[Cross-posted here, but with pretty pictures!]"Bohun was more like the passing spirit of their own cruel and heroic era than just another man."p.1126This book reminded me why it is that I love serialized fiction so very much. Had it been planned out and written all at once, I think it’s safe to say that With Fire and Sword wouldn’t be the novel it is.Henryk Sienkiewicz (and yes, one of my childhood heroes is his descendant) is a difficult author for an English-speaker to explore. In Poland, the man is so important that the trilogy that With Fire and Sword begins is simply known as "The Trilogy," while in the English-speaking world he's pretty much just known as "That Guy Who Wrote Quo Vadis," and anyone who does talk about The Trilogy just goes "uh, he's kind of a Polish Tolstoy?"Well, first of all, let me just say that Sienkiewicz is in no way a Polish Tolstoy. Sure, he's from what we Americans understand to be that general part of the world, and this is a really long book about a war that was very important in the history of his country, but that's where similarities between With Fire and Sword and War and Peace end. And that's OK. Because if there's no The Polish Tolstoy in Sienkiewicz, there's a whole lot of The Polish Dumas there, which may not sound quite as intellectual, but is just as good, if you ask me. (Allowing, of course, that this kind of comparison is sort of a lazy exercise in the first place, and needs to be qualified.) All told, after reading this book there was no doubt in my mind that Sienkiewicz must have loved The Three Musketeers.After all, With Fire and Sword, boiled down to its essence, is about a hero who tries to find the woman he loves, with the help of his three eccentric friends, all against a backdrop of a grand historical conflict (the Khmelnytsky Uprising, which is a fascinating and massive war that I was never taught about in school) the author tries, and fails, to not be one-sided about. But, despite the clear Musketeers influence, it’s very much its own book, with a lot of its own stuff going on (which is good, ‘cause Skrzetuski is no D'artagnan).A Dumas comparison also brings us back to the serialization angle, which is important because the characters in With Fire and Sword build in the same way that good TV characters do. They begin as broad figures with easily identifiable character traits: the hero Skrzetuski, the friendly giant Podbipięta, the blustery Falstaff-like Zagloba, and the ladies’ man Wołodyjowski. Each has an extra quirk here and there (the best being that the friendly giant is also chafing under an ill-advised vow of chastity that’s driving him crazy) but can essentially be summed up easily and quickly. It’s clear that, at the beginning, Skrzetuski is meant to be our hero and central character, and for the first third of the book he is.But then a funny thing happens. Somewhere along the line, Sienkiewicz realizes that Skrzetuski just isn’t that interesting a character (he never really moves beyond "the hero") and so he begins to fade into the background, still important to the plot but letting more interesting supporting characters do the heavy lifting. (It’s a bit like how the title character of Ivanhoe fades a bit into the background, except moreso.) More interesting characters like Zagloba. In a book full of virtuous and valorous knights, it’s the fat, blustering, drinking, cowardly, possibly-actually-a-peasant-pretending-to-be-a-noble Zagloba who emerges as the book’s best character -- and one of the greatest fictional characters I think I’ve ever encountered.Now, I can’t say this for sure, but I get the feeling that, had the book had been written all at once, without the feedback of readers as it was being published, Zagloba would have still been its best character, but would not have taken over the book, essentially becoming its lead. I would have to go back chapter by chapter, but I get the feeling that Zagloba actually graces more pages than Skrzetuski ever does -- certainly by the end the book seems to have this bizarre contrast between epic adventure and the goofy man at its center. The real highlight may very well be a section that covers Zagloba and Helena, our female lead, sneaking through enemy territory. It’s the first long section without Skrzetuski, it's when Zagloba comes into his own as a character, as well as when Helena becomes more than The Girl.Come to think of it, Wołodyjowski also becomes a genuinely likeable character once he gets Zagloba to bounce off of for awhile, and Podbipięta almost always has Zagloba as a foil and is a joy to read from the start, if not of the most impressive depth. Zagloba is just, it seems, one of those characters who brings out the best in whoever he’s paired with, along with being a bully, a sweetheart, a coward, a bad-ass, a bigot, extremely crafty, and (through his cowardice in a roundabout way) the only character who really gets how terrible and wasteful this war is. He's one of the best examples I have ever seen of a broad outline being filled in with the most wonderful character.Helena also has to grow into her character a bit. Very early in the book, She and Skrzetuski have one of those silly love-at-first-sight moments, after which they are entirely in love even though the reader never has any idea why. There is no sense of what it is about these two characters that brings them together, and one gets the sense that Sienkiewicz is saying, "They’re the leads, of course they’re in love! Why spend time on it?" Yet in this shallow relationship, it’s Helena, as the book progresses, who overcomes cliché to becomes a great character, and not our "hero." It’s a welcome surprise in a 19th century adventure novel. She does still spend most of the book as a captive, regrettably, but even then she gets a genuinely bad-ass moment.These characters are most of what makes the book, but not all: it has that beautifully wide historical scope that I was looking for. There are surprising duels and snarling villains and beautiful/sickening panoramas and a last-ditch defense of a fortress that felt like motherfucking Helms Deep. Oh, also the Polish hussars, which are pretty much the most amazing and frightening cavalry ever (they wore crazy wings into battle!).So, what are the problems? Well, the largest is probably trying to figure out where the line between "this is how they saw things back then" and "this is what I, the author, am glorifying right now" is. After a certain point, of course, authorial intent shouldn’t matter and we should just take what’s there, but I can’t help it being a sticking point for me, at times.The quote at the top of the article, which names the book’s lead villain, makes a good case for seeing the novel’s setting as old-fashioned and cruel. Hell, Bohun would easily be the dashing hero of a less thoughtful old adventure novel -- he’s a brave, handsome, brooding warrior who kidnaps a lady to make her realize how much she loves him. But since he is the villain, we're clearly not meant to see the era through too rosy of a view.But then there’s also the use of religion. Every Christian character is so sure that God wants them to kill as many of their enemies as possible: especially Muslims, but Cossacks too, and I was never clear on whether the book was going, "Look at how strange it was that they thought it was Christian to kill people!" or "That’s right! They thought that because it is." Much of this comes as they’re fighting for the ideals of a surprisingly forward-thinking, for its time, Polish commonwealth, that had some inklings of a multi-religious democracy -- so whether it’s in the characters or the author, the push-and-pull between worldviews is fascinating. This, to an extent, redeemed the incongruity for me.So too with bigotry. Many people (especially in the Ukraine) consider the book offensive, and I can certainly see why. In it, Ukrainian peasants are almost always shown as violent savages, but it gets particularly strange later on, when our author describes why it is, he thinks that they are such:There were no peasants like them anywhere in Europe, Hmyelnitzki was certain; no, nor anywhere else on earth where the wretched peasantry bowed without a murmur under the burdens of serfdom and oppression. But the Ukrainians were a different breed. They breathed a different air. Why should they crawl behind some noble's plow when the horizons promised them a masterless existence everywhere they looked? The open steppe beckoned to them every day. The tall grasses whispered. The wilderness filled their minds and souls with such insatiable hunger to be free, and with such abundant sense of space and of their own unfettered possibilities, that they clung to their liberty even more ferociously than to life itself.p.791It’s a strangely beautiful explanation, that skirts more toward "noble savage" territory, and had me admiring the people in question, even as I realized how backward it is characterize them all as one thing.Still, these problems are often part and parcel of 19th century literature, especially of the nationalistic variety. Sienkiewicz explicitly wrote his Trilogy with an eye toward lifting up the people of a conquered Poland by taking a look at the romantic old days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. So, in the end, I take more issue with how long it took the book to realize which characters deserved its page space, (a problem more likely to be rectified in books two and three) than I do with its moral failings, because those are still part of the larger picture of a man struggling with his country’s history, and also writing a kick-ass adventure story that gets invaded by some tender and haunting moments.A note on the translation: Some laud this early 90s translation and denigrate the older 19th century one, some do the opposite, many don’t like either one. This one seemed like the better choice to me, although it did transliterate the names, which meant that to write this review and get the correct names I had to look them up. I also just found out that Kuniczak entirely excised an epilogue that tells about the end of the war, which is very disappointing. But, as of now, there doesn’t seem to be a better option.
I have, after a year, come back to knock it down a star. Sad :( See, it deserved that fith star, but there was so much language and gore that no matter how much I loved it, I struggle with it. People have asked: What's that polish novel you go on and on about? And I pause for a moment, realizing I really don't know if I should recomend it or not. Still one of my favorite novels though.Written for book club: A civil war, a rivaled love, a country trying pull itself together while it's being ripped apart, and a man caught in the middle of it all. This depicts Henryk Sienkiewicz's With Fire and Sword.It is an epic tale that draws the reader into the plot, the characters, and the book itself. When a devastating civil war breaks out in Poland, the country becomes wreathed in the literal and figurative flames of mass rebellion. Blood soaks the ground while attempts to quench the rebellion rise and heighten to form this captivating tapestry of lives coming together and entwining into a complicated and intriguing picture. The main character, Yan Skshetuski, is a member of the Commonwealth. It is this class of people that the commoners, with the help of the Tartars and others, are trying to bring down. Skshetuski fights under Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski, a true leader and an interesting character who struggles with how he should save his beloved Poland. Yan understands that his country comes first and foremost, even above the beautiful Helena whom he loves and dreams of marrying. Helena waits for him, dreaming of his love, while trying to avoid Bogun, a commoner enraptured with her. Even as he fights against Skshetuski, Bogun finds time to go after her, wanting to keep her from Yan and have her for himself. Can Helena avoid him while waiting for her true love? The love story perfectly rounds out the book. It helps balance all the fighting, without becoming too prominent and taking over the plot. What really brings this book to life though isare the characters. Each and every one is different. They are deep and contrasting and have quirks and mannerisms that endear them to the reader. Most also have struggles and character growth that makes them realistic and believable. Even though Yan was the main character, there were others that equally took the spotlight. This keeps the readers interest, because they do not have to dwell on one person for too long. The main theme of the book was loyalty. Skshetuski realized he needed to remain loyal to the commonwealth, to Helena, and to his prince. His friends were loyal to him, helping him through with his difficulties even when tragedy strikes and the going gets tough. They all have a brotherly affection that is so often missed in our culture. One thing about With Fire and Sword that I find disquieting is the gore. Sienkiewicz was depicting a civil war, which undoubtedly is not a pretty thing, but he could have been a little less descriptive in some parts. In a few instances he graphically describes the mobs activity of killing or someone dying. These questionable elements, along with the drinking and slight use of swear words are there. Anyone who is considering reading this book should keep that in mind. This book has become my all time favorite novel. It's perfectly balanced. It is interesting and hard to put down. Keeping in mind the above warnings, by all means go and read this book! It might look long and daunting, but it will be hard to put it down once you get started.
What do You think about Ogniem I Mieczem (2015)?
"With Fire and Sword" is the first volume of a trilogy by Polish author Henryk Sienkiewicz. It is a monumental work of over 1100 pages, but it was a much faster read than I thought it would be. This book talks about the Cossack uprising in Ukraine in the 1640s by the rebel Helmininski against the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. This is a part of European history that I knew nothing about so it was very interesting reading a fictional account of it. Unfortunately my Kindle edition did not have a map. There are numerous place names and distances traveled on horseback and I had a difficult time picturing it in my head. The biggest flaw in the book for me is that I felt it did not explain very well what Helmininski was so upset about. It danced around it and made him seem petty, but he gathered a force of half a million people and convinced the Khan in Crimea to come to his aid. I felt the book ignored what were legitimate complaints of the "rabble." The book series celebrates the heroics of the Poles at a time when their vast power was being weakened, first by the war with Helmininski and the Khan, then in the second book the Swedes and then in the third book with the Ottomans. I understand focusing on the Polish heroes but I think since it is a historical novel some more details about why the war happened and the treaty that ended it would have made the bulk of the book, which is mostly war, more complete.Aside from the war there is also a love story, and a group of friends who are dedicated to each other. Pan Yan is the hero of the book and he is in love with Princess Helena. Unfortunately because of the war and his rival Bogun, he does not have the chance to marry her when he wants to. There are some very beautiful scenes where his buddies, Zagloba, Pan Longin and Pan Michael plan a way to retrieve Helena from her situation (I am trying to not spoil anything, so I am sorry if I my vagueness is confusing). I found this group of friends to be the heart of the novel, and not the love story, although that is sweet too. Pan Yan is a bit of a melodramatic character, but it doesn't stop him from being extremely brave when helping his comrades. Zagloba is a Falstaffian character. He is a braggart who has coincidental luck in battle, but he is endearing and brave and cares deeply about his friends and Helena, whom he considers his daughter. Pan Longin is a bit of a satirical character. He is a Lithuanian and and is represented as a little backward or simple, but he has a great heart. His dream in life is to use his Crusader's sword, which is supposedly so heavy that only he can wield it, to chop off three Tartar heads simultaneously. He feels it would be a legacy to his family and makes a vow of celibacy until he can achieve it. Pan Michael is small in stature but passionate and brave. The third book in the Trilogy is about him. Sienkiewicz's imagery is the strength of the book. The scenes of battle are horrific, the runs across the Ukrainian steppes and the environment are very well and poetically described. I felt like I could see in front of me a time in history long gone and it was very moving. I recommend this book. I think reading a little of the actual history is helpful to keep place names and people in context. I have not decided yet if I am going to read the whole series. I am interested but I am afraid it will be more of the same, just with a different cast of bad guys and war is not a genre I normally partake in.
—Caitlin
4,5*Pacholęciem ledwie będąc sercem całym pokochałam Ogniem i mieczem. Film. :)No właśnie, jak tu ocenić książkę nie uciekając do obejrzanej kilka razy ekranizacji? Nie da się. Mogę natomiast stwierdzić, że zdarzyła się rzecz wyjątkowa- ani film nie jest lepszy od książki (rzecz to zresztą niepodobna), ani od niej gorszy (!)- powiedziałabym że książka jest po prostu bardziej złożona. Tyle na temat porównań.Trylogia Sienkiewicza to dzieło o którym każdy Polak słyszał, a które przeczytało niewielki ułamek narodu. Klasyka narzucana odgórnie w szkole nigdy nie jest lubiana. Wśród starszych pokoleń często jest krytykowana za górnolotność, patos, podział świata na czarno-biały. W tym wszystkim zapomina się, że literatura powinna sprawiać przyjemność, a czy sprawia ją "ku pokrzepieniu serc" czy dla własnej satysfakcji autora to akurat nieistotne.Tak, w obu tomiszczach tej długiej narracji są prawie wszystkie przywary wymieniane przez niechętnych. Nie wspomina się jednak o cudownym języku szlachty, rusyczyźnie (?) Kozaków, niewyczerpanych pokładach humoru i tempie akcji działającym na wyobraźnię. Czy można mówić o podziale bohaterów na dobrych i złych widząc w Bohunie postać na wskroś tragiczną? Czy można przeczytać tę epopeję i choć raz nie sięgnąć po atlas by wodzić palcem między wymienionymi miejscami? Mi się nie udało.
—Marzena
November 2009When Henryk Sienkiewicz (Sin-KAY-vitch) won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Literature "because of his outstanding merits as an epic writer," this is what the Swedish Academy was talking about. At over 1100 pages, With Fire and Sword is only the first book of a trilogy--known as The Trilogy in Poland, where it is practically a national epic, having sustained Poland’s cultural identity and morale thoughout decades of Nazi and Communist rule during the last century (see the foreword by James A. Michener and the introduction for further detail). And yet, despite its status, this novel--as well as the rest of the Trilogy--remain mostly unknown and unread throughout the rest of the world.The action takes place throughout Poland in the late 1640s, during the Hmyelnitzki Uprising, when Bohdan Hmyelnitzki led a massive rebellion of Cossacks, peasants, and Turks against the Polish gentry of the doomed Commonwealth. If all that flies over your head, don't worry: my knowledge of Polish history is just as lacking. But With Fire and Sword isn't a dull, plodding historical novel. These are the adentures of the noble Yan Skshetuski, a soldier in the service of Prince Yeremi Vishnovyetzki, who serves his country even as he fights for the love of a princess; Longinus Podbipyenta, a giant of a man, sworn to celibacy until he can behead three foes at once with the sword of his ancestors; Michal Volodyovski, the smallest swordsman; and Pan Zagloba, the greatest drinker and liar of them all. Their adventures, as they defend their country, seek true love, fight for honor, and risk their livers for yet another drink, are thrilling, epic, extraordinary...and, let’s face it, far better, and more interesting, than anything that hack Tolstoy wrote in War and Peace. Twice the battles and none of that "philosophy of history" nonsense.The W. S. Kuniczak translation is supposed to be the only version worth reading (and probably the only modern translation into English anyway), so readers should stick with that. It’s not perfect, and there are some typographical errors here and there (most notably two Chapter Thirty-Fives), but nothing to distract from the story. Also, despite its name, The Trilogy is actually four books: the second book, The Deluge, nearly tops 2000 pages and had to be published in two volumes, while the third installment, Fire on the Steppe, falls in the 700-800 range...which may be one reason few people have read the books. At a hefty 4000 pages, The Trilogy takes time, effort, and quite a lot of dedication...says the guy who hasn't finished it yet.---March 2012Attempted reread, but can't seem to focus on it the second time around. Still want to give it another try (and read the rest of The Trilogy), so I think I'll start again in a few months.---
—Jacob
