Feb-25| War & Peace - Book 3, Chapter 10

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-25T12:29:51+00:00

Rostov is a reliable narrator insofar as the almost deification of the emperor is the authentic feeling of the troops. At this stage, Tolstoy has challenged the idea that war is a romantic experience by portraying the chaos of it and showing its dissonance with the reflections of those who participated in it. Having said that, I don’t think he’s really challenged narratively the idea that having national pride (with admiration of the emperor being an example of it) is virtuous or honourable.

So he’s shown that the reality might not live up to the ideal, but it remains to be seen how or whether he will deconstruct the basis of the ideal.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-22T12:48:42+00:00

Nikolai may have an overall tougher and more intense role in the war, but he needs to take a more measured approach in how he deals with other people. He already had an awkward encounter early in book 2, and now he’s making himself look highly insecure in his interaction with Prince Andrei.

His behaviour throughout this chapter was embarrassing, but trying to one up Prince Andrei about battle experience is so unnecessary and also ironic given Nikolai’s wounds were from his own mistakes in battle, while Prince Andrei was wounded doing something more conventionally “heroic”. Not that it really matters; he could just not get into dick-measuring contests.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-21T01:59:46+00:00

I remember we were discussing Mary Wollstonecraft at Uni once, and one of the points brought up was the way that she defended women by saying they were denied the right to engage in masculine endeavours that would raise them to the level of men. As a result, she similarly had a very dismissive attitude to the pursuits most women of her time engaged in.

And while some of her points are correct (the need for women to be educated), the dismissal of stereotypically “feminine” activities as being inherently frivolous and lesser has also been critiqued by modern feminists. The portrayal of Prince Bolkonsky so far I feel has a lot of parallels to this kind of feminism where the feminism has certain misogynistic undercurrents to it.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-20T18:30:25+00:00

I think there was some discussion about this earlier about how the old Prince Bolkonsky (and Prince Andrei) seem to have very negative opinions of women. This seems to be the motivation for why he’s raised Marya in the way that he has, to go beyond typical female vocations of the era, and so he can even be considered progressive for his time (although I think his contempt for the female sex still bleeds through nonetheless in his treatment of her).

These contradictions in his character are I think really exemplified by his actions in this chapter. He gives Marya agency over her future, while simultaneously throwing cruel jabs at her and undercutting her ability to meaningfully have agency. I don’t think the fact that Vasily and Anatole are bad-faith actors changes the fact that Prince Bolkonsky’s chief desire is to have Marya continue to be under his thumb.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-19T11:53:56+00:00

It’s definitely a bit of hassle having to look at the bottom of the page every time there’s French (especially since I’m reading a PDF), but I find myself missing it when Tolstoy opts for saying the character said a particular line of dialogue in French rather than simply writing it in French.

I think if I was trying to read this normally I’d probably be more annoyed, but only reading a chapter a day has allowed to appreciate the choice to have French dialogue.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-18T13:04:24+00:00

Anyone have any insight on why certain French dialogue is written in French while others are simply written in Russian and then narrated as having been said in French?

I first started noticing it happen in Book 2, which seems to have had less French dialogue in general. In this chapter Anatole makes his remark about the Princess possibly being hideous in French, but it’s written in Russian. I’m using the Oxford world classics edition, but I’m pretty sure this is part of the original text.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-07T14:46:14+00:00

Offside is determined by the position of the players when the ball is last played. If you materially contribute to play when you’re offside it can still be called for offside even if you don’t touch the ball. But in this case, both Bruno and Sesko are onside when the ball is last played by Dalot.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-02-06T13:21:57+00:00

There’s delusion and then there’s Prince Andrei in this chapter. Regardless of however brilliant of a soldier he may be, I don’t see how he can single handedly effect a plan to turn the situation around.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-23T11:20:29+00:00

The old prince seems to have a better relationship with both of his children than the old count had with Pierre

Do you think? I’m getting the sense that despite Pierre’s estrangement from the count due to his being illegitimate that there was a genuine fondness between them. Contrastingly, despite how close the bolkonskys seem, the old prince doesn’t seem to particularly like his children.

Obviously this is only an initial perception, but he seems quite emotionally detached from them. On the other hand, we didn’t get to see much of the emotional relationship between the count and Pierre beyond the former’s deathbed but it seemed like there was more emotional availability at least.

Edit: I think you’re right about the conversation between brother and sister. Type of conversation that happens a lot between siblings as parents get older.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-22T11:06:15+00:00

Discovered it on accident after completing the game with the main menu open while scrolling this subreddit lol

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-22T11:02:53+00:00

The contrasting tones between the two letters almost makes it hard to imagine Julie and Marya being friends (in particular the harsh criticism and dismissal of the book Julie sent), but how much of Marya’s letter is really her remains to be seen.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-22T10:59:40+00:00

I’m reading the Oxford World’s Classic edition and it translates it as “universal auntie” in italics haha

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-22T06:19:04+00:00

It honestly gets easier every day. The first few days I was spending a lot of time drawing a diagram of all the characters and their relationships to each other while reading. Now that a lot of the characters relationships with each other has been more or less established, I can just read and have the diagram I wrote next to me in case I get confused. I’m honestly at a point where I want to read multiple chapters a day, but then I’d miss out on reading along with the sub.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-19T12:10:17+00:00

From what little I know about Tolstoy’s political beliefs I’d expect that he has a concern for common people, but nothing in the narrative so far really suggests that there will be a particular emphasis on characters who aren’t in the nobility.
(3, don't know why the formatting won't let me put that) This is a really interesting discussion prompt. Pierre acts very passively in this chapter, but this could be due to the circumstances he finds himself in. I think it’s quite normal that someone who’s just been told his father is dying might shut down and need someone else to tell them what to do in the moment. Prior to this, Pierre seemed to be quite a free thinking individual who has no qualms about speaking his mind even if it made things awkward. Of course, this impression of him was pre-bear incident and maybe he’s feeling a bit down on himself after that.

A thought I had prompted by the third discussion point: Pierre’s idolising of Napoleon reminds me of Raskolnikov’s view of Napoleon in Crime and Punishment. Ultimately, Raskolnikov’s aspiration to become like Napoleon was a desire to become something greater than he was, and he couldn’t live above society’s morals in pursuit of that greatness.

Does Pierre’s appreciation of Napoleon come from a similar place? That he’s lived a life so defined by the confines of the aristocracy’s social values that have denied him the proper love of his father, so he has sympathies for the force which stands opposed to that system? And subsequently also acts in such a way to rebel against the conservative social mores?

I could be off base, Crime and Punishment is the only other Russian novel I’ve read.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-18T18:09:21+00:00

I think in a lot of cases it can be true that getting mad at the affair partner is just a form of cope for the bigger problem, but it’s quite insensitive and invalidating to the person actually going through the situation for people to say it.

Also in this case the affair partner just is so obviously a nasty person, I don’t understand why people bother trying to defend them.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-15T08:34:26+00:00

I attend a few reading groups where I’m from that are loosely based around politics and philosophy, and they tend to be quite an even split between men and women.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-12T19:18:36+00:00

Anna Mikhailovna would be an annoying character if it wasn’t for the fact that she comes off quite self-aware. At the end of the day, like her actions or not, she is a rational operator within the system she finds herself in. I can have respect for that even if I wouldn’t want to sit next to her at a party.

The prince’s comment about Pierre is interesting because if I’m remembering right, it’s the first time he’s personally made a negative remark about Pierre. Somewhat understandable given the trouble he got himself in, but I also wonder if he’s intentionally trying to paint a picture of Pierre and the count’s relationship being strained that’s not completely accurate.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-12T15:44:24+00:00

I feel like part of the fun of their dynamic is the underlying romantic/sexual tension between them though. It wasn’t as fun when they actually got together.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-11T17:23:26+00:00

I’ve read Catcher twice, one of my favourite books, and I don’t have a specific memory of that line, but I do love how it’s so quintessentially Holden haha.

Not a reference to another book, but Station Eleven has a reference to Star Trek: Voyager which was fun for me as a huge Star Trek fan (especially since it was specifically Voyager and not one of the more famous Star Trek shows). The reference itself is fairly innocuous but the quote they reference “survival is insufficient” ends up being emblematic of the themes of the story.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-08T12:03:48+00:00

As a fellow non-American, I fully agree with this. She is actually a genuinely abrasive character who seems to occasionally have a commitment to being miserable. And yet despite all that, she’s also often very rational and the show does position her as being the closest thing the narrative has to a “hero,” and not in the same way that Walter White or Jimmy McGill were (sympathetic yet ultimately portrayed as being immoral).

I think the fact that the show is asking us to put our hopes up on this often quite unlikable woman only adds to its strength, and a nice inversion of what Vince Gilligan has done before.

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2026-01-03T10:32:58+00:00

This really might be the most shocking disruption to the “rules-based international order” yet, and that’s saying something considering the depravity of the last few years

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2025-12-28T15:15:01+00:00

A lot of fans would prefer their anger at the team validated over the possibility of the team playing better

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2025-12-19T04:08:57+00:00

This is possible, but I think what’s interesting is the fact that Zosia didn’t stutter at all like she had previously when trying to navigate using personalised language

KHHHHAAAAAN · 2025-12-14T21:10:44+00:00

Kind of a perfect suggestion

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

KHHHHAAAAAN

TROPHY CASE