Customer Rating: 



Review Summary: Intense and enthralling
Review: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is an intense and enthralling historical novel describing the events before, during and after Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia in 1812. An extensive array of characters fraught with their own personal problems begin a tale of personal consequence, while the historical figures of Tsar Alexander I and Napoleon march to a different tune, one of hierarchical power. This novel is such a masterpiece because of it's perspectives on the historical Battle of Borodino and prior events that lead up to the French armies moving into Moscow. Textbooks describe great leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte and generals like Mikhail Kutuzov commanding armies of hundreds of thousands, to meet on the battlefield. But Tolstoy inspects these armies further, the individual unit of a war.
What I found most interesting about this novel was the integration of Tolstoy's own fictional characters and his personal representation of historical figures involved at the time. You can trace the battles on a map, marking where the field of Borodino is, and where the nobility from St. Petersburg came from. It gives an intensely personal side to a war that has been plundered by historians, who are notorious for leaving out what may be the most important aspect to a war, the citizens, the soldiers and the families who suffer and who fight.
Two issues I had while reading this book was the vast array of characters and family names to keep track of and the length of the novel itself. It took about 100 pages to get into the rhythm of the story, but after that, the tensions continue to build, the hardships come more often and it is a work of historical importance that I had to continue reading.
Customer Rating: 



Review Summary: Not good
Review: I have read that Richard Pevear does not know Russian, but merely edits his wife's translation. Okay.
Pevear calls WAR AND PEACE "daunting". It isn't. It's merely overwritten, wordy,redundant, repetitious, chronologically clumsy, and loaded with structural defects, writer's errors and digressions. Tolstoy himself called it "verbose", and said it had too much that was "superfluous". I agree with Tolstoy.
Pevear refers to Pierre as "a singular man", but in fact he was somewhat commonplace and something of a dope. Tolstoy thought Dolokov was his most interesting character and again I agree with him. Pevear lumps Dolokov with "mediocrities" and calls him "ordinary". Even though he drank an entire bottle of rum on a window ledge for a bet, was an accomplished duellist, stopped the retreat and led the Russian win at Schongraben,ran a gambling house, worked for the Persian monarch, and led a band of partisans that drove Napoleon out of Russia! Some "ordinary!"
Pevear points out Tolstoy's repetitions of words, but I don't see that as objectionable. He neglects entirely Tolstoy's chronic repetitions of sentences (even in the same paragraph or on the same pages), paragraphs, even entire ideas. I mean, how many times do you want to be told that history makes great men, not the other way around? After the 6th time or so, one's eyes glaze over.
Pevear claims that Tolstoy created "a new form", but that's just nonsense. A cop-out for people who are in denial and don't want to face the fact squarely that WP is just not very well written. And Tolstoy himself claimed that the form of WP was in keeping with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and other Russian contemporaries.
Pevear is good at pointing out the inadequacies of other translations, and I couldn't find anything to disagree with. (Though I was interested to note that he didn't criticize Dole, which is my favorite.) But this translation commits greater sins by being too literalistic. The Pevears choose words that are anachronistic, or bundles of words that fail to convey meaning, but merely obscure it. Moreover it is not enough to merely translate words-- syntax, grammar, and meaning must also be translated. And there is altogether too much French. I mean, this is supposed to be a translation, right? If they were translating Confucius, would they give us long passages in Chinese?
And Pevear leaves Kutuzov off the list of Principal Characters. Now how on earth could one do that?
This is a good translation for people who like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it's a good translation for Americans living in France, like Pevear.
The standard--although it is not my favorite translation--in terms of the overall balance of translation, graphics, and design, continues to be the Maude Inner Sanctum edition of 1942. And it wouldn't hurt to augment that with the 1922 Oxford Maude.
Customer Rating: 



Review Summary: War and Peace
Review: Although I have just started this book, I can tell you it is a good translation and easier to read then the version I read in high school.
Customer Rating: 



Review Summary: War and Peace - finally
Review: Finally, a translation of War and Peace that is readable and is true to the beauty of Tolstoy's narrative. This husband and wife team of translators, one a native Russian speaker, one English, have produced the definitive translation of this tome. It is also a beautiful volume visually - I love holding it (though, by nature of the novel's length, it is heavy), I love the physical aspect of reading it.
Now that the solution to the perfect translation of War and Peace has been solved, maybe humanity can get on to a solution to the problems of war and peace in this world...until then, I think I will reread this volume of War and Peace again and again...
Customer Rating: 



Review Summary: Delighful reading
Review: I struggled through War and Peace many years ago, so imagine my surprise(and pleasure) to find that this new translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky is a wonderful read and gives the reader an entirely new perspective on Tolstoy. I am rereading The Brothers Karamazov now, translated by the same couple, and am looking forward to Anna Karenina.