Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
I have not read this book; I have lived it. If I could only read one book again for the rest of my life, this may well be it.
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
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
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
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
There are a few books out there, like Night by Eli Wiesel, where I feel the overwhelming sense that my opinion about the book doesn't matter. Night is a book that is so real, so gritty, and so important that my reading experience is utterly unimportant compared to how much every living person should read that book.
Anna Karenina---while being a fictional, literary novel---SOMEHOW still evokes similar, but different, feelings from me. It is much less dark than Night, again is fictional (while Night is nonfiction), and focused far more on existential questions for the average person... And yet I somehow feel this same sense from Anna Karenina that my personal opinions and reading experience are unimportant because of how masterfully written this novel is. This feeling dominated my reading experience until the final section of the novel, when I felt some deeper flaws surfaced in the writing and undermined some of best parts of the novel established earlier.
This novel is so long and so complex that it's a bit hard to put my feelings into words.
Part of what makes this book so well written is that Tolstoy is possibly the only 19th century novelist I've read who masters the storytelling devices that are considered essential for modern readers. His prose is beautiful, but not flowery enough to be challenging. His characters are all complex and realistic. The novel has an interesting plot, but is entirely character driven. While the length and a few historic conversations cause lulls for readers, I would actually say this is one of the best classics I could recommend for someone who is new to classics---as long as the length isn't an issue.
What I loved even more is how this novel is so psychological. Tolstoy has understood and mastered the art of portraying human psychology. I especially loved how he switched from third person narration to stream of consciousness when Anna's feelings were strongest, at moments that were pivotal for the novel. On the whole, I felt like Tolstoy was sort of the Russian Jane Austen (though less flowery, less witty, with more dramatic elements, and certainly more male-centric). Both authors are distinctly realists with a shocking ability to understand and portray people who are real.
Tolstoy embraces banal parts of daily life, and leans into them as a way to portray both the passing of time and the slow and believable character growth that happens. This is a bold, unusual move from a writing perspective, but it also makes some sections of the novel feel SO long. I asked myself several times what on earth could possibly happen before the end of the story (which had been spoiled for me years ago).
But for all that, I wish I had taken my time and read the story even more slowly (I took 37 days to read it and averaged about an hour per day). I think this is the sort of story that needs to be slowly dissected over months---perhaps even to be treated as if one were finding out about living acquaintances in real time. (It was originally published as a serial over several years, and that does seem to be the best way to read the novel.)
I must add that there are several historic elements that require one to either do some research or power through. Since many of Dostoevsky's themes resurfaced here, I decided to do the research, and it really enhanced my experience understanding the characters and the novel as a whole. This novel will be a lot more confusing and boring if you don't take the time to read up on some Russian sociopolitical issues from the time period.
I love that Tolstoy set out to portray an unfaithful wife from high society without condemning her. This novel really shows how mysogynist Russian society was in this time period, and it does an incredible job at highlighting double standards in a way that undeniably epathizes with Anna's situation. I would argue that Tolstoy doesn't want readers to fully condemn any characters, but instead to see how their experiences and values contribute to their actions in a way we can't entirely condemn, even if we disagree with them.
Levin was my favorite character. He's a sincere, loveable character who is alarmingly similar to an old friend of mine. And while I don't wholly agree with some of his dilemmas and reactions, I wanted nothing but the best for him, and I always enjoyed his sections of the story, even though they could be quite slow.
I'm still torn about the ending of the novel. I can see and agree with the feminist reading of the ending as a rather mysogynist condemnation of Anna for not fitting into the norms of society. That feels like a cruelly ironic ending, and that makes me wonder if readers are meant to be left feeling frustrated at the irony and injustice of how Anna is treated by equally guilty people. Another part of me wonders if the ending it meant to be less about gender and more about Tolstoy's opinions on how to find meaning in life. I can see how he might have been trying to defend Anna beyond the page, but I can also see how Tolstoy could've been limited by his experience as a man trying to write about women. It is bizarre to me that Anna is clearly not the main character of this story, and yet she is still the titular character. I definitely feel that I have much left to unlock in this novel on rereading it.
There's so much more to be said about this novel, but I don't really know what else to say. I liked how difficult it was to fully condemn or dislike the main characters. I loved seeing my own thoughts and psychology captured so well in bits and pieces here and there. I have massive respect for Tolstoy's writing. I enjoyed this novel a lot in some parts, but it was not life changing for me as of yet. I'll certainly be rereading it at some point and doing a deeper dive into some of the complexities.
Anna Karenina---while being a fictional, literary novel---SOMEHOW still evokes similar, but different, feelings from me. It is much less dark than Night, again is fictional (while Night is nonfiction), and focused far more on existential questions for the average person... And yet I somehow feel this same sense from Anna Karenina that my personal opinions and reading experience are unimportant because of how masterfully written this novel is. This feeling dominated my reading experience until the final section of the novel, when I felt some deeper flaws surfaced in the writing and undermined some of best parts of the novel established earlier.
This novel is so long and so complex that it's a bit hard to put my feelings into words.
Part of what makes this book so well written is that Tolstoy is possibly the only 19th century novelist I've read who masters the storytelling devices that are considered essential for modern readers. His prose is beautiful, but not flowery enough to be challenging. His characters are all complex and realistic. The novel has an interesting plot, but is entirely character driven. While the length and a few historic conversations cause lulls for readers, I would actually say this is one of the best classics I could recommend for someone who is new to classics---as long as the length isn't an issue.
What I loved even more is how this novel is so psychological. Tolstoy has understood and mastered the art of portraying human psychology. I especially loved how he switched from third person narration to stream of consciousness when Anna's feelings were strongest, at moments that were pivotal for the novel. On the whole, I felt like Tolstoy was sort of the Russian Jane Austen (though less flowery, less witty, with more dramatic elements, and certainly more male-centric). Both authors are distinctly realists with a shocking ability to understand and portray people who are real.
Tolstoy embraces banal parts of daily life, and leans into them as a way to portray both the passing of time and the slow and believable character growth that happens. This is a bold, unusual move from a writing perspective, but it also makes some sections of the novel feel SO long. I asked myself several times what on earth could possibly happen before the end of the story (which had been spoiled for me years ago).
But for all that, I wish I had taken my time and read the story even more slowly (I took 37 days to read it and averaged about an hour per day). I think this is the sort of story that needs to be slowly dissected over months---perhaps even to be treated as if one were finding out about living acquaintances in real time. (It was originally published as a serial over several years, and that does seem to be the best way to read the novel.)
I must add that there are several historic elements that require one to either do some research or power through. Since many of Dostoevsky's themes resurfaced here, I decided to do the research, and it really enhanced my experience understanding the characters and the novel as a whole. This novel will be a lot more confusing and boring if you don't take the time to read up on some Russian sociopolitical issues from the time period.
I love that Tolstoy set out to portray an unfaithful wife from high society without condemning her. This novel really shows how mysogynist Russian society was in this time period, and it does an incredible job at highlighting double standards in a way that undeniably epathizes with Anna's situation. I would argue that Tolstoy doesn't want readers to fully condemn any characters, but instead to see how their experiences and values contribute to their actions in a way we can't entirely condemn, even if we disagree with them.
Levin was my favorite character. He's a sincere, loveable character who is alarmingly similar to an old friend of mine. And while I don't wholly agree with some of his dilemmas and reactions, I wanted nothing but the best for him, and I always enjoyed his sections of the story, even though they could be quite slow.
I'm still torn about the ending of the novel. I can see and agree with the feminist reading of the ending as a rather mysogynist condemnation of Anna for not fitting into the norms of society. That feels like a cruelly ironic ending, and that makes me wonder if readers are meant to be left feeling frustrated at the irony and injustice of how Anna is treated by equally guilty people. Another part of me wonders if the ending it meant to be less about gender and more about Tolstoy's opinions on how to find meaning in life. I can see how he might have been trying to defend Anna beyond the page, but I can also see how Tolstoy could've been limited by his experience as a man trying to write about women. It is bizarre to me that Anna is clearly not the main character of this story, and yet she is still the titular character. I definitely feel that I have much left to unlock in this novel on rereading it.
There's so much more to be said about this novel, but I don't really know what else to say. I liked how difficult it was to fully condemn or dislike the main characters. I loved seeing my own thoughts and psychology captured so well in bits and pieces here and there. I have massive respect for Tolstoy's writing. I enjoyed this novel a lot in some parts, but it was not life changing for me as of yet. I'll certainly be rereading it at some point and doing a deeper dive into some of the complexities.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Animal death
I just can't get into the Russian lit. I've tried. I really have. I just don't dig it.
dark
emotional
inspiring
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
There is a reason this is a classic. Tolstoy is an amazing writer with a way of describing the human experience with breath-taking accuracy. The idea that a Russian novel from the 1800s has characters that are so incredibly relatable speaks to the quality of his writing and his understanding of humanity.
The end contains the most profound description of the Christian faith that I have ever read. Truly beautiful.
The end contains the most profound description of the Christian faith that I have ever read. Truly beautiful.
emotional
funny
informative
reflective
sad
tense
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
I've wanted to read something written by Leo Tolstoy for a while now. At first, I was going to read, “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” which is a novella, (lovely and short) but I was at the library when I realized that I actively avoid reading books that seem too long, so to correct this bad habit, I went for “Anna Korenina,” instead. At 817 pages, the length of this book is no joke. I was afraid I’d be locked into something boring and too hard for me to understand, but guess what? All my worries were for nothing as this book was riveting.
Anna Karenina is like a Russian soap opera.
Judging from the plot of “Anna Karenina,” Tolstoy could have written for “Days of Our Lives.”
There are all these subplots within, “Anna Karenina,” and so many scandals.
I would say that there are a few difficult parts about reading this book.
One was the fact that all the characters had a minimum of three different names. These characters had so many names there’s a page in the book listing every character's name so you can follow things. I had to reference the character name page at least four times while reading the book too. As an example, there’s a character named Prince Stepan Arkadyich, who also gets called Oblonsky and then his friends also call him Stiva. That’s a lot of names for one guy. I don’t know why he wasn’t just called Stepan, either. He was always called Stepan Arkadyich. Sometimes he was just called "the prince." It must be some Russian thing to have a ton of names and titles and to switch them up constantly.
Another thing I found difficult about this book was when it went into the politics of Russia in the 1800s. I just don’t know anything about them, you know?
It was also kind of a challenge to read about a character named Levin’s philosophical musings on God. I found those parts of the book to be very boring.
Otherwise, this book is easy to read and so much fun.
The plot is mostly character driven. I really enjoyed Levin, although I do think he might have been bipolar. Kitty was sweet, and their romance was lovely.
I liked Karenin very much and considered him to have been totally screwed over by his wife, Anna. Just knowing he was bullied into marrying her in the first place, and then later, the same wife who he was forced to marry cheated on him and treated him like garbage was hard to take.
I felt bad for Vronsky. I think he was a fool to pursue Anna, but he was also pretty young and dumb.
I thought Anna was a real mess. I did a Google search to see if anyone hated her as much as I did, and I saw someone wrote a whole thesis paper arguing that she had borderline personality disorder. While it might have been the case that she had BPD, or possibly bipolar disorder (or maybe both) she was also addicted to morphine and I think that’s the real reason she acted so crazy in the end of the novel and it’s why she threw herself in front of the train, I’m sure of it.
I disliked Anna a great deal and when it came time for her suicide, I didn’t feel bad for her at all. I felt sorry for Vronsky and for her kids and her loved ones, but I really thought she was mostly just a jerk.
The only other two characters who I really took a strong interest in were Oblonsky and his poor long suffering wife Dolly. Oblonsky was just a cheater and a party guy who unfortunately got married and had a ton of children he couldn’t afford.
In the end, it was just extremely sad that it was so hard to get a divorce in Russia–that’s (mostly) what I got out of this book.
At any rate, though it might not be perfect, “Anna Karenina,” is a great book, and it’s well worth reading. I plan to read it again in the future.
Anna Karenina is like a Russian soap opera.
Judging from the plot of “Anna Karenina,” Tolstoy could have written for “Days of Our Lives.”
There are all these subplots within, “Anna Karenina,” and so many scandals.
I would say that there are a few difficult parts about reading this book.
One was the fact that all the characters had a minimum of three different names. These characters had so many names there’s a page in the book listing every character's name so you can follow things. I had to reference the character name page at least four times while reading the book too. As an example, there’s a character named Prince Stepan Arkadyich, who also gets called Oblonsky and then his friends also call him Stiva. That’s a lot of names for one guy. I don’t know why he wasn’t just called Stepan, either. He was always called Stepan Arkadyich. Sometimes he was just called "the prince." It must be some Russian thing to have a ton of names and titles and to switch them up constantly.
Another thing I found difficult about this book was when it went into the politics of Russia in the 1800s. I just don’t know anything about them, you know?
It was also kind of a challenge to read about a character named Levin’s philosophical musings on God. I found those parts of the book to be very boring.
Otherwise, this book is easy to read and so much fun.
The plot is mostly character driven. I really enjoyed Levin, although I do think he might have been bipolar. Kitty was sweet, and their romance was lovely.
I liked Karenin very much and considered him to have been totally screwed over by his wife, Anna. Just knowing he was bullied into marrying her in the first place, and then later, the same wife who he was forced to marry cheated on him and treated him like garbage was hard to take.
I felt bad for Vronsky. I think he was a fool to pursue Anna, but he was also pretty young and dumb.
I thought Anna was a real mess. I did a Google search to see if anyone hated her as much as I did, and I saw someone wrote a whole thesis paper arguing that she had borderline personality disorder. While it might have been the case that she had BPD, or possibly bipolar disorder (or maybe both) she was also addicted to morphine and I think that’s the real reason she acted so crazy in the end of the novel and it’s why she threw herself in front of the train, I’m sure of it.
I disliked Anna a great deal and when it came time for her suicide, I didn’t feel bad for her at all. I felt sorry for Vronsky and for her kids and her loved ones, but I really thought she was mostly just a jerk.
The only other two characters who I really took a strong interest in were Oblonsky and his poor long suffering wife Dolly. Oblonsky was just a cheater and a party guy who unfortunately got married and had a ton of children he couldn’t afford.
In the end, it was just extremely sad that it was so hard to get a divorce in Russia–that’s (mostly) what I got out of this book.
At any rate, though it might not be perfect, “Anna Karenina,” is a great book, and it’s well worth reading. I plan to read it again in the future.
emotional
tense
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
Overall, the book was a pleasure to read, even with many sections detailing farm life in Russia in the 1800s.
The main plot concerns Anna Karenina's affair and how it affects her life arc, as well as that of her husband, lover, family, and others in courtship. A subplot concerns the need or belief in God/Religion.
Tolstoy did a marvelous job of describing the characters' inner thoughts and actions when they were in conversation. It felt very real with these dialogs, along with the misunderstandings that were common. This captured the essence and complexities of having relationships. Looking back on the story, I think he slowly showed how people, even tired or bored with society, also need society for their sanity. It's like being shipped to a desert island alone if you are stripped of relations, which can make you mad.
The book could have used heavier editing to remove some farming details that did not add to the main plot. It was interesting, but more in a historical way, and should have been set alone.
The other plot line was Levin's thoughts on religion/god/science and how he was trying to see if he needed god or some higher being to live a good life. Even though he was not a "true" believer, he found himself in times of high anxiety and the need to call out to God for help, but later, he reflected that he really couldn't buy into the religious rituals.
The main plot concerns Anna Karenina's affair and how it affects her life arc, as well as that of her husband, lover, family, and others in courtship. A subplot concerns the need or belief in God/Religion.
Tolstoy did a marvelous job of describing the characters' inner thoughts and actions when they were in conversation. It felt very real with these dialogs, along with the misunderstandings that were common. This captured the essence and complexities of having relationships. Looking back on the story, I think he slowly showed how people, even tired or bored with society, also need society for their sanity. It's like being shipped to a desert island alone if you are stripped of relations, which can make you mad.
The book could have used heavier editing to remove some farming details that did not add to the main plot. It was interesting, but more in a historical way, and should have been set alone.
The other plot line was Levin's thoughts on religion/god/science and how he was trying to see if he needed god or some higher being to live a good life. Even though he was not a "true" believer, he found himself in times of high anxiety and the need to call out to God for help, but later, he reflected that he really couldn't buy into the religious rituals.