Started War and Peace. Quit War and Peace.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

After about 200 pages, I just couldn't justify in my mind continuing. It was just boring. The prose was good, but it wasn't enough. On top of that, I couldn't keep track of all the characters. It's a bit difficult to when the author decided to call each one by different names; choose a name and STICK WITH IT.

When it comes down to it, I have a rule. When I read at night before I go to bed, if it feels more like a chore than a pleasurable experience, I start a different book. That ended up being the case with War and Peace.

[Desolation]

I couldn't stand War and Peace. However, I'm currently reading Anna Karenina, and I'm loving it, so I'd recomend giving it a try. It starts out slow, the first hundred pages or so are just setting up the stroy, and can be kind trying, but it gets better.

As far as atmosphere goes, Anna Karenina is kind of like a nice walk in the rain, while War and Peace was more along the lines of licking sand-paper.

[Emil Miller]

I really don't see the point in struggling to read something unless it is part of a study course which must be read. There is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that the book isn't doing anything for you even though it's touted as a literary classic. I have read some pretty monumental works in the past but only because I wanted to, the fact that War and Peace isn't one of them doesn't worry me in the slightest. Many people will read it and find it a fascinating read but it doesn't follow that everyone will.

[Mr.lucifer]

Your own opinion of a book should more important to you than anyone else.

[OrphanPip]

Anna Karenina is definitely an easier read. I found War and Peace tedious at times too, but I absolutely loved Anna Karenina. I have a feeling it might have been the translation, or maybe the subject matter. I did manage to finish W&P though.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I haven't attempted the novel yet, but I know that the film version was the most boring three and a half hours of my life. Even Audrey Hepburn couldn't save it. It's made me really reluctant to pick up the novel.

[dfloyd]

War and Peace, Resurrection, Anna Karenina, and his autobiographical work: Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth; three novels which are generally bundled together. Tolstoy does not call his characters different names:he folows the Russian form of names - first name, patronymic, sir name, diminutive. This is common among the great Russian writer, and if you want to read them you have to understand this. Reading Russian authors is an acquired taste. If you don't like them,don't read them, but don't denigrate some of the worlds best literature because your not up to the task of reading them.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I had completed War and Peace several months back. For years I had heard the phrase; "It's not like you have to read War and Peace" in response to my grumblings when assigned a chore.
Those words resounded in my head for all these years.
That's it! I am going to read it by God.
It was a struggle at times, but I eventually finished.
If for nothing else, I can now proudly proclaim that I have read War and Peace!

Gilliatt

[chum]

War and Peace, Resurrection, Anna Karenina, and his autobiographical work: Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth; three novels which are generally bundled together. Tolstoy does not call his characters different names:he folows the Russian form of names - first name, patronymic, sir name, diminutive. This is common among the great Russian writer, and if you want to read them you have to understand this. Reading Russian authors is an acquired taste. If you don't like them,don't read them, but don't denigrate some of the worlds best literature because your not up to the task of reading them.

I do not think the OPs post was denigrating the work. He even stated the prose was good...it just was boring to him.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, I wasn't denigrating his work at all. It just gets confusing when there is a character called Prince Andrew who is also called Bolkonski on the very next page, and with him doing this with what seemed like a good third of the characters, it was very difficult to keep track. I also realize this is a failing of mine in comprehension, not really the authors fault, but it was frustrating.

And I may give Anna Kareninininina, a try. I would like to get one of Tolstoy's works under my belt.

[Joreads]

[QUOTE=Desolation;901975]I couldn't stand War and Peace. However, I'm currently reading Anna Karenina, and I'm loving it, so I'd recomend giving it a try. It starts out slow, the first hundred pages or so are just setting up the stroy, and can be kind trying, but it gets better.
QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more. I loved Anna Karenina but War and Peace on the other hand :flare:

[mal4mac]

Some pleasures are difficult! Part of the pleasure is in the difficulty! I'm struggling with Dante's Inferno at the moment, which requires reading the notes every few minutes, and doing some hard thinking most of the time. Not a choice for light bedtime reading, certainly, but definitely a choice for when you're up for a challenge. Sometimes I want to do the Times crossword puzzle, or something of equal difficulty, at other times I want to play ping pong, or relax with something equally easy. My ping-pong book at the moment is Huck Finn, but, wonderful as it is, I wouldn't want just a diet of Huck Finns!

I thought War & Peace was a great read. Some translations are easier going than others, so, rather than give up, why not try another translation? Some modern translators try and 'write Russian in English', which can make reading them feel like trying to solve the Times crossword puzzle. So you might want to find an earlier, domesticating translation - I recommend the Maude's for W & P - although you can find even easier ones that 'normalize' the names, abridge historical detail, and so on.

Some versions have list of characters in an appendix, with a quick reminder of who they are, and a short essay telling you how Russian names work, and why they keep changing depending on circumstances. That might be enough to get you over the name problem.

Never develop an opinion of a great novel from a film version. I avoid watching films of classics novels, at least until I have read the novel. The film is never as good as the novel, and sometimes incredibly bad. But, taken in the right spirit, even a clunker can be an amusement. Just make sure to laugh at the actors & script, not Tolstoy.

[prendrelemick]

I was going to say keep going, its worth it. But if you've read 200 pages and still not hooked you've probably done the right thing.

[blazeofglory]

I have tried war and peace several times and yet the book turned up very hard and I gave up on it. One of the difficulties in reading the book is to memorize the characters and there are too many characters and when I flip through several pages I feel lost and cannot synchronize.

Of course the book is great no matter whether it interests me or not and as a matter of fact that there are so many great books I cannot comprehend does not mean that they are great.

[victorianfan]

War and Peace is one of the most beautiful novels that I've ever read! I read it three times, so far. I also enjoyed the Russian movie Война и мир by Sergei Bondarchuk as well. I warmly recommend it to everyone.

[dfloyd]

the one with Audrey Hepburn, one I can't recall who made it, and the Russian one with English subtitles. The Russian one was best, but it should be. I enjoyed all three versions. To effectively read War and Peace, one must read a little about Russian history and the history of the Napoleonic wars. Also, a list of the families included in the novel is almost necessary. If you do these two things, the reading becomes much easier. I watched an hour long biography of Napoleon, and this was sufficient. A list of the families with their Russian names is mandatory for a first time reader. To me, reading the unabridged novel was a pleasure, Primarily because I wanted to and prepared myself.

I have read Anna Karenina once, and just finished a 30-cd listening session. I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed War and Peace more because of the historical background.

If you want to read easier Tolstoy, try Resurrection, a shorter novel of only 400 or so pages and much easier.

[aliengirl]

To effectively read War and Peace, one must read a little about Russian history and the history of the Napoleonic wars. Also, a list of the families included in the novel is almost necessary. If you do these two things, the reading becomes much easier. I watched an hour long biography of Napoleon, and this was sufficient. A list of the families with their Russian names is mandatory for a first time reader. To me, reading the unabridged novel was a pleasure, Primarily because I wanted to and prepared myself.


:iagree: I first tried to read War and Peace at the age of fourteen but can't finish it . I picked it up after a few years when I've read about Russian history and my knowledge of Russian naming system also helped. So reading the unabridged novel was really a pleasure because I wanted to finish it this time.
I admit that there were too many characters to remember their names and pet names. But you get used to it slowly if you keep track of each of them. I have to face the same difficulty when I read Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude".

[spookymulder93]

:iagree: I first tried to read War and Peace at the age of fourteen but can't finish it . I picked it up after a few years when I've read about Russian history and my knowledge of Russian naming system also helped. So reading the unabridged novel was really a pleasure because I wanted to finish it this time.
I admit that there were too many characters to remember their names and pet names. But you get used to it slowly if you keep track of each of them. I have to face the same difficulty when I read Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude".

I just got done reading One Hundred Years of Solitude and I found the trick was to remember the 1st set of kids that Jose Arcadio Buenida and Ursula had and that made it easy to remember who belonged to who.

[Emil Miller]

I haven't attempted the novel yet, but I know that the film version was the most boring three and a half hours of my life. Even Audrey Hepburn couldn't save it. It's made me really reluctant to pick up the novel.

I have to agree here. In fact it was so tedious that I had completely forgotten that I'd seen it. I wouldn't let me that put me off reading the book
but, since I have no inclination to read it anyway, it will remain one of the many books that I haven't read.

[Paulclem]

I've read just beyond the battle of Austerlitz in War and Peace. I'm enjoying it, but as Dfloyd and Aliengirl have pointed out, I did prepare by reading some Russian / Napoleonuic history. It really has helped, and increases the pleasure.

The other thing is that you could come back to it when you feel like it. I do this regularly - I'm not sure if it would suit everyone - particularly with longer novels. I'm taking a break from W&P at the moment, but I'll be going back to it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, I'm just not really into researching and all that before reading a novel. I have school for that kind of stuff.

And the version I was reading was the translation by the Maudes.

[Paulclem]

Yeah, I'm just not really into researching and all that before reading a novel. I have school for that kind of stuff.

And the version I was reading was the translation by the Maudes.

I know what you mean. It wasn't research as such, but a really good history. 1812 - Napoleons retreat from Moscow. A bit later than the start date, but a good read which put it into context. Anyway - no worries.

[kasie]

Several people have pointed out the Russian system of names and some have mentioned the appendix of names provided by the editor/translator. I too became confused when first reading Russian novels but I devised my own solution: I used a postcard as a bookmark and noted down on it the names and relationships as each character appeared, adding the variations as the character interacted with others in the story. It sounds like hard work but it takes moments and clarifies what can be an obstruction to the flow and enjoyment of the narrative.

[Desolation]

Several people have pointed out the Russian system of names and some have mentioned the appendix of names provided by the editor/translator. I too became confused when first reading Russian novels but I devised my own solution: I used a postcard as a bookmark and noted down on it the names and relationships as each character appeared, adding the variations as the character interacted with others in the story. It sounds like hard work but it takes moments and clarifies what can be an obstruction to the flow and enjoyment of the narrative.
What bothered me, more than the variations on people's names, was that a lot of characters had names that were incredibly similar. I would provide an example, but my copy of the book is currently inaccessible.

Paulclem, that's my plan, to come back to it a little further down the road. I've only got 900 pages to go, which is a lot less intimidating than 1200.

[MrRegular]

War and Peace, Resurrection, Anna Karenina, and his autobiographical work: Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth; three novels which are generally bundled together. Tolstoy does not call his characters different names:he folows the Russian form of names - first name, patronymic, sir name, diminutive. This is common among the great Russian writer, and if you want to read them you have to understand this. Reading Russian authors is an acquired taste. If you don't like them,don't read them, but don't denigrate some of the worlds best literature because your not up to the task of reading them.

I think that Tolstoy's War and Peace could accurately be likened to the amorphous stain created by a large Tolstoy-shaped bag of feces left to sit on a carpet for weeks. :piggy:

[*Classic*Charm*]

I have to agree here. In fact it was so tedious that I had completely forgotten that I'd seen it. I wouldn't let me that put me off reading the book
but, since I have no inclination to read it anyway, it will remain one of the many books that I haven't read.

I timed it once- at one point there were eight straight minutes of soldiers marching. I can only imagine how that would appear in the novel! :wink5:

[milktea]

War and Peace is enjoyable enough. But outside of a few choice parts (Prince Andrei felled on the battle field, the seduction of Natasha, Pierre's duel with Dolokhov and the result, Natasha's little brother's (forgot his name) skirmish, Nicolai and Dolokhov's friendship) I think the book's outdated and wonder how much of a classic it will be past a couple more generations.

Tolstoy's polite society is a bit too sentimental for many contemporary readers, so it's understandable why less bibliophiles of today are inclined to read him.

[wokeem]

Along with Ulysses, War and Peace is a novel that I'm working up to. I have a long list of other works that I'm hoping to finish before climbing these literary mountains.

[Kafka's Crow]

20 years ago when I was young and only 20 years old, my teacher told me to read novels while I was young as once I grew older, reading great novels would become more and more difficult. I took his advice and read, within a span of couple of years, all of the great Russian classics. I loved War and Peace at that time. Would I love it now in my 41st year? I don't know. Last month I failed to read 'Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson' and thought of my teacher's words. I found War and Peace a thousand times better that Anna Karenina and The Brothers Karamazov, a thousand times better than any other Russian novel.

[Babak Movahed]

I've never read Ward and Peace but I did read Anna Karenina and had a similar issue. The thing about the different names for the same character didn't really bother me because my edition of the book had a character list. However I did feel like the first 100 pages or so were quite slow. The book was pretty good overall but I think you have to start a book like Anna Karenina or War and Peace with a real strong desire to read it and some real patience.

But give Anna Karenina a try, it's worth the read.

[Paulclem]

20 years ago when I was young and only 20 years old, my teacher told me to read novels while I was young as once I grew older, reading great novels would become more and more difficult. I took his advice and read, within a span of couple of years, all of the great Russian classics. I loved War and Peace at that time. Would I love it now in my 41st year? I don't know. Last month I failed to read 'Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson' and thought of my teacher's words. I found War and Peace a thousand times better that Anna Karenina and The Brothers Karamazov, a thousand times better than any other Russian novel.

You're the first person I've heard mention Beelzebub's tales to his Grandson. I was young when i tried to read it, but I didn't finish it. Actually I'm better at reading more difficult stuff now than I was when younger. I'm 46 now - I think.

:biggrinjester:

[Mr.lucifer]

In my opinion, if a classic didn't impress, it shouldn't worth matter anything to you.

[stlukesguild]

War and Peace is enjoyable enough. But outside of a few choice parts (Prince Andrei felled on the battle field, the seduction of Natasha, Pierre's duel with Dolokhov and the result, Natasha's little brother's (forgot his name) skirmish, Nicolai and Dolokhov's friendship) I think the book's outdated and wonder how much of a classic it will be past a couple more generations.

Tolstoy's polite society is a bit too sentimental for many contemporary readers, so it's understandable why less bibliophiles of today are inclined to read him.

Nonsense. Do you really imagine that the goal of reading is simply to reinforce our own experiences, our own beliefs, and our own prejudices? If anything, reading helps us experience beyond these. Dante's Florence and Homer's Greece are far more removed from us than Tolstoy's Russian is or ever will be. A work of literature survives because it continues to resonate with "bibliophiles" who don't read with a preconceived notion that literature should be a mirror of their own experiences. If you don't personally enjoy a work of literature feel free to toss it aside... but don't confuse personal likes or dislikes with value judgments.

[lalalauren]

I started reading War and Peace last summer but once classes got started I had to put it aside. When I went to pick it up again I realized that it is definitely not a book to set aside and come back to after awhile because I've completely forgotten who everyone is. It was tedious to read though, but I would like to discipline myself to read through it because I feel like it's something worthwhile to have read. I'm currently reading Anna Karenina (Pevear/Volokhonsky edition) and it's very easy to read.


A work of literature survives because it continues to resonate with "bibliophiles" who don't read with a preconceived notion that literature should be a mirror of their own experiences.

I agree, books that bring us into times or circumstances that are "outdated" are often the most enlightening as we get to experience/learn about things that are basically foreign to us. A book may be old, but it can still provide new experiences for us contemporary readers :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

War and Peace is enjoyable enough. But outside of a few choice parts (Prince Andrei felled on the battle field, the seduction of Natasha, Pierre's duel with Dolokhov and the result, Natasha's little brother's (forgot his name) skirmish, Nicolai and Dolokhov's friendship) I think the book's outdated and wonder how much of a classic it will be past a couple more generations.

Tolstoy's polite society is a bit too sentimental for many contemporary readers, so it's understandable why less bibliophiles of today are inclined to read him.

Nonsense. Do you really imagine that the goal of reading is simply to reinforce our own experiences, our own beliefs, and our own prejudices? If anything, reading helps us experience beyond these. Dante's Florence and Homer's Greece are far more removed from us than Tolstoy's Russian is or ever will be. A work of literature survives because it continues to resonate with "bibliophiles" who don't read with a preconceived notion that literature should be a mirror of their own experiences. If you don't personally enjoy a work of literature feel free to toss it aside... but don't confuse personal likes or dislikes with value judgments.

I'm not sure he was saying what you are. He just gave a reason as to why the book may not appeal to as many readers as it once did, a reason I completely agree with. That ultra-polite society is a bit much. Anyways, I think you jumping on his case there wasn't quite justified.

[Kafka's Crow]

The day we realise what charismatic awe the personality of Napoleon created over the mentality of 19th century western world, works like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and The Red and the Black would make more sense. I hold War and Peace as the grandest achievement of human imagination along with Michaelangelo's work in Sistine Chapel, and Shakespeare's King Lear. I love its absolutely massive canvas and skill of the writer in keeping everything together.

[mal4mac]

The day we realise what charismatic awe the personality of Napoleon created over the mentality of 19th century western world, works like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and The Red and the Black would make more sense. I hold War and Peace as the grandest achievement of human imagination along with Michaelangelo's work in Sistine Chapel, and Shakespeare's King Lear. I love its absolutely massive canvas and skill of the writer in keeping everything together.

I agree, but, would add, W&P, more than any other work, made me realise the impact Napoleon had on the imaginations of other writers. Since then, any work that mentions Napoleon has made more sense.


Along with Ulysses, War and Peace is a novel that I'm working up to. I have a long list of other works that I'm hoping to finish before climbing these literary mountains.

War and Peace is a much easier read than Ulysses. In fact, it's one of the easiest classic novels I've read. It's long, but so what. It doesn't require working up to.

[stlukesguild]

I quite agree. Outside of its length, War and Peace was indeed an easy read.

Interesting points on Napoleon and the "cult of personality" that surrounded him. Of course Hugo's Les Miserables added more to the understanding of this... from a French point of view. Considering Hitler, Stalin, Mao... and even some of our own political figures as of late, I quite imagine that the "cult of personality" is something far from being outdated and irrelevant.

[dfloyd]

but without knowledge of the hierarchy of Russian names or a knowledge of the Napoleonic wars, it would be difiicult, especially for a young reader.

It would be like reading The Iliad with no prior knowledge of Greek mythology.

[mal4mac]

but without knowledge of the hierarchy of Russian names or a knowledge of the Napoleonic wars, it would be difiicult, especially for a young reader.

I was quite young when I read it, didn't know about Russian names "going in", didn't have more than the roughest knowledge of the Napoleonic wars. I knew that the short guy had a big bust up with Wellington at Waterloo in 1815 and other battles all over Europe, maybe even with the Russians "somewhere". That was about it. I greatly enjoyed the novel, and didn't find it difficult at all. People seem to think difficulty is in direct proportion to length. People are funny.

So don't hesitate "young reader", dive in! More recently I read "The Cossacks", knowing nothing about the history of Russia's problems with the Caucasus. Didn't matter. Tolstoy, I feel, really had his eye on becoming universally recognised as the latest, greatest master of literature. He realised that he would not become so if people had to read a shelf full of history books before reading him.

I find Tolstoy an easier read than any modern novel, even the ones that avoid the influence of modernism. He really moves the story along and is never boring.

[stlukesguild]

Yes... I somewhat question the difficulty to the "young reader" as well. I read War and peace when I was about 18... about two hours each evening after working the 3-11 shift. I certainly found it far easier than my initial foray with Dante, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Ezra Pound, etc...

[OrphanPip]

I don't disagree with the artistic value of War and Peace, it is quite the accomplishment and an expertly crafted novel. It just failed to interest me for large segments, Anna Karenina was simply a lot more enjoyable to read.

Edit: I was 16 when I read it though, my opinion could possibly be different if I reread it today.

[Jozanny]

I have philosophical objections to Tolstoy's mystic plebian Christianity that gets in the way of any personal love fest on my part, but I think the problem with War & Peace, is that, more so than his other works, it is more epic than a proper novel, much like Hugo's Les Miserables. Anna Karenina, although I am hostile to it as well, is a transitional work that comes much closer to modern realism of a Flaubertian kind, though admittedly Tolstoy probably hated French authors in that mode--not that I know; I am guessing on the basis of his fallout with Turgenev--and the realists were more sympathetic to Turgenev.

[Kafka's Crow]

I have philosophical objections to Tolstoy's mystic plebian Christianity that gets in the way of any personal love fest on my part, but I think the problem with War & Peace, is that, more so than his other works, it is more epic than a proper novel, much like Hugo's Les Miserables. Anna Karenina, although I am hostile to it as well, is a transitional work that comes much closer to modern realism of a Flaubertian kind, though admittedly Tolstoy probably hated French authors in that mode--not that I know; I am guessing on the basis of his fallout with Turgenev--and the realists were more sympathetic to Turgenev.

I abhor Tolstoy's unabashed Christianity but it becomes more evident in his later works (Resurrection, Ivan Illyich etc). War and Peace does not fall into that category. It is an epic, no doubt, and maybe intentionally so but that Christian element which makes Tolstoy more of a lay-preacher than a novelist is not very visible in this work.

I read War and Peace when I started my first ever 'proper' job. I was a school teacher and used to commute two hours each way to and from work. My eleven year old (year 6) students were fascinated by my interest in the book. To my surprise they collected money and bought a nice edition of this huge book for themselves. I was really touched. It used to sit alongside other books in my classroom. At that time I read Irving Stone's Agony and Ecstasy as well. We used to discuss Napoleon and Michelangelo in our classes. Those were beautiful days of carefree leisure and literary ambitions. Now I am 40 years old and I read One Hundred Twenty Days of Sodom last night! How times change!

[mal4mac]

If you decide against reading a great author because he or she is a Christian, or became a Christian, then your reading list is going to be sadly denuded. I'm an atheist who finds myself nodding in agreement with almost everything Nietzsche, Dawkins, Epicurus, and Russell say on matters religious. But I'd hate to live without Tolstoy or Dickens, who not only write much more enjoyable stories than said atheists, but also have many profound things to relate, even if you often find yourself shaking your head in disagreement with them (especially, I agree, with regards to their plebian Christianity.)

[Delarge]

W&P is quite easy to read, but it really helps if you got some basic knowledge about the Napoleonic Wars and the characters of that era beforehand. I read a biography about Napoleon about six months prior to reading W&P (completely unrelated) by a swedish historian named Herman Lindqvist. It really made it alot easier to keep track of the generals and understand the time period. And it made me appreciate the battle of Austerlitz on a completely new level. Herman Lindqvists biography is highly recommendable, but I don't know if it is available in english.

I really loved W&P and for me it was the biggest page turner I've ever read. Didn't bore me a single time. It is roally more of a love story than anything else. Atm I'm reading Anna Karenina and though I really enjoy the parts with Konstantin Ljovin it just doesn't have the epic scale of W&P in my opinion.

[Jozanny]

If you decide against reading a great author because he or she is a Christian, or became a Christian, then your reading list is going to be sadly denuded. I'm an atheist who finds myself nodding in agreement with almost everything Nietzsche, Dawkins, Epicurus, and Russell say on matters religious. But I'd hate to live without Tolstoy or Dickens, who not only write much more enjoyable stories than said atheists, but also have many profound things to relate, even if you often find yourself shaking your head in disagreement with them (especially, I agree, with regards to their plebian Christianity.)

I wrote that I had philosophical objections to Tolstoy's Christian theology, and not that I do not read religious authors. I have the same objections to Dostoevsky's variation of the same, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the power of interpreting the works through their faith. I delineate nothing so simply as you seem to assume.

[Kafka's Crow]

As I said earlier, I have problem with Tolstoy the preacher taking over from Tolstoy the novelist. Tolstoy started giving Christian answers to the problems of life. I didn't like this development. Tolstoy of War and Peace knew how to write a good story without turning it into a sermon, later Tolstoy could not help preaching through his books. I have problems with that. Is it Robbe-Grillet who said something to this effect: Don't think that you read novels to find the answers to life's problems. You read novels like others have said their prayers. The final answer never comes. The novel never ends. (not exact words). Tolstoy started showing final answers in religion and redemptive powers of Christianity. That's what made me give up on his later works.


W&P is quite easy to read, but it really helps if you got some basic knowledge about the Napoleonic Wars and the characters of that era beforehand. I read a biography about Napoleon about six months prior to reading W&P (completely unrelated) by a swedish historian named Herman Lindqvist. It really made it alot easier to keep track of the generals and understand the time period. And it made me appreciate the battle of Austerlitz on a completely new level. Herman Lindqvists biography is highly recommendable, but I don't know if it is available in english.

I really loved W&P and for me it was the biggest page turner I've ever read. Didn't bore me a single time. It is roally more of a love story than anything else. Atm I'm reading Anna Karenina and though I really enjoy the parts with Konstantin Ljovin it just doesn't have the epic scale of W&P in my opinion.

I read quite a lot of background material to Beethoven's music before reading War and Peace and it showed how great an influence Napoleon had on Beethoven. I was aware of Napoleon's campaign in Russia, siege of Moscow and battle of Borodino and subsequent disastrous retreat. All this background information made the reading of War and Peace a real pleasure.

[Jozanny]

Well Kafka, I might not say I give up on Tolstoy exactly--as the arc of his influence cannot be ignored, even in his living grand niece's work, some of which I know and like--but I think we're sympatico on this to a degree, even though I'd like to scream at some contemporary Christian genre authors to read Tolstoy, because the humanity of his characters is prevalent even within his spirituality. I loaded these works up from Amazon and their schematic paradigm turns me green at the gills, seriously. To me it is evident that a great religious movement is becoming stale, like an artificial sweetner.

I am, however, going to reread War and Peace soon, as I cannot remember if I ever fully completed it. I remember certain passages, but the book is foggy in my mind.

[victorianfan]

For me, Tolstoy's thoughts about faith and God was THE BEST part of the novel.

[mal4mac]

I read quite a lot of background material to Beethoven's music before reading War and Peace and it showed how great an influence Napoleon had on Beethoven. I was aware of Napoleon's campaign in Russia, siege of Moscow and battle of Borodino and subsequent disastrous retreat. All this background information made the reading of War and Peace a real pleasure.

So are you saying that, by not having this background information, my pleasure wasn't real? Or are you saying that your pleasure was greater because you knew more details? If so, how on Earth could you know? I can only say reading it has been one of my greatest reading experiences, without knowing much. I'm suggesting people should not be put off reading it by (i) length (ii) lack of knowledge. Tolstoy is one of very few authors who combine ease of reading with the highest praise from the greatest critics.

[Three Sparrows]

I love War and Peace! Everyone said it was dry, dull, long, and boring-but I read it anyway, because usually I like the dull stuff.:D

[Kafka's Crow]

So are you saying that, by not having this background information, my pleasure wasn't real? Or are you saying that your pleasure was greater because you knew more details? If so, how on Earth could you know? I can only say reading it has been one of my greatest reading experiences, without knowing much. I'm suggesting people should not be put off reading it by (i) length (ii) lack of knowledge. Tolstoy is one of very few authors who combine ease of reading with the highest praise from the greatest critics.


No, no, no! I am just saying that the timing was right. I had just finished reading Crime and Punishment, I was into Beethoven's music and was researching his ferocious genius, in short Napoleon was everywhere around me. Then I read War and Peace and click, click, click! Everything seemed to fit in place. You don't need much background information as all that you need to know is in the novel from the historical details to the cult of personality around Bonaparte (hence the size). It is all there like the Genesis in Sistine Chapel. I like to know more about what I invest my time in. As I am reading de Sade these days, I am continually supporting my reading with movies about the Marquis (watched Lunacy yesterday, Marquis today and am planning to watch Quills tomorrow). This is how I like to work. I like to expand my reading experience as much as I can.

[mal4mac]

No, no, no! I am just saying that the timing was right. I had just finished reading Crime and Punishment, I was into Beethoven's music and was researching his ferocious genius, in short Napoleon was everywhere around me. Then I read War and Peace and click, click, click! Everything seemed to fit in place. You don't need much background information as all that you need to know is in the novel from the historical details to the cult of personality around Bonaparte (hence the size).

How do you know that you wouldn't have enjoyed the novel just as much without all that background detail? How do you know that any timing was needed at all? In fact you say, I think quite rightly, "all that you need to know is in the novel from the historical details to the cult of personality around Bonaparte!" So in what sense was the timing right?

So why do people quit?

Reading about Beethoven/Napoleon might have given you just enough motivation to make a proper plan to read the novel, and to get you over any slightly boring bits (which are very few!) So to read this novel I think people need *sufficient motivation* and a *simple* plan. Reading a heap of books on Beethoven and Napoleon may be sufficient motivation, but it's not a simple plan.

If you thinks it's possible to come to some kind of consensus on whether this novel is better than that, and that serious critics (generally) know what they are talking about, then motivation is simple. W&P generally tops the lists of great novels as recommended by serious critics. Why should you need more motivation?

If you commit to reading at least a chapter a day at a certain hour, force yourself through the few boring bits (it's worth it!), don't start it in an exam period or any other period when 'events' mean you might not even have a spare 20 minutes, don't expect to finish it before Christmas, then reading it should be a doddle...

Youngsters note, as this is the tail end of the exam season, a great plan would be to celebrate by starting W&P just after your last exam... commit to taking it, and only it, on holiday (parents & literate members of the opposite sex will be mightily impressed if you're reading that on the beach :)

[milktea]

War and Peace is enjoyable enough. But outside of a few choice parts (Prince Andrei felled on the battle field, the seduction of Natasha, Pierre's duel with Dolokhov and the result, Natasha's little brother's (forgot his name) skirmish, Nicolai and Dolokhov's friendship) I think the book's outdated and wonder how much of a classic it will be past a couple more generations.

Tolstoy's polite society is a bit too sentimental for many contemporary readers, so it's understandable why less bibliophiles of today are inclined to read him.

Nonsense. Do you really imagine that the goal of reading is simply to reinforce our own experiences, our own beliefs, and our own prejudices? If anything, reading helps us experience beyond these. Dante's Florence and Homer's Greece are far more removed from us than Tolstoy's Russian is or ever will be. A work of literature survives because it continues to resonate with "bibliophiles" who don't read with a preconceived notion that literature should be a mirror of their own experiences. If you don't personally enjoy a work of literature feel free to toss it aside... but don't confuse personal likes or dislikes with value judgments.


It's not nonsense, it's an opinion. I'm not quite sure how to respond to your remarks as they seem to be contentious but lacking reason or merit.

A classic is a work that endures the test of time, I do not foresee Tolstoy's War and Peace doing this because it reads like popular fiction for an audience which no longer exists. I believe that classic novel is a work that is artistically superior or innovative or both, depicts the human condition in a manner which resonates throughout the centuries, and influences cultures or other works of art. I do not believe and never suggested in my comment that a classic work need reinforce our own experiences.

Homer and Dante are applicable today is because their writing fits all the aspects which I believe are required for a work to be a classic. Their works are artistically superior, they are socially relevant, and their influence can still be seen in our culture and our art. They have endured the test of time and in my opinion will continue to do so. So umm... what are you trying to say by saying that they are far more removed? How so?

War and Peace is an entertaining story. However as a work of literature, it's flawed stylistically, the characters are sentimental, and while it has its influence (my favorite circle of poets were influenced by Tolstoy) so do many of Stephen King's works. I am of the opinion that influence alone does not a classic novel make.

How do you justify the mawkishness of Natasha's affair with Anatole and the deathly illness which followed? Or the bathetic third and final death of Andrei which would have been far more powerful if Tolstoy didn't keep dragging him back from hell for the sake of dramatics. What about the jarring author's voice digressions? As far as 'resonating' goes, War and Peace is not resonating with readers today which--if you have failed to notice--was the point of this thread, and is further supported by the fact that it has been listed as a book that a large majority of readers today prefer to lie about reading rather than read.

Finally, I enjoyed reading War and Peace and stated this as the preface to my comment. I would assume to any person of intellectual maturity that this means I liked the novel well enough. Therefore I have no idea where you've drawn this conclusion that I'm dissing Tolstoy because I don't like his novel. I loathe Homer's Odyssey and would read War and Peace ten times over before I suffered through that work again. However, I would never argue that the Odyssey is not a classic.

You've said nothing to justify why Tolstoy's work shall remain a classic. If you insist that this work will remain a classic, then tell me what your definition of a classic is and bear the burden of proof that shows that Tolstoy fits that definition. Otherwise, please seriously, chill with the boorish opinion bashing.

[mal4mac]

A classic is a work that endures the test of time, I do not foresee Tolstoy's War and Peace doing this because it reads like popular fiction for an audience which no longer exists. I believe that classic novel is a work that is artistically superior or innovative or both, depicts the human condition in a manner which resonates throughout the centuries, and influences cultures or other works of art. I do not believe and never suggested in my comment that a classic work need reinforce our own experiences.


Tolstoy *has* survived the test of time. There have been an awful lot of critics over the past hundred years, and the consensus is that Tolstoy is up there with the greats.

Just because a work is as easy to read as popular fiction does not mean that it can't be great, it just means (if it is great) it is even more to be admired!

Innovation isn't the be all and end all. Homer was writing in a tradition of oral literature, Shakespeare in a tradition of five act plays. Tolstoy provided the end point and ultimate example of the realist novel, that doesn't make him any less great than Joyce who, perhaps, showed more innovation.

Orwell's definition of a classic, and mine, is that it is a work that is declared to be such by a majority of good critics. So W&P is a classic.

[_Shannon_]

I think that so much of all of this is a matter of translation. The truth is that our use of language has changed in the past 100+ years, and even more dramatically in the past 20 years with the onslaught of the internet and text messaging.

It's really hard to talk about a book written in another language, without also seriously discussing translation issues. For those who struggle with more antiquated language and usage, a newer more current translation can make a huge impact on the readability of a book.

I think that there are things worth reading and worth struggling through even if we lack sympathy or resonance--simply for the fact of the place which they hold in the history of literature. War and Peace might not be "important" to us, but it was important to many of those who we now turn to for our reading--or at least to those who most influenced them.

I think this also touches on questions of why we read. Do we read simply for pleasure/entertainment? Or do we read for some additional purpose?

[mal4mac]

Modern translations might be less readable than older translations. I find the Maudes' translations of Tolstoy more readable, and enjoyable, than those of Pevear & V. Many modern translators make literal translations of Russian turns of phrase, but in doing so produce English that is difficult to read. If you are struggling with your translation of W&P, try another one! There are *many*.

[dafydd manton]

Look on the bright side. I had to study it in the original Russian for a degree course, and if you think it's terrible in English, you have much to learn, Grasshopper!

[mal4mac]

Sounds like the ale speaking :)

[dafydd manton]

Oh if only it had been. In those days, I didn't drink, but I do apolgise for the oblique reference to some dreadful TV programme of the 80s!! Maybe if I HAD been a drinker I'd have got on better! Could this be the key to success? Didn't do Beethoven any harm!