TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

General Tolstoy thread + me and Bloodsquirrel debating

Go To

JHM Apparition in the Woods from Niemandswasser Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Hounds of love are hunting
Apparition in the Woods
#26: Nov 17th 2012 at 4:18:43 AM

The issue is, again, that you interpret the book in a particular way and see that interpretation (the narrator is lying) as a fact rather than as something subjective. This is problematic, to say the least.

edited 17th Nov '12 4:19:27 AM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#27: Nov 17th 2012 at 8:09:40 AM

Remember how before I was providing arguments that normally would merely prove (for a "subjective proof", at least) that the book is wonkily written?

If you accept the "normal" interpretation, then due to what I've stated so far about the OOC moments and scenes that are just wrong (how does Andrew flip his worldview three times so easily? how does he do Fauxlosophical Narration when horribly wounded? etc), it falls completely apart and makes even less sense than it already does. But writing such stuff "honestly" would require him being far dumber than he was and that would be reflected by poor style and lack of thinking. Considering that his style is pretty damn good and he does THINK (it doesn't matter what I think about the results of his thoughts, but he does think) what can I say about the narrator, then? And, in this case, there's only one small step from the narrator to the writer...

Basically, with War And Peace as an exhibit, the positions "Tolstoy is a literary talent/genius" and "The narrator of War And Peace is honest and a good person" are, as far as I can tell, mutually exclusive. Despite all my hatred I can't deny that the literary talent was there, the style makes it really obvious. So I'm convinced that the narrator, whoever he is, is not a good person.

And since War And Peace, even though Tolstoy sometimes tries doing so, is not really written in third person limited (it's much closer to third person omniscient) there's no literary reason for the narrator's views to not reflect the author's views. Since a proper author does not write anything "just because", I have to assume that they do reflect the author's views in this case. We see the fictional world with the writer's eyes, but we can also see the writer's eyes themselves. And... they're really unpleasant.

ERROR: Signature not loaded
painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#28: Nov 17th 2012 at 7:51:58 PM

how does Andrew flip his worldview three times so easily? how does he do Fauxlosophical Narration when horribly wounded?
Character Development? Talking Is a Free Action?

But writing such stuff "honestly" would require him being far dumber than he was and that would be reflected by poor style and lack of thinking. Considering that his style is pretty damn good and he does THINK (it doesn't matter what I think about the results of his thoughts, but he does think) what can I say about the narrator, then?
Being a thinker does not necessarily make one a good storyteller. Being good in some, or even most, aspects of storytelling does not necessarily make one a master of all them.

Basically, with War and Peace as an exhibit, the positions "Tolstoy is a literary talent/genius" and "The narrator of War and Peace is honest and a good person" are, as far as I can tell, mutually exclusive. Despite all my hatred I can't deny that the literary talent was there, the style makes it really obvious. So I'm convinced that the narrator, whoever he is, is not a good person.

Even if we assume he was being occasionally bad at writing on purpose how does that make him a deceiver or a bad person? Is he pretending to be bad to make you dislike his writing and undervalue his skills? Why would he? And even if he did THAT how does that mean everything he say about morality is a sham?

I think you are making one major flaw: Assuming everything that disagrees with your idea of Tolstoy is a lie on his part and then disregarding the whole picture. That is not how you create a truthful understanding of something.

Why would he do everything he did for his ideals if he did not believe in them? If it had been a sham why would he have worked hard to get his writing published outside Russia if it was banned within? Why would he expose himself to the wrath of the Russian government, the Russian church, the European material/political elite, the European intellectual elite and the socialists of Russia? Why would he try as hard as he did to actively change his lifestyle to suit his ideals?

The only I possible reason I can think of would be that he is just pretending to be more of a moral person then he is. But then wouldn't there be more conventional ways to do this that would not present such a great risk for himself and require such work? Also why would he talk so openly of his own perceived failures to live up to the morals he want to if his goal was only to have a charade of moral perfection? Lenin once refereed to him as "the jaded, hysterical sniveller called the Russian intellectual, who publicly beats his breast and wails: “I am a bad wicked man, but I am practising moral self-perfection; I don’t eat meat any more, I now eat rice cutlets."" And before you say that he just did this for "realism" or to gain compassion I'd like to add that he was just as hard on himself, if not even more so, in private.

Also you seem to be contradicting yourself gravely; saying that his moral ideas are a sham and that he is an sociopath obsessed with trying to be moral. How can he be both?

edited 17th Nov '12 10:35:02 PM by painocus

Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#29: Nov 18th 2012 at 3:14:01 AM

Honestly, I'm not very qualified to speak about the history. But can't you deceive yourself, first and foremost? Perhaps this is why he is so successful, if you can delude yourself, then deluding others gets easier.

As for the book:

My point is that it's not Stylistic Suck. The literary talent is self-evident and cannot be denied. But how is it possible to have such talent in pretty much every area except characterization?

Character Development? In those circumstances? More like Character Derailment.

Talking Is a Free Action? No. Not like that. Being wounded, you CAN say or do something very specific if you have it as a GOAL in your mind. Like pilots in war that landed planes and jets while being clinically dead. But if you don't have a goal in your mind (and Andrew did not have one at that point) then the pain overwhelms you pretty much instantly and becomes the only thing you think about. As I put it previously, "you don't sit there and stare at the fucking sky and have fucking revelations about your fucking life", it simply doesn't work that way. All the philosophy comes after the pain subsides enough for your mind to take a break. Described that way by others, felt that way during a disease that led me to having absolutely horrible chest pains in that time — either you focus on something specific or the pain takes over, no time for any bedroom philosophy. It all comes immediately after the pain goes away. It simply doesn't work the way Tolstoy described it.

And before we go on with this: I was listening to a certain song and suddenly was struck by the thought of "If War And Peace was good, this is kinda what it would've been like". So if you liked the book, do tell me: is the emotional spectrum of this song any similar to the emotions that you get from the book?

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Zephid Since: Jan, 2001
#30: Nov 19th 2012 at 5:20:02 PM

Described that way by others, felt that way during a disease that led me to having absolutely horrible chest pains in that time — either you focus on something specific or the pain takes over, no time for any bedroom philosophy.
So, you don't think Andrei's focusing on the sky he's looking at?

Also, would you mind telling me where the "attractive look of fear" quote is in the book (volume/part/chapter)? I actually recall the quote, but it's been half a decade since I read the book and I don't remember where in the story it was.

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.
Yuanchosaan antic disposition from Australia Since: Jan, 2010
antic disposition
#31: Nov 19th 2012 at 7:58:59 PM

So, if I can just sidle past this discussion...

I've just finished Anna Karenina, and quite enjoyed it, to my surprise. I had previously tried reading War and Peace but hadn't finished, possibly due to the translation (the Constance Garnett one). I admire Tolstoy's ability to sketch portraits of his characters quickly, portraying their thoughts at one moment and how that shows their attitudes. Karenin ended up being my favourite character.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#32: Nov 19th 2012 at 9:42:36 PM

I have a copy of the Maude translation (from Oxford World's Classics) that I've been meaning to read, and think I found the passage- Book I, chapter 23. It seems to be describing a character Mary/Marya/Masha/etc. who according to War and Peace is ugly, but is described as having inner beauty. The quote is, "Rays of light shone from her gentle, timid eyes. Those eyes lit up the whole of her thin sickly face and made it beautiful."

Assuming this is the right passage, it is actually fairly innocuous- it's part What Beautiful Eyes!, part saying that (in context) the character's spiritual goodness (Tolstoy was very religious) made her beautiful despite her lack of physical beauty.

As a note, the Maudes actually knew Tolstoy, and this is the approved English translation.

edited 19th Nov '12 9:44:19 PM by Jordan

Hodor
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#33: Nov 20th 2012 at 6:30:20 AM

Not the right quote!!! I posted that quote already. It's the "winning and piteous look of fear" quote, where the word "winning" really was "attractive". I've read the Russian book and even did my best to check the word in an actual 19-th century Russian dictionary. The quote was about Lise, BTW.

I don't know, maybe the translation I'm using isn't the Maudes translation? I'm taking my text from here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2600/2600-h/2600-h.htm

So you don't think Andrei's focusing on the sky he's looking at?

That's actually ridiculously brilliant and awesome. I wish it was like that in the book.

I wish.

Aside from the fact that focusing on an object is needlessly hard (focusing on a goal is the proper way to pull this off) but just look at the quote and notice how detached he is!

And really another French soldier, trailing his musket, ran up to the struggling men, and the fate of the red-haired gunner, who had triumphantly secured the mop and still did not realize what awaited him, was about to be decided. But Prince Andrew did not see how it ended. It seemed to him as though one of the soldiers near him hit him on the head with the full swing of a bludgeon. It hurt a little, but the worst of it was that the pain distracted him and prevented his seeing what he had been looking at.

My comment: Either "full swing" or "a little", not both. The Russian version was even worse but explaining that in English is impossible due to an untranslatable grammar quirk.

"What's this? Am I falling? My legs are giving way," thought he, and fell on his back. He opened his eyes, hoping to see how the struggle of the Frenchmen with the gunners ended, whether the red-haired gunner had been killed or not and whether the cannon had been captured or saved. But he saw nothing. Above him there was now nothing but the sky—the lofty sky, not clear yet still immeasurably lofty, with gray clouds gliding slowly across it. "How quiet, peaceful, and solemn; not at all as I ran," thought Prince Andrew—"not as we ran, shouting and fighting, not at all as the gunner and the Frenchman with frightened and angry faces struggled for the mop: how differently do those clouds glide across that lofty infinite sky! How was it I did not see that lofty sky before? And how happy I am to have found it at last! Yes! All is vanity, all falsehood, except that infinite sky. There is nothing, nothing, but that. But even it does not exist, there is nothing but quiet and peace. Thank God!..."

Quiet and peace. In pain.

Quiet and peace. In pain.

The fuck.

Karenin ended up being my favourite character.

Even though I hated the book and only read half of it, I agree. Karenin is a great character.

edited 20th Nov '12 6:41:46 AM by Muzozavr

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#34: Nov 20th 2012 at 6:36:16 AM

Could you please cite where the quote you are referring to is found?

Hodor
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#35: Nov 20th 2012 at 7:14:22 AM

It's pretty easy to go to the gutenberg page I linked to and just Ctrl+F for yourself, but for your convenience, the quote about Lise is in Book One, Chapter VII.

(The Austerlitz quote is in book three, chapter XVI, but since different translators split the book differently, I don't think this number will work if you want to compare it with the Maudes translation. The Lise quote, fortunately, is in the *first* book, so that number should be right.)

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#36: Nov 20th 2012 at 7:20:38 AM

Weird- I typed in the phrase you mention about Lise and doesn't correspond with the chapter 7 in the version I have. Let me look into it. IIRC, there are a couple of different versions of the text, so it's probably somewhere around there in mine.

Edit- It is in chapter 6 in my book for some reason, and my apologies, since the "winning and piteous look of fear" is how Maude translates it (so arguably at least that's how Tolstoy intended it to sound). And it is kind of interesting that I found another quote that uses very similar wording.

I'm thinking a couple of things- in context, Andrew, Lise's husband is being a cold jerk to her, which sort of explains the kind of descriptions used to describe Lise- something to the effect of being like a kicked dog.

Seems like Tolstoy finds weakness in women attractive, combined with him having a negative attitude toward the Frenchified aristocrats- it seems pretty clear that he's deliberately using somewhat negative terms of praise here. Contrast with the description of Marya (a more sympathetic character) which also praises weakness, but is more "normal".

edited 20th Nov '12 7:34:04 AM by Jordan

Hodor
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#37: Nov 20th 2012 at 8:21:05 AM

The Marya quote is about the rays of light making her beautiful, not about the sickly face making her beautiful. So at least in this one case, Tolstoy actually avoids this pitfall... or is it the translator masking him again? I'll have to check.

So the text I'm using IS the Maude translation, most likely. That makes things easier. Though the differences of chapter splitting are weird. Maybe that's not an issue of different translators, but of different publishers. I really don't know.

And yes, such wordings were deliberate choices on his part. Exceptionally tactless choices.

(I think that in terms of keeping the meaning yet coming across as way more reasonable than the original, that one word "winning" is the single most genius Woolseyism I've ever seen.)

edited 20th Nov '12 8:26:30 AM by Muzozavr

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Zephid Since: Jan, 2001
#38: Nov 20th 2012 at 4:22:30 PM

So let me get this straight: you believe Tolstoy is full of shit because, using one of your examples, a dude was losing consciousness on a battlefield after suffering a concussion, but according to a different writer you've read and personal experience with chest pains, that's not how people react to pain?

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.
Yuanchosaan antic disposition from Australia Since: Jan, 2010
antic disposition
#39: Nov 20th 2012 at 8:28:29 PM

I'm reading Enemies of Promise by Cyril Connolly, and I just came across this:

The greatness of a novelist like Tolstoy is that he creates characters who being real creations are able to think and behave unlike themselves, to be false to type.

Which sums up quite well what I admire in Anna Karenina, though it isn't always achieved: characters which break from their type, displaying a spontaneity of inconsistencies and irrationality in a manner like life.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#40: Nov 20th 2012 at 9:30:17 PM

[up][up]Zephid, that's just an example that was overt enough for me to catch and put my finger on. As I mentioned before, the first damn page made me angry before I could even know why — before there was any reason. Let's just say that small examples like that one clued me in as to what makes me angry.

Mostly, however, it's very subtle and "in the air", making it hard to catch. Can you "put your finger" on a gas? I mean, it's freaking gas. I would have to go across the entire book again (including the last third that I didn't read before, I watched the Soviet movie instead, which is much better) to make my arguments work better, and fuck no, I'm not doing that. With (in my perception) such lifeless characters and the narrator (and author, seeing as it's third person omniscient most of the time) being a terrible person... not doing that again. The Anna Karenina characters are somewhat better, but the narrator is still an asshole.

Also, I have just realized something — in the other topic, at first I simply mentioned War And Peace offhand as part of an unrelated argument that I actually cared about. Then I got dragged into this. Two pages and counting and no one's going to change their opinions. So should I still be doing this? Probably not. I don't care about it to this extent.

I should probably stop the debate now on "let's agree to disagree" to stop wasting our collective time and strength. I have shown that I do have some arguments, which proves the original point I was making all the way back in the other topic. Otherwise, I don't think we should continue beating our heads against each other's walls. From now on, this should just become the Tolstoy thread for everybody else and I'm quietly moving out. Is that OK?

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Zephid Since: Jan, 2001
#41: Nov 21st 2012 at 4:22:07 PM

Well, as to your conclusion that the book displays a slightly-skewed ethical system, I would attribute that to Values Dissonance. Not certain where you get "Tolstoy is a liar" from, especially the comparison to Nabokov (Pale Fire and that bastard Kinbote spring to mind).

Ever read "The Death of Ivan Ilyich"? Short story, so I figure it might not grate on your nerves as much.

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.
Muzozavr Since: Jan, 2001
#42: Nov 22nd 2012 at 7:57:06 AM

Well, I haven't read Pale Fire so I wouldn't know... I was reading "The Luzhin Defense" which is in our school program. There are moments that irk me, but Nabokov never tries to hide them. He is what he is, and the reader can judge for himself without having to literally decipher lies.

I've read one of Tolstoy's short stories, but not the one you mentioned. It was "How Much Land Does A Man Need" and it's still grating, but not as much. The Bashkirs were awesome and believable, but every other character came across as a jerk, or was just forgettable... it's the way they were described.

And, come to think of it, I just can't believe the way it ends... any peasant worth his salt knows that you don't need more land than you could physically take care of. So, of all people, Pahom should've known better. It has nothing to do with greed or even common sense, it's simple experience.

As for the "Tolstoy is a liar", well... let's take that issue with Pahom as an example. Some other writer could make a mistake... but this short story is too well-written for this to be accidental. So, if it's not a mistake, then what is it?

He distorts his own fictional world to the point of Character Derailment just to make a point. That isn't really a good thing.

In a short story, there is no space to screw up as much as in a doorstopper novel. IMO, War And Peace has many such distortions every so often, and those distortions are sometimes ethical in nature. That repulses me greatly. I don't even know why I react this strongly, all I know is that I do.

ERROR: Signature not loaded
Add Post

Total posts: 42
Top