You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
"Nos acontecimentos históricos, é mais evidente do que em qualquer outro caso a proibição de provar o fruto da árvore do conhecimento. Só a ação inconsciente dá frutos, e a pessoa que desempenha um papel nos acontecimentos históricos nunca entende seu significado. Se tenta compreendê-lo, dá-se conta de que isso é infrutífero." (p. 1941)
A liberdade é uma ilusão, ao mesmo tempo em que é a essência da vida. Mesmo sendo a essência da vida, a consciência de liberdade é uma força que a lei da necessidade, a razão, explica e, portanto, limita. A história é regida por leis e todo movimento que nós fazemos não é livre. Ao mesmo tempo, toda a narrativa e as reflexões ao longo do livro mostram que não temos acesso à totalidade dessas leis e que não é possível discernir o sentido do que se está fazendo num determinado momento. Só se pode definir as leis para o passado - e mesmo assim não totalmente - se forem sabidas as condições espaciais e o máximo possível das relações de causas e consequências de cada ação. Quanto mais conhecimento temos desses três elementos - espaço, tempo e causas -, menos uma ação vai parecer livre.
Mas, para que a história ocorra, há uma condição, um fato determinante contraditório apenas na aparência: no presente - esse momento infinitésimo -, as ações parecem ser inteiramente livres. É essa condição de aparente liberdade que permite a ação, que permite a história. É no momento infinitésimo de total liberdade aparente onde talvez se encontre Deus, a causa de tudo, agindo através da Providência, que une o acaso às Suas determinações.
Só depois que percebemos que as ações não foram livres; só depois, a posteriori, que descobrimos o sentido que um acontecimento ou um ato teve, que percebemos que não poderia ter acontecido outra coisa que não aquela que de fato aconteceu. O que nos dá a liberdade aparente é não sabermos qual o sentido de um ato no momento, isto é, não sabermos qual lei está agindo sobre nós com que força em um determinado momento. Ou seja, a condição da história ocorrer é exatamente o fato de não sabermos o sentido final dela.
É interessante o final da primeira parte do Epílogo, com a família junta e terminando com Nikolai, o filho de Andre, e seu sonho. Sabendo que Tolstói pensava em escrever Guerra e Paz como um livro sobre os Dezembristas, penso até que Nikolai poderia ser um delas. O livro seria, desta forma, a explicação máxima de um desses: Nikolai. Ele é explicado a partir de todas as relações espaciais, a partir da distância temporal - que Tolstói, quase 40 anos depois, conseguia ver - e com o máximo das causas e consequências que agiram sobre ele. Por todas estas forças que agiram nele, ele poderia ser um Dezembrista. Pelo mundo que conhece, pelas ideias que escutou, pelo pai ter morrido na guerra, pela família que tem, pela influência do tio Pierre e das ideias de sociedades secretas... Tudo isso tem as suas próprias causas, que são também buscadas. E tudo isso, todo o livro Guerra e Paz, seria necessário para explicar apenas um dos participantes, e mesmo assim de forma incompleta. Como se poderia explicar todos? Como se poderia ter a pretensão de entender e explicar as causas completas de um acontecimento?
Não sei se se trata disso ou se essa ideia não tem nada a ver. O importante é que não é possível discernir as causas dos acontecimentos na história. Trata-se de discernir as leis. E a maior delas, nessa ideia, seria que Nikolai só pode ser um Dezembrista porque, no momento infinitésimo do seu presente, ele tem uma consciência da própria liberdade para agir assim.
Acho bonita a imagem final da narrativa também. Na primeira parte do Epílogo, temos aquela família junta, com Pierre, Natacha, todos os filhos deles; Nikolai, Maria, todos os filhos deles; a mãe de Nikolai, sua companhia, Sonia e Nikolai filho de Andrei. Há pessoas que discordam e até brigam, como Nikolai com Pierre, em relação à possibilidade de ir contra o governo (ainda de Alexandre, não de Nicolau I, como seriam os Dezembristas). Mas isso não é tão importante, isso diz respeito ao mundo. O que importa na vida individual, particular, é amar a todos, é aceitar. Afinal, tudo que é discutido na parte final deve ser visto com a ideia de que a racionalidade é limitada, não é possível apreender o sentido final das coisas, e o único que pode decidir o rumo das coisas é Deus.
A liberdade é uma ilusão, ao mesmo tempo em que é a essência da vida. Mesmo sendo a essência da vida, a consciência de liberdade é uma força que a lei da necessidade, a razão, explica e, portanto, limita. A história é regida por leis e todo movimento que nós fazemos não é livre. Ao mesmo tempo, toda a narrativa e as reflexões ao longo do livro mostram que não temos acesso à totalidade dessas leis e que não é possível discernir o sentido do que se está fazendo num determinado momento. Só se pode definir as leis para o passado - e mesmo assim não totalmente - se forem sabidas as condições espaciais e o máximo possível das relações de causas e consequências de cada ação. Quanto mais conhecimento temos desses três elementos - espaço, tempo e causas -, menos uma ação vai parecer livre.
Mas, para que a história ocorra, há uma condição, um fato determinante contraditório apenas na aparência: no presente - esse momento infinitésimo -, as ações parecem ser inteiramente livres. É essa condição de aparente liberdade que permite a ação, que permite a história. É no momento infinitésimo de total liberdade aparente onde talvez se encontre Deus, a causa de tudo, agindo através da Providência, que une o acaso às Suas determinações.
Só depois que percebemos que as ações não foram livres; só depois, a posteriori, que descobrimos o sentido que um acontecimento ou um ato teve, que percebemos que não poderia ter acontecido outra coisa que não aquela que de fato aconteceu. O que nos dá a liberdade aparente é não sabermos qual o sentido de um ato no momento, isto é, não sabermos qual lei está agindo sobre nós com que força em um determinado momento. Ou seja, a condição da história ocorrer é exatamente o fato de não sabermos o sentido final dela.
É interessante o final da primeira parte do Epílogo, com a família junta e terminando com Nikolai, o filho de Andre, e seu sonho. Sabendo que Tolstói pensava em escrever Guerra e Paz como um livro sobre os Dezembristas, penso até que Nikolai poderia ser um delas. O livro seria, desta forma, a explicação máxima de um desses: Nikolai. Ele é explicado a partir de todas as relações espaciais, a partir da distância temporal - que Tolstói, quase 40 anos depois, conseguia ver - e com o máximo das causas e consequências que agiram sobre ele. Por todas estas forças que agiram nele, ele poderia ser um Dezembrista. Pelo mundo que conhece, pelas ideias que escutou, pelo pai ter morrido na guerra, pela família que tem, pela influência do tio Pierre e das ideias de sociedades secretas... Tudo isso tem as suas próprias causas, que são também buscadas. E tudo isso, todo o livro Guerra e Paz, seria necessário para explicar apenas um dos participantes, e mesmo assim de forma incompleta. Como se poderia explicar todos? Como se poderia ter a pretensão de entender e explicar as causas completas de um acontecimento?
Não sei se se trata disso ou se essa ideia não tem nada a ver. O importante é que não é possível discernir as causas dos acontecimentos na história. Trata-se de discernir as leis. E a maior delas, nessa ideia, seria que Nikolai só pode ser um Dezembrista porque, no momento infinitésimo do seu presente, ele tem uma consciência da própria liberdade para agir assim.
Acho bonita a imagem final da narrativa também. Na primeira parte do Epílogo, temos aquela família junta, com Pierre, Natacha, todos os filhos deles; Nikolai, Maria, todos os filhos deles; a mãe de Nikolai, sua companhia, Sonia e Nikolai filho de Andrei. Há pessoas que discordam e até brigam, como Nikolai com Pierre, em relação à possibilidade de ir contra o governo (ainda de Alexandre, não de Nicolau I, como seriam os Dezembristas). Mas isso não é tão importante, isso diz respeito ao mundo. O que importa na vida individual, particular, é amar a todos, é aceitar. Afinal, tudo que é discutido na parte final deve ser visto com a ideia de que a racionalidade é limitada, não é possível apreender o sentido final das coisas, e o único que pode decidir o rumo das coisas é Deus.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
A book I read in 19 days (humble brag), War and Peace has a little bit of everything — from expansive battles to Napoleon's inner thoughts, from Russian high society in St Pete to the burned out Moscow that Napoleon finds abandoned, from meditations on war, humanity, and larger-than-life figures to essays on man’s true place in history — all this is all strung together by a love triangle between Natasha Pierre and Andrey, and complemented by the love between Nicolas and Mary.
In this way, the book is constructed much differently than a traditional novel: there is a narrative arc, yes, but to get there, you also have to get through essays on war and mankind, damning critiques of Napoleon, and dozens of pages on war and history, including the 100-page epilogue, which nearly abandons the narrative entirely, favoring instead the concept of genius v. change, predeterminism of history and fate v freedom, etc. through extended philosophical musings.
But that is perhaps why War and Peace is so great. It transcends the concept of the traditional novel for something more, something that touches on the intimate aspects of history, while still holding tight to the universal truths his characters embody.
Put succinctly by Daniel Burt in his The Novel 100: “Tolstoy’s conception grew into a massive panoramic summary of a historical era that also comprehended much of the human condition, as one generation is succeeded by the next and characters evolved through time and circumstances from youth to experience in the complicated interplay between private and public life.”
Put another way by Orlando Figes in the intro to the edition I read: “The whole of life appears to be contained in its pages. Tolstoy presents us with a cast of several hundred characters. Yet to each one he brings such profound understanding of the human condition, with all its frailties and contradictions, that we recognize and love these characters as reflections of our own identity.”
And that is perhaps Tolsstpry’s unique and best talent: Despite being written over 150 years ago, War and Peace and its characters are as relevant today as they were then, because, as in Anna Karenina, Tolstoy deals with universal truths.
Those truths are usually sought by characters undergoing their own struggles, such as Pierre’s search for meaning after inheriting a vast fortune and Andrey doing something similar after seeing the death of battle.
These truths include heroism v reality, hope and glory, ambition ties up with military rank — and the difference between the order of military life and the chaos of the world — good v bad, children v men, right v wrong, but it also goes higher than that: life v death (and what is beyond?), significance in the face of fate, the vanity and morality of life, as Pierre wrestles with through his experience with freemasonry, or as Rostov has a blind passion for Alexander I as the ideal of moral good.
One of the most interesting passages early on is how these ideals or views of the world conflict with each other in an argument between Pierre and Andrey. Whereas Pierre believes in the hope of happiness and goodness, loving his neighbor and believing in God and an afterlife, Andrey is much more cynical: Andrey, with his worrisome, dark looks, is the opposite of Pierre and hope; he used to live for glory but now resigns himself to existentialism, living for himself.
As Pierre becomes obsessed with improving his spiritual being through freemasonry, Andrey goes off to war and undergoes a change himself: One that eventually embraces life and happiness. Throw in Rostov, who is content with the clear cut world of the military over the messy nonsense of life, and you have three central characters undergoing major changes in how they view the world. At the center of these changes, like so often is, the search for happiness.
Despite his best attempts, Pierre eventually returns to Moscow, questioning his endeavor to find truth and retires to his fate. He instead falls in love with Natasha, realizing that all those major questions of life really come down to love and beauty. Natasha, meanwhile, finds happiness in both Andrey, whom she is secretly engaged to, and the rascal Antole, who seduces her. As happens a lot in Russian novels, there is something beyond love that characters cling to, and for Natasha it is finding the key of happiness to be God.
Andrey, who aside from Pierre, undergoes one of the central turns of the book from his deathbed, a horrific scene written beautifully that describes a dying man going in and out of his consciousness, with his soul detaching from his body and coming back. He does this, fittingly enough, while being mortally wounded from the battlefield, after he sees the terror of war firsthand.
To Andrey, war is not a grand spectacle that it has been propped up to be. Instead it is terribly ominous and ghostly, as Andrey realizes that war doesn't come down to military genius or strategy but to the will of men (a recurring theme throughout the book) and that this war is not a game but rather a ruthless and vile reality.
As Andrey slowly dies, Pieerre is undergoing his own transformation: He is a mad mess, after witnessing the insignificance and hollowness at Borodino, where he wanders onto the battlefield. The scene is so graphic and stunning that Pieere determines that he must kill Napoleon in his sudden impulse toward sacrifice and suffering, combined with a newfound feeling of contempt for everything conventional.
In this wild state, Pierre attacks a French officer, feeling the energy and determination to save his people. These events all lead to Pierre’s near-ecution, the final straw for Pierre to lose his faith. But it is his time during his imprisonment that everything begins to change for Pierre; he gains an inner peace through the horror of death, and as a prisoner, he is satisfied as his basic needs being satisfied as the ultimate happiness — summed up by his true transformation by novel’s end, after he marries Natahsa: When there’s life, there’s happiness.
War and Peace has a little bit of everything, and once you get off the ground, you realize how fantastically expansive this work is: It’s almost like a history textbook. Thank god I read a Napoleon biography before this, which helped ground the military advancements that are so central to this book.
But you also realize how marvelous the characters are, how they each search for truth and happiness in their own way, before reverting back to what was there all along: love and family. Tied together by the higher purposes of spirituality, these men can transcend the battlefield and man’s futile attempts of war and conquering others to find purpose — the ultimate end point for humanity.
In this way, the book is constructed much differently than a traditional novel: there is a narrative arc, yes, but to get there, you also have to get through essays on war and mankind, damning critiques of Napoleon, and dozens of pages on war and history, including the 100-page epilogue, which nearly abandons the narrative entirely, favoring instead the concept of genius v. change, predeterminism of history and fate v freedom, etc. through extended philosophical musings.
But that is perhaps why War and Peace is so great. It transcends the concept of the traditional novel for something more, something that touches on the intimate aspects of history, while still holding tight to the universal truths his characters embody.
Put succinctly by Daniel Burt in his The Novel 100: “Tolstoy’s conception grew into a massive panoramic summary of a historical era that also comprehended much of the human condition, as one generation is succeeded by the next and characters evolved through time and circumstances from youth to experience in the complicated interplay between private and public life.”
Put another way by Orlando Figes in the intro to the edition I read: “The whole of life appears to be contained in its pages. Tolstoy presents us with a cast of several hundred characters. Yet to each one he brings such profound understanding of the human condition, with all its frailties and contradictions, that we recognize and love these characters as reflections of our own identity.”
And that is perhaps Tolsstpry’s unique and best talent: Despite being written over 150 years ago, War and Peace and its characters are as relevant today as they were then, because, as in Anna Karenina, Tolstoy deals with universal truths.
Those truths are usually sought by characters undergoing their own struggles, such as Pierre’s search for meaning after inheriting a vast fortune and Andrey doing something similar after seeing the death of battle.
These truths include heroism v reality, hope and glory, ambition ties up with military rank — and the difference between the order of military life and the chaos of the world — good v bad, children v men, right v wrong, but it also goes higher than that: life v death (and what is beyond?), significance in the face of fate, the vanity and morality of life, as Pierre wrestles with through his experience with freemasonry, or as Rostov has a blind passion for Alexander I as the ideal of moral good.
One of the most interesting passages early on is how these ideals or views of the world conflict with each other in an argument between Pierre and Andrey. Whereas Pierre believes in the hope of happiness and goodness, loving his neighbor and believing in God and an afterlife, Andrey is much more cynical: Andrey, with his worrisome, dark looks, is the opposite of Pierre and hope; he used to live for glory but now resigns himself to existentialism, living for himself.
As Pierre becomes obsessed with improving his spiritual being through freemasonry, Andrey goes off to war and undergoes a change himself: One that eventually embraces life and happiness. Throw in Rostov, who is content with the clear cut world of the military over the messy nonsense of life, and you have three central characters undergoing major changes in how they view the world. At the center of these changes, like so often is, the search for happiness.
Despite his best attempts, Pierre eventually returns to Moscow, questioning his endeavor to find truth and retires to his fate. He instead falls in love with Natasha, realizing that all those major questions of life really come down to love and beauty. Natasha, meanwhile, finds happiness in both Andrey, whom she is secretly engaged to, and the rascal Antole, who seduces her. As happens a lot in Russian novels, there is something beyond love that characters cling to, and for Natasha it is finding the key of happiness to be God.
Andrey, who aside from Pierre, undergoes one of the central turns of the book from his deathbed, a horrific scene written beautifully that describes a dying man going in and out of his consciousness, with his soul detaching from his body and coming back. He does this, fittingly enough, while being mortally wounded from the battlefield, after he sees the terror of war firsthand.
To Andrey, war is not a grand spectacle that it has been propped up to be. Instead it is terribly ominous and ghostly, as Andrey realizes that war doesn't come down to military genius or strategy but to the will of men (a recurring theme throughout the book) and that this war is not a game but rather a ruthless and vile reality.
As Andrey slowly dies, Pieerre is undergoing his own transformation: He is a mad mess, after witnessing the insignificance and hollowness at Borodino, where he wanders onto the battlefield. The scene is so graphic and stunning that Pieere determines that he must kill Napoleon in his sudden impulse toward sacrifice and suffering, combined with a newfound feeling of contempt for everything conventional.
In this wild state, Pierre attacks a French officer, feeling the energy and determination to save his people. These events all lead to Pierre’s near-ecution, the final straw for Pierre to lose his faith. But it is his time during his imprisonment that everything begins to change for Pierre; he gains an inner peace through the horror of death, and as a prisoner, he is satisfied as his basic needs being satisfied as the ultimate happiness — summed up by his true transformation by novel’s end, after he marries Natahsa: When there’s life, there’s happiness.
War and Peace has a little bit of everything, and once you get off the ground, you realize how fantastically expansive this work is: It’s almost like a history textbook. Thank god I read a Napoleon biography before this, which helped ground the military advancements that are so central to this book.
But you also realize how marvelous the characters are, how they each search for truth and happiness in their own way, before reverting back to what was there all along: love and family. Tied together by the higher purposes of spirituality, these men can transcend the battlefield and man’s futile attempts of war and conquering others to find purpose — the ultimate end point for humanity.
Don't ever be intimidated by this book. It is glorious.
adventurous
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
War and Peace. Yes, it's long (1200+ pages). Yes, it's a work of genius. But, besides those two things, it's simply just a great story.
The book follows Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 and the cast of characters includes emperors and royalty, nobility, peasants, soldiers, ladies at court, etc. and Tolstoy writes them all just amazingly. Somehow, not only are these people expressed effectively, but the culture of their "groups" and the joys and pains that are so very specific to them are as well. War and Peace is written in such a way that you can't help but be pulled into these people's lives and their times. They are all searching for something - a leader, a direction, a religion, an answer, - and the journeys are rewarding. Among the characters, special emphasis is placed on Pierre Bezuhkov, an illegitimate heir to a multi-millionaire; Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, a member of the nobility who leaves his wife behind to join the war against Napoleon; and Natasha Rostov, a young daughter of a Russian count who is the interest of both Bolkonsky and Bezuhkov.
Tolstoy touches on history, theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, psychology, and military strategy. A huge portion of this work - I don't think it can be called a novel, exactly - is its insights on human nature, especially in the goings-on in the Rostov and Bolkonsky families.
I can't say anything for this specific translation, as it's the only one I've read, other than I thought it was beautifully done. Reviewers who've read other translations name this one (by Richard Pevar and Larissa Volokhonsky) as the best to date.
My only complaint with War and Peace would be with the Epilogue (Part II, specifically) and the Appendix. Really, I'd say War and Peace is a magnificent book with a rather unfortunate Epilogue.
But all in all, I loved it.
It seemed to her that something heavy, throbbing rhythmically, was beating on all the walls of the cottage: it was the pounding of her own heart, sinking with fear, breaking with terror and love. (p. 917)
The book follows Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 and the cast of characters includes emperors and royalty, nobility, peasants, soldiers, ladies at court, etc. and Tolstoy writes them all just amazingly. Somehow, not only are these people expressed effectively, but the culture of their "groups" and the joys and pains that are so very specific to them are as well. War and Peace is written in such a way that you can't help but be pulled into these people's lives and their times. They are all searching for something - a leader, a direction, a religion, an answer, - and the journeys are rewarding. Among the characters, special emphasis is placed on Pierre Bezuhkov, an illegitimate heir to a multi-millionaire; Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, a member of the nobility who leaves his wife behind to join the war against Napoleon; and Natasha Rostov, a young daughter of a Russian count who is the interest of both Bolkonsky and Bezuhkov.
Tolstoy touches on history, theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, psychology, and military strategy. A huge portion of this work - I don't think it can be called a novel, exactly - is its insights on human nature, especially in the goings-on in the Rostov and Bolkonsky families.
I can't say anything for this specific translation, as it's the only one I've read, other than I thought it was beautifully done. Reviewers who've read other translations name this one (by Richard Pevar and Larissa Volokhonsky) as the best to date.
My only complaint with War and Peace would be with the Epilogue (Part II, specifically) and the Appendix. Really, I'd say War and Peace is a magnificent book with a rather unfortunate Epilogue.
But all in all, I loved it.
It seemed to her that something heavy, throbbing rhythmically, was beating on all the walls of the cottage: it was the pounding of her own heart, sinking with fear, breaking with terror and love. (p. 917)
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Nothing short of miraculous.