Scan barcode
shubagar's review against another edition
4.0
This book is an incredible commentary on the social and political structure of Russian society at the time, of the different standards for men and women, of the search for individuality and company. Tolstoy's stream of consciousness and his sensitivity is remarkable. A few parts were dragging, like the monologues about farming and Levin's personal thoughts about some subjects. Overall, it was a long read with a great amount of depth to the characters, and their complex, contradictory nature.
mel16's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
honeybabyyy's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
De verdad lo disfruté mucho pero siento que la segunda mitad del libro se vuelve tediosa, se extiende demasiado en escenas que no aportan gran cosa a la trama ni tampoco tienen mucho significado. Los celos de Ana se vuelven un poco fastidiosos pero son lo más entretenido de la segunda mitad. Es una ventana muy realista a la Rusia de esa época y creo que ese es el mejor punto del libro, los personajes son realistas y moralmente grises.
charlote_1347's review against another edition
4.0
What a read! Not only in relation to its extensive length, but also to the enduring portrayal of Russia that Tolstoy evokes in his memorable characters. Anna was an honest, frustratingly human protagonist, with the faults and passions of a modern day woman, and Levin seemed to be her perfect contrast. The whole premise of the novel seemed almost too...encompassing. It seems impossible to consider this story a novel. A fiction. I was engaged with this from page one to page eight hundred and seventeen. There were moments I had to put it down, moments I clenched my teeth, moments I wanted to cry, or laugh, or bitch-slap one or two characters, but these moments made it worth my time and effort, and the time and effort of anyone (in my opinion). My only complaints, personal mind you, would be the intense comma splicing (more than likely a consequence of translation) and Levin's 'spiritual crisis', as well as his 'ideas'. I could not grasp either of these concepts whole-heartedly (although the former was clearer). Despite these personal difficulties, I enjoyed the way this tale was written and told; its mastery and eloquence was a pleasure to read.
crsylia_'s review against another edition
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
endpages's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
frwwwuuuq's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
sad
slow-paced
- Loveable characters? Yes
5.0
natashagering_23's review against another edition
Got boring towards the end, became less character driven and more plot driven but the plot stagnated. Also I went overseas.
katya_m's review against another edition
Depois de incursões várias pela sua juventude (Cossacos) ou mesmo final de vida (A morte de Ivan Iliitch), nunca, como hoje, me foi tão clara a imensidão que vai do jovem soldado (quase boémio) Tolstoi ao idoso que foge da família para viver asceta num mosteiro.
Em Karenina, a sua veia de pregador é tão mas tão evidente que se exercita, se alonga e se perde em longos capítulos sem relação com a trama principal, apenas porque o artista Toltoi também é o homem Tolstoi, e o homem Tolstoi questiona a sua razão de ser na vida como na arte.
Hoje, volvidos mais de cem anos da sua publicação, as suas longas dissertações sobre a política ou a agricultura russas falham aos nossos conhecimentos da realidade e tornam-se obsoletas para usufruir da leitura, mas devolvem-nos um retrato muito fiel daquelas que eram as preocupações universais do escritor.
Como faz notar, e bem, Nabokov (e Nabokov consegue ser irritantente certeiro nas suas análises e orgulhoso disso, muito como Sartre), uma das qualidades de Tolstoi (e de Tolstoi na Karenina) será com certeza a capacidade de se expressar através de "valores temporais que correspondem exatamente ao nosso sentido de tempo". Por isso, quando nos perguntamos como é que de um parágrafo para outro Karenina aparece grávida, ou como de um capítulo para outro o seu Sergei surge "quase homem", devemos perceber que Tolstoi tem um muito prático sentido de economia de tempo: da mesma forma que o tempo não se cristaliza para o leitor que acorda um dia e descobre um cônjuge envelhecido deitado a seu lado na cama, também para os personagens de Tolstoi o tempo é fluído e corre sem que se o possa agarrar. As incongruências, mais que serem falhas suas, transmitem uma passagem de tempo extremamente realista porque nos passa despercebida.
Posto isto, a leitura de Anna Karenina impõe as suas dificuldades: é extensa, repleta de intermezzos e divagações que pouco ou nada contribuem para a trama, mas que, por isso mesmo, pela sua vertente filosófica, nos obrigam a procurar o verdadeiro sentido da obra.
É certo, hoje não é fácil criar empatia pela figura de Anna. O seu repetido martírio auto infligido soa a esforçado. Hoje as opções são outras e demasiado facilmente optamos por uma leitura moralista de que a heroína sai absolutamente esmagada.
Todavia, Anna é a mulher do século XXI, ainda assim. Anna vive uma vida materialista aspirando à vida (e amor) espiritual. Mas existem limites para as suas capacidades, e seja porque moldada pela sociedade, ou por falha de caráter, Karenina não se consegue separar de um amor materialista (carnal) que a une a Vronski de forma periclitante, tão frágil.
Assim, a sua história de libertação (do marido Karenin) e procura de amor (com Vronski) desembocam num desfecho ex Machina porque para Toltoi não existe saída de uma procura de felicidade desligada da espiritualidade.
Nesse sentido, Kiti e Lévin funcionam como o espelho deste triângulo amoroso. Kiti opta pelo caminho do amor espiritual e uno ao ficar com Lévin em vez Vronski; Karenina segue o caminho do amor carnal e por isso não pode ser completa e feliz.
Já Vronski (personagem insondável) sofre o mesmo destino maquinal e arquitetado de Karenina que lhe permite escapar, mas não sem o seu castigo, às suas escolhas passadas. Todavia, torna-se claro, após a morte de Karenina, que as atitudes de Vronski ao longo da narrativa (a opção de manchar a sua posição na sociedade por uma união ilegítima e a sua tentativa de suicídio) já derivavam de uma paixão cega que, mais que desvinculativa como parecia, era de uma obsessão absolutamente assustadora.
Tolstoi não castiga Karenina, mas também não a redime. Da mesma forma, não exalta cegamente Lévin (tão autobiográfico) mas permite-lhe continuar o mesmo homem com defeitos e virtudes que tanto o aproximam do leitor.
Estes dois, verdadeiros heróis da sua obra, ficam como absolutos opostos na medida em que a primeira procura o oblivio pela paixão e o segundo contém a sua paixão a favor do conhecimento de si próprio.
No fim, Anna Karenina supera o género do romance: é um verdadeiro manisfesto religioso (à sua maneira) da procura de uma espiritualidade que trouxesse resposta às perguntas de Tolstoi sobre a vida, a morte, o amor, a felicidade...
Em Karenina, a sua veia de pregador é tão mas tão evidente que se exercita, se alonga e se perde em longos capítulos sem relação com a trama principal, apenas porque o artista Toltoi também é o homem Tolstoi, e o homem Tolstoi questiona a sua razão de ser na vida como na arte.
Hoje, volvidos mais de cem anos da sua publicação, as suas longas dissertações sobre a política ou a agricultura russas falham aos nossos conhecimentos da realidade e tornam-se obsoletas para usufruir da leitura, mas devolvem-nos um retrato muito fiel daquelas que eram as preocupações universais do escritor.
Como faz notar, e bem, Nabokov (e Nabokov consegue ser irritantente certeiro nas suas análises e orgulhoso disso, muito como Sartre), uma das qualidades de Tolstoi (e de Tolstoi na Karenina) será com certeza a capacidade de se expressar através de "valores temporais que correspondem exatamente ao nosso sentido de tempo". Por isso, quando nos perguntamos como é que de um parágrafo para outro Karenina aparece grávida, ou como de um capítulo para outro o seu Sergei surge "quase homem", devemos perceber que Tolstoi tem um muito prático sentido de economia de tempo: da mesma forma que o tempo não se cristaliza para o leitor que acorda um dia e descobre um cônjuge envelhecido deitado a seu lado na cama, também para os personagens de Tolstoi o tempo é fluído e corre sem que se o possa agarrar. As incongruências, mais que serem falhas suas, transmitem uma passagem de tempo extremamente realista porque nos passa despercebida.
Posto isto, a leitura de Anna Karenina impõe as suas dificuldades: é extensa, repleta de intermezzos e divagações que pouco ou nada contribuem para a trama, mas que, por isso mesmo, pela sua vertente filosófica, nos obrigam a procurar o verdadeiro sentido da obra.
É certo, hoje não é fácil criar empatia pela figura de Anna. O seu repetido martírio auto infligido soa a esforçado. Hoje as opções são outras e demasiado facilmente optamos por uma leitura moralista de que a heroína sai absolutamente esmagada.
Todavia, Anna é a mulher do século XXI, ainda assim. Anna vive uma vida materialista aspirando à vida (e amor) espiritual. Mas existem limites para as suas capacidades, e seja porque moldada pela sociedade, ou por falha de caráter, Karenina não se consegue separar de um amor materialista (carnal) que a une a Vronski de forma periclitante, tão frágil.
Assim, a sua história de libertação (do marido Karenin) e procura de amor (com Vronski) desembocam num desfecho ex Machina porque para Toltoi não existe saída de uma procura de felicidade desligada da espiritualidade.
Nesse sentido, Kiti e Lévin funcionam como o espelho deste triângulo amoroso. Kiti opta pelo caminho do amor espiritual e uno ao ficar com Lévin em vez Vronski; Karenina segue o caminho do amor carnal e por isso não pode ser completa e feliz.
Já Vronski (personagem insondável) sofre o mesmo destino maquinal e arquitetado de Karenina que lhe permite escapar, mas não sem o seu castigo, às suas escolhas passadas. Todavia, torna-se claro, após a morte de Karenina, que as atitudes de Vronski ao longo da narrativa (a opção de manchar a sua posição na sociedade por uma união ilegítima e a sua tentativa de suicídio) já derivavam de uma paixão cega que, mais que desvinculativa como parecia, era de uma obsessão absolutamente assustadora.
Tolstoi não castiga Karenina, mas também não a redime. Da mesma forma, não exalta cegamente Lévin (tão autobiográfico) mas permite-lhe continuar o mesmo homem com defeitos e virtudes que tanto o aproximam do leitor.
Estes dois, verdadeiros heróis da sua obra, ficam como absolutos opostos na medida em que a primeira procura o oblivio pela paixão e o segundo contém a sua paixão a favor do conhecimento de si próprio.
No fim, Anna Karenina supera o género do romance: é um verdadeiro manisfesto religioso (à sua maneira) da procura de uma espiritualidade que trouxesse resposta às perguntas de Tolstoi sobre a vida, a morte, o amor, a felicidade...
jbriaz's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.25
Only 50 pages into War and Peace, I recognized its obvious brilliance, objectively-speaking the best book I have ever read. 500 pages into Anna Karenina, I only recognized my palm banging against my forehead at increasing frequency. Despite being 60% the length of War and Peace, Anna Karenina feels 60% longer with its languid pacing. In War and Peace, Tolstoy created three-dimensional characters throughout its entire main cast of characters. Each character bringing complexity with good, mediocre, and bad qualities to them. In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy mistakes giving every main character obnoxious and despicable traits for complexity, forgetting to round them out as people. Now that I’ve made it abundantly clear that War and Peace is the far superior work and anyone should just spend their time reading that book or re-reading instead of reading Anna Karenina. I will dive into Anna Karenina.
The worst thing about the novel Anna Karenina is the character Anna Karenina. I actually played this song when I reached the end of Part 7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPz16LHTtpo). I’m guessing Tolstoy did not set out for his reader to respond accordingly to such an event – but let’s be clear: Anna is the worst. A character with no real depth to her whose “development” throughout the novel makes no sense, instead making erratic jumps from loyal, albeit unloved, wife, to adulterer, to crazy person. She, in fact, cannot stay evil in the same way. In Part 5, she says she loves her daughter and does not miss her son. And then immediately thereafter, all she talks about his seeing her son and how she does not care about her daughter. What? How? Why? No explanation given by Tolstoy to explain that change.
I’ve read numerous people write that this is a feminist novel because Tolstoy depicted the unfairness of 19th Century society in Russia in its treatment of women versus men when it came to adultery. Acknowledging unfair treatment does not make one a feminist or a novel feminist. In fact, Tolstoy through his self-representative character Levin repeatedly states that a woman’s place is at home and raising children. Tolstoy actually believed this and said this in non-fiction writings as well. More to the point, acknowledging a truth of unfair treatment does not make one a feminist without more said or done. And in fact, Tolstoy stated that the result of the main character was due to God’s vengeance. A vengeance God did not take out on the male adulterers. Feminist? I think not.
I’ve also read multiple critics compliment Tolstoy’s plot construction, symbolism, and structuring of the novel as a whole. If they were talking about War and Peace, they would be correct. With the exception of an entirely unnecessary second epilogue, that book succeeds in every almost every respect. In Anna Karenina, one character starts rich, becomes poor due to his decision that upsets his mother and due to a kindness he renders to a sibling, and then without explanation becomes rich again. Karenin has a sister that is obliquely referenced and never brought up again. And a character remains pregnant for approximately 13 months (no joke). This is the book people say is well-plotted, with brilliant internal symbolism and callbacks? (https://youtu.be/fRL80YB0x3s?t=11)
Karenin’s character arc made no sense. Karenin is a workaholic, career climbing bureaucrat in a loveless marriage, to a man out for revenge (understandably so), to a man all of the sudden forgiving adultery for no real reason, to finally religious zealot. Once again, none of these changes were organic or plotted well, just like Anna, which is inexcusable in a novel of this length.
Part 4 was an unmitigated disaster. Several main characters abruptly change personalities for no real reason. Once again, several people state Tolstoy is a master of characterization, not in Part 4. The novel functionally jumped the shark at Part 4, ruining what was in fact quite a good start to the book.
Then why don’t I rate this book 1 star or lower? Well, Parts 1-3 are actually quite good. If Tolstoy had figured out a way to plot better from that point and develop characters better, this could have been an all timer of a novel in my opinion. I also found selection portions from Part 5 to Part 8 to be terrific, including several of Levin’s (Tolstoy fictionalized) debating money distribution in society, local governments, religion, philosophy, etc. This reminded me of Bezukhov in War and Peace – and perhaps Tolstoy would’ve been better suited eliminating Anna’s plot from this novel and just focusing on Levin, thereby shortening it and improving it.
Tolstoy’s prose itself remained strong throughout. He sure knew how to make writing itself an aesthetic experience. I can only imagine how it reads in the original Russian. I read the Kyril Zinovieff translation, which was terrific. I highly recommend. I used the Rosamund Bartlett translation as a backup, which I found more stilted, but was a huge help when Zinovieff couldn’t find quite the right word in English; Bartlett would find the word, rendering the passage sensible. So I can recommend her translation as well.
Overall, 2.25 stars.
Did I mention that you should just read War and Peace?
The worst thing about the novel Anna Karenina is the character Anna Karenina. I actually played this song when I reached the end of Part 7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPz16LHTtpo). I’m guessing Tolstoy did not set out for his reader to respond accordingly to such an event – but let’s be clear: Anna is the worst. A character with no real depth to her whose “development” throughout the novel makes no sense, instead making erratic jumps from loyal, albeit unloved, wife, to adulterer, to crazy person. She, in fact, cannot stay evil in the same way. In Part 5, she says she loves her daughter and does not miss her son. And then immediately thereafter, all she talks about his seeing her son and how she does not care about her daughter. What? How? Why? No explanation given by Tolstoy to explain that change.
I’ve read numerous people write that this is a feminist novel because Tolstoy depicted the unfairness of 19th Century society in Russia in its treatment of women versus men when it came to adultery. Acknowledging unfair treatment does not make one a feminist or a novel feminist. In fact, Tolstoy through his self-representative character Levin repeatedly states that a woman’s place is at home and raising children. Tolstoy actually believed this and said this in non-fiction writings as well. More to the point, acknowledging a truth of unfair treatment does not make one a feminist without more said or done. And in fact, Tolstoy stated that the result of the main character was due to God’s vengeance. A vengeance God did not take out on the male adulterers. Feminist? I think not.
I’ve also read multiple critics compliment Tolstoy’s plot construction, symbolism, and structuring of the novel as a whole. If they were talking about War and Peace, they would be correct. With the exception of an entirely unnecessary second epilogue, that book succeeds in every almost every respect. In Anna Karenina, one character starts rich, becomes poor due to his decision that upsets his mother and due to a kindness he renders to a sibling, and then without explanation becomes rich again. Karenin has a sister that is obliquely referenced and never brought up again. And a character remains pregnant for approximately 13 months (no joke). This is the book people say is well-plotted, with brilliant internal symbolism and callbacks? (https://youtu.be/fRL80YB0x3s?t=11)
Karenin’s character arc made no sense. Karenin is a workaholic, career climbing bureaucrat in a loveless marriage, to a man out for revenge (understandably so), to a man all of the sudden forgiving adultery for no real reason, to finally religious zealot. Once again, none of these changes were organic or plotted well, just like Anna, which is inexcusable in a novel of this length.
Part 4 was an unmitigated disaster. Several main characters abruptly change personalities for no real reason. Once again, several people state Tolstoy is a master of characterization, not in Part 4. The novel functionally jumped the shark at Part 4, ruining what was in fact quite a good start to the book.
Then why don’t I rate this book 1 star or lower? Well, Parts 1-3 are actually quite good. If Tolstoy had figured out a way to plot better from that point and develop characters better, this could have been an all timer of a novel in my opinion. I also found selection portions from Part 5 to Part 8 to be terrific, including several of Levin’s (Tolstoy fictionalized) debating money distribution in society, local governments, religion, philosophy, etc. This reminded me of Bezukhov in War and Peace – and perhaps Tolstoy would’ve been better suited eliminating Anna’s plot from this novel and just focusing on Levin, thereby shortening it and improving it.
Tolstoy’s prose itself remained strong throughout. He sure knew how to make writing itself an aesthetic experience. I can only imagine how it reads in the original Russian. I read the Kyril Zinovieff translation, which was terrific. I highly recommend. I used the Rosamund Bartlett translation as a backup, which I found more stilted, but was a huge help when Zinovieff couldn’t find quite the right word in English; Bartlett would find the word, rendering the passage sensible. So I can recommend her translation as well.
Overall, 2.25 stars.
Did I mention that you should just read War and Peace?