Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
Bored a piece. Worn in piece.
The general theme seems to be: Ecclesiastes 1:14 - "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." And almost all the characters are petty.
Leave the negative reviewers alone. If your book is so great it can stand on its own. Many agree with its criticism including myself. Tolstoy’s frequent opinion pieces were narrative breaks at best and often spoilers. To make matters worse, after stating the outcome of every engagement, he’d rewind the clock and then subject the reader to a detailed walk through of the events' effect on the characters. I’m sure this soap-operatic style was quite innovative for its time and perhaps I’d appreciate it more if I cared about any of the dozen plus characters but I didn’t. After the story comes a history lesson. Which is actually pretty interesting.
However, suffice it to say, the book, like most, is sorely in need of an editor. Again if you love it despite its flaws that’s your choice but no need to ridicule a reviewer.
The general theme seems to be: Ecclesiastes 1:14 - "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." And almost all the characters are petty.
Leave the negative reviewers alone. If your book is so great it can stand on its own. Many agree with its criticism including myself. Tolstoy’s frequent opinion pieces were narrative breaks at best and often spoilers. To make matters worse, after stating the outcome of every engagement, he’d rewind the clock and then subject the reader to a detailed walk through of the events' effect on the characters. I’m sure this soap-operatic style was quite innovative for its time and perhaps I’d appreciate it more if I cared about any of the dozen plus characters but I didn’t. After the story comes a history lesson. Which is actually pretty interesting.
However, suffice it to say, the book, like most, is sorely in need of an editor. Again if you love it despite its flaws that’s your choice but no need to ridicule a reviewer.
Leo's Toy Store: So, I finally did it. As part of my New Year's resolution I told myself I'd force myself to read War and Peace. Well, in truth, I don't read books, I listen to them via audible during a very long commute. So, as a reader and listener, I'm giving myself five stars for reading it, but what are my thoughts? There is not denying that Tolstoy was a rare genius and as lengthy as the book is, it may require another reading or two to fully appreciate. Tolstoy makes every character complex, every political discord complicated and such is the human condition. SPOILERS AHEAD. But he is able to do it in a way that is realistic and natural. For example, in Pierre we see a young iconoclast, wealthy prideful (and sinful) aristocrat, then masonic/religious leader, later humbled through an unfortunate and fortunate prison experience. This complexity is in every character, Andrei in battle and death, Natasha in her early immaturity, and Nikolai surprising love for Princess Maria. Such is the parallel we see in the odd relations between Napolean with Alexander, the men shedding blood in the military and within ranks of service. It took a while for me to figure a lot of this out, but the epilogues, while abstract, were very helpful and yes, awesome writings on philosophy. Best are his critique on the historians inability to really "know" and man's freedom and inevitability . So, why then only four stars? Was it too long? No, although there were parts of the battle of 1812 where I almost fell asleep behind the wheel. The truth is, I appreciate Tolstoy more as a brilliant philosopher than the best Russian writer (who in my opinion is Fyodor Dostoevsky). Dostoevsky is a five as author, Tolstory a five as a philosopher.
A final note: While a gem of western literature, with western societies being more secularized since the War and Peace era, I believe that people of religion and societies that are more God-central would have a higher appreciate of the novel. The idea of God is very relevant in all the characters and that includes their beliefs, doubts, and hypocrisies. Also, some of the nuances may be higher appreciated by people versed in Russian culture, which i was not.
Now I shall become that snob at dinner parties who reminds everyone about how I read "War and Peace" Let's hope not.
A final note: While a gem of western literature, with western societies being more secularized since the War and Peace era, I believe that people of religion and societies that are more God-central would have a higher appreciate of the novel. The idea of God is very relevant in all the characters and that includes their beliefs, doubts, and hypocrisies. Also, some of the nuances may be higher appreciated by people versed in Russian culture, which i was not.
Now I shall become that snob at dinner parties who reminds everyone about how I read "War and Peace" Let's hope not.
(3.5) Meestal erg vermakelijk, soms geniaal, maar iets te vaak oersaai. Op haar best leest Oorlog en Vrede als een clevere soap die nooit hoeft te eindigen, maar dan zijn er weer die ellenlange verslagen van oorlogsverrichtingen of beschouwingen van de zichzelf te vaak herhalende Tolstoj. Aan het eind is zijn betoog over de spanningen tussen vrijheid en onvermijdelijkheid nog verrassend boeiend, maar al met al is Epiloog II na 1503 pagina's vooral een anticlimax.
I love Russian literature. Turgenev, Chekhov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky—they're always reliable reads. But it's taken me a long time to work my way up to War and Peace. It just has such a reputation! I was amazed when I found it so readable. Yes, its cast of characters is sprawling and it's based on historical events, but it's really about making the huge and impersonal small and personal. So the war and court politics are dealt with at length, but their effects are also shown in relation to one family. Yes, it can be grand, but it can also be domestic. In its detail about high society it's almost Proustian.
Unfortunately, it ended with a whimper. Much like with Moby Dick and whaling, the actual story is interspersed with chapters entirely about history, philosophy, and military maneuvers. This gets much worse about halfway through the book, pretty much the moment Napoleon appears not as a far-off celebrity, but an actual character. And the last section is a treatise disproving free will (in multiple parts). It's as if Tolstoy wrote separate books and shoehorned them together. I imagine his approach (dealing with history through "normal" people) was revolutionary at the time, but now it just comes across as not fully realized.
All in all, a worthwhile read, but in need of an editor.
Unfortunately, it ended with a whimper. Much like with Moby Dick and whaling, the actual story is interspersed with chapters entirely about history, philosophy, and military maneuvers. This gets much worse about halfway through the book, pretty much the moment Napoleon appears not as a far-off celebrity, but an actual character. And the last section is a treatise disproving free will (in multiple parts). It's as if Tolstoy wrote separate books and shoehorned them together. I imagine his approach (dealing with history through "normal" people) was revolutionary at the time, but now it just comes across as not fully realized.
All in all, a worthwhile read, but in need of an editor.
Wow. I've never spent this much time reading one book, but then again, I've never attempted to read a book this long. It was quite the experience.
I really love the way Tolstoy writes about his characters. Each one individual feels like a real person. Their complexities are written about candidly, but often fondly as well. There are no true villains in the novel (unless you count the relentless nature of history and the often fruitless search for the meaning of life, of course, but even those concepts are multi-faceted). I found it refreshing to read about such a large group of people where the characters weren't slotted in to one stereotype.
I had soft spots for a few characters. I always loved reading about the gentle giant Pierre and his adventures in freemasonry, and Prince Andrei's shifts from cynicism to enlightenment. Princess Maria was an interesting side character who really came into her own later in the book. My favorite character was Natasha. She reminds me of other characters that I really love, like Emma Woodhouse and Briony Tallis*. Despite some of Natasha's worse decisions, her liveliness and good intentions won me over and I always looked forward to one of her scenes.
It was really satisfying watching the characters' lives unfold and seeing how the war affected them.
I did enjoy some segments about the war, but when it was from the perspective of a completely random character, I didn't really care for it. The real joy of War and Peace is experiencing the lives of each main character as the years go by. They develop in interesting ways.
Overall, I am glad that I read War and Peace. It's a quality book. I'll try to tackle Anna Karenina one of these days, but for now, I'll relax a bit.
*Just for the record, my affection for Briony Tallis was short lived. She was an interesting yet unlikeable character through the rest of the novel though.
I really love the way Tolstoy writes about his characters. Each one individual feels like a real person. Their complexities are written about candidly, but often fondly as well. There are no true villains in the novel (unless you count the relentless nature of history and the often fruitless search for the meaning of life, of course, but even those concepts are multi-faceted). I found it refreshing to read about such a large group of people where the characters weren't slotted in to one stereotype.
I had soft spots for a few characters. I always loved reading about the gentle giant Pierre and his adventures in freemasonry, and Prince Andrei's shifts from cynicism to enlightenment. Princess Maria was an interesting side character who really came into her own later in the book. My favorite character was Natasha. She reminds me of other characters that I really love, like Emma Woodhouse and Briony Tallis*. Despite some of Natasha's worse decisions, her liveliness and good intentions won me over and I always looked forward to one of her scenes.
It was really satisfying watching the characters' lives unfold and seeing how the war affected them.
I did enjoy some segments about the war, but when it was from the perspective of a completely random character, I didn't really care for it. The real joy of War and Peace is experiencing the lives of each main character as the years go by. They develop in interesting ways.
Overall, I am glad that I read War and Peace. It's a quality book. I'll try to tackle Anna Karenina one of these days, but for now, I'll relax a bit.
*Just for the record, my affection for Briony Tallis was short lived. She was an interesting yet unlikeable character through the rest of the novel though.
Questo è uno di quei libri che mettono paura prima ancora di essere letti, portandosi dietro la fama di "mattoni" un po' per la mole spaventosa, un po' per l'alone leggendario che recano con sè.
Alla fine posso dire che si, il libro è innegabilmente lungo, ma non si può certo definire una mattonata, anche se soprattutto nel finale Tolstoj esagera un pochetto dando spazio a briglia sciolta alle proprie considerazioni personali.
Capisco perché in tanti parlano di due libri distinti, il primo dedicato alla pace, alla vita in società, ai problemi affettivi e personali dei protagonisti tra Mosca, Pietroburgo e le residenze di campagna, e il secondo alla guerra, agli scontri tra russi e francesi, tra russi e armate al servizio di Napoleone, all'invasione francese e alla vittoria.
La prima parte, quella dedicata ai personaggi (che chiaramente continua, pur se ridotta, anche nella secondà metà) è ottima e intesse un quadro affascinante della vita dei nobili russi a inizio ottocento, delle loro attività, della politica. E poi, a parte le considerazioni più generiche, abbiamo Pierre, i Rostov, i Bokonsky e tutto il cosmo di personaggi che si muovono intorno a loro, dai salotti ai campi di battaglia, dalle servitù ai contadini.
Gli intrighi politici, il progressismo e il conservatorismo che si scontrano, l'amore, la spiritualità, l'amicizia, le impressionanti evoluzioni e maturazioni che hanno i personaggi.
La seconda, sulla guerra, parte benissimo decidendo di mostrarla dal basso, dal punto di vista parziale, incompleto e caotico di chi può trovarsi in prima linea, o in un battaglione posto in riserva, o in una qualsiasi altra parte dell'esercito. E funziona alla perfezione, mostrando il caos, la follia, l'assenza totale di ordine o di capacità di governare il tutto.
Però poi, sempre di più, Tolstoj si fa prendere la mano dando le sue spiegazioni, illustrando più e più volte il suo pensiero riguardo a tutto.
Non si fidava dei medici e della scienza, ok. Ogni tanto getta lì il sasso, e ci si può stare.
Ma il suo continuo rimarcare la sua filosofia nei confronti della Storia, delle guerre e dei movimenti umani, dopo la seconda, terza o quarta volta che leggiamo le stesse cose diventa un poco noioso.
Il suo tratteggiare eroicamente Alessandro e dipingere invece come un idiota pomposo e totalmente scemo Napoleone ascrivendo a una volontà superiore tutti i suoi successi è comprensibilmente partigiano ma un poco stucca.
La cosa veramente pesante da digerire però resta la sua filosofia reiteratamente esposta, sempre più e sempre con maggiore puntigliosità andando avanti verso la fine, al punto che alla fine abbiamo solo queste considerazioni.
Sulle battaglie combattute, su come le interpretano erroneamente gli storici e su come invece si debbano guardarle, con gli occhi di Toltoj.
La valutazione sarebbe stata di cinque stelle piene e luccicanti, ma la pesantezza delle sue considerazioni ripetute fino alla noia costringono ad abbassare un minimo il voto, peccato.
Alla fine posso dire che si, il libro è innegabilmente lungo, ma non si può certo definire una mattonata, anche se soprattutto nel finale Tolstoj esagera un pochetto dando spazio a briglia sciolta alle proprie considerazioni personali.
Capisco perché in tanti parlano di due libri distinti, il primo dedicato alla pace, alla vita in società, ai problemi affettivi e personali dei protagonisti tra Mosca, Pietroburgo e le residenze di campagna, e il secondo alla guerra, agli scontri tra russi e francesi, tra russi e armate al servizio di Napoleone, all'invasione francese e alla vittoria.
La prima parte, quella dedicata ai personaggi (che chiaramente continua, pur se ridotta, anche nella secondà metà) è ottima e intesse un quadro affascinante della vita dei nobili russi a inizio ottocento, delle loro attività, della politica. E poi, a parte le considerazioni più generiche, abbiamo Pierre, i Rostov, i Bokonsky e tutto il cosmo di personaggi che si muovono intorno a loro, dai salotti ai campi di battaglia, dalle servitù ai contadini.
Gli intrighi politici, il progressismo e il conservatorismo che si scontrano, l'amore, la spiritualità, l'amicizia, le impressionanti evoluzioni e maturazioni che hanno i personaggi.
La seconda, sulla guerra, parte benissimo decidendo di mostrarla dal basso, dal punto di vista parziale, incompleto e caotico di chi può trovarsi in prima linea, o in un battaglione posto in riserva, o in una qualsiasi altra parte dell'esercito. E funziona alla perfezione, mostrando il caos, la follia, l'assenza totale di ordine o di capacità di governare il tutto.
Però poi, sempre di più, Tolstoj si fa prendere la mano dando le sue spiegazioni, illustrando più e più volte il suo pensiero riguardo a tutto.
Non si fidava dei medici e della scienza, ok. Ogni tanto getta lì il sasso, e ci si può stare.
Ma il suo continuo rimarcare la sua filosofia nei confronti della Storia, delle guerre e dei movimenti umani, dopo la seconda, terza o quarta volta che leggiamo le stesse cose diventa un poco noioso.
Il suo tratteggiare eroicamente Alessandro e dipingere invece come un idiota pomposo e totalmente scemo Napoleone ascrivendo a una volontà superiore tutti i suoi successi è comprensibilmente partigiano ma un poco stucca.
La cosa veramente pesante da digerire però resta la sua filosofia reiteratamente esposta, sempre più e sempre con maggiore puntigliosità andando avanti verso la fine, al punto che alla fine abbiamo solo queste considerazioni.
Sulle battaglie combattute, su come le interpretano erroneamente gli storici e su come invece si debbano guardarle, con gli occhi di Toltoj.
La valutazione sarebbe stata di cinque stelle piene e luccicanti, ma la pesantezza delle sue considerazioni ripetute fino alla noia costringono ad abbassare un minimo il voto, peccato.
adventurous
emotional
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Note to self, if I read this book again - skip most of the epilogue.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I love this book and keep coming back to it. A tremendously rewarding life-affirming read.