Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ericch 's review for:
War and Peace
by Leo Tolstoy
First off, I read this because it's always listed in the top 100 or top 50 or top 10 books ever written. Maybe in 1860 it was, but in 2023 is an epic slog. If you must read it, grab a condensed version. Nobody needs to slog through this entire, unaltered tome.
There were some interesting parts, but for the most part it was very slow.
The entire book focuses on the very elite of Russian society. When they are forced to abandon Moscow, they talk about using hundreds of carts and servants to haul their belongings. That is the very top of the 1%. I would have liked more focus on the common people and their struggles.
Tolstoy did raise an interesting point a few times toward the end of the book. He said the commanders issued orders which were never carried out, because the various armies they were issuing orders to, weren't where they should have been. There were no phones, telegraphs, etc. All communications were carried by messenger, so orders given today might not reach their destination for days, at which point they are no longer valid or actionable.
Some of the chapters were tough to get through. Many words, saying almost nothing. I also struggled a bit with some of the massive run on sentences scattered throughout. Like this gem, for instance: But at this time he saw everybody - both those who, as he imagined, understood the real meaning of life (that is, what he was feeling) and those unfortunates who evidently did not understand it - in the bright light of the emotion that shone within himself, and at once without any effort saw in everyone he met everything that was good and worthy of being loved.
Or this one: It lies in the fact that an historic character like Alexander I, standing on the highest possible pinnacle of human power with the blinding light of history focused upon him; a character exposed to those strongest of all influences: the intrigues, flattery, and self-deception inseparable from power; a character who at every moment of his life felt a responsibility for all that was happening in Europe; and not a fictitious but a live character who like every man had his personal habits, passions, and impulses toward goodness, beauty, and truth - that this character - though not lacking in virtue (the historians do not accuse him of that) - had not the same conception of the welfare of humanity fifty years ago as a present-day professor who from his youth upwards has been occupied with learning: that is, with books and lectures and with taking notes from them.
The first Epilogue is made up entirely of political navel gazing interspersed with Where Are They Now updates of the main characters.
Also several chapters discussing the migration of people in Europe from West to East, then back to the West, and possible reasons why that happened.
The second Epilogue is complete garbage. 100 pages of worthless supposition and philosophical pondering about who has "power" and what constitutes "power" in society. This was an interesting page of information presented in 100 pages. Skip it. You're welcome.
There were some interesting parts, but for the most part it was very slow.
The entire book focuses on the very elite of Russian society. When they are forced to abandon Moscow, they talk about using hundreds of carts and servants to haul their belongings. That is the very top of the 1%. I would have liked more focus on the common people and their struggles.
Tolstoy did raise an interesting point a few times toward the end of the book. He said the commanders issued orders which were never carried out, because the various armies they were issuing orders to, weren't where they should have been. There were no phones, telegraphs, etc. All communications were carried by messenger, so orders given today might not reach their destination for days, at which point they are no longer valid or actionable.
Some of the chapters were tough to get through. Many words, saying almost nothing. I also struggled a bit with some of the massive run on sentences scattered throughout. Like this gem, for instance: But at this time he saw everybody - both those who, as he imagined, understood the real meaning of life (that is, what he was feeling) and those unfortunates who evidently did not understand it - in the bright light of the emotion that shone within himself, and at once without any effort saw in everyone he met everything that was good and worthy of being loved.
Or this one: It lies in the fact that an historic character like Alexander I, standing on the highest possible pinnacle of human power with the blinding light of history focused upon him; a character exposed to those strongest of all influences: the intrigues, flattery, and self-deception inseparable from power; a character who at every moment of his life felt a responsibility for all that was happening in Europe; and not a fictitious but a live character who like every man had his personal habits, passions, and impulses toward goodness, beauty, and truth - that this character - though not lacking in virtue (the historians do not accuse him of that) - had not the same conception of the welfare of humanity fifty years ago as a present-day professor who from his youth upwards has been occupied with learning: that is, with books and lectures and with taking notes from them.
The first Epilogue is made up entirely of political navel gazing interspersed with Where Are They Now updates of the main characters.
Also several chapters discussing the migration of people in Europe from West to East, then back to the West, and possible reasons why that happened.
The second Epilogue is complete garbage. 100 pages of worthless supposition and philosophical pondering about who has "power" and what constitutes "power" in society. This was an interesting page of information presented in 100 pages. Skip it. You're welcome.