Scan barcode
yaredz's review against another edition
5.0
Lev Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina explores many aspects of human nature, such as the effects of gender inequality in society’s treatment of Stiva and Anna’s unfaithfulness, Anna’s views on the “pathetically ugly” (514) nature of humanity in Part 7, Chapter 9, and the question of whether love can be above social conventions through Anna and Vronsky’s affair. However, I was most captivated by Tolstoy's treatment of reason against heart, which Tolstoy describes through Levin as “that yearning which makes a man choose one out of all the countless paths of life that present themselves, and desire that one alone” (170).
When Sergei Ivanovich is trying to muster up the strength to propose to Varenka in Part 6, Chapter 5, Tolstoy writes that he "went through all the arguments in favor of his decision" (383) but was still unable to muster the determination to carry out his plan. Tolstoy subtly includes this thought to show the reader that reason and arguments are inherently weaker than feeling, and that Sergei Ivanovich should trust his inner self rather than arguments he has derived from reason. It is interesting to note that the quotation in the introduction that defines “heart” stems directly from Levin’s thoughts about Sergei Ivanovich earlier in the novel: "[he lacks] the power of living, of what is called heart... [and he] had reasoned... that it was good to be concerned with it and [was] concerned with it only because of that” (170). Here, Levin diagnoses the cause for Sergei Ivanovich’s inability to make a proposition: Sergei Ivanovich lacks the 'recklessness' to trust his inner emotions, and reliance on reason costs him an opportunity his heart wanted to take.
Another way that Tolstoy shows the weakness of reason in this scene is through the message although love is necessary, it is not enough to have a successful romantic relationship. Because the basis of romance is love, I believe that a reasonable and standard view is that when two people love each other, they will enjoy a healthy relationship. However, Tolstoy goes against reason by showing that relationships can fail even when two people genuinely love each other. I have talked a lot about Sergei Ivanovich, and how love is not enough due to his emphasis on reason, but love goes both ways: even though Varenka also seems to love Sergei Ivanovich, it is she who, by talking about mushrooms, first interrupts the silence in which Sergei Ivanovich is trying to propose, killing the chance and moment that they had to experience true love. It may not have been reasonable for Varenka to express her love before Konyshev due to contemporary societal norms, but I think that Tolstoy is saying that sometimes we do need to be risk-takers when it comes to something as important as a loving relationship.
Furthermore, Tolstoy asserts that it is crucial to seize the rare chances we get, or they simply disappear- Sergei Ivanovich felt that “he had to declare himself now or never” (384), and once the scene ends, "they both experienced an identical feeling, similar to that of a pupil after failing an examination" (385). Here, Tolstoy shows the reader that they both knew they had a single opportunity in the forest, missed it, and now the chance is gone. Although we don’t know what would’ve transpired between Varenka and Sergei Ivanovich if they were to marry, Tolstoy is making it clear that where reason let them down, a little heart could have led them down a path to a life of love and fulfillment.
The other main topic that highlights the conflict between heart and reason is Levin’s existential journey, which ends in Levin choosing to live by faithfulness to Christianity, and nothing else. Hebrews 11:1, defines faith as believing in “the conviction of things not seen”, which I interpret as a non-reasonable stance to assume. In understanding Tolstoy’s development of Levin’s character, I noted Chapter 1 Part 11 as an important event, where after Stiva’s quarrel with Dolly, Levin, and Stiva share their views on love and women at a dinner table. Here, Levin references Plato’s Symposium in explaining how Platonic love, the love of the soul, is a higher form of love than physical love. As a side note, the conversation’s setting itself is an allusion to the Symposium, a discussion on love that occurred at a banquet. But just as Levin is explaining how in “[platonic] love everything is clear and pure…” (39), he “remember[s] his own sins” (40), and twice concedes that he doesn’t know what to think.
A similar event occurs in Part 6, Chapter 11, in which Levin admits that there is a contradiction in his beliefs, as he understands the “unjust” (398) financial inequality that separates him from his peasants, but says that he cannot give it up due to “responsibilities to [his] land and family” (399). What Tolstoy seems to be saying here is that, although Levin has reasoned general moral principles to live by, they ultimately fail to provide meaningful value in life. Tolstoy then contrasts this with Dolly’s advice to Levin and treatment of Masha after she commits a “crime” (407). Although initially furious, Dolly realizes her fault for blaming Masha urging Levin to ignore Veslovsky. This moment is critical both because Dolly eases the situation by doing the right thing, and because she can rely on her intuition, allowing her to do the right thing in this specific situation, which Levin’s reasoned moral guidelines often prevent him from doing. Through these events, Tolstoy is saying that although reason may tell us how to act in general, humans are unique individuals, and intuition understands this better than reason, allowing us to act more rightly in certain situations. Another significant point Tolstoy makes here is that children should be taught not to do certain things they desire, even though reason says that doing what we want will make us happy. He brings up a similar point with Vronsky, who, after getting everything he wants, finally sees “the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realisation of their desires.”.
The faults of desire connect to my final point on this topic: Levin’s conversion. Initially, although Levin fails to find true meaning in reason-based philosophy, he is also unable to accept Christianity, “because as soon as he thought calmly about it, the whole thing fell to pieces” (529). At this point, Levin does not understand Christianity simply because it is unreasonable. Rather than defending Christianity on a rational basis, however, Tolstoy emphasizes the irrationality of Christianity when Levin, after a conversation with Fyodor the muzhik, thinks that “Kirillov the innkeeper lives for his belly. That is clean and reasonable [...] and suddenly the same Fyodor says it’s bad to live for the belly and that one should live for the truth, for God, and I understand him from a hint!” (534). The innkeeper’s belly symbolizes desire, and Kirillov, like Vronsky and Masha, subscribes to the rational belief that we should satisfy our desires to live happily. However, it is not by reason but through intuition and ‘heart’ that Levin understands the muzhik’s belief in God and Christianity; he finally understands this in Part 8 Chapter 14, where he thinks that “what I know, I do not know by reason… I know it by my heart, by faith in that main thing that the church confesses” (537). Therefore, I interpret Levin’s choice as choosing to live his life by heart rather than reason, as he comes to believe that loving and obeying God will lead to happiness, even when reason says otherwise.
Ultimately, Tolstoy’s characters beg the question at the core of our being: how should we live our lives? In a world where logic and intelligence are often viewed as synonymous, Tolstoy radically claims that truth is not found through arguments and logical deduction - instead, it is revealed by trust in one’s heart and each individual's subjective truth. Thus, through Levin’s existential struggle and Sergei Ivanovich’s failed proposal, Tolstoy conveys the message that a life led by heart, not reason, is what ultimately leads to true fulfillment and meaning in life.
When Sergei Ivanovich is trying to muster up the strength to propose to Varenka in Part 6, Chapter 5, Tolstoy writes that he "went through all the arguments in favor of his decision" (383) but was still unable to muster the determination to carry out his plan. Tolstoy subtly includes this thought to show the reader that reason and arguments are inherently weaker than feeling, and that Sergei Ivanovich should trust his inner self rather than arguments he has derived from reason. It is interesting to note that the quotation in the introduction that defines “heart” stems directly from Levin’s thoughts about Sergei Ivanovich earlier in the novel: "[he lacks] the power of living, of what is called heart... [and he] had reasoned... that it was good to be concerned with it and [was] concerned with it only because of that” (170). Here, Levin diagnoses the cause for Sergei Ivanovich’s inability to make a proposition: Sergei Ivanovich lacks the 'recklessness' to trust his inner emotions, and reliance on reason costs him an opportunity his heart wanted to take.
Another way that Tolstoy shows the weakness of reason in this scene is through the message although love is necessary, it is not enough to have a successful romantic relationship. Because the basis of romance is love, I believe that a reasonable and standard view is that when two people love each other, they will enjoy a healthy relationship. However, Tolstoy goes against reason by showing that relationships can fail even when two people genuinely love each other. I have talked a lot about Sergei Ivanovich, and how love is not enough due to his emphasis on reason, but love goes both ways: even though Varenka also seems to love Sergei Ivanovich, it is she who, by talking about mushrooms, first interrupts the silence in which Sergei Ivanovich is trying to propose, killing the chance and moment that they had to experience true love. It may not have been reasonable for Varenka to express her love before Konyshev due to contemporary societal norms, but I think that Tolstoy is saying that sometimes we do need to be risk-takers when it comes to something as important as a loving relationship.
Furthermore, Tolstoy asserts that it is crucial to seize the rare chances we get, or they simply disappear- Sergei Ivanovich felt that “he had to declare himself now or never” (384), and once the scene ends, "they both experienced an identical feeling, similar to that of a pupil after failing an examination" (385). Here, Tolstoy shows the reader that they both knew they had a single opportunity in the forest, missed it, and now the chance is gone. Although we don’t know what would’ve transpired between Varenka and Sergei Ivanovich if they were to marry, Tolstoy is making it clear that where reason let them down, a little heart could have led them down a path to a life of love and fulfillment.
The other main topic that highlights the conflict between heart and reason is Levin’s existential journey, which ends in Levin choosing to live by faithfulness to Christianity, and nothing else. Hebrews 11:1, defines faith as believing in “the conviction of things not seen”, which I interpret as a non-reasonable stance to assume. In understanding Tolstoy’s development of Levin’s character, I noted Chapter 1 Part 11 as an important event, where after Stiva’s quarrel with Dolly, Levin, and Stiva share their views on love and women at a dinner table. Here, Levin references Plato’s Symposium in explaining how Platonic love, the love of the soul, is a higher form of love than physical love. As a side note, the conversation’s setting itself is an allusion to the Symposium, a discussion on love that occurred at a banquet. But just as Levin is explaining how in “[platonic] love everything is clear and pure…” (39), he “remember[s] his own sins” (40), and twice concedes that he doesn’t know what to think.
A similar event occurs in Part 6, Chapter 11, in which Levin admits that there is a contradiction in his beliefs, as he understands the “unjust” (398) financial inequality that separates him from his peasants, but says that he cannot give it up due to “responsibilities to [his] land and family” (399). What Tolstoy seems to be saying here is that, although Levin has reasoned general moral principles to live by, they ultimately fail to provide meaningful value in life. Tolstoy then contrasts this with Dolly’s advice to Levin and treatment of Masha after she commits a “crime” (407). Although initially furious, Dolly realizes her fault for blaming Masha urging Levin to ignore Veslovsky. This moment is critical both because Dolly eases the situation by doing the right thing, and because she can rely on her intuition, allowing her to do the right thing in this specific situation, which Levin’s reasoned moral guidelines often prevent him from doing. Through these events, Tolstoy is saying that although reason may tell us how to act in general, humans are unique individuals, and intuition understands this better than reason, allowing us to act more rightly in certain situations. Another significant point Tolstoy makes here is that children should be taught not to do certain things they desire, even though reason says that doing what we want will make us happy. He brings up a similar point with Vronsky, who, after getting everything he wants, finally sees “the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realisation of their desires.”.
The faults of desire connect to my final point on this topic: Levin’s conversion. Initially, although Levin fails to find true meaning in reason-based philosophy, he is also unable to accept Christianity, “because as soon as he thought calmly about it, the whole thing fell to pieces” (529). At this point, Levin does not understand Christianity simply because it is unreasonable. Rather than defending Christianity on a rational basis, however, Tolstoy emphasizes the irrationality of Christianity when Levin, after a conversation with Fyodor the muzhik, thinks that “Kirillov the innkeeper lives for his belly. That is clean and reasonable [...] and suddenly the same Fyodor says it’s bad to live for the belly and that one should live for the truth, for God, and I understand him from a hint!” (534). The innkeeper’s belly symbolizes desire, and Kirillov, like Vronsky and Masha, subscribes to the rational belief that we should satisfy our desires to live happily. However, it is not by reason but through intuition and ‘heart’ that Levin understands the muzhik’s belief in God and Christianity; he finally understands this in Part 8 Chapter 14, where he thinks that “what I know, I do not know by reason… I know it by my heart, by faith in that main thing that the church confesses” (537). Therefore, I interpret Levin’s choice as choosing to live his life by heart rather than reason, as he comes to believe that loving and obeying God will lead to happiness, even when reason says otherwise.
Ultimately, Tolstoy’s characters beg the question at the core of our being: how should we live our lives? In a world where logic and intelligence are often viewed as synonymous, Tolstoy radically claims that truth is not found through arguments and logical deduction - instead, it is revealed by trust in one’s heart and each individual's subjective truth. Thus, through Levin’s existential struggle and Sergei Ivanovich’s failed proposal, Tolstoy conveys the message that a life led by heart, not reason, is what ultimately leads to true fulfillment and meaning in life.
h_berry0410's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
amy_rr's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
4.0
zilberbetch's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
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