|
The nineteenth century was the era of the great novel. Sitcom-producers generally expect to produce 37 episodes per season, and if the show becomes popular enough to last 10 years, they find themselves scraping the bottom of the drama-barrel for the 369th episode. It starts with the emotional involvements of the youngsters of five families: love (with betrayals, divorces, mesalliances, etc) and death (in childbirth, or by murder, suicide, duel, war, disease, or cruel neglect); and at the end, a new generation going in for the same silly mess all over again. "Atlas Shrugged" (1951) was the last "great" novel.The worst shortcoming of 19th-Century novelists was their tendency to get the train of story stalled on irrelevant sidetracks while they explored history and geography: Dickens & Dumas wandered afield, but divertingly, & Hugo strayed so far that many readers never got back. Tolstoy would be great if he had stuck to historical romance.If you really like soaps, by all means plow your way through the war to find the peace; but if you love history, don't bother. (You have to read the first quarter of "Notre Dame de Paris" before the plot begins).In W&P, Tolstoy carried it to the ultimate: the history is so intimately connected with the story of five aristocratic Russian families of the early 1800s that you cannot separate the background from the story. The twentieth may have seen far more, but 20th-Century novels are basically dispo-lit: throw-aways not expected to endure: published in paperback, and rightly. That is what W&P is: a sort of two-century-old Russian "Upstairs-Downstairs", that can never finish.
His masterly descriptions of the Austrian retreat from Vienna, and the battlefields of Austerlitz, Shevardino, and Borodino, are so intimately connected with the fortunes of the families that a reader cannot disentangle them.Which would be wonderful if the family dramas were worth recording. But they are not. Meaningless, pointless, and endless.With most 19th-Century novelists we have historical description contaminating a brilliant plot; with Tolstoy we have the plot contaminating brilliant historical description. You will never find the beautiful war in all those suds.Andrew Charig 9/25/08
For me at first the novel started pretty good, and was quite one of the best I ever read, but from the half part of the book on after the french invasion of Russia, I was shocked to see so much historicals inaccuracies, and descriptions that seemed more and more propagandistic. Perhaps this is because of the time were he lived. For example his description of Napoleon, as a tiny egocentric man, that believes his own lies, and this is the secret from his victory, obviuosly seem more of Russian propaganda than anything else. And besides the Battle of Borodino, WAS A FRENCH VICTORY, and a Russian one, like Tolstoy try to makes us think. In summary buy it if you want to hear a great story about human nature. But take it as a fiction, as hardly anything Tolstoy says may be actually considered truth in a historical sense.
I'm suprised not to see anyone mention Rosemary Edmonds' translation of this masterful work. Her translation, published by Penguin Classics, is really quite good, and reads smoothly, and it seems accurate to what Tolstoy would have considered his message. I highly recommend this translation of War and Peace.
Tolstoy describes the wars, and in particular the battles of Austerlitz (1805) and Borodino (1812) in vivid detail and apparently very accurately from a historic point of view. I try to collect good books I really loved reading, and "War an peace" easily falls into this category.It is an epic novel in the truest sense of "epic". One is the Russian-French wars of 1805 and 1812. It is very obvious that Tolstoy places a lot of emphasis on society in the book.
A historical version of chaos theory.Well, this review can be arbitrarily long, and I have to wrap up at some point. There are differences of opinion as to which Tolstoy actually meant when he authored the book, as you can read here or more at length here (Russian). I can barely count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times I felt some section is too long. At more than 1600 pages, it is definitely one of the longest novels out there, but unlike many much shorter books, its length is well justified. The first was a copy I borrowed a few years ago, and now I've purchased one for my own library.
I can't think of many authors who know how to present and develop their characters as well as Tolstoy.Additionally, the book presents plenty of interesting philosophical and scientific ("science of history") ideas. The chief one is undoubtedly the question "What causes and shapes historical events.". They are all, without exception, extremely believable and well developed. Although Tolstoy is very thorough, his writing is easily readable and the pages just fly.The books focuses on two main topics. The characters of Napoleon and Kutuzov (the Russian army leader) take active part in the narration, with the lesser leaders (Bagration, de Tolli, Davoux) also getting enough attention to build a complete and interesting story.
The book provides a very interesting and in-depth glimpse into this unusual society by today's standards, somewhat modeled after, and thus similar to, other European societies (French, British, etc). This is the second time I've read this book. Contrary to the popular dogma that historical events are the result of actions of single notable persons (such as Napoleon or king Alexander), Tolstoy believes that such persons don't really cause events, but rather can only affect them in some ways once they are already in existence. He claims that what really changes history is the amalgam of human actions, built from thousands, nay, millions of small decisions, desires and ambitions of the people.
I just want to address one important issue - the book's name. In Russian, the book's name is "Voina i mir", which may mean "War and peace" but may also mean "War and society", since "peace" and "society" are homonyms in Russian. Pierre compares his experiences in the society with his war adventures to form philosophical opinions.
Stretching over a period of several decades, it masterfully describes the history of Russia from the end of the 18th century and into the first third of the 1800s. The same for Andrey. Specific events of the war are highlighted with the participation of the book's main characters, like Andrey Bolkonsky, Nikolay Rostov and Pierre Bezoukhov.The other is the high Russian society of that time.
Tolstoy also presents the life in rural Russia a little, and the interrelations between the rich and the serfs, although he doesn't spend on this topic nearly as much as in Anna Karenina.The characters in the book are various and present the different ideas Tolstoy tries to infuse into his narration. Personally, I firmly believe that the "War and society" translation is more correct. I can barely see any mention of peace in its "non-war" sense in the book.
It was a matter of pride. Why was Pierre the main character when everyone else was so much more interesting. I do not actually own War and Peace, but I thought I'd point out that I have read it. However, I couldn't read Tolstoy's master work in long sessions, only in small, bite sized portions, one every other day or so. Why did it take me six months to chop through that thing.why why why why why.So, I only give it a two, but who knows. I am not a slow reader usually. Now, I have been told that this is a book that you don't really get when you are young but later on when you have lived life if you come back to it and read it all over again it makes a lot more sense and is a lot more interesting.so maybe I should wait and pick it up again in fifteen years, but still.what was the plot.
I liked Andrei. This is me saying, "I have read it." It took me about six months and I am still not really sure what the point is, but I have read it. Why didn't they kill Pierre and let Andrei live. I read Crime and Punishment in two days. This is why I somewhat un-affectionately refer to this book as War in Pieces. Why didn't they spend more time doing things rather than talking about doing them. In fifteen years I might change my mind, so stay posted.
|
