The Snowstorm was, to me, unreadable. Just all over the place, hard to follow, full of unnecessary detail, lacking any kind of escalation, and boring. So when George asks "what's the difference?" between the two, I'd say one is a story and one is an attempt at a story that fails (as a story). What's nice is to know that Tolstoy was once …
The Snowstorm was, to me, unreadable. Just all over the place, hard to follow, full of unnecessary detail, lacking any kind of escalation, and boring. So when George asks "what's the difference?" between the two, I'd say one is a story and one is an attempt at a story that fails (as a story). What's nice is to know that Tolstoy was once a beginning writer with a lot to learn. He, obviously, didn't give up and eventually figured out how to tell a story.
The two stories share a snowstorm and in both stories the characters are lost in that storm. But the earlier story simply stays in that place--a scary storm with the fear of death hovering (until the end). The stories share a few other similarities, but only as touchstones--there are drivers, there is drinking, there are horses, etc. In structure, The Snowstorm seems to spin in circles. There is no rising action, just repetition of events. In Master and Man, however, everything in the story builds to the final moment. The story has a unity of purpose. You feel as you read that what happens has been chosen on purpose by the author in order to escalate the plot. Tension builds. And then--payoff. The story ends in a magnificent way, with a character rising above himself to save another. The story has meaning. And everything in the story was chosen in order to point to that meaning.
I know we've been talking about organization, and it seems that Master and Man is closely and masterly organized while The Snowstorm is not (or at least, it is not organized in the shape of a story). In Master and Man, Tolstoy's decisions are evident--he no longer wants to simply show us what it is like to be in a storm and fear for one's life (as in The Snowstorm). He wants to tell a story.
Good point on the difficulty, which was true in my first reading. Moves like a drunken caterpillar. I had more time in the second reading, though, and once you're used to his St. Paul long sentences the tale has lots of interesting legs.
The Snowstorm was, to me, unreadable. Just all over the place, hard to follow, full of unnecessary detail, lacking any kind of escalation, and boring. So when George asks "what's the difference?" between the two, I'd say one is a story and one is an attempt at a story that fails (as a story). What's nice is to know that Tolstoy was once a beginning writer with a lot to learn. He, obviously, didn't give up and eventually figured out how to tell a story.
The two stories share a snowstorm and in both stories the characters are lost in that storm. But the earlier story simply stays in that place--a scary storm with the fear of death hovering (until the end). The stories share a few other similarities, but only as touchstones--there are drivers, there is drinking, there are horses, etc. In structure, The Snowstorm seems to spin in circles. There is no rising action, just repetition of events. In Master and Man, however, everything in the story builds to the final moment. The story has a unity of purpose. You feel as you read that what happens has been chosen on purpose by the author in order to escalate the plot. Tension builds. And then--payoff. The story ends in a magnificent way, with a character rising above himself to save another. The story has meaning. And everything in the story was chosen in order to point to that meaning.
I know we've been talking about organization, and it seems that Master and Man is closely and masterly organized while The Snowstorm is not (or at least, it is not organized in the shape of a story). In Master and Man, Tolstoy's decisions are evident--he no longer wants to simply show us what it is like to be in a storm and fear for one's life (as in The Snowstorm). He wants to tell a story.
Good point on the difficulty, which was true in my first reading. Moves like a drunken caterpillar. I had more time in the second reading, though, and once you're used to his St. Paul long sentences the tale has lots of interesting legs.
I'm breathing deep to muster the focus for my second reading. My first reading required determination over 2 weeks.