Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
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.
This took me just over 6 months to read and I’m sad it’s over. Reading this was one of the best artistic experiences I’ve participated in, ever. There’s just so much here and it’s all beautiful.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I attempted to read it, oh how I tried! I got to page 100 or so and that was it. I didn't care for any of the characters, got lost as to who was who. Screw it! I have no time for tomes of this type. It's beyond me why it's considered a classic. From what I've read it doesn't get any better. Thanks Tolstoy, but no thanks! My time on earth is limited and have no time or the patience to wait 600 pages until something 'interesting' happens.
I liked 'Anna Karenina' though.
I liked 'Anna Karenina' though.
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
sad
tense
fast-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
With a book as long as War and Peace i expected to be relieved it was over. I actually wish there was more. The characters were so well developed and used that i want more information about almost all of them.
Alternating between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and I made this observation. You experience a Dostoevsky novel, but you live in a Tolstoy.
Alternating between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and I made this observation. You experience a Dostoevsky novel, but you live in a Tolstoy.
This was really good. I was expecting it to be a bit of a drag, given its reputation for extraordinary length, but I found it quite gripping and it was really a page-turner.
This is not laid out like a traditional novel, with an overarching plot that develops towards a climax, but rather as a series of story arcs covering a dozen or so characters of Russian aristocracy during the Napoleonic wars.
There are portions that are covering the lives of these characters either in peacetime or in St. Petersburg which was not near enough to the wars to be overly affected by it. Then there are portions that cover the actual battles, military planning, envoys to the generals or emperors, and lives of soldiers and officers. And then there are portions that are neither, where the author goes into a deep philosophical discussion about free will and inevitability.
This was a theme found throughout the book. At a macro level, there is the question of whether Napoleon and Alexander are truly directing the course of events, or whether they are simply necessary participants in an inevitable unfolding of events and are simply carried along by the tide. At a smaller scale, there is a question about who is ultimately killing the soldiers in a battle situation. Is it the enemy soldier? He is just following orders. Is it the officer who gave the orders? He is just reacting to the fact that there is a battle.
The final portion of the book (the epilogues) goes into greater depth of analysis of free will versus inevitability.
The other aspect of this book that struck me was the human element of the soldiers and officers during the war, when they are confronted by the enemy and struggle with the question of whether or not they should even be fighting. They see a guy in the other side's uniform and recognize that he is the enemy, but they also see another man, another human, and feel a sense of camaraderie with them. This tension is brought up multiple times throughout the book, whether between foot soldiers clashing on the field, or officers who are capturing or have been captured by enemy officers. In one scene, two men rush at each other and grab each other, and each wonders to themselves whether they have taken the other prisoner, or whether they are now a prisoner.
In addition to these themes, there is romance, marriage, death, birth, times of plenty and hard times as well. All of this is packed into the 10 years or so at the beginning of the 19th century during the Napoleonic wars between France and Russia.
Overall a surprisingly enjoyable book. I should have read it sooner!
This is not laid out like a traditional novel, with an overarching plot that develops towards a climax, but rather as a series of story arcs covering a dozen or so characters of Russian aristocracy during the Napoleonic wars.
There are portions that are covering the lives of these characters either in peacetime or in St. Petersburg which was not near enough to the wars to be overly affected by it. Then there are portions that cover the actual battles, military planning, envoys to the generals or emperors, and lives of soldiers and officers. And then there are portions that are neither, where the author goes into a deep philosophical discussion about free will and inevitability.
This was a theme found throughout the book. At a macro level, there is the question of whether Napoleon and Alexander are truly directing the course of events, or whether they are simply necessary participants in an inevitable unfolding of events and are simply carried along by the tide. At a smaller scale, there is a question about who is ultimately killing the soldiers in a battle situation. Is it the enemy soldier? He is just following orders. Is it the officer who gave the orders? He is just reacting to the fact that there is a battle.
The final portion of the book (the epilogues) goes into greater depth of analysis of free will versus inevitability.
The other aspect of this book that struck me was the human element of the soldiers and officers during the war, when they are confronted by the enemy and struggle with the question of whether or not they should even be fighting. They see a guy in the other side's uniform and recognize that he is the enemy, but they also see another man, another human, and feel a sense of camaraderie with them. This tension is brought up multiple times throughout the book, whether between foot soldiers clashing on the field, or officers who are capturing or have been captured by enemy officers. In one scene, two men rush at each other and grab each other, and each wonders to themselves whether they have taken the other prisoner, or whether they are now a prisoner.
In addition to these themes, there is romance, marriage, death, birth, times of plenty and hard times as well. All of this is packed into the 10 years or so at the beginning of the 19th century during the Napoleonic wars between France and Russia.
Overall a surprisingly enjoyable book. I should have read it sooner!
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes