The Language of War and Peace

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!