Kevinalewis (talk | contribs) m reclass as B-Class |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NovelsWikiProject}} |
{{NovelsWikiProject|class=B|importance=Top}} |
||
=Discussion= |
|||
To inaugurate the talk page, here is a famous review: "Loved the war, hated the peace". [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]] |
To inaugurate the talk page, here is a famous review: "Loved the war, hated the peace". [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]] |
||
Revision as of 11:49, 5 July 2006
Novels B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Discussion
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
Title
If it's ok with everybody else, I'd like to insert a note about the traditional claim of mistranslation of the title. The original Russian version, using diacritical marks where they are almost never used today, would be properly translated as "War and the World/Earth". However, if one takes away the diacritics, the words for "Earth" and "Peace" appear identical.
- But isn't that an untranslatable pun, anyway?
- Actually, that's an urban legend. It's not a matter of diacritical marks, but of letters that were eliminated by the spelling reforms of the revolution. Before these reforms, "peace" and "world" were spelled differently by one letter, but ordinarily pronounced in the same way. After the revolution, they were spelled the same. And if you look at an old copy of War and Peace, before the spelling reforms, it's clearly "peace," not "the world." The legend doesn't really make sense when you realize that War and Peace was well known internationally, under that name, for decades before the spelling reforms, when the spellings were distinct. It may be true that Tolstoy intended it as a pun, but the title as published is definitely "War and Peace." Here's a picture of the first edition: [1] -- Reuben 03:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a pun. By legend Tolstoy's manuscript was titled "Война и мiръ" ("War and World/Community"), but publisher changed title to "Война и миръ" ("War and Peace") and Tolstoy has agreed. By the way the word "мир"/"мiр" has more meaning:
- peace (major meaning)
- repose, quiet
- harmony; concord
- world (major meaning)
- universe
- Earth
- area/field
- (peasants') community
- people
- not_spiritual life
- --.:Ajvol:. 23:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a pun. By legend Tolstoy's manuscript was titled "Война и мiръ" ("War and World/Community"), but publisher changed title to "Война и миръ" ("War and Peace") and Tolstoy has agreed. By the way the word "мир"/"мiр" has more meaning:
- There are a lot of variants of that legend, but I haven't been able to find any good support for them. If you have solid information about this, it would be good to include it in the article. What I do know is that the published version was definitely "War and Peace," not "War and the World," as the article previously stated. The best understanding I can piece together is that міръ and миръ were very frequently mixed up, and that Tolstoy may have written both on the manuscripts; and that the title page of one volume in the original printing may have said "мѵръ," which wasn't even a word! However, as I said, I don't have anything authoritative to support any of these legends. I can only disconfirm the most common version, that the original published title was "Война и міръ," and that "War and Peace" was a mistranslation. -- Reuben 00:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are right. --.:Ajvol:. 06:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Reuben wrote: "the title page of one volume in the original printing may have said "мѵръ," which wasn't even a word!"
- In handwrittenRussian, 'm' (м) and 'r' (р) are written as they are printed, but 'i' (и) is written as English writers would write the letter 'u' (similar in appearance to the Greek letter 'mu' (μ)), which may be easily mistaken for a 'ѵ' as written by some Russians. This may be the origin of that anecdote. Here is an example of actual handwritten Russian. I apologize for the subject matter, but it was the only source I could find of quality scanned handwriting in Cyrillic. (The images are accessible from the linked page, I didn't want to link to a controversial image directly.) --Moreilly 7 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
"As events proceed, Tolstoy systematically denies his subjects any significant free choice: the onward roll of history determines happiness and tragedy alike." Isn't this a bit of a critical intervention? I don't believe this statement is a consensus view of the novel at all. Tfine80 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is definitely his view of history, and he lays it out in those long, dull, chapters where he talks about his theory of history. I'm not sure it really applies to his characters - there is rather a disconnect between grand theory and the actual novelistic narrative, imo. john k 20:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, the Russian students I am teaching regularly refer to the book as "war and world" when referring to it during discussions (I am teaching English at a private institute in a major Russian city). Some of them seem quite amused by the fact that the title is translated as "war and peace"... The title "war and world" actually makes more sense to me, considering the content of the book. Just my two cents. Dietwald 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the "War and the World" variant appears to be widely believed in Russia, but it doesn't match the title as originally published. See the link above to a photo of the first edition. --Reuben 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I missed that. However, I insist on the utterly pointless assertion that Tolstoy should have called it War and World...;) Dietwald 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm willing to believe that he meant us to think of both. :-) --Reuben 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
prince andrew
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)
grr
"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...]
Broken Link
The last link (to the Orlando Figes' article) is broken and it appears the article is no longer available anywhere.
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)
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)
Plot
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)
Clarification needed
My second time through this work (I agree with the view that it is not a traditional novel but have not yet compiled a list of reasons).
"The novel tells the story of seventy six and one half aristocratic families (particularly the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskis, and the Rostovs)"
Did someone just count all the names, or what? And what does one half of a family mean? Does this refer to Pierre's illegitimacy? This statement definitely needs some clarification...
Lydgate 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
"Secular society?"
I think "secular society" is something of an overtranslation. Would you really say that "secular society" was the primary meaning of "міръ"? The meaning is "world," which may be used as a way of referring to secular society. This connection carries across into English. See for example [4] 5a, 5b, also many Bible verses [5] such as John 17.9. The adjective "worldly" illustrates the association of "world" with the secular part of humanity. This sense of the word "world" has come to English and Russian from the Greek "cosmos," which was used with the same range of meanings in the New Testament. Therefore, the English word "world" includes the meaning you're trying to get across for "мир." The current text is misleading, since it makes it appear that "міръ" exclusively meant "secular society." The primary meaning "world" is totally lost. --Reuben 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- The topic of the section is confusion is between the two described meanings as it is described there. Any other meanings of the word "mir" are irrelevant. Your change was misinformed, based on general linguistic considerations, rather than on events, therefore it was reverted. On the other hand, the text is unreferenced, so I added the "fact" tag. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- "My change" was simply a revert of somebody else's edit, which had been made without comment or explanation. As a compromise, I suggest restoring "world" and making note of the fact that this word includes within its range of meaning "secular society" (as the English word "world" also does). The current text is quite misleading to anyone who doesn't already have some familiarity with these words. As for sources, I'm not sure what you think needs to be supported. From the placement of the "fact" tag, it looks like you want a source for the existence of the urban legend. However, it seems likely that you instead want something confirming that the urban legend is wrong. Please clarify this, and see the first link under "Other information." Do you find that inadequate? --Reuben 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)