I had been putting off this entry until I could bring together some succinct thoughts on Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and I'm 90% sure this will be expanded in the future (hence the "initial" impressions).
To be honest, my first thought on finishing this book was "That's it? Thank God that's over. Man that last part was boring." And I fully blame this on the crappy edition I was reading, where none of the philosophical/historical essays were edited out (or even compiled at the end) and there were no footnotes. Thus, instead of pleasantly finishing with the post-war families, I finished with seven chapters of detailed historical philosophy.
Overall, while the book was engaging and monumental in scope, I can't seem to get on the "Tolstoy is a genius of descriptions!" bandwagon. Yes, he's eloquent with his visuals, but I actually think Cormac McCarthy (especially with "Suttree") is better.
Anyway, starting off. While looking for some guidelines to help me better think about the book, I discovered that Tolstoy is Tolstoi is Tolstoj. As if Russian names weren't already difficult without consonant/vowel flexibility.
Tolstoy's argument as author & historian is to place emphasis on small, commonplace events versus monumental global events, and how inherent disorder in those small events is what defines history (not Napoleon or Emperor Alexander). Ironically, or appropriately, he does this in a huge 1400-page novel about a multi-year international war. The argument he makes is formally called "prosaics"; see "The Poetry in War and Peace" by David Sloane. Towards the end of the book, Tolstoy seeks to dispel the idea of free will, claiming that all of history is a series of effects stemming from an unknown, original cause. Interestingly, he manages to formulate a milder version of Michel Foucault's later ideas on how individuals are not truly individual but rather shaped by societal norms. So to me, the final few chapters weren't really earth-shattering news but I imagine that in the mid-1800s they were fairly novel approaches to history.
Unlike Foucault, Tolstoy then uses this (meaning, wars are won or lost by all men acting individually rather than just one, i.e. Napoleon) as evidence for a higher power / God; essentially predetermined history.
"It is not a novel," Tolstoy says of his book. I think he says this because it's sprawling and nearly all-encompassing, and doesn't have a clear-cut ending. However, I do think there is a plot. Yes, it's a depiction of LIFE in general and life in specific (a social novel and a personal novel, as Raymond Williams points out in "Realism and the Contemporary Novel") -- but, it starts out with peace and establishing characters, rises to a climax with the occupation of Moscow, and sort-of concludes with the post-war families. It isn't a traditional novel, in the 1800s sense of the word, but the plot is, well, war and peace and the effects of that on the characters.
I didn't realize I had a problem with the depiction of women in this book until I really started thinking about it. Tolstoy champions religious and familial devotion as being the paths to true lasting love, with a big helping of suffering on the side (Sonya, Marya, Natasha). By the end of the book, none of the main female characters are a part of mainstream society, but this may be a compliment since Tolstoy portrays social circles as petty and false. I was expecting a less conservative outcome, so this was disappointing. Another weird thing I wanted to mention: it was so completely disturbing to read Marya's rationalization of her father's total domestic abuse towards her.
Random observation for later, maybe: Count Bezukhov is similar to Hamlet -- failure to act!
Other thoughts: Tolstoy's General Kutuzov doesn't so much command the army as 'go with the flow', in accordance with the theme of predetermined history in the book. However, if I was a soldier and I saw my General falling asleep during the strategy session, I'd be more than a little nervous -- don't you need the illusion of grand leadership in order to motivate individual actions of men? Also, in terms of "prosaics," it's interesting to see that many of the battles are waged or prevented because of petty and confusing intrigues within the army and diplomatic ranks of countries. Personal interests tend to come before troops and the nation even in dire circumstances, and overcommunication often results in no communication (breakdown of hierarchies & order with regard to small events, like retreating the battery unit or not).
I won't read this book again, but at least now I'll understand the allusions and references. And I'm sure I'll have more entries on how to understand/appreciate "War and Peace" as my little literary adventure continues.
Currently taking a break from the canon to read Stacy Schiff's "Vera: Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov" -- still stuck in Russian lit land! Also read through Sontag's "Marat/Sade/Artaud" but won't be commenting on it here, as it didn't really put forth new perspectives but rather reinforced a few (summed up: theater may be both didactic and experiential/sensual).
No comments:
Post a Comment