EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up Book Club discussion

Welcome to the Read-A-Long discussion for War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, nominated by Pony.

This discussion will be full of SPOILERS.

EDITIONS and their peculiarities:

As one would expect, there are multiple English translations of War and Peace. Unfortunately, the demarcation of books/parts/chapters is highly inconsistent among them. They do not use common terms—what some call a ‘book’ others call a ‘part,’ which is all the more confusing as the former may break the ‘book’ into smaller sections which it refers to as ‘parts’. I’ve tried to compare the three common translations that I myself have access to—which are three of the most common, as far as I know. I’ve broken them into six sections for the schedule, usually according to the largest headings used in the book (with one book being an exception). There are also two epilogues in most versions, which I’ve worked into the sections.

I won’t recommend a particular translation, but we may all notice that there are other significant differences among them. Aside from the labeling of the sections, for instance, they do not all use the same names for characters. One book’s Andrei is another’s Andrew, for example. Beyond that, some translations from the Russian leave other languages (such as French, which shows up quite frequently) intact. Others translate everything into English. If you don’t speak French, this alone may be enough to recommend one edition over another.

Unfortunately, I don’t know anything at all about translations from Russian into other languages, or frankly, about the original Russian itself. Since English is the common language of the group, the best I can do is to stick to it. So, without further ado:

The first translation I have is by Alexandra Kropotkin, and it breaks the book into sixteen Parts, which it identifies as “Part First, 1805” etc., up to “Part Sixteenth, 1813–1820”. This is strange in itself, by the way, because every other version I’ve seen treats that final section as the First Epilogue. This book seems to have no epilogues, because it has re-labeled the first and is indeed missing the second. The second epilogue is available on the website of Public Library UK, however, at http://public-library.uk/ebooks/104/5...

The second translation I have is by Constance Garnett, and it divides the book into Parts One through Fifteen, followed by Epilogue Parts One & Two. Simple enough.

The third translation I have is by Louise and Aylmer Maude. As if things weren’t already confusing enough, I have two different editions of this translation, and they are not consistent between themselves. The first is the Oxford University Press edition, edited by Amy Mandelker. I will refer to this as the Maude/Mandelker edition. It breaks the novel into four “books,” with each book containing from 3–5 “parts,” and the two Epilogues. These “parts” roughly correspond to the top-level sections of the other translations, so I’ve used them for breaking points, and I’ll note them as Book/Part.

Finally, there is another version of the Maude translation, published by Norton, edited by George Gibian. I’ll refer to this as the Maude/Gibian edition. It breaks the novel into fifteen Books followed by the two Epilogues.

For what it’s worth, I’ve kept the first epilogue with the preceding sections of the book, and left the second epilogue on its own for August. This is for thematic reasons: The first epilogue does continue the narrative to some extent, whereas the second is almost entirely philosophical in nature. So by the beginning of August, for those who manage to stay on schedule, there shouldn’t really be any spoilers remaining, and therefore the book can be discussed in its entirety.

Clear enough? 😀

THE SCHEDULE ITSELF
MARCH
Kropotkin: Parts 1 & 2
Garnett: Parts 1 & 2
Maude/Gibian: Parts 1 & 2
Maude/Mandelker: Book One, Parts 1 & 2

APRIL
Kropotkin: Parts 3–6
Garnett: Parts 3–6
Maude/Gibian: Parts 3–6
Maude/Mandelker: Book One, Part 3 – Book Two, Part 3

MAY
Kropotkin: Parts 7–9
Garnett: Parts 7–9
Maude/Gibian: Parts 7–9
Maude/Mandelker: Book Two, Part 4 – Book Three, Part I

JUNE
Kropotkin: Parts 10–12
Garnett: Parts 10–11
Maude/Gibian: Parts 10–11
Maude/Mandelker: Book Three, Parts 2 & 3

JULY
Kropotkin: Parts 13–16
Garnett: Parts 12–15 & Epilogue 1
Maude/Gibian: Parts 12–15 & Epilogue 1
Maude/Mandelker: Book Four (entire) & Epilogue 1

AUGUST
Epilogue 2 / Entire Book

Some reference pages from the Oxford World's Classics edition (Maude/Mandelker):
❦ Principal Characters, and Pronunciation — https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kq09...
❦ Historical Characters — https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kt80...
❦ Dates of Principal Events — https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kv0v...-
❦ Maps — https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kvSf...

Some questions to begin with:
⟡ What are your initial impressions? Is this your first experience reading Tolstoy? Do you have any preconceptions or expectations?
⟡ What are your impressions of the social world of St. Petersburg? What do you make of Tolstoy’s choice of that setting, to begin a novel about war?
⟡ We meet a large cast of characters right away. Did any particular individual(s) stand out to you?

Just got my copy today! I read in a review on Goodreads to take notes on the characters. There can be a lot. I do have a list of characters in the beginning of the book, but no room for notes that I would remember, so I will have pen and paper handy. I am excited to really try and get through this!

I've already read Anna Karenina, and am ready to tackle this book. I am a bit apprehensive about reading this book. I asked myself why I connect more to books written by Jane Austen than I do to books written by Tolstoy and I think it is his portrayal of women. I will probably connect more to the male characters in this novel, because they will have more freedom to do and be different things. I just hope there aren't chapters and chapters about farming like there was in Anna Karenina. Maybe those chapters will instead be about war? Or peace? :-)

This is my first time reading Tolstoy, I wanted to read this to challenge myself and read something new. What I wasn't expecting was it to be so relatable. I grew up in a small town and knew the local "aristocracy" and it astounds me how similar it was to the early 1800s. There have been mutliple scenarios in the novel that I can relate to a personal anecdote. I am struggling with the amount of characters but I'm hoping I will be able to keep track of them over the time frame.

When I tackled this book some years ago, I thought I would never finish it. There are parts which are a slog. But ultimately, the book is a terrific read.

So hoping this thread is still active.
I have read W and P at least 4 or maybe 5 times and the take aways have all been different.
On my shelf is a Penguin book 1978n edition translated by Rosemary Edmonds. IThis was the last one I read. 1400 + pages adn I think the French is in English.
On my Kindle, not yet read is the new "Original" Edition
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
1024 pages.

If you folks are still into this, I may join you if only to see what is the difference

from the blurb
An alternative version – the one Tolstoy originally intended, but has been hitherto unpublished – of Russia’s most famous novel; with a different ending, fewer digressions and an altered view of Napoleon

I’m looking forward to finally getting this one read. Hoping for a thought-provoking read that leaves an impression. I read Anna Karenina a couple years ago. I didn’t like it much at the time, but I thought a lot about it afterwards and it’s definitely grown on me.

If you’ve read parts 1 & 2:

⟡ What do you think of Pierre? Is he as naïve as he seems, or simply kind-hearted & willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt? Do you think the inheritance will change him?
⟡ How do you like Tolstoy’s use of the salon as a way of displaying the various political/philosophical currents in Russian society?
⟡ Do you think the aristocracy are genuinely interested in the coming war? Might it simply be the latest trendy conversation topic, or a means for social posturing?
⟡ Tolstoy and his characters frequently glide from Russian into French & other languages. Why do you suppose this is? Do you find it interesting, illuminating, annoying, odd?
⟡ What do you make of Tolstoy’s detailed battle scenes? Interesting? Boring? Something else?

I am deeply committed to another v long read in another group, but have decided to join this one making for my 6th<?> read of W and P. I am using the newly printed version shorter and declared to be The Original Version.
Unless otherwise directed I am assuming this is the only area being used for this read.

Phrodrick wrote: “Unless otherwise directed I am assuming this is the only area being used for this read.”

That’s true, Phrodrick. I know that some other groups tend to spread long reads out into multiple threads, but ours is all contained in this one. The risk is spoilers, I guess—but that doesn’t seem like it’ll be an issue for you!

My next long classic read was going to be The Count of Monte Cristo, but I am changing to War and Peace to read along with you. I’m excited. This will be my first time with Tolstoy. I have read Dostoyevsky before, but I understand they are quite different. I will start reading tonight and will try and catch up with the group by the end of April (May at the latest). Looking forward to reading with you all.

Just looking at these questions:
⟡ What do you think of Pierre? Is he as naïve as he seems, or simply kind-hearted & willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt? Do you think the inheritance will change him?
⟡ How do you like Tolstoy’s use of the salon as a way of displaying the various political/philosophical currents in Russian society?

Based on the foreward to my copy.
The character of Pierre going to be an aging Decemberist, which moves the entire time frame of the book to one after the end of the present , best know version. (there were many main versions over the years). The Tolstoy began to wonder, what would have made him a revolutionary, which pushed him and us back to an earlier time.
Not specifically emphasized, Pierre is first seen arriving from Paris, having seen some of the Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. The book ends just before The December 1825 Russian Revolution.

In this context the question is that much more interesting. I do think he is Nieve, something that will happen to him later will help to document to what degree. But he is clearly unformed, in terms of philosophy, self image and ??? and yes good hearted.

The use of the salon is very much about collapsing the space needed to air out conflicting politics and philosophy. What may be less understood was that Russia had a habit of sending people to Siberia for their opinions. Books and Poems had slightly more freedom to speak out, but if you did not trust the people you spoke openly with, being to expressive was risky.

Just read this and find it amusing. In other reads of W and P I have seen discussion over the inclusion of French phrases. It seems that in later editions, Tolstoy took out the French and in that copy only Russian was used.Ok If I were better at this:
This editor goes on to say that the use of French was consistent with how the upper classes wrote and spoke, but it was also part of what "Alienated the aristocracy from theirown native people, but also how it compromised their declared allegiance when Russia was at war with France."

Not sure I buy that last part. Warfare was still a part of being aristocracy.

Back to quoting:
For Tolstoy uses language as a gauge of sincerity...French signals artificiality and remoteness, Russian signals integrity and groundedness, and folk idiom and true earthy wisdom"

To me, and I am a liberal, Pierre was a snowflake and alternatively a Pollyanna. However, of all of the characters in the book, he seemed most vividly portrayed.

Some language scientists say it matters what language you grew up with in how your brain works conceptually, for real. If a person grows up bilingual, I suppose a more conceptually flexible brain? Tolstoy was speaking from a Russian culture viewpoint of someone who was a Russian native with French as a second language I suppose. But in a music history introduction course I took, conducted by an English speaker, he said music experts thought French opera was more artificial in its artfullness musically, concentrating on being beautiful to listen to over other considerations.

Russian writers seemed to be conflicted over what I’d call earthy people. They seemed to recognize there was a Disney-version of it that was quoted by Phrodrick and there was the reality of not actually wanting to be around it much, a duality which writers reflected back at readers in the books I’ve read by some of the more famous Russian writers I’ve read.

Given tha tTolstoy was re writing this book for at least decades, and his wife was re copying it, and likely making changes and Leo had authorized his editor to make such changes as would keep away the censors, AND editors and translatoer had frequent shuffled though various copies and notes-
It maybe that there
is no one best edition
is a lot of problems making definitive statements about what Leo meant.

From reading elsewhere, Tolstoy became very attached to the romantic notion of the peasantry as the source of wisdom and authentic culture.
He wrote a book about what all art should be and all of it should be built around and targeted to the peasantry . This would be part of a huge ongoing domestic issues between his wife and Leo. This is a major story in itself and was the basis for a fairly accurate movie based on his last days.

FWIW the version I am reading is very different from any other copy I have read. I am finding it clunky and inferior. Leo was very smart to do massive re writing.
As I get in deeper I will be more specific and try to remember how similar scenes were in the original;. My memory is not that good.

Not sure that I have ever had an illustrated version of W and P. This copy is illustrated.

Piere is noted as being quite fat, having back teeth and a smile that gave him a childlike and stupid appearance.
He arrives late in chapter one, makes a fool of himself and declares himself as a huge fan of the French revolution and of Napoleon. Not what the Russians wanted to hear.

Assuming your copy has no illustrations, may I point out :
"M. S. Bashilov

M. S. Bashilov (1821-1870) was the first illustrator of War and Peace. In 1866-1867, he drew about 30 illustrations for the novel in close collaboration with the author."

There has to be a web page with some or all of them. If anyone finds one, please share.

btw my verson on my bookshelf is the one translated by Anthony Briggs.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

⟡ What do you think of Pierre? Is he as naïve as he seems, or simply kind-hearted & willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt? Do you think the inheritance will change him?
I don't think that he is necessarily naive at this point. Just young, new to Russian society, and having a difficult time finding his footing. I do not think the inheritance will change him drastically

⟡ Do you think the aristocracy are genuinely interested in the coming war? Might it simply be the latest trendy conversation topic, or a means for social posturing?
I think there is a mix. War is a place for young men to make a name for themselves and gain status. There is a reason for the phrase "exchange war stories". However, there is an air of naivety around the romanticism of war.

⟡ What do you make of Tolstoy’s detailed battle scenes? Interesting? Boring? Something else?
At first, it was difficult to follow what was happening. But then I watched a video that provided an overview of the napoleonic wars, and that high level context, helped me appreciate the nitty, gritty details more.

What do you think of Pierre? Is he as naïve as he seems, or simply kind-hearted & willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt? Do you think the inheritance will change him?

In at least one reference I have seen Pierre is described as an example of the "Superfluous man". I am not sure I buy the label as applied to Pierre, but the concept seems to be all over Russian Lit of this period. Just suggesting that the concept seperate from its aplication to Pierre is worth investigation.

In my version, Pierre is amazingly oblivious. Kind , voluble, well meaning, innocent, weak and in serious need of a re -write.

Phrodrick wrote: “Pierre is amazingly oblivious. Kind , voluble, well meaning, innocent, weak and in serious need of a re -write.”

I love this description of Pierre. He’s not my favorite character, really, though he does have his moments. But to me at least, his naïveté and spinelessness (in this part of the book, especially) seems almost more of a narrative device than an actual character trait—it’s just too over-the-top.

What do you make of Tolstoy’s detailed battle scenes? Interesting? Boring? Something else?

AS I think back ,and compare withthis version:
1. Tolstoy has a habit of proposing problems, often in the issue of fate verses human control. Than testing it at various level, up to and including war and diplomacy.
In this earlier version war is very much a matter of generalship. Which leaders, of whatever rank, best imagine the opponents moves and how to bet use the land. (tradition al military teaching, in battle, geography of fate). In later versions, battle are a lot more about chance and hoe people , soldier, react in the moment.

In the original version a lot more is made of how often the aristos speak in French. It is almost always s sign of duplicity estrangement from the Russian lumpen proletariat and cause for the reader to be suspicious. That said, a part of justifying the aristocracy is that they are the military leaders. Hence it is interesting to monitor which characters embrace the war, for whatever personal reason and those who posture, avoid or use it for other than patriotic reasons.

Edited to remove the last and most confusing paragraph.

Adding
this version is nearly impossible to discuss as it is so different from and inferior to any other read I have completed.

In this version we have a lot more discussion of war in the line, that is under the guns and the back of the line hanger-ons and fakers.

If you’re through the sections scheduled for April:

⟡ Which of the characters do you think have grown or changed the most since Parts 1 & 2? Have you changed your viewpoint on any character(s)?
⟡ What about the newer characters? Have any stood out for you?
⟡ Did Tolstoy’s portrayal of the French invasion challenge or change any previous ideas you had about it? How about his portrayal of Napoleon?
⟡ Tolstoy has begun to dive deeper into philosophical & spiritual themes. Do you like that aspect of the novel, or would you prefer it without them? Have you found yourself strongly agreeing or disagreeing with any philosophical viewpoints?

I'm joining a bit late, but I'm just saying I will also read War and Peace will be a bit behind everyone else as I'm just starting.

I am pushing on in my version, intending to be done in a few days.

Did Tolstoy’s portrayal of the French invasion challenge or change any previous ideas you had about it? How about his portrayal of Napoleon?
⟡ Tolstoy has begun to dive deeper into philosophical & spiritual themes. Do you like that aspect of the novel, or would you prefer it without them? Have you found yourself strongly agreeing or disagreeing with any philosophical viewpoints?

In this version Tolstoy is totally convinced that , and the moreso the more important you are you have no choice. He will spend pages on the topic,. You may have the freedom to choose to raise your arm, until that gesture is in itself, important. for example voting. The context of the decision matters. In part based on your self image. Should you be a leader the context includes how your decision will be understood. LT is absolutely certain that Napoleon had no choice except to invade Russia, and take Moscow.

In this version Tolstoy is extreme in his distaste for war. Major battles are never to be celebrated because they are only large scale murder.

Shaneka wrote: "I'm joining a bit late, but I'm just saying I will also read War and Peace will be a bit behind everyone else as I'm just starting."

I'm behind too (and I'm the one who nominated it 😅). I thought I owned it but realized it was an abridged version, so I had to scramble to get ahold of an unabridged edition.
Now I'm way behind 😬

If you’re through the sections scheduled for May:

⟡ How did the shift in perspective from the Rostov family to the Bolkonsky family impact your reading experience?
⟡ Are you seeing any parallels/reflections between the “war” sections of the book and the “peace”?
⟡ Which characters have surprised you? Which characters do you think are changing the most throughout the novel?

If you’re through the sections scheduled for June:

⟡ Did Pierre’s exploration of Freemasonry resonate with you?
⟡ Did you find Tolstoy’s philosophical passages engaging, or distracting?
⟡ Why do you suppose Platon had such a profound impact on Pierre?
⟡ As we approach the end of the novel, what lingering questions do you have about the characters and their fates?

In the original, Pierre is profoundly impacted by Freemasonary, but his efforts to practice it were comical at best and overall ineffective. This was not as cynical in later versions. Still , for me it was a weaker part of the book. It made sense that Pierre would benefit from the Freemasons, in a sense he needed it to force himself to do some re thinking. OTOH it read kinda forced in rather than integral to the Pierre story.

Last month of this Read-A-Long! For those of you finishing up:

⟡ Did you find the novel’s length overwhelming, or exhilarating? How about the pacing?
⟡ How did Tolstoy’s philosophical digressions on history, war, and human nature resonate with you? Did they enrich or distract from the narrative?
⟡ What did you make of Tolstoy’s portrayal of Napoleon? Did you find that he evolved over the course of the novel, as other characters did?
⟡ Which family did you most resonate with?
⟡ Would you recommend War and Peace to others to read?

[Moderator’s note: How about that final Epilogue? It’s like a book in itself.]