I stumbled across his essay published online and while it's very late, 'preachy' Tolstoy, and he'd hate how we talk about addiction today, lots of what he writes still resonates.

The line that stuck with me: 'A sober man is ashamed to steal or lie, a drunk man isn't, so if you want to do what your conscience forbids, you stupefy yourself first.'

He argues that we all carry around this gap between how we actually live and how we know we should live, and that gap is uncomfortable to sit with.

Has anyone else read the essay?

I’m starting my first Tolstoy soon and chose “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” as my first of his. I know translators are a big topic amongst Classic Russian Literature and I went through this process with Dostoevsky. For Dostoevsky I chose David McDuff or whatever translator did the Penguin Classic. Would you recommend the Penguin Classic for Tolstoy who is mostly Anthony Briggs based on my research or someone else?

Both Raskolnikov and Levin Constantin gain the same basic realization at the end of their respective stories: basically, rationality/intellect only takes you so far and leads to selfishness & pride while the way to meaning and truth is surrendering to love & God. Anna Karenina was written only a few years after Crime & Punishment, and we know that Tolstoy read C&P very closely.

Is it possible that the peasant who helped Levin gain his realization was named 'Fyodor' as a direct homage to Fyodor Dostoevsky, who's book C&P may have served as an inspiration for Levin and perhaps Leo's own life?

Just finished Anna Karenina some hours ago (my first Tolstoy book, but I’ve read a lot of Dostoevsky before). I really can’t understand why some many people enjoy Levin and relate to him. In general, the book is WAYYY more interesting when Anna and Vronskij are the center of the narrative

Did Anna get a ligation or something but Tolstoy couldn’t explicitly write about it?

\- Eh bien, mon prince. Gênes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des ..., de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous préviens que si vous ne me dites pas que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j'y crois) - je ne vous connais vous plus, vous n'êtes plus mon ami, vous n'êtes plus ..., comme vous dites. ... . Je vois que je vous fais peur, ...

...

"Si vous n'avez rien de mieux à faire, Monsieur le comte (mon prince), et si la perspective de passer la soirée chez une pauvre malade ne vous effraye pas trop, je serai charmée de vous chez moi ente 7 et 10 heures.

Annette Scherer"

\- Dieu, quelle virulente sortie!

Hi all, this is my first time writing something semi-serious since a long time. I hope it doesn't offend people who like Prince Andrew (It doesn't contain anything extreme, at least IMO). Would love to hear everyone's opinion as well. Thanks for reading!!

A significant part of War and Peace was dedicated to Prince Andrew – his experiences, actions, thoughts, and interpersonal relationships, which left me the general impression of mediocrity and egotism. 

Mediocrity

I often get  confused when War and Peace readers applaud and speak so highly of Prince Andrew because I do not see anything, moral, talent, or bravery, exceptional in him except being very handsome and very rich. I would never say that Prince Andrew does not have good qualities – he definitely exhibited some good qualities in the book. My argument is that his good qualities did not stand out compared to others. 
Prince Andrew is brave and patriotic – he was never afraid of spearheading or charging attacks and he was passionate about defending Russia’s pride – so are many other soldiers and officers, Denisov and Dolokhov for instance.
Prince Andrew had a strong sense of justice – he stood out and defended Tushin when no one else did. Of course we despise those who remained silent to cover their own failures, but compared to others, on one hand Prince Andrew was probably the only one in a relatively high position who knew about Tushin’s situation, and on the other hand, I believe his courage to reveal the truth before everyone largely (and implicitly) came from his family power, especially his father. I do not consider him above-average justice, as anyone who knew the true situation would consider Tushin a hero, or above-average brave (for standing out), as we wouldn’t have known how he would behave if his father were not the former general-in-chief.
In terms of talent, I really do not recall anything proving Prince Andrew a brilliant military leader as he aspired. Prince Andrew is definitely responsible and diligent – he inspected his men carefully and followed the orders diligently. I also remember his observation on commanders before the War of 1812 – the first type of commanders (mostly German) followed the theory rigidly, the second type totally disregarded theory and relied entirely on field experience, and the third type was a mix of the first and second. Those were good observations and reflections, but they did not speak much about Prince Andrew’s military talent. 
In conclusion, War and Peace positively depicted Prince Andrew’s bravery, patriotism, sense of justice, and diligence in military affairs. From those positive narratives, I do not see anything outstanding about Prince Andrew, partially from common sense and partially on comparison with other characters, which made me conclude that he is just an everyday well-educated young aristocrat. I never meant to criticise Prince Andrew by calling him mediocre – very rarely could one stand out in his era, despite which everyone is unique with their own talent and characteristics. Prince Andrew left me generally a positive image in terms of his morality and talent, just not outstanding. 

Egotism

Depictions of Prince Andrew’s thoughts frequently struck me with his strong egotism, which were presented around two main subjects – his longing for glory and attitude towards romantic relationships. 
In the first half of the book – before Little Princess Lisa’s death which caused Prince Andrew to miserably reflect on his life – Prince Andrew was absorbed in the thoughts of proving himself and earning distinctions in the military. He was definitely patriotic and eager to defend his country, but everything considered I felt his thoughts concentrated more on the glory itself than the wish to protect the fatherland. To pursue his goal he joined the army regardless of his father’s disappointment and wife’s frustration. All these showed me that he focused a lot on himself and little on everything else. 
Prince Andrew’s romantic relationships, an important thread of the book, upsetted me the most. At the very beginning of the book I was astonished at his attitudes towards Lisa. Prince Andrew’s complaining to Pierrer how women and relationships became a burden after marriage was just cold and ruthless – this was your wife you were talking about, the woman you had a lot of affection for not long before. It seemed to me Prince Andrew got tired of Lisa shortly after getting married and treated her coldly – had he thought about Lisa’s feelings throughout his change of attitude? It felt desperate and pathetic when Lisa “inappropriately” complained to Pierre about Prince Andrew’s coldness and sharp change after marriage. I saw a lot of readers defending Prince Andrew by saying that Prince Andrew hates Lisa’s superficiality and arguing that Lisa was unfaithful because she flirted with Anatoley at the beginning of the book. Firstly, my understanding was that most women around that time were shallow – they were educated to become not military leaders, scientists, politicians, etc., but good wives and mothers. Prince Andrew should have expected it before he got married. Secondly, Lisa never committed anything unfaithful, and I understood that she enjoyed having a delightful conversation with someone who appeared appreciating her. From my point of view Prince Andrew treated Lisa horribly when she was alive. Regarding the five mournful years Prince Andrew spent after Lisa’s death, I would question whether he was actually mourning for Lisa, as it seems to me he was more shocked by the fragility of life when Lisa died in his arms than by the loss of his love (or one he used to love, ironically). 
In my opinion, the relationship between Prince Andrew and Natasha, if it were to proceed, would end up similar to Prince Andrew and Lisa. Prince Andrew fell in love with Natasha (I think) because of her liveliness and innocence. The moment he proposed to Natasha and Natasha desperately said “yes”, Prince Andrew “held her hands, looked into her eyes, and did not find in his heart his former love for her. Something in him had suddenly changed; there was no longer the former poetic and mystic charm of desire, but there was pity for her feminine and childish weakness, fear at her devotion and trustfulness”. There thoughts were already converging to his comments on women in the beginning of the book before he joined the army “Drawing rooms, gossip, balls, vanity, and triviality—these are the enchanted circle I cannot escape from” – didn’t Prince Andrew realize these were also Natasha’s everyday life? Did it come to his mind that he would feel so tired of Natasha one day with balls and triviality? As mentioned before women were not educated to be intelligent back then, and inevitably they focus on shallow matters like balls and triviality, but Prince Andrew did not spare even a little bit of thoughts and empathy for the women he once loved, Lisa or Natasha, and considered himself a more advanced being. 
The part that irritated me most in the book was Prince Andrew agreeing with his father and making Natasha wait for a year before getting married. Had he ever stood in Natasha’s shoes wouldn’t he agree to such a cruel and unfair plan. I do not feel he was obliged to obey his father – he does not look like the type who listened to his father on everything, e.g. joining the army. One year was not long for someone like Prince Andrew – he had a lot of hobbies, he read and thought about the military, politics, etc., and he was free to travel around Europe. Natasha however, could only stay at home absorbed in the bitterness of the physical separation. Had he ever considered Natasha’s feelings would he try his best to fight for getting married earlier. 
Prince Andrew never saw his wife (married or engaged) as equal individuals, no matter Lisa or Natasha, he thought them “selfish, vain, stupid, and trivial” and a burden in his pursuit of his life goals. He thought solely of himself and little of others, even the women he “loved”, leaving behind him a devastated late wife and ex-fiancee.

Conclusion

Prince Andrew was a horrible lover, but not a bad person. To me his egotism seems naive and silly given his mediocrity, and I never thought highly of him. 

Disclaimer

I read War and Peace only once and might not have covered all aspects of Prince Andrew Bolkonski. The comments and arguments above came from my overall impression of Prince Andrew throughout my reading, and do not represent my interpretation of how Tolstoy wanted to present this character.

[light spoilers ahead]

I’m 27 and have always been somewhat of a reader. It’s such a classic that it’s hard to not know what the book truly is about and I also happen to know what happens at the end.

What I wanted to ask was, if you’ve ever felt turned off by Tolstoy’s work? I read some of his short stories before starting AK, and I read Lady Tolstoy’s diary. When I read Levin’s chapters (knowing that he’s a self-insert) I find it hard to like him. I find him obstinate, stuck in his ways, and dated in his ideologies. I remember my husband finishing the book and saying how the protagonist truly is Levin, and that perhaps would’ve deviated me from this book if it weren’t so beautiful to read.

So, while the book is hard to put down and incredible as an experience, I also feel conflicted in inexplicable ways. I know that the book was written before Tolstoy became a religious fanatic, and if anything my scruples regarding Kruetzer Sonata should be more jarring than this. However, as it’s a longer read, I suppose I sit down with these thoughts more.

I just want to discuss and am not looking to pick a fight. As one might always be able to tell, I’m not vehemently against this book or Tolstoy. I genuinely love his writing and love the book so far. My feelings aren’t as strong, but they’re there and I’d love to know other’s perspectives. Thanks!

This is so specific and I apologize for that but I have these two Anna Karenina translations in front of me and I'm a little confused about the real meaning, because they seem to be saying two different things? What I thought was that the Prince was saying if it hadn't been for the Princess's meddling in Kitty's love life (pushing for Vronsky), and all the blame for the situation was actually on Vronsky, the Prince would have challenged Vronsky to a duel. But then, the other translation with "even if there hadn't been anything untoward" the Prince would have challenged Vronsky... has no logic I can discern that is consistent with how I understand his meaning. Is it a mistake or am I missing something here?

translation 1 (Pevear and Volokhonsky)

'Ah, I can't listen!' the prince said gloomily, getting up from his armchair and making as if to leave, but stopping in the doorway. 'There are laws, dearest, and since you're calling me out on it, I'll tell you who is to blame for it all: you, you and you alone. There are and always have been laws against such young devils! Yes, ma'am, and if it hadn't been for what should never have been, I, old as I am, would have challenged him to a duel, that fop. Yes, so treat her now, bring in your charlatans.'

translation 2 (Bartlett)

'Oh, I can't listen to this!' said the Prince darkly, getting up from his armchair and appearing to want to leave, but stopping in the doorway. 'There are laws, my good woman, and since you've challenged me on this, I'll tell you who's to blame for everything: you, you, and you alone. There have always been laws against such rogues, and there still are! Yes, and even if there hadn't been anything untoward, I may be an old man, but I'd have had that fop face me across the barrier. And now you're trying to find a cure and bringing in all these charlatans.'

and finally this (I hope) is the corresponding part of the original which I can't read at all unfortunately.

«— Ах, не слушал бы! — мрачно проговорил князь, вставая с кресла и как бы желая уйти, но останавливаясь в дверях. — Законы есть, матушка, и если ты уж вызвала меня на это, то я тебе скажу, кто виноват во всем: ты и ты, одна ты. Законы против таких молодчиков всегда были и есть! Да-с, если бы не было того, чего не должно было быть, я — старик, но я бы поставил его на барьер, этого франта. Да, а теперь и лечите, возите к себе этих шарлатанов.

I've read it because of school (I live in Russia and this is an essential part of school program and I'm in philology-focused class. Therefore, I decided to read the entire book rather than simply read summary. However, I love reading books so much, so I could enjoy process despite it's a tad "forcing").

Primarily, I'd read Tolstoy's biography, therefore, I had a trouble to divide his life and his writing talent.

Firstly, I like how particularly articulate and smooth Tolstoy describe personality traits, nature, war (this in particular had an impact on me), thoughts and torment, changes in them

BUT, I don't understand his philosophy (why he reckon so). IF he simply approve that we all are depended on an endless amount of reasons, I completely agree with him. However(and I thought this way, because he actually wrote like this), if he think that we all (who have vast power and control like monarchs and common men that work at a factory or something) have a similar impact on history, I don't agree.

A general can order to launch a meat-grinder assault and soldiers must do it, particularly in modern war, when communication is on high level and internet exist(in contradistinction to 1812 war, when military headquarters must have been waiting for day-month, it depends on how far hq from front) and a vast amount of people would be dead. But if the same person without power and with similar traumas wanted to ELIMINATE all the people, he couldn't do it because he simply don't have control. Power and control influence too much in this world, and therefore, monarchs' will has a lot of impact on history, I think.

However, he is a man of his world and time, maybe, he wanted to wash off those dumb thoughts about greatness of Napoleon and Alexander, he wanted to show that besides these varnished victories in wars are staying millions of deaths.

And about Tolstoy's personality. I lowkey despise him because his duality. He shows Natasha like a "fertile female" and she's so happy at this position. But what he knows about it? He just didn't read the diaries of his wife and don't really understand what she was doing for him and what she got... He just describe his ideal, I think

I'd write completely more, like an essay, but it's a little bit hard for me to translate and write all the thoughts I have and don't miss anything.

Everything that matters to Levin—the meaning of life, existential anguish, even his own activities, hobbies, and reading—in short, the very core of his being, what defines him in the most intimate and deeply personal sense—barely concerns or troubles Kitty. In this way, the longed-for spiritual communion between husband and wife becomes an unattainable goal.

Yes, I know war and peace as a first Tolstoy book maybe doesn't seem like a good idea, but I've read Russian literature before. I've read Crime and punishment, notes from underground, and white nights. Tolstoy is probably different, but what I'm trying to say is that it's not my first time reading Russian literature, so I'll probably manage when I get to reading it. I'm currently reading the idiot, when I finish it, I'll take a little break from big books, check out other authors, and then I'll commit to war and peace. And by the way, this vintage classic version is sooo beautiful! Definitely the best looking book I own.

These stories by Tolstoy are the darkest stories he has written. Lots about death, human nature, faith, nihilism, suicide, and humanity's insignificance in the universe:

The Bear Hunt.

The Death of Ivan Ilyich.

The Devil.

Esarhaddon, King of Assyria.

Three Deaths.

Diary of a Lunatic.

The Forged Coupon.

Master and Man.

The Kreutzer Sonata.

Father Sergius.

Polikúshka.

In opposition to what I’ve seen as the common consensus, I believe The Death of Ivan Ilyich is wholly nihilistic, and attempts to describe it in any other way reveal more about the reader's subjectivity than about Tolstoy's writing.

Embodying the popular consensus of Ivan Ilyich is the following quote by the columnist Juan Sota. Wrapping up his article on The Death of Ivan Ilyich, he concludes with "This last act, a free act of love, truly redeems Ivan's life and makes him lose his fear of death." The last act of 'love' which Sota refers to is Ivan's dismissal of his son and wife from his presence, to spare them the pain of standing vigil to his agonizingly slow death. This humanization of Ivan fundamentally misrepresents his character. Ivan was never someone enamored with life; he occupies his time with idle pleasures and intellectual discussions, while simultaneously not being particularly engrossed in either. For example, Ivan begins to spend large swaths of time completely preoccupied with his job as a judge only after he becomes disillusioned with his home life and irate with his wife.

Emblematic of this pervasive disinterest he has felt throughout his adult life, Ivan looks to his childhood for solace as he lies dying. In looking towards his childhood, he seeks an answer to the existential question plaguing him: "If life had not been what it should have been, then what would have been right?" And although he does think of his happiness as a child, and remarks on the stark contrast between then and now, that alone does not constitute an answer. For it is immediately after he asks himself this question that he begins to feel intense pity for his family. By not finding an answer to this question internally, and instead abstracting his emotions away from himself, he inadvertently resolves his ceaseless questioning. The answer is that there is none; in the end, he could not ascertain anything about the meaning of his existence besides the suffering it brought upon others. Following this internal struggle, Ivan completely loses his fear of death. Tolstoy states that "he sought his former accustomed fear of death and did not find it. 'Where is it? What death?' There was no fear because there was no death." Death is defined only by its relationship to life; if there is no life, then there cannot be death, and thus, there is nothing for Ivan to fear.

Nihilism is the belief that all life is meaningless. Nietzsche's response to this belief is that one has to create their own value system; ie, humans are capable of becoming gods unto themselves. In failing to find value in either his actions or the actions of others, Ivan failed at creating meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. To say that Ivan was redeemed at the end, that he discovered what 'truly matters', could not be further from the truth. In fact, he discovered the antithesis of this idea: that life is ultimately meaningless, and that he failed to create meaning. To resolve the antinomy that innately exists at this point - that he's alive, yet life is meaningless- Ivan resolves to end his ceaseless suffering - and thus, his life - as soon as he's physically able to.

Every time I read this quote, tears automatically start to fall!! Don't know why, lolll!!😭😭

Hello lovely people. I’m hoping to get some help choosing a copy of war and peace. I’d like to get a hardback because I can see with paperback the book spine and pages will be destroyed soon… (monte cristo did that to me and it fell apart).

Now the question is should I go for the Oxford classics hardback or Everyman’s library edition? I know both are Maude translation, but the Oxford version had some updates.

Everyman’s split volumes also seems less intimidating and more practical. It is more expensive but with w&p I think it would be worth it.

I don’t own any Oxford classics in hardbacks so I’m not sure what the binding is like, if anyone knows it’s thread sewn or glue bound?

Thank you!