This recent War and Peace translation from Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky reads smoothly and pleasurably. At more than 1,200 pages, Tolstoy's novel isn't exactly quick and easy reading but this version removes barriers that made previous English translations more of a chore to read.

It's hard to overstate the case for this translation as being essential. It is also hard to avoid hyperbole in its praise. While it might not be the easiest one to read, Pevear and Volokhonsky (P&V) have succeeded in a virtual recreation, in English, of Tolstoy's masterpiece on many apparent levels, and on some other very subtle ones. Abstruse as some of their resultant syntax might be on occasion, the beauty of this English prose and utter faithfulness to every aspect of Tolstoy's apparent intentions is remarkable and overwhelming. Viewing the work as a vast proem gives ample opportunity for P&V elucidation of the symmetrical structures in the work. From the use of alliterative micro-sentences like "Silence ensued." and "Drops Dripped." to the almost obsessive repetitions of phrases, we can begin to appreciate Toltoy not merely as a narrative genius, but a Miltonic architect and chiastic formalist. The choice of unusual, sometimes haunting words ties chapters together. For example, in the description of a sick, dysfunctional bee-hive, given a chapter's space by Tolstoy, bees are described as being "laden" or "unladen," ("empty") with pollen. When, in the next chapter, looters pillaging the ruined hulk of Moscow's carcass, are described using these identical adjectives, there can be no mistaking Tolstoy's metaphor.

Could it be accidental that the sardonic discussion of the numerological reduction of Napoleon's French title to the cabalistic value 666 (and Pierre's contortions to do the same with his moniker) appears on pages 665 and 666 of this edition?

The use of all the French seems to be a necessary obstacle; the effort to plough through beaucoup de mots français, might, in Tolstoy's Christian ethic, reflect Hopkins's injunction: "Sheer plod makes plow down sillion shine." Tolstoy apparently wanted the French, even if it occludes, as an essential element to his prose. Knowing who speaks French, and when, enhances one's knowledge of a character's rank in society, his or her's inclinations, and reveals much nuance of the dialog. P&V present all of the odd variations of a Russion/French mix: Russians trying to speak French (i.e. incompetently, or ironically), French trying to blunder through Russian; even Denisov's speech impediment is carried over in his occasional mutterings in "Fghrench." Being thorough about the French is also justified in the dramatic structure: When Pierre is captured, at the end of the devastation of Moscow, his humanity reaches out to his captors in French - captors who at their core are painted with sympathy. But, with the sudden scene switch to the comforts of soiree life in St. Petersburg, in a jarring apposition to the privations of Moscow, the casual French dialogue seems especially damning of the frivolity and shallowness of social creatures impervious to Moscow's sacrifice.

Having read both the Dunnigan and the Garnett translations concurrently while reading this one (for months!), I can't imagine not owning and re-reading P&V's definitive edition. Ideally, one can read Dunnigan's easy prose style in Signet's inexpensive book (with the teeny-tiny print), while enjoying the manifold literary dimensions of this breathtaking translation. Bravo!

It's hard to overstate the case for this translation as being essential. It is also hard to avoid hyperbole in its praise. While it might not be the easiest one to read, Pevear and Volokhonsky (P&V) have succeeded in a virtual recreation, in English, of Tolstoy's masterpiece on many apparent levels, and on some other very subtle ones. Abstruse as some of their resultant syntax might be on occasion, the beauty of this English prose and utter faithfulness to every aspect of Tolstoy's apparent intentions is remarkable and overwhelming. Viewing the work as a vast proem gives ample opportunity for P&V elucidation of the symmetrical structures in the work. From the use of alliterative micro-sentences like "Silence ensued." and "Drops Dripped." to the almost obsessive repetitions of phrases, we can begin to appreciate Toltoy not merely as a narrative genius, but a Miltonic architect and chiastic formalist. The choice of unusual, sometimes haunting words ties chapters together. For example, in the description of a sick, dysfunctional bee-hive, given a chapter's space by Tolstoy, bees are described as being "laden" or "unladen," ("empty") with pollen. When, in the next chapter, looters pillaging the ruined hulk of Moscow's carcass, are described using these identical adjectives, there can be no mistaking Tolstoy's metaphor.

Could it be accidental that the sardonic discussion of the numerological reduction of Napoleon's French title to the cabalistic value 666 (and Pierre's contortions to do the same with his moniker) appears on pages 665 and 666 of this edition?

The use of all the French seems to be a necessary obstacle; the effort to plough through beaucoup de mots français, might in Tolstoy's Christian ethic reflect Hopkins's injunction, "Sheer plod makes plow down sillion shine." Tolstoy apparently wanted the French, even if it occludes, as an essential element to his prose. Knowing who speaks French, and when, enhances one's knowledge of a character's rank in society, his or her's inclinations, and a revealing aspect of the dialog. P&V present all of the odd variations of a Russion/French mix: Russians trying to speak French (i.e. incompetently, or ironically), French trying to blunder through Russion; even Denisov's speech impediment is carried over in his occasional mutterings in "Fghrench." Being thorough about the French is also justified in the dramatic structure: When Pierre is captured, at the end of the devastation of Moscow, his humanity reaches out to his captors in French - captors who at their core are painted with sympathy. But, with the sudden scene switch to the comforts of soiree life in St. Petersburg, in a startling apposition of the privations of Moscow, the casual French dialogue seems especially damning of the frivolity and shallowness of social creatures impervious to Moscow's sacrifice.

Having read both the Dunnigan and the Garnett translations concurrently while reading this one (for months!), I can't imagine not owning and re-reading P&V's definitive edition. Ideally, one can read Dunnigan's easy prose style in Signet's inexpensive book (with the teeny-tiny print), while enjoying the manifold literary of this breathtaking translation. Bravo!

It's hard to overstate the case for this translation as being essential. It is also hard to avoid hyperbole in its praise. While it might not be the easiest one to read, Pevear and Volokhonsky (P&V) have succeeded in a virtual recreation, in English, of Tolstoy's masterpiece on many apparent levels, and on some other very subtle ones. Abstruse as some of their resultant syntax might be on occasion, the beauty of this English prose and utter faithfulness to every aspect of Tolstoy's apparent intentions is remarkable and overwhelming. Viewing the work as a vast proem gives ample opportunity for P&V elucidation of the symmetrical structures in the work. From the use of alliterative micro-sentences like "Silence ensued." and "Drops Dripped." to the almost obsessive repetitions of phrases, we can begin to appreciate Toltoy not merely as a narrative genius, but a Miltonic architect and chiastic formalist. The choice of unusual, sometimes haunting words ties chapters together. For example, in the description of a sick, dysfunctional bee-hive, given a chapter's space by Tolstoy, bees are described as being "laden" or "unladen," ("empty") with pollen. When, in the next chapter, looters pillaging the ruined hulk of Moscow's carcass, are described using these identical adjectives, there can be no mistaking Tolstoy's metaphor.

Could it be accidental that the sardonic discussion of the numerological reduction of Napoleon's French title to the cabalistic value 666 (and Pierre's contortions to do the same with his moniker) appears on pages 665 and 666 of this edition?

The use of all the French seems to be a necessary obstacle; the effort to plough through beaucoup de mots français, might in Tolstoy's Christian ethic reflect Hopkins's injunction, "Sheer plod makes plow down sillion shine." Tolstoy apparently wanted the French, even if it occludes, as an essential element to his prose. Knowing who speaks French, and when, enhances one's knowledge of a character's rank in society, his or her's inclinations, and a revealing aspect of the dialog. P&V present all of the odd variations of a Russion/French mix: Russians trying to speak French (i.e. incompetently, or ironically), French trying to blunder through Russion; even Denisov's speech impediment is carried over in his occasional mutterings in "Fghrench." Being thorough about the French is also justified in the dramatic structure: When Pierre is captured, at the end of the devastation of Moscow, his humanity reaches out to his captors in French - captors who at their core are painted with sympathy. But, with the sudden scene switch to the comforts of soiree life in St. Petersburg, in a startling apposition of the privations of Moscow, the casual French dialogue seems especially damning of the frivolity and shallowness of social creatures impervious to Moscow's sacrifice.

Having read both the Dunnigan and the Garnett translations concurrently while reading this one (for months!), I can't imagine not owning and re-reading P&V's definitive edition. Ideally, one can read Dunnigan's easy prose style in Signet's inexpensive book (with the teeny-tiny print), while enjoying the manifold literary of this breathtaking translation. to Mr. Pevear and Ms. Volokhonsky!

I loved this book. Tolstoy is in a class by himself. And this translation is in a class by itself. My only regret is that the book is only 1220 pages. I could go on reading this kind of writing for the remainder of my life.

Nothing like it, nor will there ever be. It is a life changing experience.

The book is set between 1805 to 1820 in Russia, among a few families and individuals whose fates become entwined. The families are feudal nobility, most with peasant serfs. This historical time overlaps with when Napoleon Buonaparte came into power in France, then led his army against Russian, and withdrew, then was deposed. Half the book covers stories of war and battle strategy and decisions; individual skirmishes and battles; life in camp and war hospitals; and struggles of war, seen through the eyes of the characters who--some pages before--were engaging in intrigue and personality in drawing rooms and salons of Petersburg and Moscow. The book unabashedly includes the upper of the upper crust, including 'the richest man in Russia', people with access to the Tsar, families with houses and houses and estates and estates. It also includes characters with proximity to the heads of the Russian Army, making it easy to provide a backdrop to essays on strategy, the Russian communal personality and will, and the political intrigues of the various factions about how to handle Napoleon. The family and relationship dramas include a couple of characters and storylines that seem similar to what one finds in Anna Karenina: this is definitely a Tolstoy story and it will please or pain the reader in some ways just like the reader reacted to Anna Karenina. Surprisingly, the book ends just as strongly as it begins--it could have continued another 1,000 pages it seems just as strongly. As it winds down, one finds oneself at the beginning less of a French-ified salon story of Petersburg intrigue and more at the beginning of a Turgenev story of managing a feudal estate with hunting, agriculture, bailiffs, marital harmony.

The novel is good at so many levels. Finding a readable translation that handles the barriers to entry (like the French, and the diminutives and naming issues to understand how everyone relates) is the biggest issue. Once one is a good way in, keeping the characters in order becomes manageable and the book blooms on almost every page. Truly one of the best novels ever. That said, for me the book includes some of the disappointing themes from Anna Karenina that seem to imply an acceptable behavior of cheating on husbands by women without the reverse. Maybe this was Tolstoy's goal to draw out some reaction based on the sadness and hazing of cuckolded men but whether it's men cheating on wives or vice versa, Tolstoy's decision to lay in the most sympathetic and tragic figures as the cheated-on stains an otherwise pristine novel.

When French forces led by Napoleon spread across Europe and threatened Russian safety and independence, Russia declared war against France. The novel revolves around a group of Russian protagonists (Pierre, Andrew, Natasha, Mary, Nicholas and General Kutuzov) during time of French occupation of Moscow, decisive battle of Borodino, French withdrawal from Russia, and the return to a life of normalcy.

Tolstoy's characters, like those of Dostoevsky are intricate complex; both Andrew and Pierre had qualities similar to Tolstoy himself (the death of Andrew's wife during child birth just like Tolstoy's mother, Pierre's alienation from society and his odd unattractive looks). Still, Tolstoy artistically made the two characters distinguished and different, Tolstoy went to great fascinating lengths to very clearly detail Andrew's inability to open up for others and his dislike of being touched by others .

Tolstoy, who chose a leap of faith in his personal religious life, which is reflected in this story told against the historical backdrop of spiritual Russia defeating rational France during a time of mutual suffering of both nations because of the actions of their governments; it is a universal tale.

Great exploration of human irrationality and motives, a story of every person's anguish in the face of loss, death, and search for meaning in life.

War and Peace is, without question, the greatest historical novel ever written.

However, if you carry a copy of War and Peace with you anywhere, you will be subjected to ridicule of many varieties. This, of course, says more about the critics than the reader. It tells us first that most people have largely lived their lives deprived of reading one of the most "need to read" books in Western literature.

The book and an understanding of it are essential for a classically liberal and comprehensive education in Western civilization. No other single book so completely expresses the essence of a critical age in history than War and Peace. As such, the central reason to read it is that it is an efficient window into who we are and how we got here.

The customary joking and ridicule also tells us that many people have been forced to read War and Peace in school, but never understood or appreciated it. That is a very sad state of affairs. It implies a kind of abuse that comes from forcing any good thing on someone just because it is deemed good for them and before they have a chance to understand and benefit from it.

I guess what I am saying is that this is not a book for the young or anyone else, unless the reader is prepared and coached along the way. The only way, indeed, a youthful reader can get the lessons of War and Peace is through extensive preparation and contextual education. War and Peace requires a whole course of background to be fully revealing and illuminating.

The purpose of my review of War and Peace is not to praise it or to evaluate its literary achievements. I am simply not an expert in a position to do that.

My purpose is to draw on my experience with the book and to provide prospective readers of all ages and backgrounds with an efficient but penetrating guide that will make the journey through the pages of the book come to life and swell with enjoyment and comprehension.

For now the review will have to be a work in progress. But in the end, I promise to provide a comprehensive plan of syntopical reading complete with travel suggestions that cement the standing of the book and equip the reader with the ability to disarm any critic and, more importantly, enjoy a life of interesting cocktail conversations upon completion of this great work.

In addition to this review, I recommend that anyone getting ready to mount the challenge of reading War and Peace can and should refer to the reading lists I separately provide on the Age of Napoleon and on the reading of War and Peace, as well as travel to and enjoyment of Paris, Moscow and St. Petersburg.

7 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
Not good, May 2, 2008


I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.

Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.

Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary". Even though he drank an entire bottle of rum on a window ledge for a bet, was an accomplished duellist, stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia! Some "ordinary!"

Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.

Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.

Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. The Pevears choose words that are anachronistic, or bundles of words that fail to convey meaning, but merely obscure it. Moreover it is not enough to merely translate words-- syntax, grammar, and meaning must also be translated. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If they were translating Confucius, would they give us long passages in Chinese?

And Pevear leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?

This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.

The standard--although it is not my favorite translation--in terms of the overall balance of translation, graphics, and design, continues to be the Maude Inner Sanctum edition of 1942. And it wouldn't hurt to augment that with the 1922 Oxford Maude. Comments (21) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jul 8, 2008 11:28 PM PDT

This is by far the best book I have ever read for so many different reason. Tolstoy is absolutely my favorite author and he out did himself with this book. The realism, the historical background, and the depth of the characters made this book so great.

The Peaver/Volokhonsky translation makes this classic accessible and quite readable. The book is about the people and dynamics around the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812; it is filled with interesting people and thoughtful insights. This topic needed the 1215 pages. If you have ever wanted to be able to brag about reading this book, I would highly recommend this translation.

This was my first time to read Tolstoy and this book is staggering in its breadth, skill and insight. Tolstoy wears many hats in this book--historian, theologian, psychologist, philosopher, military strategist, political scientist, ethicist--and he wears them all exceedingly well. The sheer scope of this novel (if indeed one can call it merely a novel) is remarkable. The battle scenes are stark and real, stripping off the tidy veneer that history puts on such events; not graphic or gruesome, just showing the human side of soldiers in the face of danger and death. The affairs of the Bolkonskys and Rostovs provide profound insights into good and evil, life and death, and those universal things that comprise human nature. Tolstoy's satirical comments on Napolean and the genius historians ascribe to him are well-founded and thought-provoking.

When all is said and done, however, it is the spiritual journey of Pierre Bezukhov that is the highlight of the book for me. You see clearly in this characater the expression of Tolstoy's own sirituality and the parallels are magnificent. This is a wonderful story about life, history, family and what it means to be human. While incredibly dense, this book is worth the time and effort. Highly recommended.

The translation itself is very good, but I agree with other reviewers that maps of the places described would be very helpful. For the price of the book, and the prestige of the translators, this shortcoming is noticeable. And, I agree with those who bemoan the tiny print in which the numerous French passages are translated. I think a better way to indicate when the characters speak French is to use italics (but in English).

The translation itself is very good, but I agree with other reviewers that maps of the places described, and an index to the major characters would be very helpful. For the price of the book, and the prestige of the translators, these shortcomings are noticeable. And, I agree with those who bemoan the tiny print in which the numerous French passages are translated. I think a better way to indicate when the characters speak French is to use italics (but in English). Or,at the very least, make the footnote print larger, so it's not a strain to read it.

I read War & Peace when I was 18 years old and now that I am 70 I have read the new fantastic translation and I think it should be required reading for every college graduate and then be read again with age. Tolstoy has much to inform us on the folly of war and love and a narrative that is a sheer pleasure to read. My only complaint is the weight of one volume ... one needs a dictionary stand.

I found my way to Tolstoy circumvently by way of other Russian authors. It seems all roads lead to the count one way or another when it comes to Russian literature.
Certainly in my youth the expression, "It isn't 'War and Peace'!" was a sarcastic and thoughtless epitaph when trying to get through a book or writing something. Well, this edition takes the academic intimidation off the novel and makes it a completely readable and (who'd of guessed?)enjoyable experience.
Make no mistake- it's long. The joke holds water in that regard but if it's any help even Tolstoy himself wrote it in sections and volumes published seperately.
Like any work of vision, this book teaches you how to read it. Some have argued about the extensive french in this edition (overstated in my opinion) but the author's have placed the direct translation at the bottom of the page. It isn't an elaborate endeavor to avert one's eyes downward to read it's equivalent. Tolstoy (and thus his translators) thought it important that the Russian's spoke french extensively to exemplify how prevalent that culture was saturated into the aristocracy before it was their deadly enemy.
Volokhonsky and Pevear, the translating team, retain the original poetic intention of Tolstoy's writing in various points to some readers disdain. I find it beautiful and correct.
Tolstoy made clear he wasn't writing a novel (of european invention)or trying to obey any form besides the very expression he felt apporpriate to convey his story and characters. It is essentially Russian and is simply to be taken or left for it's own worth.
Aside from the artistic and ambitious translation (an art unto itself), I found the book inspiring, despairing and beautiful. A history lesson, a contemplation of the divine and a love story.
If that doesn't appeal then don't place this brick on your lap for the weeks or months it takes to consume. But if you do, I doubt you'll regret the journey.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is an intense and enthralling historical novel describing the events before, during and after Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia in 1812. An extensive array of characters fraught with their own personal problems begin a tale of personal consequence, while the historical figures of Tsar Alexander I and Napoleon march to a different tune, one of hierarchical power. This novel is such a masterpiece because of it's perspectives on the historical Battle of Borodino and prior events that lead up to the French armies moving into Moscow. Textbooks describe great leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte and generals like Mikhail Kutuzov commanding armies of hundreds of thousands, to meet on the battlefield. But Tolstoy inspects these armies further, the individual unit of a war.

What I found most interesting about this novel was the integration of Tolstoy's own fictional characters and his personal representation of historical figures involved at the time. You can trace the battles on a map, marking where the field of Borodino is, and where the nobility from St. Petersburg came from. It gives an intensely personal side to a war that has been plundered by historians, who are notorious for leaving out what may be the most important aspect to a war, the citizens, the soldiers and the families who suffer and who fight.

Two issues I had while reading this book was the vast array of characters and family names to keep track of and the length of the novel itself. It took about 100 pages to get into the rhythm of the story, but after that, the tensions continue to build, the hardships come more often and it is a work of historical importance that I had to continue reading.

I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.

Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.

Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary".Even though he drank a bottle of liquor on a window sill for a bet,stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of Partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia. Some "ordinary!"

Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.

Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.

Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If he was translating Confucius, would he give us long passages in Chinese?

And he leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?

This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.

I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.

Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.

Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary". Even though he drank an entire bottle of rum on a window ledge for a bet, was an accomplished duellist, stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia! Some "ordinary!"

Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.

Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.

Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. The Pevears choose words that are anachronistic, or bundles of words that fail to convey meaning, but merely obscure it. Moreover it is not enough to merely translate words-- syntax, grammar, and meaning must also be translated. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If they were translating Confucius, would they give us long passages in Chinese?

And Pevear leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?

This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.

The standard--although it is not my favorite translation--in terms of the overall balance of translation, graphics, and design, continues to be the Maude Inner Sanctum edition of 1942. And it wouldn't hurt to augment that with the 1922 Oxford Maude.

I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.

Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.

Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary". Even though he drank an entire bottle of rum on a window ledge for a bet, was an accomplished duellist, stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia! Some "ordinary!"

Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.

Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.

Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. The Pevears choose words that are anachronistic, or that even don't exist (Is there such a word as "restrainedly"?)Or bundles of words that fail to convey meaning, but merely obscure it. Moreover it is not enough to merely translate words-- syntax and grammar must also be translated. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If they were translating Confucius, would they give us long passages in Chinese?

And Pevear leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?

This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.

The standard--although it is not my favorite translation--in terms of the overall balance of translation, graphics, and design, continues to be the Maude Inner Sanctum edition of 1942. And it wouldn't hurt to augment that with the 1922 Oxford Maude.

Although I have just started this book, I can tell you it is a good translation and easier to read then the version I read in high school.

I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.

Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.

Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary". Even though he drank an entire bottle of liquor on a window sill for a bet, stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia. Some "ordinary!"

Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.

Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.

Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. Moreover it is not enough to merely translate words, syntax and grammar must also be translated. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If he was translating Confucius, would he give us long passages in Chinese?

And he leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?

This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.

The standard--although it is not my favorite translation--in terms of the overall balance of translation, graphics, and design, continues to be the Maude Inner Sanctum edition of 1942. And it wouldn't hurt to augment that with the 1922 Oxford Maude.

Finally, a translation of War and Peace that is readable and is true to the beauty of Tolstoy's narrative. This husband and wife team of translators, one a native Russian speaker, one English, have produced the definitive translation of this tome. It is also a beautiful volume visually - I love holding it (though, by nature of the novel's length, it is heavy), I love the physical aspect of reading it.

Now that the solution to the perfect translation of War and Peace has been solved, maybe humanity can get on to a solution to the problems of war and peace in this world...until then, I think I will reread this volume of War and Peace again and again...

Twelve hundred plus pages of historic literature not everyone's enjoyed, but one of the books on the short list of great reads most literate folks have found time to endure. I wanted to see what all the noise and jokes were about - about whether or not one has read War and Peace, whether one could be called educated without that satisfaction. Turns out the book is nearly satisfying, but by the time you find it isn't going to completely live up to all the expectations, it ends.
Frustrating - some of the characters are nit-wits, hardly able to comb their hair; these are the aristocrats, the wealthy. The poor - servants, peasants, soldiers, riff/raff and the like - turn out to be pretty smart folk. Many times the reader wishes Tolstoy would kill one of the twits off or take their measure but, as in life, not always is the guilty punished or the righteous rewarded. One man wanders through the entire story, and we learn to wish him well - hope for his happiness.
The story of the Napoleonic crusade into Russia is a good one. Tolstoy has his opinions on history, and he makes an interesting case for his version of what happened. Not without some light humor, the book is not the chore many put it off for. An overall map of the paths the armies traveled (there is one map of one important battle) would have been helpful, so we could keep abreast of where certain cities and rivers actually are.
Tolstoy's assertion the Russian spirit, love of the Fatherland, played the piviotal role in the route of the French is a good one.
There are extensive notes and biographies. The translation is excellent and one can easily kill several hundred pages at a sitting. For those who read French there is plenty to do, since quite a lot of the prose is in that language (translated for us in footnotes).
The author sums his philosophy and intent in an epilogue and the characters will never be forgotten; most interweave their paths with the action, and each other, between two major cities - Petersburg and Moscow. Minor characters are as notable as any, some with accents and speech flaws that Tolstoy (and the translators) makes a pleasure to read. I am happy I took the time.

I struggled through War and Peace many years ago, so imagine my surprise(and pleasure) to find that this new translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky is a wonderful read and gives the reader an entirely new perspective on Tolstoy. I am rereading The Brothers Karamazov now, translated by the same couple, and am looking forward to Anna Karenina.

THis was a translation I waited for impatiently, but I am sorely disappointed. Even though I have read this my favorite book numerous times, I found some snetences almost totally unnegotiable and ackward. Perhaps the translators were attempting to replicate Russian sentece structure along with word meaning?

Another problem for this reader was the lack of in-line translation of the FRENCH, which is more numerous than one would suspect. I do not read French, and looking to the bottom of the page for meaning broke the flow of my read and cause numerous stop-start impediments. THough this raw presentation of the French may be considered a strength for the reader who can read it, it is not an advantage for those of us limited to understanding English only.

My favorite translation remains the Maude, but I would recommend any other I'm familiar with before this one.

If you are at ease with French, you may enjoy this, but even then, I would challenge you to take an arbitrary long paragraph and match the Maude translation against this one. For me, Maude wins hands down!

I just finished reading this amazing (and amazingly long) book and I am left in awe by the presence of such a great writer. This is my first encounter with Tolstoy but it definitely won't be my last. To tell the truth I would never have picked up this book on my own because it has this aura of intimadation about it and its sheer length can be utterly daunting; in fact I almost dropped the class because I was hoping we were going to read Anna Karenina, but that would have been a fatal mistake!

War and Peace is a book unlike any other I've read (and I've read in the hundreds)... it has amazing scope and originality and a psycological precision that truly stupifies. Tolstoy is in absolute control over his prose; at times he teases and misleads the reader (this killed me at first) and at other times he tickled my funny bone just right. He occassionally bends down to catch that humorous side of human nature that can only be seen from a certain angle and I respect him for that; it's not all artists who can manage to do this. I remember I had barely reached the first 100 pages when I began to recognize just what kind of writer I was dealing with and all I could do was submit my will and bow down to this towering giant of world literature...

I will never forget the experience of reading this book. And finishing feels pretty damn good too! Now on with writing my paper on it!!!

I am not a connoisseur. I was drawn to this book by excerpts read by the translators on a radio interview. I have compared some passages with three other translations. I like this one because the sentences are unhurried and seem exotic to me, transporting me away from the here and now. What I saw in the other translations lacked this quality.

The first 100 pages or so were slow going while I got familiar with all the characters' names and figured out what was going on. This was well worth the effort. I marked the useful sections that identify characters, summarize chapters, and furnish historical background notes of interest. The further I read, the less I used those sections.

This tale has humor, insight, a lot of irony, pathos, beauty, passion, reflection, likable characters, not-so-likable characters, a lot of real information about the era--everything I could want in a book.

The French language passages, starting at the beginning, are a little laborious to read because of the small-print footnoted translation, but that's not a deal-breaker. On balance, I would rather have it this way so I know when the characters are speaking French.

War & Peace is one of my favorite novels. I've read it four times before, all in the Garnett translation and always loved it. But I'm blown away by this translation. When I first saw it, I skimmed some of the introduction and became obsessed with getting and reading it. Reading two pages was enough to get me hooked.

The writing is so lyrical, so beautiful, that I can't wait to get to the next part. And that's really saying something when you know the book so well.

If you love War & Peace, get this translation, you'll see the book with new eyes. If you've never read it before, read it in this translation, you'll see immediately why people love it.

It's hard to find anything original to say about "War and Peace." This classic of 19th century Russian literaure, written by one of the greatest novelists of the last 500 years, has been exhaustively reviewed, studied, dissected, and interpreted in film, drama, opera, and dance (I think). What I can say as a literary gourmand (someone who will read everything from the back of the shampoo bottle to "Valley Of The Dolls" to "Ulysses") and a professional specialist in the Russian language is this: WoP is a damn fine historical novel, worth a try for anyone who's every enjoyed a long historical novel. And this War and Peace, the latest translation of this monumental work from Russian into English, is the most readable and accurate version of the several I have read. Not only do they provide immediate translations of all the French and German conversations and letters in the book so you don't have to wonder what in tarnation is going on, they are true to the marvelous humor and simplicity of the original Russian language. The translation team of Pevear and Volkhonsky has successfully tackled several classics of Russian literature, making books like Demons newly accessible to English-speaking readers. This book is worth the money and the potential hernia.

I won't address the contents of the book in this review; it is excellent and has been discussed at length by others. I want to make a brief note about the binding.

Several reviewers have complained that the US edition is too large and that the pages are glued rather than sewn, which makes the book somewhat unstable. While "War and Peace" is never going to be a pocketbook, I would like to point out that the British edition (ISBN-10: 0099512238, ISBN-13: 978-0099512233) is about 1/2 an inch thinner than the US edition, and it has a sewn binding (which is much more durable). The cover is cloth, and I happen to think that it looks nicer than the US edition.

Note that you cannot order the UK edition from Amazon.com at the time of this writing, so those who are interested will either have to pay the extra shipping to order from Amazon.co.uk or else look elsewhere.

War and Peace, particularly this translation, is perhaps the best novel ever written. The historical sweep, punctuated by details of everyday life in the early 19th century Russia, is commanding. If there is one drawback to the novel, it is Tolstoy's increasingly repetitious philosophical musings about historical theory toward the end of the book.

Anyone who wants to be a writer needs to study this book. Tolstoy masterfully sets up the dynamics of Russia and Europe, the Russian class system, and the changing attitudes that finally led to the 1917 revolution, in the characters of several families, in particular the Rostovs, Pierre Bezhukov, and the Bolkonskys. Tolstoy steers us through the rising and falling fortunes of these people with the Napoleonic Wars as a backdrop. His descriptions of military camp life can be touching, humorous, and disturbing, all at once. And his description of the Battle of Borodino is achingly realistic, and perhaps one of the best anti-war passages ever written without being polemical or political.

Do yourself a favor and read this translation.

Potential reader: do not be daunted by the length of W&P! At over 1200 pages, this is, truly, a long work. Nonetheless, it is worth every second spent. I cannot comment on particular translations personally, but I am led to believe this one (the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation) is the best, based on various recommendations from critics, such as James Wood's excellent review in the New Yorker. On to the book itself:

With each page, I must confess my jealousy of Tolstoy grew immensely. By the end, one sits in sheer awe of the Master's writing ability. By far the most notable strength of Tolstoy's is his ability to craft characters; I have read no other author outside of Shakespeare and Milton (with his Satan from "Paradise Lost") able to create real men and women as well as Tolstoy. I cannot claim to be a Shakespeare expert, but I would rate Tolstoy's character-crafting even higher than the Bard's, though I am aware this is not a popular judgement.

Pierre, a corpulent and intelligent misfit in Russian high society; Prince Andrei, a dark, pessimistic, and arrogant (yet strangely tender) nobleman; and Natasha Rostov, a caring, complex, and often infuriating young woman, are the three standouts. To be sure, there are myriad other characters of interest (Nikolai Rostov, Princess Marya, Field Marshal Kutuzov, etc.), but the three aforementioned go beyond mere characters, metamorphosing into real, flesh-and-blood human beings. All three are fictional, unlike many of the other characters, and yet all three are more lifelike than perhaps any other literary creations.

Tolstoy's powers go further, however. The language is wonderful; though a translation, the explanatory notes offered at the beginning by Richard Pevear give one a greater sense of Tolstoy's language, especially his use of repetitions; his "readings" of characters expressions (and sometimes those of inanimate objects) also work wonderfully.

One thing that might irk those who are not overly familiar in philosophical reading are Tolstoy's interpolated philosophical essays. The whole second Epilogue is a long essay on the Philosophy of History, as are chunks of the last two books. I assure the potential reader with all my heart that, even if he does not particularly enjoy these essays, the novel is worth it and warrants reading. Being a student of philosophy, I found the essays quite fascinating (notably Hegelian), but even if one despises them, the story, characters, and every other aspect of WAR AND PEACE makes repeated reading well worth it.

Along with the wonderful Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the profound Jorge Luis Borges, and the darkly insightful Fyodor Dostoevsky, Tolstoy is at the top of my list of novelists (alright, Borges isn't a novelist, but close enough!). And yet, there is something that places the Count well above even the strengths of the others, and makes WAR AND PEACE a far greater novel than even "One Hundred Years of Solitude" or "Crime and Punishment." That something is the characters, it is Pierre, it is Prince Andrei, it is Natasha or Nikolai or Kutuzov. Any one of Tolstoy's characters would warrant a marvelous rating; all of them combined make WAR AND PEACE, by a long shot, the greatest novel I have yet read.

To close, I echo Russian novelist Isaak Babel: "If the world itself could write, it would write like Tolstoy." Truer words have never been spoken of him, and I feign not outdo them.

Count Lev Nikolaevich (1828-1910), more widely known abroad as Leo Tolstoy, is recognized as one the greatest novelist in the modern era. War and Peace is a superb piece of literature that most serious readers should read at least once. Many read it twice or more. All of the fiction is excellent and never dull. The non-fiction parts seem a bit strange and the reader can skip those parts. Once the reader gets past the first few pages, the reading is relatively simple and compelling. It contains excellent prose that one might associate with Tolstoy's writing, and it is only the length that discourages the reader. This was a seven day read, cover to cover, including two 300 page days - each day about the same as a complete regular novel such as "Saturday." It is not for the faint of heart.

War and Peace is a bit of an odd novel being so long. Tolstoy goes beyond a simple novel as Anna Karenina or The Cossacks. He tells a historical tale plus he injects approximately 100 pages of his own non-fiction comments about society and war. Tolstoy's non-fiction comments ruin the book to a degree. Instead of the best novel ever written, Tolstoy's political ideas - which the reader can skip - tend to tarnish the book as a piece of literature. One feels that he should have been able to integrate his ideas into the actions of the characters rather than giving the reader long lectures on history and politics in the middle and at the end of a wonderful story (as Dostoevsky integrates his ideas on religion and morality into the dialogue). Otherwise, it is probably one of the best novels ever written.

I like Pevear and Volokhonsky's work and have bought and read three of their other works. All the translations, such as Oxford (Maude) and Modern Library Classics (Garnett), are good and very similar in overall quality. For example, turn to the beginning at the start of section 11. The present book uses Roman numerals while Maude uses simple numbers. What other differences are there? The present book says two people "cherish" their friendship while Maude says they "value" their friendship. Not much different. Going on, the two turn to talk to each other in Maude while in the present book one speaker pulls up their chair. One would have to know Russian and consult the original text to know if the "chair" is more accurate, but overall one gets the same feeling from the read - but the present book seems to give the reader a more complete picture of the events.

Great read: 5 stars if you have the fortitude.

Count Lev Nikolaevich (1828-1910), more widely known abroad as Leo Tolstoy, is recognized as one the greatest novelist in the modern era. War and Peace is a superb piece of literature that most serious readers should read at least once. Many read it twice or more. All of the fiction is excellent and never dull. The non-fiction parts seem a bit strange and the reader can skip those parts. Once the reader gets past the first few pages, the reading is relatively simple and compelling. It contains excellent prose that one associates with Tolstoy's other works, and it is just the length that discourages the reader. This was a seven day read, cover to cover, including two days reading 300 pages each day. It is not for the faint of heart.

One can argue that Tolstoy remains as one of the leading writers of novels. His legacy includes three monumental works including War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and the novella The Death of Ivan Ilych. Anna Karenina and Flaubert's Madame Bovary are generally considered to be the best novels ever written combining great characters, emotion, and a good story, all in well balanced packages with good prose and structures: stunning prose, especially for the case of Flaubert.

Tolstoy had a long life and he wrote a lot, as many as 400 works - according to his own claim in one of his non-fiction works. The writing can be divided into three phases: the early years up to some time around 1860 to 1861, the mid-career years from approximately 1861 to 1890, and his final years when he turned to non-fiction polemics.

His most important fiction started in the 1860s with the writing of The Cossacks in 1863. War and Peace is a bit of an odd novel being so long. It was written in the 1860s when Tolstoy was at his literary peak and he could write whatever he wanted to and get it published without many limitations. It was written before the time of Anna Karenina. But Tolstoy goes beyond a simple novel as Anna Karenina or The Cossacks. He tells a historical tale plus he injects approximately 100 pages of his own non-fiction comments about society and war. The original name of the book in Russian was war and society, which was then translated to French and English as war and peace.

Tolstoy's non-fiction comments ruin the book to a degree. Instead of the best novel ever written, Tolstoy's political ideas, especially in the epilogue - which the reader can skip - tend to tarnish the book as a piece of literature. One feels that he should have been able to integrate his ideas into the actions of the characters rather than giving the reader long lectures on history and politics in the middle and at the end of a wonderful story. Otherwise, it is probably one of the best novels ever written. Some people think that there are too many characters. Yes, there are many but only three or four primary male characters and a similar number of women. Their stories are interesting, often emotional, and always entertaining.

I like Pevear and Volokhonsky's work and have read a few of their other works as well: Brothers Karamazov, Chekhov's Short Stories, and Gogol's Tales. This is an excellent buy with a strong binding - which is not a trivial consideration due to the size of the book. It contains excellent footnotes, and other information, i.e.: buy this version if you can afford it but do not feel bad if you buy or obtain an older translation from a library. All the translations, such as Oxford (Maude) and Modern Library Classics (Garnett), are good and very similar in overall quality. I looked at all of the popular translations and thought they were quite similar although the current version has more references, more polished prose, and it is easier to read.

Count Lev Nikolaevich (1828-1910), more widely known abroad as Leo Tolstoy, is recognized as one the greatest novelist in the modern era. War and Peace is a superb piece of literature that most serious readers should read at least once. Many read it twice or more. All of the fiction is excellent and never dull. The non-fiction parts seem a bit strange and the reader can skip those parts. Once the reader gets past the first few pages, the reading is relatively simple and compelling. It contains excellent prose that one associates with Tolstoy's other works, and it is just the length that discourages the reader. This was a seven day read, cover to cover, including two 300 page days - each day about the same as a complete regular novel such as "Saturday." It is not for the faint of heart.

One can argue that Tolstoy remains as one of the leading writers of novels. His legacy includes three monumental works including War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and the novella The Death of Ivan Ilych. Anna Karenina and Flaubert's Madame Bovary are generally considered to be the best novels ever written combining great characters, emotion, and a good story. The writers have put together well balanced packages with good prose and structures: stunning prose, especially for the case of Flaubert.

Tolstoy had a long life and he wrote a lot, as many as 400 works - according to his own claim in one of his non-fiction works. The writing can be divided into three phases: the early years up to some time around 1860 to 1861, the mid-career years from approximately 1861 to 1890, and his final years when he turned to non-fiction polemics.

His most important fiction started in the 1860s with the writing of The Cossacks in 1863. War and Peace is a bit of an odd novel being so long. It was written in the 1860s when Tolstoy was at his literary peak and he could write whatever he wanted to and get it published without many limitations. It was written before the time of Anna Karenina. But Tolstoy goes beyond a simple novel as Anna Karenina or The Cossacks. He tells a historical tale plus he injects approximately 100 pages of his own non-fiction comments about society and war. The original name of the book in Russian was war and society, which was then translated to French and English as war and peace.

Tolstoy's non-fiction comments ruin the book to a degree. Instead of the best novel ever written, Tolstoy's political ideas - which the reader can skip - tend to tarnish the book as a piece of literature. One feels that he should have been able to integrate his ideas into the actions of the characters rather than giving the reader long lectures on history and politics in the middle and at the end of a wonderful story (as Dostoevsky integrates his ideas on religion and morality into the dialogue). Otherwise, it is probably one of the best novels ever written. Some people think that there are too many characters. Yes, there are many but only three or four primary male characters and a similar number of women. Their stories are interesting, often emotional, and always entertaining.

I like Pevear and Volokhonsky's work and have bought and read three of their other works as well: Brothers Karamazov, Chekhov's Short Stories, and Gogol's Tales. This is an excellent buy with a strong binding - which is not a trivial consideration due to the size of the book. It contains excellent footnotes, and other information, i.e.: buy this version if you can afford it but do not feel bad if you buy or obtain an older translation from a library. All the translations, such as Oxford (Maude) and Modern Library Classics (Garnett), are good and very similar in overall quality. I looked at all of the popular translations and thought they were quite similar although the current version has more references, more polished prose, and it is easier to read.

For example, turn to the beginning at the start of section 11. The present book uses Roman numerals while Maude uses simple numbers. What other differences are there? The present book says two people "cherish" their friendship while Maude says they "value" their friendship. Not much different is it. Going on, the two turn to talk to each other in Maude while in the present book one speaker pulls up their chair. One would have to know Russian and consult the original text to know if the "chair" is more accurate, but overall one gets the same feeling from the read - but the present book seems to give the reader a more complete picture of the events.

Great read: 5 stars if you have the fortitude.

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!

When the reviewers talk about P&V's translations bringing the reader "closer to the original Russian," they aren't kidding. Pevear's near-sighted attachment to the _exact wording_ of the original Russian makes for one mighty slap in the face to the beauty of Tolstoy's writing. This pair are the Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake of Russian translation - all image, no substance. If Pevear just knew some Russian, he'd have the confidence to translate the meaning and not just the words. The proof that he is capable of producing better translations than this can be seen in his translation of The Three Musketeers, from French - a language he actually speaks.

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. Let's not be ridiculous.) But the worst was the non-French 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 completely stilted - impossible to speak - and the dialogue was especially unnatural. I theorized that the problem was in the translators' working method: I understand Volokhonsky would do the initial "literal" translation first, from the Russian, after which Pevear would perfect the English prose. And that many issues of nuance and balance would 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 lost. There is a sense of refined, almost snobbish precision in the choice of words, but Pevear obviously has no talent for narrative pulse, rhythm, storytelling sense, or authority of voice. Certain reviewers claim that this awkwardness reflects Tolstoy's own 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, that is obvious. And the Briggs translation also seems bland in tone. But when I picked up the Maude translation, it was obviously the best. It's witty and aristocratic, the irony perfect, conversational in tone, with pitch-perfect dialogue, above all a clear, flowing narrative, compelling, believable, easy and fast to read, beautifully drawn, intense and engrossing. In fact it was Tolstoy's own authorized translation, written during his period. Do yourself a favor and discount all the hype. And if you think you really are in love with the new translation, do yourself a favor and at least look at a few pages of the Maude. You will be shocked that Tolstoy is actually an enjoyable 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 readi