You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
reflective
sad
medium-paced
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this novel was waaay too long and random at times bc it was published serially like Dickens'. On the other, Tolstoy manages to pull off such a multi-layered portrayal of an entire society, its economy and its history without coming across as elitist. The plot is thin (it basically revolves around a love affair) but it's mostly just a vehicle for this deep exploration of Russian life at the turn of the century. The best way to analyze the novel in my opinion is given by literary theorist Kornelije Kvas, who sees Anna's story as that of the "unofficial institutions of the system, presented through social salons, function as part of the power apparatus that successfully calms the disorder created by Anna’s irrational emotional action, which is a symbol of resistance to the system of social behavioral control." I think Tolstoy's style lends itself more to something more epic in nature like "War & Peace" than something as intimate as a love affair between an aristocratic woman and a cavalry officer.
The only book I have ever thrown across the room after reading.
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
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 been meaning to read this book for a long time. I always found the length of it intimidating, not because I don’t like long books, but because a long, slow book can take so long to read that it becomes difficult to get into it. But once I got through the first fifty or so pages of Anna Karenina and adjusted to all the Russian names and the relationships between the characters, the book didn’t truly feel slow. I would say for the first six hundred pages or so, every scene and subplot felt necessary, and while the story started to wander off into digressions towards the end, by then I was so interested in Tolstoy’s thoughts on his characters and their world that I didn’t mind.
Probably like most people, I went into this book knowing only about Anna herself - the beautiful, aristocratic woman who becomes an adulteress and then… is it even a spoiler after more than a century?…jumps in front of a train. And obviously Anna and her relationships are important to the story. But Anna’s unhappy marriage and her passionate affair with the soldier Vronsky are only one part of the story, and set in the context of other relationships, happy and not, in a way that allows Tolstoy to explore an entire tapestry of life, gender relations, romance and the search for purpose. It is this later element that is really the point of the book - whether they find it in relationships, duty, work, politics or something else, all the characters in this story are searching for meaning in their lives in a world where the stability of class and religion have faltered. Tolstoy, a psychological and insightful writer, digs not only into what these characters want and believe, but why, and how their place in society can interfere with their happiness - whether it’s the pressure put on women to build their entire lives around their families and the limited options when that fails, or the failures of various politico-economic systems to really explain the interactions of humans in the real world. For all that he takes a moral stance, Tolstoy is sympathetic to all his characters - even those who come to unhappy ends because of their actions don’t feel like their being punished. The real central character is not Anna at all, but Levin, an intellectual, idiosyncratic farmer apparently based on Tolstoy himself, who struggles with his dissatisfaction with so many aspects of life yet remains an oddly hopeful character, always searching for fulfillment.
Probably like most people, I went into this book knowing only about Anna herself - the beautiful, aristocratic woman who becomes an adulteress and then… is it even a spoiler after more than a century?…
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
I didn’t actually enjoy this book, but I can see why it was popular for the times. It has political intrigue, social commentary, and emotional challenges that were simply not talked about at that time.
That being said, it was a snooooooooze fest. I’m glad I’m done with it and can finally move on.
That being said, it was a snooooooooze fest. I’m glad I’m done with it and can finally move on.
challenging
emotional
reflective
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
Read for Popsugar: A book that's more than 800 pages
I found this a lot more readable than I thought it would be. It really helped that the chapters were short, though the sheer amount of them was overwhelming at times. I think I read through the beginning faster, then it started dragging for me a bit.
I've heard about this book obviously, but didn't realize so much of it would be about not just Anna, but also the other couples, as well as the religion, politics, and agriculture of the time. I didn't find all of it so gripping, but the human stories at the heart of it were fascinating.
I read Constance Garnett's translation (because public domain), and I can see how maybe a different translation might have been better, but I don't think I have it in me to read it again.
I found this a lot more readable than I thought it would be. It really helped that the chapters were short, though the sheer amount of them was overwhelming at times. I think I read through the beginning faster, then it started dragging for me a bit.
I've heard about this book obviously, but didn't realize so much of it would be about not just Anna, but also the other couples, as well as the religion, politics, and agriculture of the time. I didn't find all of it so gripping, but the human stories at the heart of it were fascinating.
I read Constance Garnett's translation (because public domain), and I can see how maybe a different translation might have been better, but I don't think I have it in me to read it again.
One of three novels read for a literature seminar class at SMCM that I came to think of as:
"The Bridges of Madison County but in the 19th century ... and as legitimate literature. And as proto-feminism."
I recall that my impression of this book was: "Well... It was better than [b: Madame Bovary|2175|Madame Bovary|Gustave Flaubert|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1606770119l/2175._SY75_.jpg|2766347], so I didn't hate it. Also: Russians are awesome."
I took my time with this one, trying to give it a good, solid, "close" read. It's certainly an exemplar of the craft of Russian literature and it was not without its enjoyable moments. At the end of the day (semester?) however, I could not deny to myself that this is not a book that I necessarily would have read on my own time.
"The Bridges of Madison County but in the 19th century ... and as legitimate literature. And as proto-feminism."
I recall that my impression of this book was: "Well... It was better than [b: Madame Bovary|2175|Madame Bovary|Gustave Flaubert|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1606770119l/2175._SY75_.jpg|2766347], so I didn't hate it. Also: Russians are awesome."
I took my time with this one, trying to give it a good, solid, "close" read. It's certainly an exemplar of the craft of Russian literature and it was not without its enjoyable moments. At the end of the day (semester?) however, I could not deny to myself that this is not a book that I necessarily would have read on my own time.
“But the law of loving others could not be discovered by reason, because it is unreasonable.”