War and Peace (paper) by Leo Tolstoy - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

rating	frequency	%
5		44%
4		31%
3		17%
2		4%
1		1%

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: The Title Game	5140	3864	1 hour, 27 min ago
The Next Best Boo...: Your Latest Splurge	5978	6326	1 hour, 52 min ago
The Rory Gilmore ...: What else are you currently reading?	689	2755	1 hour, 56 min ago

09/30/08

Jessica rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

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

Read in November, 2008

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 this review? yes (61 people liked it)

54 comments

10/17/07

Valerie rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

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 this, one, ...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 (17 people liked it)

17 comments

02/03/08

Joshua Trevino rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

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 (14 people liked it)

3 comments

03/23/08

Matthew rated it:

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 ...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 (6 people liked it)

1 comment

06/27/08

Evan rated it:

(review of isbn 039396647X)

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

Read in July, 2008

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...more

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

7 comments

03/20/08

Katie rated it:

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 (4 people liked it)

1 comment

06/03/08

Gregg rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

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 (3 people liked it)

add a comment

09/19/07

Kimley rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

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 it's the greatest novel ever written but then again, I don't t...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

18 comments

07/17/07

Seth rated it:

(review of isbn 0375760644)

Has a copy to sell/swap — Read in July, 2007

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 this review? yes (3 people liked it)

2 comments

06/26/07

Jamie rated it:

(review of isbn 0451523261)

bookshelves: lit

Read in May, 2008

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 ...more 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 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 this review? yes (4 people liked it)

5 comments

05/22/07

Eric rated it:

(review of isbn 0375760644)

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

04/10/07

Guy rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

Read in February, 2008

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 this review? yes (3 people liked it)

1 comment

12/01/08

John rated it:

Read in February, 2009

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 ...more 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 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 this review? yes (4 people liked it)

5 comments

10/10/08

Matt rated it:

(review of isbn 0143039997)

Read in October, 2008

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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

08/22/08

Matt rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

Read in September, 2008

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

In "Goodbye Columbus," a Roth character famously says of another: "Doris? She's the one who's always reading War and Peace. That's how I know it's the summer, when Doris is reading War and Peace."

War and Peace is sort of the go-to book when looking for an example of great literature; indeed, when looking for the "greatest novel ever written." Of course, like so many of the things you are told, as a child, are magical - Bergman films, Paris, love - War a...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

5 comments

07/23/08

Bruce rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

Read in September, 2008

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

1 comment

07/09/08

Mike McQuinn rated it:

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 a...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 (2 people liked it)

3 comments

04/02/08

Jill rated it:

bookshelves: 2008reads

Read in April, 2008

recommended to Jill by: Ero
recommends it for: Jane Austen lovers

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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

01/28/08

Kim rated it:

Read in April, 2008

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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

01/13/08

Teresa rated it:

(review of isbn 0307266931)

Read in April, 2008

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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

9 comments