|
Loading... War and Peacede Leo Tolstoy
Recomendações do LibraryThingRecomendações dos membros
Carregando...
não gostará
provavelmente não gostará
provavelmente gostará
gostará
irá adorar Registre-se no LibraryThing tpara descobrir se gostará deste livro. En un reportaje sobre Akira Kurosawa que encontré en youtube el emperador del cine japonés -gran conocedor de la literatura europea y adaptador a la gran pantalla de varias obras de Shakespeare y Dostoievski- condensaba en un breve comentario una gran crítica sobre la novela de León Tolstoi, que transcribo en su traducción inglesa: "I love War and Peace and I have read it countless times but every time, I find something I hadn't noticed before. It's fascinating each time I read it. A simple line in a piece of Literature can be brilliant but a lot of times you read on without noticing it. What it expresses it was superb". Leyendo la gran obra del maestro ruso es fácil estar de acuerdo con Kurosawa: "Nicolás se sentía deudor de Sonia y, viendo lo que la muchacha hacía por su tía, admiraba su paciencia y su abnegación. Sin embargo, procuraba mantenerse espiritualmente alejado de ella. Le reprochaba su exceso de perfección, que no hubiera nada censurable en ella. Sonia poseía, verdad es, todo lo que inspira aprecio a las gentes, pero poco de lo que nos hace amarlas". tried to read twice and couldn't get past the names difficulty...Actually I didn't want to. I got it on cd's (51 of them) and it was a delight to have someone read this classic to me. I would highly recommend it. I'm a smart person now, but I don't get a gold star bec. it was on cd! War and Peace ( War and Peace - Vintage Classics) is, probably, a Russian classic with the highest world-wide reference ratio. Not just because it is a great read, but also because it has become a metaphor for 'difficult' literature - too long, too serious, too many characters, too many historical or philosophical digressions. Languagehat, a brilliant American blogger, reports that he has just finished reading War and Peace (over a year since he started) - and grumbles that philosophical chapters are amateurish, unnecessary and spoil the novel. Many desperate readers agree. Here is what Andy K from Australia writes in an Amazon.com review of War and Peace: I have tried War and Peace several times since I was a teenager, and each time I have enjoyed it UNTIL I get to the same bit. This is the bit where Tolstoy decides it's time to give us all a little lecture (say, a mere hundred and fifty pages) on his theory of history. I think this is in an inexcusable flaw in a story, book, or epic. Worst of all, it makes poor Leo Nicholayevich into precisely the pretentious git which he didn't want to be remembered as. Because of the pretentious and boring quality of the classic War and Peace, I quit reading this book. But I felt like I had failed when I was a teenager. Now I am a mature adult and I know better: Tolstoy was being a pretentious bore. Well, ask Tolstoy's good friend and follower Gandhi, he would agree - Tolstoy is some work. But that work helped Gandhi change himself - and the world. A lot of writers can't help but moralize. Few are ready to admit that it may be boring for the reader. In fact, I only know one, W.Somerset Maugham, a younger contemporary of Tolstoy, who honestly advised his readers to skip the next chapter, where he was going to philosophise, if they wanted just the story. Here is what he writes in the first paragraph of Part VI of The Razor's Edge: I feel it right to warn the reader that he can very well skip this chapter without losing the thread of such story as I have to tell, since for the most part it is nothing more than the account of a conversation that I had with Larry. I should add, however, that except for this conversation I should perhaps not have thought it worth while to write this book. I suspect Maugham envied Chekhov for his ability to construct a gripping story without a real plot - and disguised it as critique of Russian 'verbosity' in general. Even though compactness is one of the most striking features of Chekhov's style. Maugham himself digresses into a whole chapter of criticising Chekhov for his lack of narrative in 'Ashenden', supposedly a spy thriller based on Maugham's own experience on Her (sorry - His) Majesty's secret service while trying to stop the bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917. In another chapter Maugham implies that the revolution only happened because the people who could have stopped it spent too much time talking. I think Tolstoy also envied Chekhov for the same reason - and also criticised him. But Tolstoy hated his own 'verbosity' and worked hard to make his language compact. I agree, we Russians are famous for our 'verbosity', but, in fact, we generally hate it too. We have a huge thesaurus of hate phrases for it, including many expletives. And Maugham is one of our favourite English writers. A note: if you think it's not fair to pay for a book which contains hundreds of pages you know you won't read, get ECCO Press 2007 version of War and Peace translated by Andrew Bromfield (War and Peace: Original Version) - it's Tolstoy's own, abridged, 'hollywood' version of the epic novel, half the size and a different, happy ending. A classic story of Russia's was with Napoleon. sem resenhas | adicionar uma resenha
References to this work on external resources.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 July 24 |
| Descrição do livro |
|
(retirado da Amazon Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:58:22 -0400)
O primeiro ciclo de testes foi encerrado. Visite o grupo Open Shelves Classification para mais detalhes.
Quick Links |
| Ebooks | Audio | Trocar |
| 15/255+ |
The is the story of the French and Russian war as told from the Russian front. At the beginning there are quite of few of the social aspects, the balls, parties, parlor visits, etc, but when it get into the war, Tolstoy really puts you there in the war. The logistics of war and wartime are laid right out there. The French were so not prepared for where their Napoleon took them. He didn't fight the war he had planned. And Alexander responded in kind. It very much came to the generals and commanders calling their own plays and battles. I much preferred Tolstoy's "War" to his "Peace". But I also liked how he wrapped up the story.
The very wimpy Pierre turns out to be the man after all. We get to see several sides of Alexander and of Napoleon. I had never read of Napoleon and so really found all that quite interesting. All in all, this is a great story and deserves to be read today and has it's place in literature today. I think it has proven and will continue to be proven a timeless epic of "War and Peace". (