o kadar uzun zamandır bekliyordum ki goodreads'in durum güncelleme bölümünde "I'm finished!" linkine tıklamayı... okumaya başlayalı bir ay geçmiş. normalde bir kitap elimde kabaca şöyle bir üç haftadan uzun kaldığı zaman sinirlenmeye ve kitaptan soğumaya başlarım. gelin görün ki anna karenina bir ömür ruhumda benimle yaşayacak kitaplardan biri oldu. uzun uzun okumuş olmaktan asla mutsuz olmadım; bilakis, bilerek acele etmedim. evet, kitabı beklediğimden uzun sürede okuyor olmak beni bir miktar utandırdı, fakat kitapla yaşadığım macera açısından baktığımda her şey olması gerektiği gibi oldu diye düşünmeden edemiyorum. bir okur olarak benim kitabı değil, kitabın beni yönettiği bir okuma süreci oldu diyebilirim.

en sevdiğim yazarlardan Orhan Pamuk, şöyle demiş anna karenina ile ilgili:

“Okuduğum en mükemmel, en kusursuz, en derin ve en zengin roman. Tolstoy’un her şeyi gören, herkesin hakkını veren, hiçbir ışığı, hareketi, ruhsal dalgalanmayı, şüpheyi, gölgeyi kaçırmayan, inanılmayacak kadar dikkatli, açık, kesin ve zekice bakışı, bu romanın sayfalarını çevirdikçe okura, ‘evet, hayat böyle bir şey!’ dedirten kitap. Yarıştan önceki bir atın diriliğini, mutsuz bir bürokratın yavaş yavaş düştüğü yalnızlığı, bir kadın kahramanının üst dudağını, bir büyük ailedeki dalgalanmaları, hep birlikte yaşanan hayatlar içinde tek tek insanların inanılmaz ve hayattan da gerçek kişisel özelliklerini Tolstoy mucizeye varan bir edebi yetenek, hoşgörü ve sanatla önümüze seriverir. Roman sanatı konusunda eğitim için okunacak, defalarca okunacak ilk roman Anna Karenina’dır.”

çok iyi bir okur olduğumu, çok okuduğumu iddia edemem. ama şimdiye kadar okuduğum kitaplar, hatta daha da daraltayım; klasikler arasında anna karenina kadar kaliteli bir dizi gibi, tane tane, adım adım ilerleyen; her karaktere ayrı bir özen gösteren, bu karakterlerin gelişimiyle ayrı, başlarına gelenlerle ayrı ilgilenen kitap okumadım desem, abartmış olmam herhalde. dolayısıyla, kitabın başlarındaki sahne geçişleri bana -belki de çok saçma bir şekilde- Masumiyet Müzesi'ni çağrıştırıp kitabın ortalarına geldiğimde artık bu çağrışım bende kaşıntı yapıp dayanamayarak, acaba orhan pamuk'un anna karenina konusunda söylediği bir şeyler var mı diye araştırdığımda yukarıda yer verdiğim alıntıya denk gelip; bürokrattan ata, bir kadının üst dudağından bir aile tarihine geçişlerle ilgili kısmı okuduğumda yaşadığım heyecanı az buçuk tahmin edebilirsiniz.

çok heyecan verici, çok güzel bir haber almışım; doyasıya sevinmişim ve artık sadece dingin bir mutluluk yaşıyormuşum gibi dolu dolu bir hisle bıraktı bu kitap beni. ne kadar övsem az.

What turned out to be the most interesting to me as I devoured this lush book was Tolstoy's amazing ability to show how we change our minds, or how our minds just do change -- how enamored we become of a person, a place, a whole population, an idea, an ideal -- and then how that great love, which seemed so utterly meaningful and complete, sours or evaporates just days, hours, or even minutes later -- in short, how truly fickle we are. And at the same time, each of the characters was in some way stable -- they had their particular drives, their needs, their anxieties, which gave their changing passions some kind of coherence and thus gave themselves their "selves."

Tolstoy's ability to capture the tiny thoughts that the characters themselves were perhaps unaware of -- preconscious material consisting largely of rationalizations and fears, but also sometimes of genuine compassion -- and to present these thoughts with precision, subtle irony, and tenderness -- was a great delight. (He deals in this preconscious material rather than in unconscious material -- there is nothing symbolic or metaphorical in his writing -- he writes quite naturally of "things as they are." My partner and I enjoyed contrasting him with Kafka.)

I also am very glad that I read an unabridged version. Some of my favorite parts of the book didn't involve the title character -- I loved the mowing and hunting sections -- these were the parts where true joy (and meaning, as Levin finds) were found. And I think these are the parts not included in abridged versions.

تعاطفت مع البطلة كثيرا و ان لم اعذرها. تولستوى مبدع فى تشريح نفسية شخصياته و اظهار تناقضاتها

جميع العائلات السعيدة متشابهة. لكن العائلات غير السعيدة تختلف في أسباب بؤسها.

هكذا بدأت الرواية

استلهم تولستوى قصتها من حادثة عاشها قبل سنوات لدى وصوله إلى إحدى محطات القطار مباشرة بعد انتحار شابة كانت عشيقة أحد الإقطاعيين في الجوار. وذلك برمي نفسها أمام القطار. وكانت تلك الحادثة ومصير الفتاة التي أثرت فيه لزمن طويل. تتبلور في فكره على مدى السنوات

يقولون إن النساء يحببن فى الرجال حتى رذائلهم.. وأنا أكره فيه فضائله!. لا أستطيع أن أعيش معه! لكن ماذا أفعل .. لقد كنت شقية.. وكنت أعتقد أن الإنسان لا يمكن أن يكون أكثر شقاء مما كنت. لكن الحالة الفظيعة التى أجتازها الآن تفوق كل ما تصورت. أتصدق إني أكرهه برغم علمي بأنه رجل طيب ! بل رجل رائع! وإني لا أساوي أصبعاً من أصابعه؟.. إنى أكرهه بسبب كرمه....

عن أمراض المجتمع الإقطاعى يتحدث تولستوى ليصدم المجتمع الغربى كله في مبادئه و يضع أمامه ماديته في صورة لا يمكن إلا بغضها و التقزز منها بل و التبرؤ من واقع يعيشونه يوميا و لذلك جعلك تتعاطف مع بطلة القصة التي كانت ضحية نفسها و جمالها قبل أن تكون ضحية المجتمع و قيمه

في اللحظة التى إلتفت إليها. إستراحت على وجهه عيناها الغبراوان. اللتان زادتها سواداً كثافة أهدابهما. وإبتسامة خفيفة ترف على شفتيها الحمراوين. إن طبيعتها تطفح بشئ يظهر –برغم إرادتها – فى بريق عينيها وفي إبتسامتها...

رغم كل ما كانت فيه آنا من النعيم و ما يقطع بلا شك أنها تعيش سعيدة حيث الزوج الرائع ذو النفوذ و الذرية الصالحة و العيش الرغيد و الجمال الفتان إلا أنها كانت تعيسة و بائسة و في الوقت نفسه كانت صادقة مع نفسها و زوجها بل و حتى مع العشيق

الجميل أنها تسعى للخلاص بأن تحمل وزرها و تتحمل نتيجة خطيئتها أمام نفسها قبل أن تتحملها أمام المجتمع.

Not since I read The Brothers Karamazov have I felt as directly involved in characters' worlds and minds. Fascinating.
I was hooked on Anna Karenina from the opening section when I realized that Tolstoy was brilliantly portraying characters' thoughts and motivations in all of their contradictory, complex truth. However, Tolstoy's skill is not just in characterization--though he is the master of that art. His prose invokes such passion. There were parts of the book that took my breath because I realized that what I was reading was pure feeling: when we realize that Anna is no longer pushing Vronsky away, when Levin proposes to Kitty, and later when Levin thinks about death. The book effectively threw a shroud over me and sucked me in--I almost missed my train stop a couple of times.
That being said, there were some parts that were difficult to get through. I felt myself slowing down in Part VI. I was back in through the remainder of the book once I hit Part VII, but I understand how the deep dive into politics and farming can be off-putting. Still, in those chapters Tolstoy's characters are interacting, and it's incredible to see them speak and respond to one another. It's not only worth the trouble, but deep down, it's no trouble at all. It's to be savored, and sometimes we must be forced to slow down and think about the characters' daily life as they navigate around in their relationships.
A word about this translation. When I was in college I attempted to read the Constance Garnett translation. I didn't stop because it was awful (I think finals came up, then the holidays, then more classes, etc.). However, I never really felt like the words were as powerful as they should have been. Years later, the only image that stuck in my mind was of Levin meeting Kitty at the ice skating rink. I just never really entered the world of Anna Karenina, perhaps my fault more than anything. However, the diction and sentence construction in Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation is poetic and justifies the title "masterpiece." Through this translation I grew to appreciate Tolstoy not just because he told good, philosophical stories, but because he could do so with utmost subtletly and compactness--yes, I think Tolstoy is concise. Each word has its place.
Understandably, many are unwilling to give themselves to this book. Many expect it to do all of the work. But it's an even better read because if the reader works, the experience of reading this book is incredible.

Amor, Felicidade, Paixão


A Felicidade é um estado de Amor permanente.
Ama-se o sol, o mar, o céu, as nuvens, as árvores, as flores, o canto dos pássaros...
Ama-se, Ama-se, Ama-se!... Simplesmente Ama-se!
Contudo, não é por geração espontânea que esse estado de amor iluminado acontece.
É sim, um processo gradual.
E é aí que o Amor pelo Outro entra em cena!
Quando se ama desmedidamente alguém, esse amor transborda — extravasa tocando tudo à nossa volta. Transita por osmose para o Todo que nos rodeia.
Sorrimos! Celebramos! Flutuamos!...
Dir-se-ia que tudo à nossa volta mudou, quando, afinal, quem mudou fomos nós! Sentimo-nos Exuberantes! Eufóricos! Alcançámos o Maior Bem — a Felicidade!

Porém, quem — como Karenina e Vronsky — enveredar pelo caminho da pura atracção, da paixão, perde-se sem nunca lá chegar!
Mas aqueles que — como Kitty e Levin — optarem pelo caminho do conhecimento mútuo, da compreensão, do respeito... esses sim, têm fortes probabilidades de a alcançar!

Paixão é Fogo que se extingue!
Amor é Semente que cresce!
Paixão é Ansiedade Inquietante!
Amor é Paz Radiante!
Paixão é sempre a descer!
Amor é sempre a subir!...


NOTA: Não posso deixar de louvar aqui, a brilhante tradução do casal Guerra, que foi elaborada directamente a partir do russo, conferindo uma maior autenticidade à obra.

I finished this last night, but didn't write a review then because I needed some time to think over the entire book and decide exactly what I wanted to say about it.

I'm going to start with a quick plot summary, because before I read this I didn't really know what Anna Karenina was actually about. So, in brief: Oblonsky has cheated on his wife Dolly but he convinces his sister Anna to talk to her and they don't get divorced; meanwhile Oblonsky's friend Levin is in love with Dolly's sister Kitty but she wants to marry Vronsky who is in love with Anna who is already married to Karenin but goes ahead and has an affair with Vronsky anyway so he rejects Kitty but it's okay because she marries Levin anyway and Levin has these two brothers and one is a drug addict and the other is a stuffy author and they don't do much but they're around a lot and then Anna leaves her husband but he won't give her a divorce and won't let her keep their son so she's very depressed about that and Dolly is the only one who will talk to her even though Oblonsky also works hard to convince Karenin to divorce Anna.

Everyone got that? It really could not be simpler.

Okay, on to the review part: I'm giving this book three stars because it seemed like the fairest rating, considering that some parts of this book deserved a five-star rating and some parts deserved one star. Everything with Anna and Vronsky was really interesting and amazing - I loved Anna so much, and I really wanted to be friends with her. She was lovely. Unfortunately, she and her lovah had to compete with Kitty and Levin, the other important couple of the story. And good god are they boring. Levin owns a farm, which means we get chapters upon chapters of nothing but him babbling on about farming techniques and how nobody does the job right and what he wants to do to improve his farm.
Also, the book should have ended right after Anna killed herself, or at least ended by talking about how Vronsky was dealing with it. But that doesn't happen. In the last thirty-some pages of the book, Anna throws herself under a train, and for the rest of the book we get a little mention of how Vronsky has volunteered to fight in some war, but the rest of it is all about Levin and his farm and local politics and his spiritual crisis and OH MY GOD I DON'T CARE. Once I had read two chapters about Levin after Anna's death, I flipped through the rest of the book, saw that he was the sole focus of the rest of the story, and almost stopped reading. I could have, too, and I wouldn't have missed anything important.

So, I have this ongoing etiquette problem. Though sometimes I think it is a matter of respect. Or maybe social awkwardness. I’d consult my Emily Post on the issue, but it’s a unique bookworm sort of problem. I don’t think Ms. Post got that deeply into the protocol of neurotic bibliophiles.

Anyway, the question is.. why do I unconsciously call an author by their first name sometimes? In some respects, I’ve had this conversation before in the context of gender. That is, are discussants more likely to assume a first name basis when conversing about women authors rather than male authors? If so, does this mean a sign of disrespect? What about when this happens as a discussion among women? Is this more or less problematic? It also, obviously, happens sometimes with two authors by the same name, or with an author that someone happens to know personally.

But my question doesn't just have to do with this situation. I'm more interested as to why readers feel the impulse to do this to start with. The answer I've come up with is maybe an obvious one, but its worth stating: the emotional bond that a good book can seem to create in a reader’s mind with that author. This emotional bond can resemble love or hatred, respect, anger or sadness or can even simply result from spending some time with a comedian who has told enough, “you know how when,” jokes that you recognize. But on some level you feel you understand where they’re coming from. But its hard to pinpoint when that happens. Usually, for me, I only see it when I write my review. Usually I self-consciously delete it later once I realize it. As if I think that I’m like someone who met a movie star in a fast food restaurant and then decided to gush to everyone about how we were destined to be BFFs because it turned out that we had ordered the same kind of fries. But it is always revealing of how much the novel got to me. Virginia Woolf is the ultimate example of this for me. My experience with Mrs. Dalloway was like breaking through a wall into a party I’d always been invited to with close friends. I had the same experience with Austen and the Brontes and Graham Greene and a few others.

I wasn’t expecting to add another to this collection with Tolstoy. I've read this before, but that time my impression of Tolstoy as an intimidating, distant Big Russian Author intact. This read was different. I believe that the translation work of Paevar and Volokhonsky deserves credit for that. My first read was with the Garnette translation. However, as the NYRB notes, Garnett morphed Tolstoy’s words into “graceful late-Victorian prose,” as she did to every other Russian author she translated. And unfortunately, it turns out that graceful late-Victorian prose reads rather… well.. like it sounds like it might. Intelligently done, but often intimidating and cold. Thus, despite the fact that her work may have made Tolstoy’s work “accessible” to a Victorian audience, her work did a disservice to Tolstoy for me. Because that Victorian sensibility… that’s not Tolstoy. At least, it is not the Tolstoy that Paevar and Volokhonsky showed me. I’m glad that I gave this book a second chance, because this time Tolstoy became Leo a couple times. If my self-consciousness reasserted itself immediately and he became Tolstoy again, that’s okay. I remember those Leo moments.

There are many things I loved about this novel. I think what got me most, however, is something that’s based in the process of its creation. As I understand it, writing this novel was a great struggle for Tolstoy. Originally, he meant this to be a straightforward morality tale. Anna was meant to be an ugly, vulgar old adulteress who represented Evil Womankind, and Karenin a model of sainted Christianity. But the longer the writing went on, the more this black and white purpose acquired shades of grey. Anna became beautiful, then sympathetic at the beginning, and then in the middle, and then all the way into the end. Karenin became clueless, hypocritical, desperate, and even “unmanly”. Vronsky no longer twisted his mustache, but became a man with a code who wanted very much to be allowed to keep that code and live a life. The morals became increasingly tangled until his original purpose became almost-yes, we’ll get there- unrecognizable. He found his way from rigid morality to what makes a tragedy a tragedy.

Tolstoy just can’t bring himself to judge these people. There are moments where he shows that he could have gone full on Oscar Wilde if he wanted to, but he takes it back. For every cutting remark, there’s an apologetic attempt to reach out and embrace everyone a few paragraphs later. There’s a wonderful quality of generosity that runs through the whole novel. Judge not, lest ye be judged. It seems to have slowly eaten away at original purpose until there wasn’t anyone I could bring myself to blame. Some of them I sympathized with from the beginning-Anna, Dolly, Levin- and some snuck up on me-Karenin, Kitty- and some-Vronsky, Oblonsky- took me awhile, but I got there. The book is set up as a dance where these seven people come together, go through the motions and then change partners again. How they come together, why, and what the two partners want from each other in that moment reveals everything about these two characters. As our two anchors who represent the two choices that you can come to resolve the existential crises of life, Levin and Anna get to meet everyone and everyone gets to reflect them back to themselves. Other characters experience them and make their own choices by evaluating their experience. Their resolutions represent the spectrum of other choices that you can make in between Ecstasy (starts as Anna, moves to Levin) and Death (which moves from Levin to Anna). The dance climaxes when Levin and Anna meet and the author finally allows himself to face the powerful woman he’s created and see what he thinks of her. What happens in the scene is beautiful and makes a lot of sense. I hated what he did it to it afterwards, which read like someone desperately afraid that they had revealed too much (we’ll get there), but it doesn’t negate what happens when we see that opposites are more alike than we’d like to think. Like that circle you always see done with fascism and communism-in-reality where despite whatever they may say, they are not the opposites that they claim.

You’ll notice that seven is an odd number. Someone is always going to be left on the outside, or being the third wheel to one of the pairs. Everyone has a turn with this. Anna starts it, then Levin continues it, then Kitty, then Karenin and full circle until we come back to Anna standing by herself once again. Through the odd man out, we get an exploration of how loneliness, rejection, and mistaken choices to reject others affect these characters. The two choices seem to be either that it will transform them, or that it will gradually harden the worst parts about them until they become an unbreakable diamond. Kitty’s time in Europe is perhaps the most through exploration of this phenomenon. Tolstoy allows her to break and reform and then reform again until she’s able to give herself permission to be herself again. Not everyone is lucky enough to have the space and time to do that. Levin gets to do it eventually. I’d even argue that Vronsky almost gets to that point time and time again. Anna is the diamond. Karenin shatters to pieces and then rebuilds himself into one again. Surprisingly, in the end, Karenin was the one who broke my heart.

He shows these peoples' attempts at understanding each other and failing again and again. It's revealing that he has this tendency have these characters look at each other just “seem to express” deep, extensive feelings with their eyes or with mundane trivialities. Characters frequently make assumptions that other people are mind-readers or that they are, and some even go so far as to tell them so. “I can tell that you think that I…” or “Her eyes told me that…” etc. It seems like he can’t think of a way that these people can be honest with each other and just say these things that they are dying to convey to each other, so they have to make all these assumptions. The ones who can communicate with each other are the ones who drive the novel- Anna, Levin, Kitty. Our author stand-in, Levin, is the most socially anxious being. He frequently doubts every word that comes out of his mouth, blushes and embarrasses himself with his boyish pride, and puts his foot in his mouth on about a million occasions. Anna and Karenin’s inability to speak to each other just the few words that would have stopped this whole thing on about chapter ten is a more serious version of this. Levin’s older brother and his almost love affair with Kitty’s friend and one wrong word spoken that changed their lives is a lightly amusing version. But all these little moments add up to a more thorough condemnation of social conventions than anybody throwing themselves under a train at the end could possibly have managed. Only Connect in eight hundred pages at full volume. Only a few people manage it, and usually not for long. He shows us why succeeding is a gift, not something that we can take for granted.

And as for the writing… Tolstoy gets away with so much that other authors can't. He tells rather than shows for at least half the novel, and that is a conservative estimate. He repeats himself constantly. He chooses isolated moments and lets them go on for fifty pages longer than anyone on earth needs. Levin and Kitty’s wedding ceremony takes six chapters in my version. A two day hunting trip takes twice that. Ultimately, his writing isn’t that quotable out of context, except for that famous bit about happy families. Why? I can’t tell you. But Woolf can:
"For it has come about, by the wise economy of our nature, that our modern spirit can almost dispense with language; the commonest expressions do, since no expressions do; the most ordinary conversation is often the most poetic... For which reasons we leave a great blank here, which must be taken to indicate that the space is filled to repletion.”

The commonest expressions thrown together in the right order and with the right kind of passion. That’s Tolstoy all over.

But I know we’re going to have to talk about that end. That is, what he does to Anna because he could not himself decide what he wanted her to be, and really what he wanted himself to be. Even his generosity failed him here. He chose to take Anna’s rebellion against her circumstances and grind it down until it became the scratchings of a selfish, spiteful cat. He went gloriously, full-tilt into a wall wrong, but it was wrong. It seemed like his original stern morality got the best of him. At first, I wanted to think that it was just a plot mechanics decision in the sense that Anna was the big outlier in the story and social structure, and the way he had written the people around her there was no way for anyone to move forward unless she herself changed. Whatever Anna’s story was about, it was not about how love conquers all because Tolstoy doesn’t believe that. That couldn’t be the end. She couldn’t go back to Karenin, because that would have been an even bigger betrayal. But in the end, I think that I'm wrong and it was just him feeling like he had to condemn her for her sins in the end. He couldn't let it be about what he said it was the whole novel because that was too dangerous.

And it wasn’t just Anna’s ending that I had an issue with. Levin’s, too. There are things to love about it, but it also  felt like the kind of resolution that you write when you’ve got someone very powerful standing over your shoulder, tapping his steel toed boot on the floor. Levin had some powerful questions about how you go on through the muck and be happy when you know there’s so much evil around you. About how to rationally believe in God as a man of science. Tolstoy shows us that his domestic happiness isn’t enough to negate these questions. And then suddenly, it is, because it’s the end of the novel and he can’t just leave his audience with anything less than God is Good. Lastly, I really did not like what he did with that scene where Anna and Levin meet and  find each other sympathetic. It makes sense that they would. Why must Anna become the witch who ensorcelled him in order to keep pure Levin’s hands clean? It’s insultingly dishonest in a book that otherwise makes a point of truth telling. I know why, actually. It’s about the two things that came above. But I'm still not a fan..

But still. I can mostly forgive Tolstoy for what he did to Anna and Levin and their complex struggles because of one thing: his joy. Even when his generosity of spirit uncharacteristically fails him with Anna, or when powerful intellect goes off the rails toward crazytown with Levin and his peasant-worship, he has this great ability to celebrate things great and small. This is most evident in the Levin sections where we get long odes to the harvest and to his love for Kitty. He gets perhaps the most genuinely sweet proposal scene I’ve ever read, and his depiction of sheer ecstasy after his success left me smiling for hours. And really, despite the all that earnest, existential angst and all the terror of death, the ultimate conclusion that I think Tolstoy wants me to walk away with from that last Levin chapter is Life. Even with the problems with it I mentioned above, its such a relief to see Levin finally just let himself rest that its difficult to hate it completely. And Levin isn’t the only one who gets to experience the joy. Kitty gets to be wrapped up on it. Oblonsky walks around with an apparently unshakeable foundation of it. Vronsky and Anna even get pieces of it sometimes, in their love for each other, in Vronsky’s love of horses and Anna’s for her children. One of Karenin’s problems is that he never sees the value in joy. Tolstoy complements this with a sly sense of humor that sneaks into the prose in between the other seven hundred and fifty pages of Seriously Considering the World. He’s got some great bits about his own misconceptions about marriage and the absurd things jealousy leads us to do. He pokes fun at men showing off their manliness to each other. He has some fun with mysticism, laughs about the ridiculousness of politics. He makes me laugh with the extremes to which he carries his insistence that we think about the feelings of everybody. Including the dog. Twice. I mean, could you be so insensitive as to forget how it inconveniences the dog when you’re disorganized getting out the door in the morning? You monsters!

In the end, it’s just all out there, you know? Awhile ago, I saw Jon Stewart give a speech in tribute to Springsteen. I forget the occasion, but I’ve always remembered one part of what he said, which is that Springsteen is great because whenever he is on stage, he doesn’t hold back. You know that when he walks out he’s going to be going all out, one hundred percent of the time, and when he’s done, he’s left it all on the field. But this isn’t in a reality show culture flash inappropriate body parts and explore the outer reaches of vulgarity kind of way. It’s just more the sense you have that he has worked through the problems that he presents to you as long and as hard as he can. He’s mustered up all the blood, sweat and tears that he has to present it to you, and there aren’t any bon mots he’s saving for the cocktail party later. This book is a book of statements, but it feels like a book of questions. Do you know any better?

Often, with Tolstoy, I think that a lot of us feel like we do. With rare exceptions, he deals with everything on earth as if it is the most serious thing alive. We know about “don’t worry, be happy.” He’s got a lot of anxiousness about his dealings with women, and some extremely silly ideas about Women in general. We can even feel that we know better about communism, idealization of manual labor or even just his ideas about cooperative farming. But still, he’s got those big questions about everything and he insists that they matter. He’s so wonderfully earnest from the beginning until the very end. He reminds me of David Foster Wallace, in that respect. That Consider the Lobster essay, with all that serious questioning and pain, thrown out to the readers of Gourmet. He feels like the inheritor of this fearsome intellect/earnest straightforwardness duality. Both these guys are really asking. This was a surprisingly vulnerable book in that way. For every opinion Tolstoy pronounced, he retracted two and asked four questions. That is the sort of mind I want to be around. Does this all come down to “but he means so well”? No. Maybe. A little bit. But his amazing writing ability, his sharp insight, and his ability to reason through as far as he could go are powerful enough that I will always let it go.

I’m excited for my next Tolstoy read. He rambled at me for eight hundred pages, and I can’t wait for eight hundred more. What’s up, War and Peace? As my favorite cartoon monkey said, “It is time.”

(Book 840 From 1001 Books) - Анна Каренина = Anna Karenina = Anna Karenin, Leo Tolstoy

Anna Karenina is a novel by the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, published in serial installments from 1873 to 1877 in the periodical The Russian Messenger.

A complex novel in eight parts, with more than a dozen major characters, it is spread over more than 800 pages (depending on the translation and publisher), typically contained in two volumes.

It deals with themes of betrayal, faith, family, marriage, Imperial Russian society, desire, and rural vs. city life.

The plot centers on an extramarital affair between Anna and dashing cavalry officer Count Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky that scandalizes the social circles of Saint Petersburg and forces the young lovers to flee to Italy in a search for happiness. After they return to Russia, their lives further unravel.

Characters: Princess Ekaterina "Kitty" Aleksandrovna Shcherbatskaya, Anna Arkadyevna Karenina, Count Aleksei Kirillovich Vronsky, Konstantin "Kostya" Dmitrievitch Levin, Prince Stepan "Stiva" Arkadyevitch Oblonsky.

عنوا�� چاپ شده در ایران: «آنا کارنینا» نویسنده: لئو ن تولستوی (نیلوفر) ادبیات روسیه؛ انتشاراتیها: (ساحل، نیلوفر، کلبه سفید، سمیر، گوتنبرگ)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز بیست و چهارم ماه فوریه سال 1985میلادی

عنوان: آنا کارنینا؛ نویسنده: لئو ن تولستوی؛ مترجم: محمدعلی شیرازی؛ تهران، ساحل، 1348، در 346ص؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 19م

عنوان: آنا کارنینا؛ نویسنده: تولستوی؛ مترجم: سروش حبیبی؛ تهران، نیلوفر، 1378، در 1024ص، در 2جلد، شابک 9644481127؛

عنوان: آنا کارنینا؛ نویسنده: تولستوی؛ مترجم: فرناز آشتیانی؛ تهران، کلبه سفید، 1383، در 496ص، شابک 9649360166؛

عنوان: آنا کارنینا؛ نویسنده: تولستوی؛ مترجم: قازار سیمونیان؛ تهران، سمیر، گوتنبرگ، چاپ چهارم 1388، در 864ص، شابک 9789646552364؛

بیش از نیمی از داستان، درباره ی «آنا کارنینا»ست؛ باقی درباره ی فردی به نام «لوین» است، البته که این دو شخصیت، در داستان رابطه ی دورادوری با هم دارند؛ به‌ عبارتی، «آنا کارِنینا»، خواهرِ دوستِ «لوین» است؛ در طولِ داستان، این دو شخصیت، تنها یکبار، و آنهم در اواخرِ داستان، با هم رودررو می‌شوند؛ پس، رمان تنها به زندگی «آنا کارِنینا» اشاره ندارد، و در آن، به زندگی و افکار شخصیت‌های دیگرِ داستان نیز، توجه شده‌ است؛ «آنا»، نام این زن است، و «کارِنین»، نام همسرِ ایشانست، و او به‌ مناسبت نام شوهرش، «آنا کارِنینا (مؤنثِ «کارِنین»)» نامیده می‌شود؛ «تولستوی» در نگارش این داستان، کوشیده، برخی افکار خود را، در قالب دیالوگ‌های متن، به خوانشگر بباوراند، تا او را به اندیشیدن وادارد؛

در قسمت‌هایی از داستان، «تولستوی»، درباره ی شیوه‌ های بهبود کشاورزی، یا آموزش نیز، سخن گفته؛ که نشان‌ دهنده ی اطلاعات ژرف نویسنده، در این زمینه‌ نیز هست؛ البته بیان این اطلاعات و افکار، گاهی باعت شده، داستان از موضوع اصلی دور، و برای خوانشگر خسته‌ کننده شود؛ داستان از آنجا آغاز می‌شود که زن و شوهری به نام‌های: «استپان آرکادیچ»، و «داریا الکساندرونا»؛ با هم اختلافی خانوادگی دارند.؛ «آنا کارِنینا»، خواهر «استپان آرکادیچ» است، و از «سن‌ پترزبورگ» به خانه ی برادرش ــ که در «مسکو» است ــ می‌آید؛ و اختلاف زن و شوهر را به سامان می‌کند؛ حضور آنا در «مسکو»، باعث به وجود آمدن ماجراهای اصلیِ داستان می‌شود...؛

فضای اشرافیِ آن روزگار، بر داستان حاکم است؛ زمانیکه پرنس‌ها و کنت‌ها، دارای مقامی والا در جامعه بودند؛ در کل، این داستان، روندی نرم، و دلنشین دارد؛ و به باور دیگران، فضای خشک داستان «جنگ و صلح»، بر «آنا کارنینا» حاکم نیست؛ این داستان، که درون‌مایه‌ ای عاشقانه ـ اجتماعی دارد، شاید پس از «جنگ و صلح»، بزرگ‌ترین اثر «تولستوی» بزرگ، به شمار است، تولستوی خود این اثر خویش را برتر میشمارند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 06/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

…this entire thing could’ve been avoided if someone would’ve just given Levin a heroic dose of mushrooms from the start

Absolutely absolutely loved the second read.
The brilliant character work, the existential questions and beautiful writing. Great reading experience!

n  "I think... if it is true that there are as many minds as there are heads, then there are as many kinds of love as there are hearts."n
― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

As I drew back the cover and stepped into the world of the Russian aristocracy, I found myself entranced by the excess and proper etiquette. A realm of high society so foreign, so inviting, that I couldn’t turn away. My eyes devoured Tolstoy’s delicious words like the sweetest candy. The characters called me in, seating me in the front row where I would have the best view. The book became an electric moment in time as their stories bewitched me. I urged Levin not to give up on love. I watched on in disbelief as a perfectly beautiful Anna was overcome with a passion that turned her into someone she no longer knew. I was dumbfounded at how Vronsky, a man filled with selfish desire, could so easily tear apart everyone who came near him and soldier on as if it were merely another day. These three were only a tiny portion of the troupe that would dominate my mind as I became wrapped up in their fates as if they were my own..

Love and pain, two such opposite emotions, yet intricately tied to one another. These were the driving forces behind this fantastic tale. It was a study of connections and intense passions, that ran the gamut from husband and wife to the affection that a man has for his country. In the end, the weight was almost unbearable for each that leapt. No matter which kind of love, there is always a price, and they had to be willing to pay it.

Very soon after I started this book, I knew the tracks would no longer be there for many of my favorite characters and that I would plunge into the abyss along with them if I didn’t get off at the next stop. I couldn’t leave them. I needed to be a part of their world even if it ended badly. As much affection as this story gave, it equally took back in tears and heartbreak.

The story is brilliant, and I could never do it justice here. If you haven’t read Anna Karenina I urge you to put aside the fact that it is a very lengthy novel and take it up. I am forever changed.

" كل العائلات السعيدة تتشابه، لكن لكل عائلة تعيسة سبباً خاصاً لتعاستها. "
بهذه الجملة يبدأ تولوستوي روايته الخالدة .

آنا كارنينا سيدة المجتمع الفاضلة التي تملك المال و السلطة و الجمال ، و قد كان حرياً بها أن تحيا حياة سعيدة لا يشوبها تعاسة و لكن القدر أبَى إلا أن يترك عليها ندوبه ، ليتغير حالها و لتنظر إلي الحياة من جانب آخر حيث أشواك الخيانة تدب جزوها عميقة إلي القلب ليُملي علي العقل غير ما يرتضيه .

أعلنت (آنا) ذات مرة في صدق أنها مستعدة لتصفح عن من خانها ، و لكن إذا ما كانت هي الخائنة فهل هي صافحة عن نفسها أم سيجرها إثمها لأعماق القنوط و اليأس ؟
هل سترضي أن تكون هي من تتقبل الإحسان بعد أن كانت المحسنة ؟

ينقل إلينا ( تولوستوي ) تصارعاً نفسياً صارخاً و ثقلاً مهولاً لا يُحل ، و يدع مشاعرك حيري لا تدري متي تعطف و متي تُلقي الذنب.

قرأتها مختصرة بترجمة حلمي مراد ، لم أشعر باقتصاص من القصة و كانت سلسة جميلة .

تم إخراج العديد من الافلام عن القصة و لكن من رأيي سيكون صعباً نسج شخصية آنا بكل صراعتها و متناقضاتها.

تمت✨

الريفيو رغم صغره بس انا أعتبره انجاز لأني كاتبه بعد بلوك من القراءة و ان شاء الله هيتفك قريب