Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is the second book by Tolstoy I've read,the first being Anna Karenina. Of the two books I prefer Anna Karenina.
This felt like a books of two halves.
The peace parts and the war parts. For about half the book they feel very separate and it's only later that we see all the characters fall under the shadow of war.
The character focused sections were more my cup of tea. There were long sections relaying the history of the Napoleonic war that were incredibly dry for me.
The character centred parts were much more interesting but even then there's a lot in Pierre's storyline about personal happiness that's very monologue heavy.
The book was published as several volumes and even has two epilogues. One for the characters one for the war itself.
I've seen in a view reviews people struggled with the Russian naming conventions but I found the names and number of characters fairly manageable.
Overall this is one of the few times I'd say just watch the t.v. show. I felt the BBC mini series did a good job and contained many scenes that were word for word the same as the book.
This felt like a books of two halves.
The peace parts and the war parts. For about half the book they feel very separate and it's only later that we see all the characters fall under the shadow of war.
The character focused sections were more my cup of tea. There were long sections relaying the history of the Napoleonic war that were incredibly dry for me.
The character centred parts were much more interesting but even then there's a lot in Pierre's storyline about personal happiness that's very monologue heavy.
The book was published as several volumes and even has two epilogues. One for the characters one for the war itself.
I've seen in a view reviews people struggled with the Russian naming conventions but I found the names and number of characters fairly manageable.
Overall this is one of the few times I'd say just watch the t.v. show. I felt the BBC mini series did a good job and contained many scenes that were word for word the same as the book.
This book gets a bad rap. Yes, it is long, and yes, it has lots of Russian names. But at its heart, it's really just a soap opera with lots of fascinating detail about wartime in the Napoleonic era. Really, really good.
adventurous
emotional
informative
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Every evening I would pick up this book and be transported to Russia. His writing is so beautiful. It is a slow read, yes (took me 3 months) but I didn't mind that at all because every night I was excited to see what happened next. I found the history of the war with Napoleon and Tolstojs views on it fascinating. Towards the end Tolstoj does become too reflective and repetitive so I skimmed those pages:) I recommend this to anyone who likes epic stories about love and war.
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
I enjoyed the parts that were actually about the characters, particularly the non-fighting parts. The parts about napoleon and kutuzov were less my cup of tea. And he really went on about free will and greatness and history theory and cause and effect, which was not that fun. Especially in part 2 of the epilogue. That was a real slog. But the storylines were very engaging!
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Cinematic. That's the only way I can describe Tolstoy. It is like a movie. And you know those dazzling movie moments where you sit back and go wow, that was a really magical thing they captured there. He has those too. It's really like magic. I don't know how he does it. He takes you through the whole range of an experience and makes you feel as if you've gone through it all. I am a completely jaded media consumer and rarely react emotionally to anything I might be reading or watching. But Tolstoy manages to portray the full dimensions of the characters in such a way that you really care what happens to them. It's one thing to write exciting adventure or romance but quite another for the tragic moments to be truly sad and those ineffable magic moments to come alive. The battle scenes and troop movements are what every war movie is trying to capture. They are trying to do War and Peace.
It’s reputation as being a dense hard-going chore is really without any sort of basis as far as I can tell. It’s not James Joyce’s Ulysses. It had me turning the pages easily. And when I got to the end of the 1455 pages it wasn’t as if I was just happy to be done with it, I already wanted to read it all over again.
It is one of these messy sprawling 19th century novels that covers so many topics it seems to create it’s own mini-universe. What made me want to read it was when I found out that Tolstoy was a fan of Les Miserables; a monstrous rambling thing full of random subjects you never thought would be as interesting as Hugo makes them. This book was Tolstoy’s attempt to temper the melodramatic tendencies of the European novel. And it’s a huge success for sure but the thing is it’s not so much a novel as much as the makings of about a dozen different novels which if you think about it, is a lot more like real life. Henry James called it “a wonderful mass of life,” which is perfect. Because although he definitely has some points to make and some themes he likes to hit on, there is really no story as you might commonly think of it. It’s just a bunch of peoples lives and everything they go through. The characters are flawed. You will not like them at times (although he describes their inner lives so well that you tend to sympathize with them no matter what). And they grow and change as the book goes on. And that irritating tendency of 19th century literature to have the same characters constantly encountering each other in the most unlikely circumstances? Tolstoy has so many characters and creates such a massive lifelike world that it never at any time seems unrealistic.
Yeah, there are many who have called it the best novel ever written. I’m definitely not in any way qualified to confirm such a claim, but I highly doubt anyone who read it all the way through didn’t find something to like about it. Isaac Babel said, “if the world could write by itself, it would write like Tolstoy.” Which describes quite well, the naturalistic style he uses in War and Peace.
This is not to say it doesn’t have it’s fair share of problems, of course. Nothing this huge and sprawling could be perfect. I thought the climax at the end of book 2 was a bit too melodramatic. The epilogue is mostly essays that you will probably have many disagreements with (although it did make me think again about the concept of free will). But by the time he gets to any of this stuff you are totally on board for whatever he throws at you. He earns it. They just become the sort of problems that are fun to argue about rather than the book spoiling kind.
Historical Accuracy
The historical accuracy probably hits more than it misses, but it has it’s misses. Tolstoy’s Napoleon is... a cartoon, but oh well. He really cannot bring himself to give Napoleon any credit when clearly he had to have some talent, charisma, something, to do what he did. And he acts like the French invasion of Russia was a total surprise, a dastardly trick by the French without warning, when really franco-russian relations had been deteriorating for years at this point and the Russians were well aware that war was imminent at least a year ahead of time. He makes what seems to be a very reasonable case for the burning of Moscow just being accidental. Unfortunately, looking at the facts today it seems pretty hard to avoid blaming Rostopchin.
‘Who thinks Napoleon was a genius?’, Tolstoy asks, ‘just a bunch of Frenchmen.’ Well no, many non-French contemporaries including Wellington and your own Kutuzov were quite open with their estimation of his genius. There are two events that thoroughly demonstrate for me his charisma and natural leadership abilities. First, his return from Elba where he convinces the French soldiers that stop him to rally to his side. Tolstoy, who can’t allow himself to give Napoleon any credit, is unable understand this at all so he has to fall back on his elaborate theory of divine predestination. And the second example, which is even more incredible, is the occasion of him being transported in the British ship after Waterloo where he won over the Captain and the entire crew. It frightened the British so much they never allowed him on British soil and sent him directly to St. Helena.
As for the burning of Moscow, Tolstoy explains that the French said it was the Russians and the Russians said it was the French but really it was probably just an accident. Tolstoy makes the reasonable assertion that this would be an accident that would be extremely likely to occur in any city made of wood, completely abandoned, and then occupied by a foreign army of looting soldiers used to camping in the field. As reasonable as this might seem, the Moscow Police Superintendent’s report actually says that Rostopchin gave the order and fire-fighting equipment was deliberately removed from the city. And in fact, the French initially assumed that it was their own men’s carelessness that had started the fires. It was only after conducting their investigation that they began to think otherwise. Caulaincourt’s account of the French investigation says they arrested men who admitted they had been ordered to start the fires and says he personally saw the “fuses” they were using. You can take the French account however you like, and certainly Tolstoy makes it clear he thought they were trumped up phony charges, it’s just the little fact that it seems to agree fairly well with the Moscow Police Superintendent.
Common Complaints
There're too many characters! OK, yes there are a lot of characters and early on it takes a minute to get a hold of all of them but really it just takes the faintest bit of effort to remember who they might be talking about. Keep in mind: in Russian the equivalent to adding a 'y' to make it a nickname is adding 'ushka' or 'asha'. So Nikolai becomes Nikolushka.
It's difficult to read! OK, this must be the translation you are reading. I am reading the Ann Dunnigan Signet Classics translation and there is nothing hard about it all. It's a joy to read. You will burn through the pages.
It's too long! Yes, it is long. But again if you are reading a decent translation this really shouldn't be a problem. Just read a little every day and you'll get to the end. It’s only long if you think about reading it only for purposes of edification. But like I said, I highly recommend it for pure enjoyment. And in that way, the length is hardly relevant, people read series’ of equivalent lengths quite commonly these days. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, what-have-you.
Background Info
One thing, as far as it’s accessibility to a wide audience, is that it assumes the reader has a certain amount of knowledge of 19th century European history. In 1869 his audience would have been familiar with all of the events used as the background of the narrative. I had some knowledge of the Napoleonic history but knew very little about the Russian side of things. Here’s a short something about Napoleon that may (or may not) be useful:
In the French Revolution many opportunities were opened for men of ability to move up in the ranks. A young artillery officer name Napoleon Buonaparte, from a lower aristocratic family, distinguished himself at this time (see: Toulon). He commanded many stunning victories in Northern Italy (then controlled by the Austrian Empire). He impressed many with his expedition to Egypt (although ultimately ending in calamity) and on his return was involved in a coup d’etat that first put him in a position of political power. After this he consolidated his power, and enacted many things that solidified the reforms of the French Revolution and solved lingering domestic conflicts. The events of the book are some years after this, leading up to the famous battle of Austerlitz that stunned the world.
Without getting into any spoilers, to understand what Tolstoy is alluding to at the end of the book, you need to know that the event in Russian history that immediately followed this part was the Decembrists’ revolt.
It’s reputation as being a dense hard-going chore is really without any sort of basis as far as I can tell. It’s not James Joyce’s Ulysses. It had me turning the pages easily. And when I got to the end of the 1455 pages it wasn’t as if I was just happy to be done with it, I already wanted to read it all over again.
It is one of these messy sprawling 19th century novels that covers so many topics it seems to create it’s own mini-universe. What made me want to read it was when I found out that Tolstoy was a fan of Les Miserables; a monstrous rambling thing full of random subjects you never thought would be as interesting as Hugo makes them. This book was Tolstoy’s attempt to temper the melodramatic tendencies of the European novel. And it’s a huge success for sure but the thing is it’s not so much a novel as much as the makings of about a dozen different novels which if you think about it, is a lot more like real life. Henry James called it “a wonderful mass of life,” which is perfect. Because although he definitely has some points to make and some themes he likes to hit on, there is really no story as you might commonly think of it. It’s just a bunch of peoples lives and everything they go through. The characters are flawed. You will not like them at times (although he describes their inner lives so well that you tend to sympathize with them no matter what). And they grow and change as the book goes on. And that irritating tendency of 19th century literature to have the same characters constantly encountering each other in the most unlikely circumstances? Tolstoy has so many characters and creates such a massive lifelike world that it never at any time seems unrealistic.
Yeah, there are many who have called it the best novel ever written. I’m definitely not in any way qualified to confirm such a claim, but I highly doubt anyone who read it all the way through didn’t find something to like about it. Isaac Babel said, “if the world could write by itself, it would write like Tolstoy.” Which describes quite well, the naturalistic style he uses in War and Peace.
This is not to say it doesn’t have it’s fair share of problems, of course. Nothing this huge and sprawling could be perfect. I thought the climax at the end of book 2 was a bit too melodramatic. The epilogue is mostly essays that you will probably have many disagreements with (although it did make me think again about the concept of free will). But by the time he gets to any of this stuff you are totally on board for whatever he throws at you. He earns it. They just become the sort of problems that are fun to argue about rather than the book spoiling kind.
Historical Accuracy
The historical accuracy probably hits more than it misses, but it has it’s misses. Tolstoy’s Napoleon is... a cartoon, but oh well. He really cannot bring himself to give Napoleon any credit when clearly he had to have some talent, charisma, something, to do what he did. And he acts like the French invasion of Russia was a total surprise, a dastardly trick by the French without warning, when really franco-russian relations had been deteriorating for years at this point and the Russians were well aware that war was imminent at least a year ahead of time. He makes what seems to be a very reasonable case for the burning of Moscow just being accidental. Unfortunately, looking at the facts today it seems pretty hard to avoid blaming Rostopchin.
‘Who thinks Napoleon was a genius?’, Tolstoy asks, ‘just a bunch of Frenchmen.’ Well no, many non-French contemporaries including Wellington and your own Kutuzov were quite open with their estimation of his genius. There are two events that thoroughly demonstrate for me his charisma and natural leadership abilities. First, his return from Elba where he convinces the French soldiers that stop him to rally to his side. Tolstoy, who can’t allow himself to give Napoleon any credit, is unable understand this at all so he has to fall back on his elaborate theory of divine predestination. And the second example, which is even more incredible, is the occasion of him being transported in the British ship after Waterloo where he won over the Captain and the entire crew. It frightened the British so much they never allowed him on British soil and sent him directly to St. Helena.
As for the burning of Moscow, Tolstoy explains that the French said it was the Russians and the Russians said it was the French but really it was probably just an accident. Tolstoy makes the reasonable assertion that this would be an accident that would be extremely likely to occur in any city made of wood, completely abandoned, and then occupied by a foreign army of looting soldiers used to camping in the field. As reasonable as this might seem, the Moscow Police Superintendent’s report actually says that Rostopchin gave the order and fire-fighting equipment was deliberately removed from the city. And in fact, the French initially assumed that it was their own men’s carelessness that had started the fires. It was only after conducting their investigation that they began to think otherwise. Caulaincourt’s account of the French investigation says they arrested men who admitted they had been ordered to start the fires and says he personally saw the “fuses” they were using. You can take the French account however you like, and certainly Tolstoy makes it clear he thought they were trumped up phony charges, it’s just the little fact that it seems to agree fairly well with the Moscow Police Superintendent.
Common Complaints
There're too many characters! OK, yes there are a lot of characters and early on it takes a minute to get a hold of all of them but really it just takes the faintest bit of effort to remember who they might be talking about. Keep in mind: in Russian the equivalent to adding a 'y' to make it a nickname is adding 'ushka' or 'asha'. So Nikolai becomes Nikolushka.
It's difficult to read! OK, this must be the translation you are reading. I am reading the Ann Dunnigan Signet Classics translation and there is nothing hard about it all. It's a joy to read. You will burn through the pages.
It's too long! Yes, it is long. But again if you are reading a decent translation this really shouldn't be a problem. Just read a little every day and you'll get to the end. It’s only long if you think about reading it only for purposes of edification. But like I said, I highly recommend it for pure enjoyment. And in that way, the length is hardly relevant, people read series’ of equivalent lengths quite commonly these days. Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, what-have-you.
Background Info
One thing, as far as it’s accessibility to a wide audience, is that it assumes the reader has a certain amount of knowledge of 19th century European history. In 1869 his audience would have been familiar with all of the events used as the background of the narrative. I had some knowledge of the Napoleonic history but knew very little about the Russian side of things. Here’s a short something about Napoleon that may (or may not) be useful:
In the French Revolution many opportunities were opened for men of ability to move up in the ranks. A young artillery officer name Napoleon Buonaparte, from a lower aristocratic family, distinguished himself at this time (see: Toulon). He commanded many stunning victories in Northern Italy (then controlled by the Austrian Empire). He impressed many with his expedition to Egypt (although ultimately ending in calamity) and on his return was involved in a coup d’etat that first put him in a position of political power. After this he consolidated his power, and enacted many things that solidified the reforms of the French Revolution and solved lingering domestic conflicts. The events of the book are some years after this, leading up to the famous battle of Austerlitz that stunned the world.
Without getting into any spoilers, to understand what Tolstoy is alluding to at the end of the book, you need to know that the event in Russian history that immediately followed this part was the Decembrists’ revolt.
Libby is acting up, plus this shit is a bit long-winded with too many names
adventurous
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I am marking this book as done! It has sucked enough of my life to warrant my taking the full credit for having finished it. I will actually do so but closing page 1392 will not change my review. This book is tedious and over bearing. I came to a rather interesting conclusion while not wanting to gauge my eyes out. Like everything else in society things evolve and we as a people embrace this progress for the most part. Take medicine for instance, we would never condone bleeding people out these days, its archaic. Writing has taken the same evolution. Now don't get me wrong, a big percentage of writing has gone down the tubes and regressed but I would like to make the generality that writing for the most part as gotten better. It has evolved and progressed and made huge strides in engaging the reader, plot and setting development, and does so without boring the reader to death.
We as a culture however, still continue to hold up these old, archaic classics as the most wonderful and amazing works of art to ever grace our consciousness. I disagree whole heartedly. Why do we hold so much esteem to these books? They are not far superior to modern works of art. Infact, they fall seriously short. I feel the same way about Jane Austin, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo and pretty much every author that dates back to the "classic" time period. They all needed a really good editor to tell them to shut up and end the story all ready.
We as a culture however, still continue to hold up these old, archaic classics as the most wonderful and amazing works of art to ever grace our consciousness. I disagree whole heartedly. Why do we hold so much esteem to these books? They are not far superior to modern works of art. Infact, they fall seriously short. I feel the same way about Jane Austin, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo and pretty much every author that dates back to the "classic" time period. They all needed a really good editor to tell them to shut up and end the story all ready.