Post by kungfuzu on Jul 31, 2023 11:03:49 GMT -8
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, translation by Richard Pevear
In one episode of the TV documentary series, The World at War, an American vet of WWII talks about the life of a common soldier. He mentions the mixture of excitement and boredom, saying something to the effect that “only Tolstoy had captured that mixture in his book, “War and Peace,”
As a twenty-one-year old, I was dutifully impressed with this observation thinking the vet pretty sharp and Tolstoy clever in capturing the essence of a soldier’s war.
The only problem with the old vet’s observation is that it is false. Almost fifty years after hearing it, I have just finished the 1,200-plus pages of War and Peace. Nowhere is there any word, sentence, phrase, paragraph or page which comes close to the thought expressed by the old vet.
Why did he make it up? Perhaps it is another case of someone throwing around the title of a world-renown classic in order to show he is educated and smarter than the rest of us. Who can say for sure? Maybe his memory failed him. Whatever the case, it is a clear example of that fate which befalls the classics. They are more quoted, or alluded to, than read.
That thought behind us, let me start my actual critique of War and Peace by saying it is not a novel. It is also not a history book, nor a book about philosophy. Yet it contains aspects of all of three. It is a strange hybrid, particularly at the end.
The book deals with two themes which are intertwined. The Russian aristocracy of the early 1800s and the Napoleonic wars in which Russia became involved. It spans the years from 1805 to 1820.
The first half of the book, with a brief detour to the Battle of Austerlitz, describes the lives of the upper-Russian aristocracy. While many characters enter the story, the main characters are as follows.
The Rostovs which include the old count, his wife and their children Nikolai, Natasha, Petyr and Vera. Included in the family is Sophia, an orphaned cousin.
The Bolkonskys which include the old prince, his son Andrei and his daughter Maria.
The Kuragins which include the old prince, his daughter Helene and sons Anatole and Hippolyte.
Pierre’ Bezukhov the illegitimate son of the old count who is one of the richest men in Russia. He dies, but before doing so, submits documents to the Tsar to have Pierre’ declared legitimate, thus able to inherit the count’s name, title and property.
The interactions within and between these families form a large part of the story.
The reader may thank me now for not going into further details regarding other characters.
In some ways, "War and Peace" makes me think of “Pride and Prejudice” but with much more drama. The people are less circumspect, more effusive, wasteful and immoral. In fact, I would say that from Tolstoy’s portrayals of this group, most of these people were silly and shallow.
They are flighty, spoiled and buffeted from emotion to emotion. In a word, not too bright. They might learn from experience, but if they do learn they learn very very slowing.
Like wicked children, driven by passions, they are untethered by reason or self control. They are whipped around by each and every little gust of life which they encounter. Almost everything they do is a result of “feeling” and selfishness. Spur of the moment thought is reacted upon in the blink of an eye. The thought vanishes as quickly as it came, but not always the action which it produced. Only when confronted with the most serious, profound problems, moments of crisis, do they sometimes come upon the idea of self-reflection, and deep thought. In other words reality becomes a little clearer.
It should be noted that most of the characters are children or young adults when the story begins. Immaturity and thoughtlessness is not foreign to the young, but I believe Tolstoy is making a very strong statement about the Russian aristocracy with his tale.
A couple of them, the young count Rostov and young prince Bolkonsky, do have better moments. They show bravery, good sense and accept their duty, particularly when Napoleon invades Russia. Both are flawed, but understandable characters.
That cannot be said for Pierre’, who to my mind, is completely unbelievable as a character. Pierre is one of the most stupid, drifting, shallow heroes in literary history. Every new idea which comes to him is, THE idea, at least for a short while.
Granted he is illegitimate, thus did not have the benefit of being raised in a secure loving family. But he had a good education and did not lack for anything material. His teenage years were spent in Paris under the direction of a tutor/guardian paid by his father. All this seems to have done is confuse him. He took in the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, but only superficially.
He plods through life like some inebriated bear. Tall and immensely strong, he is looking for a cave to dwell in, but not finding it. In his search he wanders into all sorts of abodes where he doesn’t belong. He wastes money and time in each of these dens until it dawns upon him that he is in the wrong place.
The most glaring example of the man’s foolishness is encapsulated in one scene. He dresses up in some military uniform and rides out to watch the upcoming battle between the Russians and French. This just happens to be the Battle of Borodino.
During the battle, Pierre saunters over to the left flank of the Russians, which is the hottest spot of the battle. He stands around smiling like an idiot, as soldiers die and cannon balls fly. Let me guarantee you that an idiot has much more intelligence than to stand around leering as blood flows and bodies are dismembered. But for Tolstoy, Pierre’s bizarre character matters not because he is “honest and kind” and "searching for the truth."
The story ends, but not the book, in a rather unsatisfactory way. It jumps from 1813 to 1820. The final scene takes place on an estate occupied by the remaining Bolkonskys, Rostovs and Bezuhkovs. Pierre has just returned from meetings with other “patriots” who, like him, believe the country is drifting and being ruined by those in power. The Tsar takes little part in ruling due to his interest in Christianity and has let things slide.
After dinner, the men get together and discuss things. It turns out that Pierre’s brother-in-law, Nikolai who is a traditionalist, strongly disagrees with Pierre. He lets him know that what Pierre is doing is close to treason and that if the powers-that-be so ordered, Nikolai would come after Pierre’ and those he is conspiring with. Young prince Bolkonsky (the third generation of Bolkonskys in the story) has been listening while this heated discussion has taken place. He seems enraptured by Pierre’s ideas. Both Pierre’ and Nikolai agree that it was unfortunate that the young prince heard the discussion. And the story ends.
Perhaps Tolstoy had planned to write a follow up to this, but as it stands, I find the tale’s ending unsatisfactory.
In the next part of this critique', I will go into what I believe was Tolstoy’s main interest in writing the "War and Peace."
In one episode of the TV documentary series, The World at War, an American vet of WWII talks about the life of a common soldier. He mentions the mixture of excitement and boredom, saying something to the effect that “only Tolstoy had captured that mixture in his book, “War and Peace,”
As a twenty-one-year old, I was dutifully impressed with this observation thinking the vet pretty sharp and Tolstoy clever in capturing the essence of a soldier’s war.
The only problem with the old vet’s observation is that it is false. Almost fifty years after hearing it, I have just finished the 1,200-plus pages of War and Peace. Nowhere is there any word, sentence, phrase, paragraph or page which comes close to the thought expressed by the old vet.
Why did he make it up? Perhaps it is another case of someone throwing around the title of a world-renown classic in order to show he is educated and smarter than the rest of us. Who can say for sure? Maybe his memory failed him. Whatever the case, it is a clear example of that fate which befalls the classics. They are more quoted, or alluded to, than read.
That thought behind us, let me start my actual critique of War and Peace by saying it is not a novel. It is also not a history book, nor a book about philosophy. Yet it contains aspects of all of three. It is a strange hybrid, particularly at the end.
The book deals with two themes which are intertwined. The Russian aristocracy of the early 1800s and the Napoleonic wars in which Russia became involved. It spans the years from 1805 to 1820.
The first half of the book, with a brief detour to the Battle of Austerlitz, describes the lives of the upper-Russian aristocracy. While many characters enter the story, the main characters are as follows.
The Rostovs which include the old count, his wife and their children Nikolai, Natasha, Petyr and Vera. Included in the family is Sophia, an orphaned cousin.
The Bolkonskys which include the old prince, his son Andrei and his daughter Maria.
The Kuragins which include the old prince, his daughter Helene and sons Anatole and Hippolyte.
Pierre’ Bezukhov the illegitimate son of the old count who is one of the richest men in Russia. He dies, but before doing so, submits documents to the Tsar to have Pierre’ declared legitimate, thus able to inherit the count’s name, title and property.
The interactions within and between these families form a large part of the story.
The reader may thank me now for not going into further details regarding other characters.
In some ways, "War and Peace" makes me think of “Pride and Prejudice” but with much more drama. The people are less circumspect, more effusive, wasteful and immoral. In fact, I would say that from Tolstoy’s portrayals of this group, most of these people were silly and shallow.
They are flighty, spoiled and buffeted from emotion to emotion. In a word, not too bright. They might learn from experience, but if they do learn they learn very very slowing.
Like wicked children, driven by passions, they are untethered by reason or self control. They are whipped around by each and every little gust of life which they encounter. Almost everything they do is a result of “feeling” and selfishness. Spur of the moment thought is reacted upon in the blink of an eye. The thought vanishes as quickly as it came, but not always the action which it produced. Only when confronted with the most serious, profound problems, moments of crisis, do they sometimes come upon the idea of self-reflection, and deep thought. In other words reality becomes a little clearer.
It should be noted that most of the characters are children or young adults when the story begins. Immaturity and thoughtlessness is not foreign to the young, but I believe Tolstoy is making a very strong statement about the Russian aristocracy with his tale.
A couple of them, the young count Rostov and young prince Bolkonsky, do have better moments. They show bravery, good sense and accept their duty, particularly when Napoleon invades Russia. Both are flawed, but understandable characters.
That cannot be said for Pierre’, who to my mind, is completely unbelievable as a character. Pierre is one of the most stupid, drifting, shallow heroes in literary history. Every new idea which comes to him is, THE idea, at least for a short while.
Granted he is illegitimate, thus did not have the benefit of being raised in a secure loving family. But he had a good education and did not lack for anything material. His teenage years were spent in Paris under the direction of a tutor/guardian paid by his father. All this seems to have done is confuse him. He took in the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, but only superficially.
He plods through life like some inebriated bear. Tall and immensely strong, he is looking for a cave to dwell in, but not finding it. In his search he wanders into all sorts of abodes where he doesn’t belong. He wastes money and time in each of these dens until it dawns upon him that he is in the wrong place.
The most glaring example of the man’s foolishness is encapsulated in one scene. He dresses up in some military uniform and rides out to watch the upcoming battle between the Russians and French. This just happens to be the Battle of Borodino.
During the battle, Pierre saunters over to the left flank of the Russians, which is the hottest spot of the battle. He stands around smiling like an idiot, as soldiers die and cannon balls fly. Let me guarantee you that an idiot has much more intelligence than to stand around leering as blood flows and bodies are dismembered. But for Tolstoy, Pierre’s bizarre character matters not because he is “honest and kind” and "searching for the truth."
The story ends, but not the book, in a rather unsatisfactory way. It jumps from 1813 to 1820. The final scene takes place on an estate occupied by the remaining Bolkonskys, Rostovs and Bezuhkovs. Pierre has just returned from meetings with other “patriots” who, like him, believe the country is drifting and being ruined by those in power. The Tsar takes little part in ruling due to his interest in Christianity and has let things slide.
After dinner, the men get together and discuss things. It turns out that Pierre’s brother-in-law, Nikolai who is a traditionalist, strongly disagrees with Pierre. He lets him know that what Pierre is doing is close to treason and that if the powers-that-be so ordered, Nikolai would come after Pierre’ and those he is conspiring with. Young prince Bolkonsky (the third generation of Bolkonskys in the story) has been listening while this heated discussion has taken place. He seems enraptured by Pierre’s ideas. Both Pierre’ and Nikolai agree that it was unfortunate that the young prince heard the discussion. And the story ends.
Perhaps Tolstoy had planned to write a follow up to this, but as it stands, I find the tale’s ending unsatisfactory.
In the next part of this critique', I will go into what I believe was Tolstoy’s main interest in writing the "War and Peace."
Believe me, I wanted to put it down sometimes, but kept going. 
