Don't forget, as if you could, the discussion for this starts here tomorrow.

My strong white teeth and I are waiting, vexed the discussion is not starting sooner :)

ooo I'll be here haha

I'm just here to put in a link. I'm only on page 100. But since this is a reread (but the first time for this new translation), I'll still read the comments.


Anna Karenina

I'll be here with a note tomorrow though I still have about 150 more pages to go. Please feel free to start without me if you get here first.

Let the discussion begin!! My favorite character in this novel has always been Levin, so I've often wondered why Tolstoy chose to name it by only one of the many character's names. Lately, I've been dipping into a little book entitled Tolstoy and the Novel by John Bayley and he supplies some interesting information and theories.

Tolstoy's wife said that he had been toying with the idea of a married woman of grand society who would ruin herself, but he couldn't find the right particulars. Then, nearly two years later, the mistress of a nearby landowner committed suicide by throwing herself under a train. Tolstoy saw the body and "the experience made a great impression on him." So, that began the germ of Anna's character and supplied the ending to the story.

I have always read that Levin was the closest autobiographical character to Tolstoy himself. However, Bayley points out that Tolstoy was feeling more and more cut off from society, which had been a big part of his life, by his own spiritual crisis and fame. And, Bayley feels that he had a deep psychological connection with Anna because this was her central issue.

What happens when you cut yourself off from society, or are cut off by it? Both in the first drafts of Anna and in the finished work this is the most insistent question. In some of the earlier plans Vronsky and Anna get married; their problem is apparently solved, and yet the result is always the same. Why? Because they were unaware of the extent to which they were created by the society they lived in, and of how much they needed it. Once they have gone against it they can never be in the same easy and unconscious relation to it again. Lacking society, lacking the family, they are destroyed by a conflict of wills that arises with appalling inevitability. Without the freedom of society their passion becomes a prison. Tolstoy puts it in a characteristic metaphor: we can sit motionless for hours if we know that we can stretch our legs at any time; but we develop an agonizing cramp if we feel we cannot.

Bayley says in a later paragraph that "it was, no doubt, to escape from the fact of the novel that Tolstoy added Levin." And, it has the exact same effect on me. All the little details of his daily life, his growing relationship with Kitty and his sorting out of his philosophies felt like a great vacation from Anna's agonies. Levin also puts himself apart from society but is always able to rejoin. What a perfect contrast!

So, do you like the way Tolstoy threaded these stories together? Did you feel a purpose or were you too lost in the story (as I was the first time I read it) to think about this? Bayley points out that the end of this novel was always here from the beginning and Tolstoy had to build them toward it. So, this is truly a book of technique, not of characters who seemingly took the story into their own hands. I am really interested in hearing what you all think about effectively this was achieved.

You start with the very thing that makes this such a great novel, Barb. A novel might tell only the story of Anna and Count Vronsky and be a decent novel. Likewise, a novel might focus only on the story of Levin and Kitty and be a good novel. But when Tolstoy laid out these two stories in this parallel fashion, that’s what made this a mega, mega novel. The contrast between the two makes this so thought provoking.

I tend to think of Levin and Kitty’s love as a “constructive” one and of Anna and Count Vronsky’s as a “destructive” one. That is an oversimplification, however. I continue to look for better terms.

At the outset in any event I do think it useful to avoid any misunderstanding about the nature of Anna’s love. Consider her state after the horse race:

She looked at her watch. There were still three hours to go, and the memory of the details of their last meeting fired her blood.

The relationship between the Count and Anna is a highly sexually charged one. In fact I would go so far as to say that mind-blowing, fabulous sex is the centerpiece of their relationship, and therein lays the problem for the most part.

I totally agree that the contrast between the two love stories is the key to the novel and what makes it so compelling. I also love his subtle foreshadowing throughout the novel as well.

I think a lot of the novel is about the thin line between happiness and unhappiness - expertly foreshadowed in that famous first line. All of the main characters (anna, vronsky, levin, kitty) struggle almost equally with happiness, as they do with unhappiness. That strikes me as quite modern in thought.

Barbara, I think it is interesting to learn how autobiographical Levin is and thus subconsciously Tolstoy must have wanted him to emerge as the hero and most likable character.

I think there is something remarkable about Kitty too. She starts out as such a "babe in the woods" and ends up so balanced, maternal and mature. Life throws her some curveballs but she learns from them and overcomes them. Her growth as a person is an unexpected treat.

I also think this book could almost be called "a portrait of a marriage" largely because of that wonderful section where Kitty and Levin struggle as newlyweds.

And again with the foreshadowing, it's genius the way Anna repairs Dolly and Stiva's marriage in the beginning, only to end up destroying her own. These constant contrasts are so wonderful.

Steve: While there is no denying the sexual chemistry with Anna and Vronsky, I think for Anna it was the anticipation and the way he persued her in the beginning that was the issue. Nothing is hotter than "forbidden" love and the fruition never lives up to the fantasy, which leaves us back again at that fine line between happiness and unhappiness or ecstasy and despair.

This was the first time reading the book for me and it was a powerful experience. I agree that the novel is much stronger with the interwoven stories of the two fraught relationships.

One theme that struck me was how frequently characters would be unable to state their views clearly or, alternately, how often one person would 'read' the other's body language or tone and miss the meaning of their words. A wonderful way to enact the concept of mixed feelings, and suggesting that we often don't really understand our own intentions and the effect of our moods on other people. This happens especially in encounters between romantic partners, but sometimes also between parent and child or siblings.

Philip, your observations about characters misreading the nonverbal signals of others is fascinating. I did not appreciate how often that occurred until you pointed it out.

Great note, Al. And I don't say that just to suck up. I want to add, though, that there is development in Anna's character as the novel progresses, and that development is not for the better. The woman who threw herself under the train is not the same woman who went to speak to Darya Alexandrovna to forward her reconciliation with her reprobate husband.

Philip: It was my first time reading the novel too. I can't believe I was expected to have read this when I was in high school! Your point about the mixed feelings and mixed signals is dead-on and it is amazing how well Tolstoy conveys that with only words.

Speaking of the visual world, is there a film version of the book worth seeing?

Another thing I loved about the book is how well it seems to have captured time and place. I really felt like I was back in 1870s Russia. I would read sometimes in the afternoon and then be so disappointed when I realized I wasn't going to a ball that evening or receiving a large group of people.

And Steve you are right of course that Anna did change over the course of the novel, although it was more like she regressed rather than developed.

I did admire the way she tried to adjust to her new life.

Philip, great point about the dissonance between what was seen and what was said by the characters. I feel like, if this were a British book, it would be called a tragedy of manners. Whch makes me wonder if Tolstoy's other works can be seen as such. I've only read his Kreutzer Sonata besides this and can definitely see an argument made for its being in that broad genre as well.

May I say how frustrating it was that Vronsky and Anna cared so much for their social worlds. I kept on thinking, these people aren't even nice. Why do you care what they think of you? I suppose Levin comes the closest to being an introvert in this book and even he had to deal with the groups of people always staying at his home. These crowds weere definitely more tolerable, but still, this was not a world in which one could just be alone with one's partner! I wonder, was this not an option for that class? Or was this simply something Tolstoy could not conceive of himself? I know Anna couldn't live without her social world, but if she could have, if if, wouldn't it have saved her from going mad?

I loved Kitty's progression into womanhood and maturity. This was certainly the most gratifying personal development to witness as it was so credible and easy for me to sympathize with. Because it was just too easy to see her story becoming a tragedy as well, if not for her family's support and her picking herself up. Was she saved by not being chosen by Vronsky? That's what I wonder.

I was often tired by the tangents in the story, but my favorite, I think, was the one in which Anna's portrait was taken. I wish that could have been developed even more.

But the storyline which was most difficult for me was Levin's musings on farming. For me, he was quite an irritating character. I thought, here is an aristocrat who is trying to reconcile his conscience to being so much more well-off than others because of their toiling. Obviously, I didn't want the Russian Revolution and communism to be a result of this imbalance and democracy still comes as a challenge to Russia, but I kept on being frustrated by Levin's wanting to believe himself of the people when he was obviously of the lucky few. Does anyone know more about the relationship between muzhiks and the landowners?

Barb, it's odd to think of this as a book of technique, as I have such negative connotations with that notion, technique. What saves this from being just that is the reality of these characters, that they don't seem mere props to a story written for them. Their actions are intrinsic to them and don't seem to come from beyond them.

When I went to the Tolstoy Museum in Moscow, I was amazed by the mass of notes he wrote within the lines and the margins of his drafts. It was overwhelming how many revisions and notes each short passage inspired. I just wish I could have read what those notes said! Really, it's baffling to consider how he organized everything, this world he created. I can't imagine he had time for people as well.

I just finished reading it after what feels like a reading marathon. I read it in my teenage years, but really remembered very little other than Anna’s tragic ending. My experience reading it now, 30 years later, is just as if I had read for the first time.

Levin is my favorite character too, Barbara. I just loved the guy. I think he may even substitute Mr. Darcy as my literary romantic partner from now on, but that is another story…

The superposition of the two story lines did add immensely to the book in my view also. And it allowed contrast in so many levels: the rural X the urban, the peasants X the nobility, Vronsky X Levin, Anna X Kitty, etc… And in this way I comprehend the idea that this is a book of “technique”. I even had to laugh when Vronsky is heading to war as he had a toothache. The one single line about it made me think that Tolstoy did mention the “strong white teeth” endlessly on purpose leading to the great fall of Vronsky, leaving the country with a toothache, and not because of careless writing. I have not yet come up with an excuse for the term “vexed” thought.

Yulia, going back to Levin, I don’t want to simply excuse him, but the fact is that he at least saw and agonized over the social structure around him. It is also important to notice that the book portrait Russia in the 1870’s just 10 years after serfdom was abolished. Many of the musings the Levin has are related to how the systems of production could be restructured to allow for the survival of all. He sees around him a nobility that is completely ignorant of how to keep the land productive, and peasants who also are at loss with this new freedom. With few exceptions (the old muziak that had become prosperous with his immediate family working for him) most peasants are unable to integrate into the form of production now imposed on them – a copy of what had been done in other European countries.

The closet sociologist in me was very intrigued by it anyway. Also in the ways that the nobility lived, and the relationships married couples had. Anna and Karenin, and also Dolly and Stiva, led such strange married lives in my contemporary eyes. The relationships were so distant and calculated.

Which I think brings about the sexually charged passion between Anna and Vronsky. Anna certainly did not find it on her marriage, and I wonder if society’s shunning of such “fallen” woman as Anna is not only brought about because of their rejection of the structure of marriage, but because they are viewed as yielding to their sexual desires, something only permitted to the men.

You're right, Capitu. I should give Levin more credit to Levin for being enlightened for his time. I suppose I needed this drummed into me while I was reading it.

I agree with much of what has already been said but I would also add that for me the greatness of the novel is not the stories of the relationships but rather how Tolstoy managed to put these within the context of his description of the many layers of Russian society at the time, the political structures as well as the social, and his philosophical musings on God and life. To have done so meant that it can be read and discussed on so many levels that enrich those core stories.

I was slightly annoyed by Anna - whilst she was a part of a society that had importance for her and in part arose from her marital position, she thought that she could throw the marriage off and still be accepted - this would have been essentially unheard of in contemporary Russia. Vronsky I saw as an immature opportunist but their relative positions later in the book, after they were together, surely reflected very accurately the double standard and/or the reality of that society. I also thought that Stiva was really the male equivalent of Anna and his stand in society as a male accurately showed the difference between what was acceptable for men and women. In a sense what Anna did by encouraging Dolly to accept the state of her marriage to Stiva came back upon Anna. However, the infidelities were real in Dolly's situation and imagined in Anna's. And Steve, yes, the relationship between Anna and Vronsky was sexually charged but it was also romantically idealised, perhaps for Anna a bit of a backlash from her marriage to a much older man.

Capitu, your reflection on the relationships among the nobility was interesting - of course, marriages among the nobility were often tactical - either to extend influence or gain assets. The roles that the partners played reflected that and infidelities were often part of the picture. Perhaps the thing that was difficult in the marriage of Dolly and Stiva was that she expected more. Did this reflect middle class mores?

I know little about Tolstoy - here, though, is the link to Wiki which talks about his reforming zeal and his life - Levin reflects this most strongly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

I'm sure there is more about Tolstoy that has greater depth than this article but at least it's a starting point in understanding his underlying principles.

My only disappointment in the actual construction of the story was that there was a great gap between Anna's leaving her husband and child and the time in Italy, almost as though Tolstoy had left out a chapter or two. He was so careful to describe emotions and times of import for the characters that this seemed slightly odd - I would have thought that the final parting between Anna and her family would have given him a lot of room for musing - if a film had jumped from one scene to the next I would have assumed it was a bad bit of editing from the book.

I just finished reading this so here are my thoughts:

There are a lot of contrasts in this book: Vronski & Anna vs. Levin Kitty etc. but the one I found most interesting is the contrast between the exterior life of society, carreers and arranged marriages and the interior life of love, faith and happiness.

Vronski is a perfect example of a man who leads an exterior life: he lives for his carreer and what he wants from life is a good position in society. To achieve this he makes strategic choices: he rejects a position he wants in order to get a better offer. His "strong white teeth" are a symptom of this. I also think his good teeth are mentioned so much because his looks etc. are his best feature. His inner life is not so pleasing, as you can see in the beginning of the book when he crushes Kitty without even noticing it. He lives for his own pleasure.

When the foreign prince visits Vronski, he starts to realize this. The foreign prince is described as a fresh crispy Dutch cucumber, the vegetable equivalent of strong white teeth. Vronski sees the prince as a mirror of his own life: very appealing on the outside, as long as you stay on the surface, below the surface there's just emptyness.

A cucumber is not the type of person you would spend your life with: they don't age very well. And there's nothing left once the outside goes bad. Anna and Vronski are doomed from the start. Another sign of this is the man who jumps in front of the train when they meet: Anna will kill herself in the same way.

After meeting the foreign prince and because of his love for Anna, Vronski does try to change. He gives up his carreer to be with her and tries to be a better person. But after a while in Italy he gets bored, painting is not a good enough substitute for society, it's not where his talents are.

Living on their beautiful estate he and Anna are back to their exterior life. When Dolly visits them she appreciates all the nice things they have, but she senses that there's something missing. Anna's daughter has everything she might ever need, except for a loving mother.

Anna and Vronski fail because they can't live without society. They can't have both each other and have a good position in society. Vronski and Karenin are very much alike: they both don't have much inner life and are motivated by carreers and the way society sees them. Anna wants something from Vronski he can't give her just as Karenin couldn't give her love.

That was a great note about the toothache, Capitu, I hadn't even noticed it. Vronski goes to war with a toothache: his life is destroyed, the cucumber has become yellow and rubbery.

@ Al: I haven't seen this one yet, but there's a 1935 film version with Greta Garbo as Anna Karenina. 100% on rottentomatoes.com I'll probably watch this one today or tomorrow.

For information on other film versions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina#Film...

Sibyl,

This is just an aside - I noticed after all the discussion of teeth that Tolstoy mentions Karenin's white teeth at some point near where they finally part!

I accepted Karenin's position in the story as one of the more noble ones - he was contributing to society at least and also willing to look after both the children - but I felt that Tolstoy portrayed him as a man who was living in the manner of the past. He was all to do with self-discipline and the mores of his social position whereas Anna and Vronski were living through feeling and ignoring the social mores. The influence of religion on Karenin later in the story was also fascinating - I loved the way that Tolstoy brought in the various threads of religious experience common in the society of the day - from the seer to the nearly Puritan to the Orthodox. What a breadth of vision he had to write this.

My last thought for the moment was that I almost felt that the title could have been 'Crime, Punishment and Society.'

One other thought - I remember a good television adaptation of this but having googled AK I really can't remember which one it was or whether it was actually a film on the telly.

Very interesting comments, Capitu and Sibyl.

I was having trouble deciding what to call the Frenchman Landau a/k/a Count Bezzubov, Ricki. "Seer" is good enough. Thank you. The scene late in the book wherein Stepan Arkadyich meets with Alexei Alexandrovich at Lydia Ivanovna's place with that idiot savant Frenchman present is one of my favorites.

Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin reminds me very much of Edward Casaubon, Dorothea Brooke’s husband in Middlemarch.

Thanks Sibyl and Ricki for your comments about the characters' inner and external lives, that is insightful.

I also appreciate the comments Capitu and others have been making about the novel's fascinating picture of Russian society in the 1870s. The muzhiks, businessmen, military men, landed nobles, the whole spectrum, though seen mostly of course from the perspective of the upper classes. I agree, Yulia, that Levin can be irritating at times, with all his awkward attempts at playing the farmer, but I guess I see his muddle as standing in a way for the confusions accompanying such rapid social change.

It was interesting to see the Russians understand themselves as not truly part of Europe -- Europe was a refuge for the aristocrats. I was also struck by the frequent discussion of potential revolution and both socialist and communist proposals for change.

I haven't finished reading yet... still on p. 581, and I've been working on it (slowly) since last June. This book is neither self-propelled ("a page turner") nor a slog; the pages seem to turn naturally, leisurely, and I am usually content to read two or three chapters at a time. The writing has surprised me in its accessibility. It's never exciting or humorous, but at least it's not daunting. I do appreciate the short chapters, as they make it easier to digest material that otherwise wouldn't hold my interest very strongly.

I am just curious why we didn't get any reaction from the remaining characters to Anna's suicide. With her being chosen as the title character I assumed there would be more imparted to us through their thoughts and emotions about her life/death - but perhaps that was the lesson - that no one cared - other than Vronsky.

I didn't like her character at all and only Dolly's musing in her carraige ride to visit Anna made me slightly sympathetic.

Anna got bored with her marriage, stole a new friend's love, encouraged an affair, toyed with her former husband's emotions, abandoned her son, found no capacity for love of her daughter, and when her new love got bored with just her presence she assumed he was off cheating on her since that was what she had done to put herself in this mess to begin with. So she kills herself to make him sorry about how mean he has been to her.

I would have enjoyed hearing Kitty's reaction, or Stepan's - or Levin's - he could have spent hours in the meadow waxing poetic about her soul I am sure.

Speaking of Levin, he was obviously the opposite in character - I enjoyed his self-effacing way and how he seemed to wish he had just been born a peasant rather than having to deal with all that was expected of him as a nobleman. The sections between him and Kitty seemed to be the moral compass of the book and the representation of what a good life can really be - making mistakes, communicating with others, setting aside pride and seeking answers to tough questions were their key to living.

I also was curious why Tolstoy highlighted only the one chapter about Levin's brother's death by naming it.

Ricki, that lapse in time also struck me while reading it, as if his publisher or Tolstoy himself was worried the story wasn't moving along quickly enough, so . . . she left her beloved son and went to Italy. It was odd to then get to the scene where she misses Seryozha so much because all that time has passed by without a concern stated about him. But if it was so difficult for her, how could this period be rushed through? Wouldn't this be significant in showing her struggle between her son and Vronsky? Obviously this isn't a huge issue, but it also caught my attention and made me question the sincerity of her struggle.

Molly, I too got frustrated by Anna's double standards, but then I felt guilty because it doesn't seem fair to get mad at someone who's going mad.

The question that haunts me still is, would Vronsky have remained faithful to Anna? Yes, he wanted to marry her and raise their daughter and give them security, but his restlessness regarding his hobbies (from agriculture to the hospital to politics) made me worry that she was doomed to bore him, even if she hadn't been so clingy. Perhaps it's unfair for me to compare his commitment to her to his hobbies. But I could never trust him. It's just not good to start a relationship with an act of disloyalty, as they did on both their parts. I suppose it's all a moot point. His life was ruined. But the toothache at the end did make me think Vronsky would have pitied himself whatever had happened to Anna.

Ricki, thanks for the link. I had no knowledge of Tolstoy’s inner struggles and his importance in the early pacifist movement. I wish now that I had searched information on him earlier. I think I would have paid better attention on Levin’s spiritual and social musings. Learning about Tolstoy’s life long questionings, this whole book acquires again a different layer of meaning.

Yulia, I think Vrosnky would not remain faithful to Anna or to any other woman. The mores of his time and his class did not dictate that he should, just the opposite, and he would eventually be attracted to someone else. I don’t mean that he would abandon her, but that he would, like Stiva expected Dolly to “understand”, just expect the same of Anna. And I agree with you that his own view of himself was that of someone that was always in the right, and that he would excuse himself of any wrong doing at the end.

But Anna’s situation, as Dolly’s and even Kitty, made me think of how those women were constrained to a dependency of their husbands financially and emotionally. I do know that the degree of freedom we, women, have nowadays is so completely new in history. But those were smart and interesting women that were groomed only to catch a husband, never allowed to have any other interests, and then shunned when they lost their “freshness” or, like in Anna’s case, when they become an emotional burden to the men.

This is the first time I've ever read this, and I'm so very thankful for translators who can make it so completely readable.

For me, I don't think this novel would have been much without Levin and his musings and his relationships with his two very different brothers. The characters of Anna and Vronsky seem almost superficial in comparison. It is as if they are being used only to make some larger point about the state of Russia as Tolstoy describes it through Levin.

A couple initial thoughts:

What struck me was the railroad and its influence running through the entire novel. Levin remained against the railroad and against the changes it brought into society as Russia was entering a more industrial time. Vronsky and Oblosnky (who both continue with their adultrous affairs happily) are both also happy with the railroad and whatever they may gain from it and its changes to society. It was interesting to see that Anna was destroyed while Kitty prospered (more or less). There is a fairly strong argument in the novel that life in Russia should follow the old and spiritual ways even if those ways are not necessarily logical.

I'm also still brooding over the mother-son relationship theme going on. When Anna is first introduced, she has been riding on the train with Vronsky's mother, who spent the whole ride praising her son. The relationship between Anna and Vronsky interferes with both the mother-son relationship between Vronsky and his mother and with Anna's relationship with her son Seryozha.

There is a great argument scene between Anna and Vronsky on page 748 in which Anna says "...a woman with no heart, whether she's old or not, your mother or someone else's, is of no interest to me, and I do not care to know her." and "A woman whose heart cannot tell her what makes for the happiness and honour of her son, is a woman with no heart." Vronsky takes this as insult to his own mother and immediately is defensive. I couldn't help but read it as Anna making a more internal critique of herself as the heartless woman who has let her own son down. She's already stuck in her own internal mental loop which doesn't really include communicating with Vronsky at that point. I really enjoy the layers of double meaning in that entire scene.

All in all I'm so glad I finally read this, and am looking forward to reading others' comments here.

Cara I really like your opinions on the mother-son relationship. Regarding the argument scene between Anna & Vronsky - instead of being critical or finding fault with herself, maybe she was sickened by how she felt HE took her away from her son. This then caused her to lose the ability to consider herself a mother any longer. And if she couldn't be a mother to her son then she had no desire or ability to be a mother to their daughter - HIS daughter - again, the reason for her loss of her son.

Cara, Thanks from me also for those insights into the importance of the mother-son relationships and the loss thereof. I shall have to muse on that for a while.

And the railroad - I suppose the coming of the railroads were also a turning point in many societies...interesting.

Here are the first of many tidbits that I found interesting -

Levin - 'I think that the motive force of all our actions,is, after all, personal happiness. In our present day institutions I, as a nobleman, see nothing that contributes to my well-being. ...I have no need of doctors and centes, I have no need of any justice of the peace...' (this all related to why Levin was uninterested in the functioning of the zemstvo) I think these attitudes defined the changes needed in Russian or perhaps all monarchist societies of the time - there was a large section of the nobility who saw no responsibility towards the welfare of others in their society in a manner that gave those others freedom of action rather than dependence on the nobility themselves.

Also - I hadn't realised that divorce was a possibility in Russian society of the time until I read it in AK. Was it possible in other societies then?

And Vronsky - the beginning of Chapter 20 when Tolstoy talks of the code of rules by which V defined 'everything that ought and ought not to be done.' Fascinating - especially the bits where he talks about his relations with Anna, society and her husband and how he was 'caught unawares' when A announced she was pregnant.

There's so much more.....

And Steve, you are awfully quiet....

I'm just being a good "listener" right now, Ricki, something I don't have a natural talent for. Each and every one of the postings in this topic so far have been well worth reading attentively.

Not a lot of attention has been paid to Count Vronsky yet though. My impression is that he's not overly bright. However, he is fall-down handsome and athletically talented. I hate those kinda guys.

My favorite from his code is here:

His relations with society were also clear. Everyone might know or suspect it, but no one should dare to talk. Otherwise he was prepared to silence the talkers and make them respect the non-existent honour of the woman he loved.

I think Vronsky might be getting a little bit harsher than necessary treatment here. Sure, he starts out as a fun-loving bachelor who is basically eye candy but he does fall hard for Anna and I believe he really tries to make it work with her.

The fact that he needs society or a vocation or a passion besides Anna doesn't make him a bad guy.

Vronski really changes his life for Anna and makes an effort to make her happy. His reaction to her death proves how much he really loved her. He becomes more sympathetic.

Anna on the other hand becomes a jealous controlfreak, which is understandable if you look at the situation she is in. I felt sorry for her and really wanted her to be happy, but I don't think that anything Vronski could do would have made her happy again. Even if she got her son back, she would probably still think she had failed.

And who is to blame for all of her sorrow? Her parents and family, who brought her up to live her life according to certain standards and married her off to an older man? Karenin, who married her but didn't give her the love she needed? Society, that needed her to live a certain life, fake or not, to be accepted? The time she lived in and the double standard for men and women? Vronski, for starting an affair with her? Or Anna herself, maybe she shouldn't have been bothered with all this. Maybe she should have been stronger, having the courage to lead the life she wanted, ignoring fate or the opinions of others. I wonder: would it have been different if she didn't have a son? Or is this just another circumstance Anna blames for her unhappiness, an excuse for not taking matters into her own hands?

Edit: I know it is unfair for us to judge her, but we can't just let her get away with blaming her situation on circumstances.

Gosh, all I did was point out that Count Vronsky was not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and you two rush to his defense. That's one of the big reasons I hate those dumb, handsome, athletic guys. Women will work and work to find an excuse to forgive those guys anything.

I'm glad Count Vronsky was going bald at the end. I hope his strong white teeth fell out. I hope he had to get a Viagra prescription, too--or the 19th Century equivalent thereof, rhino horn or shark fin or whatever--and I hope the medication didn't work.

Steve, I sense some hostility in you post. Poor Vronsky could not help that he was handsome and athletic. ;)

Capitu! Poor Vronsky? Poor Vronsky? Surely you're trying to incite me now for your own amusement.

Wow, thanks Steve for stereotyping me.

What I'm trying to do is not finding excuses for Vronski to forgive him for the disasters he's caused. He is still responsible, but there are good sides to not so good people. Maybe he deserved his toothache and everything else you wish for him, but even a stupid cucumber like Vronski is capable of some true feelings and as such evokes sympathy.

Steve, of course I am no Anna, but personally I always preferred the strong quiet sort of guys, more so if they read obscure books and hang around the library, than the jerks on the football (soccer in my case) teams. The thing is, even the literary types always fall for the Annas of high school than for the kind of girl I was. I am just letting out that I not only understand but also sympathize with your antagonism very much.

Cara, I really enjoyed your post. And all following comments as a matter of fact.

I have been thinking non stop about this book, and I am having trouble verbalizing my feelings, but more and more I think this book is much less about Anna – the title is very misleading – than it is a exposé of Tolstoy’s inner thoughts and criticisms of the society he lived in. The brilliance of it is that it not once it feels preachy or condescending.

While reading it often I felt that Tolstoy was too “wordy” and the story could have been told in half the number of pages, but now I realize that there was so much more he was intending to tell over and above the main story line that most of those pages were necessary.

Yes, it was necessary to show how superfluous the election of provincial offices were; how elaborate the dinning and the men’s club; how exhausting the cutting of the hay; how political some social affairs as a horse race were; etc, etc…

And, although all I know about Tolstoy comes from the Wikipedia link from Ricki, the time line of when this book was written (1870’s) seems to coincide with an internal search in Tolstoy himself. So, again I wonder how much of Levin’s thoughts and final epiphany is Tolstoy own voice.

I am going to muse longer and come back later…

Capitu - although I myself didn't particularly care for the political and social commentary - it did seem to me that Tolstoy was working out his own thoughts/feelings on the current issues through his writing here. If I was more familiar with Russian history of that time I think I would have better appreciated those sections that he wove into the story of the characters' lives and their growth and or demise.

Sibyl, I hope you understand that I was just having a little fun.

"Stupid cucumber" is perfect.

Along the lines of what you are saying about the criticism of society, Capitu. . . . .

Sometimes I pine for the old second wave feminists of the early seventies who used to raise such hell with Norman Mailer, Bobby Riggs, Leave it to Beaver, and the likes of me. I’m talking for example about Kate Millett, Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller, and my own personal favorite, Germaine Greer.

Kate Millett wrote a book that I enjoyed very much called Sexual Politics, in which she analyzed the alleged patriarchal, sexist slant of certain literature. Among others she tore D.H. Lawrence a new ear hole. But she was also, of course, a fan of literature that illustrated gender politics at work.

I cannot help but think that Kate Millett loved Anna Karenina, although I cannot find any mention of it by her. Gender politics is one of the centerpieces of this novel. First, the obvious. Count Vronsky does not suffer the social stigma for his violation of society’s rules that Anna does, the simple reason being that his ilk devised those rules. In fact he is treated for the most part by his peers as if he had not violated any rules at all. That all has been mentioned previously here.

But also, women’s complicity in the limitations on their own status is wonderfully portrayed here. When Anna’s affair was kept “secret,” she was still socially acceptable to the women. But when she came out, she was not. The female characters are enthusiastic in their ravaging of her when she becomes an open renegade. (Dolly is one interesting exception to some extent.) So this novel nicely illustrates an old maxim: nobody—and I mean nobody—is harder on women than other women.

Vronsky on the football pitch - I can just see that - the modern equivalent to the horse-racing aristo, champing at the bit to duel with the husband who passed his sell-by-date. You can also just sort of picture Anna with pom-poms on the sidelines ready to swoon over him, his youth, body, teeth, shoulder pads, uniform, etc. What a pot-boiler this is. Is anyone ready to write the modern version?

Capitu - I'm sure you're right and also that what makes this a masterpiece is that it isn't only a story but that it unfolds Tolstoy's thoughts on 'life, death and the universe' as well as contemporary Russian society.

One other little thing I may have missed - at what point and why did Vronsky change from having to mind his pennies to being able to live in, support and afford the life of luxury?


Another tidbit from Dolly - 'Everybody lives, everybody enjoys life, she went on thinkingc... and I, RELEASED AS IF FROM PRISON, FROM A WORLD THAT IS KILLING ME WITH CARES, HAVE ONLY NOW COME TO MY SENSES FOR A MOMENT. eVERYBODY LIVES - THESE WOMEN, AND MY SISTER nATALIE, AND vARENSKA, AND aNNA, WHOM i AM GOING TO SEE - AND ONLY i DON'T.
'aND THEY ALL FALL UPON ANNA. wHAT FOR? aM i ANY BETTER? i AT LEAST HAVE A HUSBAND i LOVE. nOT AS i'D HAVE WANTED TO LOVE, BUT i DO LOVE HIM, AND aNNA DID NOT LOVE HERS. hOW IS SHE TO BLAME, THEN? sHE WANTS TO LIVE. gOD HAS PUT THAT INTO OUR SOULS. i MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE DONE THE SAME. eVEN NOW i DON'T KNOW IF i DID THE RIGHT THING TO LISTEN TO HER....i OUGHT TO HAVE LEFT MY HUISBAND THEN AND.... etc

Oh sorry - I was touch typing without looking and at some point I must have put the caps lock on and I can't face doing the above again.

Anyway the whole point of that is that Tolstoy must have had some sympathy for the place of woman in his society and if you felt you were only a pawn in society then I suppose you could feel sorry for yourself. Anna, however, got out of that trap and where did it get her.... Most of these characters were really traditional tragic characters weren't they - falling onto their own metaphorical swords because of some fatal flaw in themselves. Except maybe for Kitty and Levin and I wonder if that's simply because Kitty and Levin were based more on Tolstoy's reality.

Will look forward to reading all your posts in the a.m. Am about to leave my cosseted world to go out into the snow for the evening, not exactly in the snow all evening, but anyway.

Thanks to everybody for a wonderful discussion!

I like Cara's point about the effects of the railroad on Russian society, both in terms of technology and the metaphorical changes that represented.

Ricki and Steve's point about the gender(ed) politics of the story is also well taken.

Molly's comment about Levin is very insightful too:

The sections between him and Kitty seemed to be the moral compass of the book and the representation of what a good life can really be - making mistakes, communicating with others, setting aside pride and seeking answers to tough questions were their key to living.

One smaller theme that I found very amusing was Tolstoy's skewering of the inner workings of a large bureaucracy, shown especially vividly in those scenes where Karenin exults over his great victories in boardroom combat or is devastated when outmaneuvered by a rival. The commission established to reconsider the advice of two previous commissions was both priceless and scarily close to life.

Thinking about the progress of the male characters through their governmental or military careers emphasizes points made by others above about the importance of appearances, 'honor,' and exterior life on the men in the story.

*blush* - Thanks Philip. Nice that you enjoyed my thoughts.

Ricki - there is a modern retelling of this story:
What Happened to Anna K?

Yes, yes, yes, Ricki! Where did Count Vronsky ultimately get his money? I couldn't figure that out either. Somebody needs to explain that to us.

I dog-eared to whole book, but now I can not find the specific comments, but Vronsky had initially generously given a big part of his yearly income from his state to his brother, as he felt that as a bachelor and army officer he did not need as much income as his married sibling. However he goes back on that decision when the relationship with Anna becomes expensive. There is a scene when he is paying bills while still an officer that shows how broke he had become. It is implied somewhere that he finally asks his brother for his equal part of the family state income.

Okay, I want to order a movie version from Netflix, but they feature two that sound intriguing:

(1) The 1935 version starring Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric March as Vronsky, Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty, and Basil Rathbone as Karenin.

(2) The 1948 version starring Vivien Leigh as Anna and Ralph Richardson as Karenin.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246353/

The imdb ratings give the Garbo version the edge ... any thoughts??

I have not seen either but think that Fredric March would make a very handsome Vronsky - though I do like Vivien Leigh.

Now I see that the customer reviews on Netflix decidedly prefer the 1935 Garbo version (except perhaps for die-hard V.L. fans like me!) in part due to a poor transfer of the 1948 film to the DVD format.

Thanks, Capitu.

Is Alexei Karenin a villain or a victim? Is he an evil person, assuming one believes there are evil people? I think we can understand him, but do we forgive him? (I do not adhere to the adage that to understand all is to forgive all.) Or in his case is there anything to forgive?

Before we move on to Karenin, I want to jump in on the gender politics. One of things that I also realized about this book is that besides Levin, most of the interesting and compelling characters are women: dolly, Anna, Kitty, Vrenka (I don't have the book anymore and apologies if I am mispelling her name), Lydia, Levin's brother's girlfriend, the woman who helped Levin run his household, Kitty and Dolly's mother, Vronsky's mother, etc. It really is a vast array of woman at different stages in life. There is something really great about that.

As for Karenin, he was definitely a victim not a villian in my eyes. More than a victim, he was what my people would kindly call a "putz" - he let everyone manipulate him and he didn't know what to do or where to turn most of the time when it came to his personal life.