The relationship between Dolly and Stepan comes between these two extremes. In the light of Stepan's infidelity and his expensive way of living, Dolly and her children suffer considerably. Dolly would like to walk out of the marriage. But her children, convention, and her religious beliefs all contribute to her indecision on the course of action. A vain belief that her husband's conduct is not "infidelity of the heart" keeps her going on with her "sham" marriage.
The book consists of two separate yet interconnected plots: One is the plot woven around Anna and the other is the plot woven around Levin.
Former, with its complex emotions, social conventions coupled with women's position legally and socially, provides for the excitement and life of the entire work. The latter, more or less modeled on Tolstoy's life, provides for the political, philosophical, social, and religious views of the author as well as an insight into the author's life struggles.
I liked both plots. Each has complemented the other to produce a complete work in every sense. And the characters which were modeled by Tolstoy's observance of the society were felt real.
There were no characters that one could call artificial. Above all what is most striking is the beautiful writing of Tolstoy. His use of metaphors is very clever and marvelous. Reading the book was like eating a rich and thick layered piece of cake. No matter how many layers are peeled, its taste does not diminish.
Words would not do justice to say how much I loved this work. It is one brilliant and marvelous piece of work. A work can be a great classic, but to become a masterpiece, the author has to steer it above common ground. And Tolstoy has achieved this end quite brilliantly. According to this myth, the gods get involved in our existence by using a red cord.
In Japanese culture, such cord is tied around the little finger; in China, around the ankle. Be it as it may, that string binds one person to the other; people who were always destined to meet, regar [Turn the volume up; open me in new tab] There is a well-known belief that, brimming with the romanticism of bygone days to which reason acquiesces in silence, attempts to explain the elusive nature of human relations.
Be it as it may, that string binds one person to the other; people who were always destined to meet, regardless the place, time or circumstances. The character of this connection varies, since it is not restricted to lovers: the two people whose paths are meant to converge at some point, will make history in some way or another, in any given situation.
It is said that the red string might get tangled or stretched but it can never break. If it breaks, then only one person was truly holding that red string. One person and a sensation. Amid all the plausible and unrealistic explanations that might be conceived in order to unravel the true nature of all the encounters we experienced and the ones still awaiting for us, this myth is one of the most poetic ways to try to elucidate their puzzling essence while conveying a lack of randomness in human relations this certainly goes beyond any rationalization that I could manage to elaborate and that would ultimately be rather pointless.
For you could find the person to whom you were always meant to share your life with when you least expect it, no matter your marital status, undoubtedly. And a story that could epitomize this legend took place in 19th-century Russia.
Anna Karenina is not merely a story about an ill-fated relationship that begins with one of the most famous lines in classic literature. Admittedly it was prejudice what prevented me from picking up this book for years. I thought it was going to be another mawkish love story that, alongside its many comings and goings, dealt with—and probably romanticized—the theme of adultery.
As much as I spent my entire life questioning the dogmas that my surroundings may have tried to impose upon my own fragile set of principles in youth that slowly became more grounded through the years , a certain vestige may have survived, but I'm not trying to compete with Tolstoy over who has the most moralizing tone, for I judge no one but myself. To sum up, in literature, the idea of infidelity bores me, so if I have to put up with over nine hundred pages of passion, deception, lustful gazes, thrilling rendezvous and any other similar situation I'd better stick to short stories.
So imagine my surprise when I found this substantially complex universe populated by people coming from different backgrounds, following different principles, imbued with many noble qualities and ordinary flaws; all captives of something, be it a required sense of dignity, an observance of decorum, stifling social conventions, the game of honesty and feigned emotions or a religion that ruled over most aspects of their lives.
A universe defined by the sacrifice of one's wishes, the rejection of one's true feelings in order to do what is proper. A self-denial attitude to demonstrate compliance with the social rules of the world. Actions intended to safeguard a reputation that might get tarnished by truth or falsehood. I must confess that my lips sarcastically twitched every time I read Tolstoy's effusive meditations on the magnanimous nature of religion and its elevated consequences upon people's behaviour.
Oh, 'I want to turn the other cheek, I want to give my shirt when my caftan is taken, and I only pray to God that He not take from me the happiness of forgiveness! At times, I was unable to shake off the impression of a preachy tone that perhaps it was not so, but that my skeptical disposition perceived it anyway.
Thankfully, he didn't gush about that too often. Thus, I gave in. I surrendered to the magnificence of his words, unconditionally. Every character has been meticulously developed. They were given strong opinions and even the ones I found slightly weak at first, astonished me later when I read their poignant musings, especially when it came to women and their role in both family and society. The idea of preferably attractive women whose main job is to give birth, bear with husbands of libertine inclinations and accept their inability to form any opinion worth hearing because nature un fortunately has not endowed them with men's brilliance, has clearly survived the 19th century and still resides in some minds that surely scream progress and common sense.
A third-person omniscient narrator takes the lead and introduces us to the world of Anna Arkadyevna Karenina, Karenin's wife, who falls in love with Count Alexei Vronsky, a single, wealthy man.
Needless to say, Levin has become a favorite of mine. Through his actions and way of thinking, some fascinating factors came into play. His riveting conversations—that he maintained while trying to overcome a heart-rending awkwardness, especially when he found himself cornered due to his inability to disentangle his innovative thoughts when discussing philosophical and political issues—and internal monologues are for me the most memorable parts of the entire novel.
Anna's story is a faithful account of the pressure caused by social norms and the influence of the Russian Church which combined with other elements eventually brought about a relentless state of blinding jealousy, another theme deeply explored by Tolstoy, along with hypocrisy and the need to resort to appearances to be at least theoretically happy.
On the contrary, Levin embodies the simplicity of the countryside life, far away from any display of unnecessary opulence; also the bewilderment regarding bureaucracy and the efforts to grasp the concept behind politics, the difficulties present in his relationship with peasants and, in a global scale, the whole agrarian system in contrast to the perception of progress seen in the city.
In addition, we witness his struggles concerning faith, an aspect that immediately drew me in, as I also feel frustrated every time I ponder the essence of our existence, our identity, the acknowledgement of death—mortality salience or a persistent state of fear and anxiety—and how everything is supposed to fit an intricate system based on faith; swinging back and forth between reality and a need to believe in something.
This absolutely compelling book showed me another side of Tolstoy. He opened the doors to a world I may recognize since it is not my first Russian novel but that I have barely seen through his eyes for I stubbornly shunned his look for so long. His gifted mind, the uniqueness of his style, the now unmistakable sound of his words thanks to this wonderful translation, the beauty of his language and the sincere nature of his thoughts that were conveyed so eloquently, left an indelible impression on me.
Through the characters he has skillfully brought to life, Tolstoy not only shared his views on society and politics, but also his unswerving commitment to do everything in his power to attain a meaningful life. That strenuous search we are always returning to; one that cannot be limited to any time or place since it is intrinsic to human condition. That purpose to which existence might aspire.
Something to stimulate our slow, measured pace, often against the flow. Many things lead to that much desired meaning. Many ways that by themselves are insufficient as life, in constant motion as it is, is a complement of them all. Countless roads branching out while we contemplate, with fearful eyes and wavering avidity for they have ramified in so many directions, the one we should choose. There is one clear path that this novel illustrates with unflinchingly compassionate brushstrokes of reality.
It is understandable that, seeing how love might deteriorate over time, how a kiss becomes an endless reproach and a word, a way to punish and inflict pain on others in the midst of an atmosphere of self-destruction, might make you realize of how that possibility, that unremitting sense of an ending has been injecting fear into your being through the years and all of the efforts you have made to keep a reassuring distance from everything; echoing infantile attempts at self-preservation.
A child stepping into society for the first time, again; learning how to speak and behave accordingly, again. Anna, her ghosts, they all demanded, energetically; others, while yearning for different scenarios, return to the shadows, quietly. Giving too much; receiving halves, too late.
Doors are always on the verge of closing; serenely becoming accustomed to nothingness. Even so, amid a myriad of red threads that belong to the vastness of a timeless tapestry, love still constitutes one of the paths that may render a fulfilling life possible.
A bedroom adorned with poppy tears is now shrouded in silence. A red string dwelt there once. It connected two people destined to meet; people who lived a thousand lives in the eternity of a second. According to the myth, such string stretched, tangled and stretched again.
Until she seized hold of it, hoping for a season of forgiveness. View all 90 comments. Everyone has their crazy reasons for reading a book. I was never really planning to read "Anna Karenina" in my lifetime at all. Alas, I saw a trailer of the film recently and it was breathtaking! Something about Keira Knightley is art.
Something I cannot pinpoint as a mere mortal, but she always has the knack to make me believe that characters could live and breathe beyond the books.
So why didn't I watch the full movie? For the stupid reason that I can't sit still just being a passive audi Everyone has their crazy reasons for reading a book. For the stupid reason that I can't sit still just being a passive audience for more than 30 minutes nowadays, but I can spend scandalous amounts of time engaged in a book. And for the unexplainable reason that Keira Knightley made me read it! This took me a while to finish.
For one, the tome is as thick as a door-stop. Second, the plot is like a Russian nesting doll but in reverse, every layer of "Anna Karenina" reveals a bigger story than the last. Although the movie posters might make it look like some kind of Harlequin-style bodice-busting romp, don't be fooled. This ain't a feel-good rom-com. This isn't even a brooding psychosexual melodrama with a happy ending. This is a novel that tackles the romantic and the political.
It addresses the philosophies that govern nations and families. It's an unhappy novel with an unhappy ending. So if you are a sensible reader or a lazy one more prudent with your selections, why should you pick up this book?
Well it would actually be easier for me to dissuade you to read "Anna Karenina". Why shouldn't you read Leo Tolstoy's masterpiece? You shouldn't read this if you're looking for a novel to make you feel passionately about a fictional love affair and then set down the novel and sigh "Ah! The Beatles were right, all you need is love! This novel will break your heart. It will make you question every adage about the warm and fuzzy power of love.
Because while the novel delivers what is one of the greatest love stories, in my opinion, ever written, it also delivers a bunch of other equally masterful plot lines about politics, society, labor issues and religion. This isn't a novel that's just about two people's heartbreak. It's about the turmoil and frustrations that plague an entire nation. If you are still interested after all that, I guarantee you will treasure this read.
Why should you read "Anna Karenina"? Well, read this novel if you want to know what kind of scope and power a novel can have. It is abound with people with varying struggles and convictions, and with presence as strong as the primary characters. This novel is as massive as the country of Russia. Its depiction of society and politics is as intricate as St.
Basil's Cathedral, and its insight into human nature is as piercing as a winter in Siberia. This is something a movie just can't encompass. Happy reading! View all 6 comments. So, I have this ongoing etiquette problem.
Though sometimes I think it is a matter of respect. Or maybe social awkwardness. Post got that deeply into the protocol of neurotic bibliophiles. Anyway, the question is.. That is, are discussants more likely So, I have this ongoing etiquette problem. That is, are discussants more likely to assume a first name basis when conversing about women authors rather than male authors?
If so, does this mean a sign of disrespect? What about when this happens as a discussion among women? Is this more or less problematic? It also, obviously, happens sometimes with two authors by the same name, or with an author that someone happens to know personally. But my question doesn't just have to do with this situation. I'm more interested as to why readers feel the impulse to do this to start with.
But its hard to pinpoint when that happens. Usually, for me, I only see it when I write my review. Usually I self-consciously delete it later once I realize it.
But it is always revealing of how much the novel got to me. Virginia Woolf is the ultimate example of this for me.
My experience with Mrs. I had the same experience with Austen and the Brontes and Graham Greene and a few others.
I've read this before, but that time my impression of Tolstoy as an intimidating, distant Big Russian Author intact. This read was different. I believe that the translation work of Paevar and Volokhonsky deserves credit for that. My first read was with the Garnette translation. And unfortunately, it turns out that graceful late-Victorian prose reads rather… well.. Intelligently done, but often intimidating and cold.
At least, it is not the Tolstoy that Paevar and Volokhonsky showed me. I remember those Leo moments. There are many things I loved about this novel. As I understand it, writing this novel was a great struggle for Tolstoy. Originally, he meant this to be a straightforward morality tale. Anna was meant to be an ugly, vulgar old adulteress who represented Evil Womankind, and Karenin a model of sainted Christianity. But the longer the writing went on, the more this black and white purpose acquired shades of grey.
Anna became beautiful, then sympathetic at the beginning, and then in the middle, and then all the way into the end. Vronsky no longer twisted his mustache, but became a man with a code who wanted very much to be allowed to keep that code and live a life. He found his way from rigid morality to what makes a tragedy a tragedy. There are moments where he shows that he could have gone full on Oscar Wilde if he wanted to, but he takes it back.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. Some of them I sympathized with from the beginning-Anna, Dolly, Levin- and some snuck up on me-Karenin, Kitty- and some-Vronsky, Oblonsky- took me awhile, but I got there. The book is set up as a dance where these seven people come together, go through the motions and then change partners again. How they come together, why, and what the two partners want from each other in that moment reveals everything about these two characters.
As our two anchors who represent the two choices that you can come to resolve the existential crises of life, Levin and Anna get to meet everyone and everyone gets to reflect them back to themselves. Other characters experience them and make their own choices by evaluating their experience. Their resolutions represent the spectrum of other choices that you can make in between Ecstasy starts as Anna, moves to Levin and Death which moves from Levin to Anna.
What happens in the scene is beautiful and makes a lot of sense. Like that circle you always see done with fascism and communism-in-reality where despite whatever they may say, they are not the opposites that they claim. Someone is always going to be left on the outside, or being the third wheel to one of the pairs.
Everyone has a turn with this. Anna starts it, then Levin continues it, then Kitty, then Karenin and full circle until we come back to Anna standing by herself once again. Through the odd man out, we get an exploration of how loneliness, rejection, and mistaken choices to reject others affect these characters. The two choices seem to be either that it will transform them, or that it will gradually harden the worst parts about them until they become an unbreakable diamond.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have the space and time to do that. Levin gets to do it eventually. Anna is the diamond. Karenin shatters to pieces and then rebuilds himself into one again. Surprisingly, in the end, Karenin was the one who broke my heart. He shows these peoples' attempts at understanding each other and failing again and again.
Characters frequently make assumptions that other people are mind-readers or that they are, and some even go so far as to tell them so. The ones who can communicate with each other are the ones who drive the novel- Anna, Levin, Kitty. Our author stand-in, Levin, is the most socially anxious being. He frequently doubts every word that comes out of his mouth, blushes and embarrasses himself with his boyish pride, and puts his foot in his mouth on about a million occasions.
But all these little moments add up to a more thorough condemnation of social conventions than view spoiler [anybody throwing themselves under a train at the end could possibly have managed hide spoiler ]. Only Connect in eight hundred pages at full volume.
Only a few people manage it, and usually not for long. He shows us why succeeding is a gift, not something that we can take for granted. And as for the writing… Tolstoy gets away with so much that other authors can't. He tells rather than shows for at least half the novel, and that is a conservative estimate. He repeats himself constantly. He chooses isolated moments and lets them go on for fifty pages longer than anyone on earth needs.
A two day hunting trip takes twice that. But Woolf can: "For it has come about, by the wise economy of our nature, that our modern spirit can almost dispense with language; the commonest expressions do, since no expressions do; the most ordinary conversation is often the most poetic For which reasons we leave a great blank here, which must be taken to indicate that the space is filled to repletion.
That is, what he does to Anna because he could not himself decide what he wanted her to be, and really what he wanted himself to be. Even his generosity failed him here. He went gloriously, full-tilt into a wall wrong, but it was wrong. It seemed like his original stern morality got the best of him. At first, I wanted to think that it was just a plot mechanics decision in the sense that Anna was the big outlier in the story and social structure, and the way he had written the people around her there was no way for anyone to move forward unless she herself changed.
But in the end, I think that I'm wrong and it was just him feeling like he had to condemn her for her sins in the end. He couldn't let it be about what he said it was the whole novel because that was too dangerous. About how to rationally believe in God as a man of science. It makes sense that they would.
I know why, actually. But I'm still not a fan. But still. I can mostly forgive Tolstoy for what he did to Anna and Levin and their complex struggles because of one thing: his joy. Even when his generosity of spirit uncharacteristically fails him with Anna, or when powerful intellect goes off the rails toward crazytown with Levin and his peasant-worship, he has this great ability to celebrate things great and small.
This is most evident in the Levin sections where we get long odes to the harvest and to his love for Kitty. And really, despite the all that earnest, existential angst and all the terror of death, the ultimate conclusion that I think Tolstoy wants me to walk away with from that last Levin chapter is Life. Even with the problems with it I mentioned above, its such a relief to see Levin finally just let himself rest that its difficult to hate it completely.
Kitty gets to be wrapped up on it. Oblonsky walks around with an apparently unshakeable foundation of it. Tolstoy complements this with a sly sense of humor that sneaks into the prose in between the other seven hundred and fifty pages of Seriously Considering the World. He pokes fun at men showing off their manliness to each other. He has some fun with mysticism, laughs about the ridiculousness of politics. He makes me laugh with the extremes to which he carries his insistence that we think about the feelings of everybody.
Including the dog. You monsters! Awhile ago, I saw Jon Stewart give a speech in tribute to Springsteen. This book is a book of statements, but it feels like a book of questions. Do you know any better? Often, with Tolstoy, I think that a lot of us feel like we do. With rare exceptions, he deals with everything on earth as if it is the most serious thing alive. We can even feel that we know better about communism, idealization of manual labor or even just his ideas about cooperative farming.
He reminds me of David Foster Wallace, in that respect. That Consider the Lobster essay, with all that serious questioning and pain, thrown out to the readers of Gourmet. Both these guys are really asking. This was a surprisingly vulnerable book in that way.
For every opinion Tolstoy pronounced, he retracted two and asked four questions. That is the sort of mind I want to be around. A little bit. But his amazing writing ability, his sharp insight, and his ability to reason through as far as he could go are powerful enough that I will always let it go.
View all 75 comments. But can these books make you kinder, wiser, more moral, more content? The answer to this question is far from self-evident. And maybe we should be doubtful, when we consider how many disagreeable Shakespeare fans have probably existed. Nevertheless, I suspect that most of us are inclined to say yes, these books do improve us.
But how? Here are my answers. First, many great works of fiction tackle the moral question directly: What does it mean to be good? How do you live a good life? What is the point of it all? Dostoyevsky is the exemplary author in this respect, who was intensely, almost morbidly, preoccupied with these questions. Second, great fiction often involves a social critique; many well-known authors have been penetrating guides into the hypocrisies, immoralities, and stupidities of their societies.
Dickens, for example, is famous for spreading awareness of the plights of the poor; and Jane Austen performed a similar task in her novels, though much more quietly, by satirizing the narrow, pinched social rules the landed gentry had to abide by. Of course, there's plenty of room for argument but one thing is for sure: If you've never read this book, you really should.
Already a subscriber? Monitor journalism changes lives because we open that too-small box that most people think they live in. We believe news can and should expand a sense of identity and possibility beyond narrow conventional expectations. Your subscription to The Christian Science Monitor has expired. You can renew your subscription or continue to use the site without a subscription. If you have questions about your account, please contact customer service or call us at This message will appear once per week unless you renew or log out.
While the book contains no overt sexual descriptions this isn't "Fifty Shades of Grey , sex soaks just about every page — even moments of disdain or hatred are defined by sex. Author Francine Prose points out the scene where Anna returns to her husband after meeting the handsome, virile, sexually exciting Vronsky and becomes obsessed with how unattractive her husband's ears are.
This is a woman who is suddenly lusting after a good-looking man, and that lust starts to affect how she sees the world around her. Somehow, despite tackling heavy themes like the destructive power of love or the corrupting influence of modernity, Tolstoy managed to make "Anna Karenina" a whole lot of fun. Tolstoy's narrator is often arch and subtly sarcastic, as when he describes the trouble with finding suitable matches for women in Russian society: "The Russian fashion of matchmaking by the officer of intermediate persons was for some reason considered disgraceful; it was ridiculed by everyone The book is full of sly humor, but it's often subtle and takes some work to "get.
As noted by Prolific Living , Tolstoy is careful to offer us comic relief throughout, often via the character of Anna's brother Oblonsky. Oblonsky is presented as a typical modern Russian man, and Tolstoy, who has nothing but contempt for modern Russian men, makes him a cluelessly happy blunderer whose inability to truly understand the world around him amuses the reader. When people first encounter "Anna Karenina" they're sometimes put off by its sheer length. Depending on the translation, the book can get pretty close to 1, pages.
And yet, once you start reading, you barely notice how long the book is, because Tolstoy is a master of pacing. As author Jilly Cooper notes , the novel was originally serialized. According to Encyclopedia. That allowed Tolstoy to punctuate his story with numerous cliffhangers that make the reader want to keep reading to find out what happens. Despite the title of the novel, Anna's is just one of several stories being told within. Tolstoy uses the many subplots and minor characters he introduces to hold our interest — just as we might be getting irritated with Anna's selfishness or bored with Levin's philosophy, Tolstoy whisks us to another plotline.
Oprah's Book Club also notes how Tolstoy uses anticipation: Levin and Anna seem connected, and it's natural to assume they will meet and affect each other. But they meet just twice in the story. Tolstoy uses this so the reader is always engaged. It might seem strange to praise a novel's use of repetition and boredom. But that's only because in most novels, repetition and boredom are accidents of bad writing.
In "Anna Karenina," Tolstoy uses both as tools. One example noted by author Mohsin Hamid concerns Levin and his work in the fields. Many readers are confused by the lengthy passages describing Levin's work on the farm side-by-side with peasants. These passages go on far longer than seems necessary to get their point across, but there are two reasons for their presence in the story. One, Tolstoy is writing a realistic novel, and he uses these passages to describe Levin and the world he inhabits through an incredibly dense exploration of detail — the world becomes real to us because Tolstoy gets down to almost a molecular level.
And two, reading these repetitive passages recreates to some extent the meditative state Levin is in. Reading them, you become as hypnotized as he is by the labor he is performing. Translator Marian Schwartz discusses another aspect of repetition in "Anna Karenina": that of vocabulary. Historically, translators have regarded Tolstoy's repeated use of certain words, often very close to each other in sentences and paragraphs, as a flaw, but, in fact, he did this to purposefully create links between characters via similar and repeated descriptions.
But Tolstoy crowds his story on purpose, because he uses the relatively straightforward aspects to mask the bigger questions he's asking. The New Yorker notes how the reading experience of the novel shifts as you grow older, because Tolstoy isn't really writing a love story.
To count Anna Karenina among the finest works of literature would not be an overstatement. Anna Karenina, which could be considered a romantic tragedy revolves around the life and the romantic conflicts of its major character Anna Karenina. She finds herself trapped between the social norms which expect her to stay faithful to her husband Karenin, and her love for another man called Vronsky.
And there is a parallel story of another couple Levin and Kitty and their struggles. The story revolves around different characters and their points of view — which gives its readers some interesting insights to human emotions.
Now, that is a good question. The fact that it is a lengthy read can put off some readers. But, here is what you can do: Do not try to stretch yourself while reading this book. Go slowly. The very idea of art is to hold you in a moment. And Tolstoy does that beautifully. He slows time for you, while he presents the fine details and gives multiple perspectives.
His art, in that sense, is more like life — you experience every moment of it, and although, you are having a fulfilling experience, yet you would have the curiosity to know what is going to happen next. The question is not silly, but its timing is. Anyway, there are a number of reasons one should read Anna Karenina. First of all, as said before, it is not just a piece of art but a rich experience in itself. Secondly, the novel gives a deep insight to human relationships and the psychological state of individuals.
0コメント