Scan barcode
A review by sidharthvardhan
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
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.