
A few contemporary critics have said this about War and Peace: It is the Greatest Of All Time. Slugging my way through this novel, which is not Tolstoy’s masterpiece, reminded me of that well-known Greek myth too often invoked. Doomed for all eternity to push a boulder up a mountain Sisyphus tries and tries again but can’t quite make it and the boulder rolls all the way back down. It’s not quite the right analogy, but you get the idea.
War and Peace is not a difficult book because of plot twists or changing narrators or 10,000-word paragraphs or lapses into stream-of-consciousness. It covers a definite series of events that comprise the Napoleonic wars and the lives of Russian aristocracy during those wars; it covers a clear period of time (1805-1812); and it moves through that time in chronological order. It is just very, very long, and it feels very, well, archaic. Whereas I found Anna Karenina accessible, absorbing, and the love story wholly believable, in War and Peace romance is made dull by its ubiquity: “passionate love” comes along every few pages; women frequently “burst into tears” over their “broken hearts.”
Still, I was determined to finish, so I set a daily quota of fifty pages. I read early in the mornings, during meals, in the WC. Starting a novel and not completing it can leave you feeling a nagging sense of guilt. When you pick up a work of fiction there’s some unspoken contract entered into that says you will read every word, beginning to end. With nonfiction, skip chapters, give it to your local library — no big deal. The last novel I did not finish was Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, which is very dark (surprise, surprise) and political. For this, Fyodor, I apologize. Maybe someday I will be ready.
The time spent on W & P was completely worth it. Read it not to say you have but because Tolstoy is a painterly writer, and he depicts either a battlefield or a ballroom so damn well that you’ll think it would be impossible to say it any better:
They crossed the ferry where he had talked with Pierre a year before. They drove through the muddy village, past threshing floors and green fields of winter rye, downhill by a drift of snow still lying near the bridge, uphill along a clay road hollowed into runnels by the rain, past strips of stubble land and a copse touches here and there with green, and into a birch forest extending along both sides of the road. In the forest it was almost hot; there was not a breath of wind. The birches, all studded with sticky green leaves, did not stir, and lilac-covered flowers and the first blades of green grass lifted and pushed their way between last year’s leaves. Dotted here and there among the birches, small fir-trees were an unpleasant reminder of winter with their coarse evergreen. The horses began to snort as they entered the forest and the sweat glistened on their coats. (491)
Since finishing War and Peace I’ve been reading Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran. It was unintentional that this book would follow Tolstoy, but I appreciate Nafisi’s conception of what a novel is, the novelist as artist, and what the novel does for its reader. In her discussion of Henry James’s Washington Square, Nafisi writes, “Empathy lies at the heart of the novel. It is the quality that links Austen to Flaubert and James to Nabokov and Bellow. This, I believe, is how the villain in modern fiction is born: a creature without compassion, without empathy. The personalized version of good and evil usurps and individualizes the more archetypal concepts, such as courage or heroism, that shaped the epic or romance.”
That’s just it: War and Peace is all courage and heroism. Its characters are all basically good people — there’s no evil in the story, even in a world at war, Russia and France in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Even Napoleon, who invades Moscow and torches the city, assumes heroic attributes. There’s no counterbalance to all the gallantry. There’s zero irony and too much earnestness. It’s both an epic and a romance, doubly hard for the modern-day reader who knows the nothing-is-sacred worlds of Franzen and Eggers and Pynchon and Foster Wallace.
There is one scene that stands out for me: a group of Russian soldiers are at a tavern late at night. They’re flirting with a woman, the only woman in the place, while her husband is asleep on a nearby bench. For those few pages, the soldiers’ honor plummets: they jeer at her to the point of harassment, gawking while she pours their glasses of tea and rum. They chide her husband mumbling in his sleep. Here, the dialogue between the men snaps back and forth; their banter is colloquial and engaging. Most other times, however, Tolstoy’s characters speak in very careful language that seems too careful for how we really speak, or spoke.
Still, even with these Russian officers spending a lot of time considering the cut of their uniform, their rank, and their honor, what Tolstoy has to say about war itself — even if the actors do look like actors and not fleshed-our real men — is worth repeating:
War is not a polite recreation but the vilest thing in life, and we ought to understand that and not play at war […] The aim and end of war is murder; the weapons employed in war espionage, treachery and the encouragement of treachery, the ruining of a country, the plundering and robbing of its inhabitants for the maintenance of the army, and trickery and lying which all appear under the heading of the art of war. (922)