/lit/ - Literature

I've read almost all the great classics and this is the greatest novel ever written.

I'm sick of people always judging translations by their fidelity to the original language version.

Are you guys incapable of judging literature on its own merits?

I just finished reading War and Peace. It is very well-written, interesting tale about the life and times of various people involved in the War of 1812. Even though it's fiction, the events surrounding the events are based on historical, as well as we know it, fact. With over 1200 pages, it is a bit of a read for those not accustomed to such lengths. Not only in length, the material presented is, for lack of a better word, "dense", in that you may need to reread passages or chapters to fully grasp the story and it's huge ensemble of cast members. Being unfamiliar with Russian names, customs, groups of people, and/or locales, it is recommended to read the footnotes, notes, and historical index included in this edition to fully enjoy the profound effort put forth by not only the author to authenticate the historical accuracy of this work, but the translators ability to try to bring about the original authors intent within, though not necessary, as enjoying the novel as is is also an option.

That being said, I personally disliked Natasha from beginning to end, Marya's "selflessness", the treatment of Sonya, her ultimate fate, and as well as almost everyone else in this book. It is an achievement to be able to make characters so real, that their decisions and viewpoints elicit such a strong emotion within the reader.

As with any such novel as this, there is no single "protagonist" or "antagonist", save for that of the author and his country of origin, just people living their lives the best and perhaps, only way they know how.

I personally enjoyed reading this, especially the epilogue, which divulges from the main story and is the authors personal opinion and theory on the history and superficiality of those that try to interpret human nature.

I would give it an 10/10 for historical significance, structure, prose, and ability to engage the reader on a personal and philosophical level.

Personally, I would give the story a 3/10, since I thoroughly disliked the characters, what they did, who they were, what they represented, and for remembering all of the mistakes, decisions, and words they spoke and performed, as well as the fates of many of the characters, some of which are left unknown. Yes. I am that mad.

have any of you lads read War and Peace

>Finally Natasha, we have lived through War and Peace

If you want to hear a bunch of British people stumble through Russian pronunciation for 10 hours then stream the War and Peace radio play here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_four

Also they're dumping some background info on twitter:

https://twitter.com/bbcradio4

Just finished reading this. Overall, mildly interesting. Very simple characters. Interactions between them even more so. Parts where Tolstoy just decided to write down his political and historical ideas were shit. Why is this supposed to be a classic?

Why Historians Don't Know Shit About Why And How Things Happened by Leo "The Best Historian" Tolstoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDFbxXjAs28

Is this the average /lit/ poster?