I’m currently about 300 pages into the 1400 pages of W&P, and I must admit I am underwhelmed.
I read it once before, in law school, one semester when I was so pissed at the boring reading I was assigned for class that I also read Anna Karenina. My recollection was that I enjoyed both books (tho preferred AK to W&P), and concluded I preferred Tolstoy to Dostoevsky.
I’m reading the relatively recent translation by Anthony Briggs. I’m always very leery of translated works, as I don’t know if I am liking/disliking the author or the translator. W&P seems to me very effective and interesting in presenting the culture and society of early 19th century Russia. But as a novel, I’m not enjoying it so much. Seems very disjointed. Scenes are built up, and then resolved almost as an afterthought. Many of the characters’ thought-processes are so foreign to me or flat-out unbelievable as to make them difficult to empathize with. Also, as might be expected of any novel running 1400 pages, I think old Leo might have benefitted from a good editor.
I’m enjoying it sufficiently that I expect to finish it, but I’m finding myself moving it down several notches in my list of “great books” that I’ve read. Would appreciate any thoughts you might have as I make my way through the remaining 1000+ pages.
I liked it when I read it. You see how different people react to a life-shattering event like the Napoleonic invasion of Russia, with sidelights on Russian culture, and Freemasonry, and numerology. As I’ve mentioned before, you get to see Tolstory’s "Calculuys of Human Differentials: view of history, and why he thinks individuals can’t really shape it, including Napoleon. Every scene with Napoleon is drawn from a report and is accurate in dpicting the words and actions, but Tolstoy interprets each of those scenes differently than they are usually interpreted.
For my money, W&P doesn’t really get going until the Napoleonic invasion. But, the last time we discussed it, some people felt just the opposite. I want to read it again some day, but know that I won’t have time until I retire.
You’re right to be concerned about translation. The only solution is to test-drive a few different versions before you start, reading the same two or three scenes in each and seeing which one you like better. It can make a big difference.
My main problem was with recognizing all the characters. It´s been awhile since I read (half of) it but IIRC close to half the people (of both sexes) were named Sasha - which really confused me!
Thanks to the link to the earlier thread. I’m surprised I did not recall it, as it was so recent.
At the very least, I think the book could use an index to the first page where each character is introduced. After 200 pages or so I’m pretty clear on the main 10-20 or so, but there are countless others - especially soldiers - whom I’m not even making any effort to keep straight.
I’m enjoying the book and expect to finish it. I findit quite readable if for no other reason that the chapters are short. If I don’t particularly like one chapter or storyline, there is another one coming up soon. But I just found myself questioning whether it was a “masterpiece.”
[QUOTE=WormTheRed]
My main problem was with recognizing all the characters. It´s been awhile since I read (half of) it but IIRC close to half the people (of both sexes) were named Sasha - which really confused me!
[/QUOTE]
Plus there are all of those patronymics and derivatives. You have to remember that Larisa Petrovna and Larisa and Lari and Laryushka are all the same person, and after a while all those “ushka”-s sound alike.
I liked it quite a bit when I read it back in college. It wasn’t assigned reading, which helped; and I’d just seen the Russian adaptation, so I already knew what was going on. I tried reading it again last year, but got bogged down with the battle descriptions and gave up. Still, I liked the characters and their interactions, so maybe I’ll have another go someday.
I read Les Miserables a couple of month ago. In the world of very thick books involving Napoleon, I’d say Tolstoy gets from point A to point B a lot quicker than Hugo.
[QUOTE=kelly5078]
I read Les Miserables a couple of month ago. In the world of very thick books involving Napoleon, I’d say Tolstoy gets from point A to point B a lot quicker than Hugo.
[/QUOTE]
Amen! Hugo takes 30 pages to get from Point A to Point A[sub]1[/sub], let alone Point B.
[QUOTE=kelly5078]
I read Les Miserables a couple of month ago. In the world of very thick books involving Napoleon, I’d say Tolstoy gets from point A to point B a lot quicker than Hugo.
[/QUOTE]
But . . . but . . . how could we understand the Battle of Waterloo without a fifteen-page digression on early Nineteenth Century French convents?
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
Plus there are all of those patronymics and derivatives. You have to remember that Larisa Petrovna and Larisa and Lari and Laryushka are all the same person, and after a while all those “ushka”-s sound alike.
[/QUOTE]
Another part of my problem… why can’t everybody just be named Tom, Dick or Sally
[QUOTE=WormTheRed]
My main problem was with recognizing all the characters. It´s been awhile since I read (half of) it but IIRC close to half the people (of both sexes) were named Sasha - which really confused me!
[/QUOTE]
I remember keeping index cards to get through it.
And despite this, I remember thinking it was a good book.
