Scan barcode
wishlissa's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I’ve felt conflicted about War and Peace the entire time I’ve been reading it. I go back and forth between feeling like it’s technically masterful and boringly amateurish. And still, I find several tenants of Tolstoy’s main philosophy and strategy questionable. For one, his elevating of the peasants to a holy status feels like a means of social othering. It’s a way to view this class of people as different so that they can be treated differently than his peers. By calling them morally superior, he absolves himself of any moral issues in treating the group as others. And while I fundamentally agree that working in the fields under the sunshine and drinking with your friends afterwards is a fundamentally more natural and beneficial way to live life than to be wrapped up in the politics of high society and the intelligentsia, it’s hard to ignore aristocrat Tolstoy is keeping his peasants in their place by exalting their low status. Also, the most morally “upstanding” characters really lost me in this one. Mary in particular had me in the first half but WOW can I not justify her treatment of Natasha, nor Sonya, nor even her nephew/adopted son (she told an 11 year old she didn’t love him because he wanted to sleep in? And then when he had a total breakdown over the emotional extortion her response was 1. He must be upset he grieved me and 2. My husband will be so proud of me - ick??). Not that I expect great feminist thought from a 19th century male writer, but Natasha was such a better character for *most* of the book, and not only is her life at the end kind of offensive it’s just a horrible resolution for the character. She no longer sings? She lives exclusively for her husband and kids? Like before she was a little bit of a damsel a la Lucy Manette, but at least she had an arc. Not to mention the book started out as a project on the Decemberist Revolution, but ended up being about all the events preceding it. Between the revolution being reduced to a little bit of conversation at the end of the book + all of the marriages between main characters happening in a summary of the last seven years at the beginning of the “Christmas episode” of a first epilogue, it just feels like all of the resolution takes place off screen. But all that being said, War and Peace is still a project unlike any other. It may technically be greater than Anna Karenina, I still haven’t decided where I land on this, but Anna is definitely more concise, more enjoyable, and Tolstoy’s writing evolves significantly between the two. Guess it’s time for a reread.
jsultz3's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
wedgelovespizza's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
0aliceinbookland0's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
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
5.0
bruinuclafan's review against another edition
5.0
What is this book about? The question every one of my friends asked during the two months I devoured Tolstoy's legendary tome. The answer is clear is my mind but hard to put into words. More than anything else, War and Peace is about life and love. It's about being human and humanity itself. It's about society and interpersonal relations. It's about seeing the world from many perspectives. It's about truth.
Here are some of my favorite truth bombs:
"A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and woman. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German's self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth--science--which he himself has invented but which for him is the absolute truth."
"At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul: one very reasonably tells a man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it; the other, still more reasonably, says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger, since it is not in man's power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events, and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes, and to think about what is pleasant. In solitude a man generally listens to the first voice, but in society to the second."
"As is often the case with those gifted with an ardent imagination, though he had long known that Moscow would be abandoned he knew it only with his intellect, he did not believe it in his heart and did not adapt himself mentally to this new position of affairs."
"In historic events the rule forbidding us to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is specially applicable. Only unconscious action bears fruit, and he who plays a part in an historic event never understands its significance. If he tries to realize it his efforts are fruitless."
"Let us imagine two men who have come out to fight a duel with rapiers according to all the rules of the art of fencing. The fencing has gone on for some time; suddenly one of the combatants, feeling himself wounded and understanding that the matter is no joke but concerns his life, throws down his rapier, and seizing the first cudgel that comes to hand begins to brandish it. Then let us imagine that the combatant who so sensibly employed the best and simplest means to attain his end was at the same time influenced by traditions of chivalry and, desiring to conceal the facts of the case, insisted that he had gained his victory with the rapier according to all the rules of art. One can imagine what confusion and obscurity would result from such an account of the duel.
The fencer who demanded a contest according to the rules of fencing was the French army; his opponent who threw away the rapier and snatched up the cudgel was the Russian people; those who try to explain the matter according to the rules of fencing are the historians who have described the event."
"Countess Mary listened to her husband and understood all that he told her. She knew that when he thought aloud in this way he would sometimes ask her what he had been saying, and be vexed if he noticed that she had been thinking about something else. But she had to force herself to attend, for what he was saying did not interest her at all. She looked at him and did not think, but felt, about something different. She felt a submissive tender love for this man who would never understand all that she understood, and this seemed to make her love for him still stronger and added a touch of passionate tenderness."
The first 300 pages or so set the stage: Tolstoy introduces most of the characters and their backstories. From there, it's all "downhill." I'll never forget these characters as long as I live. Captain Denisov and his lisp is a literary achievement in and of himself.
I won't go on about a book that thousands have already written, but one additional place where Tolstoy really shines is depicting the positive side of the human emotional spectrum in a completely non-sexual way. Joy, happiness, familial relations, the pleasure of interpersonal relations--Tolstoy shows just how far these emotions can go. I'd like to import some of that into my own experience.
And nothing--NOTHING--can top the experience of imagining a Hussar yelling "HURRAH" with his brothers-in-arms before taking the field of battle.
Here are some of my favorite truth bombs:
"A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and woman. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German's self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth--science--which he himself has invented but which for him is the absolute truth."
"At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul: one very reasonably tells a man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it; the other, still more reasonably, says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger, since it is not in man's power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events, and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes, and to think about what is pleasant. In solitude a man generally listens to the first voice, but in society to the second."
"As is often the case with those gifted with an ardent imagination, though he had long known that Moscow would be abandoned he knew it only with his intellect, he did not believe it in his heart and did not adapt himself mentally to this new position of affairs."
"In historic events the rule forbidding us to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is specially applicable. Only unconscious action bears fruit, and he who plays a part in an historic event never understands its significance. If he tries to realize it his efforts are fruitless."
"Let us imagine two men who have come out to fight a duel with rapiers according to all the rules of the art of fencing. The fencing has gone on for some time; suddenly one of the combatants, feeling himself wounded and understanding that the matter is no joke but concerns his life, throws down his rapier, and seizing the first cudgel that comes to hand begins to brandish it. Then let us imagine that the combatant who so sensibly employed the best and simplest means to attain his end was at the same time influenced by traditions of chivalry and, desiring to conceal the facts of the case, insisted that he had gained his victory with the rapier according to all the rules of art. One can imagine what confusion and obscurity would result from such an account of the duel.
The fencer who demanded a contest according to the rules of fencing was the French army; his opponent who threw away the rapier and snatched up the cudgel was the Russian people; those who try to explain the matter according to the rules of fencing are the historians who have described the event."
"Countess Mary listened to her husband and understood all that he told her. She knew that when he thought aloud in this way he would sometimes ask her what he had been saying, and be vexed if he noticed that she had been thinking about something else. But she had to force herself to attend, for what he was saying did not interest her at all. She looked at him and did not think, but felt, about something different. She felt a submissive tender love for this man who would never understand all that she understood, and this seemed to make her love for him still stronger and added a touch of passionate tenderness."
The first 300 pages or so set the stage: Tolstoy introduces most of the characters and their backstories. From there, it's all "downhill." I'll never forget these characters as long as I live. Captain Denisov and his lisp is a literary achievement in and of himself.
I won't go on about a book that thousands have already written, but one additional place where Tolstoy really shines is depicting the positive side of the human emotional spectrum in a completely non-sexual way. Joy, happiness, familial relations, the pleasure of interpersonal relations--Tolstoy shows just how far these emotions can go. I'd like to import some of that into my own experience.
And nothing--NOTHING--can top the experience of imagining a Hussar yelling "HURRAH" with his brothers-in-arms before taking the field of battle.
james_forster's review against another edition
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
4.0
josh_fosse's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Weird book. Tolstoy himself didn't consider it a novel, and it's easy to see why.
susi_sorglos's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
This would have never gone past an editor nowadays