Scan barcode
A review by sarratbb
Avec Tolstoï by Dominique Fernandez
3.0
3.5
This is a non-fiction book. A book written by a French novelist about the great Tolstoï. I read this book hoping I would discover him and his writing before jumping into War and Peace or Anna Karenina and his other lengthy masterpieces. The reason why I didn’t like this book as much as I hoped I would (and DNFed it back in April) is that Fernandez chose to describe Tolstoï through comparison, which is an amazing approach … when well done, which was not the case. I found his comparisons to be highly subjective, as well as not bringing much to the table. They are a criticism of other authors in order to justify the greatness of Tolstoï. I don’t think putting down artists will make another look better. I would’ve hoped to learn more about his style and what makes him different ; I just learned that Fernandez is a crazy Tolstoï fan who hates everybody else. However, the book got surprisingly better towards the end when it focused on Tolstoï’s novels, more centered and precise analyses ; the main reason I ended up rating it a 3 instead of a 2.
I will now review / summarize each chapter (or group of chapter) ; there will be an asterisk on the chapters I liked most.
*Chap 1 : "Unrelenting, the quest". An overall biography of Tolstoï, setting the tone, the context, the main events surrounding his life. We see for the first time his internal conflict between his rich family and his ideology to save the poor and the marginalized. We also percieve the hypocricy in his practice of the ideology for the first time.
*Chap 2 : "Muse and anti-muse". A first glance at the couple he and Sophie formed, their family and the toxic dynamic between the two. An interesting theory here reveals his wife to be a muse and anti-muse at once : inspiring him to create his female characters (the great ones, the main ones) and at the same time inspiring him to make them into an ideal that his wife willl never be (sort of expressing the resentment he has towards her, and vice-versa). Another confusing duality.
Chap 3 : "Dostoëvsky or Tolstoï". The book starts with a quote by Nabokov : “Tolstoy is the greatest Russian writer of prose fiction. Leaving aside his precursors Pushkin and Lermontov, we might list the greatest artists in Russian prose thus: first, Tolstoy; second, Gogol; third, Chekhov; fourth, Turgenev. This is rather like grading students’ papers and no doubt Dostoevski and Saltykov are waiting at the door of my office to discuss their low marks.”.
Fernandez highly believes in this ranking and constantly opposes Dostoëvsky to Tolstoï, which is annoying since he creates this war between the two, that never really existed, by undermining Dostoëvsky’s work and style tremendously. He does it so much that it’s mentioned as a main idea in the summary (which shouldn’t be the case in a book called "With Tolstoï" and not "Tolstoï VS Dostoëvsky"). This is a very biased chapter. In my humble opinion, Fernandez developed this resentment for Dostoëvsky after a conversation he describes, between himself and Natalie Sarraute, in which she said that Tolstoï is old fashioned and that Dostoëvsky is better. The result : Twenty pages trying to prove her wrong. Not by showing how cool Tolstoï is, but, by showing how untalented Dostoëvsky "is".
Chap 4 : "Intemporality". I think that there is a big misunderstanding in the meaning of "intemporality". I guess this chapter was yet again to defend Tolstoï against Dostoëvsky since it’s a comparison as well. It doesn’t prove us much either.
Chap 5 : "Writing about Tolstoï". Okay so. This one is about how occidental theories and criticism don’t or can’t apply to Russian literature because it’s a different world with different norms and a different environment. And it’s often the case that occidental eurocentrist theories and ideologies take the lead. However, the way he explained those differences was sketchy. He claimed that the size of Russia justifies how "free" and ""savage"" it is. I don’t like that last claim. And I don’t think it is the main reason. I would’ve loved a cultural, social, economical or even political explanation way more. While geography has a big role, it’s not so simplistic and as an argument for his claims, I think it needed more support.
Chap 6 : "A laugh, a glance". Very short chapter about how unique Tolstoï’s descriptions are. It focuses on one scene in War and Peace where the guy laughs in a specific way. Another scene where another guy looks at a girl in a specific way. It briefly mentioned the very interesting topic of translations in literature which I liked. But it was very forgettable. He called Tolstoï "intolerably Russian" LOL.
Chap 7 : "The eye". This chapter contradicts the precedent one. In chapter 6, he claimed that Tolstoï’s description were quite pecular and profound, that they had a message, more to them. In chapter 7, he says that Tolstoï has "the eye" and is only an observer, that his descriptions are only that, descriptions. That he wasn’t trying to communicate something through them. Okay.
Chap 8 : "Balzac and Tolstoï". That is the chapter that caused the DNF. His comparison was coming to the conclusion that Balzac was an untalented, boring and unexperienced author, meanwhile Tolstoï slays. His point was true : Balzac, in The Human Comedy, describes the place, the time and the character in a huge introduction before starting the story. This is subjectively boring. However, this is precisely what makes him a unique novelist. In opposition, Tolstoï describes and sets the context as he writes action. In my opinion, this is just the regular way of writing, he may be amazing at it, but there was absolutely no need of putting down Balzac. And since it didn’t teach me much about Tolstoï’s style, I was disappointed.
*Chap 9 : "Childhood". This focuses on the first part of "Childhood, Boyhood, Youth". Tolstoï didn’t write an autobiography, nor did he intend to. He might have been inspired by his own life obviously. He "lied" however making the main character a "normal" kid with parents when he, himself, was an orphan. Some critiques (psychanalysis) attribute that to mommy and daddy issues ; others attribute it to a desire to romance and narrate fiction as a true novellist. Fernandez thinks it’s also a desire for universality, where anyone can relate to his novel and not just a minority. He then talks about the translation issues again in a very interesting way. The title was translated in France to "Histoire de mon enfance" (Story of my Childhood) instead of "Enfance" (Childhood). Tolstoï asked for it to be corrected claiming "it is not MY childhood", proving Fernandez’s point about desiring universality, or relatability. He then proceeds to compare him with Dickens who created many orphan characters (creating a pathetic tone instead of a relatable one, good comparison for once). He, then, manages to compare him again to Dostoëvsky, claiming that the latter’s prose will never be as relatable, which I hardly agree with and hardly see the point of.
Chap 10 : "Where the writer’s ideal’s precised". Surprisingly, the only chapter that doesn’t have notes (from me I mean)??! It’s fine. He explains how, COMPARED TO OTHER WRITERS (Chateaubriand, Flaubert, Proust, Dostoëvsky), he doesn’t need to explicitely express the psychology of his characters, it just transpires. But I feel like that’s generally the case.
Chapters to come..
Chap 11 : "Style (Tolstoï and Stendhal)".
Chap 12, 13, 14 : "Tolstoï in his spaces", "To Iasnaïa Poliana", "Iasnaïa Poliana".
Chap 15 : "Subversion".
*Chap 16 : "Small guide to read War and Peace".
Chap 17 : "When the eye closes".
Chap 18 : "Mother and daughter".
*Chap 19 : "Pierre Bezoukhov’s first marriage".
*Chap 20 : "Novel and opera".
Chap 21 : "Pedagogy".
Chap 22 : "Three snowstorms".
*Chap 23 : "A voice in the night".
*Chap 24 : "Anna Karenina".
*Chap 25 : "The crepe, the beanbag and the cotton (Death of Ivan Ilitch)".
Chap 26 : "Crystal polyedre (Hadji Mourat)".
*Chap 27 : "Resurrection".
*Chap 28 : "Jackass or prophet?".
*Chap 29 : "Game over".
*Chap 30 : "In the maelström".
*Chap 31 : "Immortal but disturbing".
This is a non-fiction book. A book written by a French novelist about the great Tolstoï. I read this book hoping I would discover him and his writing before jumping into War and Peace or Anna Karenina and his other lengthy masterpieces. The reason why I didn’t like this book as much as I hoped I would (and DNFed it back in April) is that Fernandez chose to describe Tolstoï through comparison, which is an amazing approach … when well done, which was not the case. I found his comparisons to be highly subjective, as well as not bringing much to the table. They are a criticism of other authors in order to justify the greatness of Tolstoï. I don’t think putting down artists will make another look better. I would’ve hoped to learn more about his style and what makes him different ; I just learned that Fernandez is a crazy Tolstoï fan who hates everybody else. However, the book got surprisingly better towards the end when it focused on Tolstoï’s novels, more centered and precise analyses ; the main reason I ended up rating it a 3 instead of a 2.
I will now review / summarize each chapter (or group of chapter) ; there will be an asterisk on the chapters I liked most.
*Chap 1 : "Unrelenting, the quest". An overall biography of Tolstoï, setting the tone, the context, the main events surrounding his life. We see for the first time his internal conflict between his rich family and his ideology to save the poor and the marginalized. We also percieve the hypocricy in his practice of the ideology for the first time.
*Chap 2 : "Muse and anti-muse". A first glance at the couple he and Sophie formed, their family and the toxic dynamic between the two. An interesting theory here reveals his wife to be a muse and anti-muse at once : inspiring him to create his female characters (the great ones, the main ones) and at the same time inspiring him to make them into an ideal that his wife willl never be (sort of expressing the resentment he has towards her, and vice-versa). Another confusing duality.
Chap 3 : "Dostoëvsky or Tolstoï". The book starts with a quote by Nabokov : “Tolstoy is the greatest Russian writer of prose fiction. Leaving aside his precursors Pushkin and Lermontov, we might list the greatest artists in Russian prose thus: first, Tolstoy; second, Gogol; third, Chekhov; fourth, Turgenev. This is rather like grading students’ papers and no doubt Dostoevski and Saltykov are waiting at the door of my office to discuss their low marks.”.
Fernandez highly believes in this ranking and constantly opposes Dostoëvsky to Tolstoï, which is annoying since he creates this war between the two, that never really existed, by undermining Dostoëvsky’s work and style tremendously. He does it so much that it’s mentioned as a main idea in the summary (which shouldn’t be the case in a book called "With Tolstoï" and not "Tolstoï VS Dostoëvsky"). This is a very biased chapter. In my humble opinion, Fernandez developed this resentment for Dostoëvsky after a conversation he describes, between himself and Natalie Sarraute, in which she said that Tolstoï is old fashioned and that Dostoëvsky is better. The result : Twenty pages trying to prove her wrong. Not by showing how cool Tolstoï is, but, by showing how untalented Dostoëvsky "is".
Chap 4 : "Intemporality". I think that there is a big misunderstanding in the meaning of "intemporality". I guess this chapter was yet again to defend Tolstoï against Dostoëvsky since it’s a comparison as well. It doesn’t prove us much either.
Chap 5 : "Writing about Tolstoï". Okay so. This one is about how occidental theories and criticism don’t or can’t apply to Russian literature because it’s a different world with different norms and a different environment. And it’s often the case that occidental eurocentrist theories and ideologies take the lead. However, the way he explained those differences was sketchy. He claimed that the size of Russia justifies how "free" and ""savage"" it is. I don’t like that last claim. And I don’t think it is the main reason. I would’ve loved a cultural, social, economical or even political explanation way more. While geography has a big role, it’s not so simplistic and as an argument for his claims, I think it needed more support.
Chap 6 : "A laugh, a glance". Very short chapter about how unique Tolstoï’s descriptions are. It focuses on one scene in War and Peace where the guy laughs in a specific way. Another scene where another guy looks at a girl in a specific way. It briefly mentioned the very interesting topic of translations in literature which I liked. But it was very forgettable. He called Tolstoï "intolerably Russian" LOL.
Chap 7 : "The eye". This chapter contradicts the precedent one. In chapter 6, he claimed that Tolstoï’s description were quite pecular and profound, that they had a message, more to them. In chapter 7, he says that Tolstoï has "the eye" and is only an observer, that his descriptions are only that, descriptions. That he wasn’t trying to communicate something through them. Okay.
Chap 8 : "Balzac and Tolstoï". That is the chapter that caused the DNF. His comparison was coming to the conclusion that Balzac was an untalented, boring and unexperienced author, meanwhile Tolstoï slays. His point was true : Balzac, in The Human Comedy, describes the place, the time and the character in a huge introduction before starting the story. This is subjectively boring. However, this is precisely what makes him a unique novelist. In opposition, Tolstoï describes and sets the context as he writes action. In my opinion, this is just the regular way of writing, he may be amazing at it, but there was absolutely no need of putting down Balzac. And since it didn’t teach me much about Tolstoï’s style, I was disappointed.
*Chap 9 : "Childhood". This focuses on the first part of "Childhood, Boyhood, Youth". Tolstoï didn’t write an autobiography, nor did he intend to. He might have been inspired by his own life obviously. He "lied" however making the main character a "normal" kid with parents when he, himself, was an orphan. Some critiques (psychanalysis) attribute that to mommy and daddy issues ; others attribute it to a desire to romance and narrate fiction as a true novellist. Fernandez thinks it’s also a desire for universality, where anyone can relate to his novel and not just a minority. He then talks about the translation issues again in a very interesting way. The title was translated in France to "Histoire de mon enfance" (Story of my Childhood) instead of "Enfance" (Childhood). Tolstoï asked for it to be corrected claiming "it is not MY childhood", proving Fernandez’s point about desiring universality, or relatability. He then proceeds to compare him with Dickens who created many orphan characters (creating a pathetic tone instead of a relatable one, good comparison for once). He, then, manages to compare him again to Dostoëvsky, claiming that the latter’s prose will never be as relatable, which I hardly agree with and hardly see the point of.
Chap 10 : "Where the writer’s ideal’s precised". Surprisingly, the only chapter that doesn’t have notes (from me I mean)??! It’s fine. He explains how, COMPARED TO OTHER WRITERS (Chateaubriand, Flaubert, Proust, Dostoëvsky), he doesn’t need to explicitely express the psychology of his characters, it just transpires. But I feel like that’s generally the case.
Chapters to come..
Chap 11 : "Style (Tolstoï and Stendhal)".
Chap 12, 13, 14 : "Tolstoï in his spaces", "To Iasnaïa Poliana", "Iasnaïa Poliana".
Chap 15 : "Subversion".
*Chap 16 : "Small guide to read War and Peace".
Chap 17 : "When the eye closes".
Chap 18 : "Mother and daughter".
*Chap 19 : "Pierre Bezoukhov’s first marriage".
*Chap 20 : "Novel and opera".
Chap 21 : "Pedagogy".
Chap 22 : "Three snowstorms".
*Chap 23 : "A voice in the night".
*Chap 24 : "Anna Karenina".
*Chap 25 : "The crepe, the beanbag and the cotton (Death of Ivan Ilitch)".
Chap 26 : "Crystal polyedre (Hadji Mourat)".
*Chap 27 : "Resurrection".
*Chap 28 : "Jackass or prophet?".
*Chap 29 : "Game over".
*Chap 30 : "In the maelström".
*Chap 31 : "Immortal but disturbing".