There can be no doubt that this is one of the greatest novels of all time. It envelopes you very quickly and leaves you changed, if only for a while. I would only point out two disappointments.

I found Tolstoy's philosophy boring and rather like a wet blanket, especially in the end.

Nearly all of the characters in the story are detestable, selfish human beings. Few learn anything meaningful from this traumatic struggle. The few that do display consistent, redeeming, qualities are generally shafted. Such is life, I understand, but still it disturbed me.

Here, we have "War and Peace" conveyed to the listener in FOUR HOURS on 10 CDs, about 17-18 tracks per CD. Some folks might see this notable abridgement as their greatest critique of this rendering but I'm okay with it.

If you're unfamiliar with the actual story, here is a brief summary:

In 1805, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Austria to expand his European empire. Russia, being an ally of Austria, stood with their brethren against the infamous Emperor. Napoleon prevailed and a treaty was ultimately signed at Tilsit.

In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia, again in an effort to expand his empire. The end result of this tragic war was that Napoleon's army of about 600,000 soldiers was reduced to roughly 60,000 men as the defamed Emperor raced from a devastated Moscow (which he had taken), back across the frozen Russian tundra in his carriage (leaving his troops behind to fend for themselves) for Paris. That encapsulizes the military aspect of this work.

But the more intricate story involves both the activities and the peccadillos of, primarily, three Russian families of nobility: The Rostovs, the Bolkonskys, and the Bezukovs, as well as their associates. The continual thorn of "The Antichrist," Napoleon, really just provides the wallpaper for this story of romance, riches, desolation, love, jealousy, hatred, retribution, joy, naiivety, stupidity, and so much more.

Tolstoy has woven an incredibly intricate web that interconnects these noble families, the wars, and the common Russian people to a degree that would seem nearly incomprehensible to achieve -- but Tolstoy perseveres with superb clarity and with great insight to the human psyche. His characters are timeless and the reader of the complete novel who has any social experience whatever will pretty much immediately connect with them all.

"War and Peace" (the book) is a fictional, lengthy novel, based upon historical fact, here, abridged, dramatized, and performed by talented actors as an audiobook. There is a total of two hours of original new background music spread out over the 10 CDs which greatly enhances this particular media version.

The story is told through numerous professional British actors and actresses, utilizing "General Kutuzov" as a narrator to set up many of the scenes, a shrewd device. The dramatizers did a great job of squeezing in the primary stories, pretty much in their entirety, and thus maintaining the overall ambiance of both the saga and its principals in their entirety. Yes, some necessary artistic license was invoked here and there, such as the "verbal assault on Princess Marya by the rebellious serfs" episode. In the book, this transpires at Bogucharovo after she has fled her home in Bald Hills -- on the audiobook, it takes place at Bald Hills, of course, in the interest of saving time.

Character development is surprisingly good and fairly true to the book descriptions although I thought that the dramatizers were a little hard on Boris Drubetskoy. I also believe that they could have done a bit more with the unique character of Platon Karateyev.

I cannot not, in good conscience, recommend the audiobook version to folks who have yet to read the novel -- it's simply too complex of a story and bulging with numerous characters (the book itself sports over 500 in all!) for most folks to grasp from the audiobook version. The fact that so many people here are addressed by the same titles, (e.g., "prince," "princess," etc.), adds additional confusion to newcomers to the story.

There are a few devisive aspects of this version of "War and Peace". As it's all performed by British actors one should not expect to hear Russian accents. And, even though all concerned did a great job, it's additionally almost impossible to convey a battle scene absent a visual aspect, the book version having the distinct multiple advantages of Tolstoy's superbly colorful written descriptions of these critical episodes; so, you end up hearing a lot of "characters talking to themselves" with cannon fire, rifle fire, and the screams of the dying in the background.

I also found that individual actors, clearly accustomed to the benefit of the visual aspects of their art, were often taking too long to say what needed to be said. It's not so much distracting as it is boring in spots.

But overall, for those people who have previously read "War and Peace," and who still have a good grasp of the essential story, this BBC audiobook version is a very nice way to absorb the story for a second round.

I do have one final thought -- I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO MAKE A "BACK-UP COPY", BUT... the CDs are VERY subject to damage by scratching. Making such copies would likely technically violate copyright laws -- and that's all I'm going to say about THAT!

See my "Listmania Lists" for more Russian stuff and great fiction.

War and peace is a literary challenge that all avid readers should conquer. The Mt Everest of novels, epic in scale, infinite in its implications.
The sweeping saga of five families and their lives over the course of a decade. A time when Russia was at war with Napoleon. The main characters number to perhaps ten to twelve but the secondary characters number into the hundreds following their escapades and adventures requires the utmost devotion to the literary work; indeed I often found my self rereading pages and sometimes sections in an effort not to miss any of the intricacies.
The novel explores many human conflicts of the frailty of the spirit to the physical brutality of war among nations.
Does absence makes the heart grow stronger, young in love Natasha, knows all to well it does not, as is revealed. Characters like Pierre frustrate with their inability to just live their life and be happy. Misunderstood Nicolai Rostov wants to find his courage through events not understanding it must come from within. Prince Andrei needs no one not even God, with his hardened heart after a tragedy.
The events may be set over two centuries ago but they are still relevant today. This novel is a masterpiece.

Think history doesn't repeat itself? Then read this outstanding translation of Tolstoy's classic, and particularly in the Epilogue sections, imagine the name "Napoleon" replaced with "Bush" or "Cheney". You'll see what I mean -- it's pretty eerie, in fact.

[...]

This ideal of glory and greatness -- stemming from a belief that one's every action is beyond reproach, and every crime a proud achievement invested with a supernatural significance beyond all understanding -- this ideal, which would prove to be the guiding principle of this man and those around him, is deployed on a massive scale...Whatever he does comes off. The plague doesn't touch him. The callous slaughtering of his prisoners is not held against him...Dizzy with the success of his crimes and ready for his new role, he arrives...without any plan in mind just as the disintegration of the Republican government, which might have brought him down...completes its course...

He has no sort of plan, he is scared of his own shadow, but all parties grab at him and solicit his support.

He alone -- with his ideal of glory and greatness...with his maniacal self-adulation, outrageous criminality and bare-faced duplicity -- he alone can justify what has to be done.

He is needed to fill the place that awaits him, and so it is that, almost independently of his own will, and in spite of his dithering, his failure to plan ahead and his proneness to error, he finds himself drawn into a conspiracy aimed at the seizure of power, and the conspiracy comes off.
...
There is no action, no atrocity, no little bit of trickery he could indulge without it being immediately represented on the lips of those about him as a great deed...Everything conspires to deprive him of the last scintilla of reason, and prepare him for his terrible role.
...
But all of a sudden, instead of the chance contingencies and genius that had ensured such a consistent, uninterrupted run of successes leading him toward his destined goal he is faced with a vast number of chance contingencies working in reverse...and instead of genius we see in him unparalleled stupidity and wickedness.

A new translation by Anthony Briggs, introduction by Orlando Figes. I chose this translation based on the strength of the Penguin Classics imprint, the readable size of the print, and the back-cover blurps promising a new and accessible translation. Overall, the translation read very well, although I agree with two negative comments I read on internet blogs about the translation:

1). The decision to give some of the soldiers and peasants stock "Cockney" accents with dropped initial "h" sounds. While I think the translator was trying to impart a feeling of lower-class camaraderie in this decision, it just sounds too anachronistic. Did Russian peasants in 1812 really talk like that?

2). One character speaks with a lisp that turns Rs into Ws (think Elmer Fudd). Hunh? This decision, again, draws attention to the translation and away from the character. (the internet blogs indicate that in the original Tolstoy identifies the character as having an unspecified speech defect, and Briggs felt this best fit Tolstoy's intent. Elmer Fudd? That I doubt).

On to the book itself. Even in the paperback edition this is a concrete block of a book, 1400 pages (including a few pages of notes, maps, introduction, and biographical essay) and easily a couple of pounds that don't fit easily under the arm. For the first 900 pages Tolstoy's sprawling account of Russian aristocracy in the years 1805 through 1820 (centering on relations with Napoleon and the War of 1812) provides a moving and surprisingly fast moving novel while Tolstoy explicates his theories of free will, history, war, and faith.

Even though I felt that the action in and around the capture (and abandonment) of Moscow at around page 900, which should have been a furious and fascinating centerpiece of the novel, lagged in relation to the rest of it, I still must rate this as a classic. Part of my problem may have been "reader fatigue" in the face of the daunting challenge of reading all those pages. I tackled this book over a two week Christmas holiday, and even given time pleasantly interrupted only by family and holiday gatherings, this represents 100 pages of reading per day for 14 days. You may also suffer reader fatigue, but stick with it; the effort will be rewarded.

At that climactic point when the French reach Moscow around page 900, I found the novel it a lull and dragged about for 300 pages until the pace picked up again in the denouement and a truly elegiac epilogue where Tolstoy shows the remaining key characters in their extended family relationships. This 50-page section is a rich reward for following the relationships, thoughts, and sometimes "appallingly bad decisions" (translator's words in the biographical essay) of these characters we have grown to know intimately.

I was reminded while reading this account of the extended family gathering depicted in the movie "Dan in Real Life" that I have recently seen, where an extended family gathers for a much-anticipated annual holiday gathering, and we enjoy the love, respect, and enjoyment of well-worn relationships earned through years of trust and knowledge. I had the same feeling in both stories that the people genuinely loved each other not just in spite of their (well-known and sometimes mocked) faults, but because of them. A comparative review of these two accounts would make a worthy topic for a college literature class paper.

Tolstoy, like Hugo in Les Miserables which I read and reviewed recently, had in his sights not just a character novel, or a war novel, or even a historical novel of sweeping scope, but a theoretical examination of character, war, history, and those topics I listed earlier, woven into and around the fictional action, which serves as explanation, example, and explication.

Free will - The central theme of the novel is the interplay between free will and determinism. "An inner voice told her that now or never her fate would be decided" (p. 575), a phrase that could be applied to several characters. Tolstoy spends several pages in the Epilogue explaining his theory of free will in a historical essay talking directly to the reader, but it is aptly summarized in the words that Tolstoy gave to one of his main characters: "Do you ever get that feeling that nothing's ever going to happen to you again, nothing at all, and anything good is in the past? And you don't feed bored exactly, but very , very sad?" Another character states the paradox in even more stark terms: "Everything matters, nothing matters" (p. 592).

History - Several times during the novel Tolstoy addresses the "Great men vs. Great events" debate and decides conclusively on the side of Great events, in the process declaring his stance on the Free Will debate. Near dead center of the book (p. 670-671), Tolstoy says: "Every action [great men] perform, which they take to be self-determined and independent, is in a historical sense quite the opposite; it is interconnected with the whole course of history, and predetermined from eternity." This stance, while consistent with his philosophy, is also influenced by Tolstoy's obvious dislike of Napoleon, and his stated desire to counterbalance a strong and growing Napoleon-worship amongst historians and biographers in the 1860's when Tolstoy was writing.

War - Tolstoy's descriptions of war emphasize the realistic and accidental events in battle, not the glorified events of romantic writers. He minimizes the ability of Great Men to influence the outcome of battles and wars, as we have seen, and has high praise for the Russian general Kutuzov who lead the backward movement of the Russian army across the country toward and through Moscow drawing the French Army to its ultimate death at the point of its highest triumph (the capture of Moscow); many contemporaries and subsequent historians had criticized the general for refusing to attack and best the French Army during their march into and out of Russia. "But if there's going to be a war like this one, let there be war," (p. 861) states Tolstoy through a main character.

Faith--So how can Tolstoy, and his characters, and his readers, deal with the final gloom of determinism? Does nothing really matter? Tolstoy, on page 1241, acknowledges the problem: "Yes. It would be hard to live without faith nowadays . . . ", says a character with a strong religious faith.

"Why is that true?", asks a character who is searching for a reason to live and believe.

And Tolstoy provides the answer, through a character who has come to his spiritual maturity through a hard-fought struggle with his own sins and lack of faith: "Only someone who believes there is a God guiding our lives could stand a loss like hers, and . . . yours."

A new translation by Anthony Briggs, introduction by Orlando Figes. I chose this translation based on the strength of the Penguin Classics imprint, the readable size of the print, and the back-cover blurps promising a new and accessible translation. Overall, the translation read very well, although I agree with two negative comments I read on internet blogs about the translation:

1). The decision to give some of the soldiers and peasants stock "Cockney" accents with dropped initial "h" sounds. While I think the translator was trying to impart a feeling of lower-class camaraderie in this decision, it just sounds too anachronistic. Did Russian peasants in 1812 really talk like that?

2). One character speaks with a lisp that turns Rs into Ws (think Elmer Fudd). Hunh? This decision, again, draws attention to the translation and away from the character. (the internet blogs indicate that in the original Tolstoy identifies the character as having an unspecified speech defect, and Briggs felt this best fit Tolstoy's intent. Elmer Fudd? That I doubt).

On to the book itself. Even in the paperback edition this is a concrete block of a book, 1400 pages (including a few pages of notes, maps, introduction, and biographical essay) and easily a couple of pounds that don't fit easily under the arm. For the first 900 pages Tolstoy's sprawling account of Russian aristocracy in the years 1805 through 1820 (centering on relations with Napoleon and the War of 1812) provides a moving and surprisingly fast moving novel while Tolstoy explicates his theories of free will, history, war, and faith.

Even though I felt that the action in and around the capture (and abandonment) of Moscow at around page 900, which should have been a furious and fascinating centerpiece of the novel, lagged in relation to the rest of it, I still must rate this as a classic. Part of my problem may have been "reader fatigue" in the face of the daunting challenge of reading all those pages. I tackled this book over a two week Christmas holiday, and even given time pleasantly interrupted only by family and holiday gatherings, this represents 100 pages of reading per day for 14 days. You may also suffer reader fatigue, but stick with it; the effort will be rewarded.

At that climactic point when the French reach Moscow around page 900, I found the novel it a lull and dragged about for 300 pages until the pace picked up again in the denouement and a truly elegiac epilogue where Tolstoy shows the remaining key characters in their extended family relationships. This 50-page section is a rich reward for following the relationships, thoughts, and sometimes "appallingly bad decisions" (translator's words in the biographical essay) of these characters we have grown to know intimately.

I was reminded while reading this account of the extended family gathering depicted in the movie "Dan in Real Life" that I have recently seen, where an extended family gathers for a much-anticipated annual holiday gathering, and we enjoy the love, respect, and enjoyment of well-worn relationships earned through years of trust and knowledge. I had the same feeling in both stories that the people genuinely loved each other not just in spite of their (well-known and sometimes mocked) faults, but because of them. A comparative review of these two accounts would make a worthy topic for a college literature class paper.

Tolstoy, like Hugo in Les Miserables which I read and reviewed recently, had in his sights not just a character novel, or a war novel, or even a historical novel of sweeping scope, but a theoretical examination of character, war, history, and those topics I listed earlier, woven into and around the fictional action, which serves as explanation, example, and explication.

Free will - The central theme of the novel is the interplay between free will and determinism. "An inner voice told her that now or never her fate would be decided" (p. 575), a phrase that could be applied to several characters. Tolstoy spends several pages in the Epilogue explaining his theory of free will in a historical essay talking directly to the reader, but it is aptly summarized in the words that Tolstoy gave to one of his main characters: "Do you ever get that feeling that nothing's ever going to happen to you again, nothing at all, and anything good is in the past? And you don't feed bored exactly, but very , very sad?" Another character states the paradox in even more stark terms: "Everything matters, nothing matters" (p. 592).

History - Several times during the novel Tolstoy addresses the "Great men vs. Great events" debate and decides conclusively on the side of Great events, in the process declaring his stance on the Free Will debate. Near dead center of the book (p. 670-671), Tolstoy says: "Every action [great men] perform, which they take to be self-determined and independent, is in a historical sense quite the opposite; it is interconnected with the whole course of history, and predetermined from eternity." This stance, while consistent with his philosophy, is also influenced by Tolstoy's obvious dislike of Napoleon, and his stated desire to counterbalance a strong and growing Napoleon-worship amongst historians and biographers in the 1860's when Tolstoy was writing.

War - Tolstoy's descriptions of war emphasize the realistic and accidental events in battle, not the glorified events of romantic writers. He minimizes the ability of Great Men to influence the outcome of battles and wars, as we have seen, and has high praise for the Russian general Kutuzov who lead the backward movement of the Russian army across the country toward and through Moscow drawing the French Army to its ultimate death at the point of its highest triumph (the capture of Moscow); many contemporaries and subsequent historians had criticized the general for refusing to attack and best the French Army during their march into and out of Russia. "But if there's going to be a war like this one, let there be war," (p. 861) states Tolstoy through a main character.

Faith--So how can Tolstoy, and his characters, and his readers, deal with the final gloom of determinism? Does nothing really matter? Tolstoy, on page 1241, acknowledges the problem: "Yes. It would be hard to live without faith nowadays . . . ", says a character with a strong religious faith.

"Why is that true?", asks a character who is searching for a reason to live and believe.

And Tolstoy provides the answer, through a character who has come to his spiritual maturity through a hard-fought struggle with his own sins and lack of faith: "Only someone who believes there is a God guiding our lives could stand a loss like hers, and . . . yours."

This is an excellent translation. It is also the only one I have read, and the only time I have read war and peace.

From my experience of reading translations they need to keep the story flowing in another language and it is done excellently here.

A fantastic read.

"Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the
Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war,
if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by
that Antichrist--I really believe he is Antichrist--I will have
nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer
my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see
I have frightened you--sit down and tell me all the news."

- Anna Pavlovna in War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

It was 1805 and the novel opens up at a reception given by Anna. With these words she greeted Prince Vasili Kuragin who we learn in the novel is a personage of stature and importance among the St. Petersburg elite.

Anna is referring to Napoleon as the antichrist, she feels that he is routing Europe; and that the king of Russia, Alexander I, must save them all against this terrible and dreadful man.

And so begins one of the most famous masterpieces of all time.

WAR AND PEACE has a simple plot which encompasses the valiant attempts by the Russian people to hold off a military invasion by Napoleon Bonaparte and the French. Some of the segments of the novel deal with war strategy which could have benefited leaders if they simply perhaps had read Tolstoy.

As the story begins we find that the Russians have formed an unlikely alliance with the Austrians. Because of this alliance, we find the small and inadequate Russian army having to march from Moscow to Austria. That in of itself is daunting.

This alliance falters at best and as a consequence the Russian army loses almost all of its army resulting oddly enough in several years of peace. The Russian aristocracy does not have to make any sacrifices at first and their lives continue just as before. Thus the meaning of the title, WAR AND PEACE.

However, after 1810, another five years later, we find Napoleon becoming more successful in Europe and worries arise that he will plan next to invade the Russian homeland. In June of 1812, he does precisely that which the Russian people and the army feared most: he crossed the frontiers into Russia and the real war began.

As Tolstoy described, "an event took place that was contrary to all human reason and human nature."

We meet the Bolkonski's (the elder Prince, the younger Prince Andrei, his sister Princess Marya, Andrei's pregnant wife Lize), the Rostov's (the Count and Countess, Vera, Nicholai, Natasha, Sonya and Petya), the Bezukhov's (the dying Count, his illegitimate son Pierre and various relations to the dying man), the Kuragin's (Prince Vasili and his wife, the beautiful Helene, Anatole, and Hippolyte), Denisov, Dolohov, Boris, Kutuzov (the general) and about 600 characters in the book. The primary ones are the ones that I have named.

Prince Andrei and Count Pierre Bezukhov (very important Tolstoy characters) are opposites in every way; yet are friends and their friendship, separate lives and families play a critical role in Tolstoy's novel. The Bolkonski's and the Rostov's lives weave and bind together as one goes further into the novel and these threads of their lives become a strong and durable fabric which will support these families as they progress through their respective years together. Though each of us, as do these characters, exercises free will; the decisions that we make (even years before certain life's events) depict the relationships that all of our decisions have upon each other and the impact they have on our future happiness or prosperity. Tolstoy even takes a detour at the end of the novel and digresses "much more than he should" about this and that...and how power is bestowed and basically how we reap what we sow (a familiar Tolstoy theme not always related to agriculture).

The novel is quite long, and that is the reason I found that I picked up this book in the past and then put it down (not completely grasping the naming structures and not having time I felt to give it my full attention). However, after having finally taken the time to read this great manuscript, it really is a simple story about life, love (true or not), loyalty, friendship, responsibility (real accountability or feigned) and leadership. It is also once again a story of families and their love for each other and how they are able to show their love for one another or how the love is still present; but remains emotionally hidden or ineffectual. And it is a story of how one must understand the true meaning of life and must be content in one's own skin; before love can truly blossom and be realized.

Truthfully, the plot does revolve around the aspects of war and peace as it relates to Napoleon invading Russia; but it also shows a country growing and changing as the characters do in the novel. Each one of the families goes through its own reflective period of war and peace in their own lives as well. The story line is superb...if you like historical fiction; and the characterizations and their development are unparalleled.

Some Helpful Suggestions:

1. Take the time to read and/or listen to an unabridged version of this masterpiece (like the one done by Neville Jason). Just start out slowly and read a few chapters every day if you are limited in time. It is one of those novels that can be reread and not only do you enjoy the story line each time; you also come away from it learning a lot about life itself and you can profit from this reflection while embarking on your own personal path. Some of the events may ring true with your own life or with your own family. Even though the country and/or time period may be different; life, heart felt emotion remain quite the same.
2. Secure a translation that you like and/or a reader you can stay with. Go to your local bookstore and/or sample a chapter on line to see if you like the language used; do you like a more traditional translation much like Tolstoy's own language or would you prefer more modern jargon and interpretations. I prefer the traditional; but that is not always what works for everyone. If you want to listen to the book, make sure to listen to samples of the reader's voice to make sure that their voice is palatable to your tastes. Everyone's taste in sound is different.
3. Join a book club or an on line discussion group to keep you going and/or read or listen to the book with a friend or family member. These discussions will add to the enjoyment of reading this masterpiece. It really is meant (I feel) to be shared.
4. Get used to the Russian naming conventions and their use of nicknames. Write them down as you come across them and then you will know which characters to associate with which nicknames the next time. Nicknames are common with us today as well. If a girl's name is Jennifer, some may call her Jennifer, Jen, Jenny or if her middle name is Patricia (JP for short) and different members of the family could call her different pet names. This Russian novel is no different than real life.
5. I gave the following assistance when I reviewed Tolstoy's Anna Karenina and the characters and names in War and Peace follow the same rules regarding patronymics and names with three parts. Here is a reprint of the suggestion: "Sometimes the names of the characters themselves can be confusing: so a hint to the reader might be to think of each Russian character's name as having THREE PARTS: the FIRST part is the first name (examples here are for Levin and Kitty) like Konstantin or Ekaterina, the SECOND part is a patronymic which is the father's first name accompanied by a suffix which means son of or daughter of like Dmitrich (son of Dmitri) or Alexandrovna (daughter of Alexander) and then the THIRD part which is the surname like Levin or Shcherbatskaya. Thus the explanations of the three part names for Ekaterina Alexandrovna Shcherbatskaya (nicknamed Kitty) and for Konstantin Dmitrich Levin (Levin).

War and Peace is not a novel to be missed; very much like Anna Karenina (both by Leo Tolstoy). With both, but especially with War and Peace, you must envision that you will finish the book and keep at it. It really is not hard; you will get to know the characters in the book as if they were family members or best friends with all of their strengths and their frailties - the spectrum that makes these characters real in their humanness.

Note: I like the Constance Garnett translation (it was my preference); of course, it is a matter of personal taste and comfort and that is why I suggested one read a chapter to see if they are accepting of the language and of the translator. A very important choice and decision. FYI: Ms. Garnett passed away in 1946 and had traveled to Moscow, St. Petersburg and Yasnaya Polyana during her lifetime and actually met Leo Tolstoy. She remains very close to the syntax and the vocabulary of the original. Her translations of all of the Russian authors at the time were highly acclaimed. You may prefer the traditional or there is a newer translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky which may resolve issues for those who want a more purist translation done by Russian linquists/translators known for their excellent work. I believe their edition will be out in November of this year. It is remarkable how important the right translator/translation is to properly enjoy this work and it is also clear how very personal that choice is. Make sure to sample a chapter or two to be sure that it suits you.


Rating: 5 stars - A+ (Very highly recommended)

Bentley/October 2007







War and Peace (Penguin Classics, Deluxe Edition)

I don't know much about war and peace but the book as it is keeps my on my seat reading it hour after hour. My only question is if it is about Napoleonic war how did one of the characters won the Mother Theresa award?

I found that this translation is much easier to read than many of the others after I compared four different translations over a couple of hours at a bookstore. Other "more puritanical" readers may be annoyed by some of Briggs' dialogue touches and an absence of French. Quel désastre! Tolstoy knocks you over the head with language motifs anyway.

If War and Peace was translated word-for-word into English, the book would be quite awkward. Many of the other reviewers need to take a chill-pill and remember that the only way to have a "true" reading of this book is to read it in Russian. Now that would be an mammoth task indeed!

This new, award-winning translation of War & Peace, much acclaimed in Britain, is exceptional. It reads extremely well and is much more accessible and modern than previous translations I've looked at. It brings this book to life for modern readers, and I found myself wrapped up in the fate of the characters as much as ever. There are of course ocassional Britishisms, but nothing you can understand from the context. Obviously, some will prefer older translations or wait for future ones, but for everyone else this is the one to read - highly recommended.

July 2, 2006
I am about one quarter through the Briggs version and I have had it! It would not be possible for a translation to be more parochially (even jingoistically) British. It has kept me running to my dictionaries, only to find that the words are not even listed in my Merriam-Webster. Only the Oxford has been somewhat helpful with the "Britishisms". Briggs claims the Maude translation was archaic. But when was the last time you said "o'er yonder" as he does? A Russian-speaking acquaintance assures me that the translation of the narrative sections is generally accurate. But the dialogue! Wretched cockney slang for the troops ("matey", "bloke", "'av at im" and such). And Tolstoy's French is translated without any notation. So we have no idea when or why a character slips into French. And yet, French and German characters spik wis zee accent. I wonder that he didn't have all the main characters speak with a Russian accent. A literally intolerable read. I can only think that the other reviewers here just skimmed a few pages.

I will be switching to the corrected Maude translation as published by Norton. Richard Peaver has informed me that the translation he is working on with his wife will be published by Knopf, hopefully in October of 2007. Based on their previous work (never less than HIGHLY respectable), that should be the version to read.

A note on the actual book (i.e., the hardcover): This huge tome weighs at least four pounds and the pages are rigidly bound in glue. It's a struggle to deal with, even in your most comfortable armchair. The British edition is half the size and yet has quite a readable typeface. Best in this respect is the Everyman's Library edition. The original Maude translation is divided into three separate, portable volumes. The sewn bindings open flat for easy reading.

So, I'm not terribly impressed with this translation. I am however looking forward to the Pevear and Volokhonsky version.

Here is an excellent excerpt from The New Yorker article (Nov 7 2006), "The Translation Wars" regarding a bit about the Briggs version and a note from Pevear and Volokhonsky:

"Early this fall, Penguin announced the publication of a new translation of "War and Peace"-it was by Anthony Briggs, a British academic. Briggs, who won generally positive reviews, sounded like an attractively modest sort. One of the British papers, the Daily Telegraph, quoted him as saying, "Professional translators are generally mediocre people like me, not great poetic geniuses." The Times Literary Supplement published a short, curious article pointing out that Briggs had, unlike some of his predecessors, rendered all Tolstoy's French into English and even spelled out some of General Kutuzov's obscenities. (Tolstoy had obscured the profanity with ellipses.) What Rosemary Edmonds, the last translator of the novel, had as "It serves them right, the b-- b--s!" Briggs has as "They asked for it, the f-cking b-stards!"

In the meantime, Pevear and Volokhonsky were working on their translation at their farmhouse in Burgundy. I wrote to them about the Briggs approach and hoped for a response, even a prickly one. It came a couple of weeks later:

We're well and had a busy but fruitful summer. I'm about to lose the battle of Austerlitz (W&P vol 1 pt 3). . . . About your questions: I don't know how "new" it is to translate the French passages in "War and Peace." Edmonds keeps only the "Eh bien, mon prince" of the opening speech, but puts the rest in English, whereas Tolstoy has the first ten lines in French, along with many other extended dialogues in the opening chapters. There are also French words and phrases all through the novel. The Maude and Garnett versions translate all of it into English, as they do, for instance, Napoleon's letter to Murat, and the German of Weyrother's disposition before Austerlitz. If, as you say, Anthony Briggs also translates it all, then as far as I know ours will be the only version that DOESN'T. We do as Tolstoy does, and, like the Russian editions of the novel, put the translations in the footnotes. Tolstoy used French for a reason, or for several reasons: to give the tone of the period; to play on the ironies of a French-speaking Russian aristocracy suddenly finding itself thrown into war with France; to suggest a certain frivolity and uprootedness in characters like Prince Vassily and the witty Bilibin. . . . Interestingly, when Napoleon banters with his troops, he does so in French, but when he talks seriously, Tolstoy lends him Russian. About Kutuzov's purple patch, again we'll do as Tolstoy did. He would never have written out "f-cking b-stards," and in any case Briggs has not been very inventive. None of us can figure out what epithet Tolstoy had in mind for Kutuzov, but it seems to have involved the mistreatment of mothers. With best wishes from us both . . ."

So, I'm not terribly impressed with this translation. I am however looking forward to the Pevear and Volokhonsky version.

Here is an excellent excerpt from The New Yorker article (Nov 7 2006), "The Translation Wars" regarding a bit about the Briggs version and a note from Pevear and Volokhonsky:

"Early this fall, Penguin announced the publication of a new translation of "War and Peace"-it was by Anthony Briggs, a British academic. Briggs, who won generally positive reviews, sounded like an attractively modest sort. One of the British papers, the Daily Telegraph, quoted him as saying, "Professional translators are generally mediocre people like me, not great poetic geniuses." The Times Literary Supplement published a short, curious article pointing out that Briggs had, unlike some of his predecessors, rendered all Tolstoy's French into English and even spelled out some of General Kutuzov's obscenities. (Tolstoy had obscured the profanity with ellipses.) What Rosemary Edmonds, the last translator of the novel, had as "It serves them right, the b-- b--s!" Briggs has as "They asked for it, the f-cking b-stards!"

In the meantime, Pevear and Volokhonsky were working on their translation at their farmhouse in Burgundy. I wrote to them about the Briggs approach and hoped for a response, even a prickly one. It came a couple of weeks later:

We're well and had a busy but fruitful summer. I'm about to lose the battle of Austerlitz (W&P vol 1 pt 3). . . . About your questions: I don't know how "new" it is to translate the French passages in "War and Peace." Edmonds keeps only the "Eh bien, mon prince" of the opening speech, but puts the rest in English, whereas Tolstoy has the first ten lines in French, along with many other extended dialogues in the opening chapters. There are also French words and phrases all through the novel. The Maude and Garnett versions translate all of it into English, as they do, for instance, Napoleon's letter to Murat, and the German of Weyrother's disposition before Austerlitz. If, as you say, Anthony Briggs also translates it all, then as far as I know ours will be the only version that DOESN'T. We do as Tolstoy does, and, like the Russian editions of the novel, put the translations in the footnotes. Tolstoy used French for a reason, or for several reasons: to give the tone of the period; to play on the ironies of a French-speaking Russian aristocracy suddenly finding itself thrown into war with France; to suggest a certain frivolity and uprootedness in characters like Prince Vassily and the witty Bilibin. . . . Interestingly, when Napoleon banters with his troops, he does so in French, but when he talks seriously, Tolstoy lends him Russian. About Kutuzov's purple patch, again we'll do as Tolstoy did. He would never have written out "f-cking b-stards," and in any case Briggs has not been very inventive. None of us can figure out what epithet Tolstoy had in mind for Kutuzov, but it seems to have involved the mistreatment of mothers. With best wishes from us both . . ."