PDA

View Full Version : War and Peace Review



Vota
08-17-2014, 05:55 AM
So I just read War and Peace, the translation by Louise and Aylmer Maude. I've been holding off reading this book for almost two years, but throughout that time have continuously thought about it. Around three and a half weeks ago I decided to crack open this brick and give it a real try. I was pleasantly surprised with what I found inside the book. I must admit that the first 100 or so pages are slow, but thanks to the quality and directness of Tolstoy's writing, not what I would call totally dull. I was able to read on thanks to his prose, plus I knew that considering these pages represent about 1/15th of the book, was able to consider that a 300 page book would have to hook your attention within the first 20 pages to be equivalent. By the time I hit page 120 I was hooked. The background of the main characters and the setting where all the events take place was sufficiently developed and the story was ready to take off. It never let me go. I honestly expected it might take me 2 months to read this book at my usual pace of 20-30 pages a day, but truly exceptional books will often times have me reading 40,50, or more pages a day if they really grab hold of me. This book was one of those books, and I found myself completing it not more than an hour ago after about 3.5 weeks of pleasure.

I have read many reviews about this book, and many opinions, so I'm not convinced I can add anything of real substance to what others have said, but I can share my thoughts and feelings. I find this book difficult to rate or classify as it is unlike any other book I have ever read. It is often called the greatest book ever written. Do I agree with this? No. Why? I haven't read enough truly great books to form that concrete of a subjective opinion about the book's quality and value, but what I can state, is that it IS truly a great book, and that I will read it, luck permitting, many more times over the course of my life because it is a story full of characters that I would like to be reacquainted with, and a calm and deliberate meditation on history and how events take place. I would recommend this book to anyone. Although the book is physically daunting to look at, and it's reputation is no less intimidating, it is in fact an extremely accessible and enjoyable read. Tolstoy writes with a simple yet elegant prose which easily lured me into reading more each night than I had initially planned to. The chapters are very short, often no more than 3-5 pages, which makes this a book that you can easily pace as you want. I have read some reviews saying that the book is not as profound as others, often being compared to the deep psychological and theological benders of Dostoyevsky. I have read Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment. Tolstoy does not have the manic feel that Dostoyevsky can produce with his writing, in my opinion, but he possesses a calm and almost deity like command of his story telling, which I find very relaxing and stimulating. Many of his historical, philosophical, and theological digressions are quite profound in their simplicity, and I find as I get older and better read, that I enjoy this quality in a writer. With Dostoyevsky I experience thrilling highs and heart crushing lows, as if listening to the exploits and experiences of a half-crazed genius, but with Tolstoy I feel almost a paternal warmth, as if listening to a grandfather telling a story as only they can, in that calm, warm, and measured way.

I am not going to go into the actual plot of the book, but after you get used to the Russian names and large cast of characters you will find it isn't difficult to follow. Around the halfway mark is when I no longer needed to recheck the names and backgrounds of characters, and for you this may take more or less pages, but the point is, after a certain amount of time with the book it will become a non-issue, and it will sweep you along.

Many times throughout the book Tolstoy inserts what amount to little essays about the history of what is taking place in the book, as well as philosophical and theological thoughts. I in no way found this jarring or negative to the book, but again, felt like Tolstoy at these times has decided to tap you on the shoulder to have discourse on something important. There are two epilogues at the end of the book. The first epilogue does a great job of closing the book proper. The second epilogue is something entirely different. It is literally a serious essay on Tolstoy's view of history and how events are pre-determined. Many people groan about this part of the book, as it can be pretty dry, and because it possesses a drastically different character than the rest of the book. My advice is that when you get to the second epilogue, change your reading mode from that of reading and enjoying a novel, to that of reading a serious essay on something, a work that you will have to pay attention to. While I found this last epilogue tiresome at times, I now consider it a valuable contribution to the overall book, because I know that the second time I read it, his words and thoughts will reappear in my mind as certain events and things take place in the novel. In a way, this essay of his is like a primer on how to read War and Peace the second time through. At least that's how I see it. I think it only needs to be read once, with some highlighting of key passages, but I think it is valuable and will expand a reader's appreciation when they next revisit the book if they so choose. Of course this is just a hypothesis, but I can see how having a strong grasp of his theory of history and determinism can greatly aid in the reading and appreciation of this epic work. In this second epilogue he predominantly focuses on freedom and necessity, and how the two appear to change to the subjective viewpoint of a person the farther away in time and connection they are to the action or event that took place. Tolstoy sprinkles these thoughts throughout the book in his mini-essays, especially the second half, and they are very palatable, but in the second epilogue it gets poured on pretty thick, but if persevere'd with, I think it will only give a greater appreciation, even if you do not agree with his philosophy.

So that's about all I have to say about this epic book. I enjoyed my time with it and look forward to reading it again many times. To me it is a desert island book, a must have. There are so many reasons why it is a great book that I am unable to pinpoint it. Clifton Fadiman once praised it for it's all inclusiveness, and I would tend to agree, but also because it is just a grand and deep story.

SilentMute
08-17-2014, 01:02 PM
I have to admit that Tolstoy injecting his political philosophies into a story can get rather irritating. It can be interesting as far as it can give you a concept of what was going on at the time, which is helpful. However, I am currently reading Anna Karenina, and I am really suffering with Konstantin Levin. I don't mind the political philosophies as long as a dead horse isn't being beaten, but with Levin...that is pretty much the case--and it detracts from the story.

I haven't read War and Peace, and probably I'll wait a long time after Anna Karenina to do so. He is a good writer. I like the character development. I just don't like the constantly reiterated points.

Okay, Levin thinks the muzhiks are stubborn, ignorant, alcoholics who can only be induced to do something by being beaten into submission...and unfortunately Russian emancipation has taken the owner's rod away from him and has ruined the country. I get that. Move on with the story already!

Vota
08-17-2014, 08:18 PM
I don't find his philosophical digressions irritating at all. I can't comment on Anna Karenina because I haven't read it yet.

Lykren
08-18-2014, 01:04 AM
@SilentMute: I think you're missing something regarding Anna Karenina. Levin's views change over time, and the manner in which Tolstoy reveals this change is breathtaking.

mal4mac
08-18-2014, 03:14 AM
I have to admit that Tolstoy injecting his political philosophies into a story can get rather irritating. It can be interesting as far as it can give you a concept of what was going on at the time, which is helpful. However, I am currently reading Anna Karenina, and I am really suffering with Konstantin Levin. I don't mind the political philosophies as long as a dead horse isn't being beaten, but with Levin...that is pretty much the case--and it detracts from the story...

Okay, Levin thinks the muzhiks are stubborn, ignorant, alcoholics who can only be induced to do something by being beaten into submission...and unfortunately Russian emancipation has taken the owner's rod away from him and has ruined the country. I get that. Move on with the story already!

I didn't find these "diversions" irritating, and I don't think that's a good summary of how Levin thinks. As I like Levin, maybe I've forgotten his harsher moments, but I don't remember him beating muzhiks, or recommending such beatings. I remember him working alongside the muzhiks with a scythe, and generally getting on with them very well. He does want to keep them in their place, but in the way you'd keep your flowering plants in its place, i.e., give them loving attention and allow them to grow in their own proper time, in their own proper way. Have you a quote to back your view of Levin as a muzhik beater? Here's a quote backing my memory of him:

"Yes, I should have said to [the old landowner]: 'You say our farming doesn't work because the muzhiks hate all improvements and that they must be introduced by authority. Now, if farming didn't work at all without these improvements, you'd be right; but it does work, and it works only where the worker acts according to his habits, like that old man half-way here' [...] We've been pushing ahead for a long time in our own way, the European way, without asking ourselves about the properties of the workforce. Let's try to look at the work force not as an ideal workforce but as the Russian muzhik with his instincts, and organize our farming accordingly."

SilentMute
08-18-2014, 11:32 AM
@Lykren--I haven't finished it yet, so right now I can't appreciate that. So far, where I am at, Levin had enjoyed working alongside the muzhiks. Then suddenly, one day he becomes disgusted with them and with farming. It seems to happen about the same time that Dolly tells him that Kitty will be visiting.

@mal4mac--I didn't say he actually beat the muzhiks. However, I reread the conversation...and I realized that I lost something. Generally, I think the book I'm reading is a good translation, but this part was confusing. I didn't realize there was a third man, and I thought what he was saying was what Levin was saying. Okay, so I was unfair to Levin perhaps.

Vota
08-19-2014, 04:59 AM
SilentMute, a good practice when reading a book is to withhold judgment until after you have read it. If you think a book sucks and don't enjoy it, then by all means drop it because there are too many others to waste time on ones you personally don't like. I say this because it can be troublesome formulating opinions about a work while you're in the middle of it, and about characters themselves, specifically if they aren't supposed to be a "bad guy".

War and Peace was like this for me with one character in particular, Natasha. She is such a sweet heart, but she made some choices that really, really pissed me off at one point, but I kept on going without damning her and was glad that I hadn't.

SilentMute
08-19-2014, 04:10 PM
Well, the thing is, I enjoy the book...but I admit I'm just getting a little bored with Levin. I don't even know why the book is called Anna Karenina. It should be called Konstantin Levin. From what I can see, he makes up 3/4 of the book. I believe I heard somewhere that Tolstoy was using his pure love for Kitty as a contrast for Anna's destructive love for Vronsky.

Maybe I suffer the weakness of someone who likes modern literature. Maybe in the days when books were expensive, and people perhaps couldn't afford as many, it was desirable for an author to put everything into a novel. However, I tend to prefer for an author to pretty much stick to the main point of the story, and for all characters to revolve around this.

WyattGwyon
08-21-2014, 08:25 AM
Well, the thing is, I enjoy the book...but I admit I'm just getting a little bored with Levin. I don't even know why the book is called Anna Karenina. It should be called Konstantin Levin. From what I can see, he makes up 3/4 of the book. I believe I heard somewhere that Tolstoy was using his pure love for Kitty as a contrast for Anna's destructive love for Vronsky.


Levin is the philosophical axe Tolstoy grinds. He is a bore, which is why it feels like he makes up 3/4 of the book ;-). Yes the beautiful, pure, chaste love of the enlightened farmer contrasted with the dirty love of the corrupt urban aristocracy. (Snore) The more interesting foil relationship is between the marriages of Anna and her brother Oblonsky. Unlike Oblonsky's habitual philandering, which has no consequences, Anna's affair is severely punished. It is good that Tolstoy points out the double standard.

mal4mac
08-21-2014, 09:37 AM
I don't think Levin is a bore. In fact, he's one of the most interesting characters I've encountered in literature. If he does take up more of the book than Anna then that's fine with me! Given the prominence of Levin, and other characters, maybe the novel should have been called Love & Death?

Ecurb
08-21-2014, 11:49 AM
Yes the beautiful, pure, chaste love of the enlightened farmer contrasted with the dirty love of the corrupt urban aristocracy. (Snore) The more interesting foil relationship is between the marriages of Anna and her brother Oblonsky. Unlike Oblonsky's habitual philandering, which has no consequences, Anna's affair is severely punished. It is good that Tolstoy points out the double standard.

I think you are underestimating Tolstoy. Doubtless sexism and the double standard play a role in Anna's tragedy. However, Vronsky doesn't emerge unscathed.


Tolstoy clearly compares Anna to her brother. The story begins with Anna traveling to Moscow to patch up her brother’s marriage, which is in jeopardy due to Oblonsky’s affair. Oblonsky, being Anna’s brother, shares Anna’s charm, energy, and love of life. He also shares her circumstances – his affair augurs hers. Yet Oblonsky survives unscathed. Why? Anna is is actually superior in many ways to Oblonsky – more sincere, more passionate, more intelligent -- while sharing some of his charm and sociable nature. But her very superiority (“such dangerous passions,” Vronsky’s mother says) condemns her.

Kitty idolizes Anna. She, too, is in love with Vronsky and, indeed, she wants to BE Anna. So she is another “almost Anna” figure who once again is saved by circumstance and by talents pitched to a lower, less intense level. So Levin marries an "Anna" figure, redeemed by her lack of passion.

Levin’s two brothers represents two sides of Levin’s personality – the intellectual college professor, and the passionate but despondent revolutionary. The revolutionary brother dies – just as Levin kills off his own suicidal side and marries Kitty.

The novel uses the relatives of the main characters to elucidate different aspects of Anna's and Levin's personalities. To see the distinction between Anna's and Oblonsky's fate as simply the result of sexual politics ignores this point. Passion is tragic -- Levin is saved by his confused dithering. He has the potential for passion -- but his intellectual side, besetting him always with doubts, saves him.

WyattGwyon
08-22-2014, 11:05 PM
Tolstoy clearly compares Anna to her brother. The story begins with Anna traveling to Moscow to patch up her brother’s marriage, which is in jeopardy due to Oblonsky’s affair. Oblonsky, being Anna’s brother, shares Anna’s charm, energy, and love of life. He also shares her circumstances – his affair augurs hers.

It is multiple affairs with Oblonsky, the one you mention being the latest in a string.


Yet Oblonsky survives unscathed. Why?

Because men in that society could philander with impunity, whereas women who did the same were ostracized.


Anna is is actually superior in many ways to Oblonsky – more sincere, more passionate, more intelligent -- while sharing some of his charm and sociable nature. But her very superiority (“such dangerous passions,” Vronsky’s mother says) condemns her.

Of course she is superior to her brother, but superiority per se is not her downfall. It is more specific traits of character. Anna is condemned by the fact that she sincerely loves an unworthy lowlife — and the double standard mentioned above. Oblonsky is a minor character and there is no need for a foil to set off Anna's personality, which is perfectly clear in all of its positive and negative traits without one. The only substantive function of the foil is the lesson in sexual politics.


Kitty idolizes Anna. She, too, is in love with Vronsky and, indeed, she wants to BE Anna. So she is another “almost Anna” figure who once again is saved by circumstance and by talents pitched to a lower, less intense level. So Levin marries an "Anna" figure, redeemed by her lack of passion.

I would say Kitty is saved, not by circumstance, but by Anna(!), who realizes Kitty is playing outside of her ken and is too easy prey for the likes of Vronsky. She puts herself in the way, luring away the predator and falling prey herself — not with full consciousness of what she is doing, of course, but she doesn't mind confounding Kitty's hopes because she knows those hopes are naive and dangerous.


Levin’s two brothers represents two sides of Levin’s personality – the intellectual college professor, and the passionate but despondent revolutionary. The revolutionary brother dies – just as Levin kills off his own suicidal side and marries Kitty.

I never bought Levin as a character. I find him, his character development, his concerns, all to be quite tedious.


Passion is tragic -- Levin is saved by his confused dithering. He has the potential for passion -- but his intellectual side, besetting him always with doubts, saves him.

No, misplaced and misdirected passion is tragic.

Ecurb
08-23-2014, 11:46 AM
It is true, of course, that women who had public affairs were ostracized by society, and that Anna was estranged from her own son as a result. Nonetheless, married women conducted love affairs regularly (just like Oblonsky did) without suffering such consequences. A little disguise and discretion could do the trick. Do you really think that if Oblonsky loved his mistress (I forget her name) as passionately as Anna loved Vronsky he would have emerged from the affair "unscathed"? I doubt it. Anna couldn't conduct her affair with discretion because her passion wouldn't allow her to.

By the way, I like Levin (as both a character and as a man), and I like Vronsky. He's not a "lowlife" -- on the contrary, he's a product of his class and society -- a little unthinking (compared to Levin), but basically a loving, good-hearted man. Vronsky wouldn't (I think) have "preyed" on Kitty -- affairs with married women were different from the seduction of young girls in that society. My opinion of Levin is (I think) standard for "Anna" readers (the novel would hardly be considered one of the greatest ever written if half of it was a tedious bore), although some readers agree with you about Vronsky.

annakaarenina
04-14-2015, 01:29 AM
You make a point of Naming Anna Karenina should be called Konstantin Levin.........I am reading AK part 6 these days and I find Levin dominates the story in each part ..............Not only he is an intresting character but also we find him in various roles( as a true friend, hardworking boss , person with pure soul filled with deep love for Kitty , also his love for his brother and he does his duties with full dedication towards them)
While Anna is only portrayed as a lady lost in love with no conciousness for family & society........
Also two different novels can be formed out of AK.....................one with story of LEVIN & other depicting ANNA.