Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.06 AVERAGE
4.06 AVERAGE
5 estrellas porque desde luego no seré yo quien se atreva con menos con este clásico.
De todo lo leído de Tolstoi, es sin duda lo que más he disfrutado. Una novela clásica de capítulos cortos. Las reflexiones habituales de Tolstoi sobre la religión, el amor, el matrimonio, la filosofía, la libertad, el trabajo y en definitiva el porqué de la vida. Reflexiones que forman parte de la trama sin interrumpirla. Menos densa en ese sentido que Anna Karenina. Su obsesión, el sexo y sus perjuicios.
De todo lo leído de Tolstoi, es sin duda lo que más he disfrutado. Una novela clásica de capítulos cortos. Las reflexiones habituales de Tolstoi sobre la religión, el amor, el matrimonio, la filosofía, la libertad, el trabajo y en definitiva el porqué de la vida. Reflexiones que forman parte de la trama sin interrumpirla. Menos densa en ese sentido que Anna Karenina. Su obsesión, el sexo y sus perjuicios.
I just love Tolstoy so much. I have read his other more famous works multiple times but this is a first time reading The Resurrection. In recent months I have read more Dostoyevsky- which is good, but boy, coming back to a ‘new to me’ Tolstoy after reading Dostoyevsky really just made it clear- I am a Tolstoy fan girl through and through. There’s just something about the way he writes internal thoughts and complicated emotions and how they lead to irrational actions, and all of that in a world of hypocrisy - and always that striving toward a better nature spiritually when in the middle of corrupting influences. It’s just compelling and also so so layered.
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Very preachy and that took away from the story for me. I wish i had not finished it, But then its Tolstoy, how could i not.
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Strong character development:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
funny
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Leo Tolstoy's Resurrection can perhaps best be described as part satire, part proselytisation, and part condemnation of Russian culture during the twilight years of the nineteenth century. And, like with most Tolstoy works that I've read, I thoroughly enjoyed it, even if Tolstoy is very, very heavy-handed at times with his preaching.
The plot centers on Nekhlyudov, a Russian noble who discovers that Maslova, a young woman he once loved then abandoned is now on trial for murder, and facing a penal sentence. Nekhlyudov (and Tolstoy) rightly surmises that it is his fault for ruining her life, so he spends the entire novel trying to correct this mistake and help her as much as he can, even if it means following her to her labour sentence.
Tolstoy draws a broad view of Russian society, from peasants to counts and generals and Senators rubbing their jacketed elbows: for the most part, nobody really escapes Tolstoy's pen, which varies from gentle comedic writing to a mocking, irreverent condemnation of those who act as though their status genuinely makes them to be superior people. Look only to the Ouija scene to see what I mean.
Of course, Tolstoy does this mostly in service of the radical Christian views that he adopted towards the later years of his life, and while he's much more favourable to the peasantry and those of lower social standing, it's also rather clear at times that he tends to put those who don't align with his exact Christian morals in a less-than-loving light.
Which, honestly, is the worst part of this novel: readers of Tolstoy should not be strangers to his concern and even obsession with matters spiritual, but he really lays it on thick several times in this novel. For example, the mass scene, or the very end of the novel. Which is a shame, because religion and the general concern with what is "right" is often done tastefully; but when it's not, the pontificating just gets tiring at times.
The pontificating, of course, does get interesting: and, in my opinion, it gets most interesting right at the end of the novel with the final, important reveal (which I will not spoil here). But, to be as general as possible, the novel concerns itself with the general imposing of wills on other people who are otherwise unable to escape. By that, I refer to the parallels between Russia's justice system and general society, and Neklyudov and Maslova. The novel focuses on Nekhlyudov imposing his will on Maslova much as the justice system imposes its will on her and on all the other prisoners and convicts of Russia: and, from a general character perspective, it is rather interesting to pick apart. Is what Nekhlyudov doing justifiable? Should he feel obligated to help to the extent that he does? And who is he really doing it for? Maslova, or his own ego and pride and self-pity? For me, I do find the two of them to be the best parts of the novel, especially as they both reach the ends of their arcs: while I may somewhat disagree with the ending, I think Tolstoy made the most correct choice ending it the way that he did.
Perhaps I'm being more generous to this novel than it deserves, partially out of love for Tolstoy and his works; but I do truly think that this novel is a wonderful way not only to start with Tolstoy, but to understand more of his Christian views. Beyond that, I think this novel would do a great job simply to help us understand why and how we help others, not just as a society but as individuals.
The plot centers on Nekhlyudov, a Russian noble who discovers that Maslova, a young woman he once loved then abandoned is now on trial for murder, and facing a penal sentence. Nekhlyudov (and Tolstoy) rightly surmises that it is his fault for ruining her life, so he spends the entire novel trying to correct this mistake and help her as much as he can, even if it means following her to her labour sentence.
Tolstoy draws a broad view of Russian society, from peasants to counts and generals and Senators rubbing their jacketed elbows: for the most part, nobody really escapes Tolstoy's pen, which varies from gentle comedic writing to a mocking, irreverent condemnation of those who act as though their status genuinely makes them to be superior people. Look only to the Ouija scene to see what I mean.
Of course, Tolstoy does this mostly in service of the radical Christian views that he adopted towards the later years of his life, and while he's much more favourable to the peasantry and those of lower social standing, it's also rather clear at times that he tends to put those who don't align with his exact Christian morals in a less-than-loving light.
Which, honestly, is the worst part of this novel: readers of Tolstoy should not be strangers to his concern and even obsession with matters spiritual, but he really lays it on thick several times in this novel. For example, the mass scene, or the very end of the novel. Which is a shame, because religion and the general concern with what is "right" is often done tastefully; but when it's not, the pontificating just gets tiring at times.
The pontificating, of course, does get interesting: and, in my opinion, it gets most interesting right at the end of the novel with the final, important reveal (which I will not spoil here). But, to be as general as possible, the novel concerns itself with the general imposing of wills on other people who are otherwise unable to escape. By that, I refer to the parallels between Russia's justice system and general society, and Neklyudov and Maslova. The novel focuses on Nekhlyudov imposing his will on Maslova much as the justice system imposes its will on her and on all the other prisoners and convicts of Russia: and, from a general character perspective, it is rather interesting to pick apart. Is what Nekhlyudov doing justifiable? Should he feel obligated to help to the extent that he does? And who is he really doing it for? Maslova, or his own ego and pride and self-pity? For me, I do find the two of them to be the best parts of the novel, especially as they both reach the ends of their arcs: while I may somewhat disagree with the ending, I think Tolstoy made the most correct choice ending it the way that he did.
Perhaps I'm being more generous to this novel than it deserves, partially out of love for Tolstoy and his works; but I do truly think that this novel is a wonderful way not only to start with Tolstoy, but to understand more of his Christian views. Beyond that, I think this novel would do a great job simply to help us understand why and how we help others, not just as a society but as individuals.
Enemies to lovers with neighbours to friends with benefits in between.
A cute hallmark channel style romcom. He’s a grump and she’s all sunshine. So there is plenty of clashing between the two that leads to the chemistry but this is not a tale that stands out in my mind, just a filler type read to keep me entertained, something light and easy with a HEA
A cute hallmark channel style romcom. He’s a grump and she’s all sunshine. So there is plenty of clashing between the two that leads to the chemistry but this is not a tale that stands out in my mind, just a filler type read to keep me entertained, something light and easy with a HEA
challenging
emotional
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Leo Tolstoy's Resurrection tells an incredibly gripping story of redemption accompanied by a dose of cynicism at the state of affairs in the late 19th century Tsarist Empire. After leading a life of base frivolity and unrestricted abundance, Prince Nekhlyudov's mental tranquility is thrown into disarray when he finds out that the case he had been assigned jury duty on is none other than Katerina Maslova's, a woman whom he defiled in his early days of being in the military, who now faces the full brunt of the legal arm as she is tried and convicted of a crime she may or may not have committed.
What follows is a series of equally impactful revelations in the mind of our protagonist, Prince Nekhlyudov, as he encroaches deeper and deeper into the justice and prison systems in Tsarist Russia, unraveling the corruption that is entrenched in every single crevice of the state institutions. After an arduous bureaucratic debacle he is successful in acquitting several of the prisoners whom were innocent, and eventually he acquits Maslova, who, for his own good, refuses to remain in Prince Nekhlyudov's life.
What becomes immediately apparent is the irony in the protagonist using his ties to powerful political oligarchs in order to succeed in these acquittals, the acquittals being inherently impossible without the corruption that Prince Nekhlyudov spends the entirety of the novel fighting. The philosophical musings about good and evil in the book are deeply embedded into Tolstoy's theological background, as the open ending of the book leaves the reader wondering if the Prince was successful in his resurrection. There is also an ambiguous element to Maslova's sentencing, as it is never fully revealed if she truly was guilty of the crime she was accused of, as we never get a glimpse into the interior lives of any other character except for our protagonist. A decision that may or may not have been on purpose.
What follows is a series of equally impactful revelations in the mind of our protagonist, Prince Nekhlyudov, as he encroaches deeper and deeper into the justice and prison systems in Tsarist Russia, unraveling the corruption that is entrenched in every single crevice of the state institutions. After an arduous bureaucratic debacle he is successful in acquitting several of the prisoners whom were innocent, and eventually he acquits Maslova, who, for his own good, refuses to remain in Prince Nekhlyudov's life.
What becomes immediately apparent is the irony in the protagonist using his ties to powerful political oligarchs in order to succeed in these acquittals, the acquittals being inherently impossible without the corruption that Prince Nekhlyudov spends the entirety of the novel fighting. The philosophical musings about good and evil in the book are deeply embedded into Tolstoy's theological background, as the open ending of the book leaves the reader wondering if the Prince was successful in his resurrection. There is also an ambiguous element to Maslova's sentencing, as it is never fully revealed if she truly was guilty of the crime she was accused of, as we never get a glimpse into the interior lives of any other character except for our protagonist. A decision that may or may not have been on purpose.
Not sure if it actually was this good. But it presented a sincere attempt at human decency... which really felt nice right now.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
informative
reflective
medium-paced