Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.06 AVERAGE
4.06 AVERAGE
A very interesting book indeed. As Tolstoy's final book, and one that completely went against his former beliefs, I knew that I was in for a ride. From beginning to end, I had no clue how it was going to end, and when I finally did reach it, was I surprised.
A very odd ending (?) but absolutely flipping incredible otherwise. Tolstoy’s dry humour & satirical descriptions of politicians & power-holders is still so apt
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
3,5
A deep dive into the psychological thinking of a rich person gaining consciousness as to the state of the world and the hypocrisy within his sphere. I loved the first part but less so the second part. It was still fascinating to read and follow a social awakening of the sort. This Tolstoy is for the philosopher out there
A deep dive into the psychological thinking of a rich person gaining consciousness as to the state of the world and the hypocrisy within his sphere. I loved the first part but less so the second part. It was still fascinating to read and follow a social awakening of the sort. This Tolstoy is for the philosopher out there
informative
inspiring
reflective
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
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
challenging
dark
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
This was my first Goodreads recommendation and my first Tolstoy novel - and it was a big disappointment.
The novel suffered from several faults:
First the characters were flat and one dimensional. Except for Nekhlyudov, the peasants were portrayed as noble-minded, moral, and good laborers. The aristocracy, the prison bureaucracy, most of the upper middle class were ugly, petty, wrong and amoral. There were very few exceptions, there was very little gray area between "good" and "bad" which is contrary to humanity in reality.
Another fault with the characters was that none of them were really interesting or gripping, Nekhlyudov changed his life based on seeing Katusha - within a few pages all his convictions had changed. The language used to describe his transformation was glossy and did not do a good job of delving into the psychological aspect. Unlike Dostoevsky - Tolstoy merely wrote about Nekhlyudov, Dostoevsky would have shown him. Katusha was an uninteresting character. She barely spoke, her conviction to free Nekhlyudov of any burden was unfounded and unexplained.
Like others have said, the novel was preachy and very much a rant. Again there was very little discussion of the pros and cons of the prison system or the benefits of certain laws, etc. Instead Tolstoy took one stance on one side of the line and refused to give an inch. The novel could have been an interesting dialogue but this was forgone for a soapbox.
The novel suffered from several faults:
First the characters were flat and one dimensional. Except for Nekhlyudov, the peasants were portrayed as noble-minded, moral, and good laborers. The aristocracy, the prison bureaucracy, most of the upper middle class were ugly, petty, wrong and amoral. There were very few exceptions, there was very little gray area between "good" and "bad" which is contrary to humanity in reality.
Another fault with the characters was that none of them were really interesting or gripping, Nekhlyudov changed his life based on seeing Katusha - within a few pages all his convictions had changed. The language used to describe his transformation was glossy and did not do a good job of delving into the psychological aspect. Unlike Dostoevsky - Tolstoy merely wrote about Nekhlyudov, Dostoevsky would have shown him. Katusha was an uninteresting character. She barely spoke, her conviction to free Nekhlyudov of any burden was unfounded and unexplained.
Like others have said, the novel was preachy and very much a rant. Again there was very little discussion of the pros and cons of the prison system or the benefits of certain laws, etc. Instead Tolstoy took one stance on one side of the line and refused to give an inch. The novel could have been an interesting dialogue but this was forgone for a soapbox.