Sherry wrote: "Sounds like you had fun frying up your brain."
Tons of fun frying up my brain, but I feel like I partied way too hard, with no liquor or drugs around. I can't think much right now, like I sprained another brain muscle.

Al wrote: "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 a..." I know men like Karenin. It is easier to have compassion for them if they aren't related to you by family or marriage, to the point you have to interact with them more than once a year. But I do appreciate a man jumping in there and explaining him from a man's point of view. I, frankly, am tired of women frustrated by men, and getting upset with characters in literature as if it were personal. I like to be irritated by them for a moment, but as for the villains and putzes and control-freaks in my own ife, I thank "God foir them at a Looooooonnnnnngggg distance, because if everyone were patient and kind and politically correct, what in the hell would there be to write or read about?

Sounds like you had fun frying up your brain.

Halfway through on W and P, but have been at a writers conference all week, so haven't thought much about Anna. I fried my brain writing and listening to writers and gossiping about our favorite writers like we were a small town and the authors were our favorite if somewhat addled relatives. It was so great, but I am so tired, frazzled, crisped, mit chared wires and fried motherboard in my brain to say the least. Back in a day or so.

Okay, Yoby. You have brooded for a couple of weeks. Do you have anything to add? I ask because I enjoy your notes on this novel so much.

And how are you coming on War and Peace? I set it aside and am stuck now at 400 pages and change. I did so originally to read Homage to Catalonia, which is a fantastic piece of non-fiction. I need to get back to the big one though.

Liz wrote: "Yoby, I really like what you said about Levin and/or Tolstoy not resolving their "camaraderie/make a difference" campaigns for the poor. You don't have to, but I'd love it if you expounded on this..."
Levin never did get his farm to where it made a profit, or get his peasants to use the modern machinery, never did get the close camraderie with the peasants like he wanted. Theu humored him and put up with his attempts to become one with them. Toalstay went through the same thing in his life, except he was a mixture of Levin and Stepin, because he wanted to give all he had away (Like Levin) but also wanted his wife to follow his example without considering how he was going to leave her destitute with all those children.(Stepin demanding that Dolly liquidate her property so he could pay off his debts.

It is just screwy how much the novel imitates his own life, with himself playing the various men's parts, and the women desperate or clingy or obstinate, but never really there. Even Anna in the end became wo desperate and hystericla that she trew herself in front ot the carriage, and is only shown as a seductress at the end whose sedutive ways were failing her with Vronsky. I don't really like his female characters that much.

But back in that time, there wasn't supposed to be any depth to women. I think Levin felt that way , as did Stepin and Vronsky. Their women were there for comfort and to run a yhousehold and organize all the nicities of life, but nothig more than that -

I'm going to have to brood on this some more.

Yoby, I really like what you said about Levin and/or Tolstoy not resolving their "camaraderie/make a difference" campaigns for the poor. You don't have to, but I'd love it if you expounded on this idea a little more. It's been a while since I read and I'm the type that quickly forgets the details, so if you could refresh my memory that'd be great. I'm just fascinated with the idea cause I'm pretty sure I totally agree with you. Anyway, you don't have to expound . . . but if you could . . .

Yoby wrote: "Finally finished the book. Had to take a long break because I sprained my brain trying to read both this and War and Peace. I used to read a lot faster, consumed literature like some devour junk-..."

As they say "I used to read books, now the books read me."

Yoby, I love your comment before I was using literature to explore life, and now it reminds me of my life -- this has happened to me a lot too, lately, especially with authors like Tolstoy, Wharton, and now James.

Finally finished the book. Had to take a long break because I sprained my brain trying to read both this and War and Peace. I used to read a lot faster, consumed literature like some devour junk-food, but I don't seem to be able to do that anymore. I think the difference is that before I was using literature to explore life, and now it reminds me of my life, and I stop to reminesce or to remember friends and colleagues who went through something like it - I know at the last that Anna's desperateness, I have been there, not willing to have a life of my own but pinning it all to a bad relationship, but lately I am more like Levin in the last chapter. It is odd how the ruomours of war and so forth are on the horizon. which war is it, or did I miss that post? I think that Dolly giving up ehr right to the land, was a stupid attempt by Tolstoy to show that his wife was being stubborn while his female character finally came to her senses, expept that Stepan was wanting to pay off debts, and Tolstoy was wanting to give it all to the poor.

I don't think Levin, or Tolstoy, ever solved their problems of feeling camraderie with the poor, yet unable to make a difference, or maybe I am just projecting.

I do think that at the last when they talk of "The will of the people" actually being just the will of a few. I feel that way all the time, and it seems that other countries at all times go through the same thing. Only the loudest and most visible seem to be "The will of the People."

Yes, at first I thought Vronsky was beautiful-but-dumb. But then, when Tolstoy shows him on his estate, building the hospital, etc., I figured he was pretty smart. So you're right, he should be able to pick up on his effect on others.

Actually, I think he knew his EFFECT -- he was deliberately seducing Anna, after all. He just never thought ahead as to where the effect would lead. We see that pretty clearly with Kitty and her mom. And then, of course, Anna. He might have lacked self-knowledge, too. He didn't look ahead to see that he would not be satisfied to live in seclusion with Anna till death did them part, but that he would want to continue his social life (which would be barred to her). And then, he didn't look ahead to what that seclusion would do to Anna.

Mary Ellen

I think the horse-scene is perfect if you want to know who Vronsky is. He doesn't only break the horse's spine, he's also mad at it for not getting up. He just doesn't understand. He has no clue what he does to other people, but he should, he's smart enough.

Sibyl, then thanks for highlighting it -- I paid much more attention to that little episode because of your comment. (I admit that I skimmed through some things I considered "distractions" from the main story, such as Levin's participation in the election of...some official or other!)

Mary Ellen

That was me, probably.

Barbara & Sybil: I recall someone else in the discussion noted the same incident, to the effect that Vronsky is a man who kills a horse because he lands an inch to the side while riding (but it was said much more gracefully!). The thing is, Vronsky loved the horse. That's what makes it such a brilliant point!

Mary Ellen

I loved that point about the fate of Vronsky's horse too, Mary Ellen. In my 2 reads of this book, I somehow never caught that.

I'm glad you liked this. I remember how intimidated I was by Tolstoy when I first read it and how surprised I was by the reality.

Mary Ellen said: Vronsky: the death of his favorite little horse was just so telling. He unwittingly leaves destruction in his path because he is unable to measure the extent of his effect on others. The inclusion of that episode (though a bit too drawn out with all the training minutiae) was quite brilliant.

That's exactly how I felt about him.

Very late to the party here, but I want to thank CRs for getting me to read this (been on my TBR list for a while) and for the great discussion.

I feel like I deserve a medal (and you all, too) for getting through the book -- fully agree with the comment that Tolstoy needed an editor! And clearly the "paid by the installment" factor is evident here!

But I also think Tolstoy shows amazing insight into human nature. The chapters leading up to Anna's famous suicide are the most outstanding, but far from only, example of his being able to show us how people think and shift their positions, how they inwardly process their experiences ... This was the most wonderful aspect of the book for me.

I must belatedly jump into the "Anna the anti-hero" debate. I agree with the "no she isn't" camp. I picture the anti-hero as Milton's Satan: I would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. In other words, a character who fearlessly and boldly takes a position that most of us would consider flawed. Anna just takes a route that her society considers flawed, but she does not do so fearlessly. She does not, IMHO, face death fearlessly, either. Just thoughtlessly. She is so consumed with spitefulness (brought on by what seems like madness) that she doesn't fully face what she's doing until she's on the tracks -- and then wishes very much that she wasn't there:
"In that same moment she was horrified at what she was doing. 'Where am I? What am I doing? Why?' She wanted to rise, to throw herself back, but something huge and implacable pushed her head and dragged over her."

Anna is a pathetic, perhaps tragic figure (though I didn't note any "greatness" from which she fell - just a very comfortable social position). But she is not a heroic one. (I agree the unfairness of the treatment meted out to her, in comparison with Vronsky's continued social standing. But being the unwilling victim of double standards doesn't make one heroic, anti- or otherwise.)

I thoroughly enjoyed the story of Levin and Kitty. Levin is my favorite character, though I think I would enjoy being with Kitty more than being with him. (He remained endearingly socially awkward to the end!) I agree with the comment that, for Tolstoy, Levin's re-discovery of his faith was the climax of the book; also that it's impact on me as a reader pales in comparison with that of Anna's death. (Fascinating how Tolstoy treats the aftermath of her death! That the very next page gives us rather dull backstory on a relatively minor character! Again, brilliant.) The title actually puzzles me, as I don't see Anna as "the" main character.

As to other debates:

Vronsky: the death of his favorite little horse was just so telling. He unwittingly leaves destruction in his path because he is unable to measure the extent of his effect on others. The inclusion of that episode (though a bit too drawn out with all the training minutiae) was quite brilliant.

Karenin: a weak, pathetic and sometimes cruel character, but with little strength or "center" of his own. It will be his just deserts if, now that Anna is out of the way, that Countess Lydia gets her way and marries him!

Thanks again for the rich discussion!

Mary Ellen

I agree with Steve. Those are lovely passages that show a surprisingly knowledge of the intricacies of female dress. It's a little startling to imagine the Tolstoy of the old, gruff photographs that we often see uttering those words. Happily, I've also seen the younger, more dashing photos.

Oh hi Molly, sorry I missed your question, we must have been posting simultaneously. I thought the entire cast was excellent, conveying large parts of their characters' personalities in brief scenes edited to focus on their interactions. Both Kitty and Anna looked very much like they are described, other than O'Sullivan not being blonde. But I'm almost positive that I wouldn't have understood most of the overtones to the ball scene without having read the book. On the other hand, there was a lot of ominous foreshadowing of tracks at the railway station (the one part of the story I knew without any direct previous knowledge).

Garbo was superb at projecting Anna's anguish and decline. Overall the movie played like a 90-minute Cliff's Notes -- focusing mostly on the Anna-Vronsky story, with some attention to Karenin and their son (Freddie B.), some to Dolly and Stiva, a little bit to Kitty and Levin.

Steve, the use of black & white film may have dampened my appreciation of Kitty's look in contrast to Anna's black velvet. Garbo really did stand out from her dress like a beautiful picture in a frame, as Tolstoy had Kitty imagine.

It seems clear to me that Mr. Tolstoy had the benefit of having seen several strikingly beautiful women before. More importantly, he had obviously studied them. These passages are impressive, Philip, particularly that in your No. 277.

Continuing the topic of my previous message ---- Later in the same chapter that I quoted from above, Tolstoy uses Kitty's response to Anna's appearance as a barometer of her feelings about the older woman, first before and then after Kitty sees that Vronsky has forgotten all about her and attached himself to Anna:

Anna was not in lilac, as Kitty had absolutely wanted, but in a low-cut black velvet dress, which revealed her full shoulders and bosom, as if shaped from old ivory, and her rounded arms with their very small, slender hands. The dress was all trimmed with Venetian guipure lace. On her head, in her black hair, her own without admixture, was a small garland of pansies, and there was another on her black ribbon sash among the white lace. Her coiffure was inconspicuous. Conspicuous were only those wilful little ringlets of curly hair that adorned her, always coming out on her nape and temples. Around her firm, shapely neck was a strong of pearls.

Kitty had seen Anna every day, was in love with her, and had imagined her inevitably in lilac. But now, seeing her in black, she felt that she had never understood all her loveliness. She saw her now in a completely new and, for her, unexpected way. Now she understood that Anna could not have been in lilac, that her loveliness consisted precisely in always standing out from what she wore, that what she wore was never seen on her. And the black dress with luxurious lace was not seen on her; it was just a frame, and only she was seen--simple, natural, graceful, and at the same time gay and animated.

Then, in the next chapter, we watch Kitty, thrown into despair over Vronsky, see Anna a bit differently:

Some supernatural force drew Kitty's eyes to Anna's face. She was enchanting in her simple black dress, enchanting were her full arms with the bracelets on them, enchanting her firm neck with its string of pearls, enchanting her curly hair in disarray, enchanting that beautiful face in its animation; but there was something terrible and cruel in her enchantment..

Kitty admired her even more than before, and suffered more and more. She felt crushed, and her face showed it. When Vronsky saw her, meeting her during the mazurka, he did not recognize her at first--she was so changed.

Philip wrote: "I recently watched the 1935 film version starring Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric Marsh as Vronsky, Basil Rathbone as Karenin and Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty. Watching the early scene of the ball whe..."

And how was the film? Did it effectively capture Kitty's "good hair day" in that scene? I was interested to see if Fredric March made a good Vronsky. From an appearance standpoint I could certainly see him in that role!

I recently watched the 1935 film version starring Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric Marsh as Vronsky, Basil Rathbone as Karenin and Maureen O'Sullivan as Kitty. Watching the early scene of the ball where Anna and Vronsky meet up and Kitty is left behind reminded me of a marvelous passage in the novel where Tolstoy uses very detailed, even lavish physical description of the women's dress and hair to provide insight into their character and their respective places in their world.

The first excerpt, from Chapter XXII of Part One, puts both Kitty and her self-possession on display:

Though Kitty's toilette, coiffure and all the preparations for the ball had cost her a good deal of trouble and planning, she was now entering the ballroom, in her intricate tulle gown over a pink underskirt, as freely and simply as if all these rosettes and laces, and all the details of her toilette, had not cost her and her household a moment's attention, as if she had been born in this tulle and lace, with this tall coiffure, topped by a rose with two leaves ...

Kitty was having one of her happy days. Her dress was not tight anywhere, the lace bertha stayed in place, the rosettes did not get crumpled or come off; the pink shoes with high, curved heels did not pinch, but delighted her little feet. The thick braids of blond hair held to her little head like her own. All three buttons on her long gloves, which fitted but did not change the shape of her arms, fastened without coming off. The black velvet ribbon of her locket encircled her neck with particular tenderness. The velvet ribbon was enchanting, and at home, as she looked at her neck in the mirror, she felt it could almost speak. All the rest might be doubted, but the ribbon was enchanting. Kitty also smiled here at the ball as she glanced at it in the mirror. In her bare shoulders and arms she felt a cold, marble-like quality that she especially liked. Her eyes shone, and her red lips could not help smiling from the sense of her own attractiveness. ...

Yes, Yoby, but I am not reading anything else right now, and I'll bet you were then. And "ambling" pretty well describes my pace.

Steve wrote: "Gosh, that was kind of you to say, Al. . . . .I think.

I have become so enthusiastic about these Pevear and Volokhonsky translations that I think I may try one of their Dostoyevsky translations wh..."I really like these translators also. Looking them up on line to see if they have any lectures out there on iTunes or YouTube.

I heard you started War and Peace. I started W&P before I was through with Anna Karinina, and had to put them both aside for awhile. Others brains may be up to it, but as I age I try more books than I can handle, and these two are about 6 books apiece if you ask me. I could have pushed myself, but at my age, literature isn't a mountain to conquer, but to amble up, with plenty of rests for the view on the way.

Gosh, that was kind of you to say, Al. . . . .I think.

I have become so enthusiastic about these Pevear and Volokhonsky translations that I think I may try one of their Dostoyevsky translations when I am done with this one.

So by summer you can be doing a reread and offer us even more of your sparkling comments and insights . . .

Well, maybe it won't take me that long. I can't put it down. . . . .War and Peace, that is.

Oh, don't be concerned, Barb. It's going to take me until next summer to finish it.

There's an awful lot of war and very little peace in the first half.

Oh my gosh, Steve. You jumped the gun! I hope you'll still be into talking about it this summer.

Ah, well. It doesn't hurt to ask.

And by the way I quite agree with you about how Dolly endeared herself to us as the novel progressed. Not so as regards Stiva though. Same schmuck at the end as he was in the beginning.

I am roughly 250 pages into the Pevear and Volokohnsky translation of War and Peace. Let the devil take the hindmost.

*with a chuckle* Sorry Steve, she's taken. You're great!

I hope your move went well, I despise moving. I recognize it as necessary, but avoid it at all costs.

I finally got back here to read your response to my question, Liz. I have been in the midst of moving, and you know how all consuming that is. Your response was a dandy. I understand what you are saying much better now with the benefit of your comparison of Dolly and Anna.

Is your mom a single lady by chance?

Liz wrote: "I'm still not sure how novels are nominated and who votes on them. Hopefully someone could explain this to me in more detail...."

As I understand it, you send a private message with your selections to Rikki for Classics and to Sherry for Reading List when they post a request for them every 6 months near the end and middle of each year.

Rikki asked for Classics nominations early this time around due to her schedule and just posted the nominees. You can send a personal message to her with your 4 votes right now and then she will announce the winners to be put on the schedule for the second half of this year.

The same process works with the Reading List - except you get 6 votes there. The nomination process for these haven't begun yet.

Capitu, I'm glad you understood my reasoning. Like I said, it's just my interpretation of the novel and it's characters. I do hope War and Peace is nominated. I checked out the list, looked like some good reads (no pun intended). I'm wondering how the voting and nominations work. It talks about it briefly on the orientation page but I'm still not sure how novels are nominated and who votes on them. Hopefully someone could explain this to me in more detail.

Thanks Beth, I corrected it...

Capitu-- One slight correction -- the story is set in 1870s Russia. I agree with you that it's a book that stays with you. I got so much more reading it this time compared to reading it in my teens.

Capitu wrote: "Liz, personally I found your reasoning very sound. And you just added another great insight into AK. Welcome to Constant Reader, and I hope you join us in other discussions. War and Peace was ju..."

Liz, personally I found your reasoning very sound. And you just added another great insight into AK. Welcome to Constant Reader, and I hope you join us in other discussions. War and Peace was just nominated for our next round of classics discussion. If it makes the final list, I wonder how it compares to AK. You can check all the nominations here:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1252...

I was pleased to see that the thread was alive again, as it seems that AK refuses to leave my mind. I am in the mists of planning my final paper for a course I am taking entitled “Food, Faith and the Rural Community”, and I keep remembering Levin and his musings about agriculture in 1870’s Russia. Amazing, but it seem to be still relevant today.

Steve, thanks for the intriguing question. Isn't it so interesting that we all take such different meanings and messages from a novel? I'll try to explain why I came to this conclusion. And in fact, after re-reading my post even I was a little surprised that I closed with that statement. It sounded so bold. I would never try to prove that Tolstoy intended readers to come to this conclusion, rather it's just the one I came to. Probably cause I hear my mother in the background, "Life is 20% what happens to you and 80& how you react." So cliche I know, but that's my mom! And the more I experience life the more I believe she may be onto something.

Dolly for example, her experiences at the beginning (a cheating husband and half a dozen children) seem to be just the thing that would wear me down and make me quit. I kept telling her "leave the fool, you could do so much better without him." And though that may be true, she choose to stay with Stiva and I believe she truly made the best of it. She helped her kids with homework, tried to teach them moral lessons when they erred, and built a great relationship with her little sister -- helping Kitty ease into motherhood as well. Though I thought Dolly was foolish and a bit fake at the beginning of the novel, I ended up really liking her and was very pleased with her outlook on life by the end. I think she truly made her self as happy as she could be in the situation she was given.

In contrast we have Anna. At the beginning I thought Anna was so brave and heroic. And I do feel terrible that the people of her time and society couldn't appreciate her decision to leave her husband and settle with her true love. And I can't even imagine how rough this shunning must have been for Anna, but I feel like she just kept making it worse. Dolly showed her she accepted Anna just the way she was and yet we don't see Anna appreciate and seek after that acceptance. I would have liked to see Anna choose to make the best of her situation and take a trip or two to Dolly's house. I think it would have served her well to leave Vronsky for an evening or two. And I have no children so I can't imagine being restricted from seeing my first born, but I also can't imagine that pain makes a good excuse not to love your next child.

I hope those explanations cleared up my reasoning a bit. I admire anyone who tries to understand my method of thinking. :) I would never argue it's the most correct reasoning, rather it's just the way I see things at this point in my life. When I read it 20 years from now I'll find something completely different to connect with.

Did I hear someone say "sophisticated and mature?" That's us for sure.

Nice posting, Liz. Glad you could make it. I am currently of the opinion, like you, that Anna Karenina is the best of all time. But I am such a slut for novels that I will probably fall for another within the next couple months.

In your next to last paragraph you talk about the masterful character development in this novel. And I certainly agree with that. But you close with: "And I strongly believe we are in control of that change, without even noticing it." I don't know about that, and I am not sure this novel supports that conclusion, but maybe I am not entirely understanding what you are saying. Could you elaborate just a bit?

Now this is not a mean spirited attack on your very first note here. I don't avail myself of emoticons or the like, but I assure you that this is a friendly question. All English teachers are heroes to me. My son is one, as a matter of fact.

From Liz's post: The chapters where it seems as though she's "gone mad" as I've heard some call it, were brilliant. I wouldn't describe it as gone mad myself, I felt like she had a moment we've all had at one point or another.

Oh, Liz, I'm so glad you said this. It says exactly how I felt about this but I couldn't find the proper words. Your statement is pitch perfect, in my opinion. I read those parts as Anna being so far into depression over everything that she was unable to think clearly -- but not as her having crossed into complete madness. And like Barb -- I'll again say welcome.

Liz, I loved your observation that Tolstoy showed us that humans generally don't change overnight, with a dramatic conversion, as Kitty and Levin thought or hoped. After reading a lot about Tolstoy, I suspect that he too wanted to experience that instant renewal. So, he's almost talking to himself here. As I probably said at some point in the discussion, one of my favorite things about him is how imperfect he was in his life, but how he could work through those same issues successfully in his writing.

And, again, I'm glad you found us.

I must say, well done everyone. I've just joined Constant Reader. I think it looks like an excellent group. It was this thread on Anna Karenina that led me to the group. I read the book this past month, and in a desperate need to talk to someone about it, I searched for discussions on goodreads and shelfari. You have all given me some wonderful new insights. I can't really add anything new because everything I thought of and more has been said. But just to give you an idea of what my opinion was at the end of this novel (just finished it yesterday) . . .

I LOVE Anna Karenina. It might possibly become my favorite work of literature, EVER. The writing was wonderful (I read the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation). I was fascinated with each of the characters and was pleasantly surprised Levin and Kitty had a happy marriage (I was rooting for them all along but feared it might end tragic). I was saddened by Anna's tragic ending but found the way Tolstoy handled it so A-mazing. The chapters where it seems as though she's "gone mad" as I've heard some call it, were brilliant. I wouldn't describe it as gone mad myself, I felt like she had a moment we've all had at one point or another. Obviously Levin even toyed with some of the same thoughts she had. But their outcomes, how different and unique.

There is so much more I could say about this novel and what I loved about it. But I guess I will just end my thoughts with this one. Tolstoy really seemed to show us that no one can change over night (as Kitty, in Germany, and Levin, during his conversion expected to); but rather change comes to us gradually . . . for better or worse. And I strongly believe we are in control of that change, without even noticing it.

Again, thank you for providing such deep insights to my reading of the novel. I'm so grateful there is a sophisticated and mature place to discuss books I love.

Wow, those are some big names in the competition. But, I like her writing more than any of the others. Unfortunately, I may be in the minority. I hope not. Jane Smiley as the chair gives me hope.

And, thanks for saying that about introducing you to new writing! It gave me a great feeling.

I was teasing about the scholar part.

I love Tolstoy and Munro too. I love that CR (and you especially) introduced me to such wonderful writers that I probably would not have gotten around to on my own.

Did you see that she is up for the international man booker prize? I think it would be so cool if she won.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/20/stories/...

Thanks, Al, but I'm not a Tolstoy scholar, definitely a lover of his writing though. Alice Munro and Tolstoy are my two favorite authors. Occasionally, I try to figure out what they have in common that draws me and I think it's that they get humanity so right.

excellent Barbara - I was counting on you, our resident Tolstoy scholar :)
It definitely gets my vote!!

I already did, al. Now, we just all need to vote for it.

just a reminder that someone should nominate War and peace for classics this summer - ricki is accepting nominations now.