Translation determines whether War and Peace clicks After two DNFs (2016, 2021), renewed commitment comes with a focus on translation as the key variable. Tolstoy is generally readable—Anna Karenina confirms it—yet War and Peace misfired, suggesting translation mismatch. The hunt centers on four big options: Constance Garnett, the Maudes (Oxford’s revised), Anthony Briggs (Penguin), and Pevear & Volokhonsky.
Constance Garnett: classical lyricism, but a unifying translator voice Constance Garnett brings a classical, lyrical polish and deep familiarity with Russian literature, but her voice can flatten authorial distinctions. Past enjoyment of her Dostoevsky sits alongside critiques that she’s better for Tolstoy—or not—underscoring the subjectivity. The 2016 DNF in her War and Peace likely owed as much to starting grad school as to the translation itself.
Revised Maude (Oxford): approachable prose, vivid war, and the French-in-footnotes choice A 2021 attempt reached 500 pages: readable, often easier than Garnett, with war scenes especially intense and lyrical. This Oxford text is a newly revised Maude, arguably the most modern of the four. It prints French passages in the text and translates them in footnotes—faithful yet potentially disruptive—while some other versions erase the French entirely. Disappointment may have come from expecting elevated lyricism; Tolstoy’s style feels direct.
Anthony Briggs: modernized ease that trades off prose texture Briggs updates idiom heavily—soldiers say “mate”—making a swift, accessible read that suits bucket-list goals. For readers chasing language over speed, the slangy register can jar. Best practice emerges: sample the same opening pages across translations and follow the one that clicks. Now Penguin’s choice, it’s broadly popular yet polarizing.
Pevear & Volokhonsky: preserved Tolstoyan tics and a reader-friendly edition win out Favoring fidelity, this pair keeps Tolstoy’s repetitions and stylistic quirks, a choice some praise and others resist. The selection ultimately hinges on a physically readable, “floppy” edition suited to annotation, with aesthetics and usability tipping the scale. Other versions exist (e.g., Edmonds), but availability and format matter. The broader plan: do the homework, compare samples, use adaptations without guilt to scaffold the reading, and remember War and Peace spans philosophy, love, war, and action; the challenge is people, not length.