Scan barcode
azk's review against another edition
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-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
5.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Murder and Rape
tasni's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
4.5
karinlib's review against another edition
4.0
I didn't like this book as much as Anna Karenina or War and Peace, but it was indeed Tolstoy. He ended his book with a thought of writing more, it seems, but he didn't the chance. You can see the usual themes: Land Reform, the Church and Crime and Punishment; themes that resonate in Soviet history. In the end, I am glad I pushed forward and finished this book.
jsoucie's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
extrememochi's review against another edition
4.0
Some really profound bits in it, but the religious speech at the end seemed to detract from the impact of the book
baasanka's review against another edition
5.0
In High School I carefully read and analyzed War and Peace, trying to categorise the sheer amount of information in my mind, as a young adult I sympathised with the poor, miserable characters in Anna Karenina; I felt a quiet fury arise in me at the Kreutzer Sonata, grew and matured alongside Nikolenka Irtenev, and fell into an quiet melancholy after the death of Ivan Ilyich.
I don't know what my favorite work by Tolstoy is, but out of all of them, Resurrection got the strongest and rawest emotional response from me. The focus on a single figure (for the most part), a clear linear plotline with, relatable lower class characters, a different theme and a suprising take on it - it all comes together to set this book apart among Tolstoy's impressive bibliography. Resurrection has a more narrow focus point and is less ambitious than many of Tolstoy's other novels, but these factors certainly benefit it. I, as a reader, was able to get completely engrossed in the characters' lives, the author's signature philosophical ramblings seemed even more fitting, and somehow the book kept me on the edge of my seat. The finale broke my heart, and that's what I expect a good book to do, even if it ends on a good note.
If you're a fan of Tolstoy, you can not miss this one.
Criticisms: Tolstoy has his favorite tropes, which we all know and (maybe) love, but this also results in him knowing the ending of his stories way before he has figured out everything else. As a result, certain works, like Resurrection or Father Sergius, end up having abrupt, unexpected finales that just seem unfinished. Especially Resurrection: the sheer volume of the novel and the linear plotline of Nekhlyudov's quest leads to a need for a satisfactory answer to the questions Nekhlyudov keeps asking himself and people around him throughout the whole book.
I expected a come-to-Jesus moment from the very start of the book, something Russians commonly call "tolstovshina," I just expected it to be more believable and better-fitting to Nekhlyudov's character. A man of his convictions would have opted for planning and practical actions; he would have read the Bible, drew up conclusions and made a real plan on how to implement change in the lives of these poor prisoners based on these new principles he found. He may have done it still, but the book, unfortunately, makes no mention of it.
I don't know what my favorite work by Tolstoy is, but out of all of them, Resurrection got the strongest and rawest emotional response from me. The focus on a single figure (for the most part), a clear linear plotline with, relatable lower class characters, a different theme and a suprising take on it - it all comes together to set this book apart among Tolstoy's impressive bibliography. Resurrection has a more narrow focus point and is less ambitious than many of Tolstoy's other novels, but these factors certainly benefit it. I, as a reader, was able to get completely engrossed in the characters' lives, the author's signature philosophical ramblings seemed even more fitting, and somehow the book kept me on the edge of my seat. The finale broke my heart, and that's what I expect a good book to do, even if it ends on a good note.
If you're a fan of Tolstoy, you can not miss this one.
Criticisms: Tolstoy has his favorite tropes, which we all know and (maybe) love, but this also results in him knowing the ending of his stories way before he has figured out everything else. As a result, certain works, like Resurrection or Father Sergius, end up having abrupt, unexpected finales that just seem unfinished. Especially Resurrection: the sheer volume of the novel and the linear plotline of Nekhlyudov's quest leads to a need for a satisfactory answer to the questions Nekhlyudov keeps asking himself and people around him throughout the whole book.
I expected a come-to-Jesus moment from the very start of the book, something Russians commonly call "tolstovshina," I just expected it to be more believable and better-fitting to Nekhlyudov's character. A man of his convictions would have opted for planning and practical actions; he would have read the Bible, drew up conclusions and made a real plan on how to implement change in the lives of these poor prisoners based on these new principles he found. He may have done it still, but the book, unfortunately, makes no mention of it.
lucysbookshelf's review against another edition
4.0
I have some mixed feelings about this novel in the same way that I had them while reading "Little Women" by Alcott. As a reader, I'd rather have the author's ideas shown by the way their characters behave and try to see what philosophy they are following instead of having the author be a preacher throughout the story. It's palpable that the main reason this novel has for existing is it's pedagogical content about how the law and justice fail men daily, how the prisons can bring the worst out of a man instead of helping him and it repeats time and again who is innocent and clean of all sins and vices to judge others.
It surprised me with the main character, Prince Nejludov, due to how imperfect a hero he was at the beginning. I'm used to encounter in his books people like Konstantin and Pierre that are not too good and not too bad before they go into their hero journey, but this was a nice change in his way of writing. It also surprised me how in his other novels, the character seems fully transformed by the end of it, as if the change has already been taking over his mind and soul whereas here, the end of the novel is only the starting point for Nejludov to become the man he believes he needs to become to do his part in changing humankind.
I also believe this to be Tolstoy's most political novel, filled with details about the law and the state of the prisons, the inhuman way people were treated even before they were truly proved guilty and the main character's thoughts on land and how no one should own it.
Overall, the story has a good and constant pace without necessary following the formal structure of a novel and without a crescendo except in ideas, it's divided in three parts (making an allusion to Jesus Christ's Resurrection) and the characters (even secondary or named only once or twice) become fundamental when trying to elucidate Tolstoy's idea of how poorly prisons are managed and how the justice and the law can be the more unjust of all.
It surprised me with the main character, Prince Nejludov, due to how imperfect a hero he was at the beginning. I'm used to encounter in his books people like Konstantin and Pierre that are not too good and not too bad before they go into their hero journey, but this was a nice change in his way of writing. It also surprised me how in his other novels, the character seems fully transformed by the end of it, as if the change has already been taking over his mind and soul whereas here, the end of the novel is only the starting point for Nejludov to become the man he believes he needs to become to do his part in changing humankind.
I also believe this to be Tolstoy's most political novel, filled with details about the law and the state of the prisons, the inhuman way people were treated even before they were truly proved guilty and the main character's thoughts on land and how no one should own it.
Overall, the story has a good and constant pace without necessary following the formal structure of a novel and without a crescendo except in ideas, it's divided in three parts (making an allusion to Jesus Christ's Resurrection) and the characters (even secondary or named only once or twice) become fundamental when trying to elucidate Tolstoy's idea of how poorly prisons are managed and how the justice and the law can be the more unjust of all.
andgineer's review against another edition
5.0
Пожалуй это не назовешь чисто развлекательным чтением.
Но читается вполне легко, хотя и понятно, что автор больше стремился донести свои идеи по волновавшим его вопросам, чем развлекать интересным рассказом.
Трудно что-то возражать на восприятие автором описанной им несправедливости общества.
И гармонично выглядит связывающая роман фигура аристократа, который от цинизма перешел к духоборству под влиянием осознания ужаса несправедливости устройства общества.
Толстой выступает как совесть, которая педантично разжевывает насколько жестоко устройство общества - по сути любого и в любое время, просто Толстой описывает, естественно, то общество, в котором он живет.
На мой взгляд о революционерах он говорит вовсе без одобрения, скорее с иронией (в этом месте невольно вспоминаешь Трудно быть богом, про насильное приведение к счастью людей, которы де сами не понимают, как им было бы лучше).
Что конечно не помешало Ленину ссылаться на эту книгу, впрочем он вполне корректен, говоря, что она иллюстрирует несправедливость общества и необходимости это менять.
О том что по мнению Толстова революция просто ничего не решает, Ленин просто умолчал.
Вполне достаточно было бы просто поднять все эти вопросы. Даже лишь для того, чтобы донести до людей, что они порой поступают гадко, даже когда формально получают за это награды.
Пожалуй, это и дает максимальную пользу.
Толстой все же помимо этого предлагает свое решение.
Но как бы нас обустроить справедливое общество и возможно ли такое в принципе - тема бесконечных дебатов, смешно искать решение в какой-то конкретной книге.
Сама попытка автора дать такое решение, конечно, выглядит наивной, но можно понять, почему он это делает.
К сожалению у нас всех жизнь конечна. И чем ближе ее конец, тем сильнее нас это давит и приводит к самым странным результатам у даже самых умных людей.
Собственно, это и действует наиболее сильно на артистичных и гениальных людей, подобных автору, который написал эту книгу уже незадолго до смерти.
Но читается вполне легко, хотя и понятно, что автор больше стремился донести свои идеи по волновавшим его вопросам, чем развлекать интересным рассказом.
Трудно что-то возражать на восприятие автором описанной им несправедливости общества.
И гармонично выглядит связывающая роман фигура аристократа, который от цинизма перешел к духоборству под влиянием осознания ужаса несправедливости устройства общества.
Толстой выступает как совесть, которая педантично разжевывает насколько жестоко устройство общества - по сути любого и в любое время, просто Толстой описывает, естественно, то общество, в котором он живет.
На мой взгляд о революционерах он говорит вовсе без одобрения, скорее с иронией (в этом месте невольно вспоминаешь Трудно быть богом, про насильное приведение к счастью людей, которы де сами не понимают, как им было бы лучше).
Что конечно не помешало Ленину ссылаться на эту книгу, впрочем он вполне корректен, говоря, что она иллюстрирует несправедливость общества и необходимости это менять.
О том что по мнению Толстова революция просто ничего не решает, Ленин просто умолчал.
Вполне достаточно было бы просто поднять все эти вопросы. Даже лишь для того, чтобы донести до людей, что они порой поступают гадко, даже когда формально получают за это награды.
Пожалуй, это и дает максимальную пользу.
Толстой все же помимо этого предлагает свое решение.
Но как бы нас обустроить справедливое общество и возможно ли такое в принципе - тема бесконечных дебатов, смешно искать решение в какой-то конкретной книге.
Сама попытка автора дать такое решение, конечно, выглядит наивной, но можно понять, почему он это делает.
К сожалению у нас всех жизнь конечна. И чем ближе ее конец, тем сильнее нас это давит и приводит к самым странным результатам у даже самых умных людей.
Собственно, это и действует наиболее сильно на артистичных и гениальных людей, подобных автору, который написал эту книгу уже незадолго до смерти.
lnothstine's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.25