Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
I almost wish I didn't rate this one. Reading this was like an inverse of The Count of Monte Cristo. With that one, I was amazed at how vibrant, adventurous, and entertaining a 1000+ page "classic" could be, but I was surprised at the relative lack of philosophical musings. With War and Peace, it perfectly matches my expectations for a "classic" (i.e. longwinded, ambitious, well-written, grave), but I would never use the word "entertaining" when discussing it. As a result, unlike my favorite classics, I had no emotional connection to the people or events discussed. This is a personal preference, so I won't pass judgment on the novel itself, but it definitely colored my interpretation of its strengths and weaknesses.
For my own reference when I inevitably look back on my experience in a few years:
-Would I read it again? Maybe in 10 years.
-Did I enjoy reading it? Only during the esoteric historical essays. I was fascinated by his take on historiography, especially considering contemporary events that Tolstoy experienced.
-Did I like most the characters? No. I found Pierre and Andrei interesting because they went through so much and evolved (in some ways) throughout the story in subtle ways. The women, though, felt very shallow. I found this concerning for a book that is all about "realism." While women were given more space to speak in the novel than I expected, they were so often discarded (Sonya, Lise, even Natasha) or held up as angelic beacons of virtue (Lise, Marya, sometimes Natasha) that they did not seem real. To be fair, Napolean, Kutuzov, and other characters were also given less nuance than the "main" characters, but it still left me feeling hollow by the end of my read.
-Do I understand why other people enjoy this book? Yes. There's enough research and effort put into this book that it could be discussed for years (which it has been.)
-Any major criticisms? For a book that examines the lives of people in Russia, it told a distinctly elitist perspective. Serfs are mentioned in passing or as NPCs the main cast come across, but we are given no insight into what life might have been like for them.
2-stars for enjoyment. I probably would not have finished it unless it was considered a classic. I celebrate the fact I am free from the 60-hour audiobook.
5-stars for historical significance. It's obvious that Tolstoy was incredibly meticulous and diligent in researching information about Napoleon's campaign. The book's influence and place in literary history makes me appreciate it even when I did not enjoy it.
For my own reference when I inevitably look back on my experience in a few years:
-Would I read it again? Maybe in 10 years.
-Did I enjoy reading it? Only during the esoteric historical essays. I was fascinated by his take on historiography, especially considering contemporary events that Tolstoy experienced.
-Did I like most the characters? No. I found Pierre and Andrei interesting because they went through so much and evolved (in some ways) throughout the story in subtle ways. The women, though, felt very shallow. I found this concerning for a book that is all about "realism." While women were given more space to speak in the novel than I expected, they were so often discarded (Sonya, Lise, even Natasha) or held up as angelic beacons of virtue (Lise, Marya, sometimes Natasha) that they did not seem real. To be fair, Napolean, Kutuzov, and other characters were also given less nuance than the "main" characters, but it still left me feeling hollow by the end of my read.
-Do I understand why other people enjoy this book? Yes. There's enough research and effort put into this book that it could be discussed for years (which it has been.)
-Any major criticisms? For a book that examines the lives of people in Russia, it told a distinctly elitist perspective. Serfs are mentioned in passing or as NPCs the main cast come across, but we are given no insight into what life might have been like for them.
2-stars for enjoyment. I probably would not have finished it unless it was considered a classic. I celebrate the fact I am free from the 60-hour audiobook.
5-stars for historical significance. It's obvious that Tolstoy was incredibly meticulous and diligent in researching information about Napoleon's campaign. The book's influence and place in literary history makes me appreciate it even when I did not enjoy it.
'tis true, historians are very wrong about sheep... although he didn't need to prove it quite so thoroughly.
Spoiler-free review
Re-reading War and Peace after thirty years, it was surprising how little I remembered. I knew I loved the book but couldn't remember why. The thing that stood out the most was the description of how to win at chess, which I suddenly remembered not only having read before, but having used to beat someone who was much better at it than me. (I hate chess and have hardly ever played it.)
This time around, what did I love? I loved the descriptions of the Napoleonic wars which were so vibrant and believable. The city of Moscow was described so beautifully that I longed to go back there. I loved Andrei, Natasha, and most of all Princess Marya. I didn't always like Pierre, but he has a great character arc.
War and Peace has whetted my appetite for classic Russian literature. I might even write a Russian historical novel one day. I have had the same idea in mind since 1992 when I learned about an intriguing Russian woman whose story has stayed with me ever since...
Re-reading War and Peace after thirty years, it was surprising how little I remembered. I knew I loved the book but couldn't remember why. The thing that stood out the most was the description of how to win at chess, which I suddenly remembered not only having read before, but having used to beat someone who was much better at it than me. (I hate chess and have hardly ever played it.)
This time around, what did I love? I loved the descriptions of the Napoleonic wars which were so vibrant and believable. The city of Moscow was described so beautifully that I longed to go back there. I loved Andrei, Natasha, and most of all Princess Marya. I didn't always like Pierre, but he has a great character arc.
War and Peace has whetted my appetite for classic Russian literature. I might even write a Russian historical novel one day. I have had the same idea in mind since 1992 when I learned about an intriguing Russian woman whose story has stayed with me ever since...
Simply one of the best books that I've read. Tolstoy showed the complexities of history with all these amazing characters. It could do without his essays, which keeps getting harder to read when you get further, and more with the stories of his characters. But still it is one epic journey.
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is a much more readable book than its reputation suggests, at least in the Penguin Classics translation by Anthony Briggs. Yes it's long, and it covers an extended period of time, but it runs along at a reasonable pace developing the main characters within the frame of Russian history during the Napoleonic wars. There is very clearly a philosophy of history at work here, which emerges in brief interludes, and then more extensively in the epilogue - 30 pages at the end that after 1300 pages are the hardest part to get through.
It is a lot to get through though, and certainly I was helped a lot by being interested in this period of history. As a novel it does a good job of humanising the impact of the war, at least from the perspective of the Russian upper class. Aside from the history, Tolstoy explores the nature of ethics and life through the experiences of his characters.
Overall I enjoyed all 1400 pages much more than I expected to.
It is a lot to get through though, and certainly I was helped a lot by being interested in this period of history. As a novel it does a good job of humanising the impact of the war, at least from the perspective of the Russian upper class. Aside from the history, Tolstoy explores the nature of ethics and life through the experiences of his characters.
Overall I enjoyed all 1400 pages much more than I expected to.
I thoroughly enjoyed the narrative part of the book; I felt intrigued by and invested in the many well filled-out characters that make up the fictitious part of the story. Nobody knows human nature, every nuance of thought, emotion, and reaction, like Tolstoy does. You read what the character feels and think to yourself, "I've felt that too!" over and over, and even if you haven't, you can imagine that you have. Russian history, on the other hand, is not really an area of interest of mine, and the chapters detailing battles and generals and military strategies just felt endless. To a military buff, I'm sure the schemes of war are enthralling, but I became bored between the chapters of actual character-driven story. By the time I reached the end of War and Peace, I must say I was very happy to be finally finished with a book that is so long it has chapters in BOTH of its epilogues.
I'm not going to talk about how amazing this book is (even though it is) and what a mind-blowing experience reading it was (even though it was). I'm also not telling you you have to read this (even though it is so, so worth it). Instead I'm going to talk about reading classics, something I used to a lot when I was younger but somehow neglected in the past ten years or so.
When I started university, I was happy to find that I had already read most of the required reading of classics for English and American literature. (We had to read a couple per period.) I had done so happily and, for the most part, easily when I was a teenager (the sole exception being "Wuthering Heights" tbh). I never had any especially harrowing experiences with classics at school, in fact, I mostly enjoyed them. But especially once I started my job, I stopped reading them.
Part of it is that we only have a limited amount of time, and as a bookseller, you rarely have the chance to recommend classics. And of course you try to keep up with current literature. Except I've always been a strong believer in reading what I want rather than what I am supposed to, so mostly reading classics seemed like too much work.
I don't even know why I came up with my weird Dickens challenge, but I am really glad I did. Because reading Dickens lead to me taking the time to read classics, and in a roundabout way reading Andy Miller's "The year of reading dangerously", which motivated me to give "War and Peace" a try. In some ways, books like "War and Peace" and "Moby Dick" have become literary memes, shorthand for unreadable books. They seem unapproachable because of their reputation, and so people put off reading them. I mean, I did, too, in the case of "War and Peace". (I read "Moby Dick" when I was in my early twenties and loved it, so I should have known better.) But the thing is - once you get over your "shyness" and try to read them, most classics are *fun*. And - while a lot of them are books by dead white men- the reason they are classics are because they tend to say something profound or universal about people. Because they have something that is still true today, and for me that feeling of connection to someone writing hundreds of years ago, in a different country, about something that I understand and can share, does something to me. It's like listening to "Ode to Joy", it makes me feel part of a greater whole. And while reading for me isn't all about that feeling, it is something I have missed without being quite aware of it, and even apart from my Dickens challenge I will seek out more classics to read.
As for "War and Peace" - I set out with the goal of reading 50 pages a day (something I have always found useful with both non-fiction books and classics), but I soon scrapped it because I had to keep reading. I found it incredibly captivating, and if I hadn't been reading "Oliver Twist" at the same time, I probably would have finished it after less than two weeks. In the end I was glad that I finished most of it during my vacation because I was boring all my co-workers with how amazing it was. Because it is. It's almost scary how much truth there is in there. It truly is one of the best books I have read in my life, and one I plan reading again.
So, forget everything you think you know about this book, and don't call it a "beast" or suchlike. It's a riveting book for at least 1316 of its 1358 pages (the last forty are musings on history and philosophy, and while interesting, that was the first time reading "War and Peace" felt a little bit like work) and really easy to love.
When I started university, I was happy to find that I had already read most of the required reading of classics for English and American literature. (We had to read a couple per period.) I had done so happily and, for the most part, easily when I was a teenager (the sole exception being "Wuthering Heights" tbh). I never had any especially harrowing experiences with classics at school, in fact, I mostly enjoyed them. But especially once I started my job, I stopped reading them.
Part of it is that we only have a limited amount of time, and as a bookseller, you rarely have the chance to recommend classics. And of course you try to keep up with current literature. Except I've always been a strong believer in reading what I want rather than what I am supposed to, so mostly reading classics seemed like too much work.
I don't even know why I came up with my weird Dickens challenge, but I am really glad I did. Because reading Dickens lead to me taking the time to read classics, and in a roundabout way reading Andy Miller's "The year of reading dangerously", which motivated me to give "War and Peace" a try. In some ways, books like "War and Peace" and "Moby Dick" have become literary memes, shorthand for unreadable books. They seem unapproachable because of their reputation, and so people put off reading them. I mean, I did, too, in the case of "War and Peace". (I read "Moby Dick" when I was in my early twenties and loved it, so I should have known better.) But the thing is - once you get over your "shyness" and try to read them, most classics are *fun*. And - while a lot of them are books by dead white men- the reason they are classics are because they tend to say something profound or universal about people. Because they have something that is still true today, and for me that feeling of connection to someone writing hundreds of years ago, in a different country, about something that I understand and can share, does something to me. It's like listening to "Ode to Joy", it makes me feel part of a greater whole. And while reading for me isn't all about that feeling, it is something I have missed without being quite aware of it, and even apart from my Dickens challenge I will seek out more classics to read.
As for "War and Peace" - I set out with the goal of reading 50 pages a day (something I have always found useful with both non-fiction books and classics), but I soon scrapped it because I had to keep reading. I found it incredibly captivating, and if I hadn't been reading "Oliver Twist" at the same time, I probably would have finished it after less than two weeks. In the end I was glad that I finished most of it during my vacation because I was boring all my co-workers with how amazing it was. Because it is. It's almost scary how much truth there is in there. It truly is one of the best books I have read in my life, and one I plan reading again.
So, forget everything you think you know about this book, and don't call it a "beast" or suchlike. It's a riveting book for at least 1316 of its 1358 pages (the last forty are musings on history and philosophy, and while interesting, that was the first time reading "War and Peace" felt a little bit like work) and really easy to love.