Book review: "War and Peace", by Leo Tolstoy

Synopsis: Starting in 1805, War and Peace takes the reader through Napoleon's disastrous attempted invasion of Russia from a Russian perspective- from the original Russian response (a.k.a. "STOP HHIIMM!"), the truce and alliance, Napoleon's sudden change of heart / aggression, the War of 1812, and Napoleon's subsequent (and hasty) retreat from Moscow. Although it's historical fiction (the characters are based on real people, but it's made quite clear that they are essentially figments of Tolstoy's creativity), it's famously historically accurate (particularly when referring to the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino), and it gives Tolstoy the chance to show that he's not only a competent historian, but also a brave guide who can lead you through no-man's land to show you the daily lives of the people who live at equidistance between war and peace.

Review: Writing a review of this book (rather than a literary analysis essay which, I realise, this could easily turn into) will require great discipline on my part. With that in mind, I'm going to anticipate questions that would-be-readers may have, and answer them (for FURTHER questions, you can always contact me here!)

1) Q: Is it historically accurate?
     A: Largely, yes. Tolstoy relieves himself of the pressure from historians in his last chapter (Published in Russian Archive, 1868) where he writes:

"The divergence between my description of historical events and that given by the historians was not accidental, but inevitable. A historian and an artist describing a historic epoch have two quite different tasks before them. As a historian would be wrong if he tried to present a historical person in his entirety, in all the complexity of his relations with all sides of life, so the artist would fail to perform his task were he to represent the person always in his historical significance".

Tolstoy's basically saying "I'm not a historian (or I'm an amateur one at best)! I'm an artist- I have a license". Having said this, several footnotes (available on the kindle) suggest that Tolstoy did extensive historical research. At no point do you feel that Tolstoy has a far-fetched imagination- nor do you feel that he's completely biased towards the Russians (on the contrary- Tolstoy clearly knows his countrymen well, and is not afraid to delve into the "Russian psyche", flattering or not). Rest assured, though, there is plenty of Napoleon bashing to be enjoyed throughout!

2) Q: So, it's historical fiction?
     A: As a huge fan of historical fiction, I would say it's the Everest of historical fiction. Huge, legendary, majestic- the book all other historical fiction books look up to and aspire to be.

3) Q: And what about the characters? (No spoilers, please!)
     A: They're portrayed with a supreme level of detail (which is one of the main reasons for the length- you'd break your leg if you fell off the paper-back copy!). Take Pierre, for example (many believe he's based on Tolstoy himself). Recently divorced from his promiscuous wife, he finds a new spring to life after joining the Masons. However, as Napoleon's troops approach Moscow, he becomes a would-be assassin (having interpreted from scripture readings that he is destined to kill Napoleon), but is instead captured after a failed attempt to save a woman's honour (a gesture which he is never thanked for, by the way), and forced to retreat with the French troops during the harsh Russian winter. Or Natasha who, having promised herself to the heroic Prince Andrew, is lured into an affair with Dolohov, in which they decide to elope. When he fails to keep his promise, Natasha (who has already broken it off with the prince) attempts suicide, and is only later given the chance to make amends with the then severely injured former fiance.

This pattern of real-life tragedy and occurrences is repeated with between 15 to 20 characters (again- look at the length!). Needless to say, there is no shortage of character development... although don't get too attached. It turns out that Tolstoy is the George R.R. Martin of 19th century Russian literature, mercilessly killing people off, no matter their age or how recently they found love. However, to help us through these arbitrary deaths, Tolstoy helps to console the reader by exploring his own theories on the soul and the afterlife (which is a hell of a lot more than some HBO based T.V. shows offer us!).

4) Q: Speaking of theology- is it pure storyline, or can I expect it to get all philosophical?
     A: Aside from his own musings about our existence in the universe, Tolstoy makes some sound philosophical points about the nature of war according to the time. A personal favourite is when he dispels the myth that "War is like a game of chess". It's with great pleasure that Tolstoy refutes this, pointing out that in chess:

1) You can have as much time as you like to think about your next move (which in my case is usually between 20 and 30 minutes, if I'm in a hurry).

2) In chess, a knight is always more powerful than a pawn, and a bishop is always subordinate to a queen. But in war, a battalion can become stronger than a whole army if properly inspired, and an entire army can be completely wiped out if they're not fighting for the right reasons. Again, troops tend to be more blindingly obedient and self-sacrificing in chess...

3) On a chessboard, there is nowhere to hide/ambush. Everything is in plain sight for the keen eye (not true in a battle!)

This is just one example in which Tolstoy (much like Victor Hugo on the theme of revolutions) became a philosopher about his chosen subject; namely, war. More specifically, the archaic idea of "fair-play"warfare, and the much more progressive (for the time) and effective notion of "Guerrilla warfare" (the differences between these two styles would prove crucial in the outcome of Napoleon's ambitious late-summer excursion to Moscow).

However, a noticeable difference between Hugo's "Les Miserables" and Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is that in the latter, the STORYLINE dominates. Yes, Tolstoy will go on tangents (a particularly aggressive one includes the fact that a military genius doesn't exist, and that even if they DID, Napoleon wouldn't have been one of them!)... but he never loses sight- or at least, he never loses sight FOR LONG- of the plot. It's a book you can pick up at any point and bang out a couple of pages. "Time to jump back in time to Napoleonic Europe!" you can say to yourself, without having to get into a particularly deep or profound mindset.

5) Q: Finally, is it "the greatest novel ever written", as many critics have called it?
     A: I was afraid you were going to ask that question! I can see WHY people would claim that- after all, it has everything: war, some peace (although this is largely interrupted by all the war), love-interests, affairs, secret societies, serfdom, Napoleon... and it all gallops along like a light French cavalry brigade running towards Eastern Europe while being followed by a couple of thousand of pissed-off (and half pissed) Russian militia. All I'll say is this- I, PERSONALLY, thought it was one of the best books I've ever read, but I know many people who've started it and never finished it, claiming it to be boring (FYI they were all French... just kidding :D). If you're into your history, and you've already read quite a few classic books, then maybe it's time to take on the Everest of historical fiction. Much like no-one is ever quite the same once they've climbed Everest, War and Peace will leave its mark on the soul of all who accept the challenge.


Score: 10/10