lesbippolit

the specific way that the duel is added kind of baffles me because i do think it benefits from the added context in theory but rather than just providing context it instead warps it and i end up questioning what purpose it really serves? throwing in a random event from literally 5 years earlier in the novel's timeline without adding any of the fallout is such a questionable decision and truly just leads to such a warped perception of hélène and pierre's relationship

by having pierre be certain of hélène's infidelity before the duel with dolokhov, it completely writes over the purpose of the duel in the first place. in the novel, this is the moment where pierre begins hating hélène, where he decides he has to leave and therefore sets off on the beginning of his spiritual journey. it's also notable that the affair is never actually explicitly said to be happening, either. pierre hears a Rumor and he reacts violently to both dolokhov and to her, threatening to kill her and throwing a marble slab at her before leaving petersburg. meanwhile, the musical takes place 5 years later where he has (reluctantly) reunited with her and he's currently [insert the lyrics of 'pierre' here], etc etc. he's resigned to his loveless marriage already, so the duel cannot have anywhere near the emotional impact nor purpose that it did in the novel. so what is its purpose in the great comet???

the easiest answer is that in contextualizes why hélène is so well-suited to be the one to "seduce" natasha and ease her worries about not being loyal to andrei, but even then that was never the way that hélène seduced natasha. she seduced her with her beauty and influence because those were things that natasha admired and wanted. so it's not exactly necessary there. the other explanation is to position her as a more clear antagonist for pierre, but this also just pushes him further into that "bumbling and kind guy who things kinda just happen to" role that isn't entirely inaccurate but isn't really accurate either

honestly thinking about this tag made it click for me that i feel like what malloy actually did was kind of perfectly incapsulate the author intent but in the worst way 😭

there's obviously a huge, huge split in the novel between the "society" characters and the "country" characters and it's overall very blatant how tolstoy views petersburg society vs the country, etc., with the overall idea that society is a shallow and corrupting force. i could go on and on about all the various ways tolstoy shows this but all this to say that the great comet, due to the insular nature of the chunk of the book, with all the drama being very concentrated on this group of characters, largely erases the presence of society that is kind of always there in the novel

for all the quirks he adds to all of his characters, tolstoy tends to separate his characters into "real" or "not real," "complex" or "shallow," etc. the kuragins are shallow and not considered to be capable of complex thought. pierre, the bolkonskys, and the rostovs are all complex, real. the musical translates this easily by the use of the types of songs they sing — pierre and natasha with their "i want" songs vs. hélène's villain song. musicals traditionally tend to rely on this kind of structure because it makes things really easy to follow. we're told the thoughts and desires of the protagonists, while villain's typically have "i am" songs which just say blatant who they are without that kind of depth, etc etc. so a musical is essentially the perfect medium to cut to the meat of tolstoy's INTENT, his ideology of which characters are good/worth valuing the opinion of and which characters only serve to "corrupt" the good. malloy honestly nailed that

However. The Thing Is. is that tolstoy's staunch/obvious ideology and opinions on society and morality are honestly kind of the weakest and most irritating parts of the novel to me. my overall opinion has always been that tolstoy has a masterful ability to create realistic, complex characters who have realistic, complex behaviors, but this ability is bogged down by his own message. that is, every character is very vivid and real but are inherently supposed to fit into one of tolstoy's clear cut categories. every character is complex, but not all characters' flaws are regarded with equal weight. hélène's selfishness is something that defines and dooms her, while pierre's violence is something excused in the face of his kindness, etc.

by the nature of musical as a medium, the great comet quite literally just doesn't have time for those complexities. society's opinion can't be shown because it's, for lack of a better word, "fluff" in the way of the message. tolstoy's intended message is that pierre is a good, intelligent man and society's opinion of him is meant to be a poor reflection on society rather than on pierre. their opinion of him is meant to be "wrong."

give me an excuse to complain about war and peace

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

i've been on tumblr for like 16 years and i've been a war and peace fan for about 10 years so i'm sure i've seen worse takes than this, but i saw this on pinterest a while back while i was going through various war and peace boards and i've been mad about it ever since oh my fucking god...

i don't know where the idea that hélène derives pleasure from the misery of others comes from? assuming that this is a great comet post, i'm guessing it's based on the line at the end of charming where she says "how the thought of throwing them together amuses me," but even then it's such a reach to come to the conclusion that she actively enjoys someone's misery from that?

there's something generally very uncomfortable to me about how willing people are to accept the idea that anatole's cruelty comes from his ignorance and lack of thought while insisting that hélène's cruelty is calculated and deliberate. i've even seen someone say that hélène was more to blame in anatole's attempted elopement with natasha than anatole himself specifically because of this line of thinking and the idea that anatole doesn't know any better, but hélène does.

every adaption turns her into a femme fatale with active disdain for the protagonists and it genuinely drives me insane because i literally do not think she cares enough about these people to want to hurt them. her "sin" lies in her selfishness and her ignorance.

it's especially frustrating when it is contradicted by the text:

hélène is thinking in the exact same way as anatole. she isn't thinking about the repercussions. she literally cannot be sitting there delighting in natasha's downfall because she doesn't see anything "wrong" with what she's doing. hélène, due to the lack of love in her life, fundamentally does not understand what it's like to love someone enough to put their feelings over your own desires. she's been raised to prioritize personal success and pleasure and has obtained a position that allows her to do so without consequence.

she can make herself believe that this will be fun for natasha because she's made herself believe that it's fun for her. admitting natasha and anatole's wrongdoing would mean admitting her own and she is entirely unwilling to do so.

tolstoy says flat out that hélène is unable to consider herself guilty and that truly is one of the most interesting aspects of her character to me and is also something that makes her so much more realistic. it's a lot easier to find people who are able to justify their actions to themselves than it is to find people who admit they're doing something wrong.

her thoughts on religion really emphasize this point

she believes that as long as she isn't acting with ill intent, she cannot be guilty, and any harm she causes isn't her fault because she didn't intend to do harm. her self-centeredness allows her to do as she pleases while still following this principle, as she is solely focused on her own desires. she has no desire to do anyone else harm, it's just that she will always prioritize her own satisfaction and comfort above the wants and even needs of others.

every director of every adaption seems to have looked at hélène and went "tolstoy wrote her as a STUPID BITCH and as a fresh modern take to combat this misogynistic outdated opinion we've decided to add some much-needed complexity and make her an EVIL BITCH instead #Girlboss" and i'm tired. i'm so tired.

i don't understand why people feel the need to turn her into this flat, overdone femme fatale trope who is shamelessly and openly cruel when the mundanity and humanity of hélène's cruelty is what makes her so interesting. she's not analytical nor cynical, she just genuinely believes her own lies and doesn't think there's anything wrong with her actions. the only difference between her and anatole is that she's a woman and therefore has to operate differently in order to successfully do what she wants, while he's emboldened by lack of consequence and is therefore more open about his carelessness.

it's also just a complete misunderstanding of how hélène operates within the narrative in relation to the overarching themes of russian sincerity vs french shallowness. the kuragins as characters represent petersburg society and the corrupting influence of the french on russia. they're the embodiment of the society they're in. hélène's ability to make society adore her isn't meant to be indicative of her intelligence, it's supposed to show how superficial that society is. her tact is seen specifically in her ability to conform perfectly to what has always been around her.

it could not be more blatant than in this excerpt:

it's all about the passivity and willful ignorance, pretending there isn't a problem at all to preserve their own comfort and satisfaction, which is a much more tangible and familiar form of evil.

hélène is so interesting to me specifically because she is so entirely the product of her circumstances. she is no doubt the product of a deeply misogynistic writer, but, despite being created to represent what tolstoy hated about women, she isn't uniquely evil. all her "depravity" is systematic and encouraged. she's much less a master manipulator than she is someone who knows how to pander to her audience.

this isnt me telling you to make your fave transphobic or a bigot (tho i do think that there is value in having characters that are bad people), but to actually analize their potential political opinions thru a lense more grounded in the characters own life and actions.

sometimes that characters is gonna be an edgelord, sometimes they might have biases that they dont feel the need to even bring up or thyere gonna be mean in a stressfull situation instead of offering supported therapy speach. that teenager rebel character prolly cheating all their classes with chatgpt idk what to tell you.

pierre bezukhov: wow..... this strange behavior combined with the constant presence of her father around us throughout the entire engagement and the rumor that her brother was sent away specifically because he wanted to fuck her.... she must be a depraved woman. surely she is completely at fault here. there is nothing deeper going on in the kuragin household that could have lead her to act this way. she's just a horrible, immoral woman. case closed