And here it is shown that youth has more wisdom than some "experienced" people
And here it is shown that youth has more wisdom than some "experienced" people
Et l'unique cordeau des trompettes marines
Apollinaire, Le chantre
War and Peace is an incomparably wonderful book to start with, and of course this is a big sized book and it demands of us greater attention and concentration combined with patience or else reading this will be a tiresome expereince.
I read it and reread and every time it gives me a different feeling. Tolstoy towards the end of life told us to discard all his novels save the few ones he wrote towards his old age.
I always read hungrily and avidly.
Tolstoy was an epoch. This man was an enigma and nowhere in his books we find redundancies. He had attained perfection in writing. He is matchless and I have read many books but no books can come closer to it in beauty and grand style.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
War and Peace is an extraordinary work of art, encyclopedic in scope yet filled with intimate insights into the human condition. It is also surprisingly lively, especially in the person of Pierre.
It does have its flaws. I think the novel strays when it turns its focus onto historical characters and events. Especially events. (And this is a big problem in an historical novel.)
Tolstoy rails and pontificates against historians. He believes that much of what drives history is random; fair enough, that's a fine place for a novelist to start, and the rival "great man" theory of history needs to be given a kick in the pants now and then. Unfortunately his own pet theory is that history is predestined-- at least, that is what I understand from the long didactic passages he indulges in. Problem is,
Tolstoy's pet theory of what drives history is no more convincing than the theories of the historians he ridicules. Tolstoy's is based on pretty shaky foundations, and has the added disadvantage of not really getting us anywhere: the French retreated from Moscow because they must retreat from Moscow, Napoleon's army collapsed because it must collapse. And yet he goes on about this theory of randomness and predestination, telling us again and again that the general's decisions did not matter, their plans were futile. Tolstoy repeats himself excessively... and it's hardly a complex, or even terribly significant or interesting, point that he is conveying.
Tolstoy is also quite the Russian chauvinist. Napoleon is made ridiculous. Tolstoy is crudely insulting: "Napoleon, the most insignificant tool of history, who never even in exile displayed one trait of human dignity..." (15, V).
Really? Not one trait? Ever? Napoleon founded a French empire, however short-lived it was. He shared most of the flaws of empire-builders, but why precisely he was any more rapacious or ridiculous or "insignificant" than any of the emperors of Russia, including Tsar Nicholas, is something I don't fathom. Unfortunately, it is Tolstoy who makes himself ridiculous slinging insults at Napoleon. This nationalist bias seems unworthy of such a great writer, and it's a shame that he descended to such pettiness. Repeatedly.
Well, I'm stepping back into the discussion on September 26th, 2k8 . . . I've been following the discussions at Barnes n' Noble, and also on Matt's Blog.
Tonight I finished listening to Book 7 . . . I've stopped here for two reasons:
1) I'd like very much to go back and re-digest . . . I'm going to actually 'read' more of the text instead of just the audio this time . . .
2) Libra Vox has only put books 1 to 7 up for download - our library here in Toronto doesn't seem to have a complete audio.
I prefer the audio because I'm able to work at my gardening while I'm listening.
I've started back at Book 1 and going over it again. There's a Mind Map on this, btw . . . I'm going to make a shortcut to it on my desktop and apply myself to remembering who the people are.
You eventually remember it anyway, especially the main characters, but it's just a matter of mental exercise.
.................................................. ..
I agree - it's a wonderful story and has just about every fictional story in it possible.
.................................................. ..
But me? No, I don't think I could have gone through this book at age 16 - I admire those who can.
I read somewhere recently that one ought to read good books once when they're young, once when they're middle-aged and once when they're old.
I agree with that.
........................................
I'm looking forward to reading through all your posts and exchanging insights on the book.
Yay my first post!!
Well now I feel odd because I read War and Peace when I was 14 and 15. It took me about a year and a month to read and I restarted it twice before I finally finished it. I loved it and was fine with the fact that I didn't get everything. It was difficult to get through Tolstoy's rants on his philosophies of war and on other historians but it was all worth it when I read the character's stories and how they all somehow connect. It's been a year-and-a-half since I read it but I remember finding Pierre the most relatable--the one that strives the most for internal and spiritual peace.
If anyone is 16 (or younger) and is trying to read W&P, more power to you! It's a worthwhile read that will have you thirsty for more Russian literature. I would suggest reading W&P before reading Anna Karenina, like I did, just because you're really able to see/read Tolstoy's maturity as he progresses as an author.
ive heard this about so many books (including the lord of the rings which imo is the best one), ive also heard anna karenina was the best one...Originally Posted by JacobF
its a great book, tolstoy is a master at novels, there are always one gazilion circles and he goes through each of them thoroughly. quite frankly, i could name a dozen or more books that i find much more interesting or well written than war and peace. BUT, reading something is never a waste of time unless its danielle steel or something like that. so, good luck.
In general, I agree with much of your counter-argument to Tolstoy's "shaky" position. Yet he does make many good points about how fallible viewing history only when it's past is. It's not that I think he thinks history and/or events are predestined, it's simply that he thinks events move with a indefinite amount of help from an invisible hand that we don't/can't comprehend. The 'invisible hand' I speak of isn't necessarily divine in nature, it's simply a part of human nature that we don't have an intellectual grasp on.
Put another way, I think he's saying that an event happens. Those in the event don't necessarily understands why any of it happened intellectually - this particular theory is expressed all throughout the book, from the big historical events, down to the very personal matters; Pierre's marriage to Helene comes to mind most vividly. Afterwards, when trying to comprehend it, it's easy to concoct answers of why it happened, and its purpose. But none of these answers are ever wholly correct because all tend to presume a position where the outcome was preconceived; X happened because Y person/people wanted it to happen.
Tolstoy, I think, attempts to clearly show that this process of reconstructive and recollective history cannot possibly be accurate. Now, I can agree that his own solutions to the problem are far from definitive. But I think in pointing out the problem he has, at the very least, made a strive in our ability to try and understand it more fully than we have.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
For those who wish to start a study of this book, by first reading it (again, if necessary), please leave a reply. Perhaps we can study this novel and decide for ourselves how well it was written. Perhaps we can discern the different characters appropriately.
Thanks,
Mark
Why don't you start new thread if you're interested? Bad experiences?
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
I read this post of yours a few weeks ago, and it inspired me to start my own list - I now have about 560 people on it (even unnamed maids, soldiers, etc.)
Here's the link to the thread I'm keeping at Wild City . . .
http://wildcity.proboards14.com/inde...ad=3127&page=1
If you like it, and are enjoying the story, don't give it up . . . even if there's parts you don't really understand or find yourself skimming over, keep going - like somebody says, it eventually boils down to about 10 characters and you'll enjoy following the events as they move along.
Myself? I'm on book 8 (should be further along, but life gets in the way). I just love this story. Once I'm finished with it, I'll get the movies in and start reading other stuff related to it.
There's so much to see; a few versions of the movie. In particular, there's the 2007 TV version - U Tube has a lot of clips from that, as well as the Russian film.
You young ones would particularly like the way some of the people at U Tube have mixed modern day music into the romance scenes.
Check this one out - I'm almost 65, but I'm a sucker for this romantic little thing with Andrei and Natasha right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rzQ...eature=related
You are mad!
Et l'unique cordeau des trompettes marines
Apollinaire, Le chantre
LOL!
I know . . .
I read War and Peace recently for the first time aged 48. I loved every word of it. I would read it while brushing my teeth in the morning. In the introduction to my edition, Tolstoy is quoted to the effect that, if told he could write a book that would prove the correctness of all his ideas about society, relationships, politics and history, he would not waste 20 minutes on it. But if he were told he could write a book that, a generation later, would be read by young people who would laugh and cry and fall in love with the life in it, he would give it his every moment and all his energy. I laughed a bit, I don't think I cried, but I know I fell in love with War and Peace. I think I might have struggled with it too when I was 16. But now you've started, don't stop. Get to the first battle scene and see how you feel then.
Wow, what a long string on the subject of "I'm 16 and should I read W&P". It reads sort of like an extended Dear Abby column. I remember when I was 18 I first watched the movie Annie Hall and had no idea what it was all about. Now I'm 42 and I've probably watched it 20+ times and think it has more to say about relationships (to me, at least) than any movie I've ever seen. If you are 16 (though perhaps 17 now) and begin to read W&P, then that is the correct choice for you. You will most likely go back to it later in life and view it in a different way. Reading Garp (John Irving) when I was 16 was different than the last time I read it in my 30s, but it was great both times!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
