Alright, I'm going to do my best not to put any spoilers out here, but it will be kind of tough with this book. I should probably start by saying that this book was possibly the best thing I have ever read.

It was my first Tolstoy to read, and the defining thing that separated what he wrote from anything else that I've read is his characters. His characters are unbelievably complex. The edition of this book that I read was over 900 pages, so he has some time to do it. His characters aren't static, but neither are they in some kind of transition from A to B throughout the book. They are each inconsistent in strikingly real ways. They think things and then change their minds. They believe something and then lose faith in it. Their opinions of each other are always swirling. They attempt to act in ways that align with something they want, but they must revert back to who they are. But who a character is is a function of many things, some innate and some external and some whimsical and moody.

So all the characters seem too complex to be characters in a book. It's as if no one could write a character that could be so contradictory and incoherent and still make them believable, so no one would try to write a character like Anna Karenina. But people are that complex, and they are incoherent and that's what makes Tolstoy's characters so real. Their understandings of each other and themselves are as incoherent as mine of those around me and myself.

One of the ways that Tolstoy achieves this is through incredible detail to non-verbal communication. He is always describing the characters movements, expressions, or postures in such a way that you subtly learn their thoughts.

He does an amazing job in the internal monologues the characters experience. You frequently hear a character reason with himself and reveal his thoughts or who he is to you in some way, and all the while you feel like you already knew that they felt that or were that. Even as the characters are inconsistent. There are times when he can describe actions that have major implications on the plot with blunt and simple words and it still felt rich because the characters are so full.

The book takes on love, marriage, adultery, faith, selfishness, death, desire/attraction, happiness. It also speaks interestingly on social classes or classism. He also addresses the clash between the pursuit of individual desires and social obligations/restraints. There is just so much to wrestle with here.

And you go through a myriad set of emotions and impressions of the characters as you read. At times you can love or hate or adore a character. You can be ashamed of or ashamed for or reviled by or anxious with or surprised by a character. And you feel this way about each of them at points. But it isn't at all a roller coaster ride of emotion. It's fluid and natural and makes sense.

One of the many points that the book seemed to reach to me was the strength and power of love. Tolstoy displays it in all its power and all its inability. In the end love is not sufficient enough to sustain. He writes tremendous triumphs for it, and then he writes the months after when the reality of human failings set in. But love is good, and there is hope. Life can be better with love in it. Should I have kids one day I think I'll make reading this book a precondition for them to start dating (that and turning 25).

I was also surprised by a section towards the end of the book where Tolstoy through Levin, my favorite character and the one that I identified with the most, makes a case for Christianity that was so simple but at the same time really impacted me. I guess I'll leave that alone here.

Basically, I don't have high enough praise for this book. I hope everyone reads it. It is very long, and I found the third quarter or so slow. But I could definitely read it again. Not soon but it could become a must read every 15 years or so for me. Between he nature of the content and the quality of the words, I would say that this is the greatest masterpiece in words that I've ever found.

تقدیم به روح آناکارنینا؛ که اگر بوکفسکی می‌خواند عمرا به فکر خودکشی می‌افتاد

فمینیست‌ها از زوربا بدشون میاد از بوکفسکی هم....چرا؟...چون لختن و بی پروا...چون اینا دروغ نمیگن...اونقدا مراعات ندارن که اول زن رو فریب بدن...تا مقام فرشته بالا ببرن...بعد ببرن تو رختخواب...تا زن وسط سکس، احساس جندگی نکنه...حرفام زشته...نمیدونم...بیخیال...میتونی حذفم کنی و خلاص
بریم سر اصل مطلب...بوکفسکی از این حقه‌های کثیفی که مردا برای دام انداختنِ زن به کار می‌برن حالش بد میشه...به قول حضرت: من مذهبی نیستم...ابدا...اما درگیرِ اخلاق لعنتی نیکوکار بودن هستم...منم حالم بد میشه...وقتی مردا رو می‌بینم که از فریب دادن زنها به خودشون می‌بالن...گور باباشون...باید واقعیت رو به زن‌ها گفت...حتی اگه بدشون بیاد و مردها هم ما رو خائن بدونن

بوکوفسکی: در شروع همه‌ی ما دل‌رباییم. یاد یکی از فیلم‌های وودی آلن می‌افتم. زن می‌گفت: «ما شبیه‌ی روزهای اول‌مون نیستیم، اون‌وقتا تو خیلی جذاب بودی!» مرد جواب ��اد: می‌دونی، اون وقتا فقط داشتم امور جفت شدنو به‌جا می آوردم، همه‌ی انرژی‌مو به‌کار می‌گرفتم. اگر می‌خواستم به این کار ادامه بدم، دیوونه می‌شدم

کل راز دلبری مردا تو این خط آخر نهفته اس...میخای باور کن...میخای باور نکن...خیلی از مردا همون لحظه که بهت پیشنهاد عشق میدن...همون لحظه هم دارن به دو چیز دیگه هم فکر میکنن...یک: فراهم آوردن بساط سکس...دو: چطوری از شرت خلاص شن وقتی دیگه جذابیتی براشون نداری...البته زن هم مقصره...اینو باید با مقدمه بگم
در واقع مردا برای رفاقت و دوستی‌‌ بیشتر از عشق ارزش قائلن...چون توی دوستی صداقت بیشتری دارن...مجبور نیستن دائما به دوستشون دروغ بگن...و هر روز صبح بخیر و شب بخیر بگن...چه کار خسته کننده ای...خود اعمال شاقه‌اس...شاید تقصیر زن هم هست...که مرد مجبوره فریبش بده...به قول حضرت بوکفسکی...انسان‌ها برای این ساخته شده‌اند که نیمه‌وقت تنها باشند و نیمه‌وقت باهم...اما زنانی هستند که می‌خواهند تمام ثانیه‌هایت را از آن خودشان کنند...آنجاست که بیزاری شروع می‌شود...و فرار از زن

بوکفسکی: عشق مضحک است چون سرانجامی ندارد

این همه داستان برای عشق‌های ابدی ساخته شده...باور کن همش دروغ است...بذارین آزادانه خودمان باشیم...ما را از خودمان شرمنده نکنید...اینگونه شاید مردان از پستی و دروغ نجات پیدا کنند...و زنی دیگر خودکشی نکند

n  "Leo Tolstoy would meet hatred expressed in violence by love expressed in self-suffering."n
—Mahatma Gandhi


Through reading this praiseworthy classic, I have been forced to recalibrate my previously unreliable view of this celebrated author.
You see, I was force-fed Tolstoy at college (his writing, not his flesh, silly! Mine wasn't a college for cannibals!) and at the time only carried War and Peace under one arm so I might appear cleverer than I actually was.
So, how amazed was I that Anna K has shown me the fun side to Leo T? He is slyly hilarious. How did I not know this?

Please note that I haven't read this novel in Russian Cyrillic. I acknowledge that my perception owes a great deal to the amazing interpretive work of the translators, but let's imagine that we in the West have enjoyed his work as the great man intended.

The title is something of a misnomer and doesn't do justice to an endearing love story that also captures the disparity between city and country life in 19th-century Russia.
For a start, Anna K isn't the star of the show. That billing falls to our anti-hero, Konstantin Dmitrich Levin, a socially awkward, highly intelligent loner who considers himself to be an ugly fellow with no redeemable qualities.
Despite being weighed down by all this existential angst, he worships Kitty Shcherbatskaya, an attractive young princess whom he believes to be out of his league.
Kitty is described as being "as easy to find in a crowd as a rose among nettles."
Tolstoy goes to great lengths to make us understand the inner workings of Levin's mind (For Tolstoy, read Levin: they are one and the same).

Levin's love rival, raffishly handsome Count Vronsky, couldn't be more dissimilar. He is socially adept and careful not to offend, whereas Levin could probably start an argument with a goldfish.

What a fabulous read this is.
Tolstoy's levity and perspicacity shine from every page and the badinage between the main characters is exquisitely observed.
He does though have an idiosyncratic way of writing: adjectives are thickly laid on with a trowel and he loves to use repetition to emphasise a point.

Anna herself is fascinating, and to affirm just how fascinating she is, Tolstoy employs the word fascinating seven times in one paragraph! Look! I've even started doing it myself! How fascinating!

When not beating you about the head with repetition, the Russian master can do majestic descriptive imagery as well as anyone. One simple scene, where Kitty collapses into a low chair, her ball gown rising about her like a cloud, was just perfectly captured.

This is a wonderful story of fated love and aristocratic hypocrisy.
Tolstoy uses Levin as his political mouthpiece to rail against the ills of late 19th-century Russia, and the author's philosophy of non-violent pacifism also directly influenced none other than Mahatma Gandhi.

Anna Karenina is often cited as 'one of the best books ever written'.
So who am I to disagree?

Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest

Levin (which is what the title should be, since he is the main character, the real hero and the focus of the book!) (But who would read the book with that title, I know!)

If you don't want to know the ending, don't read this review, though I won't actually talk about what happens to Anna specifically, something I knew 40 years ago without even reading the book. I didn't read the book to find out what happens to her. I knew that. Probably many of you know or knew the ending before reading the book. And this isn't so much a review as a personal reflection. I was tempted, finally, after decades of NOT reading it, to now, approaching my 60th birthday, finish it, all 818 pages, tempted to just simply write: Pretty good! :) But I resist that impulse, sorry (because now, if you so choose to read on, you will have to read many more than those two words. . .).

This is as millions of people have observed over the past 140 years, a really great book, and those of you who are skeptical of reading "Great Books" or "classics" may still not be convinced, but this has in my opinion a deserved reputation of one of the great works of all time, and one of the reasons it IS so good is because it speaks humbly and eloquently against pomposity and perceived or received notions of "greatness." Why do I care about its place in the canon? I guess I really don't. I just think some books deserve the rep they get from the literary establishment, and some deserve the rep they get from the wider reading public. This one is a great literary accomplishment AND a great read, in my opinion, and deserves to be read and read widely by more than just the English major club. And I say this as one who prefers Dostoevsky to Tolstoy; I seem to prefer stories of anguish and doubt to stories of affirmation and faith, and the atheist/agnostic literary club I belong to is maybe always going to favor doubt and anguish over faith and hope and happiness. But to make clear: This surely is a book of faith, of family, of affirmation, of belief in the land, nature, goodness, and simple human joys over the life of "society" with all of its pretension. Yes, all that affirmation is true of the book in spite of what happens to Anna.

I write this in particular contexts, as we all do when we read and write. If I had read this book in my more cynical early twenties, when I actually started it once (and again a few times over my life time and never finished), when I had no kids, I might not have liked it much. If I had read this right after Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, or in the years I was first reading Under the Volcano, Kafka, Camus, what I think of as my existentialist years, I might have found it too. . . life-affirming. But today I have kids, and as seemed to have happened with Chris Ware, as evidenced by his more positive Building Stories, having kids changed everything for me, and in a good way. In harsh times, you need stories of hope and goodness, and Levin's story is a timeless story of hope and goodness.

Another context: I am particularly shaken as I write this by the 20 kids dead in a Connecticut elementary school in Sandy Hook yesterday, with, too, a good teacher, principal, and school psychologist and others who have given their lives to doing good for children, senselessly slaughtered. This is a murderous country, the most murderous in the world, killings devastating my Chicago on a daily basis maybe especially this year, but every damned year. And despair/suicide is possibly more prevalent than ever. Maybe it is time for a bit of reordering priorities toward goodness, and finishing this book as my news feeds gave me updates on the tragedy provides an interesting contrast in experiences, rendering different but altogether persuasive truths about the nature of the world.

Tolstoy was himself, the translator Richard Pevear writes in his fine, brief introduction, in some sense writing a response to the nihilists who were as he saw it in fashion in late nineteenth century Russia, in Moscow, in Europe, in the world. Tolstoy was himself searching for meaning in life and struggling with faith and beliefs in a way he didn't ever struggle about again (or as much) after this book, and the struggle makes for the greatness, in my opinion. His late book Resurrection, by contrast, has none of the struggle about faith that this book has in it. It's mostly a binary world, all Good and Evil, a didactic allegory. Pevear says one of the two main characters, Levin, the country farmer struggling to also write his ideas about farming, is the most fully realized self-portrait that Tolstoy created, and he is on the main pretty delightful. Grumpy at times, stubborn, moody and not witty, a kind of no-nonsense traditionalist I certainly would have been annoyed at regularly if I knew him, Levin is often a kind of comical character, self-deprecatingly clueless as he approaches the Big Events of his life: His brother's death, his proposal to Kitty, the birth of his first child. These are also moments of real angst/anguish and passion and comedy/tragedy, written with great flourish and amazing detail, great sections of the book, pretty thrilling to read, in my opinion.

These are, Tolstoy tells us, in the main what life (and literature) is and should be mainly about, love and death, and they deserve loving attention for us, as are also the striving for goodness and faith. The current art scene of the time, in especially Moscow's theater and art and literature scenes, the world of fashion, the culture of massive-debt-incurring spending on a lavish lifestyle, all this Tolstoy skewers through the comical eyes of the simple farmer Levin, who at his best is so attached to the land, to family, to love, to good talk, and good friendship. But he is not a stereotype, he is a great character, fully realized.

And what can we say of Anna, the other main character, his sort of opposite? Well, if you want to look for what is in some sense a "moral" of this huge tome of a book, this might be it:

“If you look for perfection, you'll never be content.”

Or, if you want to be happy you will want to make choices that Levin makes instead of Anna's tragic choices--but Anna, in having been originally intended by Tolstoy (thanks to Pevear here for his introduction) as an immoral woman, a woman corrupted by city values, is never really only that, any more than Levin can be seen as a holy man. Tolstoy is creating literature here, not a didactic tract, and we see all along that Tolstoy falls in love with Anna as she emerges through his creation of her in his novel, and she is thus for him and us real and fascinating, a human being, and a wondrous one in many ways, one of the great women of literature, without question. You don't have to agree with her choices or like her, but she will come to life for you as few characters ever will. And many of you will fall in love with her as Tolstoy did. As I did, I'll admit.

There's one time Tolstoy has his two main characters meet, and this is a great evening, where the simple Levin actually is obviously attracted to Anna in so many ways, and not just the physical attraction all men and women seem to have for her. Levin, like Tolstoy, sees that Anna is vital, viscerally alive, she's fascinating, interesting; okay, she IS a romantic heroine, but she is a romantic heroine that anyone reading romances should read. The women of Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, these are "romances" but they are all so much more, that sweep you into the world in richer and deeper ways. Anna Karenina is, like War and Peace, like The Brothers Karamazov, a rich cultural forum, a series of linked meditations on farming and politics and religion and family and relationships and war and the meaning of life, not just about sex and romance. You get so much out of it, as it is all about reflecting on and teaching you how the mundane aspects of our lives are worth paying attention to (I know the bulk of readers absolutely hate the farming and politics sections of the book, but I would contend it is all relevant to Tolstoy's webbed narrative reflection on the meaning of life).

And Anna, in the very center of this tale, as a kind of twin contrast to Levin, but not a simple one (they are both suicidal at times; they both are moody and struggle and are essentially lonely for much of the book), is one shimmering, tragic character we can't simply dismiss for submitting to and crushing her life (as she does) through lust for Vronsky. We come to understand her well, we come to understand why she does what she does and why we must pity her and even support her, love her. I know a lot of people have not come to this position about her, they dismiss her as a shallow twit who throws her life away for an also shallow, callous dashing fellow, but in the end we even come to like Vronsky and pity him, and admire his resilience. He IS also an attractive character, in many ways, in spite of his shallow aspects. And maybe we are even sympathetic for them in this forbidden, unwise love. I know I am. We care for them.

Of the other main characters, I liked Kitty, Levin's wife (who deals with the dying of her husband's brother so deftly as opposed to her clueless husband) a lot, and who becomes attracted to Vronsky too in a way as so may women seem to do. Levin's two brothers are both great, and provide the basis for rich conversations. The Dolly/Oblonsky pair are yet another view of a married relationship. I even like the portrait of the sad, stiff Karenin, the diplomat we can see is a good man, certainly not a great lover for Anna, but we see his struggles and come to feel sorry for him, I think. He's not an ideal match for the passionate Anna, maybe, but he's a good and essentially blameless man. I like all the minor characters we get to meet, too, the people Tolstoy finds more genuine than all the upper crust he mocks and derides and, you know, also cares about. This is a great book, my friends, with some great characters and great scenes.

And now to the movie? I read one blurb that said without Tolstoy's gorgeous writing, any movie version of Anna Karenina will only be a soap opera, and that is what I feared. . . and that is what I found in seeing it. The movie couldn't begin to capture Tolstoy's reflections on life and love and birth and death. It was a melodrama, a good one but not great or rich as the novel.

And what do English readers miss, as my friends who read Russian and have grown up reading his prose IN Russia say? That his use of the Russian language is unparalleled, gorgeous, breathtaking. Well, I don't know the language in which Tolstoy wrote, but this translation of his tale is pretty amazing, I think. But in any language, read it, my friends.

PS I have also recently read Madame Bovary, which I also liked in spite of the main character's (also) bad choices. I liked Anna K even more, though.

GREAT, in the highest sense of the word.
Characters as deep and alive as the ocean, themes as diverse and as innumerable as grains of sand, a writing as powerful as a thunderstorm, as beautiful as a serene dawn, and as incomprehensible at times and yet all the more fascinating as this mysterious and neverending universe itself, and we have, in my opinion, the greatest work on life, freedom, faith, fate, love, suffering, and the human HEART ... - Anna Karenina!

This is by far one of my absolute favorites of all time and secured the fact that I was head over heels in love with Tolstoy. I went on to read War and Peace which I also enjoyed, but this book is my first love. I am certainly one of those people that falls into the camp that this is one of the greatest novels of fiction ever written. Yet, it isn't because of the title character. Nope, I really didn't like Anna Karenina when I first encountered her. Oh yeah, I was judgy. I was similar to the society that ends rejecting and turning its back on her. " Girl, are you really going to separate yourself from your son and everyone around you for this young fella?" Vronsky was a cad and as Anna succumbed to him, I was relieved that darling Kitty was saved from him.

Tolstoy was able to understand men and women and show them to be more than just " good" or "bad" From the worn-out Dolly to the idealistic Levin, this book just completely captured my heart.

Tolstoy's Infamous Melodrama

My wife says Anna Karenina is the worst novel she has ever read. I wouldn't go quite that far. Since I've joined Goodreads, I've reviewed one novel that's as bad as Anna Karenina and two that are worse. I've also read many novels that are as good or better and numerous novels that are far superior to Anna Karenina.

I believe a good editor could trim off about 500 pages and turn Anna Karenina into an adequate novel.

In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, three couples are compared. Tolstoy uses these couples to illustrate three possible outcomes of love and marriage. He seems to be suggesting it's better to be slow and steady than hot and bothered.

Themes: 1. One can not break social norms without paying a price. On the other hand, following social norms is also costly.
2. Inequality in marriage is due to the fact that the infidelities committed by husbands and the wives are punished unequally both by the law and public opinion. (See the first page of chapter 13 in Part Four.)
3. Think well of all people, and try to reconcile and soften their differences. (See the first page of chapter 13 in Part Four.)
4. Argument convinces no one. (See the second page of chapter 13 in Part Four.)
5. It's not good to jump to conclusions that might prove to be false.

Anna Karenina has convinced me that the golden age of literature isn't in some bygone era, it's in the here and now.

I društvo je tako uređeno: što više radnici budu radili, sve će se više bogatiti trgovci i spahije, a oni će ostajati tegleća marva.

Ana Karenjina je mučenje i zlo. Osjećaj dosade i razdražljivosti koji kolaju tokom romana su bili skoro nepodnošljivi. U toku pisanja ovog romana Tolstoj se posvetio pedagoškom radu, a pored toga i pisanjem nekih sižea. U jednom pismu kada se obraća Strahovu 1875. godine, Tolstoj piše sljedeće: ,,Sad se laćam dosadne i trivijalne Ane Karenjine i samo molim boga da mi da snage da je se što prije riješim, kako bih upraznio mjesto - slobodno vrijeme mi je vrlo potrebno - ne za pedagoške, već za druge poslove, koji me više okupiraju. Ja volim i pedagoški rad, ali hoću da prisilim sebe da se više njime ne bavim.” Od samog početka znao sam da ovaj roman neće ići u tom pravcu da mi se svidi. Jednostavno svaka stranica je bila isprazna, i ako bih mogao da opišem roman u jednoj riječi onda bi to bila ispraznost. Ni u jednom od likova nisam vidio ništa što bi me potaklo da se udubim u razmišljanje (osim kasnije Ljevina koji je inače piščev alter ego). Svaki od njih je bio gord, besmisleno odsutan, a kada Tolstoj počne kroz njih da filozofira, jednostavno sam morao da sklapam oči, smirim se, a onda nastavim čitanje. Njihova prenemaganja, dijalozi na ivici histerije, apsurdni poduhvati koje čine, sve mi je to samo otežavalo čitanje. Tačno je da Tolstoj piše rečenice koje se prosto brzo čitaju, ali one samo u nekoj mjeri olakšavaju stvar.

Mislio sam da će se roman završiti sa smrću dotične, i da bi onda to bilo to. Međutim, malo sam se prevario. I to mučenje je trajalo do smrti Ane Karenjine. A onda potpuno nešto novo. Ne znam da li je tu vladala ona narodna: ,,Dok jednom ne smrkne, drugom ne svane,” ali zaista je sve od tada krenulo uzlaznom putanjom. Iskreno ne zato što sam ja priželjkivao njenu smrt, ali eto ona se desila, i sve kreće u drugačijem smjeru. Kao da je ona bila čvor tog zla koji je jurcao na sve strane i kada se on otpustio i zlo je sa njim nestalo. Tolstoj izdiže Ljevinovog brata, Sergija Aleksandroviča i kroz njegov pogled strukturalno jasno sagledava društveno-politička zbivanja. Ljevina polako utapa u neku čamotinju i s njim vodi borbu. Sve postaje elegantno, polemički i polako pisac pušta smislene tonove. Odjednom mi svi likovi postaju dragi, čak ih u jednu ruku i žalim. Đavo je prisutan svuda i neki jednostavno nisu mogli da se istrgnu iz njegovih kandži. Tolstoj filozof odjednom dobija nekog elana, počinje da bude odmjeren, tako fino sažet da sam uživao u svakoj rečenici, pa za divno čudo nakon završetka knjige sam poželio da još malo nešto kaže. A, ono što je posebno okupiralo moju pažnju jeste njegov osvrt na rat i oslobođenje jednovjeraca prije svega Crnogoraca i Srba od Turaka. Evo šta Tolstoj ima da kaže o ratu: ,,Rat je, s jedne strane, tako životinjska, surova i užasna stvar, da nijedan čovjek, već da i ne kažem hrišćanin, ne može lično primiti na svoju odgovornost početak rata, to može samo vlada, koja ima za to potrebu, i koja dolazi u položaj da vodi rat. S druge strane, i na osnovu nauke i na osnovu zdravog razuma, u državnim poslovima, osobito u poslovima rata, građani se odriču svoje lične volje.” Eto, da sam knjigu ostavio prije njenog konačnog svršetka, zaista bih propustio divne posljednje stranice ove knjige.

n  2020 updaten
never mind. i had to reread it two more times and write three more essays on this. when will the nightmare end. i'll never read this in my free time because it keeps getting shoved down my throat annually.

⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻

anna karenina is daunting as much as it is spellbinding.

spanning 800 pages, tolstoy tells a cinematic tale that has remained beloved for centuries. at its core of the novel is the theme of love and its variants: all happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

despite its many political and existential themes and vast amount of characters, at the heart of the book are two vastly different characters: anna and levin. anna begins a torrid love affair with vronsky, a charismatic and handsome officer, bound to crash and burn. levin timidly chases after kitty, his friend’s sister in law, who he is in love with. both arcs explore the dichotomy between love and lust, idealism in relationships, and the superficiality of infatuation and lust.

i have read this book five times (four times for class)(but technically three and a half because i skipped over levin’s farming scenes three times). and still, i feel inadequate to review this book. but more importantly, each time, i find something new to love and appreciate about this book. this book is dramatic and tragic and heartwarming and devastating all at once.

this is timeless classic for good reason and there are no words to describe how much i adore this book. a must read for winter!

⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻

n  2018 reviewn
Honestly, I thought this was going to be a boring classic (since I was required to read this for school and you know, schools make you read boring books). But I was wrong. Anna Karenina is alive. Unlike other 'classics', Anna is filled with complex remarks about society and class and relationships, in a world that only Tolstoy can write. I was expecting it to have a dull drone, but this book definitely ran on a different frequency.
One thing I loved and admired about Tolstoy was that he never just stopped at a catastrophic event like other writers. He always made sure to show the aftermath, maybe as a cautionary tale to show that actions have consequences. He explores the consequences of being in love versus being in love with the ideal of someone. It was a wild ride and I wouldn't have had it be any other way.

I loved this book with all my heart and one day, I'll reread it without having to write 2000 word essays and analyze every element.

People are going to have to remember that this is the part of the review that is entirely of my own opinion and what I thought of the book, because what follows isn't entirely positive, but I hope it doesn't throw you off the book entirely and you still give it a chance. Now... my thoughts:

I picked up this book upon the advice of Oprah (and her book club) and my friend Kit. They owe me hardcore now. As does Mr. Tolstoy. This book was an extremely long read, not because of it's size and length necessarily, but because of it's content. More often than not I found myself suddenly third a way down the page after my mind wandered off to other thoughts but I kept on reading... am I the only one with the ability to do that? You know, totally zoning out but continuing to read? The subject I passed over though was so thoroughly boring that I didn't bother going back to re-read it... and it didn't affect my understanding of future events taking place later on in the book.

Leo Tolstoy really enjoys tangents. Constantly drifting away from the point of the book to go off on three page rants on farming methods, political policies and elections, or philosophical discussion on God. Even the dialogue drifted off in that sort of manner. Tolstoy constantly made detail of trifling matters, while important subjects that added to what little plot line this story had were just passed over. Here is a small passage that is a wonderful example of what constantly takes place throughout the book:

"Kostia, look out! There's a bee! Won't he sting?" cried Dolly, defending herself from a wasp.

"That's not a bee; that's a wasp!" said Levin.

"Come, now! Give us your theory," demanded Katavasof, evidently provoking Levin to a discussion. "Why shouldn't private persons have that right?"

No mention of the wasp is made again. Just a small example of how Tolstoy focuses much more on philosophical thought, and thought in general, more than any sort of action that will progress the story further. That's part of the reason the story took so long to get through.

The editing and translation of the version I got also wasn't very good. Kit reckons that that's part of the reason I didn't enjoy it as much, and I am apt to agree with her. If you do decide to read this book, your better choice is to go with the Oprah's Book Club edition of Anna Karenina.

The characters weren't too great either and I felt only slightly sympathetic for them at certain moments. The women most often were whiny and weak while the men seemed cruel and judgemental more often than not. Even Anna, who was supposedly strong-willed and intelligent would go off on these irrational rants. The women were constantly jealous and the men were always suspicious.

There's not much else to say that I haven't already said. There were only certain spots in the book which I enjoyed in the littlest, and even then I can't remember them. All in all I did not enjoy this book, and it earned the names Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah.

But remember this is just one girl's opinion, if it sounded like a book you might enjoy I highly advise going out to read it. Just try and get the Oprah edition.

I tried so hard, but I give up.

Each and every Tolstoy's story, on top of making me annoyed and exasperated, bores me to tears. When I come across critics and reviewers singing praise to him, my eyes start to roll involuntarily. That's the sort of effect the sound of Tolstoy's name, a casual mention of his work and unlocked memories of reading his biography produce in me. Tolstoy certainly didn't practice what he preached,

— it's especially disheartening to realize how, for some reason, he didn't apply his omni-present concept of universal love (that he quite gracelessly shoved down my th readers' throats) to his own family, women and female characters; universal love, my ass. Sounds sweeteningly sick (like so many other things written by bored aristocrats) once you dive deep into his biography... my heart goes out to Tolstoy's amazing, precious, wonderful wife. Sophia Andreyevna should be no less famous than the man who wouldn't be the Tolstoy we know today without her having sacrificed her health, her time, her emotional and physical resources, her whole life at his altar—

and when he endeavoured to, in his half-hearted attempts to abide by his own "behests" and show a good example of "practice what you preach" (in order not to appear a hypocritical babbler), the results were kind of ridiculous and showed just how far-fetched his philosophy was from real life, how detached from the realm of Russian culture. No wonder he had such an epic mental breakdown at the end of his life. Turns out wearing a peasant shirt doesn't bring you closer to understanding the struggles of ordinary people and eventually being able to associate with them outside the little fantasy bubble you had lived in, huh.

In my humble opinion, Tolstoy is the least specifically "Russian" writer there's to find. I know most will disagree, but calling him national writer is a stretch. He was sort of universal, which explains his popularity across the world (unlike Dostoevsky, whose work is specifically Russian by nature, yet so brilliant that it's also universal; I always look with scepticism at anyone who claims to get 109219 meanings behind his work (I want to be you so bad), but when a person with no exposure to Russian culture whatsoever claims to be able to grasp Dostoevsky's ideas, emerged straight from the depths of hell Russian culture and mentality, I digress; they'd be (un)lucky to accomplish basic comprehension lmao)

Sure enough, Tolstoy's ideas and personality were shaped by socio-cultural ambiance of the 19th century Russia. That being said, I find that his work is the least reflective of Russian culture compared to other Russian writers.

(let's just briefly mention that popular culture and elite culture in Russia at that time were so separated from each other that nobility (1-2% of population) and ordinary people might as well have been speaking different languages... a rare occasional genius was able to grasp and show all the nuances of that division).


Tolstoy certainly had some sort of idealistic notions about peasants and peasant life (working class, merchants and other folks didn't interest him that much, from what I gather), which is not surprising. People tend to idealize what they cannot fully comprehend. But this man had the lucky opportunity of arguing his case while being surrounded by luxury, taken care of by his numerous servants (his wife being the main one), bathing in privileges his title had bestowed upon him and reaping the fruits of his aristocratic background. As in, he found himself in the position of a person exposed to the ambiance that encourages knowledge and understanding of simple, unsophisticated life of an average 19th century Russian person:D

I also believe that Tolstoy was one of the most atrociously misogynistic (seriously hateful) writers of his time, the fact that only bears relevance to this mess of a chaotic rant because his hatred shows in his work. It's definitely not reflective of Russian culture (like so many other aspects of his work that are based purely on his preconceived notions and personal beliefs rather than socio-cultural nuances of his time).

Just take a close look at Turgenev, Leskov, Ostrovsky's heroines and you'll see a huge gap between a dull, unflattering and one-dimensional portrayal of female characters of Mr. Leo and multi-layered, complex and vivid images provided by above mentioned contemporaries of his (who, roughly speaking, had similar education, background and social standing).

Dostoyevsky, Goncharov, Chekhov, Kuprin... just to name a few, are a living testament (nice pun, innit it