War & Peace - Volume I

I'm not really sure how to review this book. My copy has a brief guide to Russian naming conventions as well as a list of major characters which I referred to constantly, and they were of great assistance in following along, as are Tolstoy's incredibly short chapters. I read a surprising amount of this book just waiting for my morning ride to work.It's an easy read. It's long, but the language isn't lofty or hard to get through. The story follows several families and their lives during Napoleon's invasion of Russia. They people change as time passes and they encounter various hardships and situations. Tolstoy has a curious way of describing even passing characters in a fashion that they wind up memorable for at least a time (though I still remember the scene with the woman with over-large front teeth).The characters make the book. The back of the book highlights Natasha Rostov, Prince Andrew Bolkonsky, and Pierre Bezukhov, but there are many others that bring their own tales, such that two people might read the book in an entirely different fashion depending on which character stands out to them. Both my most loved and most detested literary figures come from this book.

Of course a masterpiece. This is a wonderful translation making the language very readable. Great characters especially the ever seeking Pierre.

Wow - that word pretty much sums up my reaction to this book. My first thought upon finishing was that I want to reread this book sometime soon because I want to revisit the characters that I loved through the last part of the book from the beginning. It is such a long book, and did take me such a long time to get through, that I feel like I would get so much reading through it again.

There is not much more to say about it that hasn't been said hundreds of times by countless others. I enjoyed the characters, love stories, war stories, the plot, and even the diversions into farming and war theory. The last thirty pages were tough because they deal with Tolstoy's views on why history happens. It was tough because I wanted more about the characters and their lives.

I would recommend this to anyone who has the discipline to read a book of this size. It is well worth your time.

“All we can know is that we know nothing. And that’s the height of human wisdom.”I’m not sure that I understood this book so much as I observed it. These three quotes pulled from Tolstoy’s masterpiece I believe speak to this; certainly more show than tell. And Tolstoy says a lot. Apparently, over 566,000 words, if the introduction is to be trusted—and why shouldn’t it be? Or bee. We’re all drones of one sort or another. Some just happen to drag a stinger through the honeycomb, with more sense of touch than rigid intention, and paint a portrait of the colony of humanity with more exactitude because of its dragged memory, faint graze through the chambers, the conglomeration of history through personal experience and hindsight. The only extra material I did not read from this edition was the foreword. Once I’d seen that the second part of that was concerned with the parallels between Napoleon’s invasion and Hitler’s of Russia, I stopped giving a shit. I did skim it, to be fair, and was bored to tears. Somehow Tolstoy managed to make nearly 1500 pages riveting, even with the lengthy second epilogue about free will and power. Some artists can dip the quill into honey and pull from that well the inextricably sticky souls of humans who were and are and will forever be (bee) too busy to turn head over thorax and see what they’d inadvertently written.“That is, power is power: in other words, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand.”And Tolstoy said it better than I ever could:“A bee settling on a flower has stung a child. And the child is afraid of bees and declares that bees exist to sting people. A poet admires the bee sucking from the chalice of a flower and says it exists to suck the fragrance of flowers. A beekeeper, seeing the bee collect pollen from flowers and carry it to the hive, says that it exists to gather honey. Another beekeeper who has studied the life of the hive more closely says that the bee gathers pollen dust to feed the young bees and rear a queen, and that it exists to perpetuate its race. A botanist notices that the bee flying with the pollen of a male flower to a pistil fertilizes the latter, and sees in this the purpose of the bee’s existence. Another, observing the migration of plants, notices that the bee helps in this work, and may say that in this lies the purpose of the bee. But the ultimate purpose of the bee is not exhausted by the first, the second, or any of the processes the human mind can discern. The higher the human intellect rises in the discovery of these purposes, the more obvious it becomes, that the ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension.”

I finally read this in the space of 26 days after it had been sitting on my bookshelf for a decade. For the most part, War and Peace is simply brilliant. The main characters are wonderfully drawn, and I loved getting inside their heads and rooting for them all the way through. I also felt that I got a good sense of what it was like to be in (or on the edges of) the upper echelons of Russian society in the early 19th century through the descriptions of various social scenes and the viewpoints of minor characters. I also enjoyed the war scenes involving the main characters.However, I didn't quite get on with some of the other war parts and the various passages ruminating on history in general, especially towards the end. I was also a little let down by some of the main characters' fates as described in the first epilogue (mainly the way in which the female characters are depicted), but I recognise that this is partly due to the era in which the novel is set/was written.Despite that, I'm really glad I finally read War and Peace, and will be looking up some of Tolstoy's other works in the future.

Wonderful! Incredible reader that brings this fascinating story to life!

It took me a long time to finish this. It is a very good book. The 2nd epilogue is Tolstoy's thoughts on history and how it is viewed.

I read Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" when I was in middle school at a time I was too young to really appreciate it as anything but an accomplishment that impressed my teachers at the time. And even though I read a ton of Russian novels in college, something about that early experience put me off Tolstoy... (I was definitely more of a Dostoevsky girl.)At any rate, I spent the last couple of months reading "War and Peace" and it was absolutely marvelous... I enjoyed nearly everything about it-- from the ins and outs of the family drama during peace time, to the descriptions of Napoleone's failed march into Russia to Tolstoy's musings on the nature of man and war. Overall, just an excellent book.

I was standing at an airport lounge as a teenager many years ago, and suddenly realised I had no books to read for my family holiday. I was a SF geek at the time (still am, but I’m reading other stuff now), but had read everything that W.H. Smiths airport bookshelf could show me. In desperation and dread I turned to the classics... I'd read Frankenstein and other English literary classics by that point, and had found all of them tedious and obsessed with melancholy and/or an absurd idealistic idea of romance. Plots were contrived and you could see them coming a mile away. Of them all, only Dickens could make me smile and identify with his caricatures, but even he stopped short of fulfilling at times. If Victorian England had truly been like all of that that, then no wonder we were so repressed and messed up today. So in desperation and partly in arrogance I picked up this weighty book. None of my peers had read it, and it's size seemed to daunt many. I thought of the smugness I'd feel in saying I'd read it, even if it had been as dry and full of itself like so many others... The next two weeks were the best holiday read of my life thus far. From a stumbling start in the opening chapter and trying to work out who the hell everyone was, I slowly and surely found my way into one of the most beautiful and compelling novels I'd ever read... Tolstoy has a way of showing the inner spirit of everyone. From the bullying cavalry-man, to Napoleon himself and above all our principle characters. How I loved that bumbling, foolish and ungainly Pierre as he grew and flowered, and the impish Natasha who could melt your heart in the first paragraph you met her. Even thinking of it now, I am touched by tender thoughts and memories, interspersed with the grief of conflict and war and the nobleness of the human spirit.But is it a perfect book? No book is perfect. War and Peace is a brilliant book that should be read and enjoyed at whatever age a person is. It truly is a book for every age and every person. Let yourself into a world that will enrapt you. And a little request: can we in 2000 stop using the phrase "is not perfect ..." when describing something. Nothing in life is perfect. No book, no movie, no age, no accomplishment, and so on. Consciously refuse to compare anything to perfection and instead just enjoy something for what it is. Comparing something to the unobtainable 'perfect' merely diminishes that something and our experience. Don't be put off by folk complaining about the philosophical bits. There isn't too much of that anyway.I reread “War and Peace” recently, in no rush and over three weeks and was amazed by its richness and the development of character. Make no mistake, this is a Russian epic and you will find few books in a lifetime of reading which are as memorable.Take Pierre for example who goes from being a young buffoon worshiping Napoleon to become someone with a much more critical view, hoping at one point for the chance of assassinating him. This development does not happen overnight! He learns from his experiences in prison and through his relationship with Platon Karateyev. At the end you are left thinking that the story is not yet over. Pierre and young Nikolai Bolkonsky, patriots both - are thinking critically about society. Exile to Siberia is definitely a possibility if they get involved in anything too radical. Pierre is just one major character in this glorious book. Start when you can but don't rush it. Literature of this quality needs time.Reasonable defenders of “War and Peace” at (one of) its current length(s) might absolutely agree with being anti-literary-flab, and simply argue that this book isn't actually flabby. For example, the "side-track stories" are not "padding" or "excess", but rather constitute the "pacing" intrinsically needed by the "content" itself- so goes a point of view which I think is more care-filled than that of a "fanboy". Take a look at vol. II, pt. 5, ch. VI (it's only a couple of pages). Natasha has accepted Prince Andrei's proposal, and has returned to Moscow to meet the prince's father and get ready to get married. She meets Marya Dmitrievna, a society dowager, who intrusively 're-assures' Natasha about "old Prince Nikolai" and his resistance to his son's getting married. A tiny moment, particularly in that nothing in the plot changes as a result of this vignette, but we are shown: the social realities that Natasha is growing to recognize and understand; and the ego-centrism, diminishing, that's still the dominant tone in her character (she really sees this man whom she loves, but she thinks she can marry and 'have' him without marrying his family and being his socially positioned and positioning wife). You see my point? The story of the story doesn't change because of this little chapter, but our alertness to what Tolstoy is showing us is colored, or deepened, or enriched, or nourished (or whatever old-fashioned metaphor you like!) by this small facet.Not sure what, in "War and Peace", some people mean by "cliff-hangers" and "many-a-time abrupt endings" as I’ve read elsewhere. I don't think "serialization" works as either a fault-generator or a mitigation; the book in your hands either holds together as you read it or it's de-coherently "over-long". Think of cricket. If you savor the pace of the game as it is, a five-day Test, or seven-game series, isn't 'too long'-- it unfolds at just the length it needs to. If you can't stand the sport, each batter's innings or team's at-bat is already an eternity of boring nonsense; forget about a match or game. Either way, it isn't the length itself that's guilty of generating one's antipathy. I can't see which 'thousand lines' of War and Peace one would 'blot'...I have always been vehemently anti-literary-flab. The lack of an author's ability to distinguish what is essential and what isn't and to pare away the flab has always seemed in my eyes a weakness and not a virtue. It does not mean that I do not like long novels in and of themselves, I just find long swathes of them to be gratuitous flab (well written and brilliant though they might be). The Russian masterpieces act as a great case in point. “Anna Karenina”, “War and Peace” and “The Brothers Karamazov” (the three classic doorstops) were all written serially for the magazine The Russian Messenger. They were written in weekly installments by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky with word count and longevity of project strictly in mind (not that Tolstoy needed the money...). Now, the two authors knew that they were padding things out with side-track stories and story-telling devices, but we the modern readers know the books as they are and can't imagine any paragraph being cut (or in fact added to the end to smooth out the many-a-time abrupt endings, which are also legacies of the serialization). We like those novels for what they are and not for what they could theoretically be, but that doesn't mean that the modern author doesn't have the burden to perfect the pacing and content of his or her novel by removing the excess. There seems to exist nowadays a fanboy-like reaction to works even in cultured matters. People zealously defend endless novels, for some reason equating critique of length with critique of the total merit of the book. One can love a book and still critique its faults - we're not football ultras, we're readers.Basically I say that a modern-day author has no excuses for writing over-long. It's a shame that some Modern (and some not so Modern) Fantasy writers can't manage to edit down their magnum opus.Bottom-line: If you haven't read it, please do persevere past the first chapter and the strange names. It will reward you over and over in a way so few books do.

While mind-numbingly tedious, I did actually finish this book, and I remembered enough of what I read from one sitting to the next that the characters and plot didn't run together too much. So, I guess as epic fiction goes, this was not terrible. Will I read it again? Probably not. All the characters cry seemingly all the time, the thesis about how individuals are carried along by history pops up way too much in the last 3 books, so that the pedantic lecturer gets in the way of the storyteller and the story a lot. And, if the novel was meant to serve as a tool for discussing the philosophy, in much the same way as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is a vehicle for the long, tedious essay 'speech' near the end, the thesis needed to be woven into the story better.
The mostly philosophy epilogues were not as good as the rest of the book. The fiction bits in these sections seemed less well edited and had less focus to them. The philosophy was presented as if the story serves to illustrate Tolstoy's points, but he doesn't really make those connections in this section of his text. As straight philosophy these sections do a lousy job of defining the terms Tolstoy is using in his arguments.

In 1805 Pierre Bezukhov returns to Saint Petersburg to the bedside of his dying father, and ends up inheriting Count Bezukhov’s title and all of his assets. Suddenly, he’s the most eligible (and most socially-awkward) bachelor in all of Russia. All the ladies are after him, and he is very confused, so ends up ill-advisedly marrying the seductive and manipulative Helene Kuragin, who is probably sleeping with her equally debauched brother. Whoops! Meanwhile, war is about to break out between Tsar Alexander and Emperor Napoleon, and all the young men want in on it. Pierre’s friend Prince Andrei Bolkonsky wants to go to war to get away from his very amiable, very pregnant wife. 20-year-old Nikolai Rostov of Moscow wants to go to war to prove he is an adult (and he has a huge platonic crush on Tsar Alexander). Nikolai’s best friend Boris wants to go to war because he’s broke, and in love with Nikolai’s 13-year-old sister Natasha. As is everyone else. These men are all very rich and they think war is very glamorous. Turns out, it is not.The inter-personal plot of this epic tale is quite excellent, but boy is it bogged down by both detailed descriptions of troop movements and battles, as well as Tolstoy’s personal axe-grinding against his contemporaries. It’s possible that it was insightful at the time of publication, but now, not so much. These characters though! The main characters (especially Pierre and Natasha) are mostly boring and insufferable and deserve each other. But the villains and minor characters are so delightful. Boris’ eventual wife Julie (who is only in about 10 pages of the book) is SUPER GOTH - Boris woos her by writing poetry about death and drawing her a picture of a grave. Pierre’s wife Helene is an awful person but boy does she know how to work with what she’s given. She sleeps with EVERYONE – her brother (a great villain), Pierre’s houseguest Dolokov (also a great villain), Boris (boring except for his great taste in women), a government official and a Catholic priest (playing them against each other in an elaborate plot to divorce Pierre), and dies in a botched abortion. Truly a legend. Tolstoy is not particularly great at writing women, certainly not by today’s standards, but just due to the fact that there are 600 named characters in this book, by default some of the female characters have to be unique and interesting. Good job! On the flip side from the villains is sweet Denisov, Nikolai’s mentor and Natasha’s first suitor. His only characteristics are that he is nice to everyone and he talks with a lisp and he likes to eat sausages while writing letters.

Incredibly entertaining even if very long. The description of war hospitals is absolutely fabulous! Beware of old translations, use this one instead!

I've finally finished War and Peace (and I only skipped about 150 pages total). The last quarter of this novel was a serious struggle to finish. Especially the two part epilogue, of which only about 20% focused on the primary novel characters (Rostovs, Bolkonskys, Bezukhovs, etc). I'm glad to have read this and I did value the read, but I will never embark on War and Peace again. I wouldn't recommend the novel to the average reader, it's more for an enthusiast of Russian history or literature. I think that any of the various TV and/or film adaptations provide a more interesting, primarily character driven look at the overall text.

The text focuses on several families and their experience through Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 (although this was a 5 year-long war, the text covers only the 1st year up to and slightly after the burning of Moscow). The most interesting story line (arguably, of course) is that of the love between Natasha Rostov and Andrei Bolkonsky (she eventually marries another main character). Most TV/film adaptations focus on this part of the story. The romance is interspersed with long (LONG) descriptions of major battles, heroes of battle, military and political leaders, and troop movements. Tolstoy said that he hoped to prove that there are no great men in history, that all is a matter largely of chance and the right circumstances. I'm not sure how effectively he proves this in a novel that most people cannot finish, but the focus is there.

Overall, a great, classic, canon novel. But like many canon texts, I find it hard to recommend to a modern reader. I enjoyed Anne Karenina much more and would say start with that before trying War and Peace - so that you have a sense of Tolstoy's style before trying to complete the longer text.

What a captivating read...listened to it over several months, while putting my children to sleep, and each time I had to stop, I didn't want to..it was too tense... highly recommend!

There are many lists of "The 100 Best Books Ever Written," or, "Fifty Books You Should Read before You Die," and lists similar to these that show War and Peace as the number 1 best book ever. And there are other similar lists which list something else. Those latter lists are just plain wrong and not to be trusted or consulted.
There is nothing I could say that would add to the reams of paper others have spent talking about this marvel. But I would like to suggest a couple of tricks for a person thinking about reading it or struggling a little with reading it.
First, get a good translation of it. There are many and probably all are good, but the one that works best is one which minimizes the use of nicknames for characters and which also includes a list of characters either at the beginning of the volume or as an appendix. A "too literal" translation will tire you out and justify not completing the book.
Second, the first 100 to 125 pages are absolutely necessary to the book but they are also the place a reader might decide that the book is boring or difficult. Ignore the impulse to quit reading! You'll be glad of those first hundred pages as you move more deeply into the plot and action.
Third, my usual habit when reading a book is to have two or three going at once. I began reading War and Peace as I read two other books. I found that doing that made it more difficult to read War and Peace, harder to follow its storyline and to keep the characters straight and more likely to set the book aside.. So, drop anything else and read War and Peace all the way through and let the other books wait. (Anyway, the other books cannot possibly be a good as War and Peace and reading them along side W & P will make you less fond of them; they simply will not hold up to comparison).
Fourth, read the Wikipedia article about Napoleon before you get too far into the novel. This will help understand the actual historical timeline and give you a basis for how historians view Napoleon compared to Tolstoy's views. Frankly, I think Tolstoy's views are the better of the two.
Finally, underline, highlight, write marginal notes and keep some notes. This book is not a good one to check out from the library or attempt on an reader. And anyway, you'll want to read it again sometime later in your life. (It is one of only a half dozen that I have read three or more times, excluding, of course, the Dr. Seuss books).

'I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.'

So some brief, tired thoughts on War and Peace. I don't think its all that great an accomplishment to have read it or anything - its a good book, it goes pretty quickly all things considered, and after all its just like any other book; its just made up of *words* after all. And its an enjoyable read if you like 19th century novels. And if you like 19th century novels, well this one has a lot of words, so you might like this one for a long time.Basically, I liked it because it did pull together a couple different things. It was at heart a novel about Russian aristocracy and their involvement (or not) with the War of 1812 but it was also a bit of a skewering treatise on history and the philosophy of history. Tolstoy makes many jabs at contemporary historians and their conclusions regarding Napoleon and why things turned out the way they did - but more importantly about whether, over the course of history, individuals (e.g. Napoleon or Tsar Alexander) or masses of individuals (not just armies but the people making up armies) matter. Actually, that's really what the heart of the second epilogue is really all about (the first epilogue had to tie up all the loose ends and lives of all the main characters). So yes, its about the nature of Power and History and the Individual and Free Will and all that, but it tackles all that with the use of a novel to make the points interspersed with some more abstract assertions/ramblings as opposed to an all-out uber-essay. Whether or not one agrees with Tolstoy or likes the story or the characters I feel that for the attempt that is being made, the novel is 'Worth Reading', simply for the scope of what it attempts to do. And even with the room to run, I don't think it manages to achieve it. Which makes me think that this is a limitation of the format/venue. There's only so much persuasion that assertions and made up characters (even ones with clear predilections and personalities and thus behaviors that are 'in character') can achieve.On the whole, I liked, or at least sympathized or related with several of the characters and felt they were well-rounded and not flat at all (though some minor ones were still kinda two-dimensional and others though named barely get mentioned - but hey, there's a lot of characters). Some of them I felt were timeless - in that human nature was reflected well and I could see someone today behaving similarly, albeit with different social circumstances. The wild drunken party at the beginning was something out of Animal House or Superbad or any other similar movie. Pierre's socialite wife Ellen winds up with a different ending to a scene in Dirty Dancing. Natasha is a Nice Young Girl who happens to have a crush and winds up making out with just about every male character except for her brother (but including her cousin) until she winds up falling in love with a sugar daddy. Most characters wrestle at some point with the Existence of God, the Meaning of Life, and/or What It Means To Suffer so there goes the connection with the Human Condition. Pierre is that person in so many people's lives who is Always Looking For Something and wanders through so many phases.. from atheism to wine and women to Freemasonry to altruism to politics to playing at the military to Suffering to something akin to zen/Buddhism until he finds Love (oh how cliche by now!). Boris is the ambitious one and Nickolai has the gambling problem and two loves (well, actually, there are a lot of characters with two loves). Prince Andrei is the capable practical pragmatic handsome one who gets philosophically burned and goes all Ayn Rand but then in one last return to duty/country dies young. So, my point is simply that Tolstoy had a good handle on how to flesh out characters to make them 'real people' and to put them in situations that forces them to change in ways that a reader can relate to.

Took me a month to read, but definitely a masterpiece. It took a notebook to keep all the characters straight for the first half of the book. There was a bit too much about battle techniques contained, but all in all I can see why Tolstoy is considered a master as he can amuse, horrify, entertain, and make one weep during the very same story line. I especially liked seeing how Tolstoy developed his characters and then transformed then or their circumstances. One of the story's main characters, Pierre Bezukhov has his epiphany while being held captive by the French as he befriends Platen, a peasant, and learns to be happy, no matter the situation. The author certainly raises/discusses issues such as ideas of free will, fate, and providence Tolstoy has certainly nailed Napoleon, if other historians are correct.

Very good reader/ narrator Riveting historical fiction wrapped in a classic. Loved it

A great story about the lives of the elites in 19th century Russia read beautifully.

This book is so beautiful read. Stay with it, the story is long but worth it.

An epic that spans multiple intrigues of the lives of its principal characters. A story that is remembered for its immensity and scope and recommended to all of those who enjoy to read literary fiction.

This narrator has done an excellent and masterful job of rendering this classic. He draws you in and engages you with the story

This is an utterly fantastic reading! A great way to experience Tolstoy’s work.

That epilogue tho

Transport yourself to simpler times. The characters stay with you.

An outstanding reading of an excellent book. I followed in the book, while listening to this audio recording. There is also a miniseries, to help you get better acquainted with the characters, which can be daunting in the early chapters. The author reads in character, which makes listening very much like listening to a movie. Perfect in all aspects!!!

Unforgettable and fantastic, well remembered after 35 years.

Although many cringe at the lengthy tome, I personally enjoyed it. It is a little hard to read, and it took me a couple weeks, but I found it fascinating. If you don't like long books, or politics, War and Peace is not for you.

No wonder it's a "classic"! I adored it. It's worth every page. Sheer delight. Why did I wait so long? Wouldn't mind reading it a second time. Long, though, no doubt.