Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

newcriterion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#41

Post by asangha »

billfruit wrote: post #2

I liked this paragraph from the article: "The novel’s wisest general, Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, understands this fact about battle, and about life, from the start. At the council of war before Austerlitz, Kutuzov dozes off. At last he cuts the meeting short: “ ‘Gentlemen, the disposition for tomorrow—or rather for today, for it is past midnight—cannot be altered now. And before a battle, there is nothing more impor…

Great quotation; reminds me of Nassim Taleb's remarks on planning in "Antifragile".

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#43

Post by [deleted] »

ivanhoe wrote: post #31

Does anyone know why is Tolstoy's name usually in English anglicized as Leo? I know it's customary to do for Pope and kings, but I don't know of any other writer. Fyodor Dostoyevsky is Fyodor, not Theodore or Fred or whatever, so why has Lev become Leo? Publishers?

[deleted]

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#44

Post by arkades »

asangha wrote: post #40
beloch wrote: post #24

War and Peace reminds me of David Lynch's "Dune". Aspects of it are utterly brilliant. Perhaps unsurpassed. As a whole though, it suffers from the effects of poor decisions. Tolstoy famously said that he didn't even consider War and Peace to be a novel, but something else that sort of passes for one. Where another author with an axe to grind would tell a story that leads the reader to the desired conclusion, Tolstoy…

Did you mean Herbert's "Dune"? Or did the movie diverge from the book?

David Lynch's "Dune" is always described as "David Lynch's 'Dune'" because he, uh, made the movie very much his own.

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#45

Post by Endy »

alex504 wrote: post #4

Most people dont think War and Peace was even Tolstoys greatest novel. Anna Karenina is regarded as the greatest novel of all time by lots of authors and critics though of course there is no consensus and its sort of a silly notion.

To me, Anna Karenina is really mostly notable for having the second-greatest opening line in all literature.

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#46

Post by CalChris »

billfruit wrote: post #2

I liked this paragraph from the article: "The novel’s wisest general, Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, understands this fact about battle, and about life, from the start. At the council of war before Austerlitz, Kutuzov dozes off. At last he cuts the meeting short: “ ‘Gentlemen, the disposition for tomorrow—or rather for today, for it is past midnight—cannot be altered now. And before a battle, there is nothing more impor…

My favorite quote. I read it as it is too late now to change anything for tomorrow rather than as planning is irrelevant.

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#47

Post by lusmd »

byproxy wrote: post #22
xefer wrote: post #21

I read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation about 10 years ago. There were a lot of good references and footnotes. But way into the novel, as the Russian army is about to crush the last remnants of Napoleon’s army retreating from Moscow, Field Marshall Kutuzov first tells his gathered troops to consider that the French are human too and have suffered along with them. Then, after a dramatic pause he continues: “But,…

I recently read 'The Idiot', translated by Ignat Avsey (I enjoyed his 'Karamazov Brothers' translation), and it contained a few similar redactions with no notes as to why. I thought it was maybe just a stylistic device.

It is indeed a common literary device in 19th century Russian lit. Usually with proper names to make them more "anonymous" but contemporary readers would know exactly what was being referenced.

For example, most of the place names in Crime and Punishment are redacted, but it's so clear where everything happens there are walking tours in St Petersburg.

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#48

Post by mzs »

xefer wrote: post #21

I read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation about 10 years ago. There were a lot of good references and footnotes. But way into the novel, as the Russian army is about to crush the last remnants of Napoleon’s army retreating from Moscow, Field Marshall Kutuzov first tells his gathered troops to consider that the French are human too and have suffered along with them. Then, after a dramatic pause he continues: “But,…

I think he was abbreviating/f@c#ifying «морда ишака в говно» in the original Russian. The last word is a very old fashioned term for "shit" and it means "put their face in it" where face is really muzzle of an ass with similar connotation. The Polish translation I read used „pyskiem w g…” so it's more obvious ;)

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#49

Post by roel_v »

Endy wrote: post #45
alex504 wrote: post #4

Most people dont think War and Peace was even Tolstoys greatest novel. Anna Karenina is regarded as the greatest novel of all time by lots of authors and critics though of course there is no consensus and its sort of a silly notion.

To me, Anna Karenina is really mostly notable for having the second-greatest opening line in all literature.

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way", to save others a google.

Re: On Tolstoy's “War and Peace”

#50

Post by cat199 »

jonstewart wrote: post #34

JSYK, The New Criterion sometimes features outstanding criticism, but it also has an ideological bent. Both Tolstoy and Shakespeare are often labeled as “conservatives,” but that’s a reductionist treatment of them and their art transcends base politics. However, that the first sentence of TFA extols Tolstoy’s supposed conservatism is a clue to raise your ideological shields before reading further, lest you find yours…

perhaps also not-so-curiously lacking is also any mention of orthodox christianity as part of the worldviews presented; russians as a whole are presented as being proto-communists and ultra-rationalist:

for example:

"In England, utilitarianism supported moderate liberalism, but by the 1860s Russians took it as proof of revolutionary socialism."

.. you know, umm.. except for the ones that didn't.

not to mention that marx and his 'dialectical materialism' was published from london, etc.

Tolstoy's faith (though clearly not always in agreement with the church) is here simply a 'personal' one which magically appeared in a vacuum.

etc.

Post reply on HN