Talk:War and Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War and Peace article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): no candidates currently - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: Original Stories from Real Life Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title The_History_of_Tom_Jones,_a_Foundling for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Langlit. It has been rated Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Title 3 prince andrew 4 grr 5 Broken Link 6 Bezukhov/Bezuhov 7 This article NEEDS attention 8 Plot 9 Clarification needed 10 Reversion 11 "Secular society?" 12 Trivia - Seinfeld 13 Was anyone able to finish reading the novel? 14 Longest novels 15 Reply of one who read the book 16 Consistency in Transliteration in this article 17 Time Top Ten

[edit] Discussion

To inaugurate the talk page, here is a famous review: "Loved the war, hated the peace". Ortolan88

I agree with this, although many love the peace more than the war. Regarding the main page though, which says that he began the work in 1865--I was sure it was 1863. I will look at some essays I have about it and possibly edit. Lydgate

[edit] Title

If it's ok with everybody else, I'd like to insert a note about the traditional claim of mistranslation of the title. The original Russian version, using diacritical marks where they are almost never used today, would be properly translated as "War and the World/Earth". However, if one takes away the diacritics, the words for "Earth" and "Peace" appear identical.

But isn't that an untranslatable pun, anyway?

Actually, that's an urban legend. It's not a matter of diacritical marks, but of letters that were eliminated by the spelling reforms of the revolution. Before these reforms, "peace" and "world" were spelled differently by one letter, but ordinarily pronounced in the same way. After the revolution, they were spelled the same. And if you look at an old copy of War and Peace, before the spelling reforms, it's clearly "peace," not "the world." The legend doesn't really make sense when you realize that War and Peace was well known internationally, under that name, for decades before the spelling reforms, when the spellings were distinct. It may be true that Tolstoy intended it as a pun, but the title as published is definitely "War and Peace." Here's a picture of the first edition: [1] -- Reuben 03:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pun. By legend Tolstoy's manuscript was titled "Война и мiръ" ("War and World/Community"), but publisher changed title to "Война и миръ" ("War and Peace") and Tolstoy has agreed. By the way the word "мир"/"мiр" has more meaning:

• peace (major meaning)
• repose, quiet
• harmony; concord
• world (major meaning)
• universe
• Earth
• area/field
• (peasants') community
• people
• not_spiritual life

--.:Ajvol:. 23:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of variants of that legend, but I haven't been able to find any good support for them. If you have solid information about this, it would be good to include it in the article. What I do know is that the published version was definitely "War and Peace," not "War and the World," as the article previously stated. The best understanding I can piece together is that міръ and миръ were very frequently mixed up, and that Tolstoy may have written both on the manuscripts; and that the title page of one volume in the original printing may have said "мѵръ," which wasn't even a word! However, as I said, I don't have anything authoritative to support any of these legends. I can only disconfirm the most common version, that the original published title was "Война и міръ," and that "War and Peace" was a mistranslation. -- Reuben 00:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right. --.:Ajvol:. 06:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reuben wrote: "the title page of one volume in the original printing may have said "мѵръ," which wasn't even a word!"

In handwrittenRussian, 'm' (м) and 'r' (р) are written as they are printed, but 'i' (и) is written as English writers would write the letter 'u' (similar in appearance to the Greek letter 'mu' (μ)), which may be easily mistaken for a 'ѵ' as written by some Russians. This may be the origin of that anecdote. Here is an example of actual handwritten Russian. I apologize for the subject matter, but it was the only source I could find of quality scanned handwriting in Cyrillic. (The images are accessible from the linked page, I didn't want to link to a controversial image directly.) --Moreilly 7 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

"As events proceed, Tolstoy systematically denies his subjects any significant free choice: the onward roll of history determines happiness and tragedy alike." Isn't this a bit of a critical intervention? I don't believe this statement is a consensus view of the novel at all. Tfine80 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely his view of history, and he lays it out in those long, dull, chapters where he talks about his theory of history. I'm not sure it really applies to his characters - there is rather a disconnect between grand theory and the actual novelistic narrative, imo. john k 20:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Russian students I am teaching regularly refer to the book as "war and world" when referring to it during discussions (I am teaching English at a private institute in a major Russian city). Some of them seem quite amused by the fact that the title is translated as "war and peace"... The title "war and world" actually makes more sense to me, considering the content of the book. Just my two cents. Dietwald 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "War and the World" variant appears to be widely believed in Russia, but it doesn't match the title as originally published. See the link above to a photo of the first edition. --Reuben 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. However, I insist on the utterly pointless assertion that Tolstoy should have called it War and World...;) Dietwald 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that he meant us to think of both. :-) --Reuben 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prince andrew

in the revew you are missing the essential charicter of prince andrew , both as natasha's love and as perre's friend and in some ways mentor and role model . in any case his death scene is the best one i have ever read .--62.90.235.75 14:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] grr

"While today it is considered a novel, it broke so many novelistic conventions of its day that many critics did not consider it as such." -- what conventions? That's irritatingly underinformative :) [Link to appropriate info would be fine...]

[edit] Broken Link

The last link (to the Orlando Figes' article) is broken and it appears the article is no longer available anywhere.

[edit] Bezukhov/Bezuhov

Constance Garnett's translation (which I'm reading ATM) calls the Bezukhovs Bezuhov. While I understand this (I don't know the second half of the cyrillic alphabet - I'm learning - but I'm familiar with transliterations of e.g. Hebrew), other readers may not: the 'h' is meant to represent the 'kh' sound, which English doesn't have (at least not standard pronunciation). Should we note the alternate spelling? --대조 | Talk 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine to note it, probably at the first reference or under the character list. There's a limit, obviously: there are multiple transliteration schemes and we needn't list them all. And nowadays, "kh" is the standard transliteration of the Cyrillic letter х. But I think Constance Garnett's translation is famous enough so that it's worthwhile to note her variants. Lesgles (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article NEEDS attention

Okay, guys, this article is pathetic. I only just started the novel recently, but I can already tell that this has been neglected far more than it deserves. I'll be editing it when I'm finished - probably starting almost from scratch - but to make my job easier I'd like you guys to add more to it first. What about the themes? Characters? Story? Briefly mentioning their existence isn't enough. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review. You're supposed to give information about it as a novel, not a brief overview of it. If someone came through and read this article without knowing anything at all about the book, the only thing he'd learn would be in regards to the film versions. That's unacceptable. Someone needs to come here to read this and get plenty of information; again, it's an encyclopedia. Leopold Bloom

If you want a more in-depth insight into this novel, something this pathetic site doesn't offer, then search for the novel (or any others) at www.sparknotes.com.

-G

Agree with Leopold, this article needs work. I'll try to contribute what I can, I'm currently writing an undergraduate thesis on it (and Thackeray's Vanity Fair). G: This site is what you make it. Help out with some constructive edits rather than calling it pathetic. Lydgate 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

In the plot overview, it is stated that "At a soirée at Anna Pavlovna Scherer in July 1805, the main players and families of the novel are made known." What? Shouldn't this say something like "at Anna Pavlovna Scherer's estate" or "hosted by Anna Pavlovna Scherer" or something else? I haven't read the novel—not even the very beginning—so I can't tell how to improve this sentence, but someone should try. - dcljr (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Soirées are very important in tis novel. It is now referenced. mandel 09:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

My second time through this work (I agree with the view that it is not a traditional novel but have not yet compiled a list of reasons).

"The novel tells the story of seventy six and one half aristocratic families (particularly the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskis, and the Rostovs)"

Did someone just count all the names, or what? And what does one half of a family mean? Does this refer to Pierre's illegitimacy? This statement definitely needs some clarification...

Lydgate 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I've reverted the edits by anon user because it referred to the Battle of Borodino being visible during Napoleon's invasion of Malta. There may be other edits worth saving, but mixed in with this vandalism - the quality of the article diminshes. Ian Cairns 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Secular society?"

I think "secular society" is something of an overtranslation. Would you really say that "secular society" was the primary meaning of "міръ"? The meaning is "world," which may be used as a way of referring to secular society. This connection carries across into English. See for example [4] 5a, 5b, also many Bible verses [5] such as John 17.9. The adjective "worldly" illustrates the association of "world" with the secular part of humanity. This sense of the word "world" has come to English and Russian from the Greek "cosmos," which was used with the same range of meanings in the New Testament. Therefore, the English word "world" includes the meaning you're trying to get across for "мир." The current text is misleading, since it makes it appear that "міръ" exclusively meant "secular society." The primary meaning "world" is totally lost. --Reuben 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the section is confusion is between the two described meanings as it is described there. Any other meanings of the word "mir" are irrelevant. Your change was misinformed, based on general linguistic considerations, rather than on events, therefore it was reverted. On the other hand, the text is unreferenced, so I added the "fact" tag. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"My change" was simply a revert of somebody else's edit, which had been made without comment or explanation. As a compromise, I suggest restoring "world" and making note of the fact that this word includes within its range of meaning "secular society" (as the English word "world" also does). The current text is quite misleading to anyone who doesn't already have some familiarity with these words. As for sources, I'm not sure what you think needs to be supported. From the placement of the "fact" tag, it looks like you want a source for the existence of the urban legend. However, it seems likely that you instead want something confirming that the urban legend is wrong. Please clarify this, and see the first link under "Other information." Do you find that inadequate? --Reuben 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found a reputable reference, which quite probably was the source of this section. `'mikka (t) 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia - Seinfeld

Does anyone else agree that the seinfeld reference belongs in a trivia appendix and not in the main body of the text?--Poray 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is definately a trivial piece of information and does not belong up there.--Shushruth 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was anyone able to finish reading the novel?

Not to impune Leos work, but after a couple hundred pages I couldn't go on. To be fair, I thought it would be a purely WAR novel. I wasn't prepared for the love stories and rich people being naughty... I made an honest attempt to continue, but I just got bored. I know that is an aweful thing to say about War and Peace.

-G

[edit] Longest novels

According to longest novels, it's in 14th place for longest novel in Latin or Cyrillic alphabet. I think it's a fact that it's one of the longest novels. So, I have removed the "it is widely considered by some to be". --67.68.31.143 23:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) why the fuck is the seinfeld crap included? 203.45.14.96 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UT)

It's not really all that long. Hell, many of Stephen King's books are longer. The very longest novel ever, in any language, is probably Henry Darger's In the Realms of the Unreal (crazy guy spent his whole life writing / illustrating some jack-off fantasy about other worlds populated by girls with penises) but even limiting ourselves to "great" novels, W&P is the soul of brevity compared with Remembrance of Things Past, A Suitable Boy, or the very first novel (arguably), the Tale of Genji. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.169.28 (talk • contribs).

I'm reading War and Peace right now. It's not long at all compared to Proust or Genji, both of which I have already read. It takes a certain frame of mind to really get into the book, but that's true of anything.--Kyoko 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the List of longest novels, the book is the 15th longest, and is only two below A Suitable Boy. I ahave both and can tell you, although it's not encyclopedic, that they aren't taht different in length. "It is widly considered by some to be" is not factual, it's fluff writing. The Tale of Genji isn't comprable because it was originally written in Japanese. There shouldn't be an edit war over this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Millancad (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reply of one who read the book

The book War and the World (or as mistranslated) War and Peace takes a deep dive into the Russian Culture, and shows how Russians at that time period viewed the World. It was intended by Tolstoy (or Tolstoi) as a realistic novel, not for pure entertainment. Furthermore - the book is not about war, but rather about how warfare with France affected the Russian culture and society at the time. When Tolstoy wrote about someone, be it a peasant, an artillery captain or a nobleman, Tolstoy expirienced this life for himself. Tolstoy spent months dressed up as a peasant, and working with his peasants, actually fought in the Crimean War as an artillery captain, (although he could have easily avoided military service) and he was a nobleman. This is why the book is a masterpiece, and why it depicted its characters so damn reaslistically. For those not interested in Russian Culture and Russia of the time, this book would be a bore, because the Russian World is what the book is about! Even for a person interested in 20th century Russia, but not 19th century Russia the book may be a bit boring, because a lot has changed during that time period.

This article slurs the intellectual show "Chto? Gde? Kogda?" and clearly shows the writer's lack of knowledge about the show. The show wasn't only immensely popular under Communism, but it is the top, number one rated intellectual show today, comepeting (and wiping out according to ratings) such socialist shows as Who Wants to be a Millionaire, or Surviviour. Furthermore War and the World was one the greatest successes of Tsarist Russia, the Russia that Communists overthrew; why would they then flaunt its successes? "Here's a great book by the system we overthrew!" I'm sorry, but it just does not make any sense. Of course some will claim that "here's a great book critiquing the system we overthrew!" Tolstoy's intention was to show the Russian life of the time, not to critique it. If you read the book before writing this, you would understand that. Furthermore by showing the people great critiques, aren't you inviting them to critique your own system? But since communism is Dictatorship of the Proletariat, (which is still a dictatorship) aren't your system (a dictatorship) by asking people to critique it, or showing examples of great critiques? The claim that Communists glorified War and the World for their own gains just fails to makes sense if you step out of the box and think about it, even for a second.

 - Ilya_7@yahoo.com

I have to say that is one of the more bizarre discussions I've seen here. But despite the misinformation (it really is War and Peace, after the Proudhon essay that he reviewed), you've indirectly brought up something that's definitely missing in this article, which is the point of Tolstoy's book - something the author mentions multiple times, and directly: the novel is supposed to show that history itself is a force that moves through groups of people, and it cannot be forced by individuals, no matter how powerful they think they are. The fundamental opposition in the book is between Napoleon, whom Tolstoy criticizes not because he was an excellent and charismatic general, but because he had the arrogance to think that he could shape history; and Kutuzov, who acts with the Russian people as part of a large-scale movement. (Incidentally, this is why the Soviets loved the book, contrary to your bizarre claim otherwise). Anyone game to add all this, or should I do it myself? Pico2 10:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency in Transliteration in this article

It's just not there. In some places, the Russian word for War is transliterated as Vonya, and in others Vonja. (The former is more accurate if we're using English as a basis for pronunciation.)

The other odd thing is that the word for World is spelled oddly in the introduction. The spelling in the article is "міръ." There's no 'i' character in the Cyrillic alphabet (perhaps it has been modified since Tolstoy wrote the novel?). Was it supposed to be a 'й' character (for World) opposing the 'и' (for Peace)? Mixing the Cyrillic and Latin characters in a supposed Russian word is only going to cause confusion. 129.44.110.197 11:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Top Ten

Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" is basically just incorrect.

I just removed the reference from the article. That was a really inaccurate note. The reviewer in Time Magazine actually goes so far to call the list "an obscenity." --JayHenry 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)