Scan barcode
judeandolin's review against another edition
3.0
I... did it. I finished Anna Karenina. 2017 goal unlocked.
Unfortunately now I just feel like I'm missing something vital in my appreciation of "fine literature". I end up feeling that a lot with classics—it's just not my genre and I almost never end up liking them, let alone understanding the hype.
Anyways, this was without a doubt exquisitely written, and a beautiful, intimate look into the psyches of a huge spread of characters. I saw one reviewer describe it as a "Russian soap-opera", and I couldn't agree more—maybe this is why it didn't really touch me. From the start, I couldn't sympathize with Anna and Vronsky's love; there was no build up, no anticipation, it just happened and all of a sudden they were ~~~in love~~~. I guess I need a bit more exposition than that to care.
The whole ending just seemed thrown together. It didn't wrap up in a satisfying way, and.
Idk man. Maybe I deserve to have my reader card taken away. I just didn't get it, and although from the psychological examinations of the characters and the philosophy imparted in the book, I can understand a bit of its lasting impression on culture, as a coherent story I just didn't care for it.
/
Unfortunately now I just feel like I'm missing something vital in my appreciation of "fine literature". I end up feeling that a lot with classics—it's just not my genre and I almost never end up liking them, let alone understanding the hype.
Anyways, this was without a doubt exquisitely written, and a beautiful, intimate look into the psyches of a huge spread of characters. I saw one reviewer describe it as a "Russian soap-opera", and I couldn't agree more—maybe this is why it didn't really touch me. From the start, I couldn't sympathize with Anna and Vronsky's love; there was no build up, no anticipation, it just happened and all of a sudden they were ~~~in love~~~. I guess I need a bit more exposition than that to care.
The whole ending just seemed thrown together. It didn't wrap up in a satisfying way, and
Spoiler
Anna's death, though set up earlier in the book, came and went without making me so much as blink. The fact that we then didn't get to actually see Vronksy's immediate reaction to her death made what could have been heart-wrenching instead seem melodramaticIdk man. Maybe I deserve to have my reader card taken away. I just didn't get it, and although from the psychological examinations of the characters and the philosophy imparted in the book, I can understand a bit of its lasting impression on culture, as a coherent story I just didn't care for it.
/
alina_books's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.25
carys_sofia's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
_rg's review against another edition
5.0
Tolstoy Dances from the Mundane to Deep to Divine
It is a l-o-o-o-n-g book and it took me months to finish.
It was completely worth it. Some people call Tolstoy's creations "airport novels" but they are way off the mark. Tolstoy is a genius.
It is a philosophical treatise. Tolstoy goes very deep in the questions of existence, morality, god, and the goal of human lives. And he is the deepest in the last fifty pages.
But if you see the rest of the book as a mere preparation to the last fifty pages of philosophical treatment, then you will be out of breath soon enough. And that will be the wrong way to see the book as well.
Tolstoy handles the deepest question in his own way. But he also handles the nitty-gritty of the lives of aristocrats. He doesn't portray them and parade them and glorify them. Neither does he take the radical view of hatred towards them. He is, in his unique way- an observer. You can draw your own conclusions. He handles the regular lives in detail, he leaves, through his characters- remarks and comments on deep things. Tolstoy is grest in all three layers.
The book also gives you the good feeling of reading a thick novel in which you are transported to another world, and you feel like you know the characters personally. So, this book is fun and edifying at the same time.
This is the first time I loved the narration of a woman narratoe. Maggie Gyllenhaal really exceeded my expectations, and performed extremely well. Literally loved it. I would rate Gyllenhaal's performance as a 10.
The translation used is the Constance Garnett translation. It is okay. Bur extremely anglicized in a Victorian way. That was the cause of some annoyance. But it's fine.
It is a l-o-o-o-n-g book and it took me months to finish.
It was completely worth it. Some people call Tolstoy's creations "airport novels" but they are way off the mark. Tolstoy is a genius.
It is a philosophical treatise. Tolstoy goes very deep in the questions of existence, morality, god, and the goal of human lives. And he is the deepest in the last fifty pages.
But if you see the rest of the book as a mere preparation to the last fifty pages of philosophical treatment, then you will be out of breath soon enough. And that will be the wrong way to see the book as well.
Tolstoy handles the deepest question in his own way. But he also handles the nitty-gritty of the lives of aristocrats. He doesn't portray them and parade them and glorify them. Neither does he take the radical view of hatred towards them. He is, in his unique way- an observer. You can draw your own conclusions. He handles the regular lives in detail, he leaves, through his characters- remarks and comments on deep things. Tolstoy is grest in all three layers.
The book also gives you the good feeling of reading a thick novel in which you are transported to another world, and you feel like you know the characters personally. So, this book is fun and edifying at the same time.
This is the first time I loved the narration of a woman narratoe. Maggie Gyllenhaal really exceeded my expectations, and performed extremely well. Literally loved it. I would rate Gyllenhaal's performance as a 10.
The translation used is the Constance Garnett translation. It is okay. Bur extremely anglicized in a Victorian way. That was the cause of some annoyance. But it's fine.
skelleybean's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
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
4.0
I will not say that I’m not smart enough to understand this book, merely not educated enough. I’m uneducated in politics, Russian history, and general philosophy so that this book is a bit hard to read. However, the moments that I was able to grasp and truly understand were wonderful. It is well written and the characters feel so real— they think and talk and love and fight like real people do. If you are up for the challenge and the length, it is worth the read (or listen).
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death, Self harm, Abandonment, Death, Suicidal thoughts, Toxic relationship, Abortion, Emotional abuse, Infidelity, Classism, Grief, Panic attacks/disorders, Mental illness, Suicide, Alcohol, and Suicide attempt
zgluckow's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
5.0
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
3.0
Look it seems to be a favorite novel among so many great novelists - Nabokov, Faulkner, Kundra, Joyce even Dostoevsky but I happen to be more in agreement with Rebecca West when she says, "And plainly Anna Karenina was written simply to convince Tolstoy that there was nothing in this expensive and troublesome business of adultery"
If you read novels to be somewhere and sometime else (and don't mind that place to be boring) this will work for you. It is a perfect chronicle of its times. The trouble is I happened to be a very sensual reader. You see I am a book-izer and date a lot of books at the same time, and take different books to dinner and bed on the same day. Whenever I see a book anywhere I start imagining myself in bed with it and can't help running my hand on its body. And above all, there must be very good reasons if the relationship is to last more than a few days. Unfortunately, this one happens to feel like a long, stale marriage.
Marriage! I guess that is the real theme of the book rather than adultery. The subject has occupied minds of people for so long that there aren't too many new jokes I can make about it, I mean the best ones like how in case of a murder, the victim's spouse is the foremost suspect are already taken. Moreover, I don't fully understand the concept of marriage - this once I was about to congratulate this newlywed couple but I was just trying to imagine their life after marriage before the chance to do so occurred and ended up saying "condolences". That because "May your souls rest in peace" seemed like hoping for too much. The reason being that I think of 'being alive' to mean to let you feel all sorts of things. Now once a person gets married, (S)he is expected not to feel attracted, fall in love, etc outside marriage. And so to that extent the person is dead. And of course, there are all the sacrifices you are supposed to make for your children, etc (a lot of people are into that too!) which won't let a person enjoy his/her life fully.
Now, it is just the kind of thing that if it wasn't for the sake of habit, people would have given up long ago. I still think they will do so someday. If you trust a person, you don't need to bound them, right? With love, my understanding is far worse - I mean if someone loves his/her spouse and wants the later to be happy, shouldn't they be more like "Go on, darling, have some fun!" instead of jealously guarding them? That, by the way, is Levin's (Anna's antagonist) method - to ask his wife not to meet men with whom she happened to laugh.
Still, because of some sort of barbaric instinct the heart wants to hold on to the person, it is invested in, to possess them like objects so as to be sure of their presence in one's life. It seeks promises, unbreakable oaths, until-death-or-divorce-do-us-aparts, more and more bounds - anything to save one from the fear of losing beloved. And where this need for security over each other's possession is mutual, a marriage takes place. Except, of course, all such promises are useless, no one can control his/her feelings by choice, and so no one should ask the other or promise such a thing. In fact, everything people do to gain security (or whatever form) only feeds the feeling of insecurity.
Only insecure and untrusting people seek promises and
Where you presume on security is where you set yourself to fail. All things given in love are gifts and no prices should be asked in return. Karein, Anna's husband realizes this at some point in the story and is able to fight back the famous agony of a cheated husband at least for a while. (If only I was to have a cookie for each book with adultery and jealous spouses in it I have read, I would have .... you know, diabetes. There should be some kind of restriction on each, like the no-mention-of-Hitler-in-debates rule, like a book with adultery in it doesn't win Nobel prizes or something .... but then Marquez wouldn't have won his prize, you know what, scratch that.)
Anyways, Tolstoy's argument against infidelity doesn't seem true to me. Anna didn't suffer because she cheated on her husband. She suffered because of three different reasons at different points.
First, because she had a conscience which is always a burden. How can feeling guilty about anything that can ever serve a purpose is beyond me. Guilt is a monster that like that Greek vulture which constantly fed on the heart (of Prometheus) without ever improving the victim's lot, and conscience is nothing except a set up to create a feeling of guilt among people. And to think there are people who feed this concept to their children! Terrorists never felt guilty of their actions, pregnant teenagers often do. A better world could be created if people teach compassion to their children.
Secondly, people, she is surrounded by. Many would say those were wrong times, times are not wrong, people are. Vronsky wants her, other people think of her as fallen women, the stupid divorce law ... you get the picture.
Thirdly, in the last parts, when she feels jealous lover Vronsky. It is not a self-induced fear of being cheated as often seen in people who cheat themselves - like Macbeth's fear who being usurper himself constantly fears being usurped, but rather the same old insecurity we just talked about. She has given away her son for him. We tax our loved ones for sacrifices we make them for them. It was too great a sacrifice for Vronsky to redeem in any way except by becoming a homely for her which he couldn't.
The novel has a misnomer. It should have been better named Levin, the author stand-in gets more attention than Anna Karenina. We read several boring chapters in which he gives his theories for agriculture, peasant education, etc which, though it might make the book more realistic, also makes it much larger and boring than it need be (something similar to what deviations and jokes do to this review). There are several beautiful moments in this novel but they are lost in the sea of monotonous realism, a combination that doesn't work with a sensual reader like me. The third star is almost entirely due to the last chapters of Anna's life. If it wasn't for that, I would have thought that it is Stockholm syndrome associated with large books that make people love this one.
If you read novels to be somewhere and sometime else (and don't mind that place to be boring) this will work for you. It is a perfect chronicle of its times. The trouble is I happened to be a very sensual reader. You see I am a book-izer and date a lot of books at the same time, and take different books to dinner and bed on the same day. Whenever I see a book anywhere I start imagining myself in bed with it and can't help running my hand on its body. And above all, there must be very good reasons if the relationship is to last more than a few days. Unfortunately, this one happens to feel like a long, stale marriage.
Marriage! I guess that is the real theme of the book rather than adultery. The subject has occupied minds of people for so long that there aren't too many new jokes I can make about it, I mean the best ones like how in case of a murder, the victim's spouse is the foremost suspect are already taken. Moreover, I don't fully understand the concept of marriage - this once I was about to congratulate this newlywed couple but I was just trying to imagine their life after marriage before the chance to do so occurred and ended up saying "condolences". That because "May your souls rest in peace" seemed like hoping for too much. The reason being that I think of 'being alive' to mean to let you feel all sorts of things. Now once a person gets married, (S)he is expected not to feel attracted, fall in love, etc outside marriage. And so to that extent the person is dead. And of course, there are all the sacrifices you are supposed to make for your children, etc (a lot of people are into that too!) which won't let a person enjoy his/her life fully.
Now, it is just the kind of thing that if it wasn't for the sake of habit, people would have given up long ago. I still think they will do so someday. If you trust a person, you don't need to bound them, right? With love, my understanding is far worse - I mean if someone loves his/her spouse and wants the later to be happy, shouldn't they be more like "Go on, darling, have some fun!" instead of jealously guarding them? That, by the way, is Levin's (Anna's antagonist) method - to ask his wife not to meet men with whom she happened to laugh.
"Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls...
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music."
- Kahlil Gibran.
Still, because of some sort of barbaric instinct the heart wants to hold on to the person, it is invested in, to possess them like objects so as to be sure of their presence in one's life. It seeks promises, unbreakable oaths, until-death-or-divorce-do-us-aparts, more and more bounds - anything to save one from the fear of losing beloved. And where this need for security over each other's possession is mutual, a marriage takes place. Except, of course, all such promises are useless, no one can control his/her feelings by choice, and so no one should ask the other or promise such a thing. In fact, everything people do to gain security (or whatever form) only feeds the feeling of insecurity.
Only insecure and untrusting people seek promises and
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Where you presume on security is where you set yourself to fail. All things given in love are gifts and no prices should be asked in return. Karein, Anna's husband realizes this at some point in the story and is able to fight back the famous agony of a cheated husband at least for a while. (If only I was to have a cookie for each book with adultery and jealous spouses in it I have read, I would have .... you know, diabetes. There should be some kind of restriction on each, like the no-mention-of-Hitler-in-debates rule, like a book with adultery in it doesn't win Nobel prizes or something .... but then Marquez wouldn't have won his prize, you know what, scratch that.)
Anyways, Tolstoy's argument against infidelity doesn't seem true to me. Anna didn't suffer because she cheated on her husband. She suffered because of three different reasons at different points.
First, because she had a conscience which is always a burden. How can feeling guilty about anything that can ever serve a purpose is beyond me. Guilt is a monster that like that Greek vulture which constantly fed on the heart (of Prometheus) without ever improving the victim's lot, and conscience is nothing except a set up to create a feeling of guilt among people. And to think there are people who feed this concept to their children! Terrorists never felt guilty of their actions, pregnant teenagers often do. A better world could be created if people teach compassion to their children.
Secondly, people, she is surrounded by. Many would say those were wrong times, times are not wrong, people are. Vronsky wants her, other people think of her as fallen women, the stupid divorce law ... you get the picture.
Thirdly, in the last parts, when she feels jealous lover Vronsky. It is not a self-induced fear of being cheated as often seen in people who cheat themselves - like Macbeth's fear who being usurper himself constantly fears being usurped, but rather the same old insecurity we just talked about. She has given away her son for him. We tax our loved ones for sacrifices we make them for them. It was too great a sacrifice for Vronsky to redeem in any way except by becoming a homely for her which he couldn't.
The novel has a misnomer. It should have been better named Levin, the author stand-in gets more attention than Anna Karenina. We read several boring chapters in which he gives his theories for agriculture, peasant education, etc which, though it might make the book more realistic, also makes it much larger and boring than it need be (something similar to what deviations and jokes do to this review). There are several beautiful moments in this novel but they are lost in the sea of monotonous realism, a combination that doesn't work with a sensual reader like me. The third star is almost entirely due to the last chapters of Anna's life. If it wasn't for that, I would have thought that it is Stockholm syndrome associated with large books that make people love this one.
brynniek's review against another edition
dark
emotional
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
cpa85's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
marion's review against another edition
4.0
il était vraiment très fort, tolstoï.
bon. j'ai lu ce classique parce que je suis absolument matrixée par le film de 2012. ça a fait quelque chose à mon cerveau et je DEVAIS lire ce roman. j'avais besoin de tout connaître, de tout comprendre.
comme on peut tous s'en douter, on a tellement plus de détails dans le livre, plus de perspectives, plus de points de vue... que dans les adaptations. et merci, ça me permet tellement de mieux comprendre et apprécier l'histoire.
pour une fois, je vais dire que voir le film avant d'avoir lu le livre était la meilleure décision à prendre.
croyez-moi, l'histoire vaut tellement le coup.
oui, c'est vrai, il n'y a pas vraiment d'intrigue, c'est principalement une étude de personnages.
on suit trois couples (anna, son mari et vronsky par la suite ; oblonski et daria ; levine et kitty) dans leur vie bourgeoise (sauf Levine même s'il vient du milieu), on suit leur choix, leur pensées, leur parcours. on voit les personnages se rencontrer et se détacher, se quitter et se retrouver dans cette société où les conventions sociales et les apparences sont maîtres.
ne vous attendez pas à lire seulement sur la relation amoureuse entre vronsky et anna car le livre ne se restreint pas seulement à cela. ça va bien plus loin, ça touche tellement de sujets différents qui nous font réfléchir (même encore à notre époque).
dans mon coeur, c'est un 5 étoiles parce que c'est vraiment une histoire (principalement l'histoire entre vronsky et anna) à laquelle je pense on a daily basis.
j'ai enlevé une étoile car il m'est arrivé de lire en diagonale certains passages (principalement ceux concernant l'agriculture - il y en avait tellement j'en pouvais plus) donc l'histoire me semblait encore plus longue.
mais voilà, c'est vraiment un classique à lire dans sa vie.
bon. j'ai lu ce classique parce que je suis absolument matrixée par le film de 2012. ça a fait quelque chose à mon cerveau et je DEVAIS lire ce roman. j'avais besoin de tout connaître, de tout comprendre.
comme on peut tous s'en douter, on a tellement plus de détails dans le livre, plus de perspectives, plus de points de vue... que dans les adaptations. et merci, ça me permet tellement de mieux comprendre et apprécier l'histoire.
pour une fois, je vais dire que voir le film avant d'avoir lu le livre était la meilleure décision à prendre.
croyez-moi, l'histoire vaut tellement le coup.
oui, c'est vrai, il n'y a pas vraiment d'intrigue, c'est principalement une étude de personnages.
on suit trois couples (anna, son mari et vronsky par la suite ; oblonski et daria ; levine et kitty) dans leur vie bourgeoise (sauf Levine même s'il vient du milieu), on suit leur choix, leur pensées, leur parcours. on voit les personnages se rencontrer et se détacher, se quitter et se retrouver dans cette société où les conventions sociales et les apparences sont maîtres.
ne vous attendez pas à lire seulement sur la relation amoureuse entre vronsky et anna car le livre ne se restreint pas seulement à cela. ça va bien plus loin, ça touche tellement de sujets différents qui nous font réfléchir (même encore à notre époque).
dans mon coeur, c'est un 5 étoiles parce que c'est vraiment une histoire (principalement l'histoire entre vronsky et anna) à laquelle je pense on a daily basis.
j'ai enlevé une étoile car il m'est arrivé de lire en diagonale certains passages (principalement ceux concernant l'agriculture - il y en avait tellement j'en pouvais plus) donc l'histoire me semblait encore plus longue.
mais voilà, c'est vraiment un classique à lire dans sa vie.