Leonard Gaya's Reviews > War and Peace
War and Peace
by
by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2b504/2b50485d09882ee1d3c25074e59586624bee296d" alt="27098959"
War and Peace is a complex, composite, multi-layered, messy, lumpy novel. It is a multilingual book, 90% Russian, 10% French, with traces of German. It is an epic-scale chronicle covering the history of Russia from 1805 to 1820 and, more specifically, the Napoleonic invasion of 1812. It is a panoramic picture of a whole society with its cities, dvoryanstvo, muzhiks, political leaders and military campaigns. It is an enormous volume that focuses on massive historical events and a myriad of tiny, intimate moments. It is a treatise on the philosophy of history and the problem of determinism. It is a vast prose symphony that oscillates between moments of Beethovenian majesty and passages of soap-opera cheesiness.
Some characters are historical figures, slightly satirised: French Emperor Bonaparte, a plump arrogant buffoon with ambitions of world domination; Russian Tsar Alexander, a fretful biscuit eater; field marshal Kutuzov, a sleepy, heavy, one-eyed underrated military genius. Others are fictional but based on Tolstoy’s own family and friends and indeed feel more human, more real than the aforementioned “great men”: the cynical Andrei Bolkonsky, the starry-eyed man magnet Natasha Rostova, the revolutionary, idealist and socially awkward Pierre Bezukhov (the Tolstoyian heart of the novel), et al.
These main characters are, however, but the tip of the iceberg. War and Peace deploys an incredible ensemble of secondary figures; some of them are perhaps more memorable even than the protagonists. The wise captive Platon Karataev and the exuberant and sleazy French officer Ramballe, although appearing briefly and late in the novel (around the turn of Book IV), are utterly unforgettable.
Similarly, among all the chapters and scenes in the novel, some are absolutely remarkable: Andrei’s Ecclesiastes-type epiphany while staring at the eternal blue sky above the battlefield (I, 3, 16), the wolf hunt and the delicious troika ride on Christmas night (II, 4, 4-5 and 12), and of course, the Stendhalian plat de resistance of the novel, the Battle of Borodino, as seen through the eyes of Pierre Bezukhov, an improvised embedded journalist avant la lettre (III, 2, 24-37)—probably reminiscent of Tolstoy’s experience during the Crimean War.
And so, a substantial part of the novel focuses on three or four families, who periodically meet at Anna Pavlovna Sherer’s unshakable salon mondain in the course of the book: the Rostovs, the Bolkonskys, the Kuragins and the Bezukhovs. The lives of their members intersect on different levels, under two prominent influences:
Firstly, the influence of love: Pierre marries La Belle Hélène, but she cheats on him; Natasha loves Andrei, but Andrei goes away; Nikolai loves Sonya, but Sonya has no dowry; then Natasha loves the wastrel Anatole, but it goes badly; and then Nikolai meets Princess Maria; and then Natasha realises Pierre is charming… In short, much simping and ditching and friend-zoned bffs, and endless suchlike humbug. A significant slice of Tolstoy’s novel goes like that: Jane Austen style.
Secondly, the narrative progresses according to the influence of historical events and warfare: Andrei wounded at Austerlitz and glancing Napoleon; Nikolai seeing Alexander; Pierre at Borodino and Andrei injured a second time… This is a wholly different slice of Tolstoy’s novel, a sort of modern Iliad or Mahabharata or Henry VI, where the epic, brutal, warlike aspect of Tolstoy’s writing holds sway.
Underneath these two forces of love and war, a third undercurrent, philosophical this time, starts to rear its head every few chapters from the start of Book III and becomes an iterative soapbox interruption as the novel progresses towards its ending. The Second Epilogue is a downright philosophical enquiry on the nature of historical events, national movements, the origin of war, the laws presiding over “interconnected infinitesimal elements of freewill”, and the mistakes and fallacies of historiography. This last prominent slice of Tolstoy’s novel is indeed a theoretical, disembodied discussion with historians such as Adolphe Thiers or Joseph de Maistre and philosophers like Hegel, Schopenhauer and Carlyle; a conversation that heralds 20th-century history theory and economics.
Ultimately, War and Peace, with all its disjointed slices, cross-cutting layers, fragmented pieces, is a masterful example of what the novel is capable of—to move and fly swiftly, Hermes-like, between history and fiction, immensity and intimacy, macro and micro, aristocrats and enslaved people, emperors and privates, battlefields and drawing rooms, French and Russian, sky and mud, deep and shallow, feminine and masculine, romance and epic, comedy and tragedy, facts and theory, history and philosophy, war and peace. In short, what Tolstoy demonstrates is that the novel, elevated at this level of world-building chutzpah and demiurgic virtuosity, is as rich and complex as life itself, messy, virtually limitless and all-encompassing.
Nuff said, I need a shot of vodka now…
Some characters are historical figures, slightly satirised: French Emperor Bonaparte, a plump arrogant buffoon with ambitions of world domination; Russian Tsar Alexander, a fretful biscuit eater; field marshal Kutuzov, a sleepy, heavy, one-eyed underrated military genius. Others are fictional but based on Tolstoy’s own family and friends and indeed feel more human, more real than the aforementioned “great men”: the cynical Andrei Bolkonsky, the starry-eyed man magnet Natasha Rostova, the revolutionary, idealist and socially awkward Pierre Bezukhov (the Tolstoyian heart of the novel), et al.
These main characters are, however, but the tip of the iceberg. War and Peace deploys an incredible ensemble of secondary figures; some of them are perhaps more memorable even than the protagonists. The wise captive Platon Karataev and the exuberant and sleazy French officer Ramballe, although appearing briefly and late in the novel (around the turn of Book IV), are utterly unforgettable.
Similarly, among all the chapters and scenes in the novel, some are absolutely remarkable: Andrei’s Ecclesiastes-type epiphany while staring at the eternal blue sky above the battlefield (I, 3, 16), the wolf hunt and the delicious troika ride on Christmas night (II, 4, 4-5 and 12), and of course, the Stendhalian plat de resistance of the novel, the Battle of Borodino, as seen through the eyes of Pierre Bezukhov, an improvised embedded journalist avant la lettre (III, 2, 24-37)—probably reminiscent of Tolstoy’s experience during the Crimean War.
And so, a substantial part of the novel focuses on three or four families, who periodically meet at Anna Pavlovna Sherer’s unshakable salon mondain in the course of the book: the Rostovs, the Bolkonskys, the Kuragins and the Bezukhovs. The lives of their members intersect on different levels, under two prominent influences:
Firstly, the influence of love: Pierre marries La Belle Hélène, but she cheats on him; Natasha loves Andrei, but Andrei goes away; Nikolai loves Sonya, but Sonya has no dowry; then Natasha loves the wastrel Anatole, but it goes badly; and then Nikolai meets Princess Maria; and then Natasha realises Pierre is charming… In short, much simping and ditching and friend-zoned bffs, and endless suchlike humbug. A significant slice of Tolstoy’s novel goes like that: Jane Austen style.
Secondly, the narrative progresses according to the influence of historical events and warfare: Andrei wounded at Austerlitz and glancing Napoleon; Nikolai seeing Alexander; Pierre at Borodino and Andrei injured a second time… This is a wholly different slice of Tolstoy’s novel, a sort of modern Iliad or Mahabharata or Henry VI, where the epic, brutal, warlike aspect of Tolstoy’s writing holds sway.
Underneath these two forces of love and war, a third undercurrent, philosophical this time, starts to rear its head every few chapters from the start of Book III and becomes an iterative soapbox interruption as the novel progresses towards its ending. The Second Epilogue is a downright philosophical enquiry on the nature of historical events, national movements, the origin of war, the laws presiding over “interconnected infinitesimal elements of freewill”, and the mistakes and fallacies of historiography. This last prominent slice of Tolstoy’s novel is indeed a theoretical, disembodied discussion with historians such as Adolphe Thiers or Joseph de Maistre and philosophers like Hegel, Schopenhauer and Carlyle; a conversation that heralds 20th-century history theory and economics.
Ultimately, War and Peace, with all its disjointed slices, cross-cutting layers, fragmented pieces, is a masterful example of what the novel is capable of—to move and fly swiftly, Hermes-like, between history and fiction, immensity and intimacy, macro and micro, aristocrats and enslaved people, emperors and privates, battlefields and drawing rooms, French and Russian, sky and mud, deep and shallow, feminine and masculine, romance and epic, comedy and tragedy, facts and theory, history and philosophy, war and peace. In short, what Tolstoy demonstrates is that the novel, elevated at this level of world-building chutzpah and demiurgic virtuosity, is as rich and complex as life itself, messy, virtually limitless and all-encompassing.
Nuff said, I need a shot of vodka now…
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
War and Peace.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 1, 2014
– Shelved as:
to-read
(Leather Bound Edition)
January 1, 2014
– Shelved
(Leather Bound Edition)
February 14, 2021
– Shelved
February 14, 2021
– Shelved as:
to-read
November 1, 2021
–
Started Reading
March 11, 2022
–
66.5%
"At last reaching the epilogues, at the end of this long, long march!"
page
1074
March 16, 2022
– Shelved as:
favorites
March 16, 2022
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-44 of 44 (44 new)
date
newest »
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4db51/4db51d4f198b924f797f8bc958a57ed250390300" alt="Down arrow"
message 1:
by
Gildas
(new)
Nov 20, 2021 04:48AM
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81581/81581bd82673d6d866bf7ee01cc8dba9fa91dbe4" alt="Gildas"
reply
|
flag
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05a58/05a5813099b3ecf321f153a5088649025feb1b23" alt="Sensei Rosenthal"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0aae2/0aae2872c779abd50ffac9b03e5954f6b72f94dd" alt="Jon Nguyen"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Absolutely! In fact, except that Russia is on the defensive side in the book and is, at present, the aggressor, many things resonate with the current situation. There could even be a lesson regarding Tolstoy’s views on the part “great men” play in historical events. Did the Napoleonic wars originate in Napoleon alone? Tolstoy repeatedly says it didn’t. Is Vladimir Putin the sole cause of what is happening now? Maybe that requires a closer examination as well…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Elena wrote: "Only 4 stars???!!!"
I’ll probably explain a bit more in my review. Still, in short, it would be 5 stars were it not for its exhausting length (granted, that’s more my lack of stamina as a reader than the author’s fault) and also on account of some corny passages here and there that got a bit irritating (again, my own shortcomings here). So in a word, the rating reflects my enjoyment of the book, not so much its overall literary significance, which, as everyone knows, is immense.
As the joke goes: the book is not the thing being judged here.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ae6b/9ae6b06b2158c352b8d1c83658a8e53433171464" alt="Elena Sala"
Elena wrote: "Only 4 stars???!!!"
I’ll probably explain a bit more in my review. Still, in short, it would be 5 stars were it not for its exhausting len..."
Oh yes, the length is exhausting and his philosophy of history requires a lot of patience. I look forward to your review!!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7025/c7025180b452829042eabe7131adaa9d639b9985" alt="Michael Perkins"
I've read it 3x all told, but had no problem skipping Tolstoy's philosophical interludes for the second and third reads.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Many readers of W&P complain about the philosophical parts of the novel (especially the vilified Second Epilogue). But, if I’m honest, that aspect didn’t bother me half as much as the sometimes exasperating “romantic” sections (what I would call the Jane Austenova passages).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Congrats! Logical, maybe, but I’m not sure the theoretical parts of the novel are consistent with the narrative elements. In essence, the idea Tolstoy is hammering is that great men don’t shape historical events, that they are just cogs in a much broader scheme. But the story sort of works in the other direction, focusing on Napoleon, Alexander, Kutuzov, Bilibin and a handful of recurring characters. Maybe some sort of impersonal, collective type of narrative would have worked better alongside the theory, but that would probably have been an unreadable experimental novel…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Well, there’s no harm in trying; you can dnf at any point… Granted, it’s an awfully long book, but it’s not at all difficult to read: short chapters, compelling story, well-rounded characters, varied settings, etc. It’s like a long-distance run on a nice road with lots of sightseeing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
I've read it 3x all told, but had no problem skipping Tolstoy's philosophical interludes ..."
On your first point, I’m not entirely sure this is true. Look at the success of TV series: people get hooked into binge-watching episodes for hours on end. Tolstoy’s novel is just the great-grandfather of this form of entertainment—actually, it’s structured just like most TV series today, crosscutting between multiple storylines.
Regarding your second point, I guess you can skip the speculative chapters and not even realise something is missing. In fact, I believe some abridged versions ditch these parts altogether or bundle them up at the end. Actually, you could do precisely the opposite: read only the philosophical aspects and forgo the narrative!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c854/4c8540ba88ba665c7bad0d86ad21d24ed4f2702d" alt="Warren Fournier"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Absolutely! I don’t believe in the “perfect” book—actually, sometimes the imperfections are what increases the enjoyment of works of art and literature. And W&P has loads of lovely imperfections! :)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7025/c7025180b452829042eabe7131adaa9d639b9985" alt="Michael Perkins"
France was really smart when it came to the effort of fake news to impact elections there. Permit me to quote from a review of this...
The Kremlin’s 2016 efforts were facilitated by the United States’ free-market impulse to minimize government regulation of new communication technologies. Unlike US political ads on radio and TV, those appearing online in 2016 were not required to carry a “clear and conspicuous” disclaimer indicating who authorized the ad. And in 2016, US campaign finance regulations did not require digital platforms to disclose who was funding campaign ads on them.
Russian attempts to exert the same influence on the French elections in 2017 failed because the government asked the media not to cover Russian fake news. Instead, the journalists covered the hacking and influence operation without giving any credibility to the leaked information. Consequently, nearly 18 thousand bots deployed to push #MacronLeaks and related topics failed to either mobilize or produce significant discussion of the leaked documents among French users.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7025/c7025180b452829042eabe7131adaa9d639b9985" alt="Michael Perkins"
What I didn't know, until a GR connection pointed this out, it that Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was primarily about addiction to TV, not censorship.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Indeed! Must be quite fascinating to see Hopkins as a young romantic male lead…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0aa0/d0aa04216f8fc6e7a104a6c2eef89fad8cf5b81e" alt="Leonard Gaya"
Agreed, it’s pretty good.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a5ce/5a5cee3ea0e75e8a17cbcb97480ae138dc15ba7c" alt="Candace"
No, not at all. But one of your phrases above did make me think of this phrase, so I had to do it. It’s one of my imperfections. ;)