War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy, 1869) (2007 translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky)

I last read this book during either my sophomore or junior year at Notre Dame (somewhere between 1975 and 1977).  I'm surprised about how little of the plot that I remembered - which made the re-reading all the more delightful.  (I do recall that Prince Andrei was musing about various deep issues and looking at the sky, but I probably recall that only because it was the subject of a paper I wrote.  I now can't find the paper, just the professor's comments (below).  Don't know which professor, but he or she apparently wasn't that thrilled with my efforts.) 

This is a new (2007) translation that I was anxious to read.  Birthday gift from PJr and Nedda.

As I perhaps too often write - the experience of reading a book like this is enhanced to an incredible degree by other reading.  Sure, a book like this also would stand on its own.  But incomparably better with some background.  A simple example - Tolstoy started writing this as a different novel, focusing on the Decembrists.  I wouldn't have had a decent idea where to place that concept until just a few years ago (good discussion here).  Meaning Pierre's activities in the Epilogue would have meant nothing to me during my first reading (not that those activities are central to the book, but still).  Also:  this book about the invasion of Russia was very helpful.  And this on Napoleon's early years.  And this on Tolstoy himself.  Etc. 

The story line moves among a large group of characters, primarily focused on three families:  Rostov, Bolkonsky, Bezukov.  (Also, to a lesser extent, the Kuragin family, annoying as each of its members was.)  Napoleonic war provides background.  It's a novel, it's history, it's also philosophy, extensive musings about the relative importance of the collective will and the individual in history, etc.  Famously long, which permits the story to develop, strong identification with characters, etc.  I was really worried about Natasha and Kuragin, and about what would happen with Prince Andrei.  Among other things.

I think Tolstoy got carried away with the idea of history as a collection of individual wills, little influenced by the actions of individuals.  I think that's wrong.  It was a constant theme in the book.  Tolstoy must have felt pretty strongly about it, had to know it cluttered the story line.  Napoleon clearly inspired so many writers and historians to focus on the role of the "great man" in history.  (For example, this is a great exploration of the topic.) 

Something wonderful about Tolstoy - after I read him for awhile, I feel like I can "see myself" better.  All good novelists achieve this, but I find the effect strongest with with Tolstoy and Proust.  Tolstoy has a wonderfully effective way of casting light on the multiple motivations that affect all of us pretty much all of the time - some mixture of vanity, self-interest, kindness, undue concern about others' opinions, etc.  The effect of "seeing myself" better is strong during and immediately after reading these books, then it starts to wear off.

Example:  how about this description of listening - focused on Natasha vis-à-vis Pierre but more broadly applicable - "Now, as he told it all to Natasha, he experienced that rare pleasure which is granted by women when they listen to a man - not intelligent women, who, when they listen, try either to memorize what they are told in order to enrich their minds and on occasion retell the same thing, or else to adjust what is being told to themselves and quickly say something intelligent of their own . . . "  If one doesn't permit oneself to be distracted by what would nowadays instantly be jumped on as "sexist" in this passage - who doesn't too often listen in precisely this fashion?

Karataev's little sayings while Pierre was a prisoner (and on the march away from Moscow) were great.

Austerlitz, Borodin, occupation of Moscow, Kutuzov.  Pierre trying to find himself; Masons.  Echoes of The Death of Ivan Ilych.  Russian upper classes speaking French, of all things - more fluently than Russian in many cases.  (I can understand how the courtiers in the various countries needed a lingua franca, but the effect here is ironic to say the least.)  Intrigues among courtiers and military staffers.  Tsar Alexander.

Simply wonderful.

[Update 6/24/12:  by coincidence, it is almost exactly the 200th anniversary of Napoleon crossing into Russia, see summary here.]  

---------------------------

Here are my professor's comments - apparently he or she was hoping for some critical thinking . . .  w&p