Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Death, Gun violence, Misogyny, Violence, Medical content, Death of parent, War, Injury/Injury detail
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I actually already wrote a review for War and Peace on my phone immediately after reading it, but I really just jotted down a few paragraphs and ran out of things to say. And even though no one will read this, I feel some strange obligation to give the book more than that because, I mean, it's War and Peace.
Truth be told I define my reading of War and Peace more by what I was going through as I read it than by the text itself. I started it in December and it felt like a perfect cork for the bottle that was my first year back as a bona fide "book person." I was entrenched in a wide variety of failures at that time, and I got it in my head that if I could just successfully complete a few arbitrary tasks I would somehow make up for a year's worth of disappointment.
I read 600 pages in five days I felt like I was cracking on at a good pace, and then it all just stopped. I failed every one of these arbitrary tasks and January 1st came and went with no clear divide between the person I was in 2024 and the person I would be in this new year; a person I desperately hoped would be better.
But you can only wallow so long, and January 31 hit and the book was done. I had conquered this beast that so many people are scared to even make an attempt with, and I was no worse for wear for taking six weeks instead of two. And I guess finishing it reminded me I could do anything at all.
If I had to point out one defining characteristic about War and Peace, it would be that it is easy to read. This was the last thing I expected from a book with this reputation, but the prose really is simple and the plot, while of course tied firmly to the events of the Napoleonic Wars in Russia, is not difficult to parse out.
I imagine demystifying and simplifying war was important to Tolstoy in the writing of the book. There are times where it is outright satire — I think specifically of a scene where the troops are lined up to be presented to the Commander in their finest attire, only to learn with half an hour to spare that the Commander hopes to showcase how poor the funding has been and wants them to look shoddy, so they are all getting undressed just to peacock on the hill. Somehow that was the priority of the day.
This silliness pervades throughout the novel. War is as much a joke as the artificiality of upper class social circles are in the eyes of one of our main characters, Pierre Bezukhov, the illegitimate son of one of the richest men in Russia who unexpectedly inherits his father's fortune and titles.
For long chunks of the book it feels almost like a regency era romance. People court one another and alliances are formed and scandals break out. So much of this part of life is seen from the perspective of Natasha Rostova, the young socialite whose heart is pulled in so many different directions as she comes of age.
Meanwhile, the War side of the book is largely told from the perspective of Prince Andre, who begins the book disillusioned with peace and quickly becomes disillusioned by war — not a great book to be in, bud.
But it is Pierre whom I mentioned before who ties it all together. While War and Peace thread themselves through the lives of each character, Pierre is an outcast in both. He was thrust into a position of social prestige he never expected, and is an observer as often as not at the parties of other nobles. Likewise, in one scene he is a very literal observer of the war. He gets in the way and can barely comprehend the battle of Borodino as he tries in vain to find a way to be useful.
The book didn't feel like it had too much fluff on it, which feels impossible for a book this long. At the same time, I can't say it felt lean. It just says what it wants to say in the way it wants to say it, and to be longer or shorter is hard for me to fathom. I suppose my biggest takeaway from a book like this is that I hope people are not too intimidated by its size to give it a chance, because I think it deserves better than being seen as "that really long book." I am glad I read it.
Truth be told I define my reading of War and Peace more by what I was going through as I read it than by the text itself. I started it in December and it felt like a perfect cork for the bottle that was my first year back as a bona fide "book person." I was entrenched in a wide variety of failures at that time, and I got it in my head that if I could just successfully complete a few arbitrary tasks I would somehow make up for a year's worth of disappointment.
I read 600 pages in five days I felt like I was cracking on at a good pace, and then it all just stopped. I failed every one of these arbitrary tasks and January 1st came and went with no clear divide between the person I was in 2024 and the person I would be in this new year; a person I desperately hoped would be better.
But you can only wallow so long, and January 31 hit and the book was done. I had conquered this beast that so many people are scared to even make an attempt with, and I was no worse for wear for taking six weeks instead of two. And I guess finishing it reminded me I could do anything at all.
If I had to point out one defining characteristic about War and Peace, it would be that it is easy to read. This was the last thing I expected from a book with this reputation, but the prose really is simple and the plot, while of course tied firmly to the events of the Napoleonic Wars in Russia, is not difficult to parse out.
I imagine demystifying and simplifying war was important to Tolstoy in the writing of the book. There are times where it is outright satire — I think specifically of a scene where the troops are lined up to be presented to the Commander in their finest attire, only to learn with half an hour to spare that the Commander hopes to showcase how poor the funding has been and wants them to look shoddy, so they are all getting undressed just to peacock on the hill. Somehow that was the priority of the day.
This silliness pervades throughout the novel. War is as much a joke as the artificiality of upper class social circles are in the eyes of one of our main characters, Pierre Bezukhov, the illegitimate son of one of the richest men in Russia who unexpectedly inherits his father's fortune and titles.
For long chunks of the book it feels almost like a regency era romance. People court one another and alliances are formed and scandals break out. So much of this part of life is seen from the perspective of Natasha Rostova, the young socialite whose heart is pulled in so many different directions as she comes of age.
Meanwhile, the War side of the book is largely told from the perspective of Prince Andre, who begins the book disillusioned with peace and quickly becomes disillusioned by war — not a great book to be in, bud.
But it is Pierre whom I mentioned before who ties it all together. While War and Peace thread themselves through the lives of each character, Pierre is an outcast in both. He was thrust into a position of social prestige he never expected, and is an observer as often as not at the parties of other nobles. Likewise, in one scene he is a very literal observer of the war. He gets in the way and can barely comprehend the battle of Borodino as he tries in vain to find a way to be useful.
The book didn't feel like it had too much fluff on it, which feels impossible for a book this long. At the same time, I can't say it felt lean. It just says what it wants to say in the way it wants to say it, and to be longer or shorter is hard for me to fathom. I suppose my biggest takeaway from a book like this is that I hope people are not too intimidated by its size to give it a chance, because I think it deserves better than being seen as "that really long book." I am glad I read it.
adventurous
reflective
sad
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:
No
Only in our conceited age of the popularization of knowledge – thanks to that most powerful engine of ignorance, the diffusion of printed matter – has the question of freedom of will been put on a level on which the question itself cannot exist.Tolstoy is a much better storyteller than a thinker; in other words, no matter how hard he wants to be Borges, he's much better off gamboling in the bucolic glories of his beloved Russia. Part Two of this book's Epilogue cemented that in stone, forty pages of Tolstoy destroying any denunciation he had made of the horrors of war with redundant, solipsistic, and inconclusive meanderings on freewill and power. Had he stuck with a simple 'Well we just don't know so how about we keep thinking and not killing each other in those horrible massacres known as war that we shouldn't be lauding as much as we do' and ended it there, it would have been a good, sensible end. Instead, he went on. And on. And on. I've heard this paradoxical thinking is part of his appeal and his later works tell a different story but I just finished 1440 pages of the reputably nineteenth longest work in the history of novels and I am NOT going to do the 'Oh but you read the wrong one now this work is the one that is the true best of the author...' dance. Right now, enough is enough.
I recently ran across a bundle of reviews condemning Hugo for overt egotism in his [b:Les Misérables|24280|Les Misérables|Victor Hugo|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327702573s/24280.jpg|3208463], and while I see the truth in that, I'll take boundless hope for empathetic humanity over thought experiments culminating in either religion or endless gnawing of ones' leg in efforts to escape any day. All authors are completely full of themselves to some degree of thinking their compositions are worthy of an audience, and while I promised to not let this review commit itself to Hugo vs. Tolstoy time, I like writers that offer a backdoor, who give an opinion/story/whatnot without spending endless paragraphs quibbling over its immutability and/or not. You like what you think? Stay considerate, consistent, and somewhere along the line concise, and I'll probably like it too.
"He could not disavow his deeds, lauded as they were by half the world, and so he was obliged to repudiate truth and beauty and all humanity."That line sums up everything I find great in Tolstoy, that utter rout of Napoleon and putting in his place a conjuration of ineffable worth that is in no way encompassed by military might. Unfortunately, Tolstoy's very much a Hemingway, and I can only hope some of that humanity he names rubbed off on him in the eight years between the publications of W&P and [b:Anna Karenina|15823480|Anna Karenina|Leo Tolstoy|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1352422904s/15823480.jpg|2507928], for every time a woman shows up he has no time for anything but lazy characterization, patronizing hypocrisy, and insipid similes such as how the effort to achieve women's rights is like the effort to cook the perfect meal and has no consideration for the holy sacred "family" that constitutes the only reason for matrimony. The irony is that, like many men and women of both that time and this one, he doesn't see that the patriarchy he is so horrified by, leastwise in massacres committed in the name of king and nationalism, is birthed in every situation where a woman is expected to take on all of empathy and a man is refused the slightest share. This is a given I usually don't mention due to its ridiculous ubiquity, but seeing how much time Tolstoy spent trying and failing to write women, it deserves explicit mention.
In light of that, if I do the usual thing and focus on the thoughts of male characters while keeping only a cursory eye on those of women, there's some good stuff to be found. Proust does the rich people screwing each other over in petty politics and gainful one-ups better, but Proust never went to war. Between the psychological discourse of varying levels of insight and the constant relations of history to physical laws that range from intriguing to utterly laughable, we have breathtaking sketches of natural landscape and its humans, a sleigh ride in particular being one of my favorite scenes in literature of all time. Sentiment abounds, but was made bearable by the few moments when real value was found in empathy and the bonds of humanity. I would've been happier had I forgone the epilogue, but I also wouldn't have the right to evaluate it, and of all of Tolstoy's attempts to pin down the nature of power, I favor knowledge above all others.
In short, I thought I'd get more out of this than I did, but that moment six years ago when I had to return W&P unfinished to the library has now been vindicated. Also, that Russian film adaptation looks mighty appealing.
Literatuur zal de crises in de wereld niet doen verdwijnen, maar biedt wel inzichten. Toen ik vorig jaar[b:Het zout der aarde|55702044|Het zout der aarde|Józef Wittlin|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1602954218l/55702044._SY75_.jpg|400868] van de Poolse schrijver Józef Wittlin las, over het oostfront tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog, realiseerde ik me hoe beperkt mijn kennis van Oost-Europa is en heb ik onder andere Oorlog en vrede van Leo Tolstoj uit 1869 op mijn leeslijst gezet. Bij het uitbreken van de oorlog in Oekraïne heb ik dat er terstond bijgepakt.
Oorlog en vrede is tot op zekere hoogte een roman, aangevuld met een stevige dosis geschiedschrijving. Het boek heeft grofweg drie componenten. Ten eerste is er een non-fictief deel waarin Tolstoj de Europese geschiedenis aan het begin van de negentiende eeuw beschrijft. Het boek gaat grotendeels over de opmars van Napoleon en zijn Grande Armée door Rusland. Ten tweede is er een fictief deel, een negentiende-eeuwse soap over de ijver van de Russische adel om hun dynastieën voort te zetten. Tolstoj laat zijn personages op briljante wijze over het decor van de wereldgeschiedenis dansen – een dans op de vulkaan, zoals gestaag blijkt. Ik vond vooral de goedgelovige Pierre hilarisch, die van de ene op de andere dag één van de rijkste mannen van het tsaristische Rusland wordt en van probleem naar probleem hopt. Ten derde zijn er de beschouwingen van Tolstoj op de geschiedschrijving. Hij hekelt schrijvers die menen dat de loop van de geschiedenis bepaald wordt door individuen, alsof de terugkeer van Rusland het gevolg zou zijn geweest van de loopneus van Napoleon. Tolstoj zet ideeën uiteen over toeval, vrijheid en wilsuiting en bepleit de complexiteit van oorzaak en gevolg.
De grote klassieker van Tolstoj is zo alomvattend, dat het moeilijk is er een oordeel over te geven. Ik was diep onder de indruk van het geheel, zij het met de gebruikelijke verzuchtingen dat het bondiger had gekund. Bij het wel en wee van de adellijke families Bezoechov, Bolkonski en Rostov schoot spontaan het refrein van het liedje De één wil de ander van Ramses Shaffy in mijn hoofd.
Oorlog en vrede is tot op zekere hoogte een roman, aangevuld met een stevige dosis geschiedschrijving. Het boek heeft grofweg drie componenten. Ten eerste is er een non-fictief deel waarin Tolstoj de Europese geschiedenis aan het begin van de negentiende eeuw beschrijft. Het boek gaat grotendeels over de opmars van Napoleon en zijn Grande Armée door Rusland. Ten tweede is er een fictief deel, een negentiende-eeuwse soap over de ijver van de Russische adel om hun dynastieën voort te zetten. Tolstoj laat zijn personages op briljante wijze over het decor van de wereldgeschiedenis dansen – een dans op de vulkaan, zoals gestaag blijkt. Ik vond vooral de goedgelovige Pierre hilarisch, die van de ene op de andere dag één van de rijkste mannen van het tsaristische Rusland wordt en van probleem naar probleem hopt. Ten derde zijn er de beschouwingen van Tolstoj op de geschiedschrijving. Hij hekelt schrijvers die menen dat de loop van de geschiedenis bepaald wordt door individuen, alsof de terugkeer van Rusland het gevolg zou zijn geweest van de loopneus van Napoleon. Tolstoj zet ideeën uiteen over toeval, vrijheid en wilsuiting en bepleit de complexiteit van oorzaak en gevolg.
De grote klassieker van Tolstoj is zo alomvattend, dat het moeilijk is er een oordeel over te geven. Ik was diep onder de indruk van het geheel, zij het met de gebruikelijke verzuchtingen dat het bondiger had gekund. Bij het wel en wee van de adellijke families Bezoechov, Bolkonski en Rostov schoot spontaan het refrein van het liedje De één wil de ander van Ramses Shaffy in mijn hoofd.
De ene wil een ander, maar die ander wil die ene nietVerder viel de overdaad aan het Frans op, ook in de vertaling. Het onderstreept hoezeer tsaristisch Rusland op Europa gericht was. Ten slotte ben ik Tolstoj dankbaar voor het optekenen en 'nabij' houden van de veldtocht van de Grande Armée door Rusland – het begin van het einde van Napoleon – in 1812, al deed hij dit een halve eeuw later.
De ander wil een ander, maar die ene heeft verdriet
Zo ging het en zo gaat het en zo gaat het altijd aan
En zo gaat het altijd uit
En zo zal het eeuwig gaan
En oudergewoonte stelde hij zichzelf de vraag: Goed, en wat verder? Wat ga ik doen? En onmiddellijk gaf hij zichzelf het antwoord: Niets. Gewoon leven. Ach, wat geweldig.
Six months of my reading life, with brief breaks for Novels of National Importance (Ali Smith). Consumed in small glimpses before sleep while covering an election, in moderate doses during hungover baths, and in huge gulps on Northland beaches. Ironically this is a book both well-suited for a Kindle (too fucking heavy) and ill-suited (too many footnotes and non-translated French.)
I read the husband and wife translation after trying two others for the first chapter and reading a few reviews. It seemed to both capture the Tolstoy weirdness while being very readable. I was attempting to learn French on DuoLingo as I started the book, so was able to translate some parts of the French, but not much of it.
As someone quoted in the introduction says, Tolstoy seems able to write life itself. Everything is here, but not in some kind of put-upon stream of consciousness thing, more in that he can effortlessly bounce between a close third-person narrative, zoomed out historical analysis, and quite lovely "people's relations to others are essentially the same everywhere". The length lets you really get sunk into how each of the families work, and into the personal failings of almost every man in the book, even Pierre, who at times appears to get above it all but is mostly just grasping around for personal satisfaction throughout the book.
My favourite sections of the book were generally the gossipy parties full of grandiloquent political statements and discussions. None of the balls quite hits as hard as the first ball in Anna Karenina, but one man can only write so much greatness.
That said, I found the section leading up to and just after the invasion of Moscow to be the best. Tolstoy is at his best confidently describing absolutes in a way modern writers shy away from - when he says that approaching danger makes every man (lol) think simultaneously of two voices, "one quite reasonably tells the man to consider the properties of the danger and the means of saving himself from it; the other says still more reasonably that it is too painful and tormenting t think about the danger, when it is not in man's power to foresee everything and save himself from the general course of things, and therefore it is better to turn away rom the painful things until they come and think about what is pleasant." He then notes that the first voice is powerful when one is alone and the second when one is with company. This is the kind of writing that lets you put down things like the "all unhappy families line" and for it to survive through the ages not just as an aphorism but as a start to an incredible novel.
I also loved basically any scene with Natasha, whether she was singing in another room or at a ball or at her uncle's estate. The scenes of her insisting the wounded be carried instead of the Rostov's possessions out of Moscow is particularly touching.
I found the battle scenes fine but boring at parts. Tolstoy's essential thesis about battles and history in general - that commanders have little real influence over events - is restated to the point of absurdity. I didn't mind the occasional historical essay throughout the book but found the 40-pager that ends the book a bit of a slog, and one that left a sour note after a book that was essentially about rich people loving each other in a time of turmoil.
And this is a novel about rich people. Serfs are either a scary other or blessedly obedient. Tolstoy was clearly interested in agri-politics but was still a product of his time and class, and thus really struggles to see anyone who is not a noble as much of a real person. Ah well.
I read the husband and wife translation after trying two others for the first chapter and reading a few reviews. It seemed to both capture the Tolstoy weirdness while being very readable. I was attempting to learn French on DuoLingo as I started the book, so was able to translate some parts of the French, but not much of it.
As someone quoted in the introduction says, Tolstoy seems able to write life itself. Everything is here, but not in some kind of put-upon stream of consciousness thing, more in that he can effortlessly bounce between a close third-person narrative, zoomed out historical analysis, and quite lovely "people's relations to others are essentially the same everywhere". The length lets you really get sunk into how each of the families work, and into the personal failings of almost every man in the book, even Pierre, who at times appears to get above it all but is mostly just grasping around for personal satisfaction throughout the book.
My favourite sections of the book were generally the gossipy parties full of grandiloquent political statements and discussions. None of the balls quite hits as hard as the first ball in Anna Karenina, but one man can only write so much greatness.
That said, I found the section leading up to and just after the invasion of Moscow to be the best. Tolstoy is at his best confidently describing absolutes in a way modern writers shy away from - when he says that approaching danger makes every man (lol) think simultaneously of two voices, "one quite reasonably tells the man to consider the properties of the danger and the means of saving himself from it; the other says still more reasonably that it is too painful and tormenting t think about the danger, when it is not in man's power to foresee everything and save himself from the general course of things, and therefore it is better to turn away rom the painful things until they come and think about what is pleasant." He then notes that the first voice is powerful when one is alone and the second when one is with company. This is the kind of writing that lets you put down things like the "all unhappy families line" and for it to survive through the ages not just as an aphorism but as a start to an incredible novel.
I also loved basically any scene with Natasha, whether she was singing in another room or at a ball or at her uncle's estate. The scenes of her insisting the wounded be carried instead of the Rostov's possessions out of Moscow is particularly touching.
I found the battle scenes fine but boring at parts. Tolstoy's essential thesis about battles and history in general - that commanders have little real influence over events - is restated to the point of absurdity. I didn't mind the occasional historical essay throughout the book but found the 40-pager that ends the book a bit of a slog, and one that left a sour note after a book that was essentially about rich people loving each other in a time of turmoil.
And this is a novel about rich people. Serfs are either a scary other or blessedly obedient. Tolstoy was clearly interested in agri-politics but was still a product of his time and class, and thus really struggles to see anyone who is not a noble as much of a real person. Ah well.
adventurous
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-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
Basically read this for a better grade for my Language and literature class. I was really motivated to read this, and I have finished this in little time.
In fact, the teacher does not (yet!) believe the fact that I have actually read the entire book in 20 days...
And oh boy. I'm probably the only one crazy enough to read this in my highschool
Just wait till I tell you all about Tolstoy's methaphores about the bees, Mr. V !!
In fact, the teacher does not (yet!) believe the fact that I have actually read the entire book in 20 days...
And oh boy. I'm probably the only one crazy enough to read this in my highschool
Just wait till I tell you all about Tolstoy's methaphores about the bees, Mr. V !!