Tolstoy is one of the most famous names in Russian literature. Sadly, the sheer size of most of his celebrated works, i.e. War and Peace, tend to make many readers anxious. However, readers fail to realize that Tolstoy has quite a phenomenal collection of short fiction, such as this 178-page novella.

Tolstoy explores the dissatisfaction a young Russian aristocrat holds towards the emptiness of high-society, and his subsequent journey in search of meaning. The aristocrat finds himself as a young Russian army officer, serving at a remote Cossack outpost in the Caucasus. Here he finds that his wealth and breeding do not garner him respect. Instead he is looked upon as an outsider, and an unwelcome one at that.

Nevertheless, the aristocrat finds himself in love with a beautiful Cossack girl, who is promised to a Cossack warrior. Tolstoy discusses the emotions that rise between these three parties regarding love, class, and sacrifice.

Indeed, The Cossacks is great first exposure to Leo Tolstoy and his descriptive writing style is sure to lead the reader to explore more of his works.

Truly the best novella that I have ever read. The story of a young Russian aristocrat disillusionned with the life of a city gentleman who looks to the simpler life of a soldier in the Caucasus for his completion. An outstanding read.

Timeless. While the novella centers around a Russian Tribe known as the 'Cossacks', it also tells the story of a young nobleman disenchanted with the high society Moscow crowd who sets out to find himself and discover the joys of youth.

The title is a little deceptive. In fact, this book is mostly about Chaucer and his era, 220 pages worth. Stevenson gets a fair shake at 106 pages. But Carlyle gets only 12 pages, and Tolstoy only four, and those a rather simplistic critique of his philosophy. So only buy the book if you're interested in the former two writers.

As in most of Chesterton's biographies, the story of the subject's life is of minor interest here, compared to a philosophical and artistic description of the subject's works in the context of his time and "modern times." Chesterton is interested in the writer as a thinker, as a creator, and as a moral agent. In defending Stevenson and Chaucer, he argues for his view of Christianity, poetry, love, and artistic humility. If you want his religious views in a purer form, go to the brilliant Orthodoxy or Everlasting Man. If you want a detailed narration of the lives of the writers in question, look elsewhere. And even for this style of biography, I think his book on Dickens was the best I've read. But I found his opinionated description and defense of Chaucer and his times also very interesting. And while he does not scatter brilliant sayings like rose petals at a wedding, as in his best books, (reading Everlasting Man, I wanted to copy every other sentence) a few blossoms do flutter down, like the following, which also explain Chesterton's method:

"The truly impartial historian is not he who is enthusiastic for neither side in a historical struggle. . .The truly impartial historian is he who is enthusiastic for both sides. He holds in his heart a hundred fanaticisms."

"The greatest poets of the world have a certain serenity, because they have not bothered to invent a small philosophy, but have rather inherited a large philosophy. It is, nine times out of ten, a philosophy which very great men share with very ordinary men. It is therefore not a theory which attracts attention as a theory."

Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man (July 2000)

d.marshall@sun.ac.jp

G.K. Chesterton, best known for his Father Brown detective stories, also stands out as a remarkable literary critic. He is most astute on Stevenson, his greatest influence, rightly seeing him as the first great writer to find beauty in a modern city. A must!

Tolstoy's Resurrection is an excellent book about the horrors of life during the late 19th century in Russia. Throughout the book, Tolstoy vividly describes Prince Nekhlyudov's inner soul change. Prince Nekhlyudov, a once miserly aristocrat, realizes his mistakes and tries to atone for them. Tolstoy acutely captures the misery many peasants had to endure under the regime of the malevolent and truculent judges, soldiers, governors, and officers. Although this is the first book by Tolstoy I have read, I found it overall an excellent novel. I wouldn't recommend it to someone wanting a quick read because it isn't at all a laconic book.

Tolstoy's last major novel differs from his earlier work. While in War and Peace or Anna Karenina the characters came face to face with the imponderable issues of life--the "big questions"--those novels did not dwell exclusively on the problems of evil, salvation and the challenges of redemption in the way that Resurrection does. Resurrection presents us with an intensely introspective, guilt-ridden protagonist hunting that most elusive prize: spiritual salvation, or even its lesser consolation: a little peace of mind. The reader is treated to finely drawn characters and an intense sense of place, of social milieu, and of the dilemma of finding personal justice in a deeply unjust world. Although the work is anything but comic, it has an intensely comic passage about the problem in making reparations to people who cannot imagine that one would give up one's property to do so. If you love the complexity of Tolstoy, and you do not mind a book that looks deeply within a character, you'll love Resurrection. It is interesting to contrast the theme of personal guilt in this work with its treatment in Crime and Punishment, and this book holds particular interest if you wish to compare the worldviews of the novels of Tolstoy with those of Dostoevsky.

Tolstoy's last major novel summarizes his personal philosophy. Nekhludov finds himself approaching middle age burdened by guilt. Ten years ago, he seduced the serving girl, Maslova. Maslova's shame degenerated to prostitution. After Maslova is unjustly condemned for murder, Nekhludov decides to intervene on her behalf. He seeks to make amends for his sin and his privileged life by an idealistic binge that manages to miss the point. Through Nekhludov's quest for personal redemption, the reader learns the hypocrisy of Old Russia. Russian society, of course, symbolizes all societies in all eras that wage the eternal struggle. According to Tolstoy, the solution is not idealistic extremes, but the practice of true spiritual love. One on one with the world around us. True religion, as articulated by Christ, that transcends the limited scope of the blatant self-interest of the organized church, political parties, social engineering, and legal maneuvering.

The novel is a grim portrait of the suffering of the poor, in spirit and in fact. Readers who recall the grand historical scope of "War and Peace" and the poignant personal drama of "Anna Karenina" will be struck by the modest presentation of this book. The plot development is minimal, and mainly consists of Nekhludov's interventions on Maslova's behalf with a variety of legal, military, and political persons. This privileged structure, contrasted with the suffering of the prison inmates, leaves a deep impression. Tolstoy's goal is spiritual maturity, and not revolutionary incitement. He writes graphically and realistically of the world. This novel was banned for a time in Edwardian England. It is an eloquent albeit modest summary to Tolstoy's career as a thinker.

Tolstoy is a masterful writer, and this marvelous collection of his short stories is excellent proof of this. Of the 9 stories contained in the collection, 3 in particular are worth noting: The Raid was an interesting tale of life on the "frontier" of Ukraine - and is not unlike a Louis L'Amour viginette. Tolstoy pulls no punches here, and the line between "good guy" and "bad guy" is blurred. Two Hussars is another favorite of mine, mostly because of the way in which he writes the characters - so real you can imagine meeting them in person in some dimly-lit pub. How Much Land Does a Man Need? is the third short story that resonnated with me, as it wrestles with the typically Russian theme of a man and his attachment to the land, but also with the broader human theme of need versus greed. (Especially resonant in our own time, what with ozone depletion, increased consumption of fossil fuels, and over population.) While the other stories are good, these 3 in particular make the book worth the purchase price. Don't think of it as "Tolstoy" - read it for its own sake - its a thumping good book.

I was attracted to this volume by Calvino's recommendation of 'Two Hussars', a gorgeous, bipartite story of Turgenev-like transparency, about the respective, mirroring adventures of a father and son, and their relationships with the army, their servants, the local society they briefly enter, and the women they meet.

In one sense it is a tale about history, about the raucous gambling, drinking and dancing of the early 19th century, and the more sedate, stolid bourgeoisification in its middle. The climax, where narrative and character gives way to suspended time and a tableaux of nature, is heartstopping.

The other stories in this collection are similarly schizophrenic, ranging from early works in the 1850s influenced by Tolstoy's time in the army; and the later didactic, moralistic works, including some of his most famous, 'The Death of Ivan Illyich' and 'How much land does a man need?' (which Joyce thought the greatest story ever written).

the translations by Louise and Aylmer Maude, nearly a century old, are still very readable, probably because they were friends of Tolstoy's, and had greatr knowledge of his methods and intentions. The annotation and 1982 introduction needs updating, though.

Tolstoy has the aesthetic/philosophical insight of a thin-lipped Puritan. His conclusions are dogmatic and authoritarian. What is art, according to Tolstoy? That which gives communal emotional expression in glory of God. All else is vanity, alas: mere self-indulgent Hedonism. Follow the precepts in this book and watch your horizons begin to narrow. The fact that Tolstoy was a distinguished novelist and that he spent so much time thinking about these matters is of no consequence. As many have said before, Tolstoy was a very good novelist but a very bad philosopher.

Tolstoy was a great writer, and his late period of "saintly" simplicity and "solidarity" with the Russian peasants (whom he continued to use on his land) is important to understand as an example of something--I'm not sure what. Maybe as an example of the contradictions of that kind of utopianism (see Isaiah Berlin's great essays on Tolstoy). Also, What is Art?, which dates from this last period, makes some important reminders about the social context of art. BUT ...

It is also the classic example of Philistinism, casually dismissing great works of art because they don't conform to St. Leo's late ideal of simple, straightforward form and content. The previous reviewers make clear the dangers of this kind of attitude--when they don't understand a painting or poem, it couldn't possibly be because there's something lacking in their response. It must be because the work is decadent or wrong. Such an attitude ultimately leads not to the simple purity Tolstoy envisioned, but to the sort of dumbing down we have in American television, cinema, and "beach" novels. "I know what I like" has become the manifesto of boorishness, adding self-righteousness to poor taste.

Tolstoy's What is Art? is worth reading, but keep in mind that his descriptions of music by Wagner or Beethoven, various novels, etc., are ridiculous caricatures that have little to do with the real thing. Furthermore, it's difficult not to see "St. Leo" as incredibly hypocritical, staying in all summer reading the latest novels while his peasants work in his fields, and then criticising the novels because they're remote from the common life of the peasants.

If...you've ever been baffled by a Monet exhibit or a Beethoven sonata, it doesn't mean that these are no good and you may as well go back to your sitcoms and soaps. It means you need to look and listen again, and maybe think a bit. The rewards are there if you're willing to get off your intellectual butt.

Do you have thoughts like "well, maybe it's just me... They say Monet is great, but perhaps I just don't understand it..." I say, maybe it's your own gut that tells you what is the true art and what is not!

This work by Tolstoy is a summary of his 15 year spiritual journey and research of art and what it's all about. And who is the author! A genius himself! In this piece he tells us in plain language that the whole art of his century (with a few exceptions) is a product of a rotten class of people, a select few, whose main concerns were far from being common with the feelings of any normal human being. "Art, nowadays, is for pleasure, not for bringing moral values in the form of genuine feelings to a reader". This is basically the general idea of the work. At first, you feel dumbfounded reading this, but after a few pages, his statements start to make sense. Only a true moral feeling expressed in the right form, not necessarily beautiful, but understandible and to the point, is a true piece of art.

Now, let's go back and think for minute: do I really like Sheakspeare or is it the literary criticism the makes me feel that I am not a fully cultured person unless I acknowledge Sheakspeare as the greatest of all, or at least one of the greatest writers (playwrights) ever? Even if I think that he was too verbose and vague to begin with? That sometimes you read him and whole paragraphs go by without you fully understanding what he's talking about? Mind you, he wrote for the theater, which means characters' sentences need to be pretty concise and clear, so that the audience could follow them. Anyway, Tolstoy will help you understand this problem.

His main idea, again, is for art to convey the feelings of fraternity and love to the reader, not sexual desires, fake patriotism, shovinism or those exquisite feelings of the upper class. Art is about compassion, love, oneness of all people and good healthy humor. I totally agree with that.

One more thing: in this work, Tolstoy confronts the idea of goodness with the idea of beauty, saying that for the sake of beauty, the contemporary artists disregard goodness. This a very controversial statement, in my opinion, but there is a point there...

Also recommended: of course, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Resurrection, Childhood, Boyhood & Youth, as true standards of literature, by which you can judge the works of others. All other fiction by Tolstoy is just as great and easy to read, especially his short stories, such as "Master and Man", "The Forged Coupon", etc. His other less known works that are revolutionary by their essence, are "My Confession", "What is My Belief (Religion)" and especially (really hard to find) "Critique of Dogmatic Theology", where he expounded his views on religion and traditional Church Christianity with all its absurd, useless dogmas, which only divert your attention from what Christ really taught. This is a very controversial work, which was prohibited in Russia of his day, but which is certainly worth reading. By the way, why doesn't Everyman's Library publish it?

After reading THE FORGED COUPON, I concluded that Leo Tolstoy would have me believe that if I cut off some other motorist on the freeway tomorrow, the anger I generate in that other driver could reverberate from individual to individual and eventually cause someone halfway around the world having a bad hair day to push the Nuclear Button. Thank goodness I'm not paranoid!

The premise of Tolstoy's last short novel, written in 1904, is that the effects of individual actions, whether good or bad, ripple through society causing unexpected consequences far removed in time and place from the original deed. THE FORGED COUPON begins with a father angrily denying his son an advance on his allowance, causing the latter to forge an inflated value on the coupon he's given instead. (In the storyline's time and place, coupons clipped from interest-bearing documents were commonly used as money.) The eventual repercussions of this act provide the background against which Tolstoy lashes out against the flaws he perceived in pre-Revolution Russian society: upper class greed, the oppression of the peasant class, the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of the Russian Orthodox Church, the unfairness of the justice system, and the intellectual banality of the political leadership up to and including the Tsar. As a solution to his societyís ills, the author proposes a return to Christian fundamentalism based solely on scripture, and fictionally illustrates how acts grounded in such can be just as influential in the long term as those generated by mankind's baser motives.

The reader will perhaps find truths in THE FORGED COUPON depending on his/her personal value system. But is the book well done? The front cover of my edition calls it "a classic tale of crime and guilt". Well, it's certainly a tale of crime and guilt, but it misses being classic simply because it's too short. It's as if Tolstoy, who died in 1910, realized his life was coming to a close and thought he'd better crank this one out in a hurry. Had he taken the time to expand the novel to several hundred pages and develop the characters and storyline more, it perhaps would have had more impact. THE FORGED COUPON comes across as a rush job. Indeed, the CliffsNotes version is probably longer than the 88 pages of my edition of the original. Its greatest value was to provide me with some small insight into Russian social structure of the period - a structure swept away forever in the next decade by World War One and the revolutions of 1917.

Short, simple, and yet truly profound, The Forged Coupon reads like Tolstoy's last wish for humanity; compassion, kindness, and responsibility toward our fellow man/woman.

Young Fedor Mikhailovich needs money to repay a debt. After his father angrily refuses to give him any more money, Fedor simply changes a $2.50 note to read $12.50. What follows is an intricate tale of how one evil deed, one selfish act, affects the lives of dozens of others. Tolstoy wrote this novella in his last years, after his excommunication, and he relishes the chance to unveil the pseudo-piety and hypocrisy of organized religion. Yet, his belief in the individual's capacity to find truth is unwavering. Regardless of the theological overtones, however, this novella is priceless for its Aesopian message...that every act, good or bad, goes out into the world like so many ripples.

I give The Forged Coupon four stars only because The Death of Ivan Illych is superior. Still, I wouldn't want my bookshelf to be without this work from the master.