessary even if boring and tiresome ? I guess she`s remembering what her reluctance to wait for Andrey led to --- she`s mature enough to realize now that things have to be done right, and that you have to postpone your pleasure and happiness in order to achieve it ?

However, if married to Andrey, then maybe she would have developed more along the lines of Anna Karenina ? Although Andrey was nowhere along the lines of the old-maid dry stick like Karenin, he was still reserved and proper, and Natasha with her intense emotional demands would have found him too self--controlled and distant and been forced to seek out someone like Vronsky --- dashing, passionate and free ?

Also, as you have mentioned and I fully agree with you, Andrey, with his need for space and independence and to be away from his family to pursue his government and society duties, they would have drifted apart even more, forcing Natasha EVENTUALLY, if not right away, to seek out a lover.

Perhaps Andrey needed someone more like Sonya --- grounded, steady and emotionally independent who could tolerate Andrey`s need for independence and distance. But then Sonya was also too ordinary and lacking vitality, so maybe Andrey needed a combination of Sonya and Natasha ?

With regard to Andrey meeting his end as a result of his choice to serve on active duty, perhaps he chose that because he was already entertaining a death wish ? After all, his life already had no meaning at that time-- he was seeeing it as a series of senseless, unfair events.
For the same reason he avoided ducking from the shell --- he hesitated because he wasn`t seeing any point to live any further. After all, he lost his life as a direct result of that particular decision.

[Bleakhills]

It seems to me that whenever Tolstoy needed a bad guy, he put Dolohov in the scene. It strains even the credulity of fiction readers to believe that one person would be on hand whenever there was evil to be done.

Did Tolstoy come out with an odd number of characters at the end and no one to pair up with Sonia? Sonia was a sweet creature that eveyone took advantage of. I have never been satisfied with the way Tolstoy handled her at the end of the book and sometimes think he just didnt know what to do with her.

[olichka]

It seems to me that whenever Tolstoy needed a bad guy, he put Dolohov in the scene. It strains even the credulity of fiction readers to believe that one person would be on hand whenever there was evil to be done.

Did Tolstoy come out with an odd number of characters at the end and no one to pair up with Sonia? Sonia was a sweet creature that eveyone took advantage of. I have never been satisfied with the way Tolstoy handled her at the end of the book and sometimes think he just didnt know what to do with her.

I think that Tolstoy just wanted to demonstrate that women who lack life ( like Sonya ) don't attract personal happiness and love and end up old maids. No wonder Sonya is later described as a fruitless raspberry blossom --- attractive, but useless. ( Mind you, this is not my personal opinion of Sonya ).

He kind of contradicts himself, though, by describing Princess Marya who's far from being exuberant, and yet she gets married and gives life to a number of children.

After all, Nikolay's choice of Marya was mostly due to her money, but since the character of Marya was based on Tolstoy's own mother, he had to rationalize that love and Marya's " rich " NATURE was the factor in Nikolay's preference for Marya.

[Bleakhills]

It does seem that Tolstoy wanted to demonstrate that the kittenish Sonia was too docile to acquire a husband of her own. In the earlier version of the novel that you mentioned, the selflessness of Sonia was to be paried with the identical sacrifice of Prince Andre who survived the war and stood aside to let Natasha marry his friend Pierre. But Tolstoy killled off Andre, and the sacrifice of Sonia does not seem to have any greatness in it. It was difficult for the aristocratic Tolstoy to ascribe to any of his impoverished characters the lofty feelings and motivations he gave to his wealthy educationed ones. This may be one of the reasons he reputiated his great novels in his later life. Another explantion of the characterization of Sonia could be Tolstoy's growing discontent with his wife Sofia(called Sonia). There had been three eligible girls in her family and Tolstoy really should have married the oldest daughter, Liza. Tolstoy chose instead the middle daughter, but throughout his life had a strong affection for the youngest sister, Tatyana, his model for Natasha. It could be that Tolstoy was fictionally expressing his wish for a wife like the vivacious younger sister, instead of the self-sacrificing woman he was wedded to for life, who was burdened with raising his children and running his house.

[Lillifen]

I loved reading these posts! They were written a long time ago, but perhaps someone will read this? I joined this forum so could add my twopence worth! I finished reading War and Peace today, and I loved it. I was, however, disappointed with Sonya's lot, though I do see why her character ended up in that situation. I really wanted more time spent on her personality, I felt there was a build up to knowing her inner thoughts, and she became really interesting, but then she was neglected. Also, she is capable of fun and spontaneity (if we assume this spontaneity wasn't inevitable!....); remember the Christmas sleigh ride, when she had a moustache and went to the barn on her own, to be joined be Nikolay shortly after? Anyway, in my own personal imaginary 3rd epilogue, she breaks free, becomes a military nurse and rediscovers value in herself through those who value her and meets someone much better than Nikolay. Not Dolokohov. Someone cheerful and straightforward and dedicated; maybe that little man that was in charge of the unguarded battery at Borodino. (Unless he died?) And she makes him better. So you see, she's all sorted really.

[Greenstick]

This question has already been asked before by lostdog on a thread " Nikolay in War and Peace " in a "Threads in Forum" category of the sub-forum on Tolstoy, but no-one except me replied, so I decided to post it here :

Do you think she would have made a good marriage with Nikolay ?

The only important thing here is what Tolstoy himself thought about this. And his answer was clear: No way! Tolstoy of that period was convinced that financial independence was a must for men of his social class to happy family life. Moreover, without marrying Mary Nikolay would lose any interest for the novel as it almost happened in the period between his father's death, bankruptcy, and that fateful meeting with Mary. This is relevant to the philosophy of the novel and more broadly to the modern condition. Only men who have the freedom of moral choice and can freely choose their path in life are of interest to the novel and for its set of developing characters. Only financially independent men can enjoy this freedom. The rest of mankind, from the common laborer to the impoverished noble on state service like Nikolay are not free to exercise their humanity and cannot form the leading set of novel's characters.

[Jackson Richardson]

That sounds more like Jane Austen than Tolstoy - that financial security is to be taken into account as much as love for a marriage.

The character who exemplifies the highest moral or spiritual significance is the peasant who looks after Pierre when he is destitute.

I thought for Tolstoy renunciation rather than social position was needed for freedom.

[Greenstick]

That sounds more like Jane Austen than Tolstoy - that financial security is to be taken into account as much as love for a marriage.

Well, this conviction Tolstoy articulates through Countess Rostov. As we know, at first Nikolay rebels against this low pragmatism because it humiliates his sense of honor and justice. But since all must end well in this novel, Tolstoy makes sure his integrity is not compromised by marrying Mary and leaving Sonya a spinster. Our Lev Nikolaevich even comes up with a neat argument "from nature" which he put's in Natasha's mouth. Something is innately wrong with women like Sonya. They are like "sterile flowers... like strawberry blossoms." And just to make sure that all indeed ends well, Tolstoy aka Natasha adds that Sonya does not have the capacity to feel the way Natasha and Mary do. So yes, Austen and Tolstoy of War & Peace, just as thousands of other writers of their time were very much aware of the difference between men of property and the rest of us. But unlike Austen and other bourgeois artists, Tolstoy was bigger than his class identity, too honest and daring. But then he was not middle class.

The character who exemplifies the highest moral or spiritual significance is the peasant who looks after Pierre when he is destitute.

This is partly true. But Platon Karataev cannot be a novelistic character. He's static, finished, complete... and can serve only as inspiration for the spiritual growth of the developing characters like Pierre who realizes that he cannot and should not become like Platon. Here lies the fundamental problem for Tolstoy and not only for him. He will struggle with it till the day he left Yasnaya Polyna.

I thought for Tolstoy renunciation rather than social position was needed for freedom.

Yes, but not for the Tolstoy of W&P and not for "freedom" but for living in truth.

Thank you for comments!

[Jackson Richardson]

I'm not sure the Reverend Mr Austen's daughter would call herself "bourgeois" in so far as that means getting your money through trade. The English clergy of her day got their money not as a salary but as the profits of land, just like the gentry to which they belonged.

You are in danger of sounding as if only aristocrats are sufficiently confident to have a sound view of life. Much as I enjoy Nancy Mitford, that does exclude a whole lot of very worthwhile writers.