You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
Obviously not much I can say about Karenina that hasn’t already been said by better minds.
But I will say this is an absolute masterclass in character. Almost never have I read such dense, considered characters. Each of them so well-reasoned and understandable. Tolstoy really fluidly lends himself to their perspective too, speaking through them as muses, where you can’t totally tell where he’ll sign his name on one side or the other until the end.
It is a novel about the only thing there really is — the search for life’s purpose. I think the reality of the human struggle in best represented here in Levin’s time on the farm in the third section. He subjects himself to the Sisyphean labor of tending the land and then, when he gets good enough at that, decides to take on the more impossible task of reworking the entire Russian economic and farming system. His journey for meaning and fulfillment in his life (eventually found in Christian moralism and faith — so with that what you will) is where I think Tolstoy more directly represents our visceral struggle. Laboring by necessity, without reason or purpose until we find it. But, even then it’s not done. As Levin finds with Nikolai, even after discovering what he finds to be a fulfilling life and purpose, it all feels for naught with the unavoidable end of death. And then we start from scratch.
Anna’s relationship with Vronsky as foil to Levin’s with Kitty asks the same questions through a different lens: love. Do we have a say in our love? Which loves are worth pursuing for the self and, more abstractly, for all?
Anna’s relationships are the poles. With Karenin, it’s purely economical and a business relationship in the social economy more than a romantic one. With Vronsky, it’s all passion and — at its worst — selfishness. Neither of them totally honest or considered. Anna, like her brother Stiva, end up being parables of what happens when our desires go unchecked, no matter what they’re inspired by.
Levin, in the end, is an endorsement of rigid morals and discipline. Limiting yourself to what you know — or trust — is most right. When he fears Kitty is attracted to Veslovsky they stay up till 3 am to hash it out. When she fears Levin is attracted to Anna, they once again work through it. It’s an honest portrait of a working relationship that’s less glamorous than the passion of Anna and Vronsky but more stable and — of course — more acceptable. An admission that everyone feels what Stiva and Anna feel at times but some of us are strong enough to take just one loaf of bread.
Here’s the problem I think I have, at least in its messaging. In the first half of the novel, Anna’s judge is not god or something unknowable, it’s society itself. Her great worry is public opinion and her triumph in the second part is eschewing that in pursuit of passion. Anna is undoubtably sympathetic and — along with the recurring considerations of changes coming to Russian society and government — we’re led to rightfully condemn the influence of tradition and societal standard on human passion and behavior.
In the end though, Tolstoy makes it clear — with Anna’s death and Stiva’s ruining — that things are better with these pressures in place. But his justification is a religious one. One that opens more questions, questions that Levin touches on, but ultimately puts to rest in favor of earnest faith.
And while I don’t disagree that Anna and Stiva’s passions and sometimes selfishness were rampant and foolhardy, I don’t think the justification totally gives them enough credit for being simply human in a way that itself is brave (more so Anna than Stiva here).
While I may have questions and problems with the total religious justification in the end, Tolstoy still touches on the human relation to the sublime and our eternal struggle for purpose and fulfillment:
"He knew and felt only that what was transpiring was similar to that which had transpired a year before in the provincial town hotel at his brother Nikolai’s deathbed. But that had been grief — and this was joy. Still, both that grief and this joy were identically outside all life’s ordinary conditions; they were like an opening in that ordinary life through which something sublime appeared. What was transpiring had come about with identical difficulty and agony; and with identical incomprehensibility, the soul, when it did contemplate this sublime something, rose to a height as it had never risen before, where reason could not keep up." (649, Schwartz translation)
But I will say this is an absolute masterclass in character. Almost never have I read such dense, considered characters. Each of them so well-reasoned and understandable. Tolstoy really fluidly lends himself to their perspective too, speaking through them as muses, where you can’t totally tell where he’ll sign his name on one side or the other until the end.
It is a novel about the only thing there really is — the search for life’s purpose. I think the reality of the human struggle in best represented here in Levin’s time on the farm in the third section. He subjects himself to the Sisyphean labor of tending the land and then, when he gets good enough at that, decides to take on the more impossible task of reworking the entire Russian economic and farming system. His journey for meaning and fulfillment in his life (eventually found in Christian moralism and faith — so with that what you will) is where I think Tolstoy more directly represents our visceral struggle. Laboring by necessity, without reason or purpose until we find it. But, even then it’s not done. As Levin finds with Nikolai, even after discovering what he finds to be a fulfilling life and purpose, it all feels for naught with the unavoidable end of death. And then we start from scratch.
Anna’s relationship with Vronsky as foil to Levin’s with Kitty asks the same questions through a different lens: love. Do we have a say in our love? Which loves are worth pursuing for the self and, more abstractly, for all?
Anna’s relationships are the poles. With Karenin, it’s purely economical and a business relationship in the social economy more than a romantic one. With Vronsky, it’s all passion and — at its worst — selfishness. Neither of them totally honest or considered. Anna, like her brother Stiva, end up being parables of what happens when our desires go unchecked, no matter what they’re inspired by.
Levin, in the end, is an endorsement of rigid morals and discipline. Limiting yourself to what you know — or trust — is most right. When he fears Kitty is attracted to Veslovsky they stay up till 3 am to hash it out. When she fears Levin is attracted to Anna, they once again work through it. It’s an honest portrait of a working relationship that’s less glamorous than the passion of Anna and Vronsky but more stable and — of course — more acceptable. An admission that everyone feels what Stiva and Anna feel at times but some of us are strong enough to take just one loaf of bread.
Here’s the problem I think I have, at least in its messaging. In the first half of the novel, Anna’s judge is not god or something unknowable, it’s society itself. Her great worry is public opinion and her triumph in the second part is eschewing that in pursuit of passion. Anna is undoubtably sympathetic and — along with the recurring considerations of changes coming to Russian society and government — we’re led to rightfully condemn the influence of tradition and societal standard on human passion and behavior.
In the end though, Tolstoy makes it clear — with Anna’s death and Stiva’s ruining — that things are better with these pressures in place. But his justification is a religious one. One that opens more questions, questions that Levin touches on, but ultimately puts to rest in favor of earnest faith.
And while I don’t disagree that Anna and Stiva’s passions and sometimes selfishness were rampant and foolhardy, I don’t think the justification totally gives them enough credit for being simply human in a way that itself is brave (more so Anna than Stiva here).
While I may have questions and problems with the total religious justification in the end, Tolstoy still touches on the human relation to the sublime and our eternal struggle for purpose and fulfillment:
"He knew and felt only that what was transpiring was similar to that which had transpired a year before in the provincial town hotel at his brother Nikolai’s deathbed. But that had been grief — and this was joy. Still, both that grief and this joy were identically outside all life’s ordinary conditions; they were like an opening in that ordinary life through which something sublime appeared. What was transpiring had come about with identical difficulty and agony; and with identical incomprehensibility, the soul, when it did contemplate this sublime something, rose to a height as it had never risen before, where reason could not keep up." (649, Schwartz translation)
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Expertly written story with many interesting subplots, but it was long and the pace often dragged. Despite being quite good I found this book hard to finish.
why is this book nearly 1000 pages long
what is the point
what is the point
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
#BannedBooksWeek
The status this novel enjoys as a master work--Nabokov calls it "immortal"--is thanks to Tolstoy's incomparable ability to observe and describe. From deep inside to the skies above, a great writer inhabits the very souls of his or her characters and the milieu in which they move. This is the achievement of "Anna Karenina", and the unobtainable mark of lesser writers.
Vivid. Tolstoy maintains the lives of his characters in ways that draw the reader in, make understood her feelings or his motivations with an omniscience which always cuts to the chase. The author feeds into the portrayal of Lyovin much of his own self, and this novel could have been entitled "Konstantin Lyovin", as his relationship with Kitty begins, ends, and provides the core of the story, against which Anna's and Vronski's story stands in contrast.
Such a profound and moving story must have a moral, n'est-ce pas? If so, is it too pat and plain to say that we should seek for goodness? The reader must decide.
What drives Anna to her fate?
Do Lyovin's soul settlements satisfy?
A great novel demands our own conclusions. -Allan M.
The status this novel enjoys as a master work--Nabokov calls it "immortal"--is thanks to Tolstoy's incomparable ability to observe and describe. From deep inside to the skies above, a great writer inhabits the very souls of his or her characters and the milieu in which they move. This is the achievement of "Anna Karenina", and the unobtainable mark of lesser writers.
Vivid. Tolstoy maintains the lives of his characters in ways that draw the reader in, make understood her feelings or his motivations with an omniscience which always cuts to the chase. The author feeds into the portrayal of Lyovin much of his own self, and this novel could have been entitled "Konstantin Lyovin", as his relationship with Kitty begins, ends, and provides the core of the story, against which Anna's and Vronski's story stands in contrast.
Such a profound and moving story must have a moral, n'est-ce pas? If so, is it too pat and plain to say that we should seek for goodness? The reader must decide.
What drives Anna to her fate?
Do Lyovin's soul settlements satisfy?
A great novel demands our own conclusions. -Allan M.
This book should've been called Levin really because his storyline was exquisite. I took my sweet time reading this and every night I would be so happy to go meet those characters again. This character has everything a novel could possibly have. Definitely a new favorite.
As a work of lasting historical and cultural significance I'd give it 4.5 stars.
In terms of readability, I say 5 stars especially considering it was published 144 years ago.
My enjoyment of reading it ... 1 star. But I did finish it. With my newfound knowledge of the Russian peasantry, I feel ridiculously #blessed that I was not born a Russian peasant.
In terms of readability, I say 5 stars especially considering it was published 144 years ago.
My enjoyment of reading it ... 1 star. But I did finish it. With my newfound knowledge of the Russian peasantry, I feel ridiculously #blessed that I was not born a Russian peasant.
Long + translation different to audio book so could not join the two to help.
emotional
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
Content Warnings
Graphic: Infidelity, Suicidal thoughts, Classism
Moderate: Emotional abuse, Suicide
Minor: Pregnancy