Life and Fate is so good I almost can’t write about it. Despite its concentration camps, its scenes in the Gulag and the death camps, the interrogations in Lubyanka and all the deaths coming so early for characters we want to live forever, the tears that came to my eyes while reading were tears of joy – and when I punched the air it was not with rage but as a spontaneous expression of awe at the work’s titanic mastery. In quite important ways, it does more than War and Peace. But Life and Fate is not an epic like that work; rather, it is its negative.
An epic creates myths; Grossman destroys them. Tolstoy’s work created ideas of Napoleon and the War of 1812 which remain sticky to this day even as he tried to destroy the idea of the “Great Man” shaping history. The central ideologies of the mid-20th century, Nazism and Stalinism, also aimed at mythmaking – the Thousand Year Reich, the October Revolution. Life and Fate annihilates these myths while still retaining the hallmarks of the epic form – a vast canvas, a willingness to philosophise, and the detached tone of a writer who sits beside God. It’s probably one of the best books I have read – or ever will.
This idea of Life and Fate as an anti-epic, or perhaps alternatively as an epic of humanism, is one way to approach the book. I wrote about Grossman’s earlier Stalingrad, which I read immediately before Life and Fate (together they must be a little longer than Tolstoy’s book), within the context of truth-telling. But if that book, written under Stalin’s last years, attempted to push truth through the gaps in the censors’ red ink, Life and Fate instead tells it straight out. The reading experience is vastly improved as a result, with characters humanised by their ability to experience such feelings as doubt or a desire for infidelity. But we might also say that if we were dutiful Soviet citizens we needed both works to experience their full impact – Stalingrad to begin weakening our trust in the regime’s narrative, and Life and Fate to replace its totalising narrative with many individual ones.
The two works share a core cast of characters, centring around the Shaposhnikov family. There are limited physical overlaps in this work as it begins with them scattered where in Stalingrad they were initially together, but there are enough connections – even if it is just a character thinking of another – to make us feel as if we are observing a shared world. In a world at war, after all, people cannot be together. In my post on Stalingrad I called that work panoramic, with its vision stretching to miners in the Urals and the full range of Soviet citizens inhabiting the city of Stalingrad itself. Yet immediately upon reading Life and Fate I felt embarrassed at giving it that designation. To say something is panoramic is almost to close the book and say that we don’t need any more voices – it’s a statement that mutes others.
In Life and Fate we hear many of these voices that are lost. There’s Karimov, a Tatar intellectual who cries over the murder of so many of his people’s brightest stars in the early years of the Soviet Union; there’s Kristya, the Ukrainian peasant woman who lost her family during the Holodomor yet saves the Russian soldier Semyonov from starvation; there’s Abarchuk, trapped in the Gulag. Grossman, with a bravery that is hard to appreciate from here, names everything evil that he can. Whether Gulag or death camp (and he was among the first to reach Treblinka), mass deportation (of the Crimean Tatars and others), the arbitrary famines during collectivisation, the mass murders of innocents in 1937, or just the lies of Russian nationalism and the pervasive Soviet anti-Semitism, in Life and Fate we have a kind of record of it. Akhmatova, in her Requiem, regretted that she could not name all the victims of The Terror by name. Grossman, it feels, gets pretty damn close.
In Stalingrad, the Germans were portrayed in a way that left the perceptive reader aware that Grossman’s criticisms against them could easily be reflected back to the Soviets. Here, we are explicit. SS Officer Liss tells the captured old revolutionary Mostovskoy that they are basically one in the same. Later we might find another parallel – Mostovskoy expects to be tortured during questioning, but it is commissar Krymov who is tortured instead – and by his own people in Moscow. Through the story of Viktor Shturm, the novel’s Jewish hero, we see the arbitrariness of state power. At first he is praised for his scientific discoveries, but then the political mood changes and Shturm finds himself cast out of his job. A few weeks later and Stalin decides he doesn’t want to be behind on building a nuclear bomb and Shturm’s fortunes are restored yet again.
Yet if this work were only negative, only critical, it would be miserable. Dismissing that world – the world of the Soviet Union in the years of the war against Hitler – too readily is itself an evil. A lot of people died to defeat Hitler, far more than perhaps needed to, but in many cases those people volunteered quite readily to defend their homelands against invasion. During the war they displayed great strength and fortitude. There were heroes among them, even if their state was not always playing the role of hero. Grossman’s love for the defenders of Stalingrad is real. The defence of the city itself was, at least in part, truly epic. But where Stalingrad ends with a celebration of that very heroism, Life and Fate as usual goes further. One of the most chilling parts of the book is the growing menace we perceive as the Soviet authorities realise they have the Germans on the back foot. It is at that point that the state decides it is time to exact its revenge, and all those fates which had seemed so positive are turned to ashes under the Stalinist, KGB gaze.
In such a nuanced view of the war, Grossman differs significantly from Tolstoy, who is both mentor and rival in Grossman’s two novels. One thing I noticed rereading it at the beginning of last year was how naïve, how sentimental War and Peace seems, how disgusting even the light nationalism of its later parts is. The Russian soul is not the hero of Life and Fate, unless that soul means the desire for a people to defend its homes. In War and Peace, ultimately, we have some delightful aristocrats who are trying to work out how to live, with the war just providing some novel opportunities for engaging with a problem which is ultimately mainly a concern for a man or woman of money, leisure, and time for reflection.
Life and Fate is concerned with a much more pressing matter, one that comes long before we can start thinking about how to live in the Tolstoyan sense. That concern is how to survive, how to live under totalitarianism pressure, how to protect the self from a state and society that are attempting at every stage to enchain or annihilate it. This is not a concern that is any less relevant now, even if many of us are less at risk of getting shot. Simply put, it is about human dignity and its preservation.
This is something we like to say, or used to like to say, about the great writers of Russia’s nineteenth century. Tolstoy celebrates the peasant, but ended up in later years having vitriol for the aristocrat or bourgeois. The Ukrainian Gogol celebrated the little man, but only so long as he was Russian. Against Dostoevsky we can let Karimov speak, who says “I’m a Tartar who was born in Russia and I cannot pardon a Russian writer his hatred of Poles and Yids.” Dostoevsky might tell us interesting things about people, but dignity is not part of it. Who then do we have?
The answer, for Grossman, is Chekhov, whose understated style we also see in Life and Fate with its short chapters and almost entirely dislocated impressionistic stories. Here is why, according to another one of the characters:
“Chekhov brought Russia into our consciousness in all its vastness – with people of every estate, every class, every age… More than that! It was as a democrat that he presented all these people – a Russian democrat. He said – and no one had said this before, not even Tolstoy – that first and foremost we are all of us human beings. Do you understand? Human beings!” People were themselves before they were their identities, regardless of these identities – ethnic, religious, material. Of all the Russian writers Chekhov is the one whose project to care and depict was not led off course by ideas about how the world should be. Or, as he famously said himself “The role of the artist is to ask questions, not answer them.”
The spirit of Chekhov infuses this book, and it is because of this spirit that Life and Fate feels impossibly modern in the same way that Chekhov himself does. We judge the characters – Grossman doesn’t do that, he just depicts them. Grossman instead judges the powers and ideas that put characters into the positions they are in, where they show their best and worst sides. Because the book is dedicated to social justice in the most serious sense of that phrase, and because the world it shows is so manifestly unjust, we can’t help but agree with him about what’s going wrong, while still standing in awe at all of the people and faces he somehow manages to fit in.
In a time of war, in the very same places as described in Life and Fate, and with the same peoples in the trenches but now on different sides, this book is more important than ever. Written in Russian by a Jewish writer from Ukraine, with its central hero a Jewish man from Ukraine, this is a great novel of tolerance, of pluralism, of dignity. In the war we have now, where nationalist tempers are high on both sides, nuance denied, and memory readily distorted for political aims, Grossman’s book, more than any other I have read, shows the kind of spirit we all need to have to build a lasting peace, for all the people who live in these lands.
At last, my strength has failed me. For two years, almost exactly, I have been trying not to return to War and Peace. This book has everything, even now, especially now, when Russia is at war again. The good and the bad, the power and the glory, the vanity of all that, and the despair and darkness of senseless destruction. Pretty much every book I have read since the full-scale invasion began has been chosen with the war on my mind, whether to avoid thinking about it or to engage obliquely with it. Yet it is also the one subject that I try to avoid talking about directly on this blog, even though I feel like I can write seriously about it, and perhaps have a moral responsibility to do so. With War and Peace, though, I actually was not trying to understand my war. I was trying to understand how Tolstoy wrote his war.
Today’s post comes from only the first of the four volumes. I have already been through the whole epic once, but that was a few years ago. Back then, I was so overwhelmed I could not write about it. Yet it is part of Tolstoy’s magic, which I will try to describe here, that I still remember vividly certain moments, certain fates, when entire books fade from the memory as if they were never there at all.
Here I want to describe some of the technical features of War and Peace that struck me, because I or we might learn something from them. The translation is Anthony Briggs’ – I have the Russian at home, but alas I do not quite have the time for it at the moment. I propose to take a few sentences and describe briefly how they seem to work.
A practical post, perhaps, but one I hope will hold interest for people beyond my fellow Tolstoy fanatics.
“Eh bien, mon prince”
Where Anna Karenina is memorable for its opening lines, War and Peace just throws us in there with this. Isaac Babel apocryphally said that if the world could write itself, it would write like Tolstoy. Unfortunately, Tolstoy only had time to do a small fraction of the world from 1805 to 1813, but such a beginning makes us think he had already been writing his story for years and with some arbitrariness chosen now to let us in. The opening is memorable by taking us immediately into history more than into the dynamics of characters. The first paragraph, reminding us of Napoleon’s conquests in Italy, gives us a sense that world politics is as much the book’s theme as the ‘little people’ novels normally only bother with. Part of the tensions in the novel, we sense at once, will come from men before maps, just as much as the plain passions of the human spirit.
It’s also notable, though Briggs chooses to translate it here, that the novel begins in French. That too – being so inconsiderate to one’s readers – takes a certain bravery as a writer. (My girlfriend still complains at every foreign word that creeps into my posts). But the novel dramatizes, amongst so much else, the partial rejection of French as the primary medium of communication for the Russian upper classes. As the novel goes on, French is used less and less. We find something similar today, in the millions of Ukrainians whose primary language was once Russian, but who now refuse to speak it at all. I will have to steal Tolstoy’s idea on that one.
“…this aunt, who was unknown, uninteresting and unneeded by anyone.”
One distinguishing feature of Tolstoy’s writing, I realise, is its harshness. He speaks clearly in his narration of the unpleasant realities that we might try to gloss over. An uninteresting aunt at a party is just that – and people do not want to talk to her. We neither hide her from view nor pretend she is anything but an obstacle to enjoying the evening. In general, a certain cynicism is an emotion he allows his characters. One of the officers, Zherkov, is all about taking advantage of the war for his own advancement. Boris, one of the younger characters, is determined to use all the networking skills he and his mother have to raise himself up out of relative poverty, but in his thoughts, we see quite unpleasant envy towards Nikolai Rostov, his richer friend.
The things a writer allows herself to say about the world and the people in it are the clearest path we have to her worldview. By including too much cynicism, we end up with a sense of the world’s misery. On the other hand, the easiest way to put forward an optimistic view of things is simply to give the characters the right only to positive emotions. Ultimately, both approaches can seem overwrought and fake. Writers are often scared of us disliking their characters, over whom they labour and love, so they do not allow them the nastiness that makes them real. But people really are cynical at times, not as monsters but merely as human beings, and by including both cynicism and heroism of spirit, unevenly distributed though it be, Tolstoy creates a world that seems more real for the fullness of human nature he puts in it.
“His smile was not like theirs – theirs were not real smiles”
I mean this is just great. As with the cynicism problem above, what we have here is directness. Society’s falseness is typically revealed in novels gradually and tragically, as with the character of Innstetten in Effi Briest. In such cases, writers adhere faithfully to the principle of “show, not tell”. But just as showing is important, so too is telling as a supplement. Telling here functions to make even more impactful what is shown, because language offers opportunities both in showing and in telling, which are not shared between them. Specifically, showing sentences soften up the victim to create the opening through which the knock-out punch of a perfect telling sentence can come. Without that softening up, the telling sentence can be easily deflected or blocked. One of Tolstoy’s many gifts is knowing when to tell, and when to show, and not shying away from one or the other.
“Suddenly there was a great rattling sound on the bridge, like a scattering of nuts”
For the greatest writer in the entire universe, Tolstoy does not do much of that image-making we typically associate with great writers. He mainly describes how things are. He is good at the telling detail, such as what people wear or eat, but really this is just the fruit of the gigantic research he did before writing War and Peace. What happens in the novel is simply the onrush of history. Characters, places, everything changes, but because so much is dialogue or simple description, because there is so much movement, the entire text is extremely engaging. We feel close to people because nothing gets in the way. Writing like Tolstoy is simple, if only you pay enough attention to the world to write it down just as it comes.
Yet on rare occasions, he does do images, and this image of a cannon’s grapeshot is one that you simply have to underline. At another point, blood pours from Prince Andrei’s wound “like liquid from a bottle”. These images are so rare because they are hardly ever needed. It’s not as if any of us have experienced the lives of the Russian high aristocracy around 1805, it is just that we are humans and so are they, so that Tolstoy need only describe them properly and we will find ourselves standing there alongside them. With war, it seems to me, he does find himself using the occasional image, because our experience of the battlefield is less widespread. Here, the images make us see clearer. What writers might want to take away is that in realistic narratives most of the images we try to introduce just get in the way, like frosted glass.
“Then he suddenly felt there was something dangling on his numb left arm that shouldn’t be there.”
Here we have almost the opposite to the comment above. The art, which Tolstoy mastered, is knowing what to say, and what not to. Here we have something imprecise, but precisely because of its imprecision and the knowledge we have of the actual fact of the injury, Nikolai Rostov’s own confusion at his (ultimately minor) wound becomes heightened for us. Gaps in knowledge create tension – Tolstoy does not take us for fools.
“Next day the troops were on the march, and Boris had no opportunity of seeing Bolkonsky or Dolgorukov again before the battle of Austerlitz. For the time being he would stay with the Izmailov regiment.”
The same thing happens here, at the end of a chapter. We know, as the characters do not, what Austerlitz means – a crushing defeat. Multiple chapters end while mentioning it is coming, but the characters meanwhile get on with their lives as if they are on holiday. The contrast is unbearable but brilliant. The one mistake Tolstoy makes is that he does mention the battle will be a defeat before it begins. That makes the ominous shape of the coming battle coalesce into something more prosaic, weakening the tension. You have to have history be familiar to fully enjoy this tension, but Austerlitz is so famous as a battle that Tolstoy cannot be faulted for expecting us to remember it.
“She clomped in”
Ultimately, as with Dickens, we can read Tolstoy to try and work out how to make vivid characters. Whereas Dickens’ characters gain power from his mastery of caricature, Tolstoy’s come from the details that he uses for them, in particular repetitions. Prince Andrei is at several times referred to as “indolent”, so that the word is associated with him in our minds. Now, this is worth giving more attention to. Normally, in creating and introducing characters, we dump the information on the reader all at once. We learn perhaps their history, their personality, their appearance. But I tend to forget this all myself – it’s too much, especially when detached from the world.
Character is shown in Tolstoy’s fiction as in life – one element at a time. Yet we need something solid, more than just a name, to attach the character’s traits to. Telling us too much is like making a clay statue and forgetting to fire it, so that it melts when left out on the mantlepiece. Tolstoy gives us very little, repeated over and over, with the result that we have something solid that we cannot possibly forget about a character. And thus everything that the character does after that is memorable too, because we have something structural to pin it onto, rather than just a mush. Andrei’s wife, the little princess, (already her name is a memorable thing), has a “downy lip”; Andrei himself has his indolence; Pierre has his glasses, Sonya her inner kitty; Berg has his inability to talk about anything but himself, Vera her crap personality.
It’s utterly staggering that I can just reel these things off. With Dickens, the people are so flamboyant in their personalities that we have to remember them. But Tolstoy’s people, real as you or me, are just described effectively from a technical standpoint. He finds their essence, and never lets us forget it.
Which brings us to “clomped”. The way we walk, like all the things we do with our bodies, is memorable. They can form the foundation for the rest of the novel’s description of them. Andrei’s poor, poor sister, “clomps”. That tells us all we need to know about the success she has had in her life, her confidence, and the distance between her hopes and her realities. If she did not clomp, if we did not know she clomped, we would not feel the full pain and sadness of the line when meeting the handsome suitor Anatole Kuragin: “She tried to be nice to him and didn’t know how.”
It’s brutal, but also not nearly as ambiguous as it looks when taken out of context. Marya clomps. She is not failing to be nice because she’s an unkind person – in fact, she’s one of the novel’s moral centres. She’s failing to be nice because her life is simple, sad, and cramped, living with her insane father on their estate. In other words, she can’t be nice because she doesn’t know how. And, of course, she doesn’t know how – she’s the kind of person who clomps.
These walking words are surprisingly useful for a writer, so it’s a shame few of them take full advantage of them. Characters always have to move around, so if we can find a way of describing their movements while also describing the innermost nature of their soul – why not kill two birds with one stone?
“And the three voices, hers, Mademoiselle Bourienne’s and the giggling Katya’s, blended into a kind of happy babble like birds twittering.”
What’s interesting here is how we get to the image. Images, even striking ones, are as I noted above, not necessarily an unambiguous good in the writer’s arsenal. They can get in the way of the scene, being a barrier rather than a path. Here we have a rare non-war image, but now read it again. Here we don’t just have the image – we have its creation. The voices blend, and then they become this babble which is like birds twittering. Images are annoying because they slow things down – we need to stop and work out how they relate to the scene that we expect to see in our heads. But here, because we see the scene become the image, via that word “blended” and the “And” at the beginning, the sentence retains its vigour. We catch the image in its becoming, so that we take it in while still running to the next page.
“My, how you’ve changed”
One of the problems a writer has is that in the two to three hundred pages allotted them by the gods of publishing, there’s only so much space we have for the forking paths of destiny. A novel is not a novella, which is lightning-focused on a particular plot and character or small group of them; still, things are short and simple enough that we can “see where things are going”, ultimately taking the tension out of the work after a certain point. Then there’s the problem of worldviews. With only a few characters, it’s hard to avoid the writer’s views of how things are. There is no space to explore alternatives, so that the universe presented often ends up seeming quite simplistic.
Tolstoy does not have this problem in War and Peace. There are so many characters and so many pages that we simply do not know what is going to happen or when. We know the history, but not how it will be told or what role our little people have to play in it. The characters we expect to meet again, like Boris, from early on in the book, may turn out to have relatively minor roles. The general tension is greater not just because of the war, but because people can be replaced on a narrative level. In fact, one major character does die long before the novel’s end, and the epic just keeps going.
If characters were simple and only replaceable, there is a great danger – we might feel like we could choose not to care about them. The opposite is the case. Because there is space, we know that they have time to grow, so we care about even the ones we don’t like at first. This is doubled by the fact that so many of the characters – Nikolai and Natasha, Pierre and even Andrei – are young. With all respect due to my older readers, young people change much more over a given time period than older folks do. By focusing on young people growing up, we get a situation where we are truly invested in people’s fates, not just whether they live or die as in a normal story, but what kind of person they will become. At my own advanced age (26), I recognise this as a great pleasure from coming into regular contact with younger people – I want to see what they will make of their lives.
So, this is another part of the magic of the book – the wave of characters that, thanks to the characterisation skill described feebly by me above, are all distinctive and exciting to read about. They and the history itself form part of the drive of the work.
“The same night, after taking leave of the war minister, Bolkonsky was on his way to rejoin the army, not knowing where to find it and worried about being captured by the French on the way to Krems.”
We end the piece on a simple one: the beginning of volume I, part II, chapter 13. The conclusions we might draw from this blog post are as follows – detail is key, not quantity; showing and telling must work together; images are not as important as we might think; cynicism is a human emotion as much as any other; a sheer quantity of characters, provided they are made using the principles above, is only a gain for tension and engagement.
This final extract does not correspond to all of these lessons, but it shows how narrative works in War and Peace, and that’s important too. What we have is very simple – time, place, person, and purpose. It provides the minimum for us to keep going. With so many stories and personalities, Tolstoy needs to be on top of his transitions or else we will get lost. And he is. And what’s surprising is how simple this is. The sentence above is not technically complicated. We can write our own, taking it as a model, or have that time/place/person/purpose as a kind of checklist on the door of our fridge. But we must write it. If we do, we too can take readers running through our imagined worlds.
What I might be trying to say is that War and Peace is actually quite simple. It may be one of the greatest works in the entire world, but that’s because it is simple, not because it’s complicated. The challenge in writing it, aside from the deep knowledge of human nature that Tolstoy had, is just the research and the planning. If you know exactly who is going to be where, and when, and why, you too can gradually build up something similar from scratch. Tolstoy wrote this novel in his thirties – it’s not actually the work of a great and aged sage so much as of a rich young man who had the money and time he needed to devote himself fully to his research project. That might give us hope that we may yet imitate it, correct lottery numbers forthcoming.
Unfortunately, though, it’s not that simple. Great literature has no formula, neither in general nor even in its specific instances. There is something missing in my attempts so far to write in a Tolstoyan manner, whether it’s the impetus that the sense of history gives or the quality of my characterisations, I don’t know. Somehow, no matter how prosaic it is, I am swept up and along by War and Peace. I put the novel down after finishing the first volume and haven’t read it for a few weeks, but just going over it again for this blog post I am already raring to get back into it. There is some hidden force here, something almost mystical. Is it merely my interest in characters’ destinies? But I know them already – I remember it all. There is no tension of that sort, no illicit love affairs like in Anna Karenina.
But still, like a raging torrent, I cannot read this book and not be carried by it. What is the force? I must return and see if I can find it, or drown happily in the attempt.
If you are still interested in Tolstoy’s language after this piece you can try to track down Henry Gifford’s elusive essay “On Translating Tolstoy”, which delves further into the topic. If you find a copy, please consider sending one my way!
Towards the end of his time writing Anna Karenina Tolstoy had something of a spiritual crisis and it almost killed him. He suddenly realised that the life he was living was pointless. Worse still, he was unable to identify any way of living that would return a sense of meaning to it. In A Confession, a short work of non-fiction published soon after the conversion, Tolstoy describes being driven nearly to suicide as a result of his despair. The only way out of his predicament except for suicide, as Tolstoy saw it, was through belief in God. The spiritual transformation that then came over him had profound implications for his work and the rest of his life. He eventually abandoned the city, lived like a peasant in the countryside, and began a career as a pamphleteer. What fiction did come this period was blunt and didactic, with rare exceptions like Hadji-Murat.
Many people would consider Tolstoy one of the greatest writers of all time, but they rarely have the late Tolstoy in mind. The late Tolstoy is a strange creature and just as strange a writer. I’m currently reading his only novel from the period, Resurrection, which partly prompts this post. The other prompt is that I’m dipping into essays by the wonderful American writer Wendell Berry, who seems to have sprung from the cradle just the same as Tolstoy eventually became. Berry is a defender of the old and simple ways, of a faith bound closely to the soil. I like Berry a lot, but something’s bothering me about his writing, just as Resurrection is bothering me, and just as other things Tolstoy wrote late in life have bothered me.
The Old Man in All His Glory
By “bothered”, I do not mean that my spirit is touched – it’s not that kind of bothering. If anything, the problem is the opposite. The problem is that I’m struggling to care. It’s all well and good to simply accuse the late Tolstoy of didacticism, but I think there’s some value in trying to go into detail to answer what exactly has gone wrong. There must be a reason why Anna Karenina and War and Peace are beloved by all, but Resurrection has failed to be resurrected from its canonical grave. In this essay I’d like to have a go working it out.
Tolstoy or Dostoevsky?
To begin with, it’s worth going back and thinking about Dostoevsky and his own fiction. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are world famous, but generally people prefer one or the other. I started out life as a huge fan of Dostoevsky, but now I’m in Tolstoy’s camp. What Dostoevsky does well is often called polyphony, after the name given it by the literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin. By “polyphony” I mean that Dostoevsky creates a great many characters who seem to be existing independently of their author. Their views are no longer Dostoevsky’s own. But more than that, their views are so developed, and so passionately felt, that the characters seem like they cannot be the creation of Dostoevsky at all, but rather real figures, animated by belief. I cannot think of any other writer who has written people who feel so intensely as Dostoevsky’s characters do.
For a young person, these kinds of characters are well-suited to themselves. When you are young you want desperately to believe in something. Almost without exception we were all, in our youth, hopelessly idealistic. Dostoevsky provides, in a way, a buffet of ideas for us to try. But over time we come to realise that these ideas are for the most part incompatible with a good life. Suicides, murders, and despair are the keynotes of Dostoevsky’s fiction, and they are so because they are the consequences of the characters’ ideas. Those few characters who seem to find happiness are religious, like Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov, or Sonya. These characters are not particularly interesting. After all, we say, religion is for idiots.
Tolstoy’s Early and Middle Fiction
Tolstoy’s fiction before his late period is not the battleground of ideas that Dostoevsky’s is. There are characters who believe passionately, such as Levin’s radical brother in Anna Karenina, but they are few and far between. Most characters do not believe in anything, at least not actively. Anna Karenina wouldn’t say she believes in love – she just does. The same would go for Vronsky and his honour, or Dolly and her family. These people are unideological because they are all striving for one thing – a good life. Dostoevsky’s characters don’t really seem to care about happiness, and they are not striving for anything in particular. For them, the act of searching is enough. They just need some kind of outlet for the passionate feeling they have within them. The outlet’s nature, whether murder or kindness, is neither here nor there.
There are people in Tolstoy’s fiction who are after answers, who have that additional store of passion needed to demand a kind of seeking. They are the likes of Pierre and Andrei Bolkonsky in War and Peace, and Levin in Anna Karenina. But their crises are not the same as those of Dostoevsky’s heroes. Levin’s problem is that he is looking for an authentic and moral life. He wants to know how to live. He looks at the world of the city, where people like Stiva Oblonsky spend their days eating oysters and their nights chasing after women, and he’s disgusted. In the countryside, sitting on a haybale or cutting the wheat, he feels a kind of peace. We may call it a connection with God, but I think that that would be incorrect. What he feels is a oneness with the world, something that is more pantheistic than Christian.
Spiritual Vacuums, past and present
We can always look to Nietzsche as a great prophet of atheism, but he’s not the first by a long shot. From the Enlightenment onwards God and organised religion faced salvo upon salvo from intellectual circles, with nary any intellectually-grounded fire returned. Society was left with an absent centre, a spiritual vacuum. This was filled in many cases with radical politics. Marx called religion the “opium of the masses”, the implication being that revolutionary communism was what they really should be smoking. Nationalism also filled the void. At first that nationalism was well-intentioned, a unifying force, as it was in Italy, Germany, Greece. But in the 20th century both Marx’s teachings and nationalism morphed into horrible monsters, leaving millions and millions of dead as a result. Nietzsche, of course, proposed his own solutions to “nihilism”, but they’ve hardly filtered out and aren’t always to everyone’s taste to begin with.
So we are left today with an even greater blank than there existed back then. Nationalism nowadays is reactionary and selfish, while left wing politics can seem so focused upon marginalised groups that any utopian thinking about the greatest marginalised group of all – the working class – appears to have fallen by the wayside. More importantly, it’s not even clear if there are enough workers left to really have a revolution. Marxism has, in some sense, just fizzled out.
Our modern-day preachers, such as Jordan Peterson, attempt to fill the void for their followers. Peter Singer’s Effective Altruism attempts to provide a philosophically-sound answer to the question of what we must do, telling us that we should give away as much as we can and focus on raising the world’s happiness in utilitarian terms. Nationalism and Islamic terrorism, meanwhile, both work by preying upon those who feel dislocated from the world they inhabit. The hatred many people feel for “outsiders” is not driven by the outsiders themselves, but by the need to feel something. And anything is better than nothing. For, there are plenty among us who feel just that – nothing, or else depression and despair. For those people, the conditions of late capitalism have successfully snuffed out their hope. And hope is one of the few things capable of expanding into the space left by the spiritual void.
One Reason Why we Read Tolstoy
To people today, characters like Levin and Pierre – and their novels – are attractive because they record a search for meaning. Not for that passionate, violent meaning that dominates Dostoevsky’s works. Most of us don’t need something to die for; we just want something to live for. We want that peace and calm in our (possibly non-existent) souls. Tolstoy’s fiction, with its emphasis on the simple, rural life, is all about that quiet faith which people once-upon-a-time would have found in religion, but now they cannot get from it for any number of valid reasons. Anna Karenina’s faith is attractive because there’s nothing to believe in except that Levin’s searching is worthwhile. There’s no God at the end of it, whatever Levin seems to think. There’s simply a sense of wholeness. A good, humble life – a virtuous life – has filled the spiritual vacuum he had once had.
And when we read Anna Karenina or War and Peace, we get the sense that we too can see the gap within us filled too, if only we go out and seek the answers, and then live them when we find them.
The Late Tolstoy – The Prophet Defeats the Disciple
After Tolstoy had his conversion, he had all the answers. No longer was he content to describe the path to harmony, he wanted to force that specific harmony upon us. As time went on that harmony became ever more specific, and ever harder to stomach. A simple life became a particularly Russian peasant life. A kind of vague pantheism became a radical form of anarchic Christianity. For some people, this is to their liking. But I have spent enough time in the Russian countryside of the present day to have my own view on what the Russian peasant’s life was probably like, and it’s not exactly positive. Tolstoy’s earlier works are so effective because they see the value of searching; his later works seem only interested in the destination.
Resurrection
Take Resurrection. I am about half-way through, and I have definitely read enough to comment on it. Tolstoy’s story is not very subtle, not because he’s forgotten how to write but because didacticism, convincing us that he’s right, is now the most important thing. Take the very first sentence, in Rosemary Edmonds’ translation:
“Though men in their hundreds of thousands had tried their hardest to disfigure that little corner of the earth where they had crowded themselves together, paving the ground with stones so that nothing could grow, weeding out every blade of vegetation, filling the air with the fumes of coal and gas, cutting down the trees and driving away every beast and every bird – spring, however, was still spring, even in the town.”
This is great prose, but it is impossible to read this without feeling Tolstoy behind it. The late Tolstoy can no longer see objects without also seeing the way they fit into his moral system and feeling obliged to put them within said system. And this quickly becomes grating.
Resurrection is, from the title onwards, not exactly coy about its moral bent. A young man, Prince Nekhlyudov, finds himself on jury duty, tasked with judging for murder and theft a girl who he had once seduced. It turns out that his careless seduction, one winter’s night, of this servant girl, led to a whole string of events resulting in her presence in the courtroom some years later: she became pregnant, was kicked out, found work again and lost it, and eventually became a prostitute, her job when the murder took place. Nekhlyudov recognises his complicity in her fallen nature and determines to set things right, whatever the cost. Thus begins the process of his spiritual regeneration.
He breaks off his relations with a young lady, moves out of his house, gives away most of his land to his peasants, and is within a hundred pages far further down the path to a new life than Levin or Pierre managed to get in almost a thousand. Tolstoy is in such a rush to show us the wrongs of the world through Nekhlyudov’s refreshed eyes that he completely forgets to make Nekhlyudov truly breathe to begin with. His conversion is all too brief, and it feels cheap. In my head I can easily picture Tolstoy standing behind his hero with a whip, forcing Nekhlyudov to morally contort himself into the shape Tolstoy demands of him rather than letting things take their natural course.
But Nekhlyodov is not our only hero, for we also follow Maslova, the prostitute he wronged. She smokes; she drinks; she’s rude and rough. But when I read about her I can’t help but feel I’m basically just reading a list of things Tolstoy doesn’t approve of, things that Maslova will undoubtedly abandon once she’s been redeemed herself. Compare Maslova with Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov never feels like he’s waiting for redemption. There’s no sense of inevitability there. In a religious sense, perhaps, but not in a thematic sense, from the perspective of the story itself. Maslova, however, needs to be redeemed. Tolstoy just can’t leave her alone.
Both Maslova and Nekhlyodov feel like pawns upon the pages of Tolstoy’s novel, and their only purpose seems to be to advance Tolstoy’s views. They don’t seem to have any kind of independence, either of thought or of action. Reading the late Tolstoy doesn’t feel like a journey – it feels like being shackled and dragged along a specific path. We know where the destination is when we set out, whereas with Levin or Pierre we always have the feeling that there are other roads, other options for them to potentially take.
This lack of human freedom in Resurrection, when it’s coupled with Tolstoy’s didacticism, is exhausting. Like Karolina Pavlova in A Double Life, Tolstoy’s anger leaves Resurrection feeling unbalanced. It is too clear who is good and who is bad. Every detail, from Nekhlyudov’s golden cufflinks to Maslova’s drinking, seems to have its purpose as a criticism of the world as it lies before Tolstoy’s eyes. He can’t see anything without judging it, and the judgements are always unfavourable. In spite of Tolstoy’s determination to bring us to the good life, what actually happens is that the experience of reading Resurrection is depressing. And not because it’s a story about prisons.
The Death of Ivan Ilyich
A good comparison for Resurrection is another one of Tolstoy’s later works, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, which I reread recently. Ivan was published in 1886, ten years before Resurrection, and it shows. The novella still tries to take us towards a good life, but the methods are more subtle, and the work as a whole is more joyous.
The Death of Ivan Ilyich is first and foremost an extremely funny book. Tolstoy absolutely hates Ivan’s stupid boring vapid existence, but he understands that it’s better to dismantle it through laughter than try to annihilate it with a diatribe. Take the moment one of Ivan’s friends beholds his dead body and thinks “the only thing he was certain of was that in this situation you couldn’t go wrong if you made the sign of the cross”. Or how the first thought of people, hearing he’s died, is “a feeling of delight that he had died and they hadn’t”. In undermining the solemnity of the occasion Tolstoy has his purpose – he wants to show the citizens as selfish, unvirtuous, and themselves unprepared for death. But he does it in a way that’s a joy to read.
Where Resurrection is blunt, Ivan is full of wonderful ironies and subtleties. Things that stuck out for me included the way Ivan receives his fatal injury while decorating his drawing room – meaning that he literally dies because of the banal existence he’d been living. Another moment was when Ivan is lying there dying, and his daughter’s fiancé comes and talks about an actress with him instead of showing any kind of compassion. The novella is really funny, and yet it is perfectly capable of conveying a serious message too. In fact, the seriousness is heightened by its contrast to the levity. When Ivan tells himself at last that “death has gone”, it’s a magical moment. In Resurrection, which is entirely drab, there’s far less room for any spiritual manoeuvre.
An Evangelical is Rarely Convincing…
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve spent some time volunteering in a prison, so I know a little about what Tolstoy describes in Resurrection from personal experience. I also once volunteered in a community project with people who had Down’s syndrome. Both of these experiences proved life-changing, but there’s a reason I don’t write about them, either fictionally or non-fictionally. That reason is, simply put, that I don’t think there’s much value in talking about them. The greatest lesson I took away from both experiences is that experience is much more important than thought. This is not something I can transfer, really, in writing. I don’t want to be like Tolstoy and tell people what to think. I have my views on rehabilitation, just as I have my views on everything else, but I have no desire to evangelise.
This a good time to think back to Dostoevsky again, who I deliberately brought up at the beginning. What happens in the fiction of late Tolstoy is something akin to what we would see in Dostoevsky’s works if they had only one fully-developed character – Tolstoy himself. Without showing the possibility of passionate alternative views, of the sort that (for example) each of the Karamazov brothers offer in their novel, Tolstoy sucks the ideological air from his late fiction, leaving only his own viewpoint. But in doing so, he sucks more than ideology from his pages – in some real sense he removes the life from his stories altogether.
Tolstoy’s “Good Life” in Practice
And Tolstoy himself, who ultimately lived what Dostoevsky simply had his characters feel, is the best argument against his own late fiction. He did not really find the good life – he just found something that eased his conscience and he tried to force it upon others. He tore his family apart through bickering and pettiness. Aside from stunts like making shoes by hand and walking to far-off monasteries, he could never bring himself to fully abandon his aristocratic position and home. He became an object of ridicule, or else of pity. And though he had his followers, I don’t think he was happy. Not in the way that Levin becomes happy, at least.
Tolstoy Ploughing the Fields. This piece is not an argument against Tolstoy’s agrarian impulses – though they have their issues. Rather, what I mean is that the Late Tolstoy’s anarchic Christianity tore his family apart and did not make anyone happy.
The spirit of searching, of passionate inquiry, that dominates Anna Karenina and War and Peace, is fundamentally unideological. It doesn’t tell us how to think, only to think. But once Tolstoy’s views are calcified in his old age, there’s no longer any point in us readers thinking for thinking’s sake – thinking now only has value inasmuch as it can lead us to Tolstoy’s views. And this demands not a garden of delightful ideas, but a path along an empty alley, at the end of which stand Tolstoy and his beliefs, and nothing besides.
Stories- not Authors – Change Us
I don’t think I can respect any writer who writes without a sincere desire to make the world a better place; but I also don’t think I can truly enjoy a writer who lets that desire overwhelm their stories and whatever else they might be able to say. The fire within them must be for the act of striving after answers, and not for the answers themselves.
Tolstoy’s mistake in his later fiction is that he forgets that although many people come to fiction to learn, they come to learn for themselves, and not to be told what to think. That is why, I think, the best fiction, in the sense of morally best as well as greatest, has always been didactic not in the sense of telling us what to think, but in reminding us of the value of thinking, of trying to find the answers for ourselves. The best fiction does not change us – it helps us to change ourselves. Anna Karenina, like War and Peace, shows what changing looks like. Both do little more than that, and for that we should be thankful.
Conclusion
The question “what must we do” has bothered me almost my entire life. I have looked everywhere for the answer, and though I have found many answers, including in Wendell Berry and Tolstoy, I have never found something that made me think it was worth giving up the search and stopping where I stood. The day we stop seeking is the day we stop growing; it is the day we lose our dynamism and become boring. It is a bitter irony that those searching for goodness and the good life are often better and kinder people than those who’ve stop at a certain idea of goodness and way of living, thinking they’re finished. Life itself is also much more interesting when we keep ourselves searching. Tolstoy himself, perhaps, understood this at the very end. A. N. Wilson ascribes to the dying Tolstoy the following words: “Search, also go on searching”.
Here at least, the late Tolstoy is absolutely right.
