I see Helen’s way of navigating and influencing society as a social intelligence. She is able to bring various people together and facilitate events without having to be a dominant force. She uses more subtle power. I cannot speak to her intellectual prowess because of course we don’t get to hear her speak.
Pierre seems to have theoretical/book intelligence but doesn’t have much social intelligence. He wants his Mason brethren to uphold their duties but cannot induce them to contribute their alms or take up leadership, so he just does it himself. He comes in blazing with reform ideas but hasn’t considered how to introduce or implement them. He expects that just announcing them will gain support and is shocked when there is blowback.
As an analogy, if Pierre and Helen were playing billiards, he would try powering through every turn like a break shot, and she would be using finesse while running the table. It’s too bad they cannot see and appreciate each other’s strengths because they could be a formidable power couple if they cooperated.
I can’t help but bristle at Pierre’s line about Hélène being “very stupid” - it seems to me that she’s a figure of agency, facilitating public conversations on the circuit. She herself doesn’t necessarily need to say much (tho of course we never hear her words to judge), rather she can artfully engage others. Pierre meanwhile has played into her flame of attention orbit as the object of dismissive eye-rolling from those delighting in Hélène as hostess with the mostest ….
So, here in week 16’s commentary and chat threads I maybe sense why I can’t quit War and Peace even with all it’s drama and sadness, maybe it is the sense of hope mentioned by @ Simon Haisell but I suspect more reasons will continue to unfold.
Thus far, with perhaps one exception, Tolstoy only lets us consider the women in the novel through male eyes. I think we have almost nothing to go on to know what they think and how their lives are panning out. The exception is Marya but she is given such a limited canvas - not allowed out of her box. Perhaps a case for Anna Mikhailovna too but will she reappear or are her scheming days done?
Thanks Linda. I don't think that's exactly right: we get the points of view of Anna Pavlovna, Mademoiselle Bourienne, and a wonderful scene with the letter from the perspective of Countess Rostova. More to come. Also, as well as the male gaze of specific characters, we get a "society pov", which is of course patriarchal but distinct from each individual male character. And on top of that, there is Tolstoy's omniscient narration; although a male writer, he is always labouring towards the truth of his characters. So I think the picture is richer and more interesting.
But Tolstoy writes these women as relatively shallow characters. We do not get the interiority of Andrei, Pierre, Boris and Nikolai and, for that matter pere Bolkonsky. So how can we know the truth of his female characters. Whose truth?
I don't think he writes them as shallow characters, but I guess that's just a matter of opinion. They seem layered, complex and contradictory to me. And like I say, we do get their interiority, although I grant you not on such a grand scale as the main male protagonists.
I see Helen’s way of navigating and influencing society as a social intelligence. She is able to bring various people together and facilitate events without having to be a dominant force. She uses more subtle power. I cannot speak to her intellectual prowess because of course we don’t get to hear her speak.
Pierre seems to have theoretical/book intelligence but doesn’t have much social intelligence. He wants his Mason brethren to uphold their duties but cannot induce them to contribute their alms or take up leadership, so he just does it himself. He comes in blazing with reform ideas but hasn’t considered how to introduce or implement them. He expects that just announcing them will gain support and is shocked when there is blowback.
As an analogy, if Pierre and Helen were playing billiards, he would try powering through every turn like a break shot, and she would be using finesse while running the table. It’s too bad they cannot see and appreciate each other’s strengths because they could be a formidable power couple if they cooperated.
I can’t help but bristle at Pierre’s line about Hélène being “very stupid” - it seems to me that she’s a figure of agency, facilitating public conversations on the circuit. She herself doesn’t necessarily need to say much (tho of course we never hear her words to judge), rather she can artfully engage others. Pierre meanwhile has played into her flame of attention orbit as the object of dismissive eye-rolling from those delighting in Hélène as hostess with the mostest ….
Yes I think Hélène has an intelligence Pierre can neither credit nor understand.
Yes, sometimes it's not about what you say but how and where you say it. And Hélène has established her niche ...
So, here in week 16’s commentary and chat threads I maybe sense why I can’t quit War and Peace even with all it’s drama and sadness, maybe it is the sense of hope mentioned by @ Simon Haisell but I suspect more reasons will continue to unfold.
I certainly do think of it as a book of hope! A book that transforms the reader and the characters. It will not let you go!
I also bristled at this and I wondered if these thoughts of Pierre's were due to the fact Helene was listened to and admired, where he was not.
It's clear also that this is not his world. He remains a fish out of water. Where she is very much in her element.
Ha! I love your ‘conjuring intelligence with a smile’ phrase Simon. Wonderful.
Thus far, with perhaps one exception, Tolstoy only lets us consider the women in the novel through male eyes. I think we have almost nothing to go on to know what they think and how their lives are panning out. The exception is Marya but she is given such a limited canvas - not allowed out of her box. Perhaps a case for Anna Mikhailovna too but will she reappear or are her scheming days done?
Thanks Linda. I don't think that's exactly right: we get the points of view of Anna Pavlovna, Mademoiselle Bourienne, and a wonderful scene with the letter from the perspective of Countess Rostova. More to come. Also, as well as the male gaze of specific characters, we get a "society pov", which is of course patriarchal but distinct from each individual male character. And on top of that, there is Tolstoy's omniscient narration; although a male writer, he is always labouring towards the truth of his characters. So I think the picture is richer and more interesting.
But Tolstoy writes these women as relatively shallow characters. We do not get the interiority of Andrei, Pierre, Boris and Nikolai and, for that matter pere Bolkonsky. So how can we know the truth of his female characters. Whose truth?
I don't think he writes them as shallow characters, but I guess that's just a matter of opinion. They seem layered, complex and contradictory to me. And like I say, we do get their interiority, although I grant you not on such a grand scale as the main male protagonists.