|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Jul 23, 2012 8:53:27 GMT
I've not posted on this board because I've spent the past few weeks battling my way through, War And Peace. Though it's long, notoriously long, I have to say it's a much more straight forward read than I imagined.
It wasn't even on my reading list, but my BIL's girlfriend handed it to me and said "tell me what you think of this." Well, she threw down the gauntlet, so I had no other option, but to accept.
I was making reasonable progress until I had problems with my vision and then redesigned these boards. I am now getting back into it and am in the final fifth of the novel.
Has anyone else read it? I'll write something a little more substantial when I actually finish it.
|
|
|
|
Post by woofy on Aug 5, 2012 0:25:00 GMT
I've read it...and everything else of note that Tolstoy wrote...in Russian.
I have to say that you're a brave girl. W&P is no easy task to undertake. It helps to have some background in Russian history, but it's not essential. It also helps to understand how Russian names work--with more than 500 characters in the novel with a plethora of possible name combinations, this can be a real downer for the uninitiated.
It's an irony for me that I am closer to Tolstoy philosophically, but I have a marked preference for Dostoevsky.
If there's anything in W&P I can help you with, please let me know.
Did you know that the great novelist Tolstoy wrote only four novels and that some 30 years elapsed between his third (Anna Karenina) and his fourth (Resurrection)?
Okay, I'll put a sock in it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Aug 5, 2012 13:15:05 GMT
I'm slowly getting there and remembering certain characters and getting my head around the names has been a challenge and I'm onlyh reading it in boring old English  . I have to admit I have had to use the internet to understand certain references. In High school, we did do a lot of Russian History, admittedly we mostly focused on the later Revolutionary period but we did touch upon Catherine the Great as well as the Napoleonic wars. Bizarrely I feel that my lack of knowledge about Napoleon has been my downfall. I know the basics but really want to read up on him once I have finished the book. I admit my reading of War and Peace is perhaps slightly superficial because of my lack of knowledge, however I am still enjoying it.The central characters are complex and intriguing, but quite relatable. Tolstoy's commentry upon war and how history records it is incredibly thought-provoking. |
|
|
|
Post by woofy on Aug 6, 2012 16:11:45 GMT
Tolstoy didn't write W&P for historians; he wrote it for ordinary literate people. Of course, one tends to know about one's own history and culture by default. I wrote my dissertation on the influence of Walter Scott on the Russian historical novel, but, though I love the Waverley series, I don't imagine I can appreciate Scott the same way that you can. I imagine the same can be said about Russians and Tolstoy's works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Aug 25, 2012 0:06:00 GMT
Tolstoy didn't write W&P for historians; he wrote it for ordinary literate people. Of course, one tends to know about one's own history and culture by default. I wrote my dissertation on the influence of Walter Scott on the Russian historical novel, but, though I love the Waverley series, I don't imagine I can appreciate Scott the same way that you can. I imagine the same can be said about Russians and Tolstoy's works. I'm not a huge Scott fan, though I can see the Tolstoy similarities. He was a romanticist and some of his stories were flights of fancy rather than based on fact. As you say, his stories were for literate people rather than historians, however he did right about history and started to build it, reinventing much Scottish history especially to ingratiate himself with the Royals. There's an interesting episode dealing with the Victorian Walter Scott phenomenon in the History of Scotland, if you're interested. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM2WDWBvecg&feature=relatedWhat I find interesting with Tolstoy is that he implies that he is disagreeing with the History of the conflict. Is he criticising the way we record history or merely trying to make it more human? He seems to say (I'm paraphrasing here) that historians say Napoleon was a genius, but in actual fact he wasn't because he made such and such mistake here and when you see what he did there, it proves he was no better than the rest of us. I actual like his use of metaphor, especially during the scene where Prince Andrew dies. Very vivid, moving and empathetic, yet simply executed and not at all pretentious. |
|
|
|
Post by woofy on Aug 25, 2012 1:17:54 GMT
What I find interesting with Tolstoy is that he implies that he is disagreeing with the History of the conflict. Is he criticising the way we record history or merely trying to make it more human? He seems to say (I'm paraphrasing here) that historians say Napoleon was a genius, but in actual fact he wasn't because he made such and such mistake here and when you see what he did there, it proves he was no better than the rest of us. I actual like his use of metaphor, especially during the scene where Prince Andrew dies. Very vivid, moving and empathetic, yet simply executed and not at all pretentious. Scott pretty much invented the genre of the historical novel. The beauty of Scott's technique is that he never lets the history interfere with the story he is trying to tell or the lesson he is trying to teach. Scott wrote about people, some ordinary some extraordinary, who were swallowed up by the history that surrounded them. In that sense, you might think of Scott as a "'social' historian", a chronicler not of historical events but rather of how those historical events affected the people living at a certain time and in a certain place. Every subsequent famous historical novel owes a debt to Scott in this regard. Tolstoy was a great fan of Scott (in French translation, of course). And, while he did follow the Scott M.O. most of the time, he also violated it on occasion. Most of W&P is about the interrelationships between the Rostov, Bolkonskij and Bezukhov families and how the Napoleonic invasion affected those relationships. But Tolstoy does some things that Scott would never have considered. Tolstoy takes you into the tents of Kutuzov and Napoleon to eavesdrop on their planning. Tolstoy takes you into the hypocritical posturings of Alexander and Napoleon on the Vistula, etc., etc. For me, this is a major failing of the novel. With Scott it is never a problem for me to suspend my disbelief. When historical figures are introduced, it is always from the point of view of the ordinary observer. Scott never tries to "read the mind" of historical personages. And the reason for their introduction is never left unexplained--it is to advance the plot for his fictional characters. (BTW, that's why Rob Roy is not the hero of that eponymous novel.) Another problem with W&P is that it was serialized over a long period of time--with the author dictating the work to his put upon wife Sofia. While Tolstoy did make copious notes and diagrammed his structures, one can't help but think that the novel's progression somehow got away from him. There are numerous examples I could cite, but the question I always ask fans of the novel is, "what happened to Sonya?" (She is an important character who "disappears" from the novel with no explanation.) My favorite Tolstoy novel, by far, is Anna Karenina. It is much better organized and the character development is nothing short of superb. (Perhaps because it is not an historical novel, Tolstoy was released from the "burden of history" and could devote himself to a better story with a better message?) (BTW, I always required that my students read Resurrection after they had read Anna. It is sort of a "black hat" reaction to the Anna story. It was written some thirty years later and reflects the changes that had occurred to the author and his wife.) Well, I've exceeded my three paragraph limit and will put a sock in it for now. |
|
. I have to admit I have had to use the internet to understand certain references. 
