War and Peace

I must have read the first twenty pages of this book about ten times before I committed to reading this mammoth and complex work. I'm glad I did!

Tolstoy is an absolute genius and unlike a James Joyce his work is accessible and relatively straight forward. Tolstoy doesn't try to make the work overly intellectual but because of his towering abilities he is able to create a textured, thoughtful and compelling masterpiece. He is able to exhibit his intellect without alienating the reader.

I took several Russian history classes in college and knowing the background of this period was invaluable. The Russian sensibility is distinctive and varies from European thought significantly. Tolstoy is able to convey these differences without losing the reader.

Set aside some time to tackle this book!

The Pevear/Volonkhonsky translation of Tolstoy's "War & Peace" is "Tip-top" in my way of thinking. I, also, have tried to read other versions, but could hardly get started. They were paperbacks, nearly 5 inches thick, with tiny print. It was not condusive to a "one-eyed reader".
I just finished reading this book, yesterday. I even got to know a lot of the French language. That didn't distract me at all. The three main characters ( Pierre, Natasha & Andrei) were very realistically perceived. My favorite minor character is Platon Karataev,Pierre's fellow P.O.W. after the burning of Moscow.

Napoleon and Alexander I were drawn out , nicely. I thought that Tolstoys insertions about the battle strategies and other interesting tid-bits of Russian life actually clarified the narrative and helped immensely.

This book is very satisfiying and I recommend it to every serious reader.

I am sorry, but this translation is unreadable. I waited two years to read War and Peace, knowing this translation was in the works. I bought it as soon as it came out and first read the introduction, which was superb. Then I started the book itself - struggling through the small-type footnotes to read the French, trying to move back and forth and still maintain the flow of the narrative. Impossible. (Tolstoy wrote for a Russian biligual readership, but most English readers today require it to be translated, and not in footnotes.) But the worst was the English prose itself. After struggling with almost every sentence, trying to understand its meaning, I read about four chapters before deciding this was torture. It was stilted - impossible to speak - and the dialogue was especially unnatural. I theorized that the problem was in the translators' working method: I understand Volokhonsky does the initial "literal" translation first, from the Russian, after which Pevear perfects the English prose. And that many issues of nuance and balance will come up, which they discuss at length together. In other words, an over-emphasis upon accuracy and weighing each meaning - with the result that the context is de-emphasized. There is a sense of refined, even snobbish, precision in the choice of words, but Pevear seems to have no narrative pulse, rhythm, storytelling sense, or authority of voice. Certain reviewers claim that this awkwardness reflects Tolstoy's style, but I find it hard to swallow that the original book was this frustrating. Yes, the Garnett translation has smoothed out much of the eccentricity with her quaint Victorianism. And the Briggs translation also seems blander in tone. But when I picked up the Maude translation, it was clear it is unmatched. It's witty and aristocratic, the irony perfect, conversational in tone, pitch-perfect dialogue, a clear, flowing narrative, compelling, intense, easy and fast to read. In fact it was Tolstoy's own authorized translation, written during his time. Do yourself a favor and discount all the hype. And if you think you really are in love with the new translation, at least look at a few pages of the Maude. You will be shocked that Tolstoy is actually an enjoyable reading experience.

Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace. Trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York: Knopf, 2007.

There is a mass of conflicting opinion on Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation of War and Peace, which appears to center primarily on two issues: the English style, which is less than eminently literary, and the retention of Tolstoy's French in the text with footnoted translations. Before dealing with them, however, I'll briefly describe the edition.

It's a big book, at xviii + 1273 pp., and tastefully presented. It includes a useful introduction by Pevear (which should be read before criticizing the translation), an appendix containing Tolstoy's 1868 essay "A Few Words Apropos of the Book War and Peace," endnotes, an "Historical Index," and a plot summary. The endnotes are denoted by superscript numerals in the text, the footnotes by the usual sequence of asterisk, dagger, etc. I found the endnotes very useful: they elucidate the obscure details of the period, often mentioned by Tolstoy, which only a specialist would know. Unfortunately, I noticed several typos, probably ten or more; and suprisingly for Knopf, the "and" in "War and Peace" is capitalized in both places on the dust jacket, yet not on the spine. I hope the dust jacket has been corrected in future printings. Although these minor details didn't detract from my enjoyment of the story, they did detract from the pleasure I was expecting in owning a well-produced copy of a great book.

Now for the contentious issues. The first I am not qualified to judge because I know no Russian. I first read War and Peace in the Maudes' version - I have never read Garnett or Briggs - and fell in love with it. From what I remember, it seemed more literary and I believe it did read more smoothly than P and V, which often breaks the rules of good English style (and pains my ear). But if some reviewers are right that it echoes the Russian, then I'd rather read a sometimes awkward but faithful English version than a polished but misleading one. There is a fine line, however, between faithfulness and bad style - I'm reminded of the old dictum that, when translating from Latin to English, if one language must yield to the other, Latin should yield to English; and when translating from English to Latin, if one language must yield, English should yield to Latin. Of course, unless I learn Russian, I'll never know whether P and V transgressed this rule.

As for retaining Tolstoy's French - remember that Tolstoy interspersed Russian with bits of French for a reason, and that P and V are merely following the practice of all the Russian editions by printing the French as Tolstoy wrote it and footnoting translations. It's interesting that apparently Tolstoy faced the same criticism when the book was published that P and V face today: it's pedantic, it's clumsy, it's a pain to glance back and forth from the text to the footnote, etc.; and in a way it is. (He defends himself on p. 1218 of P and V's edition in "A Few Words Apropos of the Book War and Peace.") But to translate all Tolstoy's French along with the Russian into English, without alerting the reader in any way, is to ruin what Tolstoy was trying to accomplish by showing the Russian nobility's dependence on a foreign tongue. Princess Marya's friend Julie, for example, a Russian (but significantly called only by a French name), doesn't even know how to say "un peu amoureux" in her native language. I think the clumsiness of the footnotes is worth it, because it preserves Tolstoy's intentions - the English editions which translate War and Peace as if the whole book were in one language lose an essential dimension of the work - but I admit that for those who don't read French, the footnotes are a pain. Of course, for those who do read French, it's great fun: I especially enjoyed being exposed to new idiomatic usage.

All in all, I think the prospective reader of War and Peace who doesn't know French should probably read it first in the Maudes' version (not Garnett or Briggs), to avoid being excessively frustrated by the footnotes, and only then move on to P and V. I give it four stars because as an English speaker totally ignorant of Russian, I ultimately don't know whether to ascribe its awkwardness to bad translation or to faithfulness to the original.

Well done with a few problems. I understand that aristocratic Russians of this time period spoke French and the servants could not and the `target audience' of Tolstoy at the time could. This however is the 21st century with a new translation; the French should have been very limited to the first few pages only. It is most distracting to be reading then hit the French phrase, find the right translation, then find your place back on the page and continue with the story. I do love the historical footnotes at the end of the book and feel that they would make better footnotes then the French translations.