In the echelon of history, there hasn’t been a book as renowned as Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.” Go ahead and try to find one. Sure, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” is considered the great American novel, but it plays like a pamphlet compared to the gargantuan size and impact of the Russian novel. One could argue that it’s so intimidating that more people in the 21st century are likely to call it a masterpiece than have actually read it. After all, who can really handle having thousands of characters constantly evolving, showing shifts in society as the chapters flip between war and the more peaceful period at home?
The magnitude of the story is one that remains unmatched. Sure, there are those like Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables” that also has a hefty supporting cast, but it pales in comparison to what Tolstoy achieves. You feel the entire world change between the first and last page. You are presented with every idea about what it means to be alive. No seriously. It isn’t just that it has great advice on how flawed characters become more confident, but it also has stories about love, death, family, economy, comedy, tragedy, and even a whole page dedicated to a numerology conspiracy theory that suggests that Napoleon is the devil.
This book has everything. In fact, the recent musical adaptation Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812 put it best when saying that:
'Cause it's a complicated Russian novel
Everyone's got nine different names
So look it up in your program
We'd appreciate it, thanks a lot
I understand why you’d think that “War and Peace” is an impenetrable novel. The general complaint is that not only is it long, but it takes roughly 50-100 pages just to get into the flow of things. It’s even worse if you try and memorize every character’s name because they come fast. Worse than that, some are so inconsequential that they exist for a sentence while others are there for the long haul. If you want to tie together a family tree, best bring a big wall and start in the corner. Don’t write too big because you’ll run out of room fast. This is a novel that requires a deeper focus if you are that kind of obsessive.
However, I think that those who are more in love with the ideas will have an easier time getting into the action. The bigger point of Tolstoy’s novel is that every person in society is important. No matter how minimal they seem, their constant evolution of character shows that the meek can rise to a noble figure, or the ignorant can become enlightened. It’s an optimistic view of how people change because of war. Maybe not all of the thousands of characters will have as significant of an arc, but quickly you’ll find that small conversations and actions create these profound understandings of humanity.
Do I love the novel? It’s hard to say. As an English major, I can’t help but be jealous of the world that Tolstoy has created. I would be lucky to create a world with a 10th as many endearing characters as he does. It’d be even better if I could make it as legible as he does. So much of it is also shifting between tones and ideas in a way that feels subtle, sometimes requiring you to reread the passage just to understand how he messes with your mind. You are on this journey for the long haul, and the dedication does create a cathartic ride. As an accomplishment of writing, I think the only comparable novel is Miguel de Cervantes’ “Don Quixote.”
These novels are evidence that the medium can be fluid, presenting ideas in ways that convey deeper thought. The reason that “War and Peace” has aged so well in spite of being about a war that’s now two centuries ago is that it’s not about the war or the peace. It’s about the world that has agreed to it, understanding them on a very human level. Even if the names and events have changed, there is something timeless about the ideas presented. We all are capable of change, of finding deeper empathy during even the most chaotic times. There are so many small moments in here that I wish someone could make a Word A Day Calendar™ for all of these small moments. It would involve folding the paper at ridiculous lengths, but I need to have a way to be reminded of the moments I forgot in being overwhelmed.
As much as I appreciate the craft, I do sympathize with those who take issue with the idea of this novel being great. It really is a novel that cuts between war and peace. While it’s indicative of our lives, the war chapters can be redundant for those who tire of the violent imagery. As much as I do love some of the passages, such as how clouds passing over a field creates a blinding uncertainty, it was the point where the novel played more like a straightforward action novel at times. It’s fun, but that is the point usually where I have that secret dread about this novel being so long.
With all of this said, it has the best ending in any novel ever. The moment is impossible to adapt to any film without just getting a literary professor standing up to a podium and talking for 30 minutes. It’s not cinematic at all. In fact, it doesn’t really have much to do with the story’s narrative on a character level. “Epilogue 1” is where we get out happily ever afters and all of the other tales that needed to be wrapped up. That ending has plenty of satisfying conclusions and I would understand if you stopped there. It is the more conventional place to end a novel like this.
However, I think there is something more interesting in seeing the novel as to how Tolstoy imagined it. In some respect, he doesn’t even see it as a book. To him, it’s a poem that’s free of the narrative structure. It flows through ideas like a Terrence Malick movie, picking up on ideas here or there to create this meditative expression of life. It may be his strongest achievement even in something so densely layered. It also explains why it at times doesn’t feel like things advance in conventional ways. Even if it’s praised for having characters who are never static, it isn’t afraid to zoom in on a moment and stay there and understand everything about it. Because of this, “War and Peace” is fascinating to read as what literature CAN be as opposed to what the form ultimately is.
That is why I am in love with “Epilogue 2.”
If I could enforce any reading requirement for general audiences, it would be to read/listen to “Epilogue 2” on an annual basis. In a lot of respects, you don’t need the context of “War and Peace” to understand the profundity of what it says. In all honesty, I think reading the previous pages impacts the overall feeling that it gives you, but this section is nothing more than the novel dropping out. We have put every character to bed and now we’re spending time talking to Tolstoy directly. Without it seeming like a fourth-wall-breaking gimmick, he pulls himself away from “War and Peace” and decides to directly address why he wrote the book.
I know, there is some controversy around the idea of an author sharing their intent on a book. Some scholars would claim that this is unnecessary. After all, the arts are meant to be an interpretive medium. The reader is supposed to engage with the prose with their own perspective. There are no wrong opinions. It gives us reason to look at a page, a sentence, a word and find a deeper meaning. Why do we need an author to negate interpretation by putting their final stamp on a story?
Well, I would say that “War and Peace” is far less successful without “Epilogue 2.” We need Tolstoy to share his thoughts because it enhances the meaning. This suddenly isn’t just about a war between French and Russian cultures. This is a microcosm of history. So long as there have been societies, people have been at war with each other. But Tolstoy wants to know… why are we at war? Why do we define one person to be superior to another and ask them to lead? What ideas are considered to be the right ones, and who defines morality?
This is just a summary. Where Tolstoy goes with “Epilogue 2” is far less ambiguous than I made it out to be. By using examples, he becomes obsessed with understanding how humanity has created order. On some level, he even goes to the biological analysis of how we’re all programmed to think this way. Even if we have free will, we’re dictated to following certain paths as we feel fulfilled inside but have issues being respected on the inside.
If there’s any value in what he’s discussing, it’s philosophical. The writing is done in such an academic way that it manages to make a persuasive argument for how to better your life. He’s exploring existentialism in such a way that applies to every facet of our life. Now that he’s showed hundreds of examples, he can now get down to business and explain to us why this all matters. We have felt this now on an instinctual level, but now it’s time to grapple with its real world values. While most of the people in “War and Peace” aren’t real, they all have some familiarity with our lives.
This is where the novel truly earns its status as being the novel about everything. Few conventional stories could think to get away with “Epilogue 2.” It’s impossible. This isn’t really forwarding the story in any conventional sense. Instead, it’s only adding another wrinkle to a story that has played to emotion and history but now is playing to the intellectual ramifications of the world.
Why do we go to war? Why do we suggest that the people who lead these armies are great leaders who deserve to be remembered? Why not remember those soldiers who fought for their lives or the villagers who had to fend for their safety? The fiction explores this in a more gradual sense, but in technical language, it becomes clear why we witnessed it all. We’re to sympathize with people that history never got the chance to write records of. This is attempting to ask us to look at history as more than Napoleon or Czar Alexander. Look at it as the people who were deemed unworthy of the books and wonder what their lives were like.
It is difficult to write about this because they’re all largely just ideas that have built on the story that preceded it. However, I remember reading it for the first time and slowly realizing how powerful it was. The story was over, and yet according to Tolstoy it never will. There will be another war and another history book will be written. It will be our job to change the perspective and actually try to change our perception of what these figures mean. Is war really as celebratory as we’ve treated it when peace is a much more desirable tool?
This is something that I have thought about consistently since finishing the book. As great as what’s come before, there is nothing like “Epilogue 2.” It almost rewires your brain. It’s asking you to rethink how you view things within your life before pointing out how we’ve failed socially to see history. More than anything, it’s an argument that can be made to both life and how we read a book. Are we really thinking about the world around us, looking at the meaning between the lines, or are we just following some deeper social code? You can complain that “War and Peace” is a tedious novel or even boring, but that’s because Tolstoy leaves the best for last. It’s the moment where he talks directly to you and you understand why it’s a classic. It’s not a story about the tremendous nature of war. It’s about the value of life.
Comments
Post a Comment