War and Peace

Nov 22, 2008

Jessica rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: groups-of-people, kind-of-depressing, leetle-boys, love-and-other-indoor-sports

So, I know you've all been on edge these past two months, and since I should be studying for the social work licensing exam tonight, it seems like the perfect time to put an end to your suspense.

After all my agonizing and the thoughtful suggestions below about whether I should mutilate my gorgeous hardcover Pevear and Volokhonsky translation in the interest of less hazardous subway toting.... Readers, I carried him. All 1272 pages. Every day, across five boroughs and three states, fo...more

like 135 likes

· see review

Aug 14, 2008

Joshua Trevino rated it

· review of another edition

It is difficult, in reviewing classics, to say things about them that have not been said before. It is especially difficult when those classics are part of the literary canon; and even more difficult when those classics are not mere novels, but purposeful epics. It is in this light that reviewing Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace is a challenge. The massive book — ranging from 900 to 1,500 pages, depending upon the edition — is a cornerstone of anyone’s list of all-time great literature. Strangely,...moreIt is difficult, in reviewing classics, to say things about them that have not been said before. It is especially difficult when those classics are part of the literary canon; and even more difficult when those classics are not mere novels, but purposeful epics. It is in this light that reviewing Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace is a challenge. The massive book — ranging from 900 to 1,500 pages, depending upon the edition — is a cornerstone of anyone’s list of all-time great literature. Strangely, few have actually read it; and few reviewers of new editions do more than assess relative merits of the latest translation.

Therefore: the one thing the reader ought to know about the new translation of War and Peace from Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky is that it is worth reading, both in itself (the book is a classic in any translation) and in this particular form (this translation is superb). As with every other review of this edition, this one must start with what is new about it: the translation.

The husband-and-wife team of Pevear and Volokhonsky have built a long and successful career on translating Russian works into English. (I still recommend their translation of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, which kept me company in my Army days, as the best around.) They are ideally suited to the task, not merely by virtue of their marital compatibility — a translating team spends nearly as much time together as a married couple, and probably communicates better — but by virtue of their birth. Volokhonsky, as might be guessed, is a native Russophone, and Pevear’s first language is English. In a column in the New York Times on October 14th, 2007, Pevear described the method of their collaboration:

---We work separately at first. Larissa produces a complete draft, following the original almost word by word, with many marginal comments and observations. From that, plus the original Russian, I make my own complete draft. Then we work closely together to arrive at a third draft, on which we make our “final” revisions.---

This is, of course, the idealized process. The actual work of conveying literature, with its poetry and rhetoric more or less intact, from one language to another is necessarily slow and inexact. Douglas Hofstadter, the author and professor of computer and cognitive science at Indiana University at Bloomington, addressed this problem at length in his book Le Ton beau de Marot. In this, a rather simple little poem by the 16th-century French poet Clément Marot — "A une damoyselle malade," or "To an ill girl" — is shown to have a surprising number of possible translations from French into English, with none of them quite right. There are dozens of variations in Hofstadter’s book. The necessary tradeoffs, even in Marot’s simple verse, are swiftly evident. Literal accuracy, or rhetorical beauty? Rhyme structure, or metric consistency? Cultural fidelity, or cultural comprehensibility? These are the issues with which translators must contend. The perverse, like Vladimir Nabokov in translating his rigid and un-lovely Eugene Onegin, simply give the reader their ideal of literal exactitude. The more well meaning will often give the reader their idea of comprehensibility in both the rhetorical and cultural spheres. Thus, Constance Garnett, who translated the great works of 19th-century Russian literature into Edwardian-era English, not only rendered prose as would an English novelist of her era: she also “translated” cultural concepts into familiar objects of reference for her intended readers. As a pseudonymous Amazon reviewer of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace notes, in previous translations, “we often get ‘holy images,’ attended ‘Mass,’ ‘the Virgin Mary,’ etc., instead of ‘icon,’ ‘attended Liturgy,’ or ‘the Theotokos.’” It is pleasing to report that though the occasional clunky passage survives in its over twelve hundred pages, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky have done well by War and Peace. And well they should have: as Pevear notes, in translating, they each read the massive work five times.

Beyond the translation, there is the great work itself, which presumes to take on the very topics of its title. The grand sweep of its epic, to say nothing of the welter of Russian names and perhaps-unfamiliar places, is daunting to many readers. (Who knows where Mozhaisk is, or why it matters?) They should not feel ashamed of this: the very first sentence of the book presupposes a grasp of European politics and Russian society circa 1805, and the inferences and references never let up. It is a peculiarly Russian work, of course — the French invasion of 1812 was to Tolstoy’s generation what the Civil War was to our grandfathers’ — but it is nonetheless comprehensible to Europeans grounded in their own history. For an American, War and Peace is something else: not an artifact of our own heritage, but a work we read to sustain and deepen our connection to the West at large. Its themes of sacrifice, patriotism, and humanity are universal.

Leo Tolstoy was not, it must be said, the master of the human condition that many of the other literary greats were — Shakespeare, for example, or even his contemporary Dostoevsky — and this shows through even in the superlative Pevear/Volokhonsky translation. In life, the great author was keenly interested in developing his own thesis of Christianity, which veered into that curious territory where extreme altruism and profound selfishness intersect. A rare Russian aristocrat who cared for his peasants, he treated his devoted wife with often shocking neglect; he was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church; and he ended up dying at a train station while essentially running away from home as an old man. War and Peace, with its long internal essays on history, fate, and morality, gives us a glimpse into the mind of this troubled and brilliant figure, as his plot and his characters bend to his ideas of life and meaning.

Tolstoy was a contemporary of the men whom the philosopher Karl Popper called the historicists — that is, those who believed in the superiority of historical “laws” and inevitability to God-given free will and volition — and he shared much of their thesis. He did not, as some of them did, deny the possibility or relevance of human goodness and choice; but he did believe that those choices only affected a limited context, and mostly concerned one’s internal state toward himself and God. War and Peace, then, is to a large extent a historical exposition on why the individual does not matter to history, even as he does matter to his Creator. A central character of the work, Pierre Bezukhov, undergoes a transformation throughout from dissolute if well-meaning youth, to solid paterfamilias with an assured sense of God and self — and the transformative event is a death march in French captivity, in which he realizes that all is for naught in this world. Similarly, the wartime mistakes of the Russian generalissimo Kutuzov are excused as historical inevitabilities which Kutuzov had the wisdom to accept.

Tolstoy’s view here is wholly alien to the American character, and its relation to the Christian view is dubious (certainly the Orthodox Church saw little good in it). It does not follow from this that the Christian should not read it. To the contrary, it is a work so very rich, despite its flaws, that it is endlessly rewarding to those who persevere and allow themselves to become happily entangled in its endless narrative. Is it the best Russian novel? Is it the best Tolstoy novel? Is it the best 19th-century novel? It is none of these things: Tolstoy himself wrote better novels, Anna Karenina chief among them; Zola’s La Debacle is a far superior exposition of battle; and nearly everything is shorter. But we ought to read War and Peace nonetheless. We read it because, like Everest, it is there; we read it to join Prince Andrei on the field at Austerlitz; we read it to enter the mind of the young Natasha, insane with what she believes is love; and we read it because in it, as in all great art, we find something of ourselves.

(less)

like 39 likes

· see review

May 05, 2011

Cait rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, 1001, owned, war, bloom-canon, floor-joist, covers-i-love, historical-fiction, read-in-2011, russia, cold-weather-reading, bookish-big-reads

I am no longer afraid of the big ass Russian novel.* Who knew it would be so readable? The most difficult thing about it was keeping all of the characters straight, but even that was only in the beginning. By the end of the book, the characters were so fully drawn that I couldn't believe that I'd once had to rely on a cheat sheet remember who they were or what relation they had to one another.

I'm kind of peeved that I can't give this book 5 stars**. Overall, I thought it was fant...more

like 14 likes

· see review

Aug 13, 2009

Whitaker rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: canon, would-kill-if-thrown, russia, 2009-read

When I was growing up, the conventional wisdom was that War and Peace was the sine qua non of difficult books: the scope, the length, OMG the length! Conquering this Everest was The Test of whether you were a Man/Reader.

I have now read it. Thump chest and make Tarzan yell.

Actually, you know chump, big deal. The mountain really wasn't so large after all.

There are love affairs, there is a war, peace eventually returns to ~~the Shire~~ Russia. Sorry, got confused ...more

like 60 likes

· see review

May 10, 2011

Robert rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: russian

This book is so difficult to review; it's so vast and varied and my responses to it are vastly varied. If this turns into a sprawling mess, then it is only a dim and distorted image of the book itself, which is flawed, too.

So, what is War and Peace all about? One could easily answer, "Everything" since it has "the Seven Ages of Man", as pointed out in the essay at the end of this edition. War, Peace, happiness, suffering, morality, immorality and on and on. But I ...moreThis book is so difficult to review; it's so vast and varied and my responses to it are vastly varied. If this turns into a sprawling mess, then it is only a dim and distorted image of the book itself, which is flawed, too.

So, what is War and Peace all about? One could easily answer, "Everything" since it has "the Seven Ages of Man", as pointed out in the essay at the end of this edition. War, Peace, happiness, suffering, morality, immorality and on and on. But I think it has two over-arching purposes. The first and most imposing of these is Tolstoy expressing the feeling, "I hate Bonaparte." Many of the many characters in this book have obvious flaws and do some bad things but Tolstoy seems very forgiving of them - he seems to be saying, they are only human, what can you expect? But there is one sin he comes down on with a vengeance and no sign of understanding; being in any way positive about Bonaparte. This is the unforgivable crime. Being Bonaparte is the only worse crime. Bonaparte is scorned, villified and reduced to a posturing, ranting, boasting, self-deluding victim of History. Tolstoy's theory of history, (that it is entirely Providential and not caused by the actions of an elite) seems designed to allow Bonaparte's alleged Genius to be, like a flag above a fort, shot at until reduced to tatters. This has an unfortunate side-effect; it applies equally well to every other senior military or political figure. This is a problem because Tolstoy has real respect for Kutuzov, the Russian commander and he wriggles within the constraints of his own theory, trying to praise his Russian hero. And this is what underlies the Bonaparte-hating; Patriotism. In the same way as British national identity was reforged in opposition to Nazism and it was universally OK to hate Germany, so Russian identity was melted down in the period 1805-1812 and reforged afterwards in oppostion to the 2nd Empire. (In fact, this process happened in Britain as a result of the Napoleonic wars, too; Trafalger, Waterloo, Nelson, Wellington.) Tolstoy's great work came out expressing this rather negative (anti-French culture) position rather than a positive (pro-Russian culture) one, except in so far as he supports the efforts of the Russian populace to expel the invaders.

The second theme is, like the first, built on Tolstoy's axiomatic Christianity: History is a result of Providence is replaced by suffering is the way to salvation. (view spoiler)

Simon Schama said that this is a book "you don't just read, you live." Whatever he meant by that, I found it true in the sense that the book is so vast and changing that one develops a changing response to it as the pages turn. At first I was delighted by it, despite nearly drowning under a deluge of characters with similar titles, sometimes the same first names and often a complex set of relationships with everyone else. Frequent use of the character list at the back got me through that and the problem fades with familiarity. The typical life of the aristocracy is shown from all angles before it is shaken up by war, which shows other traits amongst the young officers taken from Moscow and Petersburg and shown an altogether different world of arbitrary death and destruction, seemingly out of the control of everybody. When peace is restored things slow down and I began to feel the length of the book when 1811 rolled round. From excitement and delight to impatience. Finally: 1812. Here amazing set pieces are diluted by the seemingly endless waffling about the nature of history, detracting greatly from my enjoyment and, by the end, levaing me feeling rather irritated and disappointed. A great novel ruined by an authorial rant. I still can't decide how to rate this book; I'm so glad I read it but it has so many flaws, from characters that are given a great deal of attention only to be dropped because the real protagonists are their children to essays on the nature of power. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver - there's a pauper's War and Peace for you. I'm also reminded of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath: A scene is often set in general terms, a sweeping overview of events, such as the retreat from Smolensk befor it is retold from the perseptive of one or more main characters. Steinbeck did the same thing, for example the scene of the jalopie merchant followed by the purchase of a model T by the migrating protagonists.

Tolstoy's writing is astonishingly vivid and many scenes are very memorable - they are what I will keep: Natasha dancing or singing, Pierre not able to even move an amunition box in the midst of battle, to name but two.(less)

like 16 likes

· see review

Dec 14, 2010

A.J. Howard rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 19th-century, 1001-books, finished-in-2010, bookshelf-fiction, six-stars

Wow....

I should probably just leave it at that. I know that my review of War and Peace is just about the antithesis of necessary. By raving about this book, I'm saying something equivalent to "Michael Jordan was a good basketball player" or "Richard Nixon had a decent amount of issues." This book is not only on the short list of best novels ever, it was there a century before my birth. But, hey, this thing is a beast, and it feels like a real accomplishment finish...more

like 7 likes

· see review

May 24, 2008

Silvana rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: romance, classics, own, top-20

EPIC. That’s the most suitable word to describe this book. The amount of pages are enough to make most people runaway, methinks. The essence, however, with the details, the characterization, the plots, the parlance (with occasional French); this book has everything needed for a great literature.

The story is Russia during the Napoleonic War. The novel has two main plots. First, the historical description on the military (and diplomatic) effort conducted during the invasion of Napoleon...moreEPIC. That’s the most suitable word to describe this book. The amount of pages are enough to make most people runaway, methinks. The essence, however, with the details, the characterization, the plots, the parlance (with occasional French); this book has everything needed for a great literature.

The story is Russia during the Napoleonic War. The novel has two main plots. First, the historical description on the military (and diplomatic) effort conducted during the invasion of Napoleon to Russian soil, representing the titular “war”. The details presented by Tolstoy were incredibly vivid, comprising of battle tactics, debates between generals/marshalls, the heroic acts, the troops movement, all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things coming from a war; all will bring the reader into the front line, feeling what the soldiers feel at famous events like the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino, and of course the occupation of Moscow. Napoleon himself was one of the main characters and a lengthy analysis was given for his actions. Hence, a very enlightening reading.

Representing the titular “peace”, the second plot was about the lives of four families, most importantly the Rostovs and the Bolkonskis and how they, as part of the high society in Russia then, coped with the war situation. Romance, misery, and most importantly, both their internal and external struggles to face with the people surrounding them, I think I’ve never read an epic novel with this kind of personal touch before.

The readers will find themselves associated or symphatized with one of the characters. The noble one, the vivacious one, the idealist one, the pragmatist one, the nationalist one, the seductive one… just name it. Colorful and memorable characters, period.

Furthermore, this is not just a story-telling novel. Tolstoy has included some of his (philosophical) thoughts here. Do not hesitate to ponder them all. His analysis on historical events was extensive and has its own unique logical reasoning.

Was Napoleon a genius commander? Were his victories inevitable? Was the abandonment of Moscow the right call made by General Kutuzov? Back to basic, what is power? What force produces the movement of nations? Tolstoy had his own answers. Combination of all forces, no event can singularly affect another, no such thing as an isolated cause and effect, so says this maestro.

I applaud Tolstoy for this work of art. It took me almost years to "really" read this novel and to get a firm hold on its essence. I think I came into a moment of silence after finishing the last page. Not easy to describe what I felt at that time, now I can only say that I feel blessed to have such an epic ‘experience’ and will be glad if I can share it with everyone.(less)

like 11 likes

· see review

Jan 02, 2011

Alex rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2010, russia, particularly-drunk-reviews, reading-through-history, victorian

So, I read this. It took a couple minutes.

Some of it is the same old stuff I remember from Anna Karenina: huge numbers of rich people screwing each other over. But the other stuff - I guess that's the "War" stuff, although it's mostly all war, one way or another - the stuff about Napoleon surprised me because I don't think Tolstoy saw this as "historical fiction." I think he saw it as some fiction parts, and some history parts, and during the history parts he ...moreSo, I read this. It took a couple minutes.

Some of it is the same old stuff I remember from Anna Karenina: huge numbers of rich people screwing each other over. But the other stuff - I guess that's the "War" stuff, although it's mostly all war, one way or another - the stuff about Napoleon surprised me because I don't think Tolstoy saw this as "historical fiction." I think he saw it as some fiction parts, and some history parts, and during the history parts he really meant for you to almost switch gears entirely. He did original research: interviewed veterans, visited battlefields. He wrote an enormous novel, interspersed with an enormous history book. Neat, right? It's like a mashup. A really, really long mashup. Holy shit! It's like when Danger Mouse released that album-length mashup of the Beatles' White album (representing history) and Jay-Z's Black album (representing rich people screwing each other)!

Now you know exactly like War & Peace is like. I'm so much awesomer than Sparknotes.

I didn't like this as well as I liked Anna Karenina. Maybe it's because I read AK first, so Tolstoy's tricks - the sprawling casts, the terrifying knowledge of human nature - aren't new to me anymore. Or, maybe it's because W&P is too fucking long. You know this was supposed to be the first of a trilogy? Ha, Tolstoy was such an asshole. And that 40 pages at the end...whew. That's some Ayn-Rand-near-the-end-of-Atlas-Shrugged BS right there (my wife's point, not mine), and you know how I feel about Atlas Shrugged.

That said, though, saying "I liked Anna Karenina better" is like saying "I liked having sex with whats-her-name from Weeds better." The bar is high. War & Peace is a very good book. And I liked the historical stuff, even if it's pretty clear that all that high-minded talk about history's drift could have been summed up as "I totally hate Napoleon."

Translation(s) Review
I read the Briggs and Pevear & Volokhonsky translations alternately. Just swapped back and forth at random. I don't recommend it. They spell names slightly differently, and Briggs has Denisov speak like Barbara Walters for some reason, so the switch is confusing. But here's my verdict: they're both fine. I give the edge to Pevear & Volokhonsky, but only if you don't mind some French; it feels like a lot, but it's only 2%. I do think Briggs can be a bit clunky - and I now know, from P&V's amusingly catty intro, that Briggs wussed out on a bit of Tolstoy's weird tendency to repeat words like six times in a paragraph. (But Briggs' afterword, by Figes, is better.) Really, you're good either way.(less)

like 15 likes

· see review

Feb 23, 2011

Matt rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: The type of person who cares whether a person has read <i>War and Peace</i>

Whatever else I am, I am the type of person who reads classic novels out of a sense of obligation. Also, I must admit, out of a sense of vanity. My ego, after all, is as fragile as a goldfish and requires the constant attention of a newborn baby. Every once in awhile, it needs a little boost, and the intellectual challenge of Dostoevsky or Dickens can really work wonders.

Now, I’ve been told that forcing myself to read books I don’t necessarily like is a fruitless waste of time (and ...more

like 30 likes

· see review

Mar 26, 2010

Evan rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: world-literature-top-100-list-poll, epic, russian-soviet-etc

So, I've slam dunked War and Peace...
…And now the bragging rights are mine.

Even so, just how much do I want to linger over this dead corpse: Tolstoy’s challenge to all those who, rather than climb mountains, would subject themselves to the masochistic come-on presented by the daunting, daring, formidable, teasing charms of an overwritten, repetitive 1,350 to 1600-plus-page fictionalized historical opus?

Not much really.

But, some thoughts do bear being mad...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Sep 20, 2011

Marvin marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Written for the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament

The bout is held at the house of Natalya "Natasha" Ilyinichna Rostova. Mrs. Beeton arrives with a present of clotted cream.

"How thoughtful" says The Countess Rostova. "I have prepared tea for your arrival"

"Why, Thank you, Countess", Mrs. Beeton sits on a comfortable chair as the Countess' maid pours tea.

"Please. Call me Natasha"

"...more

like 15 likes

· see review

May 05, 2008

Matthew rated it

· review of another edition

I sincerely doubt that I will ever read this book again, or ever feel any desire to. I can certainly see how and why it has secured its place as part of the canon, but I did not find the characters and their lives compelling enough to overcome the annoyance I felt with Tolstoy's personal vision of history and life in general.

There were moments when I came to care about what was going on in the book. I sympathized with Prince Andrey's broken heart and Pierre's search for meaning and ...moreI sincerely doubt that I will ever read this book again, or ever feel any desire to. I can certainly see how and why it has secured its place as part of the canon, but I did not find the characters and their lives compelling enough to overcome the annoyance I felt with Tolstoy's personal vision of history and life in general.

There were moments when I came to care about what was going on in the book. I sympathized with Prince Andrey's broken heart and Pierre's search for meaning and I was genuinely interested in what choice Nikolay would make in regards to Sonya and Marya... some of the time. Prince Andrey recedes into the background in the latter half of the book, only to reappear briefly so that he can die a sudden, anticlimactic and boring death. Pierre meanders so aimlessly between various ideas and goals that I could only become frustrated with him and Nikolay is at times such a flat lifeless character that I could not care at all about him one way or the other. War and Peace is so large that no story line ever comes to fruition and instead of being a truly complex epic it seemed to me that it was only the raw material from which several great books could have been made.

Without any genuine interest in the characters I could only hope that War and Peace would be, in some way, intellectually interesting but I found it even more deficient in this regard. Tolstoy does not believe in free will, great men, the usefulness of rational thought, or military science. I know these things because Tolstoy uses these ideas like a cudgel, beating the reader about the head and shoulders. He does not trust in the reader enough to allow them to draw the ideas from the story and so makes numerous digressions to explain the same opinion as he just explained some fifty pages ago, using almost the same words, as often as not. Worse yet, the second epiloge is devoted exclusively to reiterating them one final time, using only the barest semblance of a rational argument, which is hardly surprising since he has already told us time and again that it is impossible to change any ones mind using words, and the only knowledge that matters is that which comes from ones gut and mystical revelation.

In final summation, the only other book that has ever produced such a visceral exhasperation in me is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps, as with Atlas Shrugged, time will change my opinion of War and Peace, but I am not hopeful(less)

like 15 likes

· see review

Apr 13, 2009

Jamie B. rated it

· review of another edition

Recommended to Jamie by: So far, I've only been advised against it.

Since high school, I have made references to War and Peace based on general assumptions: its length, dullness, how long it would surely take one to read it, and the degree to which the reading of it would make one want to kill oneself.

First off, I never wanted to kill myself, though it did lull me to sleep unintentionally during many a 3 a.m. subway ride. Now, what I didn't expect: it's sorta good. Like Salinger, Tolstoy uses irony to lovingly expose the flaws of his characters in ...moreSince high school, I have made references to War and Peace based on general assumptions: its length, dullness, how long it would surely take one to read it, and the degree to which the reading of it would make one want to kill oneself.

First off, I never wanted to kill myself, though it did lull me to sleep unintentionally during many a 3 a.m. subway ride. Now, what I didn't expect: it's sorta good. Like Salinger, Tolstoy uses irony to lovingly expose the flaws of his characters in a way that often made me laugh out loud (and believe me, I didn't expect War and Peace to be laugh-out-loud funny). Unlike Ayn Rand, even his greatly flawed characters can become his heroes. Like Dan Brown, Tolstoy starts a section with an exciting event (usually the prospect of courtship) and then leads you through the less-exciting stuff while you're still awaiting the romantic conclusion. Unlike Louisa May Alcott, the sad parts were so well executed and unexpected that they actually made me produce tears. Like Jane Austen, the scenes of the nineteenth century societal elite are enchanting, but more interesting than Austen, as they are set in St. Petersburg rather than Great Britain and also discuss politics, and not just who's going with whom. And finally, like D. H. Lawrence, Tolstoy sneaks in his own philosophies enough so you're intrigued...and then beats you over the head with them.

Is it the best novel of all time? Yes, I think it probably is. The construction is truly genius: Tolstoy takes an intricate and enchanting love story, sets it amidst the Napoleanic invasion of Russia, and inserts every political essay he's ever dreamed up to justify why Napolean sucks. In the end, his lovestruck Russian everymans emerge as the heroes more triumphantly than in any other work.

Now just because it's history's greatest novel does not mean it's the most entertaining. A lot of the book is just as you imagine it to be: downright boring. Judged by today's standards, I wonder if War and Peace could even get published in 2008. But judged by the standards of literary time, it packs a hefty punch.

I'm glad to have read it and am excited to NetFlix both the Audrey Hepburn and Anthony Hopkins movies, and maybe one day I'll catch the opera at the Met. Surely these adaptations highlight the loveablenesses of the characters and tiptoe quietly over the detailed accounts of the alliances of European generals in Austria. These former mentioned sections are what will stick with me over the years. (Oh, and how frightfully undeserving Napolean is of the title "military genius." Got it, Tolstoy--no really, you've made that abundantly clear.)

Should you read it? I hate to say it, but I kind of think you should. It's really long and took me a year (interspersed with a few month-long hiatuses to read quicker works), but the best feature regarding its readability is that its chapters are usually three pages long. So it's really easy to be like, "Hey, I can read two chapters right now and then do something else." Then again, you will have to read two chapters and then do something else 180.5 times. It's your call.

*Added way later: I've now NetFlixed the 1956 movie with Audrey Hepburn, who shines, divinely cast, as the mercurial-turned-refined Natasha. The men, however, are another story: Henry Fonda is a mess as Pierre, and Mel Ferrer cannot garner viewer sympathy because he is stoic and wearing way too much make-up. Here's why Fonda is a mess: basically, the director decided that Pierre, the classless bastard, should show his lack of rearing by donning an American dialect, while everyone else's in the film is British (or, in Hepburn's case, vaguely Dutch). No matter that they are all supposed to be speaking Russian. It's cool; no really: Pierre can speak American. And I get the choice, but it just comes off as "Oops, somebody forgot to hire a dialect coach for Fonda." And it also comes off as this ensemble cast of actors acting their hearts out to make this 1800's period piece shine, and here Fonda is, loud and proud in 1956. He calls her Nuh-TASH-uh, for God's sakes. That's "-tash" rhyming with "sash," "ash," "cash," and other nasal Bostonian vowels. But Audrey is adorable, and we are afforded a dash of eye-candy in the casting of Jeremy Brett (Freddy in My Fair Lady) as the underutilized brother Nicholai. That's "dash" rhyming with the "-tash" in "Nuh-TASH-uh."

Basically, it's brilliant and you should totally rent it.(less)

like 10 likes

· see review

Mar 21, 2008

Katie rated it

· review of another edition

The edition I read, 1300 pages, is Oxford “World’s Classics.” Now I know why… War and Peace has to be one of the most amazing books I have read. Where to begin. I guess the thing I enjoyed the most about it, and what impressed me the most, was Tolstoy’s depth of insight and perception of human nature, spanning social classes, men, women, and children. By the end you feel that you know the characters so well that you could recognize them in a crowd on the street. And there isn’t just one or two m...moreThe edition I read, 1300 pages, is Oxford “World’s Classics.” Now I know why… War and Peace has to be one of the most amazing books I have read. Where to begin. I guess the thing I enjoyed the most about it, and what impressed me the most, was Tolstoy’s depth of insight and perception of human nature, spanning social classes, men, women, and children. By the end you feel that you know the characters so well that you could recognize them in a crowd on the street. And there isn’t just one or two main characters that this applies to. There are whole families of main characters, but I didn’t feel challenged in keeping track of them. They are so believable, you just get to know them in spite of yourself. They start out as social acquaintences among the wealthy Russian gentry, and you follow them through battles, illnesses, romances, military hospitals, war captivity, death, debt, and life-changing perspective shifts. You have the experience of the War of 1812 right along with them, with things gradually getting worse and more intense, looking back and thinking, I never thought things would come to this. But here we are. I am still me, but I have grown and changed, and these others - I can remember a time before I met them but I know them so well now that I can’t remember how it felt to not know them.
This is my criteria for an excellent, compelling book: Through the telling of a story, the author imparts to the reader the same feelings and experiences that the characters are having. By reading the book you live out in a partial, but convincing and moving way, the same thoughts, emotions, and discoveries that the story describes. This is a subtle, hard-to-pin down quality. Something in the pacing, the way and timing in which information is revealed or concealed… Obviously it comes with the author’s skill in describing people and events. Choice of words, to evoke the right imagery that really resonates with the reader. That’s the magic of good writing - you don’t have to work to imagine. The visuals spring unbidden to your mind, as if they couldn’t be any other way. A few brief external words later, you have envisioned internal truths.

Many of the descriptions and characters resonated with me in an “ah, yes. This I know. True, that.” kind of a way. But other things, like the descriptions of the characters’ experiences in battle, taught me a lot of new things about what it must be like to be a man, a soldier, a soldier in combat. These kinds of things are timeless, I think. A socialite in the early 1800’s, a young army officer in the early 1800’s - we are not so different in these modern days. Human nature still rings true, when it is truly captured in words, and so masterfully as Leo Tolstoy has done in War and Peace.

I would recommend it to anyone.

——

One tiny note: You have to be patient with Tolstoy. He kind of goes off on his ideas about the philosophy of history, especially in the later portion of the book. I found it interesting, but maybe repeated a few too many times… (less)

like 17 likes

· see review

Jul 25, 2011

Kelanth, in tenebris lux tua rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: narrativa, classico

Se immaginiamo il petto di un ipotetico lettore, pieno di medaglie per ogni libro letto, il lettore che ha letto Guerra e Pace, dovrebbe avere la massima onorificenza al merito. La sua "patacca" dovrebbe occupare almeno 1/4 di petto. Lo dico mentre mi congratulo con me stesso per aver avuto il coraggio di affrontare una simile lettura e per averla anche portata a termine, impresa ardua aggiungerei, leggendo anche prefazione, postfazione e biografia approfondita dell'autore.
Perchè ...moreSe immaginiamo il petto di un ipotetico lettore, pieno di medaglie per ogni libro letto, il lettore che ha letto Guerra e Pace, dovrebbe avere la massima onorificenza al merito. La sua "patacca" dovrebbe occupare almeno 1/4 di petto. Lo dico mentre mi congratulo con me stesso per aver avuto il coraggio di affrontare una simile lettura e per averla anche portata a termine, impresa ardua aggiungerei, leggendo anche prefazione, postfazione e biografia approfondita dell'autore.
Perchè dico questo? Perchè a mio ricordo non ho mai letto un libro così complesso come Guerra e Pace, complesso e di difficile "digestione", se mi si permette un accostamento culinario a volte mi sembrava di aver mangiato una teglia di melanzane alla parmigiana e poi essermi andato a fare un bagno in acqua fredda: sul momento ti sembra di stare bene e refrigerato, ma poi lo stomaco ti presenta il conto.
Non per nulla, per due notti, dopo essermi sparato quasi cinquecento pagine in un giorno ho avuto gli incubi.
Sarebbe oltremodo indecoroso cercare da umile lettore quale sono, fare una recensione ad un libro come questo. Non ho le basi, ne la coltura, per permettermi di scrivere null'altro che le mie sensazioni.
A tratti brioso, a tratti pesante come un macigno, con Tolstoy in cattedra a somministrare pensieri e filosofie di un tempo che non c'è più.
Le parti dove leggiamo delle vicende di queste due famiglie russe con le loro vicissitudini, felicità e tragedie con la guerra in sottofondo sono quello che di bello c'è nel libro, tutto il resto è di una noia sconvolgente e mi permetto di dirlo da appassionato di storia quale sono. Non si possono veramente leggere, così come le credenze, gli stili di vita, la base di quello che era la vita nella Russia del 1800: un'overdose di monotonia, tedio, grigiore, insofferenza e fastidio; ovviamente giudicati con gli occhi di un lettore del 2011.
Fosse stato tutto concentrato in due libri forse poteva anche andare, ma duemila pagine di questo sono davvero un piatto pesante.
Tutto questo lo dico ovviamente senza sminuire quello che è un classico della letteratura mondiale e che ogni lettore che si degni di questo aggettivo, dovrebbe tenere quel quarto di petto libero per appuntarsi la medaglia di Guerra e Pace, perchè dopo tutte queste mie parole non potrei comunque astenermi dal consigliarlo per la lettura; sono i libri che fanno parte della coscienza mondiale della letteratura.
Probabilmente avrei apprezzato di più tale opera se fossi stato un lettore più attento, più preparato, più colto, ma in ogni caso non rinnego la lettura di queste pagine che faranno parte per sempre del mio bagaglio personale.
Una lettura difficile, impegnativa, a tratti davvero dura, ma in qualche maniera appagante e scintillante come la mia ipotetica medaglia al valore.

http://kelanthsblog.blogspot.com/(less)

like 3 likes

· see review

Apr 06, 2011

Emma Rj rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: audio, classic, paid

This book is bloated old piece of crap. How this even got published in the first place is beyond me, much less how it has been considered a 'classic' for years.

I had read that this was 1400 pages of Tolstoy giving his readers a dry, boring recount of the French invasion of Russia but I didn't believe it. I wish I had believed it. Not only is War and Peace a sleep-inducing lecture on way too many perspectives of this war, it also comes complete with Tolstoy's never-ending butt-in chap...more

like 7 likes

· see review

Jun 30, 2008

Gregg rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Matt

Shelves: historical-fiction, classics, russian_lit

Already, I'm hankering to reread this sucker. Twenty or so subplots: impossible to summarize here (for me, anyway). But I look at the book this way: Carl Sagan once wrote an essay arguing that looking at a grain of salt could open up answers to questions about the universe. That's what Tolstoy did here. He used Napoleon's conquest of Russia to examine questions that still resound today: How much can we actually control the events around us, how great are "great" men in history (not ver...more

like 4 likes

· see review

Dec 21, 2007

Kimley rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 19th-century, russian-lit

Writing a review of War and Peace seems somewhat silly - what the hell can I add??? But, while it's still fresh in my mind, here are some general impressions...

I have to confess that while I enjoyed the first half of this book, I was thinking 4 stars and certainly not "greatest novel ever written" but once I got to the third volume, Leo's crazy stew really started to simmer up nicely for me. I still don't think it's the greatest novel ever written but then again, I don't t...more

like 5 likes

· see review

Sep 13, 2007

Seth rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: everyone

an amazing, amazing book. can't say i've read much tolstoy before this, but after plowing through the 1300-odd pages, it's clear why he's considered one of the best novelists in the history of novels. the scope is so broad that it's no easy task to critique it, but: i've found his view on the philosophy of history lingering, spilling over into my daily thoughts in the weeks since i finished it. the thought that the overarching movements of history are not formed by great men, battles, works o...more

like 3 likes

· see review

May 22, 2007

Eric rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: People with stamina.

Good books have an incredible ability to evoke the past. Memories of my favorite books are sometimes not so much of the stories themselves, although those recollections can be strong, but of that period in my life when I was reading them. For me, the most evocative books tend to be works of fiction. They also tend to be books that leave me with a sense of accomplishment once I have gobbled them up. Among my most vivid book memories are the memories surrounding Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace. ...moreGood books have an incredible ability to evoke the past. Memories of my favorite books are sometimes not so much of the stories themselves, although those recollections can be strong, but of that period in my life when I was reading them. For me, the most evocative books tend to be works of fiction. They also tend to be books that leave me with a sense of accomplishment once I have gobbled them up. Among my most vivid book memories are the memories surrounding Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace.
As vividly as I remember my visualizations of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in Tolstoy’s work I, remember that I was reading those passages when the leaves were turning in autumn 2004. I remember the uncertainty of the time; I was applying to PhD programs, was earning my living as a barista, and was drinking more beer than usual. I had yet to apply for teaching positions. Since I was sans car, the Milwaukee County Transit System was my transportation and therefore a dear friend. It afforded me plenty of time for pleasure-reading to and from work.
War and Peace resonated with me at that time because I had just completed my MA thesis on, coincidentally, representations of war in literature and film. As uncertain as the Russian future was on the eve of Borodino, so to was my future unsure. I was feeling both over-educated for teaching (Who would hire a first-year teacher with an MA?) and under-qualified to attend the types of PhD programs that I was applying to. The latter worry was of no consequence since I did not earn a spot at Madison, Berkeley, Yale, and the like. Still, despite the swirl of uncertainty that was my life, the book steadied me. It filled the cracks. It occupied my down time. The book’s winter chill, Romanticism, Freemason intrigue, and cast of colorful individuals served as the perfect foil to a service industry destiny that I so feared.
Indeed, by realizing what makes the book truly great, I began to feel a bit better about my life. This book radiates greatness, I think, because Leo Tolstoy offers not just an intricate snapshot of Napoleonic Europe, but he also gifts the reader with his philosophy of history. The entire closing chapter of his work neither extends plot lines, nor brings them to a close. Instead he explains, in great detail, how history’s pages turn.
In short, history is not a story driven by the great names or queen bees of the past. The drones and the worker bees assemble history just as they assembled the pyramids, fought in Great War trenches, and Lowell, Massachusetts textile mills. The slightest change in the actions of the drones can alter the march of history in profound ways. I felt like Leo was giving me a bit of a pep talk. He at least helped me understand that even if being a drone is at times burdened by quotidian drudgery, I am still party to the possibility of greatness. The text of life is unwritten and there is no way to know how large my character will loom.

(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 20, 2008

Guy rated it

· review of another edition

The online discussion thread in the New York Times website alerted me to the fact that the long-awaited and highly-anticipated Pevear & Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace is here. I dashed to Borders immediately, and am now a hundred pages in.

Not by any stretch an easy read, and some of the criticisms of the P&V version are valid. One's "expectations" are not "deceived," as they choose to say. And yet: I don't find these bits of usage as awkward as others...more

like 4 likes

· see review

Oct 07, 2010

Polly rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: polly

I was surprised not to be quickly enthralled with War and Peace because I remember loving Anna Karenina so much. It probably took me 170 pages to be hooked on this, but that is the equivalent of 25-50 in a regular-length book. When Tolstoy described the inner dialogue of one character's first experience in battle, I was mesmerized by how realistic the soldier's disillusionment and disorientation seemed. The vivid characters in this book are incredibly real and fascinating. They gain insight,...moreI was surprised not to be quickly enthralled with War and Peace because I remember loving Anna Karenina so much. It probably took me 170 pages to be hooked on this, but that is the equivalent of 25-50 in a regular-length book. When Tolstoy described the inner dialogue of one character's first experience in battle, I was mesmerized by how realistic the soldier's disillusionment and disorientation seemed. The vivid characters in this book are incredibly real and fascinating. They gain insight, make resolutions, lose their way, gain fresh insight to try again, are sometimes destroyed by their weaknesses, and sometimes put it all together and find happiness.

I am struck by how Tolstoy seems able to understand the inner thoughts and motivations of so many different kinds of people. With ordinary writers, I often feel a distance from the characters and the plot, and am aware of what I think the author is trying to do, or what the author wants me to feel. With Tolstoy, I am completely absorbed in this other world which seems as real as my own. He must have had a brilliant mind and an understanding heart to have such a grasp on human psychology, besides the extended sections of scholarly review of history and his commentary on why nations go to war, why certain personalities assume power, and the gap between what really happened and how it is remembered.

Some of my favorite quotes:

This quote has an uncanny resemblance to discussion I have heard since September 11, 2001 but is describing life in 1812:
"One has but to admit some menace to public tranquility and every sort of action is justified. All the horrors of terrorism were based only on anxiety for public tranquility."

On flattery:
"...and flattered him with that delicate flattery that goes hand in hand with conceit, and consists in a tacit assumption that ones companion and oneself are the only people capable of understanding all the folly of the rest of the world and the sagacity and profundity of their own ideas."

On optimism:
"...as usually happens when a man is in a pleasant state of mind, everything went well and easily."

On self-absorption:
"It had not occurred to him that such an agreeable pastime for him could be anything but agreeable to anyone else."

On fooling ourselves:
"She had in fact seen nothing then but had mentioned the first thing that came into her head, but what she had invented then seemed to her now as real as any other recollection."

This makes me think I may be part Russian:
"...that vague and exclusively Russian feeling of contempt for everything conventional, artificial, human, for everything that is regarded by the majority of men as the highest good in the world...he suddenly felt that wealth and power and life, all that men build up and guard with such effort, is only worth anything through the joy with which it can all be cast away."(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 17, 2009

John rated it

· review of another edition

There is a lot of war in "War and Peace," and quite a lot of uneasy peace.
This is a Russian novel, and it has the characteristics of all Russian novels:
-- There are a great many characters.
-- They discuss everything they do at great length.
-- They talk about God a lot.
-- They cry a lot.
-- The characters have long names.
-- Each character has at least two names, and the author seems to decide which name to use at a whim. This confuses me, but it ...moreThere is a lot of war in "War and Peace," and quite a lot of uneasy peace.
This is a Russian novel, and it has the characteristics of all Russian novels:
-- There are a great many characters.
-- They discuss everything they do at great length.
-- They talk about God a lot.
-- They cry a lot.
-- The characters have long names.
-- Each character has at least two names, and the author seems to decide which name to use at a whim. This confuses me, but it doesn't seem to bother Tolstoy.
Then there are characteristics that might apply just to Tolstoy:
-- He describes women's clothing in greater detail than any other male author I've encountered. But then, Tolstoy describes everything in great detail.
-- Sooner or later, practically all of Tolstoy's women, and a few of his men, have heaving bosoms.
-- Tolstoy doesn't hesitate to kill off major characters. Sometimes it takes a hundred pages; sometimes it happens in a paragraph.
It's not easy being a Tolstoy character.
Something that particularly struck me in "War and Peace" is that the Russians are at war with France through much of the book, yet the Russians are Francophiles. The upper-crust Russians speak French as much as they speak Russian. They read French novels. They adopt French customs and dress. They are in awe of Napoleon, although some of them think he is the Antichrist.
"War and Peace" is an intimidating book because of its length, but it's not at all difficult to read. Yes, there are dry patches -- such as the entire second epilogue.
But Tolstoy's ability to bring a scene to life more than makes up for those dry patches. While reading one section, in which a character is led off to what he believes will be his execution, I felt that queasy feeling in my stomach I get when I'm about to face a situation I've been dreading. You know the feeling I'm talking about ... the feeling you get when the boss says, "Can you step into my office?" Tolstoy made me feel that way, with only words on a page.
What I appreciated most about his description of battles was the sense of confusion the combatants felt. I've never been in a battle, so I don't know what it's like. But I can well imagine that it would be as Tolstoy describes it. There's the huge battle going on, but what the individual soldiers experience is disconnected from the big picture. They don't really have any idea what's happening. They aren't following a plan, they are just reacting.
"War and Peace" is a remarkable book and a great winter read.(less)

like 8 likes

· see review

Oct 29, 2008

Matt rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: not a living soul.

(I'm starting this review just pages before the epilogue, and it is painfully clear that there is nothing that can redeem it at this point. I would like to note that I don't feel any version of this book would have been any better or worse, and so I will not take issue with the translation, done by Anthony Briggs.)

The novel's reputation precedes it, and unfortunately is almost entirely unwarranted. I purchased this book half-expecting it to be every bit as epic and grandiose as the ...more(I'm starting this review just pages before the epilogue, and it is painfully clear that there is nothing that can redeem it at this point. I would like to note that I don't feel any version of this book would have been any better or worse, and so I will not take issue with the translation, done by Anthony Briggs.)

The novel's reputation precedes it, and unfortunately is almost entirely unwarranted. I purchased this book half-expecting it to be every bit as epic and grandiose as the generations of its readers have proclaimed it to be, and at this point I am left with nothing but a feeling of betrayal, quite simply. It is not that I heaped expectation upon expectation, lest I paint myself as someone unreasonable, but to put it bluntly, I found this book to be sub-par, at best, the only thing remarkable about it being its length.

The prose itself is unbearably drab and dull, but I will give Tolstoy the benefit of the doubt, and attribute this to Mr. Briggs's translation (although I'm not fully convinced this is the case). Nevertheless, while his ambition is evident, this "sweeping epic" is nothing but fragmented and episodic bits of mediocrity. The cast of characters is extraordinarily large and diversified, but this is not to anyone's credit, for it seems he himself couldn't keep track of their development and so abandoned it altogether. All of the characters, differing in name and sex alone, share one single trait: fickleness. For all his chances at producing one, there is not one well-rounded character in the whole of the novel. Each time one of its core players is touched upon (which is at varying lengths, as there is a good deal of undisciplined rambling), they are almost entirely unrecognizable and drastically changed, be it in their religious views, love interests, or career ambitions. There are no static characters in the work, but nor are there any fully fledged creations either. (If I had to venture a guess as to why this would be, I would say he simply forgot his intentions in between tangents, that run on for hundreds of pages.)

One of my main contentions with the novel is the underlying tone of nationalism, and borderline propaganda, evidenced most clearly in Tolstoy's painting its removed antagonist, Napoleon, in a clearly biased light. I care little for history, or the Frenchman himself, but there is a sense of childishness in Tolstoy's refusal to acknowledge his role in the military conquests of France under his reign. The term 'sore winner' comes to mind. On numerous occasions (which reminds me to include also that the book is at times horribly repetitive), he (Tolstoy) adopts the most absurdly fatalistic approach to the descriptions of the military campaign, refusing to attribute any French success to the planning of their generals, but rather to the 'infinitesimals' that are always at work in the world, those infinitely minor examples of chance that could have gone hither or thither with the slightest whim of fate. No amount of Napoleon's planning contributed to his victories, they were simply the only outcome possible when one considers all the ineffable goings-on, and the natural course of things unknown, and so on. And yet, later, in some of the most hypocritical writing I’ve ever come across, when the French army has completely exhausted itself... it is attributed to Napoleon's poor planning (or lack thereof), and aforementioned infinitesimals and uncontrollable circumstance go out the proverbial window. To read such contradictory passages with a straight face was extremely difficult for me, and filled me with some contempt for the author.

The novel is also marked by an iconoclastic approach to history itself. Perhaps hundreds of pages are dedicated to the denigration of historians and their fanciful retellings of the book's events, and yet what is this novel but Tolstoy's own skewed and embellished take on the Napoleonic Wars (albeit intermingled with half-baked melodrama)? His is perhaps the most unforgivable take upon the subject matter, given its longevity and the generosity posterity has shown it. This was another example of hypocrisy that didn't sit well with me at all, and made progress increasingly difficult.

Stepping away from the famed historical events (the core of the work), one can look at the more intimate lives of the characters, and plainly see there is nothing terribly exceptional, original, or compelling about them. Fortunes unwittingly inherited and lost, duels, promiscuous wives and impulsive teenage love, snobbish socialites and shrewd politicians, et cetera, et cetera. There is nothing in this novel that hadn't already been done, and done better, or that hasn't been surpassed countless times since its publication. I will not pretend that I did not enjoy some of the characters SOME of the time, but in over a millennium of pages, these precious few passages are hardly redeeming.

This book is overrated trash. Save yourself the time, and read three or four others, more modestly written and far more fulfilling. (less)

like 5 likes

· see review

Sep 16, 2008

Bruce rated it

· review of another edition

In Tolstoy’s appendix to War and Peace, he specifically states, “It is not a novel.” Having finished reading this long work, having perceived its broad historical sweep, having appreciated its rich characterization, and having navigated its long philosophical passages, I certainly agree that it is unlike most novels, although perhaps more unlike most novels of the late 19th Century than the early 21st Century, when postmodernism has produced so many “novels” that defy easy categorization. In ...moreIn Tolstoy’s appendix to War and Peace, he specifically states, “It is not a novel.” Having finished reading this long work, having perceived its broad historical sweep, having appreciated its rich characterization, and having navigated its long philosophical passages, I certainly agree that it is unlike most novels, although perhaps more unlike most novels of the late 19th Century than the early 21st Century, when postmodernism has produced so many “novels” that defy easy categorization. In Tolstoy’s book, the entertainment resides in the narrative, the engaging and well-developed characters, almost none of whom is easily described as “good” or “bad” except perhaps Platon Karataev, whose actual presence is brief but whose influence looms large; his exquisite depictions of persons’ psychological responses to death and suffering as well as to love and intimacy; the broad historical panorama on which is painted specific almost intimate battle scenes; the social minuet that migrates from salon to salon while yet remaining always much the same. Yet this narrative is really almost window-dressing for the core of the writing which is the historical philosophy and analysis, the most interesting part of the work from my perspective, in which Tolstoy explicates his conviction that the “Great Man” philosophy of history is unconvincing, taking a position opposed to that of Thomas Carlyle a generation earlier, and instead positing that history develops and evolves from within itself, root causes never being fully identifiable inasmuch as they are multifactorial and their investigation simply an exercise in infinite regress. His discussion, to which he returns again and again throughout the work, includes explorations of the concept of history itself, its writing, its very “construction.” He clearly has a theistic agenda, sometimes boldly stated, sometimes hovering at the edges of his arguments but apparent and influential nonetheless. In the Appendix, which must be read as an integral part of the book, he extensively explores free will (probably, in his ultimate analysis, illusory) and its relationship to history. He does, on occasion, take pot shots at the Enlightenment.

The book is fascinating and engaging, sometimes enigmatic, sometimes preachy, but fully worthy of being read, wrestled with, and pondered over, an invigorating if somewhat exhausting literary trip.

(less)

like 3 likes

· see review

Jul 26, 2008

Mike rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Anyone

Recommended to Mike by: AARP magazine

Yep, the old man read War and Peace. Whew! Actually, he thought it was a pretty fair book. The cover notes say Tolstoy is the greatest novelist and WaP is the greatest novel, but the old man is not qualified to join in that critique. Especially when he likes Louis L’Amour so much. But anyway, the book is filled with politics, psychology, military strategy, discourses on what is a great man, love, relationships, competition, philosophy of history.

The old man loved the parts abo...moreYep, the old man read War and Peace. Whew! Actually, he thought it was a pretty fair book. The cover notes say Tolstoy is the greatest novelist and WaP is the greatest novel, but the old man is not qualified to join in that critique. Especially when he likes Louis L’Amour so much. But anyway, the book is filled with politics, psychology, military strategy, discourses on what is a great man, love, relationships, competition, philosophy of history.

The old man loved the parts about old General Kutozov, who could see what was happening to Napoleon’s army when they arrived in Moscow; he waited and saved the Russian army while Napoleon’s army collapsed of its own doing; then he chased them out of Russia and destroyed them. Moreover, he was under incredible pressure to attack, but the lesser generals had to obey and the Tsar could do nothing because Kutozov was so loved by the people.

It was an easy book to read – very short chapters, no stream of consciousness. The many descriptions of the landscapes were truly works of art. At least 100 characters were fully and richly developed. There were so many characters, the old man had to write them down and diagram the relationships. There were about 20 main characters. Most other characters appeared only once but they were so vivid the old man remembers them all. Several characters appeared sporadically throughout.

Tolstoy skewers the field of history, pretty much saying they miss the point. He says history is really about the movements of humans and the necessities causing those movements – as opposed to the study of “great” men (quote marks by Tolstoy.) Tolstoy thinks Napoleon is highly overrated and was nothing more than pure evil. The old man picked up The Lessons of History by the Durants to check Tolstoy’s philosophy, and sure enough, it looks like modern historians have taken Tolstoy’s path.

The last part of the book is a lengthy discussion and development of the philosophy of free will. This was very interesting and at the end Tolstoy tied it all in with his ideas about history. The old man thinks Tolstoy’s intellect is equal to or greater than Descartes, Hume, Kant or Sartre. Plus, he can write a good novel and they cannot.

The old man will always fondly remember the soldiers’ general – General Kutozov.
(less)

like 5 likes

· see review

Apr 02, 2008

Jill rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Jane Austen lovers

Recommended to Jill by: Ero

Shelves: 2008reads, books-i-own

1. I read the 1978 Penguin Classics two volume edition. (After having lost a huge 1 volume version earlier. 2 volumes = much easier commuting.)

2. My friend Ero was giving away a copy. I never thought I would read War and Peace and turned it down. But then he said that he read it -- and as soon as he finished, went out and got another translation and started reading it again, because he had gotten attached to the characters and didn't want it to end. I had just finished reading...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Apr 03, 2008

Kim rated it

· review of another edition

The author repeats himself often throughout this novel, but then, if you were writing a 1500 page novel, you probably would too.

There were three separate components interwoven throughout this book. The first is the story of the people of Russia. The loves and lives of the Rostovs and their acquaintances. I really enjoyed this part, especially when I got into the swing of things the way they were in early 19th century Russia.

The second part was a description of the Na...more

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 03, 2008

Teresa rated it

· review of another edition

This translation deserves 5 stars -- it's both beautiful and readable. The novel itself is amazing; though the lengthy 'essay' parts of the epilogue are repetitive, the questions it raises are important ones as to how we view and should view history.

I thought I would get bogged down in the battle scenes, but to my pleasant surprise, I didn't. I did have trouble with two lengthy *preparation* for battle passages, however. Tolstoy obviously did his research and was passionate about w...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Jan 07, 2008

Joshua rated it

· review of another edition

Celebrated turning in my grades and finishing my first semester as a prof by splurging on the fancy hardcover of the fancy new translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky of Tolstoy's epic. I read the Constance Garner translation maybe fifteen years ago. So far this translation is distinguished by a certain mellifluous awkwardness that reminds me, stylistically, he's no Jane Austen even though the first hundred pages are devoted to a comedy of manners set in a period contemporary with her novels. P&V ...moreCelebrated turning in my grades and finishing my first semester as a prof by splurging on the fancy hardcover of the fancy new translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky of Tolstoy's epic. I read the Constance Garner translation maybe fifteen years ago. So far this translation is distinguished by a certain mellifluous awkwardness that reminds me, stylistically, he's no Jane Austen even though the first hundred pages are devoted to a comedy of manners set in a period contemporary with her novels. P&V also decided to render the many passages of French that the characters write and speak... in French. Gives my tired and inadequate francais a work-out, I can tell you. But this makes me trust them more: less is more when it comes to translation, and if the book weren't already nearly as heavy as my unborn child I'd wish for it to be a facing page translation: Cyrillic and French on one side, English on the the other.

The story? It's just getting started. More when I'm finished, perhaps.

***********

A week in bed with the flu gave me the window I needed to read this. It deserves its reputation. One thing I noticed was that although Tolstoy's narrator evinces certain moral values and often deals ironically with the follies and enthusiasms of the various characters, he's not nearly so tendentious a writer as I remembered (I always remember Anna Karenina less for the love story and more as The Education of Kostya Levin, though I'm perverse enough to have found that storyline more interesting than Anna's doomed love&#151maybe I'm just uninterested in Tolstoy's women, underwhelmed as I was by Natasha, though Tolstoy puts her forward as his Russian feminine ideal). He's as dialogical in his way as Dostoyevsky&#151more so given that he doesn't resort as often to long monologues in which the various characters pour out their souls.

For the first five hundred pages or so I found the drawing-room comedy sections more compelling than the war scenes, but this feeling gradually shifted as I went along.

(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Anybody Know What Chapter This is In?	2	21	Feb 02, 2012 01:34am
Pevear & Volokhonsky's War and Peace Translation Question	5	45	Jan 31, 2012 03:06pm
Favorite Moment in War and Peace	25	100	Jan 28, 2012 01:40pm
You'll love this ...: War and Peace	28	65	Jan 20, 2012 06:41pm
World's Classics,...: Edition	11	6	Jan 16, 2012 03:45pm

title link	preview: War and Peace
avg rating	preview: War and Peace Goodreads rating: 4.02 (35686 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/265130.War_and_Peace?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1306788511m/265130.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/265130.War_and_Peace?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy[/url]

War and Peace (Modern Library)

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (422)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Leo Tolstoy

Books by Leo Tolstoy

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About War and Peace

Quotes from War and Peace

Groups That Shelved War and Peace