I'm half way through this beast. What does Veeky Forums think of this door-stopper?

Well, I will remember in future when I read a large book not to mention its size otherwise I might ruin the whole reading experience!

I think I might star calling it--endearingly, of course--a "beast". I imagine one might use it as a door stopper.

It is indeed like a massive mammal. Its bulk might prove too heavy for a door to budge.

In stony stasis
Faced by the leafy giant:
Ajar it waits.

Captured by the cellulose-crafted creature, the door reckoned its radial rebuttal.

The history thesis in book 4 got really dull and repetitive for me.

perfect except for the historical parts

tolstoy probably has the best prose of all time but i think nearly all of his opinions were wrong

and then you have someone like dostoevsky whose ideas are brilliant but writing is a slog

and then theres gogoll who is perfect except that he's incomplete

>"dude great men don't exist lmao"
>spends hundreds of pages fellating Kutuzov who he just happens to be related to

But Kutuzov is literally "I DO NUFFIN AND STILL WIN" the character

Rendered immobile
If only for a while
The door grinned openly to its thick foe:
"Well, I'll!..."

people can't admit that kreutzer sonata is his best and the most woke short story of all time

are you reading it because you want to be able to say you read a really long book or because it's interesting to you?

because when you constantly mention how long of a book it is, it makes it seem like the former

I profusely apologize for my mentioning of a book's length. I will abstain from doing so in the future.

It's a great and flawed work.

>hurr durr da prose iz guud
you don't know anything about literature, stop pretending like you do you fucking idiot pseud

How can you know if his prose is good ecли вы пpoчитaл eё нa aнглиcкoм?

Compelling, educational, beautiful. It affected me more than just about anything I had read until that point and will always remind me of the period in my life I spent reading it.

Sorry to hijack the thread Veeky Forums, but do you guys think this literal gate-blocker, as it were, or "arrêteur de portes", as our friend Leo might have put it, might be rightfully likened to some sort of enormous being, une "bête", soi-disant?

Standard undergrad response

In my country believe book most big must book most praised! Become serial winner of every year of Order of the Red Door Plugger!

In Soviet Russia, door stops book! Also, is animal.

>P&V best prose of all time
Sure bud

What's wrong with them?

Not really. His attitude is actually more like Taleb's (which I mentioned in another thread) and even more specifically like Montaigne's. Super aware that given even less complicated sitiations, results are pretty much up in the air ALWAYS. Why these same persons also tend to be the most successful is anyone's guess. Mine is that they don't let alot of mentalized bullshit get between them and whatever objective. Also, modesty's attractive. And politeness.

>All the butthurt Napoleon cucks.

...

Okay

T H I S
H
I
S

soap opera tier

I'M GOING TO MARRY MARY

What stick with me after reading it are the following sections:
The gambling oneself into incalculable debt
the beehive metaphore
Le coup de Theatre avait rate'
The fucking history thesis

The history section is one of the most interesting & salient portions of the book. I'm sure others have described the same phenomena of the impasse that occurs when attempting to objectively describe history, but it was my first exposure to the concept and thus a personal touchstone. The issue is also analogous to one that crops up in many other areas of life (e.g. in evaluating philosophy (maybe I shouldn't say "many other areas")), and is even more significant for that reason.

>pseud reading long book to brag about it

written by a slave rapist, not even his best work, for all the fluff.

I thought everybody raped their slaves?

I always rape mine

For all that it's worth, inferior to Anna and Ivan.

holy shit

Napoleon btfo there is no recovery

t. pseuds

His criticism of Napoleon and his praise of Kutuzov seem to me to be completely at odds with the detertministic view of history that he spends the entire novel outlining. If every man was bound to play to his role, and could never have played another, why judge him for playing it? We don't critique an actor based on the lines he is given.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Kutuzov sits back and accepts his fate, Napoleon tries to control it through relentless activity.

It is in no way at odds.

Good point

Kutuzov accepting his fate and Napoleon not accepting his fate was their fate.

What's Dolokhov's FUCKING problem?
Also, I identify so much with Pierre it's not even funny.

>It's a "Tolstoy stops the narritive to ramble about historians" episode
quite good, 9/10

a very low IQ post

B+ would not read again

not an A++ because not enough diversity, right?

stop writing russian if you don't speak russian. it is such needless faggotry

He just wanted to fugg shid up

yeah but dolokhov sounds hot no homo

Help me see the light.

Tolstoy's view is that the course of history is set in stone, no one man can influence it. If Napoleon, like Kutuzov, had understood this and embraced passivity, things wouldn't have turned out like they did, which is impossible. If it was impossible for Napoleon to see this, how can we criticise him for it? He played the role that was given to him, just like Kutuzov, just like a foot soldier, just like Tolstoy. How can you criticize me for making a low IQ post if my making that low IQ post was predetermined?

Not quite. Tolstoy is talking about large scale events, namely wars, involving millions of individuals, all of whom come together to constitute a force which can not possibly be controlled by a single man like Napoleon or Kutuzov. Your decision to make, as accused, a low IQ post was yours and yours alone.

That being said I wouldn't say Kutuzov simply accepted his fate, nor was it his inaction that allowed the Russians to drive the French back across the Niemen; Kutuzov retreated numerous times and made willful decisions about when and when not to engage the French army, these are actions he took.

You're making a big mistake. It's not that history is set in stone, and it's not that people are fated to act a certain way. What he said repeatedly throughout the novel is that the wars were not conducted by Napoleon's will alone, but rather the wills of thousands and thousands of other people (soldiers, citizens back at home, etc.) accorded with his own.

It's a very good book, but it's the ultimate proof that a book's length is irrelevant.

I got more out of The Stranger than I did War and Peace, and it's fifteen times shorter.

War and Peace is of course brilliant, but don't expect it to be 1500 pages good. It took me about four years from when I bought it to read it, but at least it means I wanted to read it rather than say I read it.

kek

"fifteen times shorter" is an invalid construct. You're dumb. Maybe you could've gotten more out of W&P if you were just a little more intelligent. I don't normally post like this, but I feel obligated to let you know that you're pretty stupid.

its hueg liek xbox