Leo Tolstoy: Anna Karenina

I just finished reading Tolstoy's Anna Karinina for the 2nd time. I read it in college many years ago and loved it then, but the new Oprah Book Club version is a new translation, and it is exceptional. Again I became immersed in the characters and their situations. What a marvelous read!

This book is absolutely brilliant, I love that I will read one chapter during which I come to see a character as an antagonist, and then I will read the next chapter in that character's point of view and I will view them as a protagonist. Levin is my favorite charcter, I love the theory that Levin reflects Tolstoy because to me Levin is the most real of the characters and that helps me identify somewhat with Tolstoy.

Has anyone else made comparisons between Levin and Anna/Vronsky and Kitty instead of Levin and Vronsky/Kitty and Anna? Been a few months since I read this but after reading through your thoughts in this thread that comparison came to mind.

When I get my hands on my copy again I will expand on this. I don't want to start yacking away without being able to check my facts.

ions said:

Has anyone else made comparisons between Levin and Anna/Vronsky and Kitty instead of Levin and Vronsky/Kitty and Anna?

Click to expand...

Would you run that by us again? It's only five-thirty AM here, and I haven't had my coffee yet, but -- huh?

I'm game, anyway -- whatever you said.

FINALLY!!!

Sometimes when you are reading a very long book which is dull and making no sense, you still keep on reading, and when you reach the last page, you’re glad you did, because you understand why the author needed so many pages to tell you what he did. This was not the case with Anna Karenina.

I didn’t find the title “Anna Karenina” to be suitable for this novel. I felt like it didn’t have much to do with just Anna, and I understand those of you who’ll say that in a way everyone were “mingled” into each other’s affairs and so on. But still the whole Kitty-Levin-affair we could do just fine without! And I know Anna and Vronskij’s relationship and Kitty’s and Levin’s were supposed to be some kind of contrast, but I think Tolstoy could have “maintained” that contrast very nicely without them, because we do have Stepan and his wife. They had more of a similar story going on as the one with Anna and her husband (+Vronsky). And if he stopped the novel, right then, when Anna commits suicide, I could live with the title, but clearly it had to do with more than just her, since Tolstoy goes on about the lives of other people, such as Levin’s brother and so on after her death, which I found to be rather odd. But that might just be me feeling that the story should end with Anna, rather than Levin. I also understand that the author got many of his “ideas and thoughts” out through Levin, but he could have written a whole other book for that purpose.

On the foreword to the Norwegian translation of Anna Karenina, there is said that there neither is given an account of Anna as a bad person or a good one in the novel, which I don’t agree with. I disliked Anna; I didn’t like her the least, and there must have been something in the novel which made me feel that way. For me the novel was too simple; there were no climax or turning-point (surely they were there, but just not that “visible”). The story line was just “sailing” its way while you were getting sea-sick. And I reached the point where I started counting how many pages I had left of the book for every page I finished reading.

The opening line. Can someone please be so kind and tell me why there’s such a huge fuss about it? Thank you.

The “foreshadowing” was the only brilliant thing about this novel. I could never imagine that the “train-accident, where a man was run over by a train” the day Anna and Vronsky met for the first time would be Anna’s destiny too. So when she decided to kill herself that way, I though “Clever you are: Tolstoy”. And no there’s nothing cynical about wanting Anna to just go jump off a cliff or something, I just wish she did it many pages before, since I started getting sick of her threats. I also think Anna had some serious psychological issues. She was too demanding and overly-jealous; paranoid might be the right word, like she’d only be happy if Vronsky were within her eyes “reach” 24/7. She didn’t love her daughter who she had right there, and “remembered” her love for her son first when she run away with her lover. It’s like nothing makes the woman happy, she wants more and more and more, and that more should be hard to get or there’s no fun in getting it!!!

Did even ONE chapter go without someone having tears in their eyes, then I’d like to know!! All the women were too dramatic. Most (or all) of the characters feelings changed rapidly from one page to another. I really believed Vronsky loved Anna until he started doubting his love in one page, and 5 pages after loved her again, and 3 pages after then again were having some other thoughts. What was up with that? Couldn’t there be any gliding changes rather than the hard-to-believe and dramatic ones which only left the reader questioning about ther mental state?

At the end Anna says herself that she only wanted to be Vronsky’s “mistress”, if so, why didn’t she just go on with her husband’s “plan”, where she could be Vronsky’s lover, and still live on “honourably” as the wife of Aleksej? I still don’t get why she didn’t divorce him when he (her husband) offered it. And to say it was because of the son is just sillier, because it’s not like she cared much about him anyway. Did she go visit him more than just once? NO!! So the whole deal about not wanting to part with the son and so were just bull. Anna was just full of too much crap. The least she could do was stand up for her actions, instead she used every day feeling sorry for herself and blaming her whole “condition” on Vronsky.

Plus why did never Dolly ask Anna why she was leaving her husband when she told Dolly not to leave hers. I’d like to know that!!

Why did I finish it when I didn't like it? I'm a patient person, what can I do?

I'll comment some more later, feel like it's enough for now.

PS! There were someone here saying that the characters were realistic and believable (or something like that). Either you were living in that period or I've gone crazy, because I really don't share everyone's "humble" feelings for this book. But we are all allowed to disagree; sure everyone can't love it.

On a lighter note; I think Tolstoy got it perfectly correct when describing the difficult chidbirth Levin had to endure. I read it with tears of laughter; maybe you have to have been there!

Oh yeah Maya what do you think of Rebbecca. It's definateley in my top ten.

Actually, Rebecca was a bit more fun to read than Anna; I agree.

blueboatdriver said:

On a lighter note; I think Tolstoy got it perfectly correct when describing the difficult chidbirth Levin had to endure. I read it with tears of laughter; maybe you have to have been there!

Click to expand...

Not bad at all. But I just hated Levin, so there weren't any laughter going on here.

blueboatdriver said:

Oh yeah Maya what do you think of Rebbecca. It's definateley in my top ten.

Click to expand...

Only read 1 chapter so far (which was on 4 pages), but great, really great as far as I've come! I found it to be rather "poetic" (the first chapter), but that might just be me. Plus, I'll let you know when I'm done with it.

StillILearn said:

Actually, Rebecca was a bit more fun to read than Anna; I agree.

Click to expand...

Glad to know, because I'll go mad if this one turns out to be all gibberish.

Have a nice day all!

StillILearn said:

Would you run that by us again? It's only five-thirty AM here, and I haven't had my coffee yet, but -- huh?

I'm game, anyway -- whatever you said.

Click to expand...

Well it seems to me that the character comparisons are always Kitty vs Anna and Vronsky vs Levin. I consider Anna and Levin to be the 2 principle characters in the book and they make for a more interesting comparison.

ions said:

Well it seems to me that the character comparisons are always Kitty vs Anna and Vronsky vs Levin. I consider Anna and Levin to be the 2 principle characters in the book and they make for a more interesting comparison.

Click to expand...

I found Anna and Stepan to be more of an interesting comparison. Why? Because both were cheating on their "partner's", yet the outcome of their lives turned out differently; defenitly because of the fact that she was a woman and he a man.
Why would you say Anna&Levin?

My copy is currently on loan, by someone who isn't reading it , so I want to be careful citing examples before checking my facts.

It just seemed to me the different ways each character looked at life and the choices they made are more representative of what Tolstoy was saying about fidelity, love, and happiness. Of course. Their endings sit side by side in the book and are the 2 climactic moments in the finish with completely opposite results.

I'm not sure how the spoiler tags work so I won't continue too specifically. Is it just (spoiler)spoils!(/spoiler) except with appropriate brackets? I'll also see if I can get my hands on my copy.

ions said:

My copy is currently on loan, by someone who isn't reading it , so I want to be careful citing examples before checking my facts.

Click to expand...

It's fine. I probably had alot of my "facts" wrong with the book in front of me, so don't worry. Plus I've delivered it back to the library, so now I'm just writing what I can recall and and make out of my notes.

ions said:

It just seemed to me the different ways each character looked at life and the choices they made are more representative of what Tolstoy was saying about fidelity, love, and happiness. Of course. Their endings sit side by side in the book and are the 2 climactic moments in the finish with completely opposite results.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean. In that sense you have a point there, but I'd say Levin was a bit more "philosophical" than Anna though. Plus the endings, I didn't "understand" them your way, for me they were "seperate" and nothing to do with each other.
Everyone interprets their own way, so I wouldn't say there is a right or wrong answer to that. But that's just me thinking.

ions said:

I'm not sure how the spoiler tags work so I won't continue too specifically. Is it just (spoiler)spoils!(/spoiler) except with appropriate brackets? I'll also see if I can get my hands on my copy.

Click to expand...

I don't think you need spoiler-tags here, since "everyone" is aware of these threads containing spoilers, (if I'm not mistaken).

I think Levin being very thoughtful and philosophical and Anna arguably shallow and short sighted is interesting to consider given the outcome. The very fact that they are quite 'seperate', polar opposites even, makes them that much more engaging to discuss.

Hmmmm...
Ions, I don't know. I think I see where you're heading, but still I'm not sure about that one. Quite possible, but I guess I just haven't thought about it. I think I only saw the "similarities" when it comes to Anna and Levin: both VERY jealouse and "unreasonable" at times. I looked at Levin as some kind of confused creature, not smart or anything, just confused.
But that's probably just me. Maybe someone else can provide a better answer to that.

I don't see Anna as all bad. She finds herself in a situation where all she has is Vronsky, so naturally the thought of losing him would tear her up. Her jealousy is a big flaw and as such the fact that she is willing to leave her son, whom she loves, to be with Vronsky.

I saw the story as two. One about Anna and Vronsky and one about Levin and Kitty. I feel that those two stories are meant to complement each other, and they do in a way. Levin and Kitty are married out of love and still their marriage has troubles wich they get through by talking to each other. This is put against the relationship of Anna and Vronsky, who with all their trouble can't communicate and end up making the gap between them bigger and bigger.

I found some of the conversations very superfluous and a very big point of some of them, just seemed to be so Tolstoy was able to express his own opinion on different matters.

The end of Anna seemed very abrupt to me. She dies and then you only get a very short account from Vronsky on the matter. Instead the story become a very long monologue from Levin, were he tries to convince himself not to kill himself, and I'm not really too fond of the conclusions he makes.

susan8807 said:

I just finished reading Tolstoy's Anna Karinina for the 2nd time. I read it in college many years ago and loved it then, but the new Oprah Book Club version is a new translation, and it is exceptional. Again I became immersed in the characters and their situations. What a marvelous read!

Click to expand...

i have a copy of that book.. i dunno if i'll have the attention span to read it though

Hello, sorry if I'm reviving a dead topic, it seems the last post was three years ago! I just read this book too and can't say that I really liked it, but it did bring some insight into Tolstoy and russian people in general. I remember my aunt telling me that men wouldn't be interested in this book since it is about a love affair only. I disagree, I think it has alot more to do with religion and why we go on living. I think the end with Levin's thoughts illustrate Tolstoy's answer to those struggles. So, for Tolstoy, he views that there are two outcomes, to be overcome with the meaningless of life and die, or to accept God as your savior and live for him. The first outcome is viewed in Anna, but also in Tolstoy's other book, "The Death of Ivan Illyich". This was probably why the book was so popular, there is a lot of doubt but also a lot of desire to have faith in God in russian society (a lot more back then than now). Contrast that with the time back drop which it is set in (there were alot of revolutionary sects, shortly after the death of Alexander II) and it makes perfect sense.

What I highly didn't like in the novel was that Tolstoy only focused on high rich society and never really made gave significance to ordinary serfs. Since there was only a very small percentage of people living in such a way during that time, I don't know if it portrayed russian society in the best way.

Someone on here mentioned that alot of the women too emotional, but it was a norm for women to be like that during that time, even during modern times today, I went to visit family in Russia and I was surprised at how my female family relations were always worrying about everything.

For some strange reason, the ending reminds me very much of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment where Raskolnikov found peace in God when he was sent to live in Siberia. I'm surprised to see the many similarities in their questions of life and death, though they go about it in a different way.

I’m glad you’ve revived the topic as I’ve just finished reading the story myself. I’ve read Tolstoy’s Crime and Punishment years ago and enjoyed it but somehow don’t feel the same way about this work. I thought many of the descriptive passages too prolonged and repetitive and some of the antics of the characters quite unrealistic, especially the women. I agree with you about Tolstoy concentrating on the life of the rich. We only once or twice get a slight glimpse of peasant life. At times it almost seems that in order to alleviate boredom these ‘society’ women invent petty jealousies in order to create some form of diversion.

I’m also not crazy about the ending. I thought Tolstoy should have ended it when Anna jumps under the train. And it’s not as if we don’t see this coming. I thought her character along with most of the other women as being very shallow and superficial. She worries about Vronsky seeing other women at one moment, then at the next she forgives him completely and chases after him, only to once again change her mind and jump under a train. Also quite out of the blue after Anna’s suicide Tolstoy has Levin go on and on and on wrestling with the meaning of life and the existence of God. I thought that this was quite out of place. Levin is an extremely practical person who thrives on reason, logic and routine. He writes a book expounding those principles. He definitely does not believe in God or organized religion. Remember he had a great deal of difficulty with his marriage ceremony. I really don’t think that at the sweet tender age of 30 he would radically change his entire views on life and God just because he witnesses lightning strike down a tree in the woods or a cloud drift through the sky, things that he has been watching for many years.

One other point I have trouble understanding and maybe someone could help me out here. At the beginning of the story after Vronsky and Anna start their affair he is going through his finances and discovers that he is spending far more than he earns and decides that he must take out a loan in order to pay off his many debts. At this point he wonders what kind of life he and Anna could possibly have together with such a meager income and decides that it would be foolish to even contemplate it as it would surely lead to disaster. Then after Anna leaves her husband and she and Vronsky start living together the next thing we know is that they’re off in Italy renting lavish villas and buying expensive paintings. Where did the money come from? His mother certainly did not approve of their affair, so she would probably not finance it and Anna did not have a fabulous income either or any income at all for that matter.

Just my 2 cents.

Dear Victor

First Dostoevsky wrote Crime and Punishment and talking about heavy writing your review could serve as exemple.A good bit of the novel is in the country with Levin and the women might seem superficial to you but a lot nuances might have escape your sharp mind.
As for your question,reading Anna karenina and coming out with this unique reflection is frightening.Really.

Coming this year, from the co-author of Sense And Sensibility And Sea Monsters:

Android Karenina.

Steampunk Tolstoy. Oh yeah.