Goodreads | War and Peace (Oxford World's Classics)

topics	replies	views	last activity
Translations	9	42	02/10/2008 05:29AM

Joshua rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

08/14/08

Read in August, 2008

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. St...more 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, 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 this review? yes (9 people liked it)

1 comments

db rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

06/30/08

bookshelves: classics, historical-fiction, russian_lit

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: Matt

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 this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Russ rated it:

03/12/08

Read in March, 2008

This book is of a truly epic scale. The tale is one of a momentous time in history, Napoleon's clashes with Russia, and contains far too many characters than one can easily keep track of. He artfully blends in the supposedly grandiose and mundane(Emperors and peasants are both common characters), always giving the characters a sense of humanity.

Tolstoy carries many themes throughout the book- war, free will, the nature of history, the meaning of life and death. The best known theme is high...more This book is of a truly epic scale. The tale is one of a momentous time in history, Napoleon's clashes with Russia, and contains far too many characters than one can easily keep track of. He artfully blends in the supposedly grandiose and mundane(Emperors and peasants are both common characters), always giving the characters a sense of humanity.

Tolstoy carries many themes throughout the book- war, free will, the nature of history, the meaning of life and death. The best known theme is highlighting the absurdity of war- how destructive and repulsive it is, without the romanticism that often accompanies stories of "glory". In particular, during a portrayal of an execution of a prisoner of war, he gives a moving explanation for the the dehumanizing nature of war in how the responsibility gets shifted around. There is far more peace than you would have expected though- much of the book is filled with romance and court intrigue that you'd expect to find in a Jane Austen work.

Another huge theme for Tolstoy is his criticism of the historical analysis methods of his contemporaries. Historians, particularly in his day, created their narratives around individual people as a proxy for a people as a whole- telling history by telling the life of kings, military commanders, diplomats, or intellectuals as a way of telling the life of a whole people. Certain people are rendered "Geniuses" by these historians and are able to shape history. Tolstoy takes extreme umbrage at that assertion and relentlessly tears down the walls of that artifice both in his editorialized musings and his descriptions of people and war. Tolstoy's portrayal of Napoleon, in particular, really hammers home this point- Napoleon was not solely in control of France's destiny, as he believed, and he nor any other commander can truly have much of an impact upon the course of a battle being fought (being too far away and with too little information to either know the true course of a battle or to give orders that have a chance of being carried out. On the whole, Tolstoy gives a convincing description of the failures of historians. However, I couldn't help but think of complexity science (chaos theory, network theory) during his rants- this would provide a much more robust framework than that of what he attacks or proposes.

On the plus side, it is a far easier book to read than I expected- it wasn't a quick page-turner (especially with all the obscure references that sent me to the endnotes or wikipedia for clarification), but the book never really bogged me down in the way that "Gravity's Rainbow" or "Moby Dick" did.
Even better, Tolstoy makes me feel less dorky by making numerous science analogies during the work. He makes references to integrative calculus, science, and Newton's second law as a means of explaining his ideas on life and history. This makes me feel less self-conscious about my own propensity to make analogies that swerve to nerddom with references to science.

However, in the end, "War and Peace" left me a little cold. I suppose that this is probably because I have a different world view from Tolstoy- his ideal is not my ideal, so I will not strive to be like his ideal man, and cannot share his search for ultimate meaning in religion.

As for whether I'd recommend this novel- I'm conflicted. It is extremely well written, and has had a profound impact upon the literary world. It also has a lot of interesting thoughts and themes. It takes a great deal of commitment to read, however, just to keep track of all the characters and plot threads. I don't know if I would have been better off reading three or four other books in the time it took me to read this one. I'd say that you should read it if you're looking for a challenge, and both have enough free time and are willing to invest some serious energy in reading, checking references, and musing on the salient themes of "War and Peace"...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Núria rated it:

10/12/07

bookshelves: 2006, borrowed

Read in May, 2007

recommends it for: lectores con bastante paciencia

Tardé seis meses en leerme este libro. Lo leí en tres etapas con largas pausas entre medio, pero es que ésta era para mí la única forma de conseguir terminar las 1470 páginas que tiene. Aunque en realidad no me las he leído todas; me he saltado bastantes. Y es que el principal defecto que tiene este novelón es que emplea demasiadas páginas en describir al milímetro los avances del ejército de Napoleón y los movimientos del ejército ruso, además de explicar la concepción de la hist...more Tardé seis meses en leerme este libro. Lo leí en tres etapas con largas pausas entre medio, pero es que ésta era para mí la única forma de conseguir terminar las 1470 páginas que tiene. Aunque en realidad no me las he leído todas; me he saltado bastantes. Y es que el principal defecto que tiene este novelón es que emplea demasiadas páginas en describir al milímetro los avances del ejército de Napoleón y los movimientos del ejército ruso, además de explicar la concepción de la historia que tiene el bueno de Tolstoi (como una fatalidad que no se puede evitar pero tampoco prever), que puede ser hasta cierto punto interesante pero que se puede resumir en un par de páginas y no en más de un centenar.

No me avergüenzo de haberme saltado estas páginas. Creo que tener un respeto excesivo a los libros y a su linealidad tampoco es nada bueno. Creo que es perfectamente legítimo saltarnos las batallitas que nos cuenta el abuelete cebolleta de Tolstoi, porque lo que importa son los personajes, a los que acabamos cogiendo cariño. La mayor virtud de Tolstoi es presentar al principio un montón de personajes cuyas vidas se van entrecruzando. Es una maravilla ver como los hilos se van cerrando poco a poco hasta el final donde todo queda ligado.

Mis personajes favoritos son el príncipe Andrei, la princesa María y Pierre, que tienen en común que buscan una forma de dar sentido a su vida. Pierre es quién ejemplifica mejor esto, porque él primero es el joven de vida disipada (dado a las mujeres y al vino), luego se introduce en la alta sociedad (sofisticada y superficial, perfectamente e irónicamente descrita) y también se casa, luego se hace masón y se dedica a la caridad, luego se alista al ejército... Pero parece que nada le satisface. Me encanta también porque es patoso, distraído, tímido y le toman el pelo muy fácilmente (la escena de la propuesta de matrimonio es la mejor que he leído en mi vida; olvidaros de Jane Austen y quién haga falta!)

Quise al principe Andrei desde el principio, porque estaba desencantado de la vida y porque era evidente que era gay (aunque ni él ni probablemente Tolstoi lo supieran): el matrimonio no le satisfacía a ningún nivel, tenía un buen puñado de amigos más jóvenes que él a los que hacía de mentor, y él mismo se confesaba que todo lo que hacía (especialmente todas las heroicidades que hacía en la guerra) lo hacía por el "amor de los hombres" (¡sic!) Luego, en la segunda mitad del libro se enamora (de una mujer) y cambia por completo. Y yo odio esto, odio que un personaje cambie de la noche a la mañana de forma ilógica y sin ninguna explicación para esta evolución.

Si me dicen que una mujer de una novela es fea, estáos seguros que la voy a acabar queriendo. Es por esto porque quiero a la princesa María, pero también porque es un personaje que acepta los palos de la vida con resignación, casi ya sin esperar nada, subyugada por un padre que es un tirano de pacotilla. Totalmente sola, sólo puede dar salida a toda su frustración y la poca esperanza que le queda a través de la religión.

Pero luego está Natascha, que odio con toda mi alma, porque es una niña mimada y caprichosa a la que todo el mundo ríe todas las gracias. Es culo-veo-culo-quiero, una superficial y una inconstante que se enamora y desenamora con una facilidad pasmosa, como quién se cambia las bragas. Pero lo que más me molesta de ella es que se nota mucho que Tolstoi está encoñado por Natascha. Y es que, a pesar de todos los defectos de Natascha, Tolstoi hace unos esfuerzos titánicos y patéticos para que la queramos y nos la pinta como el ejemplo perfecto de la esencia rusa. No lo soporto, en serio. A todos los personajes los tienes que tratar siempre con el mismo cariño, no se vale hacer diferencias.

Si no existiera este personaje insufrible ni las interminables páginas acerca de batallitas éste sería un libro perfecto. Sin duda.
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Savuth4u added it

10/24/07

Read in January, 1999

From the time the law of Copernicus was discovered and proved, the mere recognition of the fact that it was
not the sun but the earth that moves sufficed to destroy the whole cosmography of the ancients. By disproving
that law it might have been possible to retain the old conception of the movements of the bodies, but without
disproving it, it would seem impossible to continue studying the Ptolemaic worlds. But even after the
discovery of the law of Copernicus the Ptolemaic worlds were still...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments

Valerie rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

11/26/07

bookshelves: fiction

Read in December, 2007

The low rating is for the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation, not the novel. P&V are the husband-and-wife team who've become famous in the past 10 years, partially through an Oprah endorsement, partially through accolades from the New Yorker. Their translations are, loosely, celebrated as being more "accurate". this is a fairly nonsensical claim, but what it's based on is the idea that they stick closer to the grammatical structure of the Russian. there are two ways they do thi...more The low rating is for the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation, not the novel. P&V are the husband-and-wife team who've become famous in the past 10 years, partially through an Oprah endorsement, partially through accolades from the New Yorker. Their translations are, loosely, celebrated as being more "accurate". this is a fairly nonsensical claim, but what it's based on is the idea that they stick closer to the grammatical structure of the Russian. there are two ways they do this, one, is a much-hyped attempt on their part to "preserve the writer's style." so if Tolstoy repeats a word, they'll repeat it, though most translators would vary the word rep to make it sound "better." the second way is to, as literally as possible, while still maintaining coherence, say what the Russian says. (Nabokov famously did this to Onegin.)

I was openminded about this as an approach, and have been using their Gogol stories as a companion to reading it in Russian. (For that purpose, the more literal the better.) But now, from the experience of trying to read War & Peace in the P&V English I can say: They're frauds. This is awful stuff. Tolstoy's Russian is always gorgeous and simple. The P&V English is as clunky, awkward and unreadable. (I haven't read War & Peace in Russian but I have read it twice before in English and have read Anna Karenina in Russian, so I have some basis for saying what his writing should read like.) Even when the P&V more or less makes grammatical sense--and it doesn't always--it's a strain to get through.

So, in one sense, you are reading what the Russian "says" but is this really "accurate"? A Russian, reading this in Russian, would be experiencing smooth, humble (wind-y and discursive but still always glowing with an inner light) sentences that go down like butter. You, reading the translation, are reading some very tortured English. Wouldn't making it more readable also make it more accurate? That's what previous translators have opted for and it doesn't seem so crazy to me.

It's kind of interesting, actually, to see the hype machine in action, elevating these translators above all others, and making the release of their books such events. Now in 10 or 20 or however long years someone will come along and debunk them.

Also, whatever rat-bastard graphic designer who made this huge book in such a large font with such heavy paper is obviously not a reader. it is impossible to curl up with. the more time i spend with it the more i loathe it as a marketing gimmick and a shelf-warmer that very likely will put people off reading a truly great novel.

I'll be abandoning it as soon as I can get to a bookstore to buy the Ann Dunnigan....less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

11 comments

Teresa rated it:

03/02/08

Read in January, 2008

This is the longest book that I've ever read in my life thus far. Leo Tolstoy does an amazing job portraying Russian scoiety in the late 18th to 19th century (the time of Napoleon). The fact the the book is not a story of just one character and one family alone makes it all the more intriguing. It is in fact a story of five well to do family and how their life is affected by Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Toltstoy makes a very clear point in the story - life is often shaped by historical...more This is the longest book that I've ever read in my life thus far. Leo Tolstoy does an amazing job portraying Russian scoiety in the late 18th to 19th century (the time of Napoleon). The fact the the book is not a story of just one character and one family alone makes it all the more intriguing. It is in fact a story of five well to do family and how their life is affected by Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Toltstoy makes a very clear point in the story - life is often shaped by historical happenings. On cannot escape the influence of the 'outer' world.
I do not feel the need to give a summary of the book, because there are too many characters involved and the plot is a very complex one with many twists and turns, but I do feel the need to address some essential ideas that the book brings out.
The first thing that I would like to talk about is the human mind. Yes, like Dostoevsky, Toltstoy also does a good job in letting the readers delve into the workings of the human mind. Since, the book is mainly one about war - a major part of the story involves characters (generals)cooking up the best plans for survival. Other characters who are not directly involved in the war does not have the sharp instincts of army officals in the way they think, but not all the decisions they make are wrong. People, like us, relies on our instincts alot, but in war this may turn out to be fatal. In war one must be very cognizant of their surroundings and deduce the oppenents next move in order to make a decision. Sort of like chess.
A very interesting question arises in the book in the course of the war. That is the purpose of humanity. Why do people exists and for what purpose do they exist? A very existential question indeed. In war, death is inevitable - but are there things that one must do before their ultimate demise. When people face the verge of death, what do they think about? Personally, I think that the answer is regret. It's human nature for people to think about what they were not able to fulfill in their life and what they did wrong when faced with death. Because death serves to bring out the greatest fear in people - not fulfilling their role on Earth and not being able to finish what they want to be done. For life would be without meaning after death and one would reflect upon why they didn't do this and why they didn't do that when they had the chance. All meaning comes to an end in death. Then what is left? Nothing. War is a scary thing, but what is brings out in people is a greater fear. It is not death in war that is scary. What is scary is incompletion. The fact that one's life is incomplete when what needs to be done is not done.
Most literature adresses class conflicts and War and Peace does the same. One can clearly see the tension between peasants and the aristocratic land owning families. Is enslvement ever justified? According to the landowners it is. They believe that the peasants would be lost without them - they would not know what to do, because their whole life was spent farming land. Personally, I think that the emancipation of serfs came so late in Russia (1861) because of these inhumane beliefs.
Anyway, I highly recommend reading this book. It is not only one of war and peace, but love and class as well. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Katie rated it:

03/21/08

Read in February, 2007

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 ...more 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 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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Eric rated it:

(review of isbn 0375760644)

05/22/07

Read in January, 2004

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. ...more 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.
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 this review? yes (3 people liked it)

2 comments

Silvana rated it:

(review of isbn 0140444173)

05/24/08

bookshelves: classics, history, own, romance

Read in January, 2008

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 to Ru...more 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 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 this review? yes

add a comment

Beth rated it:

07/12/08

Read in July, 2008

recommends it for: anyone

People find War and Peace intimidating, and I was no exception. I decided to "reread" it, having only skimmed it and used Cole's Notes for the rest, when I was in college. The review on the Powell's Bookstore website, of the translation by Peavar and Volokhonsky, was outstanding, so that's the one I bought. BTW, it's not the one showing on my list of books, because it wasn't available as a choice.

This translation of War and Peace is wonderfully readable, and once I got into it,...more People find War and Peace intimidating, and I was no exception. I decided to "reread" it, having only skimmed it and used Cole's Notes for the rest, when I was in college. The review on the Powell's Bookstore website, of the translation by Peavar and Volokhonsky, was outstanding, so that's the one I bought. BTW, it's not the one showing on my list of books, because it wasn't available as a choice.

This translation of War and Peace is wonderfully readable, and once I got into it, I had a hard time putting it down. I bet that's difficult to believe about War and Peace, but it's true. To put some fears to rest: W&P is not full of difficult words, ponderous passages, and moody Russian ramblings. It is a wonderful story of families, relationships, love, and loss on the one hand; on the other, it is an exploration of war seen through the eyes of some of the people in those families, and it is a damning treatise on the hell of war. Tolstoy regularly uses irony when telling of the people involved in the 'soap opera' and in the war, and I laughed aloud at his descriptions of people, what they said, how they thought, and what they did.

Writing before film came into being, Tolstoy reminded me of nothing so much as a director describing in minute detail a scene -- the physical and psychological nuances, on an almost blow-by-blow basis. This may sound tedious, but I found that I could take in the whole scene in great depth -- not just the physical 3 dimensions, but the emotional, psychological and interactional atmosphere as well. I just took my time, soaking in the deceptively simple language that managed to render a scene more richly than I have experienced in other novels.

Whether describing a drawing room full of Russian aristocracy, a pre-dawn camp of soldiers preparing to do battle, or a wild sleigh ride through a frozen winter panorama, Tolstoy's language is at once simple and luminous.

At strategic junctures, Tolstoy avails himself of the opportunity to directly address his views on war, on the mistaken belief that 'heros' and 'leaders' are the cause of historical events, and finally, on his own theory of the 'science' of history. I'm certain that for the author, the purpose of the book was to a great extent the illustration of these views and theories. Having said that, and personally finding these sections of the book thought-provoking in themselves, I suggest that one could read W&P and skim through these sections, or skip them all together, without doing serious damage to one's understanding of the novel.

So don't let War and Peace intimidate you -- get this translation, and sink into a book that you will come to love and not want to end....less

Like this review? yes

3 comments

Matthew rated it:

05/05/08

Read in May, 2008

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 I was ge...more 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 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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comments

John rated it:

07/25/08

Read in July, 2008

My question for people who list War and Peace as one of their favorite novels: Really?

This book made me think a lot about what I enjoy about fiction and I've decided that endless character development and repetitive, annoyingly pedandtic lectures on history and philosophy are not things I look for. Obviously, this "greatest novel ever written" has a lot to commend it. Tolstoy's eye for detail was unquestionably amazing and although the book is pretty much structureless, many of t...more My question for people who list War and Peace as one of their favorite novels: Really?

This book made me think a lot about what I enjoy about fiction and I've decided that endless character development and repetitive, annoyingly pedandtic lectures on history and philosophy are not things I look for. Obviously, this "greatest novel ever written" has a lot to commend it. Tolstoy's eye for detail was unquestionably amazing and although the book is pretty much structureless, many of the sections read like top-notch short stories. The themes tackled are unbelievably ambitious and while the rants about the shortcomings of historians get irritating fast, they did serve an important purpose.

Have I mentioned the length? My God, the length! In my experience, few novels warrant running over 600 pages and while War and Peace is fairly consistently engaging for a 1400 page novel, the question of whether it is worth it (particularly in this century, when you have infinitely more entertainment options) is a fair one. The only other book I've read in the 1000+ page weight class is Infinite Jest, which I devoured in 3 weeks in an almost embarrassing reading binge. My experience reading War and Peace was somewhat different. I lumbered through it in about 8 weeks, regularly falling asleep after about 20 pages and shamelessly cheating with shorter, funnier, contemporary books (as an aside, don't even get me started on the %&#@ing Epilogues - can everyone agree that these are optional? After 1300 pages, you feel obligated to read them, but to me they felt like a cruel, giant hill at the end of an already exhausting hike). Upon finishing Infinite Jest, I felt sad - bereaved even. Turning the last page of War and Peace was joy and relief. I admit, I rewarded myself with a cocktail.

So the four stars relects an average of the 5-star literary qualities and the 3-star reading experience. In fairness, much of what I didn't enjoy about War & Peace (and Anna Karenina for that matter) has to do with my lack of interest in some of the classic 19th century storylines (marriage dramas, wealthy families staring down ruinous debts, how nice you are to your peasants, etc.).

So go ahead and call me a philistine, but I'm thumbing my nose at all you people who put up the panty-throwing 5-star reviews. Only four stars - no more!...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

Mike rated it:

07/26/08

Read in July, 2008

recommended to Mike by: AARP magazine
recommends it for: Anyone

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 about old...more 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 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 this review? yes

3 comments

Kimley rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

12/21/07

bookshelves: 19th-century, russian-lit

Read in December, 2007

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 i

War and Peace (Oxford World's Classics)

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 7942)