Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

** spoiler alert ** Tolstoy’s War and Peace is certainly a unique beast. Renowned for its impressive length, I was highly surprised by how flowingly it read. One would expect that such size could only be reached through endless descriptions which may mire the narrative. On the contrary, I found Tolstoy to be very efficient and effective in his descriptions while mostly focusing on the characters� psychological states and their dialogues. Tolstoy also moves briskly, though going to great depths, through the events and hence the book mostly never feels repetitive or clogged in a situation.

What is unique about War and Peace is its ambiguity of form. It does not contain a defined plot or a constant structure. Rather, Tolstoy opts for an experimental medium by which to disclose history. Thus, reading War and Peace is akin to witnessing a tapestry of an enclosed period of time. The beginning and end points are there mostly due to their temporal existence instead of serving as the launch and closure of a story. Characters become the focused point of view only to quickly disappear into the shadows, sometimes remaining in the background till the end. Nevertheless, four characters do form a core of the telling of this saga; these being Andrei, Pierre, Nikolai and his sister Natasha. All four of them undergo significant character arcs and are developed and explored distinctly to make them memorable with an enduring presence.

Personally, Andrei could be said to be my favourite character. He is introduced as a man living a detached and suffocated life revolving around the expectations of his imposing and estranged father and a loveless marriage with a wife who he detests for her sole concerns with trivial matters. The prospect of going to war signifies for him a chance of liberation from the structures around him as well as perhaps being granted the opportunity to behold Napoleon, who till that point Andrei idolises and considers a hero. His idealistic dreams of glory are soon shattered when he is wounded and he realises that war is only a brutal form of the constraints which he thought he had left behind. Still, the experience strangely affects him so that he believes that a form of happiness may be achievable for him back home. This happiness tantalisingly comes within his grasp when he meets Natasha and a mutual attraction seems to develop. However, having to put off their marriage for a year due to his father’s stubbornness, Natasha falls for another man which leaves Andrei reeling with disappointment with life itself. Returning to war and becoming seriously wounded again, he realises that one can only transcend the superficialities offered by this life. He discerns that he is able to forgive the other man and that his love for Natasha still rings true. Yet, he remains pervaded by the trappings of his ego which is inescapable while one lives. Even after he gets to reunite with Natasha, his nihilism takes such a strong toll that his will to survive is totally sapped and he succumbs to death.

The capturing of Moscow is also a very haunting section of the novel. Through it we witness Napoleon’s descent from the fame granted to him by his victories. Conceiving himself to enter Moscow and be hailed as its rightful sovereign, and after which he will be loved by its people for restoring law and order, he only finds the city as a gaping maw whose emptiness leads to his loss of control over his troops and, ultimately, over his destiny. When Moscow is burned, it is an especially searing description of loss and pain. Whereas Tolstoy depicted the previous battles in quite an ethereal manner, the ravaging of Moscow serves as the point where the war’s atrocities and injustices culminate into a pointless destruction of what is beautiful.

What is perhaps most controversial in War and Peace is Tolstoy’s transgression of the narrative. At certain points Tolstoy intrudes with his first-hand opinion on certain themes, especially those of history and freedom. These accounts can rightly be considered as disruptive and Tolstoy’s tone certainly is too assertive and often he echoes the same thoughts. However, I eventually accepted these parts as integral to the project of War and Peace. Thematically they do fit with the drama as Tolstoy envisages a new way of exploring history. His personal musings mostly focus on how the personages revered by history, such as Napoleon himself, are actually not the driving force of events but rather they are an instrument of an unknown force themselves. Their actions are not a product of their will but part of a chain of events. This sets up a contrast with the dramatic parts where Tolstoy depicts quite normal figures who affect their surroundings and the people they know. Tolstoy even retains an ambiguity to some of the characters� important reveries and changes as consciousness remains mysterious. Ultimately, these two opposing segments are intended by Tolstoy as a dialectic between factual rationality and the mysterious realm of feelings in order for history to be more true to experience.