Talk:War and Peace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General

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

---

Let's reserve the space above the line for continued quotations of a general nature about War and Peace, so that we can collect those quotes for people who want to investigate and find citations regarding the importance of Tolstoi's work. Does anyone know who the famous reviewer was?

It's time to scrub this discussion page and delete all the irrelevant, non-article related chat. I intend to do so as soon as I can get to it. I'll leave edits as I do it.--Levalley (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The best source I can find for the dates right now (I have the Feuer book on order), are that Tolstoi published several sections in Russkiy Vestnik, then took those, reworked them, and published them as a book - still with the title "1805." The title was not changed to "War and Peace" until 1807. This source (Knowles) says nothing about the relationship between the 9 drafts and 4000 pages of writing and rewriting and when Tolstoi changed the book so substantially as to eliminate its earlier happy ending. He then went ahead and published (apparently) the last part of the book in the same periodical (so it was serialized - and that should be mentioned to end all doubt about it in the "Crafting the Novel" section. He began in 1863, but had just written and published two war novels (THe Cossacks and one other) which both have scenes that closely parallel (some would say are in) those in War and Peace. Anyone read The Cossacks yet? If so, please comment! At some point in time after 1863, he began to work very hard at reading all the various source materials and inspirations that eventually went into W and P. There is a book on Tolstoi by Bunin, which is considered in Russia to be the best source of detail about this period, but I do not have a copy in English yet and my Russian isn't good enough. Anyone read it? It seems it would need to be compared with these other accounts to get an accurate view.

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)

- Agreed. Article is pathetic and the links are a mess. I was using this page as a jump off point for class projects on War and Peace and inviting students (college undergraduates and graduates) to help with the article, but the problems with one of the linked sites remain unresolved. I tell students not to read to the plot summary until after they've read the book - and believe it or not, they comply. However, one of the linked sites contains spoilers on the front page. I want my students (even though they are adults) to have an option about reading literature - in fact, to enjoy it, rather than merely study it. The plot summary here is so weak that I haven't really minded if they glance at it, but anyone coming to this page for information on how to get a digital version of W and P should be warned away from Wikipedia and its links. I've never felt so strongly about an article in all my years on Wikipedia. I was warned about this W and P page and its links by a colleague, there seems to be no remedy for it - except to continue to tell students NOT to come here to read the article or use the links. I'll continue to contact the one (errant) site that stupidly has the spoilers on the page where it links to chapter one (they promised to change it - but after repeated promises, they have not).

No way would I lend any expertise to this article. It's gobbledygook anyway.

When Leopold Bloom says it needs work, btw, someone should pay attention. --Levalley (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The reason that people like Bloom don't edit these articles is that starting over is so much easier. Nothing would make it interesting - except original research. If that is done, it is forbidden. Original research would mean, in this case, reading everything one could find on Tolstoi and War and Peace and starting from scratch here. Once published, one could then cite one's own work - otherwise one would have to go to all that trouble footnoting - and have one's OWN footnotes and research joined in that with that of other, conflicting authors. I don't think I'd do that. Hence, the article is at an impasse and calling it "pathetic", while a bit extreme, is all that some of us feel we can do. Myself, I lack the time to learn "wiki-edit" techniques and to struggle over every detail with complete strangers over how to proceed. So, it will remain as it is - although I have really tried to change one of the most obvious and blatant problems in the article - we'll see if it sticks.

Plot

I don't see a section here for discussion of the article section "Context" but it comes before the plot overview. The word "context" is misused in the article. The sentences under "Context" do not give context but instead start into the plot summary. A plot summary is not context, they are two different things. Then the "context" goes into the basic structure of the book (which should be probably be under a heading like "introduction to the novel" rather than context. The structure of a book, how many chapters it's divided into and so forth, is not its context. So the heading is absurd and that information should be folded into a much more general section. This subdivision of the article into meaningless headings is one of its fundamental problems. Again, it is going to be hard to fix, as it would require major edits and therefore intense discussion and going through hoops at Wiki.~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem in the context section. It appears that whoever wrote about Tolstoi's views on free will didn't read the entire book - particularly Book 9 (using the Maud translation which is apparently the favored one of this cite, as it is listed first - and it is searchable, so someone might actually search "free will" and "will" and see the relevant passages. At any rate, the way it is stated here is wrong. Tolstoi goes to some length to explain his dialectical view of the term "free will" (which he definitely believes operates in history) and its relationship to history. It's one of the most interesting views on history and historiography that I've ever read, but it's very much misrepresented in this article - in fact, it is now the OPPOSITE of what Tolstoi painstaking sets up (and also leaves no room for grace or his other emergent religious and spiritual concepts, which are explored in the second half of War and Peace and in Tolstoi's latter actions and writings).~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I don't understand the problem - it's not at an estate, it's at a soiree. Perhaps you don't know what the word means? My problem with it is that only SOME of the main players are made known, although it is true that the main families are represented at Anna P's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual plot summary in the article is weak. It is redundant by mentioning (again) the cast of characters, this time adding only the additional information that the cast of characters is very large (after telling us in a completely different section) that it is mainly about the 5 families. Listing what kinds of characters are in a book (which seems to be a huge fascination in this article) is not a plot summary it's a list of characters. "Extremely vast" is shamefully poor writing. The introductory paragraph to the plot summary should give the sweep and scope of the entire novel - and I am one of those (and there are others like me on Wikipedia, btw) who think that the plot summary should start out at a very general level (I could write such a paragraph in about half an hour, it would take some organization and work, it could not be done by me off the top of my head - but whoever wrote this one appears to have taken about 1 minute to do it), move into a second paragraph that incorporates in secondary plot developments and THEN goes on to to what is done next and go through the book more specifically.~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see sections here for discussion of the various parts of the plot summary. Since this is War and Peace - shouldn't the plot summaries be rather lengthy and detailed? At least they should contained condensed versions of what happens and its significance - otherwise, what exactly is the point of them? There are so many things left out of the beginning section (the section most people will try to read first, right?) that might have helped. Didn't Anna Pavlovna used to be married? How did she get her German last name otherwise? The source of her money isn't revealed, but there are only so many ways for a woman to have that kind of house. It isn't clear that she has a lot of money, indeed, she rarely has dinners - her guests aren't having much to eat. It's the privilege of being invited that matters.

Of all the widows or old maids (a close reading of the book will reveal which it is) with houses in Petersburg, then, she is one of the most elite.

This woman had to be of a certain age, and had to have gone through life being asked smaller favors in order to be able to start calling them in and creating a salon that had obligated visitors. Alliances with people like the Kuragins, who constantly need introductions to those richer than themselves, have to be made. Anna Pavlovna is accordingly made godmother or put in some other such relationship to a child. One of the salon's main characteristics is that it is better organized than the Russian army's headquarters or gatherings in 1805. People are planning ahead and doing what they are supposed to do. The higher ranking are giving orders to the lower ranking, who pretty much obey them. It is very orderly.

Enter Pierre, who doesn't know the rules or care to know the rules - but everyone knows his father is dying and he's been requested to come out into society many times (just in case, wouldn't want a stray rich bachelor outside the scope of Anna Pavlovna's salons).

There are other salons and gatherings, of course, all competing - as it can be seen from people leaving Anna Pavlovna's early, and the really important gatherings (like the Grand Ball) take place later in the evening. With lots of food. However, when so many people are present, much less schmoozing gets done and fewer plans are laid. Two different social purposes.

So we meet the Kuragins first, and learn that Anna Pavlovna not only dislikes one of the children, but that the Tsar's mother has even heard of his bad behavior and disapproves. Since the article has already chosen the "five family" approach in its "context" section, it would be nice to mention which family is introduced first, second, etc. I would have to check but I believe it goes Kuragins, Rostovs, Buzukhov - and that the other two don't appear in the first salon, which is important to placing the Bolkonsky's in the proper social position when they are introduced. Anyway, if it's about five families, it's about five families - the article should stick to its own premises.

We also learn that Anna Pavlovna knows way more about the political circumstances of Russia, Napoleon's intentions and what is about to happen than most of the other characters seem to. She is, in her own way, the News Aggregator of her day - and she editorializes as well. She's Huffington plus.

Now, some of this might have gone under "context" had the word been used properly in the article, and some of this is perhaps too detailed for an encyclopedia, but to the extent that the existing article ignores helping a would-be reader understand War and Peace by over-simplifying, it should be changed. ~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Book Three It is not accurate to say that Natalie is sick merely because of shame. She made a serious suicide attempt by taking arsenic. If there are going to be spoilers, let's at least be accurate - she isn't nearly-dead merely because of her emotions, she dosed herself with arsenic and nearly died. The follow-up course to arsenic poisoning can be quite a time of illness - Tolstoi knew he was pointing in both directions (the physical basis of her illness was ultimately emotionally induced, but this is no psycho-somatic illness as the current summary implies). ~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Context

To me, the term "context" implies the historic and literary milieu in which the novel takes place and in which it was written. I've tried to talk about the context of the literary events, but somehow the context in which Tolstoy was himself writing also needs to be addressed - somewhere (maybe in the article on Tolstoy). The reader of an encyclopedic article on a major novel should know something about the historic events on which it is based (still missing) and the music/etc. that was prevalent at the time indicated in the novel. That's context. It helps people understand the novel. That, to me, is the point of an encyclopedia. I have tried to state "bald facts," rather than anything requiring analysis (Tchaikovsky DID compose the 1812 overture, etc.). Oh, how I wish we had more pictures on this page - to invoke the uniforms of that gilded age. Yes, I'm obsessed - but that's how this kind of writing gets done.--Levalley (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.28 (talk)

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).

War And Peace, "The Original Version"

I was in a bookshop the other day when I saw a book called War And Peace: The Original Version. The first thing I noticed was that it was considerably thinner than any other version of War And Peace I'd come across. I checked, and it was in fact under 1000 pages. It is published by Penguin, and the blurb claims that it is 'the original version' of the book 'unpublished in Tolstoy's lifetime', though it doesn't state any specifics as to what the difference is.

I suspect it's some kind of cash-in, though quite what would make anyone want to cash in on War and Peace I don't know. I couldn't find anything in particular in this entry, does anyone know much about it?80.229.225.16 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a scholarly reconstruction of an earlier stage in the writing of the novel, pulled together from various manuscripts: [1]. --Reuben 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time trying to research this rumor of an English version of "1805" (The earlier, rejected version of War and Peace that Tolstoi spent at least two years rewriting into War and Peace). I'd love to see it. I know it's available in Russian. If it exists in English, we should cite it here - but I cannot find it. Vintage Books subtitled its version of War and Peace (1869) "The original" and used a very, very small font and crowded the pages - it is indeed thinner than other works in the bookstores . I do not know if it is also somewhat abridged (as some versions calling themselves "original" are. That version is NOT "1805," that much I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic needs more Pages

There is almost no information anywhere in this entire encyclopedia devoted to the minor characters of this book. No "Minor Characters of War and Peace" page or anything like it. Who are characters like Dolohov or even Pierre's wife? Not even a mention. Also why does Pierre and Natasha both get seperate pages but Andrei, an equally important character, is completely ignored. Oh and your list of character page has far too many red links, either change them to just normal words or restore thier pages. Red links ugly up the page. (67.81.84.210 12:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Think of the redlinks as invtiations to create the pages. You sound at least as capable as myself to contribute. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject: what was the name of Natasha's foster sister? (I think that she was a sort of impoverished cousin and at some stage has a flirtation with Nikolai or something; there's a ride in a vehicle when she is dressed as a Mexican bandit.) In the book she completely disappears from view and we never hear about her again. Or did I just not read it very carefully? Any help gratefully received. Dr Spam (MD) 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be she was called Sonya Rostov??? Surely she should be mentioned. Dr Spam (MD) 09:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't disappear. I'm on page 760-something and Nicolai was just thinking of her - after he realizes he has a chance with rich Princess Mary. Sonya is also constantly at Natasha's side these days, after her suicide attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarAndPeace.jpg

Image:WarAndPeace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Translations

I've changed "English translations" into "translations into other lanugages" - there's nothing particularly notable about English (cf this wikiproject). In particular if I recall correctly the earliest foreign-language translations were into French, and the earliest English ones were then re-translated from French into English; it was even considered somehow "better" to read W&P in French than in English (or Russian??). I think the Maude translation was the first direct Russian->English one (it was also the first I read, and it's dated pretty badly...). I don't have more information to hand right now but at any rate this leaves it open for other-language translations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.23.70 (talk)

Oops, I forgot to log in - both this post and the relevant change were by me. ArzelaAscoli 09:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to DISCUSS the translations, not just present a list of them. Which one is the classics one? Which one do some people recommend (for this and that reason) and why do others say another one is better? Of course, such a section would be even better with links to reviewers. But in any case, just a LIST is not very useful. 85.1.145.242 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Maude translation is the worst of them and shouldn't be the first link - it shouldn't be there at all, in my opinion. We're translating W and P as we go along (one of us is a native Russian speaker and very adept at literature) and it doesn't take much work to get a better translation - any of the other translations is better than Maude, which is awkward. I don't think Maude knew how to account for the lack of definite and indefinite articles in Russian and many an error in meaning (even obvious meanings) arises. ~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Description of characters

I suggest to change the section "Major characters in War and Peace". Descriptions such as "Maria Bolkonskaya — A woman who struggles between the obligations of her religion and the desires of her heart" are not worthy of a website that pretends to resemble an encyclopedia.

   ::Oh so true - but apparently, standards at Wikipedia are not high and the jokes we hear
     about it being a pseudopedia are in fact well-based, judging especially by articles on
     literature - this one in particular.  It doesn't seem to me that a single Russian literary
     scholar - or an English speaking one - has been much involved here.  The character
     descriptions are awful - and this one makes Princess Marya sound like a Harlequin romance
     character, so far from the truth.

If no one is disposed to rewrite those phrases I suggest to delete them and just leave the link to the list of characters. I would do it myself, but unfortunately my English is poor. Nor have I finished to read the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.49.140 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

    ::I agree - but I'm not willing to do it either.~~LeValley

I suggest quoting the "principal characters" section from the newest translation of War and Peace by Richard Peaver and Larissa Volokhonsky, Alfred A. Knoff, New York 2007. In it is a list with the patronymic, first name, and family name along with diminutives and short descriptions such as: his son, his niece, the elder daughter, etc. - Trenidor May 20, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenidor (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why should Wikipedia depart from the standard practices of regular publishers? No one has silly little summaries of the characters' traits next to their names, in the literature. The one about Marya is particularly egregious but the "sterile flower" for Sonya is randomly poetic and doesn't fit in with the other description (I think this kind of thing makes the entire article seem very amateurish). Some of the things said about the characters (Kutusov eventually saving Russia) contradict other parts of the article (no great man theory of history? what?) Again, I especially resent the spoilers being included in a list that is mostly just names. Very very much. I think it's unconscionable and that the listing should be as it is in most published versions of the book. Oddly, the linked page to "Characters in Tolstoi" contains far less information than the list on this page. That's just silly. If I knew how to edit that other page (I'm learning), I'd go ahead and do that. I think the list of characters should be taken off this page altogether and all the information moved to the other, linked page. I think the same thing is true about the plot summary (it should be in its own pages and therefore, the reader would have a ready choice as to whether they wanted to know the plot as they are reading the book - who wants to read a book in all its details when they already know what's going to happen? Not most people). Most of these character descriptions are so sketchy as to be useless, anyway (Nikolai IS a soldier - so are many of the others, but that's not what makes him distinctive, nor is it his marriage to Mary that does so - that's just a meaningless spoiler that doesn't enhance his "characteristics" at all...his character (traits) should be the topic on the character list, his doings should be confined to PLOT. The character list is also exceedingly random, including some characters who are quite minor (but supporting the overall notion that Pierre is somehow the main character - and that's debatable) while ignoring many of the other wonderful characters, many of whom Tolstoi went to great pains to enrich with plenty of character details. If this were a movie, there would be many supporting characters who do not appear in the list, whereas some of the lesser known cast appears - it doesn't make sense. Some of the names are improperly given as well. --Levalley (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

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)

for once, I'm (almost) speechless. Someone redirected Pierre B., into this article--apparently not being aware that the central figure of the worlds most famous novel is likely to be notable I'll defend in detail if necessary. But I need to recover equilibrium. When I have been busy trying to prevent the destruction of content about the characters of medium importance children's video, someone decides to start removing content at the top level. And I see sonia Rostova was redirected also, as well as Natialia. Andrei wasn't, perhaps because it wasnt noticed, being unlinked here. If it were not forbidden to make personal attacks.,.... DGG (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

what those articles need most, is a discussion of the way the chartacters were treated in the various films and adaptations, and, as usual here, some references. unreferenced articles are easy targets. However the article on Natasha actually had three good references, and a discussion of the films--and got redirected anyway. IDGG (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

characters affected

fixed:

• Pierre Bezukhov
• Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky
• Natasha Rostova]]
• Nikolai Rostov
• Sonya Rostova

postponed

• Maria Bolkonsky
• Helene Kuragin
• Anatole Vassilitch Kuragin
• Petya Rostov

DGG (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to help out on this as it somewhat related to the area in which my master's degree is focused. List the articles in order in which you would like for me to start and I shall go from there. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

the order listed above, thanks. Odd that in the first group alphabetical corresponds to importance. . DGG (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what is with the redlinked ones? Were there AfDs for those or something or do they need to be created from scratch? --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

outdent: I think if there was an AfD the create page will have a notice. I don't see any no those pages. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply; I'll go through them for grammar first and will then see what sources I can find. Also, I started looking for sources for the individual characters. Anyway, given that full length scholarly studies have been written on the individual characters, I cannot imagine anyone being able to seriously try to remove any of these articles. But in any event, keep an eye on them to see what I am able to do. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire character section should be moved to a different page and a great deal of work done on it. I've edited down the descriptions to be consistent with each other in terms of level of prose. Some of the character descriptions were opinion or uncited analysis. Whether Natalie is truly "happy" at the end (after all she went through) is a central question of the novel - people radically disagree over it. Just because Tolstoy has a character say something, and sometimes, even if the narrator himself says something, we are invited to weigh and doubt it. Some of it is humorous, some of it is irony. To assume that one person's view on happiness can decide the fate of these complex characters is not within the scope of a Wikipedia article. Tolstoy gave great physical descriptions of the characters, though. Those could be included, if it encourages readers to keep the characters straight. The stray mention of one last character after all the other characters are listed has been fixed. There are many missing characters, I'm going to start adding them, with brief descriptions. However, someone said above that it would be better if we did what is done in Pevear and Volkhonsky and just listed the characters - I think I agree.--Levalley (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

It would also be helpful if people could clarify the purpose of a list of characters, to encyclopedia readers. I would think that the main use would be searching for which work of literature went with a particular name referenced elsewhere, and that another use would be in helping new readers distinguish among unfamiliar Russian names. Learning patronymics and a few qualities about each character is fine, too, but I believe it should be devoid opinion about the characters' fates (that's plot. At any rate, the number of missing important characters (while other, less important characters are named) is rather large. I also see no reason to have the characters listed in the order they are in, why not be alphabetical? I think it's impossible to define "major" and "minor" in War and Peace, the scholarly literature isn't in agreement on that point.--Levalley (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The description for Rostov's attraction for Maria is misleading.

As this is my first post in Wikipedia please show patience for my ignorance.

I take issue with the following line from the review of book 3:

Struck by Maria, whom he is seeing for the first time, he reconsiders marriage and finds Maria's devotion, consideration, and inheritance extremely attractive

Although it is true that Rostov finds Maria attractive for her devotion and consideration I believe that he was offended by the thought of taking advantage of her inheritance or at the very least showed ambivalence toward her wealth and was conflicted by it. I think it is misleading to leave the sentence the way it currently is.

John Kennedy 69.17.172.48 (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as I wrote that paragraph, I'd better quote the lines from the novel which lead to that sentence. I'll quote from the Briggs translation:

It made him angry for the simple reason that the idea of marrying the gentle, and, as he recalled, delightful Princess Marya with her huge fortune had occurred to him sponmtaneously on more than one occasion. (p 819)

While Rostov is certainly not mercenary, the line does hint that the Princess' fortune did make the match more attractive to him, as it would clearly help to solve his family's financial difficulties (this may help explain why Nikolai felt so angry with himself for thinking so). 165.21.154.108 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotation above from the book is just one quote - and out of context. The way the article is written, Nikolai doesn't appear exactly mercenary, the word "extremely" is the word that's wrong. Nikolai is at best, at that point in the novel, ambivalent about his "attraction" to Marya - and the last paragraph of the chapter in which that quote is from, is pondering his promise to Sonya - something that definitely keeps him from being "extremely attracted" to that fortune - it nags at him and pulls him in the oppposite direction (of not wanting the fortune). Is this not obvious? When an author ends a chapter on a particular note, it's usually for a reason - and with Tolstoi, I'd say it's always for a reason. "Hint" that he finds her attractive is very different from how it is now written. Why not rewrite it to say more of what you just said?--Levalley (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Bald Hills or Bleak Hills?

In my copy of War and Peace, the main residence of the Bolkonsky family is called Bleak Hills, whereas the article calls it Bald Hills. Which one should it be? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe only in the Constance Garnett translation is the estate called Bleak Hills. As As far as I know, every other translator, including the Maudes, translates it as Bald Hills. 165.21.154.112 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, that it would be helpful to note this in the article itself. For some, it is possible to create confusion in the case of some readers. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better to use both of them in the article. While the literal translation is Bald, the connotation may be "Bleak." I think it is a little harsh/heavy to use the "Bleak" but perhaps people should know the connotation is there. I'll try to fix this. This is just one of the many places where it would be useful to cite the Russian. Also, a map could be useful.--Levalley (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Addition of a Character Tree?

I'd like to add the folowing character tree to the major characters section of the article:

Character Tree for War & Peace

Thoughts? Revisions?

Amynumber6 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice chart, but you need a few revisions in it. It should be Vera Rostova, Natasha Rostova etc. for all the women (generally, a Russian female surname ends with -a, as in Rostova, (Lise) Bolkonskaya, Bezukhova etc). Probably better to use maiden name for married women eg. Lise Meinen. Also, it would be good to add in Boris's family, the Drubetskoys, also. I'm not sure if others prefer to have the patronym in as well.

The grey names might better be referred to as "Dead at the start of novel".

The chart will certainly help readers of the book - though with spoilers! 124.155.207.29 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about spoilers. One expects them under "plot summary" but should not be greeted with them unawares at first glance at the page. The diagram should be smaller and difficult to read, but clickable, with a spoiler warning. It's a great idea. L. LeValley:

Summary section

The summary section ends at book 4 and indicates that at "the end of the novel". Then, it jumps to the epilogues. This is quite odd, since the "novel" actually continues for another 11 books before beginning the epilogue. First, it would be good to indicate that there are books which have not been given summaries. Secondly, to provide summaries for every book it might be better to dedicate a separate article, since 15 chapters and two epilogues would be much too long to summarize in such detail within the main article. --Ewindisch (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've come to realize that the 15 books of the Maude (and perhaps other) editions might not correspond to what is apparently written as 4 books in the original Russian/French. It might make good sense to make note of this in the article, and even better if those sections can indicate the chapters as they pertain to the 15 book translation, as is commonly seen in English. --71.162.251.90 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The standard edition divides the novel into 4 books or volumes and into 15 "parts". The early Maude translation is not based on the standard Russian version. What Ewindish refers to are the "parts" (Part 1, Part 2...) of the novel. See for instance the Oxford World Classics edition, which uses the Maudes' translation but reorganized the novel according to the standard edition. Later translations use this organization too (see Briggs, P & V for instance). The summary is complete. 220.255.7.194 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a section on "Tolstoi's view of History" here on the discussion page. Unfortunately, only the first one or two sentences of that section are on that topic (which appears to be original research, as the author goes on to pull out the plot parts he or she is using to make that point). At any rate, the rest of that section is just more plot from the book, it is not about "Tolstoi's view of history" and after reading it twice, I cannot see the relationship of those plot points to anything about Tolstoi's view of history or why that view should be revealed exclusively or even partly by those particular points. Tolstoi's views on the Great Man theory are complex and this article simplifies them without citations. The entire section should be taken out. The points provided to "support" the thesis on Tolstoi's views do not even support it well.~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Links at the bottom. The link to the Literature Network (first link) should be marked with a warning that the frontispiece to the book contains major spoilers. //LeValley:

Sorry, but it has long been established, after much discussion, that spoiler warnings don't belong in an encyclopedia. The job of an encyclopedia is to provide information - if people don't want information then they shouldn't be reading it or following links. Would you expect an academic study of this or any other work to have such warnings? Of course not, so we shouldn't have them here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I AM an academic, I would say that YES, I would expect that students would be kept from certain kinds of spoilers - in general. In film history, films are shown out of order - but at the teacher's behest - not because of someone else's views. I expect spoilers under "plot summary" and warn my students that they will not see the same things in the novel if they read them - and their own perspective is likely to be lost. Since they have to have ORIGINAL work, they need to avoid other people's spoilers. But, more than that, I want students - and others to actually enjoy literature as it is intended. Since Wikipedia is not merely an encyclopedia, but also a place where people come to find links (and people advertise themselves on those links) I find it disingenuous to suddenly assert the "but this is an encyclopedia and it's like an academic article" when it so obviously is NOT. At any rate, your comments help me understand why so many of my friends and colleagues despair of Wikipedia ever fitting into their curriculum needs. It's the fault of site that is linked, in this case - but it most certainly should be a wikipedia link, it isn't needed. The same edition is available elsewhere, without spoilers. So, I believe only the *best* links to W and P should be advertised here. There are also copious amounts of typos in that linked source - but if you're saying that Wikipedians care not, then they care not. I care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you then, as an academic, does the fact that you know the way the various threads of this novel end impair or enhance your understanding of it when you re-read it? Do you really think your experience the first time you read it was better than it is now? Presumably, you think that it was in some way more "authentic". But if so, I do not think you are teaching the book--you are conducting an experiment in reader response with the class. Wp is not intended to assist that. It's not a teaching dia, its's a source of information. Would you prohibit a student who has read the book before from taking your class? --DGG (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree - Wikipedia isn't the kind of thing I want students to read. I am not the only teacher who feels this way, and I have my reasons for wishing the students (initially) to be unspoiled. Yes, I do think it matters. It doesn't matter here, though, so I won't go into it. Keep it however you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Loathsome

I am moving this comment here that was left in the article itself, as it seems that the editor accidentally put it in the article rather than here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One really wants a better citation and a date for this "loathsome" description business. It's the early version that's in question, but the way it's written makes it sound as if it might be the entire War and Peace. I get the feeling the article is trying to stir up controversy rather than be encyclopedic. I'd change it if I thought the edits would stick - but I don't think they will.~~LeValley

I agree that this is badly presented and inadequately sourced. Please dont be put off from improving the article by previous experiences - in fact I would think that the best thing to do would be to remove that paragraph. Do you agree? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely. It sensationalizes the article by misrepresenting Tolstoi. The section on "Tolstoi's views on history" is just as bad - it either needs a cite or needs to go. Both represent some form of original analysis (and not very good original analysis, in my view) and therefore are forbidden. I don't think there are citations available that could easily clarify this issue without a long set of counter-citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went and deleted it. There's no reason to state that Tolstoi didn't intend to publish something that actually was published by him (in a magazine called 1805) and for which he apparently received pay - unless someone thinks that either Tolstoi was capable of unintentionally forwarding his manuscript to a publisher or that someone else (Mrs. Tolstoi is accused of much - but not this, as far as I'm aware) sent it in for him. I don't have time to research it right now but Feuer and Miller state in their book about the genesis of War and Peace that he was already writing it from 1861 onward. After 1865, he spent at least 3 years intensively reading novels from all over Europe, working on his own French, reading French, and rewriting War and Peace extensively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Version/Crafting the Novel

I see no good reason for calling a work with a different name ("1805") the "original version" of War and Peace. It was plainly and and obviously a first draft which evolved into the later novel. There are 9 or 10 different drafts of War and Peace, one came first - it was the first draft. "Original" implies that it is substantially and organically the same novel - which is something that requires debate and analysis. Indeed, this particular section (and its issues) are among the most debated in Tolstoi scholarship (what exactly is the relationship of "!805" to the eventual book entitled "War and Peace," what other earlier Tolstoi works are involved in the final version (there are EARLIER parts of "war and peace" than "1805" - but they weren't published!). If we say "the original site of Baghdad was 100 meters to the north," we have a lot of explaining to do - it would be more accurate to say "A city not called Baghdad, but called Ur, was founded 100 meters to the north of what is now Baghdad..." and then do our explaining. It is the same with Tolstoi and War and Peace. Hence, my change of title for that section. ~~LeValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectively, the various drafts of War and Peace comprise more than 4000 handwritten pages. Source: Katherine B. Feuer's doctoral dissertation and subsequent book. Some fragments predate 1863. She thinks some are as early as 1861. She is a leading authority on the subject. At some point, I'll add this information and use a footnote (I'm learning). --Levalley (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

"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...]

This may have been dealt with...someone please check. Or I will when I have time. --Levalley (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Language

This is for discussion of the article section marked "Language." I think it strays off point altogether, and focuses on one narrow aspect of using French (Tolstoi also has some English and some German, each of them are used strategically as well). The "deliberate strategy" phrase is redundant. A strategy is usually deemed deliberately and surely no one writing this article things that Lev Tolstoi spent 1863-1969 strategizing in a non-deliberate way about this book. Many people think that every word Tolstoi wrote in the book was deliberately strategized - but again, the two words together sound weak and amateurish.--Levalley (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia

Although I've disagreed with Levalley about spoiler warnings, I must agree with most of his/her comments above. This is an article about one of the greatest works of literature ever produced, but mostly consists of plot summary and personal reflections, with much talk page discussion being devoted to a silly urban myth about the meaning of the title. I'm not up to the task of rewriting the article based on the thousands of sources that undoubtably exist on the subject, but is there really nobody watching this who could do that? There are interminable arguments in Wikipedia about whether we should have articles on individual characters or episodes or plot devices of trashy TV series but we don't seem to be able to get our act together to have at least one decent article about War and Peace. Can't somebody demonstrate that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is on Wikipedia's list of articles most in need of revision, for obvious reasons. An encyclopedia is not judged by its articles on contemporary ephemera, but on its substance and scope. War and Peace should be a flagship article - but, you see, it will only be someone who is reasonably adept at literary topics who will write it. I've been trying to point out that no one I know who stands in that relationship to War and Peace (I use the word "know" loosely - I mean people I email and meet at conferences as well as people I know more personally at the universities at which I've been employed) is willing to do it. The use of the Maude translation (with or without spoilers) is off-putting to some. No one wants to be associated with the series of links at the bottom or with the poorly written (as it is) article. I will try and clean it up to a certain point, but as I am doing original research on part of this topic, I certainly will not have time until after that is published to do much substantive with this article. One thing that is needed and that I will try to help provide is a good, sound bibliography - first by posting it here in the talk pages. Then, if people want to read and annotate the article based on those well known secondary sources, they can do so (it's a task any undergraduate or graduate student should be able to perform). I do believe (strongly) that the links to external translations of War and Peace should be reordered, perhaps after a discussion here about translations and which are the best. You would have to look long and hard to find the Maude version on anyone's bookshelf, these days. Tolstoy of course knew them and said it was "the best" but it was also "the only" at the time he spoke, he was being polite - and it's unlikely he ever read it. I have no idea if the egregious errors in it are a result of the Maudes themselves (some of it probably is) or due to the many online re-versionings of it (there are SO many errors in both the online-literature and the Wiki version of Maude, it's awful). More later. --Levalley (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

As a preliminary to attempting to improve the article, I cannot help but want the leading paragraph to be heavily revised. To put it bluntly, that's where the article's stupidity starts. It's no one's fault - it was probably written hastily and in order to get the existing article into Wikipedia at an early phase, but it scarcely captures what needs to be said. W and P isn't just any novel. I'm going to read other articles on Wikipedia (and in real encyclopedias, as this article is one that makes Wikipedia look very amateurish) and see how we can improve that lead paragraph. I am also researching Wiki's spoiler policy - I do believe that unexpected and completely irrelevant spoilers placed outside "plot summary" areas should be avoided. If that's not the case, then someone else will need to rewrite this article, I can't abide the aura of "enthusiastic amateur book report replete with random spoilers but with no reasoning behind them" that clings to this piece. I will agree that everyone expects such things in "Plot Summary," but "Characters" should be different (any basic literature course should teach these devices, Wikipedia should follow standard conventions here). The detailed description of characters should be on its own page, as suggested by someone else. The unwillingness of many to try to edit this page has something to do with its not following the generally accepted protocols within our respective disciplines. Let's clean it up a little, get a better opening, with an orderly progression of what is to come in the article, and see if people won't help more in revising it. I'm going to join the 19th century task force (whatever that is) and try to learn and abide by Wikipedia's rules - but in general, I am more interested in following publishing conventions that are widely held in academia, not learning Wiki-speech. So I'll need lots of help if I'm to even rewrite that first section...All manner of comments are welcome, I won't take offense and I hope others will help with this task.--Levalley (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Plot Summary

Book One

I think this entire section should follow the Russian original (and not the Maude translation) and use "Volume One" and so forth as headers.

Is it really accurate to call the four Rostov children adolescents? Vera is in her early twenties, I believe (I'll check). Petya is pre-adolescent at this point (Natasha is 12 and Petya is a few years younger).

Does Tolstoi use the word "soiree?" I think a soiree is very different from a salon, and I don't see the word in either of my two translations (one of which preserves all the French). It sounds like an affection to use it, to me.

I changed it from "The main characters" to "many of the main characters," because not all the main characters are introduced at Anna Pavlovna's.

I don't think Nikolai experiences that battle as a "baptism of fire," far from it. He finds a way to avoid being in direct fire, sees a lot that disturbs him, but emotionally seems only mildly scathed. The fact that the article says "first baptism of fire" seems to run against the common usage of the term - one does not have several of them, does one? Anyway, I think it's overly dramatic and that the tone of that scene is not "baptism of fire" and that Tolstoi meant for us to think it was ALMOST a baptism of fire, but that Nikolai, with his cheery good humor and limited ability to think about things (at this point) isn't all that marked up by it. But his eyes are opened and his life is changing - gradually. No baptism of fire. --Levalley (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Book Two

Natasha is just as much a contender for "central character" as Pierre. Why does the article even have to take a position on this? It's argumentative.

The only person who might have found Pierre's inheritance "unexpected" is Pierre - half of the rest of the introduced characters either know about it or have made long, longterm plans to try and grab it for themselves. Certainly the reader doesn't find it unexpected, just one of two expected outcomes. We're of course made to feel hopeful it will be Pierre rather than the awful Kuragins who get the money.

Way too much detail given on Pierre, I think. The Freemasonry bit is interesting - but it is no more interesting than the battle details, which are left out in Book One. The politics of the Freemasons is such a side event that it hardly bears mentioning, but since it's there, it's there. However, the rest of the article should then be brought up to that level of detail. It appears that whoever wrote this identified strongly with Pierre, and not so much with other characters. Denisov is much neglected and is more important to the novel than the Freemasons. The politics of the Freemasons are much less emphasized than their antics and rituals, and I think Tolstoi means to make a joke of them.

"At the face of death" is not a proper use of English, I do not believe.

Is it to be Lise or Lisa? The article should be consistent. Lise is,I believe, more proper.

Prince Andrei actually moves from Bald Hills to a nearby estate, the article makes it sound as if he is still at the main Bald Hills estate - he's not. If he's living anonymously in a remote estate, how does he meet Natasha at her first ball? Some indication of his work, the project that takes him to Petersburg needs to be there.

There should be more about Natasha. Tolstoi spends pages and pages on her (she's the Peace part).

Is it to be Helena or Elena? If it's introduced as Helena with Elena in parentheses, it should stay Helena throughout.

Book Three

Is it only in the versions I have on hand that Natasha makes a suicide attempt - acquiring arsenic? Tolstoi clearly knew about arsenic and its antidotes, and that is obviously the cause of her illness - she almost dies from arsenic poisoning, that's not something that's easily overcome.

I believe this section should mention the absolute lack of strategic planning on the part of the Russians, which is partly deliberate and very, very Russian. Kutusov finally becomes Chief of Staff, after a long period of no one person being in charge. Napoleon makes the point that unlike himself, the Russian Emperor is not a military general and so Russia's troops have no leader. Kutusov's own strategy, born of years in the Russian military, is to take the path of least resistance - appearing to retreat (while gathering forces together) until battle is both unavoidable and perhaps, more on terms he can manage. There's a huge emphasis on the Russian inability to gather intelligence. The Emperor is actually at Vilnius as Napoleon unexpectedly (to him) crosses the border (it must have been obvious to the entire population of Poland that Napoleon was headed in that direction and there was no where for him to stop - he was obviously going over the Neiman, which shocks the Russians). Part of the lack of communication is a tale of the times, but also, there appear to be no couriers, spies or intelligence officers firmly in place. It is left up to individuals, like Nikolai and Andrei, to figure things out on their own (and if they had not, things would have been very different - so this is an excellent example of history being shaped by the free will actions of individuals as opposed to history being a barrel ride over the waterfall view that the article now seems to imply is the "historic view of Tolstoi." Personally, I think all such meta-Tolstoi-ing should be left out of the article and the plot summary vastly improved, just as first step in improving the article. But, then, I also believe that it should be plainly marked as containing spoilers and am not sure I want to help edit the plot part much more, given that the apparently the spoiler issue has already "been decided" on wikipedia. At any rate, I suppose someone else like me will eventually come along sometime in the next decade and work on it - it's been going rather slowly for the past two years, the editing of this article.--Levalley (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Orthographic and linguistic issues not having to do with "Mir or Voyna"

Most of this is resolved in favor of contemporary Russian/English orthography. --Levalley (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

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)

The Lead Paragraph

It must be edited to state the actual publication of the book known as "War and Peace," not also the book Tolstoy entitled "1805." The entire issue of "1805" should be dealt with in a lower section (development of the novel or some such). It is not a series of stories - this is a sad and trite way to refer to a great novel, makes it sound like a book of short stories. It's way more than just "stories." I'm looking at the intro paragraphs to Huck Finn and other great novels, they're usually very clear and short, mentioning the historic importance of the literature if any. I'll try to rewrite this section to be more in keeping with those of other great novels after I've looked at a few more. Even the article on About.com is better written. In particular, I don't think the stuff about its serialization or publication needs to be the first thing a reader sees - I mean, really, who cares except a few people who are obsessed with publication details? I am going to move that to another section and say more about the novel. --Levalley (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Tolstoi's View of History

I am continuing to add sections that correspond to the actual sections of the article. I do wish we could be rid of some of the sections here (like the one on Seinfeld and many others) so that the talk page more closely paralleled the article page - having the talk page be so disorganized is a major hindrance. Some of the larger issues (like spoilers or Tolstoi's view of history) should be near the bottom. I believe this section should be deleted from the article in its entirety until and unless a better-researched section, with plentiful citations, is written. The way it is written now, in my view it entirely contradicts itself. It states one thing, then gives a substantial section of Book Four as its "evidence," but to me, the evidence speaks against some of the main point. "Great Men" do influence history (they got everyone into the war, didn't they?) but ultimately are not entirely in charge of it. The actions of individuals, who are human and susceptible to all manner of human needs and flaws, including needs for food and sleep, loom very large - they are just not "great individuals." Napoleon knows this and is interested in it, the Tsar is very poorly informed on history and how it is made (in my view). The fact that there are so many published views on this topic means that someone should read them and write the section based on them - not merely insert their own view. Again, I urge deletion until the rest of the article is cleaned up. --Levalley (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I am very much of the opinion that this entire section should be deleted from the article. It would make an instant improvement in the article. First of all, nothing in the section shows anything about Tolstoy's view of history (as if one could derive it from one incident in War and Peace). This article is about War and Peace, not Tolstoi's view of anything in general. So, it should be "Tolstoi's view of history as shown in War and Peace..." and I do not think the current paragraphs do the topic justice. Tolstoy himself (at the beginning of Volumes II, III and IV, and elsewhere) breaks narrative mold to go into a detailed discussion of his view of history. I think it bears mentioning here - but not to try and characterize it (it is characterized wrongly in the article as it is) but to mention where it might be found in the book. A separate page on Tolstoi's philosophy (including his philosophy of history) should be linked to both his biography and to this page. Unless I hear really good reasons for keeping the section, I intend to delete it. Any discussion? I'd like to hear from some of you about this. --Levalley (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I am in agreement. I cringed when I read it.MKohut (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole section, heehee citing only the novel itself, inadequately, fails under the wiki principle of "no original research"...the whole article is a bad bit of original 'analysis', not adequate summaries of Tolstoy's ideas, as found elsewhere, or quoted directly from the novel.MKohut (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article is part of the Wikipedia Philosophy portal. I can see why - but nothing in the article takes a philosophical bent. Tolstoy's philosophy of history does deserve comment, I'll try and find some citations and get something together in the next month or so. If anyone has citations or ideas, please discuss them!--Levalley (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Citations and Links

Here's a place to suggest good ones or critique the bad ones. The Maude version (both of them) contain numerous errors and typos. Some of them are common to both online versions referenced here, some are egregious errors with nouns left out of sentences or improper pronouns in a sentence. Sometimes the errors are the same in both online versions, mostly they just seem to be typos. What's the policy on fixing the Wikipedia version of Maude? If we know it makes no sense, can we change it? Or were the typos in the original Maude version? (It's entirely possible). Anyone know? I think the links should be ordered so that the best online version goes first (the one with fewest typos and errors, if one can be found).--Levalley (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The very excellent Pevear translation can be found at http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/warandpeace/pdfs/Chapter_Summary.pdf I have no experience adding links (I don't even know how to link to things within Wikipedia at this point) and I would suggest having it as the first (or only) link to online text for the book. The materials in the table of contents are Tolstoy's own chapter headers, IIRC - not someone else's made up analysis of the book. --Levalley (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Agreed that the Peaver-Volkhonsky translation is terrific and that their table of contents is a fine translation of Tolstoy's own Russian...the problem in copying it to Wikipedia is that the translation is under copyright and cannot be used. The Garnett T of C is in public domain. The Maudes' is not (yet). I can add the link, since it is already online as "fair use" snippet, but one cannot have the major plot summary be just a link...So....MKohut (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I think Maude must be in public domain (mustn't it?) or else Wiki's links are very much in violation of copyright. Garnett is, and it's the one that all the big publishing houses church out in large quantity - but I'm not sure any of the links go to it. Garnett is better than Maude in some ways (Maude is quaint and charming in a 19th century kind of way, but all the online versions I've seen contain many errors. I'll try to find linnks to the Garnett version. I think that before the "Links section" there should be some discussion of the various versions and some review of the links.--Levalley (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

links within Wikipedia are done using two square brackets around the term or terms [[ ]]. I linked Russian Messenger now this way. I have not done the footnote/referencing properly and will get back to it when I can.MKohut (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent link regarding military uniforms and regalia worn at the time (in Russiaon): http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Army/RussInfantery/index.html

Article on Tolstoy, Marx and Aesthetics - pretty good. (Need JSTOR or other access to see full text). http://www.springerlink.com/content/m555371rh4425517/ Seems to me that Tolstoy's aesthetic views are as interesting (to me, more interesting) than his views on religion or politics, but that's just me. Still, I guess I'm pondering adding a section on aesthetics. One of the reasons Tolstoy has so many popular culture references is due to his strong sense of the visual and the sensual. There's another whole article on just how he depicts hands - I have the link somewhere. Levalley (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I think the footnotes with "citation needed" as the text are misleading - indicating to someone not reading too critically that these items ARE cited. I plan to change them to "citation needed" tags unless there are objections. Also, the google books links in the lead footnotes (which I fixed up yesterday) are less than optimal. If someone has the Wordsworth edition, could they provide more information about the introductory piece that is being quoted - for example, who wrote it?! It wasn't visible in the link. We should probably convert those citations from google books "cite web" to a "cite book" (with perhaps the link still incorporated). (John User:Jwy talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Other pages needed

Putting the character list onto its own page (especially so that the very large number of real historic characters mentioned can be linked to relevant Wiki articles), having a place names/maps section, maybe a section on Russian and French military customs of the Napoleonic war period, etc. I don't know how to make new pages or link them to this one - but I'm trying to learn.Levalley (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

characters should be in most novel articles....they can also be separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.112.124 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a recommended template for adding characters, which focuses on specific kinds of information about each character so that principal characters can have pages of their own, which makes sense.Levalley (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Link Scrubbing

"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the 'External links' section with the linkfarm template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template." (From Wikipedia template instructions). I believe the links need scrubbing, here. There are too many versions of the same thing (Maude) here. Some have more typos than others. The best should be used, not all of them.Levalley (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

General guidelines from the Novel Project

Do not, however, forget the spirit behind these guidelines. If they make editing or reading more difficult for a particular novel or for novels in general, change them or ignore them, preferably with some explanation on talk or meta pages. (From the WikiProject Novels page).

I still believe that knowing the ending of a novel (particular one appended in an epilogue - obviously designed by the author NOT to be read until the end of other sections) makes reading the novel more difficult (takes the fun out of it, for one thing; also disallows the author's judgment in plot development, etc.) I believe this is why the GA graded articles do not have plot summaries of the type here - nor do their links to texts contain amateur analysis/plot endings/resolutions of plot twists and turns that make the novel interesting. I believe it makes reading a novel very difficult if someone tries to tell you (in amateurish fashion) the story first, and if they are actually off base or wrong, it makes it even more difficult.Levalley (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Most good WP articles on major novels do have a smart--and correct, of course---plot summary. That that should not be used by some instead of reading the novel is beyond wikipedia's legitimate concerns. GA class is "good"....we need to make War & Peace that good or better. One Featured Article to model it on is the easier one To Kill A Mockingbird. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.112.124 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Levalley (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

As plot summaries go, the one from To Kill A Mockingbird sticks very closely to the action and language of the original and avoids truisms and opinions (such as "And the character was happy and fulfilled with the outcome." It does not state the ending of the novel at the beginning of the summary (as some of the linked sites on this page do) and it does not step into the author's domain (much) in telling the story. Sticking to action would make war and peace read a bit more like a military history and a romance, but I do think that the action of the characters is more complex than what is stated in the current summary. Also, War and Peace has many more characters and it's much harder to identify who the "heroes" are than in To Kill A Mockingbird, unfortunately. At any rate, I think everything stated in a plot summary should be non-controversial and things that any reasonably competent reader of the book would agree happened in the book. So, for example, it would be impossible to say "The Russians won the Battle of Borodino" as a part of the plot summary of War and Peace, since it is controversial to the end of the novel whether that statement is true - and whether one character, no matter how important, can establish by maintaining that viewpoint that it is true. Tolstoy tries to show that it is impossible to say who won or lost (etc.) Did Russia actually win the war? Or did the French leave of their own accord, leaving the Russians to claim victory? Was it a hollow victory or not? It's all very tricky, in war and peace, and there is no one central action to pin the outcomes upon.Levalley (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Frankenstein article is apparently one of the best. What I notice right away is that although the lead paragraph contains a summary of technical details (when did she write it, that it was anonymous at first, etc.), it also contains (as the last sentence) something about the novel's importance as the "first fully realized science fiction novel." I think War and Peace deserves some kind of recognition as something important in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I'm in favor of "One of the most influential novels, both in the literary sense and the political sense, of all time."Levalley (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Very agreed that the sententious words of judgment MUST go and be replaced by "just the facts', just summaries. I have gotten no response from Knopf yet on using the Peaver and Volkhonsky chapter descriptions. If I do not, we will have to use one in Garnett---the only major translation in public domain, I am fairly sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKohut (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think words as to the overwhelming importance of W & P should be in the lead para. New intro to an old paperback version

is by writer Pat Conroy (seen in a bookstore)...he says this and quotes three great writers who call it the greatest novel ever.... We--i--will get this exact for use. MKohut (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I think this too - but my own intense enthusiasm for the novel makes me leery of writing it myself. GREATEST NOVEL EVAH! No, wait, that won't work. Sometimes I wish the tone of Wikipedia were more bendy - and oddly, it is, in articles of low importance where people constantly toot their own horns and say things like "So and so has solved the age old problem of philosophical reference," or "Prof. X has finally solved Kant's problem of Y" or Mr. Z has written a stunning set of historical novels, unsurpassed in recent times. But, poor old Tolstoy isn't even given a lead paragraph here saying, "Without Tolstoy, the entire course of modern literature might have gone down differently, and War and Peace is The Book to Read to understand why." So, if someone can find a way to make it better than just saying "one of greatest novels of all time" or "epic," please help!--Levalley (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Miscellaneous comments while editing

In trying to get this article to follow the same organization as the example articles noted above, I'm moving some things around. Some parts (reception of the novel) need a lot of work and I apologize for their current brevity. There are some major redundancies in this article (the five family thing gets mentioned too many times; the beginning of the plot summary repeats the same thing again, that's not necessary; in most articles, the plot summary is earlier in the article, so if no one objects, I'm going to move it soon to where the WikiProject Novel people say it should go in their template (near the top). Also, I think the plot summary is out of balance and is not following the rules of "universality" or neutrality that are also mentioned in the Novel project templates. It's not too far out of compliance, but needs some work. I'm also doing minor things like trying to add citations, I wish I knew how to use the equivalent of op cit or ibid - I'll ask one of my mentors. Also making sure novel titles (like 1805) are italicized and not in quotes, etc.Levalley (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Adaptations section needs to be expanded or subdivided into: pop cultural connections/influences, adaptations, and cultural connections TO War and Peace. For example, there's a lot of music that was composed during the War of 1812 (Tchaikovsky comes to mind) that Tolstoy listened to and we still listen to today, and is used as soundtrack for movie adaptations. Then, there are the works specifically inspired by Tolstoy's War and Peace. Then, there are the ways that the book has influenced pop culture and language (including the phrase "a Tolstoy," as in "sorry for the Tolstoy, but..." when people mean "a long and detailed story" = this is based on W and P, not on the Kreutzer sonatas! There are many more references and parallels between W and P and later works (one can find elements of the Seven Samurai, the Magnificent Seven, many modern Westerns and many other famous war or battle movies in W and P, it sometimes seems to me that when a screenwriter is stumped, they just reread W and P - and I do believe there are citations for this - IMDB certainly has the connections worked out on their pages. Lots of fun work ahead here.Levalley (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Also, I mistyped in an edit explanation - the second epilogue (the wordy one about history) is 28 pages not 8 pages or whatever I said - but still, not lengthy compared to the 1300 pages or so of the book.Levalley (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

{{helpme}}

I have tried to add footnotes properly so that they will all be in sequence but I am doing something wrong. I thought I was following the guidelines but, missing something. MKohut (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will answer this on your own talk page.  Chzz  ►  14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless all the other articles on every piece of major fiction is changed

...mentioning that Tolstoy has two most famous novels and that this is considered one of the world's greatest works of literature aren't "weasel words" to begin with - they could be (but aren't) "peacock words." If citations are needed, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of citations calling War and Peace the greatest novel ever written. I'll put in a fact tag. Then I'll find some citations.Levalley (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On the same note, the Tolstoy article mentions that Tolstoy is one of the world's greatest novelists. Let's be consistent. Citations forthcoming (have to narrow them down - the number of well-known literary critics, and college professors who say W and P is among the if not the greatest novels is legion.Levalley (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Link in the first paragraph to war of 1812

This is linked to the American/British war of 1812 in a way that's not really relevant to war and peace at all. On the linked article there's a note "if you're looking for Bonaparte's invasion of Russia click here"-it might make sense to link that page directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.134.32 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's more accurate, for sure.Levalley (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Defining in negatives

In the lead the novel is defined in negatives. It is not very helpful. It doesn't state what exactly War and Peace is about. Maybe it's better to move it down. 220.255.7.154 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Denisov

I removed the part saying that Denisov died in a military hospital. It is never explained how he survives, but unless there is another Vasily Denisov who has a speech impediment and knows the Rostov family in the second half of the book, he obviously does.222.152.132.90 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Decembrists

Or should that be "The Decembrists (unfinished novel)"...? Anyway, it's just a stub--please add stuff. Dawud (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Characters, Plot Summary, Etc.

Thanks to whoever did further scrubbing here - still could use more. I just wanted to say that there are way more historical characters that need to be listed, if we're going to have a list of characters, it should be more complete. I'll try to work on it this weekend. Think I understand now how to link to the other Wikipedia pages that would be involved in that. --Levalley (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Let's make this TOP SHELF quality. bTW, I know someone at Knopf and am asking if they will let the copyright T of C go for nothing, for $00.00 licensing....I do not yet even know whether wikipedia admins will accept that............MKohut (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're so right. One article on a novel that is considered top notch by several reviews is the article on Crime and Punishment. On comparing the two articles (C and P vs. W and P), one sees right away that the C and P article does not contain the Cliff's note style "plot summary" (which bogs down the W and P article and which I believe is inappropriate to the main page of an encyclopedia article. Indeed, until I read this article, I'd never seen an encyclopedia article that contained "plot summaries." Fixing the plot summaries (which are opinionated to some degree) seems secondary to making the article read like an encyclopedia article - I suggest we follow more the kind of outline used for C and P (which has a GA-class rating, that's good, right?)Levalley (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I just found the template for making character pages (from the WikiProject Novels template section), and it looks like a lot of fun to actually set the pages up the way the other novel entries are set up. Each character would have his/her own page, and only the name would be listed here, with a link. There's also a template for a general article on a novel - which we should follow if we want this article to get a higher grade.Levalley (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The summary, for a novel the size of War and Peace, is not considered long. See The Count of Monte Cristo, for example. Also, because W&P is primarily developed along its plotlines, the plot summary is of little help if it doesn't summarize the main events of the novel. That said, this article is in serious need from an expert. I mean an expert and not well-meaning editors who unfortunately can't tell us much about, for instance, its gestation or the reception of the book in Russia, for example. DORC (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

War and PEACE?

The word "мир" was understood as society as a whole in 19 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.107.199 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite true, however, the usual translation is 'War and Peace', and 'War and Society' sounds too long. However, somebody should mention it on the page - unless the info is already on there. 99.184.95.246 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is rather a myth. Tolstoy himself called his novel in French as «La guerre et la paix». So "peace" is absolutely correct translation. See the corresponding topic on the Russian "War and peace" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.105.43 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pierre" or "Piotr"?

In English, we often see Piotr Kirilovitch Bezukhov referred to as "Pierre." I wonder--to what extent is this an artifact of translation, and to what extent does it reflect Tolstoy's usage in the original Russian (ignoring the French-language parts)?

Yes, I realize that there are at least two other Piotrs in the novel.

Thank you!Dawud (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the original, most people refer to him as Pierre. Actually, I can't remember any occasion in the novel when anyone calls him "Piotr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.193.26 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is Nathaniel Leonardo Huszell?

I removed "Nathaniel Leonardo Huszell gave the chapters brief descriptions, which do not appear in many of the earliest English translations," because there is absolutely no context. Who is it? A translator? It may be useful, and I hope someone can find a way to retore this bit in a meaningful way, but it is absurd to have put it in in the first place without any way to know what it means. Maybe something was lost in editing? Taquito1 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

War and Peace

Leo tolstoy's novel had been called "the national novel of russia". This voluminous work encompansses the whole of russian life during the Napoleonic wars. four families the bolkonsky family to which prince andrey belong's the rostovs of which the wounded soldier is Tolstoy studies as they go through war and peace.They chapter reprodeuced here is one of the disillusionment as a soldier with ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.86.213 (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

fotos, general fixes

Have added fotos and some little fixes, copy edit...teinesaVaii (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)