Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

War and Peace (1868)

by Leo Tolstoy

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations / Mentions
17,390261100 (4.27)24 / 1815
English (244)  Spanish (8)  Dutch (5)  French (2)  Hebrew (2)  German (1)  All languages (262)
Showing 1-25 of 244 (next | show all)
Suurteos, joka kuvaa venäläistä aatelistoa ja 1800 -luvun aikaista yhteiskunnallista tilannetta Napoleonin sotien aikaan. Mukaansatempaavaa ja taidokasta kuvausta ihmisten välisistä suhteista ja maailmasta, jossa he elävät. ( )
  Iikku | Nov 20, 2015 |
Leo, old man, you're preachy. ( )
  Fernenanda | Nov 5, 2015 |
A masterpiece, marred only by some overblown philosophical waffle. The depth of the characters, the description of the Napoleonic Wars, the description of the lives the the aristocrats... this book has it all. Once I got into it, it was an easier book than I'd feared. ( )
  martensgirl | Jul 29, 2015 |
I have often been bored by books that take princes and princesses as their subject. I am even a little jaundiced when they deal with the love between them. But I have to say Pierre is one of the great characters of European literature and it does not surprise me that Tolstoy was an expert on the Napoleonic wars and would show people in detail all the battles with his models.

( )
  Daniel_Nanavati | Jul 19, 2015 |
Unforgettable and fantastic, well remembered after 35 years. ( )
  ted_newell | Jun 20, 2015 |
Never wrote a review for this, but I'm halfway through writing an honors thesis on it! Somehow writing the thesis is easier than writing a goodreads review. ( )
  Proustitutes | Jun 11, 2015 |
One word, three letters: WOW! I absolutely love this book, the story, the philosophy in it and the author. As the cover states, it really is a book that you don't just read. You live it.

At first, I was a bit daunted. In the first part, the reader gets too much information to cope with. The Russian names of people and places don't make it easier either. Tolstoy also has this habit of referring to the same person in different ways by switching between their first name, last name, nick name, title, ... all the time. After the second part (which starts after about 115 pages) I was completely hooked however and I am so happy I decided to stick to this book.

I hear many people complaining about Tolstoy going on and on about his views on the world and history. Personally, I didn't find it boring or tedious to read at all. I even find myself looking upon events in the world as in my personal life completely different now. This book has changed my life forever.

I'm not giving it 5 stars, since this edition not only translated the Russian into English, but also replaced the French and German parts with English translations. Since I can read French and German (but not Russian :-)) I was sad to hear that other editions exist which keep the French and German parts intact; I should have picked up one of those. Some paragraphs have really lost some of their meaning and impact by excessive, but necessary, use of `said she in French' or `he said in German'. Pity.

Great book however and an epic story. Absolutely marvellous to spend countless evenings with! ( )
1 vote bbbart | May 30, 2015 |
I can't take any more of this overambitious crap. With more than 50 hours remaining on the audio book, I'm just going to cut my losses.
  jimocracy | Apr 18, 2015 |
I'm never reading this book in 3 1/2 days again. If you want the easy time of it watch the film with Audrey Hepburn then read the last 100-150 pages of the book. ( )
  DaffiMere | Feb 16, 2015 |
This modern translation is much better than the Constance Garnett, I can fathom who is who and the dialogue reads more smoothly. I know 19thC novels are slow and detailed, but really this had too much detail. Glad I finally read it though. ( )
  mlfhlibrarian | Feb 11, 2015 |
This one I also "read" long ago. Actually it was read to me by Alexander Scourby on long-playing records in 1969 because I was able to get "books for the blind" at the time. I still hear the prose in his deep, resonant voice. I was a big fan of Russian literature at the time, and this has never ceased. I was especially glad to counteract the Dostoyevskian Christianity I had been taught with Tolstoy's idea that the kingdom of God is within you.
1 vote conniekronlokken | Jan 6, 2015 |
Writing an original, cogent and halfway-intelligent review of War and Peace in English is as daunting a task as reading Tolstoy’s opus magnum to begin with. Why, then, would I risk making a mockery of myself by awarding it only three stars? I’ll explain, and thereby attempt to justify this near condemnation of a world-renowned work — a work, by the way, which Tolstoy himself says (in the Appendix) is not a novel, but which critics and the reading public in general call just that. And so, rather than skirt controversy on this minor point, I will, too.

Although I’d hesitate to call Tolstoy a stylist, there are (in over 1,200 pages of relatively small print) a number of instances in which he goes out on a literary limb. One such is on p. 524:

“Nikolai set out after the first troika; behind him the rest came rattling and screeching. At first they went at a slow trot along the narrow road. As they drove past the garden, shadows from the bare trees often lay across the road and obscured the bright light of the moon, but as soon as they drove beyond the fence, a plain of snow, sparkling like diamonds, with a dove-blue sheen, bathed in moonlight and motionless, opened out on all sides. Once, twice the front sleigh jolted over a bump; the next sleigh jolted in the same way, then the next, and, boldly breaking the frost-bound stillness, the sleighs strung out one after the other.”

While I realize that being in the least bit critical of Leo Tolstoy’s prose borders on iconoclasm, I nevertheless have to pose the question: am I the only reader in Christendom who looks at this and wonders about certain punctuation, not to mention about the possibility of a run-on sentence or two in this otherwise lyrical passage — so atypical of Tolstoy both in War and Peace and in Anna Karenina (the only other work of his I’ve read and reviewed both here and at Amazon)?

I give full credit, by the way, for an accurate translation (and transcription) of this work to Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. I believe that they — much to their credit — would not have corrected any of Tolstoy’s prose. And so, I can only conclude that Tolstoy himself is to blame for any weakness or sloppiness in his work. When I was a student of Russian language and literature at Columbia a few decades ago, Constance Garnett was considered the reigning queen in matters of English-language translations of the Russian classics. To me at the time, her work frequently read like that of a testosterone-spiked teenager out for a drunken spin on a Friday night. Not so with Pevear and Volokhonsky, who are studied and meticulous in their translation both of this work and of others I’ve read in the past.

Tolstoy is a first-rate story-teller, make no mistake about it. And he paints a rather deplorable picture of both the Russian aristocracy of the time and of the singularly solipsistic, narcissistic and megalomaniac Napoleón Bonaparte in particular. But he’s simply sloppy in his prose, a fair portion of which is just not the handiwork of a brilliant and careful writer (e.g., Gustave Flaubert).

While I don’t know that his generalized observations about the character and comportment of several European nationalities is a mark of genius, I did find his descriptions of Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Italians and Russians (on p. 639) to be amusing, entertaining and — let’s be frank — damned accurate!

All of the above notwithstanding, I’ll give you that there are several passages in the novel (unfortunately, too lengthy to cite here in their entirety, but I’ll quote the first and last sentences of each) that are particularly well-crafted and that I’d describe as quintessentially Tolstoy. The first begins at the bottom of p. 605 and concludes at the bottom of p. 606.

“Kings are the slaves of history … Their every action, which to them seems willed by themselves, in the historical sense is not willed, but happens in connection with the whole course of history and has been destined from before all ages.”

A second comprises the entirety of Volume III, Part 2, Chapter 1 (pp. 682 – 682).

“Napoleon started the war with Russia because he could not help going to Dresden, could not help getting befuddled with honors, could not help putting on a Polish uniform, yielding to the heartening impression of a June morning, could not refrain from outbursts of anger in the presence of Kurakin and then of Balashov…Napoleon goes further, we retreat, and the very thing is achieved that was to defeat Napoleon.”

A third (Vol. III, Part 2, XXVII) begins on p. 783 and ends on p. 785: “Many historians say that the battle of Borodino…fulfilled his [Napoleon’s] role of seeming to command.”

A fourth (Vol. III, Part 3, I) begins on p. 821 and finishes up on p. 823: “For human reason, absolute continuity…their reflections on the occasion of those deeds.”

And then we have the Epilogue to War and Peace in which Tolstoy waxes quite philosophical (in Part 1, I-IV and the entire Part 2, which offers a lengthy monograph on freedom versus necessity) when he’s not sounding downright balzacien (Part 1, V-XVI).

Prior to a most admirable Epilogue, however, we get the laconically poetic passage Pevear cites in his Introduction: “…drops dripped…whistled the saber, and again the horses scuffled and neighed…” (p. 1,055). Having once wrestled with my own metrical translation of Sergei Yesenin’s poem, “A Letter to My Mother” for inclusion in my novel, Trompe-l’oeil, I can certainly appreciate not only Tolstoy’s alliterative skill, but also Pevear’s equally alliterative and artful translation.

But what of Tolstoy’s — overwrought, in my opinion — metaphor on pp. 874-875, in which he compares the desertion of Moscow (just before the French invasion) with an abandoned beehive? Where was his writer’s nose at that point?

These examples show not only the genius of the work, and of the man, but also its — and his — shortcomings. I just don’t believe he was as good a writer (or at least an editor) as he was a thinker. After all, every writer has the opportunity to edit and polish his own work, and no one’s pointing a gun at him to get on with the process.

And so, given what we know about Tolstoy’s later years, I think the Latin citation (in footnote #9, on p. 1,237) is most appropriate — and herewith, I’ll end my review except for one little piece of advice to you, a potential reader of War and Peace:

“Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.” *

And the advice? Do not try to read this book on the subway! One or the other will find you dead on the tracks.

Brooklyn, NY
[b:Trompe-l'oeil|10844205|Trompe-l'oeil|Russell Bittner|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1327873786s/10844205.jpg|15758639]

* “Those whom God wants to destroy, he first drives mad.” ( )
1 vote RussellBittner | Dec 12, 2014 |
When people thing of big books often War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is mentioned. This Russian classic depicts the French invasion of Russia in 1812. True to Tolstoy form, War and Peace also looks at classes and the impact of the Napoleonic invasion on the Tsarist society. While this book can be considered an epic historical war novel, for me this was a work of philosophical ideas. This is one of the hardest books to review, not because I have nothing to say but rather there is so much to cover and I have no idea where to start.

Just to put things into perspective, I started this book in October and have been slowly chipping away at it for four months. It is a hard battle and you really need to take your time with a book like this because Tolstoy has a lot to say. This is the kind of book that feels like you‘ve climbed a mountain when you finally finish and you can just feel your pretentious levels rising. For those interested, I read the Oxford World’s Classics edition which has the translations by Aylmer and Louise Maude. Many people debate on which translation is the best but I thought going with an Oxford World’s Classics would be a safe bet; I love this publisher and know I’m always getting a decent copy of the book.

Right off the bat you are flung into this world and you meet so many people. Tolstoy has an amazing ability to give the reader a sense of a person with a few lines, so even the minor characters in this book get some sort of personality. There are hundreds (over 500) characters within War and Peace and I often found it difficult to keep up with them all but thanks to Leo Tolstoy’s writing ability I could relax a little because even if I forgot about a character, when they reappear further in the book I still had a sense of who they are. This is possible due to the way this book was originally written and I will talk more on that later.

Most of the major characters within War and Peace are members of the aristocracy and it is interesting to see them all fighting for a higher position in society, government or the military. People like Boris rise in society while others like the Rostov fall, Dolokhov gets demoted while Pierre plots an assassination. Not only do we have the Napoleonic war happening within these pages, a battle for social standing rages through this novel. It is all about power but paradoxically the people with the most power within this book are the ones that seem to give up control.

If you don’t have the knowledge of Russian or Napoleonic history, this novel accommodates the reader. I found myself at times looking up information about the history just to satisfy my curiosity but as the book progressed, my research subsided. It is in Leo Tolstoy’s style to give you as much information as possible, this does make the book longer but for me I think it was a huge bonus. But you must realise this is a work of fiction and most of the people are fictional. Tolstoy was telling a story of the invasion and the harsh nature of war. You can even look at the second epilogue and read more of the authors thoughts on the subject and the philosophical ideas held within this book.

War and Peace was originally serialised in the literary magazine The Russian Messenger between 1865 and 1867. This magazine plays host to many of Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novels. This means that originally people read War and Peace over the course of three years. This means at times the novel may feel repetitive and covering plot points done before but this is just a result of the original format. It comes in handy with characters as they are reintroduced and because I took my time reading this classic, it became a vital part.

There is so much going on within War and Peace and it took me a long time trying to work out what I wanted to say and what to leave out. This is the kind of book that needs to be revisited in the future, Tolstoy has a lot to say and I’m interested in exploring the themes. I loved this book; it is a roller-coaster of emotions and philosophical ideas. I’ve only scratched the surface of what is happening in this novel and then wrote a small amount of what I discovered. I can’t imagine ever being able to fully understand the brilliance of Tolstoy and War and Peace. For me, Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a better writer but Leo Tolstoy has a unique ability to capture the lives of everyone involved in one war.

This review originally appeared on my blog; http://literary-exploration.com/2014/03/20/war-and-peace-by-leo-tolstoy/ ( )
4 vote knowledge_lost | Dec 4, 2014 |
This is an epic masterpiece that defies pithy summary. Before I decided that I had to read it, the size and reputation of the book were somewhat daunting - it is a tribute not just to Tolstoy but to Anthony Briggs that this translation is so eminently readable, and apart from some of the philosophical musings about the meaning and limitations of history, it never seemed like hard work to read.

The story is all-encompassing, covering the epic sweep of the history of the wars between Russia and Napoleon but also a moving family story of the main protagonists and colourful descriptions of Russian life.

I can't do justice to it, but I would recommend it to all intelligent readers with an interest in Russia and its history. ( )
  bodachliath | Nov 4, 2014 |
now I know why this is a classic. War scenes. Peace scenes alternate in this history book. I learned more about history than in school. Easier to read than expected. Not sure if the two epilogs were necessary, but the book itself is just gigantic and awesome. ( )
  kakadoo202 | Nov 2, 2014 |
Well, seven months later -- I finished it! Not exactly an easy read. Not even a very enjoyable read -- give me Anna Karenina anytime. But it's just one of those books that any student of literature NEEDS to read, so I did. The juxtaposition of the horrors of war and the earlier scenes of gaiety and mindless flirtations (Natasha) work well, but it's just too long. I could care less about the chesslike moves of Napoleon and his Russian counterparts -- those interludes bogged down the narrative far too much. I wanted to know what would become of the characters -- that is what kept me reading. The characterizations were stunning, and the effect of war on the various personalities was believable and compelling. ( )
  AliceAnna | Oct 23, 2014 |
I was surprised once I finally read this book. It was much more readable then I expected, and much more of a novel - romantic, even - then I expected. The philosophizing at the end was heavy-handed and detracted from the whole. ( )
1 vote kcshankd | Oct 23, 2014 |
Worldbuilding leaves something to be desired, thank goodness for footnotes,endnotes, and wikipedia. But good book - loved it. ( )
  Rowena_ | Oct 14, 2014 |
This was, indeed, an epic read, but as there always has been more to Tolstoy, this book is no different. In it you find bits of history you would have never known otherwise, full-on societal differences and perceptions, and a statement, whether or not you consider it a little subtle, on government and society as a whole. If you know anything about the governments of the world, you see that this statement applies today just as it did then, nevermind the excesses of the wealthy. One cannot just "read" War and Peace. One who loves literature lives it, becomes it, and carries it with them the rest of their lives. Those who are afraid of it because it's such a large tome are just not willing to read anything that might impact their lives. ( )
  mreed61 | Aug 10, 2014 |
"Sõda ja rahu" on mu meelest nagu "Tõde ja õigus". Ilmselt pole paljud kumbagi raamatut lugenud, aga no kes ei tunneks Nataša Rostovat, Pierre Bezuhhovit, Vargamäe Andrest või Oru Pearu.
Ma olen üsna kindel, et ma seda raamatud varem lugenud polnud, aga ju olen ma näinud filmi? Ja loomulikult olen ma käinud klassiekskursioonil Barclay de Tolly mälestusmärgi juures. Igaljuhul, nagu kohtumine vanade tuttavatega.

Sõda ja Rahu oleks tegelikult ideaalne e-raamat. Päris naljakas oli üle pika aja lugeda paberilt. Seda lugedes oleks kohe hädasti vaja, et saaksid online tõlkida prantsuskeelsed osad ( no miks neid nii palju peab olema!), esimese osa juures võiks olla "kes on kes?" ja hiljem Venemaa kaart ja wikipedia tegelaste taustade uurimiseks samuti.

Loe edasi
http://indigoaalane.blogspot.com/2013/04/ltolstoi-soda-ja-rahu.html ( )
  Indigoaalane | Jul 18, 2014 |
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 [Les Misérables], 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 [Anna Karenina], 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. ( )
1 vote Korrick | Jun 21, 2014 |
Original post at Book Rhapsody.


Snoopy reads this, one word a day

How can I possibly write something about this ginormous book that stands proud against the motley crew of my random books of mass markets, hardbounds, and trade paperbacks, and shying these on the sheer basis of breadth? A novel that spans four volumes, each volume divided into parts, and each part further divided into chapters, I struggled to finish this not without iron will and determination.

First, I was motivated by the reading support group spurred by local writer Jessica Zafra. I think we were about ten, periodically posting our inputs on the writer’s blog, including the writer herself, and I think I was the first to read my way across the finish line. I even think that only three of us really finished the book, this suspicion arising from the simple fact that the support-group-slash-challenge wasn’t capped off, unless we consider the article the writer wrote, an article that quoted the participants, as the waving checkered flag.

So you see, I really don’t know how to properly start this without the reader skipping to another random Internet article. But if you have reached this part, my effort is not in vain.

"Love? What is love?" he thought. "Love hinders death. Love is life. Everything, everything I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists, only because I love. Everything is connected only by that. Love is God, and to die–-means that I, a part of love, return to the common and eternal source." These thoughts seemed comforting to him. But they were only thoughts. Something was lacking in them, there was something one-sidedly personal, cerebral–-there was no evidence. And there was the same uneasiness and vagueness. He fell asleep.

I lied. That’s not a random quotation. But the manner of picking it is quite random. I sifted my thoughts through my mental silkscreen. What is this about? Of course, it’s about war and peace, no? Sure, there’s a lot of war in here that would suffice for tremendous reference if you wish to lie about being a war veteran. There are characters in here that are real people, people who are forever a part of the world’s history. Like Napoleon. And who else?

I don’t remember. Rather, I don’t know, because after reading this, I suspect that Napoleon is just a product of Tolstoy’s pen. But let’s not dwell on that; let’s return to that quote, a dust mote of a narrative from this book that could break wrists. Okay, I picked a love quote because the major characters, the major fictional characters, are caught in a love triangle of sorts, but not that type where two men go after the same woman. Our characters Pierre Bezukhov, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, and Natasha Rostov are better than that.

There are harder Russian names than that. It would be great if you also know French, because there’s a lot of French going on here. I think some editions have the all the French dialogues translated, but my edition, the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation, reputed to be the most loyal, left all the French untouched. There are footnotes, don’t worry. But given that I set out to read every single line in every volume, I still read the French lines. And whatever historical footnotes that I came across.

I don’t wish to go through the plot because really; all you need to know is that this is about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia with a lot of side twists and commentaries. I said commentaries because the author usually forgets that he is writing fiction and proceeds to write essays. Or it could be the other way around.

It is hard to convince someone to read this book, what with the popularity of classics, humongous classics at that, waning. But really, this is one good read. You don’t have to be a high-strung reader to understand it. Never mind the French, or go get another edition if you are Frenchophobic. The scenes are well-propped against exact descriptions. If you’re reading a part where a soiree is going on, you feel like a waiter eavesdropping on the conversations of the Russian high society.

The characters are well-developed and dynamic. I particularly like the polarity of Pierre and Prince Andrei, men who are supposed to bash in each other’s teeth but are the best of friends despite their vast differences. If you ask me, I prefer the dashing Prince Andrei, not only because he is dashing, but I like his thoughts and philosophies. Not to say that Pierre is uninteresting. It’s just my preference.

The plot is, yes, convoluted, but it can be tolerated. There’s just a lot going on. There are a lot of characters that could make up for a television series. That’s to be expected because it screams at over a thousand pages, but it doesn’t feel crammed. There’s comedy, drama, romance, and action, so it’s safe to say that readers of varying genres can have something to look forward to.

And yes, you can have the ultimate bragging rights of having set a reading milestone after flipping the last page.

But really, not everything is as good as I am trying to say. As much as I want to encourage everyone, I have to air this out. Tolstoy, in this novel, has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again. This is particularly evident in the essayish parts. He would wind up with a longish introduction, say about war and history, bring up a thesis, present an antithesis, conclude with a synthesis, and repeat all over on the same subject.

There are times that I wanted to scream at the book. Fine, I get it, can we please move on? Something like that. It can get annoying, but it could be exactly this why finishing this book gives you a sense of achievement. It even made me feel a little smarter. Of course, bus passengers would be intimidated if you whip out this book out of your backpack, which I did, but really, you will understand a thing or two about war and history, like the role of each other in each other.

Perhaps this should have been entitled War and History instead. ( )
1 vote angusmiranda | Jun 10, 2014 |
I enjoyed this book. It's not as good as Anna Karenina, but it's still worth the read. I'll admit that I was bored by the war part. The development of the characters is amazing but the lengthy interludes of the descriptions of the Napoleonic battles ruined a bit of that for me. Those parts are probably very interesting for someone who has an interest in the politics and fighting of the Napoleonic wars.. Worth the read. ( )
  steadfastreader | Mar 18, 2014 |
Wow, what a book. I'd call it an extended essay on free will, inevitability, the causes of events, the bias of historians in recording events, and humanity's innate inability to understand its own existence. The novel, or romance, or whatever else you want to call the fictional part of the book, illustrates Tolstoy's thinking and, despite making up roughly 80% of the book, is an aside to the thoughts captured in the second epilogue. The book isn't a novel in the accepted sense of the word. It is a philosophy, a theory, an allegory, a history, a fable. It is confusing and frustrating, but above all wonderfully written. The characters are beautifully observed. The essay parts might be repetitive, pedagogical, didactic, but they are an interesting insight into Tolstoy's thinking. In the fiction, too, Tolstoy isn't afraid of tough plot developments, things that are true to life, things that other novelists might shy away from in favour of happiness and happenstance. I'm very glad I've read it. ( )
1 vote missizicks | Mar 12, 2014 |
Couldn't do it, I couldn't actually read it. It was boring! ( )
  WendyBlott | Mar 11, 2014 |
Showing 1-25 of 244 (next | show all)

Quick Links

Popular covers


Average: (4.27)
0.5 4
1 29
1.5 6
2 96
2.5 18
3 336
3.5 82
4 739
4.5 148
5 1416


12 editions of this book were published by Audible.com.

See editions

Penguin Australia

3 editions of this book were published by Penguin Australia.

Editions: 0141025115, 0140447938, 0451532112

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Store | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 100,856,234 books! | Top bar: Always visible