You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I couldn't put this book down the first time I read it. It is beautiful and tragic and I would lose myself in the story for hours. Tolstoy's prose, even in translation, is gorgeous and the images he paints are vivid. I highly recommend reading the Maude translation -- they seem to be the best translators of Tolstoy's works.
I read this book nearly 10 years later, and wasn't quite as engrossed. But as Cari wrote in her review, this is probably an important book to read every 10 years or so because the meaning will be so different at various life stages.
p. 253
"There are times when one would give a whole month for sixpence and others when you wouldn't sell half-an-hour at any price."
p. 288
"Pretence about anything whatever may deceive the cleverets and shrewdest of men, but the dullest child will see through it, no matter how artfully it may be disguised."
p. 830
"If goodness has a cause, it is no longer goodness; if it has consequences -- a reward -- it is not goodness either. So goodness is outside the chain of cause and effect."
I actually don't think I agree with this. Doesn't "goodness" inevitably have a result -- generally happiness or more goodness? If so, it is not outside the chain of cause and effect, but rather is an integral part of it. But I do agree about goodness being less pure if something is only done in anticipation of a reward.
I read this book nearly 10 years later, and wasn't quite as engrossed. But as Cari wrote in her review, this is probably an important book to read every 10 years or so because the meaning will be so different at various life stages.
p. 253
"There are times when one would give a whole month for sixpence and others when you wouldn't sell half-an-hour at any price."
p. 288
"Pretence about anything whatever may deceive the cleverets and shrewdest of men, but the dullest child will see through it, no matter how artfully it may be disguised."
p. 830
"If goodness has a cause, it is no longer goodness; if it has consequences -- a reward -- it is not goodness either. So goodness is outside the chain of cause and effect."
I actually don't think I agree with this. Doesn't "goodness" inevitably have a result -- generally happiness or more goodness? If so, it is not outside the chain of cause and effect, but rather is an integral part of it. But I do agree about goodness being less pure if something is only done in anticipation of a reward.
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Why have I not heard more about the pre-feminism of this book? It may not be considered feminist today, but at the time of Hugo, Dumas, Dostoyevsky, and Dickens, it stands out. Tolstoy writes a full fleshed-out HUMAN character in Anna. He has sympathy and even love for her intellect, desires, and flaws. Mrs. Tolstoy, you lucky lady, you! Published 27 years after the Scarlet Letter, it is no less amazing that Tolstoy pushed through religious themes to tell us why we should still love this frantic adulteress. He doesn't just point out the double standards and problems with divorce law-- he hits us over the head with it. Sure, all the other women in this book are simple-headed baby-makers, and Levin is the real hero who gets to have actual philosophical and spiritual growth which his silly wife could never understand. And he seems to be pretty clearly juxtaposed to Anna in this way-- (**spoiler alert**) both struggled with loneliness, self-doubt, and suicidal thoughts and only one of them conquered it all. But I believe Tolstoy intended to emphasize Levin's spiritual development as the deciding factor and not his gender... OR, because "Lev" Leo Tolstoy was writing himself so much into Levin, he had to give him a happy ending, and his parallels to Anna reiterate his empathy all the more. Don't take away my kudos!
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
tolstoy captures the humanity of his subjects so well. he describes the ephemeral, seemingly trivial, feelings, which make up a person's identity and character, like grains of sand on a beach. you can't help but empathize with everyone, from stiva's gregariousness and unwise freedom with money and women, to levin's jealousy and reflectivity. don't be daunted by the length of this novel- even though the style may be hard to flow with immediately, the emotions and descriptions of the people ring true through the years to the present.
I'm having a harder time than usual in thinking of what I want to say about this book. Maybe it's because I still haven't sorted out my thoughts on it. Maybe it's because I simply don't have thoughts on it. I think the most likely reason, however, is that my three year old nephew is currently trying to see how fast he can press every noise making button on his toy steering wheel. Regardless of the reason it is clear to me that my thoughts aren't precisely... clear. So, I think the best thing for me to do is just spend a paragraph outlining my likes, and another outlining my dislikes. With any luck this will lead to a concise conclusion of what I truly feel about Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.
Lets start with what I didn't like. That way I can leave off with my likes and make everything seem more positive. I didn't like the number of characters in the book. Sure, it can be enriching to the realm of a story to have a full cast of characters, but it seems to me that Tolstoy added too many characters, which resulted in me being rather confused about who was who throughout the book. A name would pop up that I vaguely remembered being mentioned or some character would suddenly have another brother that I was unaware had even existed before. While this didn't detract from the story itself I found myself forced out of the stream of thought whenever I had to try and recognize just who any given character was. To me being able to stay in the groove of reading and being able to forget that I'm not actually in the book is very important so when that gets upset I notice. The good news is that this was my only explicit dislike.
Now for the things I liked. Very importantly, I liked the story. I know that seems a little broad, but I can't exactly think of a better way to put it. I enjoyed learning of the events as the author wanted me to learn them. I liked the commentaries on social status, on prejudices, and on the human condition that Tolstoy offered (even if I didn't exactly agree with them). In regards simply to what was happening I liked the book. I also liked the primary characters. Although I thought that there were too many names thrown around, when focusing just on the main people that were being followed throughout the book I found them to be dynamic and relatable. I didn't have any trouble at all imagining that any given character could, in fact, be a real person. That made me care about what happened to them and how they treated each other.
Okay, so I've gone through all of my distinct likes and dislikes, but I still don't feel like I understand my feelings about it any better. Maybe that's the important part, though. Objectively it looks like I really liked the book, or at least the important parts of it. But something, though I don't know what, is holding me back from giving it more than three stars. I would definitely recommend that others read it if they're willing to take the time (and it does take time to read this book), but I don't see myself including it in a list of my favorite books any time soon.
Lets start with what I didn't like. That way I can leave off with my likes and make everything seem more positive. I didn't like the number of characters in the book. Sure, it can be enriching to the realm of a story to have a full cast of characters, but it seems to me that Tolstoy added too many characters, which resulted in me being rather confused about who was who throughout the book. A name would pop up that I vaguely remembered being mentioned or some character would suddenly have another brother that I was unaware had even existed before. While this didn't detract from the story itself I found myself forced out of the stream of thought whenever I had to try and recognize just who any given character was. To me being able to stay in the groove of reading and being able to forget that I'm not actually in the book is very important so when that gets upset I notice. The good news is that this was my only explicit dislike.
Now for the things I liked. Very importantly, I liked the story. I know that seems a little broad, but I can't exactly think of a better way to put it. I enjoyed learning of the events as the author wanted me to learn them. I liked the commentaries on social status, on prejudices, and on the human condition that Tolstoy offered (even if I didn't exactly agree with them). In regards simply to what was happening I liked the book. I also liked the primary characters. Although I thought that there were too many names thrown around, when focusing just on the main people that were being followed throughout the book I found them to be dynamic and relatable. I didn't have any trouble at all imagining that any given character could, in fact, be a real person. That made me care about what happened to them and how they treated each other.
Okay, so I've gone through all of my distinct likes and dislikes, but I still don't feel like I understand my feelings about it any better. Maybe that's the important part, though. Objectively it looks like I really liked the book, or at least the important parts of it. But something, though I don't know what, is holding me back from giving it more than three stars. I would definitely recommend that others read it if they're willing to take the time (and it does take time to read this book), but I don't see myself including it in a list of my favorite books any time soon.