Anna Karenina
discussion
Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?
Al wrote: "I loved Anna. I was disappointed in her... like watching your friend make really stupid life-decisions... But, I read that Tolstoy himself did not like Anna. He origonally wrote her as fat and se..."Indeed, and he would eventualy deny himself as the author of the novel.
Lauren wrote: "I found Anna very frustrating and confusing and yet, she was probably one of the best characters I have encountered. There were times when I was infatuated with her (i.e. when she first meets Vrons..."Levin represents Tolstoi's own existencial doubts and inner conflicts, that's why he has elaborated Levin so likely!
Really had my moments with Anna. I absolutely loved/adored her like a friend. She certainly became a bit of a whiner though towards the end of the book, and I couldn't stand to really listen to her complain and go back and forth with Vronsky for one more minute. I was actually kind of pleased when she did what she did at the end (trying not to spoil). I grew tired of hearing her loathe him for one minute and love Karenin and then need him the next and loathe Karenin instead. She definitely made me feel a little loony myself.
I loved the book, "Anna Karenina"!! I read it as a junior in high school and it opened my eyes to the world in the way no author had done before. Tolstoy doesn't just tell a story, he paints a whole world, both outside and inside the characters. Through Tolstoy, I came to love "real" literature and especially Russian literature.To be sure, Anna is not the most admirable of characters, but she is portrayed in a much more sympathetic light than, say, Flaubert's Madame Bovary, a contemporary of Anna's, caught in a similar dilemma. I believe these authors were trying to look at women as real human beings (early feminists?), not just background for the doings of men.
Why should you like Anna for who she is?? She is the only character in the whole book that is true to herself. She falls in love with Vronskys and does what ever it takes, by whatever means to be with him. It's not a pretty tale and in the end this man is her demise, but she is true to her heart. She is selfish, cruel, deceitful, jealous, adulterous & so much more, but still true to her heart & love for vronskys. She is the only character in the whole book not influenced by the politics and socials moré's of the day. It's that and her passion that make her appeal to me. I loved Anna's character her beauty lies within her flaws.
I slogged through the Anna plot line just so I could get to the Levin/Kitty story. Levin is one of my all time favorite literary characters.
Maybe it's just me but I loved anna , I didn't think she was selfish, she left her only son who she loved more then anything in the world to go help her brother and fix his marriage, she only cared about making him happy again and yes maybe she lets her emotions rule her but that's not her fault, she was in a marriage with an old man that didn't give her the attention a 24 year old deserves , blame it on the way things we're back then , or on Veronsky , but I don't think she's to blame.
Exactly. Patricia has nailed what is off in this discussion. And that is the revisionist liking or disliking by 21st century standards of Anna's actions and how she worked her own personality to attempt some kind of reciprocated admiration/value. Yes, she was shallow. Yes she was whinny and histrionic on top of it.
But this was 1870. In a class and place, besides that had rigid choices. Not only for women.
Regardless, Tolstoy was not a man himself who lived a belief for more female legal or social rights expansion. He was horrid to his own wife. It was years ago my study of this author- but I don't even think he called her by her first name. She was more like a house-keeper. He had his own living spaces APART from children and obligations upon his time. Completely.
He wanted you to dislike her. He used her as an example of what happens when female want is tolerated, amongst other things.
Great novel- still #1- I agree. Master writer- not so masterly as a person, btw.
Now the writing of any depth has become immensely revisionist in characters' thought patterns and much else. Especially within the female characters.
To me, Anna seemed to be very shallow and self centered. Not a bad person, just somebody who wanted to take the easy way.
Karenina FansMay I be so forthcoming to ask you to take a look at our movie page www.facebook.com/kareninamovie and consider sharing it for us? We're currently traveling 11 000 km. through Russia on a shoestring to shoot a film searching for Anna's past and meaning in Russia today.
I hope enjoy reading about our project that tries to explore Anna from inside her mother country.
Regards,
Oliviero
I am so glad that somebody started this discussion because I have been dying to share same opinion. It was such a conflicting read because more than often we as readers are accustomed to view our protagonist as a naturally good, heroic, achiever or at least worthy of his/her mistakes kind of character. Even from the start I disliked Anna so much that I delayed reading this novel so many times. I really hoped the ending would be a sort of magical realization moment for her and blow me judgements of her. Unfortunately, it did not and that does not necessarily mean everything was ruined because other parallel stories made it less frustrating :) Peace pls Anna!
Though I disliked Anna in every possible but I really loved this book. This book is worth reading. I cherished each and every minute spent with it. According to me Anna is one of weakest character I have ever came across, not only she did not try to understand others but she never understood herself many a times. Sometimes it was difficult to believe, she was the same Anna who made an effort to save her brothers marriage but she never did the same for hers own.
I like your comment, " she was the same Anna who made an effort to save her brothers marriage but she never did the same for hers own." I had not thought of that, although it is true.
I didn't like her at all. If she wanted to be free, to leave her husband, that was okay. But her mistake was needing a man to do that. I don't think she loved Vronsky, she just used him to run away and when she found herself trapped again, she had two choices: either start a new life as an independent woman or just die. She wasn't strong enough to live.I also disliked her because by the end of the book she was blaming Vronsky all the time for what SHE had done. She was a little hypocrite.
Christie wrote: "I like your comment, " she was the same Anna who made an effort to save her brothers marriage but she never did the same for hers own." I had not thought of that, although it is true."Thanks Christie! That was the main thing which bothered me about her. For me she was never a likable character from the beginning.
Patricia wrote: "Anna cannot be viewed with 21stC sensibilities.
She was a woman of her time, late 1870's, and forced to behave as such.
She had no possibility of fulfillment with Karenin and took a big chance wi..."
Yes, we are lucky, we have a choice. Anna, while flawed was trapped. ANd who knows what we would do in her place.
I do not believe Tolstoy hated Anna.
He rewrote the book 9 times, and in each version, ANna was more sympathetic and Karenin was less so.
Isn't that interesting? I love the book, for many reasons.
Lucie
She was a woman of her time, late 1870's, and forced to behave as such.
She had no possibility of fulfillment with Karenin and took a big chance wi..."
Yes, we are lucky, we have a choice. Anna, while flawed was trapped. ANd who knows what we would do in her place.
I do not believe Tolstoy hated Anna.
He rewrote the book 9 times, and in each version, ANna was more sympathetic and Karenin was less so.
Isn't that interesting? I love the book, for many reasons.
Lucie
Patricia wrote: "Anna cannot be viewed with 21stC sensibilities.She was a woman of her time, late 1870's, and forced to behave as such.
She had no possibility of fulfillment with Karenin and took a big chance wi..."
I agree that Anna shouldn't be judged via contemporary mores. (How did her suicide save her children from being social pariahs? Just wondering) It's too easy to judge Anna from our privileged vantage point. Her choices and those of all women then were very limited: sacrifice all your individual desires, or be an outcast.
Comparing Tess of the D'Urbervilles with Anna makes no sense to me. Tess had no family or social resources whatever. She had to work for a living at whatever brutalizing, ill-paying labor she could get. (Hardy did a great job of showing how dehumanizing industrialized England became when he so vividly contrasted work at the dairy farm -- such beautiful, sensual passages -- with work in the agricultural fields.) Tess nearly starved on her own and suffered repeated humiliations for being poor. She gave into her exploitative lover to save herself and her family and lost the real love of her life, who rejected her when she told him about her past. How is that like Anna's story?
It's really important to take social context into considerations when reading novels written so long ago, under such different social conditions.
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone. I just have a hard time truly getting behind a character and having sympathy with a character that just tosses their marriage aside and commits adultery without a very good reason. For her the reasons seemed weak and selfish. She didn't even try. I will admit, it's been a while since I've read it. But since I have no desire to read it again or see the movie - that's the best that I've got.
Her husband was cold, unfeeling and never there. She had lots of good reasons.
Being married for 20 years - believe me, there are always going to be times when your husband seems cold, unfeeling and absent. You work through them and doesn't give an excuse to toss your vows. That is where commitment comes in and you make your life. If nothing else around your kids.
Women in 19th century Russian did not have as much choice about whom they married, or whether they married, as women do today. This becomes even clearer if you reading War & Peace; in that novel, a naive young woman is practically ruined just for succumbing (emotionally, not even physically) to a flirtatious cad. I still say it makes no sense to judge a fictional character by one's own life. To me, part of the purpose is to read about someone whose character and life are different from mine. Unfortunately, there are no 19th century Russian women writers for us to read (wonder why), or we might have a greater understanding of what women then and there were up against. As I recall (I've read AK twice, but it's been a while) husband Karenina was a stick and Anna a warm, vivacious person. Tolstoy doesn't give her much in the way of inner resources though. In general, the female characters in his work are emotionally immature as often happened with upper class women who were treated like children.
Judge me if you like, she's not the only character I feel that way about. You're not going to change my mind. I suppose you could use the same excuse in "the Age of Innocence". His wife wasn't such a special character either. So, he was justified to go after his cousin. Come on, I'm not talking about abuse or the spouses adultery. There was nothing in her life or personality that caused me to have sympathy.
I'm not judging you and don't care about changing your mind, but I'm also glad that a novel's survival does not depend on your sort of judgments. What novels and characters do you like? I might be able to relate to what you are saying if you would share examples of characters you consider worth reading about. I just don't believe it is the novelist's job to fill our heads with models of how we should behave; that is propaganda rather than art and always comes off as stiff and over-determined.
By saying "your sort of judgements" that is judgmental. I disagree with you, but have not demeaned your opinions. As for characters I admire, Jane Eyre had many opportunities to follow her heart but made sacrifices of human nature and did what was right. Rochester asked her to go away with him, he had every reason to dishonor his marriage, but she wouldn't do it. Yes, she was idealized, but I would opt to feel good at the end then depressed. There is enough misery in the world then to escape to more. Even Lizbeth in "The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo" strong, not innocent but didn't fold, not a comparison to Anna in any way, but you asked.
Jane Austen's Emma was in the same category as Anna.
I liked Jane Eyre too and have read it many times, and agree that she was admirable and inspiring -- a testament to people who are humble and principled. I will probably read Jane Eyre again, and maybe AK because Tolstoy is such a good writer. How are AK and Emma are in the same category? Emma learned to quit treating people like improvement projects she could manipulate. Besides, that story had a lot of humor and AK is not in the least funny but tragic. I'm just not much interested in comparing characters. I care more about the writing -- how convincing and alive the writer makes them.
I am defintely one who hated Anne, while Anna Karenina is a good book, I can't stand adultery and therefore Anna did not stand a chance with me. I despise her, and loathe what she did to her husband. Ironic how she was driven by jealous rages towards the end, and yet she willingly stepped out on her own husband and expected Vronsky to remain faithful to her? A pathetic creature she was.
Why are many women in this thread so much harder on women than men? I think that's a fair question if we are going to judge characters by their behavior. Karenina was cold and pedantic. Vronsky was hardly a saint; he pursued and seduced another man's wife and abandoned her when she no longer pleased him. All this took place in a society that allowed women few acceptable roles: virgin, spinster, utterly self-sacrificing wife and mother, whore. Tolstoy's female characters transgress, and they pay big time; the men can do as they like. I think this disturbed Tolstoy, but he could not bring himself to question those roles either.
I wouldn't say the behavior is condone on any side. I can't speak for others. Again, my example of Age of Innocence. Newland Archer - garnered no sympathy from me either. Admittedly less because he did have more choices. Marriage is a two person endeavor. That is why the theme for so many of novels of the time period was the illusive marriage for love and not convenience and security was the struggle. The problem that I have is the this sudden disillusionment that marriage and spouse isn't everything that you thought it would be. Instead of trying to find what was right - chose just toss it aside.
I should read AoI again. I don't remember it that clearly.
He didn't actually commit the act, but the entire time he's pining after his cousin. He might as well as. Truly wasn't faithful in his heart. It's been a long time since I've read either, but that is the one thing I remember and sits clear in my impression of it.
Well I for one don't give Vronsky a pass either, he is just as guilty as Anna. And Anna's brother Stephan is absolutely disgusting, I felt so sorry for Dolly.Yeah and the double standard of the period was wrong, but that does not excuse Anna's actions.
I think it was a lack of her control on her life that led Anna to make the decisions she did. In the social setup of 1970, she had no control over her life. As Dolly says that men have the option to choose but not women. They can only give an answer. She was married to much older Karenin at a very young age. When she met Vronsky and when he pursued her, she gave in. In my opinion, she was truthful. She didn't love Karenin and did not deceive him like many other women. She is a very strong woman who wanted to live by her rules. She loved Seryozha and therefore didn't take divorce. And Karenin had no attachment for his son but just to take revenge he didn't give her the child. Lidia Ivanova later on took control and he gave in. Anna had no means of supporting herself. She was dependent either on her husband or her lover. This isolation from society drove her to madness. Being a self respecting woman and no one to share her feelings of guilt and loneliness with, she committed suicide. If we follow her thought pattern, we can see what she is going through. She was passionate and she wanted love not a lover or husband bound by duty. The men in her life never really understood her. It is clear that she feels for Seryozha all throughout and her guilt for giving him up for another love is testimony to it. She was grateful to Karenin for his forgiveness and hence did not press on divorce until Vronsky pressed her. So we can see she was not a thankless person either. She could not say it to Vronsky. Karenin comes across as selfless but it is clear that he has no love for his son and would not give him to his mother though he knows that is where the child would be happy. Besides the divorce laws were tough.She was just never understood.
Milli wrote: "I think it was a lack of her control on her life that led Anna to make the decisions she did. In the social setup of 1970, she had no control over her life. As Dolly says that men have the option t..."Milli, I think yours is a very interesting opinion, and quite accurate. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Anna's relationship with her daughter
This is the book I love to hate. I grew to really dislike Anna, Karenin, and Vronsky towards the end. These characters had so little inner strength in the end. I was outraged when I closed this book and mad I had invested so much time to feel so let down. When I was done with the book, I had to tell all my other bookish friends exactly how I felt about it.
If a book can leave you with such overwhelming feelings, then the author did his job.
I do agree, though, with Patricia. Anna reflected
her culture. Trying to relate to her with modern, feminist eyes was hard for me.
To answer your question - Tolstoy did. He hated this work of his and considered it almost vulgar pop novel, in comparison to War and Peace, and considered the latter the work of his life, something serious and meaningful.I, on the other hand, couldn't hack "War and Peace", found it prolonged and immensely boring, and abandoned it about a third way through, and was thoroughly impressed by "Anna Karenina". The thing that amazes me the most is how the hell did he know the ins and outs of the female mind so well? The trepidation, the turbulence, the chaos.
I loved that character and sympathized her. That's the genius of Tolstoy for you, even if you don't approve of her, you still sympathize and follow her every step of the way, to the tragic end, and weirdly enough I totally understood her choice.
I think she was trapped, like women of her time often wear.
I did not know Tolstoy hated it. I know he re-wrote Anna Karenina 9 times, making her more and mores sympathetic and Karenin less sympathetic in every rewrite.I loved the way he describes al those fallible characters in the book in the way that you can understand their action even though you might not approve of them.
I liked War and Peace,too, though, apart from the Epilogue.
I did not know Tolstoy hated it. I know he re-wrote Anna Karenina 9 times, making her more and mores sympathetic and Karenin less sympathetic in every rewrite.I loved the way he describes al those fallible characters in the book in the way that you can understand their action even though you might not approve of them.
I liked War and Peace,too, though, apart from the Epilogue.
Sana wrote: "The thing that amazes me the most is how the hell did he know the ins and outs of the female mind so well? The trepidation, the turbulence, the chaos...."I said that same thing to by bookish friends,also - didn´t thought that anyone else noticed that, besides me. He really was inside a woman´s head - howdid he managed to do that so well?
Good writers do that, no matter if they are men or women.
Lucie wrote: "I think she was trapped, like women of her time often wear.I did not know Tolstoy hated it. I know he re-wrote Anna Karenina 9 times, making her more and mores sympathetic and Karenin less sympath..."
Thanks for reminding me, because that was genius. I've read contemporary male writers who did not manage to put me in a woman's point of view.
Anna is one of the most beautifully crafted depictions of the weakness of human character that can be found in literature. There is much to like in her, but it is over-whelmed by the consequences of her own weakness of character which strips her of her dignity. I found her ending to be crushingly sad and embarrassing.Tender is the Night evoked the same sadness and embarrassment in me which I mention as a reminder that Anna's misfortune is not a woman's alone.
I didn't like Anna becouse of everything she had and didn't know to appreciate. A beautiful child, husband that gave her the world and social status. For any mother a child should come first, and she is simply giving up on everything for some whirlwind romance that has no future.
By that token, Romeo and Juliet killed themselves for some puppy love that didn't matter.Classic Russian literature is not for everyone, granted.
Personally I am amazed every time people can appreciate, understand and share the emotional journey while reading it in translation, coming from a different culture and not having any prior exposure to the context, i.e. no prior knowledge of that era, XIX century Russia, mentality, culture, history, etc.
I think its a very peculiar mindframe that people need to ease into, just taking Tolstoy off the shelf and try to "get" Anna's way of thinking can be challenging.
Hence the thread.
Brad, exactly, kudos. Sana, so wisely said.The culture, mores, worldview of a book's time or character cannot be seen through revisionist interpretations and judgments to be appreciated "in" the emotion of the character. Any novel's character, not just the Russians. There is a current mass of readers who think in the "like/dislike" of judgment so heartily while reading. It might be from being taught revisionist valued and opinionated history (21st century values), that the classical emotion (exactly like Romeo & Juliet) is completely distorted by their likeness meter reading.
People are of their time. Completely and all of us humans, we cannot be separated from those influences and "eyes". Anna is prime of her time. If you lived in that era you would "get" the dichotomy of her inabilities. And not so big on judging them. That's the novel- the "getting" part. Lyrical and beautiful, as only Tolstoy could flow too. IMHO, it is one of the best novels ever written with a woman central character.
And I saw a list a year or two ago that put it as #1 out of 100 valued classics. Those lists are so relative and yet that particular rating for Tolstoy's lady has stayed up there since I read Anna in h.s. during the 1960's. The first sentence about happy families being all alike etc. is the most quoted line, as well.
I detested Anna and also didn't care for Kitty. Although Anna seemed to have more dimension than Kitty, her manic love style was irritating and, at times, hard to believe. Levin was also a bore, but he did have more depth than most of the female characters. I found myself rooting for Ostrofsky and, to a degree, Nicolas.
Kallie wrote: "I'm not judging you and don't care about changing your mind, but I'm also glad that a novel's survival does not depend on your sort of judgments. What novels and characters do you like? I might b..."Well-said. If everyone were perfect, we wouldn't be human --- and we wouldn't have fiction either.
Sana wrote: "To answer your question - Tolstoy did. He hated this work of his and considered it almost vulgar pop novel, in comparison to War and Peace, and considered the latter the work of his life, something..."I totally agree. The depth of Tolstoy's insights into Anna, Levin and even Karenin toward the end are what elevate him into the realm of genius. I could not keep track of all the characters in War and Peace, and could not emotionally invest in any of them. I also abandoned the book.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Solar (other topics)
Solar (other topics)
Father Melancholy's Daughter (other topics)
Evensong (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Resurrection (other topics)Solar (other topics)
Solar (other topics)
Father Melancholy's Daughter (other topics)
Evensong (other topics)
More...
Well, Anna is indeed a very complex female character, in the same shape as other Modern Realistic heroins (Emma Bovary, Isabel Archer, Tess of the Urbervilles) and if she was to be presented under a main positive or main tragic light, it would not have become the classic and timeless novel it was. Of course she has loathsome features, such as shallow thoughts, vanity and self adoration. But she is nothing but a very passional human being, both in sadness and joy, which troubles her immensely along her plot. She cannot be faithful except to her own feelings - and therefore her dignity is above any social acceptance or sexual involvement.