alley_skywalker

I was asked on Tumblr about whether I thought Helene was actually having an affair with Dolokhov or if Dolokhov was just trying to "make everyone, especially Pierre" believe that. So here are my thoughts on that account.

So, first, I don’t think Dolokhov was trying to make anyone believe anything. We have no indication of that. He was definitely trolling Pierre at the club, but this sounded far more like him taking advantage of things other people had already done (i.e. spread rumors) and kinda shrugging and turning them to his advantage. It was all very “wink-wink nudge-nudge” not like he was seriously trying to make Pierre believe or not believe anything.

As for whether or not they actually had a n affair. Ha. See, I think it’s completely wide open in canon. I don’t think there’s actually any “canonically right” answer here. (And part of me thinks this is almost an intentional authorial choice.) I don’t think the text supports anything other than maybe a flirtation. (But is open enough that it could have happened.) If I had to choose just one scenario to headcanon that I personally believed was most likely, I would say there was a flirtation but nothing more, no actual affair.

( Read more... )

Boris - fair hair - book 1 chap 11

Natasha - “black” hair - book 1 chap 11

Nikolai - dark hair implicitly, as he is growing a dark mustache - book 1 chap 11

Sonya - brunette - book 1, chap 12

Mlle. Bourienne - blonde, fair haired - book 1 chap 26

Dolokhov - fair hair - book 2 chap 2

Anatole - light brown (Russian word is “rusiye”) - book 3 chap 4

Lise - dark hair - book 4 chap 9

Andrei - brunette - book 6, chap 15

Balaga - fair hair - book 8 chap 16

Nikolai Bolkonsky Jr. - light brown - first epilogue, chap 12

So, I saw someone say that the fact that Natasha’s mother’s maiden name was Shinshin (Shinshina, actually – Shinshin is an anglicization) means that she “isn’t white.” Now…this confused me a bit because even when I was reading the book (in Russian) the first time, the last name didn’t sound particularly foreign to me. But I decided to poke around some Russian resources and see what I could find re: the name’s origins.

The information is really pretty scarce because this is not a common last name. But. It seems like this is actually a Ukrainian-origin last name. Now, I did read a theory that the root word of the name is a Ukrainianization of a Circassian word meaning horseless/one who lacks horses (i.e. is of small means). I…can’t say how reliable this theory is, but it’s not improbably: there would have been plenty of cultural exchange in that area, especially in, what we would think of as, the late Renaissance/early Enlightenment period, especially via the Crimean Tatars. So, it’s possible that a long-ago ancestor of someone with the last name Shinshin would have been a Circassian or a Tatar. But…again, even in this theory the word is a Ukranianized version and the name itself is considered Ukrainian, not Tatar or Circassian.

Oh, but while we’re on the subject of various Southern Russian/Ukrainian and Turkish ethnicities – I’ve also seen people point out that the text will occasionally mention Natasha’s mother having “Oriental” (literal translation being “Eastern”) features (though Natasha doesn’t seem to have inherited them.) This is a really vague description – in Russia people will use this description loosely. Anything like narrow-ish eyes or high ~Mongolian cheekbones can get your features labeled as Asian. Interestingly enough, some, otherwise very Slavic (lineage and looks wise), Russian people will sometimes have certain facial features that look distinctly Mongolian/Turkish. (This is the case with my mom and I.) I haven’t done any kind of academic research on this, but like…Russia spent a ton of time under Mongol occupation. It was all the way back when but genes are a funny thing – they sometimes pop up many generations later.

But also, Asian (or “Eastern”) doesn’t necessarily refer to Far Eastern (like China, Japan, Korea, etc). in conversation, people will often refer to “Eastern” (e.g. “eastern looks,” “eastern culture,” “eastern customs”) to also refer to a broad concept of Asian, i.e. Turkish or Arabic/Middle Eastern. Everyone can get kinda lumped together in this definition, though, admittedly, the most common usage does refer to Far East Asia. It seems most likely to me, at any rate, that if Natasha’s mother’s family did have some non-Slavic roots (though, I would argue, these would have been a few generations back), they are more likely to be Circassian or Mongolian or Tatar or some other ethnicity along those lines.

I was asked to Explain Myself about why I dislike Natasha and like Anatole despite how alike they are. I do kind of struggle to articulate this properly and have to constantly question myself on it. I don't want to fall into some kind of internalized sexism trap but here's some of my feelings/reasoning on this...

( Read more... )

1818.

Dolokhov doesn’t need to open Galia’s letter to know what it will say. Toto needs a proper tutor. He’s six and far too old for a nanny. He also knows that she is right. His son needs a tutor. He needs to learn French, and literature and mathematics. Dolokhov can show him some things but he’s not a teacher. He doesn’t have the patience or talent for it.

( Read more... )

Seriously, though. The Kuragins aren’t broke. The Rostovs are broke, and Tolstoy makes a big show out of how that plays out. The Kuragins are not as rich as Count Bezukohov or the Bolkonskys, but they’re not broke. Nothing implies this. In fact, on the contrary:

They have multiple estates (we know, because Vasili goes to inspect them in November, IIRC, of 1805). The Rostovs have at least one estate, but we’re told that it has been mortgaged and re-mortgaged and they’re forced to sell it off later on. We are given no such indications of financial troubles for the Kuragins.
They live in Petersburg (and are part of Petersburg high society). General knowledge about Imperial Russia tells us that living in Petersburg was notably more expensive than living in, say, Moscow. (By the way, who are the families who live primarily in Moscow? Right. The Rostovs and Dolokhovs, who are the ones with actual financial problems. Also, the Rostovs have some ties to Petersburg and aren’t completely ostracized there of course, but it’s clear that they’re a little awkward there, outsiders. That kind of cream-of-the-crop high society is not their normal social circle.)
Anatole receives a very large allowance. Compare: Anatole spends about 20k rubles a year + about another 20k in debt which his father pays off for him. Nikolai’s allowance for 4-5 months (late December to May) is about 2k so, approximately 6k a year. (This, btw, is before the card game. And in that card game Nikolai loses a little more than Anatole’s annual expenditures (43k), and this is treated like a practically insurmountable amount by both Nikolai and his father.)

To that last point: does Vasili Kuragin complain a bit about Anatole’s spending? Yea. But, look, Anatole spends about twice as much as he’s actually supposed to. It’s obviously annoying. But does Vasili Kuragin actually strike anyone as the sort of person who would allow his son’s frivolous activities to bankrupt the family? Come on, of course not. And he holds the purse strings, btw. Yet, he never cuts Anatole off. He only tells him in about 1810 that he will no longer pay his debt because he’s trying to get Anatole to marry already. It’s not a necessity measure, it’s blackmail.There is no indication that the strain Anatole’s activities puts on the family’s finances is actually significant.

So then why does Helene have to marry Pierre? Why is Vasili Kuragin constantly trying to sell off his children to the highest bidder? Because he’s a social climber like woah. Vasili is trying to level up. Look who he’s aiming for: Bezukhov, Bolkosky, Julie Karagin (who, btw, is an heiress. Unlike Marya, she’s not getting just a dowry, she’s getting all of it.) Vasili wants more money and power, sure. Because that’s what social climbers want and social climbing doesn’t just stop when you get to “rich.” It’s a constant bid for more than you currently have.

Also, marrying Helene to a rich husband would always be helpful. Vasili milks that marriage for all its worth. But it’s not a family-saving move the way marrying Anatole would be. (And notice how very not-persistent Vasili seems to be about this. He has a lot of time between 1805 and 1808 or so – when Anatole’s Polish thing happens – to wrangle Anatole into a marriage to an heiress and the results are zero. And his initial attempt is Marya and all Vasili can get out of that marriage is a large dowry. Which is nice, but in a need-money scenario, he’s be looking at heiresses.) I mean…the husband owns all the money anyway. Also notice how the Rostovs put at least some pressure on Nikolai to marry well, whereas neither Vera nor Natasha are pressured in quite the same way. (Denisov is rejected not because of money but because Natasha is only 15 when he proposes. No one even thinks to oppose Vera’s marriage to Berg who is beneath her in both social and economic status.) Helene’s marriage is advantageous, especially since Pierre is the sort of person you can milk for cash. But if Vasili was trying to save the family from ruin via marriages, his first priority would be marrying HIppolyte or Anatole to an heiress which he…aims for, but doesn’t pursue quite as doggedly as one might expect, especially from someone like him.

Helene had to marry Pierre because her father has Ambitions, not because Anatole spends too much money. Come on.

This goes for both War and Peace and Great Comet, the book obviously has a lot more context and stuff to go off of but:

Natasha is not scared of Anatole. She is scared of herself.

She is scared of her own feelings, of her desires. Yes, these feelings and desires are caused by Anatole, but he’s not the problem for her, the way she reacts to him is. I don’t have the book on hand so I can’t quote directly, but that lack of a barrier of modest that she’s never felt before? That’s her problem – she’s infatuated, she’s lusting after him and she doesn’t understand it because a) it’s the first time this has happened to her and b) no one exactly talked to girls about sex and sexual feelings back then in any way that wasn’t to make them look like a bad thing. So yes, she’s confused because she’s going through a sexual awakening and has no idea what the hell that is. Not because Anatole is so intimidating. He’s a tad pushy, sure, but he never forces or even coerces her into anything.

It’s very clear that this is Natasha’s sexual awakening. In the book, that’s part of her character development. In fact, I’d say this is where her character development starts. She begins to slowly grow up mentally and emotionally. (Although, most of that is driven by the feelings of regret and a sudden understanding that things like consequences for one’s actions exist. But this is still the initial breaking point.) Now, Natasha is young but she’s not 13. She’s been proposed to before – twice. She’s liked men before and they have definitely liked her. But all her previous dalliances were childish and platonic/completely non-sexual. She was only 13 when she liked Boris, she was 15 when Denisov proposed and she wasn’t even into him really. Her feelings for Bolkonski were arguably adult enough, but they were still absolutely non-sexual. Even the romantic component of their relationship was mostly the fantasies that she has built up about how these things work. She likes him. She admires him. She’s flattered that he likes her. But at no point does she desire him.

And then comes Anatole and everything explodes. He’s her first sexual attraction and it’s dizzying because the first time that happens it often times is. Also, no one has sat her down and talked to her about it, certainly, so she is unprepared. She’s scared because these feelings are new and she doesn’t know how to handle them. (One big difference between the musical and the book is that, I think, at one point Natasha tells Anatole “you’re hurting me” or something like that when he grabs her hand or something. Nothing like that happens in the book. Also, because Natasha is narrating her feelings outloud in the music and it’s hard sometimes to tell what she’s actually saying and what’s interior monologue, it feels like she’s resisting him more than she actually is.) Natasha’s struggles here aren’t about Anatole or anything he does really – they’re about her and her interior workings. This is about how she sees the world and how that worldview is starting to change, on fast-forward after this point.

Also, something that only comes across with the book, I guess, is that this whole…incident is thematically about Natasha and the “right” sort of love. Tolstoy is huge on the whole “lust/passion is bad, platonic love is good.” This theme is even more pronounced in Anna Karenina but we see some of it here as well: Helene and Anatole are bad because they sleep around. Pierre and Andrei’s feelings for Natasha are appropriate because they are platonic (maaaybe romantic, but Tolstoy’s classifications are a little different from how we’d thing about these things today) and, at any rate, marriage-and-family-oriented. It’s that whole “spiritual elevation” type thing. (They put her on a pedestal ok? That’s the modern way of saying it, I guess.) Natasha gets a taste of both sides of this coin. With Anatole she’s Anna Karenina, later, with Pierre, she’s Kitty. But since she’s one character, she has to go through the “bad” kind of love first to fully appreciate the “right” kind of love later. But again, Natasha is scared because she’s having “scary” feelings. It’s not about Anatole.

(An aside: I’m annoyed that Anatole has a line in the musical that’s like “I’ve found a new pleasure and I’m taking her away.” Nothing like that exits in book canon. Because that’s not how he’s thinking about it. Natasha and Anatole are actually mirrors, especially so here when they are thrown together. They both mistake their feelings of lust for love. The difference is that Natasha is scared and confused by her feelings because they’re new. Anatole pursues his.)

Current Mood: flirty

This was originally written in responses to a Tumblr ask asking why I love Dolokhov/why he's my fave <3

So, I really love Dolokhov. Sometimes I get confused between just loving him and loving him as a character – i.e. I’m not sure how I’d feel about a person like Dolokhov in RL, we probably wouldn’t get along, but on the other hand, he’s very relatable and likable in a lot of ways, has a lot of traits that I admire. Also, he’s a lot of things I like characters to be, without necessarily wanted RL people to be those things. The fact that he’s a secondary character, mostly there to support other characters’ plotlines and arches, means that there is a bit of mystery, room for speculation and maneuvering.

So: Things I Love About Dolokhov, A Short List:

He’s brave. (Sometimes to brave.) And this is both in battle and just in life – he’s not afraid to stand up to people, even if they’re in power.
He’s got an incredible sense of dignity and self-worth (and confidence). He won’t lower himself or suck up to people just to get a benefit or improve his position. “If I want something, I won’t ask. I’ll take it.”
Related to the above: he’s completely willing to stand up for himself. “General, I must obey orders, but I am not bound to endure insults.”
Also related: he’s confident. He’s far more interested in what he thinks of himself than what people think of him.
But…on the other hand…I feel like that confidence is kind of…created. With Anatole it’s just sort of there. With Dolokhov, I get the feeling that this is something he’s had to work for, that there is, deep down, this idealism and, with that, some kind of desire to fit in more, maybe. And that makes him relateable.
He’s smart. (Never forget those “intelligent” blue eyes.)
But also practical and realistic. He makes things work for himself, makes ends meet, even though he obviously has a much harder time than people ostensibly of the same social class as him.
He knows himself really well and his honest with himself about who he is – including his own faults.
He’s incredible loyal to those he loves.
And he takes care of and looks out for the people he loves.
He knows how to have fun! Seriously, I highly appreciate the people/characters who can just relax and have fun and not feel guilty about it afterwards.
Obviously, he has leadership skills. Which, I don’t know if that on its own is very impressive to me necessarily, but it is indicative of a good deal of charisma and social skill.
He’s not judgmental in a sanctimonious sort of way. Sure, he’ll judge you for being incompetent, but as long as you meet his competence standards and do no harm to those he cares about, he probably doesn’t give a damn about how you choose to conduct your private life.
His snark can be great.
That he falls in love with Sonya. ~~And not Natasha.~~
As a character, I like that he’s kind of morally ambiguous, that’s complicated, that there’s room for interpretation and theorizing. I like that he’s not always predictable and you sometimes wonder what made him do something (like, the conversation with Pierre before Borodino.) I like that he makes you feel conflicting emotions – you can admire him one moment and be pissed at him the next. For all that he’s a secondary character, there’s an incredible amount of depth and material there to work with if you’re willing to think about it long enough.

(I think that list turned out longer than I thought it would, hm.) I’m so happy to meet another Dolokhov fan! I’d love to hear your thoughts on him too :)

So I’ve already talked some about how the scheming seducer stereotype doesn’t fit Anatole’s character at all here. But I wanted to pull a few more quotes and make a few more characterization comments.

“He regarded his whole life as a continual round of amusement which someone for some reason had to provide for him” (Book 3, Chapter III)

You know, this is why Tolstoy really doesn’t like Anatole. For Tolstoy, men are supposed to seek intellectual pursuits which lead them to the Meaning of Life (which is inevitably centered on faith and family, as per the Tolstonian model.) Just happiness can’t be the point of life. (WTF not though?) Anatole, on the other hand, just wants to enjoy life. He sees no need to search for a meaning. He has always been given what he wants (rich, youngest child, it’s inevitable really) and he associates with other people of the same circumstances so he has no reason to question it. He takes the resources he has - money, social status, self-confidence, etc - and he puts them to use. In this way, he is very much like both Helene AND Natasha. Like Helene, because she also puts the privileges she has to use and in service of her desires. Like Natasha, because Natasha is also air-headed, sheltered, carefree, privileged and often completely incapable of understanding how her actions affect others.

“Anatole was not quick-witted, nor ready or eloquent in conversation, but he had the faculty, so invaluable in society, of composure and imperturbable self-possession. If a man lacking in self-confidence remains dumb on a first introduction and betrays a consciousness of the impropriety of such silence and an anxiety to find something to say, the effect is bad. But Anatole was dumb, swung his foot, and smilingly examined the princess’ hair. It was evident that he could be silent in this way for a very long time.” (Book 3, Chapter III)

He doesn’t particularly care what people think of him and has an ingrained sense of self-worth and confidence. To be honest, it’s actually quite attractive.

“Anatole was always content with his position, with himself, and with others. He was instinctively and thoroughly convinced that it was impossible for him to live otherwise than as he did and that he had never in his life done anything base. He was incapable of considering how his actions might affect others or what the consequences of this or that action of his might be.”

This is basically a more expanded version of the two quotes above combined. My commentary on those quotes covers more or less everything in this one. Except for maybe one more note: he likes people.

“He was not a gambler, at any rate he did not care about winning. He was not vain. He did not mind what people thought of him. Still less could he be accused of ambition…and he laughed at distinctions of all kinds. He was not mean [the Russian text uses the word “skup” meaning stingy], and did not refuse anyone who asked of him…he honestly considered himself irreproachable, sincerely despised rogues and bad people, and with a tranquil conscience carried his head high.”

So what do we have in the end? Someone who is neither jealous nor a “climber” nor inherently bigoted/prejudiced/a snob nor stingy nor arrogant. In fact we have the opposite: someone who is open-hearted and open-handed, outgoing, confident, does have a sense of right-and-wrong - his problem is lack of foresight and perspective - does not want or mean to do any harm/has good intentions, and generally just wants to enjoy life. And the thing is, from what we see in canon, most of his entertainments are actually quite benign: drinking with friends, going to various entertainment, like the opera, and flirting openly with everyone who strikes his fancy. (And the ‘‘womanizing” I’ve addressed elsewhere as stated above.)

And to keep everything in one place; someone on Tumblr once asked me why I love Anatole so much anyway.

Anatole is like that fun friend that a lot of people/friendship groups have. You probably don’t have a very deep relationship with him because he’s bad at committing and a little shallow/not good at reflection, but he’s so fun and easy to be around. He’s confident without being a show-off, he’s easy going and optimistic, he knows how to have fun and is always up for a party/adventure. He enjoys life in a way that is infectious. He doesn’t take himself, or others, too seriously. You can be you around him and he probably won’t judge you for it. He’s probably not very good in emotionally difficult situations but he’s not unwilling to help, even if you need to tell him what it is you want. He’s so…free. I don’t really know how to put it. And he’s not out there looking for some pretentious meaning of life or angsting over some ambiguous unfulfillment. He knows what he wants – to have fun and be happy. (And most of the ways he tries to have fun are actually quite harmless.) He’s perfectly genuine and open. That’s Anatole.

And some of it is personal, of course, just how liking and not liking certain characters often is. Like, I really identify with his drive to just be free and happy and not have to worry about tedious things. Anatole doesn’t give a shit about growing up and, to be frank, it’s pretty overrated IMO too. I’m more responsible than he is, I’d say, but I understand where he’s coming from.

And, I mean, look, I get it. He’s flighty and irresponsible and unable to commit. Those are very real character flaws. He gets carried away and sometimes hurts people because of it, because of his short-sightedness. He doesn’t mean to, but that doesn’t completely mitigate his mistakes. I get protective because often people dislike him for things that he doesn’t actually do or traits he doesn’t actually have. But if you can’t stomach his character flaws, then you can’t. But I can. Maybe because it’s easier to forgive fictional people their flaws, IDK, but every character has them and it comes out to: what side does the scale tip to? And: who can you identify with most?

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

( Read more... )

Ask I got on Tumblr;

Re Marya & Nikolai, I always thought it was genuine from Nikolai's side. I read somewhere that the reason it worked is because under the circumstances they met she was in a "damsel in distress" position, allowing him to be the hero which is essential to his personality & which he could never be with Sonia who was always sacrificig & taking on the "hero" position, if that makes sense?

That’s an interesting theory. As a gut feeling I’m not buying it 100%.

First of all, it’s true that Tolstoy has that line about how Sonya has all the things that “people are valued for” but little of what they are “loved” for (whatever that even means gah) and in context this seems to refer to Sonya’s self-sacrificing nature, but it’s also pretty clear that this is Tolstoy putting his own issues out there - it’s not Nikolai’s POV, But, on the other hand, I’m also not actually doubting that NIkolai was no longer in love with Sonya at this point. He hadn’t been truly in love with her for a while. But I think feeling duty-bound to her killed what remained of his feelings far more than her not letting him “be the hero.”

Secondly, while Nikolai certainly likes to perform chivalry and heroism that’s not really who he is. With Nikolai at the beginning of the book, this may have made some sense, because he was so desperate to be a hero that finding a girl who could help with building that image would have swayed him. Nikolai certainly built his identity around these values which he considered important. But, later on, Nikolai’s character arch moves him away from this idealization of heroism and chivalry. He becomes a lot more practical. (We see the final stage/culmination of this in the epilogue.) So, I’m not really buying that older Nikolai would really be so swayed by the chance to “play the hero.”

But it’s an interesting theory and probably deserves some further thought. I think for me it was just the suddenness of the thing. And even in the epilogue, while Pierre and Natasha are pretty obviously in love, Nikolai and Marya don’t give me that impression. Their marriage obviously works and works decently well, but they give off much more of an impression of two people who managed to make something work than two people who have been in love with each other.

PROS

Casting. I think the casting here is very good. You do have the occasional flop (Ken Duken for Anatole) and we’re still looking at the “blonde Natasha” problem, but IMO Poesy makes a better Natasha than James, so… I’m meh on the Nikolai, too. But overall this is one of my favorite castings. (Helene, Andrei, Pierre and Maria are especially on point.)
Pacing. The pacing is well handled. One of my biggest issues with the BBC adaptation is how much they’re rushing everything. On the other hand, an older adaptation, like the Soviet one, has extremely slow and sometimes tedious pacing. I think 2007 does well with keeping the pacing dynamic but still leaving breathing room and time for things to sink in.
Faithfulness to canon/”extra” material. A lot of the non-canon scenes are added either for the purposes of fleshing out things that are skimmed over/implied in the text or to accommodate for that breathing room in the pacing that I mentioned. Almost never are they there simply for shock value. Sometimes there’s exposition that is made in these scenes. A lot of the time, the extra material is both entertaining and not out of character. For example, the flirtation between Dolokhov and Helene is done a lot more plausibly and tastefully than what BBC did. Another example: the extra scenes during the Anatole/Natasha affair generally are well done and help the audience really get emotionally involved with the situation, allow it some breathing room. Canon scenes/dialogue are typically respected. They’re not always verbatim and obviously some cuts/alterations need to be made sometimes, but I never got this feeling that the screenwriters were trying to re-invent the wheel (ie: re-write all the canon scenes). Characterization is mostly faithful. Exceptions apply (but really, it’s mostly Anatole).

CONS

Faithfulness to canon/”extra” material. On the other hand, some of the “new” material is not very good at all and messes with characterization (see: Anatole’s ridiculous revenge plot and pretty much his entire characterization. Also a “surprise” fix-it pare-the-spares ending for two characters, which is weird af, but it’s really just a mention on the other hand, so… IDK, I got over it quickly. Helene and her French officer and the way she dies is controversial, if you ask me. It’s not horrendously out of character but it’s a change from canon which I don’t think needed to be made and that I, personally, don’t agree with).
Amount of material included. It’s only four episodes and the series takes its time with things, so a lot of things get cut. Like, for example, there’s no Boris at all in this adaptation. There’s a definite trade off here with focusing on fewer things/characters/plotlines but giving them more room to breathe and develop and sink in. But the cuts to scenes and plotlines and characters is a little saddening, I’ll admit to that.

By no means is it a perfect adaptation. I could pick it apart pretty mercilessly if I wanted to. But I do like it and I certainly think it’s worth a watch.(And, at the end of the day, I think it's better than the 2016 BBC one.)

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

( Read more... )

Ask on Tumblr:

Spot on analysis of ep4. But i think chemistry or no, the way anatole was played made it impossible to believe she'd fall for him & it was too rushed to believe anyway. Good point about the parallels, changing dolokhov there was just stupid, it makes everyones motives confusing & unexplained. About andrei's love ,cuz in the book its clear he did love them both, its cuz its so rushed & looks like a whirlwind romance, almost the same as anatole/natasha!

Re Andrei and Andrei/Natasha: The thing is, the Andrei/Natasha romance WAS whirlwind. I mean, he only sees her 4 times (5, counting when he stops at Otradnoe but they don’t really talk at that time and he’s mostly confused by how happy she seems). The four times are: 1) the ball, 2) he goes to her place and she sings for him, 3) Vera’s party, 4) another visit to the Rostovs where their conversation is mostly small talk. Now, this is a little more substantial than Anatole/Natasha but barely. I mean, to the point where it really doesn’t make a difference. He decides to marry her after FOUR (5 is you want to be generous) meetings. Not “date” (court, I guess it would be back then) but MARRY. How is that not crazy?

Now, of course, AFTER he proposes to her, it’s made clear in the book that they get a 2-3 months to actually get to know each other after he proposes and before he leaves. That’s still not a lot of time but at least it’s something. But the thing is, he had already proposed and she had already accepted after FOUR meetings. (Moral of the story obviously being that no one needs a lot of time to fall in love around there lol.)

And, sure, i think he, at the least, thought that he was in love with Natasha. I don’t mean that he wasn’t being earnest. (But Anatole was earnest too, yet we always talk about how his feelings were something, but probably not love.) And the thing is, I feel like it would have ended as badly for her as it did for Lise if she had married him. He probably thought that he loved Lise too when he married her. Lise was a sweet if not too serious girl, which is exactly what Natasha is. And, honestly, you already see the whole thing breaking down in Andrei’s proposal scene. Andrei’s “poetic” feeling for Natasha, once she has accepted him, suddenly changes to “duty” and “pity for her feminine and childish weakness.” Really? Duty and pity? And it sounds a lot like what Andrei was feeling for Lise there at the beginning and, IMO, that was not a positive relationship.

Comparing Natasha’s reactions to her two romances also leads to some interesting results. Her during Andrei’s proposal scene:

“Is it possible that this stranger has now become everything to me?” she asked herself, and immediately answered, “Yes, everything! He alone is now dearer to me than everything in the world.”

Her, after kissing Anatole at Helene’s party;

But she also loved Anatole, of that there was no doubt. “Else how could all this have happened?” thought she. “If, after that, I could return his smile when saying good-by, if I was able to let it come to that, it means that I loved him from the first.”

Natasha’s instincts are on point in both cases. She recognizes that Andrei is still a stranger to her. She recognizes that things are going too quickly with Anatole. But the way she responds in both scenarios is silly, but also nearly identical: she practically talks herself into falling in love.

So, yea. The adaptation rushes everything but the fact that Andrei and Natasha have a whirlwind romance isn’t actually incorrect.

And that bring me to Anatole in this adaptation. I do think Callum dropped the ball here a bit. It could have also been the direction he was given. But I think it wasn’t even so much the acting as the pacing/writing and also the lighting/soundtrack. Also, this adaptation, as you said, gives no breathing room, does not allow for any sort of insight into characters it doesn’t care much about and Anatole is one of those characters. It’s hard to believe that Natasha could fall in love with him because the music and the lighting are basically screaming NOT A GOO IDEA. It’s not so much how much interaction the characters have actually had, it’s more about how the narrative frames it (in a very heavy-handed way) and what insights we get into the characters’ feelings. And, yes, the adaptation falls into the typical trap of the seducer-stereotype, but it’s not the only one that does.

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

( Read more... )

I was asked on Tumblr for my thoughts on Marya Bolkonsky This was my response to the ask. The op is here for anyone wanting to read the conversation that followed in the notes :)

Honestly, my perspective on Marya has changed a lot. I used to really dislike her but now I just pity her with the acknowledgement that we wouldn’t get along.

( Read more... )

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

( Read more... )

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

( Read more... )

So. One of the good things that have come out from having a Tumblr is being able to talk to people about War and Peace (at least, a lot more than say on LJ). I've also been made an admin on the Tumblr dedicated to the upcoming bbc adaptation (I'm really-really bad at being an admin, since I'm really-really bad at being on top of entertainment news :/)

Anyway, a little while ago I was posting about my...concerns re: casting and the promo photos that have been released. This post on Anatole spawned a bit of a discussion on Anatole's characterization, mostly via asks and answers. One of the things that came up was how Anatole keeps getting made into this creeper-seducer-womanizer when that's not really what he is at all. Not in that stereotypical cliche way.

So, of course I wrote a post. Here is the original with the context of the ask it was replying to. But I'm re-posting the relevant part of my response here.

I understand if people don’t like [Anatole], but I hate that it’s always for the wrong thing. Where even is this “scheming womanizer” thing coming from? Nothing about how he relates to women we see him with in the book reads like this. A scheming womanizer would not get so stupidly caught in the Bolkonsky gardens with the French companion of the girl he was supposed to be married off to. He doesn’t even TRY to seduce Maria. He’s there because his father dragged him there and he’s just easy-going enough to be like “ok whatever” and lets it play out as it would.

Actually, I’d say Anatole almost actively avoids compromising situations when he understands that they’re compromising. He’s not the sort of guy – again, unlike Onegin or Pechorin – who seduces “proper” girls for fun. He primarily hangs around actresses and “gypsies,” which at that time were, for the most part, considered easy women.

I think the notion comes from two places: a) his offhand comments to Dolokhov about “loving young girls” (or something like that) because they give in easily and b) the whole Natasha fiasco.

I don’t take the “young girls” comment too seriously. He’s obviously posturing and he’s saying this to Dolokhov, whom he admires and probably wants to show off in front of. There’s also a far simpler way to read this comment: “Damn it, I hate it when girls play hard to get. At least when I fall for a younger girl they tend to be more open to getting it on.” It’s also far more in-line with the rest of his characterization. This is an observation and a stated preference, not some strategic plan. Anatole doesn’t do strategic plans; he doesn’t even know how to, honestly. And, anyway, if we’re talking stereotypes here – scheming seducers tend to like a challenge.

The Natasha thing. Anatole falls for her genuinely. He just really, really likes her and he wants to be with her consequences be damned. That’s all. He’s putting himself into danger with the elopement as well, as Dolokhov points out. Anatole ignores him. Do we, as readers, know his feelings are probably pretty short lived? Yea. Most insta-made infatuations are. Dolokhov realizes this all too well, too. Because he knows Anatole and because he is a calculating and practical person who thinks ahead. Anatole just…goes for the prize. The fact that he might never be able to return home, that he could be tried for bigamy or kidnapping or whatever, that he might have to face a duel, that he doesn’t exactly have a way to support himself abroad…none of this stops him. And these are all things that are stacked up against him personally. He’s crazy about Natasha from the get-go. IIRC, the very next scene with him that we have after the opera, is him going on and on to Dolokhov about how gorgeous and enchanting Natasha is. She pushes him away and he just wants her more.

Yes, it’s bad. Yes, it’s destructive. But it’s a different bad and destructive than people make it out to be. It’s the product of carelessness and a lack of self-awareness. The most scheming things that Anatole does (in this case anyway) are all actually the responsibility of other people, primarily Helene and Dolokhov. Helene figures out how to get Natasha and Anatole to see each other more and be alone. Dolokhov organizes the elopement arrangements and writes Anatole’s love letters for him. (I’m assuming Anatole isn’t exactly a poetic type. Not that Dolokhov is, but Dolokhov is smarter and much better at emotional manipulation.) He doesn’t want any harm to befall Natasha. He genuinely thinks that none will. They’ll just run away and get married, live abroad, and no one will suspect a thing is off. It’s an insane fantasy but Natasha falls for it too, even though she has warning signs that something is off. They’re both crazy like that, they both get carried away. No one has to like that. But it’s not at all the same thing as “scheming womanizer who seduces innocent girls for fun.”

A while ago, someone asked me on Tumblr why I like Sonya Rostov. I actually kind of like what I wrote down for the response; in any case it was the first time I actually tried to organize my thoughts about her. (The asker also mentioned that Sonya seemed underdeveloped for them, so I touched on that a bit too.) I'm copying my response here, for...IDK just to have long thinky posts all in one place or something? Anyway, behind the cut!

( Read more... )

Profile

alley_skywalker

March 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Base style: Compartmentalize by timeasmymeasure
Theme: Summer Sea by forthwritten

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 08:53 pm

Entries tagged with fandom: war and peace

Helen's "affair" with Dolokhov

Some notes on canon hair colors of WaP characters

Countess Rostova’s maiden name – Shinshina

Anatole vs Natasha

1818

The Kuragins Aren’t Poor (At All)

Natasha and Anatole

On Dolokhov

On Anatole, Pt 2

War and Peace BBC - Ep 6

On Nikolai/Marya

Pros and Cons of the 2007 War and Peace adaptation

War and Peace BBC - Ep 4

On Natasha/Andrei (and Natasha/Anatole)

War and Peace BBC - Ep 3

On Marya Bolkonsky

BBC War and Peace - Ep 2

BBC War and Peace - Ep 1

On Anatole

On Sonya Rostov

Profile

March 2025

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags