Anna Karenina
discussion
Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?
message 251:
by
K
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jul 23, 2014 03:55PM
Oh, and that Levin in the field scene is absolutely magical. . . at least it was for me.
reply
|
flag
I often LIKE books where I do not like the main character. Life is like that.I did not like Emma Bovary, but what a great book! Even the detestable main character in Solar taught me something.
" The fact that he loved her more than she loved him gave him power"
Brilliant.
So I think that the fact that one does not like the characters does not mean one cannot like the novel.
" The fact that he loved her more than she loved him gave him power"
Brilliant.
So I think that the fact that one does not like the characters does not mean one cannot like the novel.
Lucie, I couldn't agree more! It's quite possible that the author wants use to dislike the main character.
Anna Karenina is one of the most romantic, in your face novels of all times. Expressing the realities and hypocrisy of society at the time and relevant to today. Great description of the way the olygarchy lived in Russia. I love this book.
Lucie wrote: "I often LIKE books where I do not like the main character. Life is like that.I did not like Emma Bovary, but what a great book! Even the detestable main character in Solar taught me..."Emma Bovary, to me much less sympathetic than Anna, is a good example of the fact that great novels don't require admirable characters. Were there any in that novel? None that I recall. Charles was too pathetic . . . I would love to hear from anyone who sympathized with Emma. After reading the book twice I never found any feeling for her but disgusted pity.
I enjoyed the book, but I did find it tedious to finish. I hadn't thought of postpartum depression in regards to Anna, so that idea that another reader posted put a new spin on it for me. I found Levin's thoughts about farming a workers again tedious and a bit boring. It seemed to go on and on, though I did like he and Kitty as characters. Did anyone else find themselves liking Stiva and Dolly in spite of themselves?
Kimberly wrote: "I enjoyed the book, but I did find it tedious to finish. I hadn't thought of postpartum depression in regards to Anna, so that idea that another reader posted put a new spin on it for me. I found..."
I think they were just all very human. And Levin with his serious but repetitive musing is quite typically Russian. Do you remember DR Zhivago? Another novel where I did not like the main character but liked the book.
I think they were just all very human. And Levin with his serious but repetitive musing is quite typically Russian. Do you remember DR Zhivago? Another novel where I did not like the main character but liked the book.
I concur, Lucie, liking the main character is not a prerequisite for enjoying the novel as a whole. What say you about the same issue in short stories? I feel the medium is so short of a stage that it's imperative the writer gain some connection. Not to say that connection necessarily means "liking."
I guess she's not so admirable a character, but doesn't that make her human and a counterbalance to Lenin, who is the moral center of this absolutely wonderful novel, one of the great classics deservedly on any reading list.
Well, i did not hate Anna. She should be an object of pity more than an object of loathe. But, I was really bothered with her stupid and irresponsible behavior. Anyway, I was sad about her damaged psychics, depressed life and suicide.
i almost hate Anna as much as i did hate Uncle Gorio(btw i need to re-read both those books)
Yes, I did. I was rooting for her to throw herself under the train and actually cheered when she did!
I actually liked her, understood her at the times and felt sorry for her for the most part. I think for the first part Tolestoy portrayed the banality of the aristocrats' life. I think Anna was was bored with Karenin and his rigid ways. She sensed lack of passion in their relationship and in her life.
I think Anna was an honest soul who could not figure out what is exactly missing. Her inner truthfulness couldn't go on lying like other ladies of her society and hiding an affair or pretending at all times. But she didn't have the clarity or autonomy of a 21stC woman. Just like Levine she could feel on the deeper level she doesn't belong to the society (because she yearned for truthfulness) but she didn't have the education, insight, power and critical thinking needed to face the facts and her emotions and find a way out of this situation.
She wanted to change, to bring passion and meaning to her life but as a dependent woman she could not take honest actions, instead she did what she knew, she got hung on a fantasy (Vronsky) to avoid the reality. It looked courageous and exciting for her. But a fantasy is a fantasy in the end, when she actually reached her fantasy she slowly realizes that it is not at all working and there are a lot of aspects that she didn't clearly considered. She suffers deeply from not seeing her son and feels guilty about that and her relationship with Vronsky lays flat and ends up actually far from her fantasy. They don't have a real connection and he is clearly immature.
Yes, she made many mistakes, one after another, but you have to see the world from her perspective to understand why. You have to take the whole picture and the whole story into account when looking at her actions. She was shallow in the sense that she couldn't think critically and beyond her first impulses but she was not superficial like many of the other members of the class of people she came from.
Bahar wrote: "I actually liked her, understood her at the times and felt sorry for her for the most part. I think for the first part Tolestoy portrayed the banality of the aristocrats' life. I think Anna was w..."
This seems really fair to Anna. I agree that she deserves sympathy and understanding. Women were at such a disadvantage in every respect (especially passionate women) and few were educated to develop their inner resources.
yes, it easy to criticise somehow who is trapped like Anna was.
While Anna was never outright cruel (except perhaps when she convinced Dolly to forgive her brother), I very vividly remember Kitty shouting at Dolly, blaming her for Stepan cheating on her.Anna fell in love, wanted to be with the man she loved. Stepan didn't feel any attraction towards his wife so he cheated on her.
Nothing happened to him, while Anna was shunned by everyone, pushed and side-glanced into a corner, considered the lowest of the lowest.
Of course I liked Anna. I forgave her for falling in love and was angry at Alexei for not giving her the divorce. He was the one who took every hope from her, and the movie gives him a happy ending. I was furious.
I agree, the old double-standard!
yep, and double standards are still alive.
It again returns to the crux that is endemic presently. And that is taking one era and assigning sensibilities, mores, culture and behavior of another in judgment to "like" or "dislike" or "blame". It's the entire current historical survey disease as well. You can not evaluate or change term definition to the context of one age and substitute another's context and definition. Anna was a woman of her century, within her class and her place in that society. She could never hold a context or standards of 21st century readers of high majority humanistic relativism standards of values. Not in perception, nor in direction for her actions.
Jeanette wrote: "It again returns to the crux that is endemic presently. And that is taking one era and assigning sensibilities, mores, culture and behavior of another in judgment to "like" or "dislike" or "blame"...."Yes, that seems to be too true of contemporary judgments based on present attitudes and the ill-founded notion that in every respect, our society is more enlightened. As for women's roles, things are much better in some parts of the world and when I read a novel like Anna Karenina I appreciate the suffragettes and other brave women who paid for the rights we take for granted.
In 2014 an immense proportion of the earth's children and women have few rights, that we would consider rights. Under the law or cultural mores, or both- they are property. Actually Anna probably had a few more options than some women do in our era. Because we have more options, doesn't mean others do. Even now.
Jeanette wrote: "In 2014 an immense proportion of the earth's children and women have few rights, that we would consider rights. Under the law or cultural mores, or both- they are property. Actually Anna probably h..."As I said, "in some parts of the world . . ." I have traveled in Islamic countries and read about what is going on in the world, so I'm well aware that we are pretty lucky and many other women and children don't (thanks in part to our and other prosperous countries actions) have our options even now. I still don't think it makes sense to judge Anna from a modern European or American point of view.
Yes, and not just in Islamic countries. Anna would be luckier in options than most any village or city grown woman from successful agrarian culture, regardless of religious law. Economically and legally they all highly value males for physical strength. Most human developments for millennia have been under those systems of patriarchy of legal ownership since hunter-gatherer days. Under Kings or Czars, women still were commodities with narrow possible choices. Some of the richest or most noble having less real choice.
Jeanette wrote: "Yes, and not just in Islamic countries. Anna would be luckier in options than most any village or city grown woman from successful agrarian culture, regardless of religious law. Economically and le..."
Even in the UK, I have female patients totally dominated by men.and even in the liberal society- just look at the difference in judging a woman leaving husband and children- frowned upon,, when men leaving seems to be tolerated.
In living my book before writing it, the double standards of men, not believing that a woman can be happy with a " no string" relationship etc or husbands going on " Married dating website" not accepting their wives could possibly do the same... we still have far to go.
Even in the UK, I have female patients totally dominated by men.and even in the liberal society- just look at the difference in judging a woman leaving husband and children- frowned upon,, when men leaving seems to be tolerated.
In living my book before writing it, the double standards of men, not believing that a woman can be happy with a " no string" relationship etc or husbands going on " Married dating website" not accepting their wives could possibly do the same... we still have far to go.
Lucie wrote: "Jeanette wrote: "Yes, and not just in Islamic countries. Anna would be luckier in options than most any village or city grown woman from successful agrarian culture, regardless of religious law. Ec..."Yes, and some in the U.S. want to take us backwards to a time of greater subjection to male dominance.
Lucie wrote: "Jeanette wrote: "Yes, and not just in Islamic countries. Anna would be luckier in options than most any village or city grown woman from successful agrarian culture, regardless of religious law. Ec..."Yes, and some in the U.S. want to take us backwards to a time of greater subjection to male dominance.
Yes, it's primarily the women who whine and speak in the voice of victims who do exactly that- subjecting themselves to government and politico ideologies which hurt them physically and psychologically with their own assistance. The answers are in doing and achieving without apology.
Yes, Tolstoy did :)
yes. repeating myself. you do not have to like the character,only believe in it being a real person,for three book too be good.
No, I love Anna, and love all her ambiguities.
Maria wrote: "Kitty did not hold my attention one bit - she had a broken heart, she sulked and then settled for the next best thing: a man that really loved her for what she was and had waited for her to weanne ..."Agree about Kitty. She didn't chose her destiny in comparison to Anna, Vronsky stopped being interested in her, she got sick, recovered and then magically she fell in love with Levin. Looks suspicious to me. Levin at least was always in search, looking for something, new ways of farming, organising, living his life (I remember his fleeting thought to marry just a random woman from village and to devote his life to her education and development, even though it was just for a moment, we have to understand to what extent revolutionary ideas he came up during his considerations).
Alla wrote: "Maria wrote: "Kitty did not hold my attention one bit - she had a broken heart, she sulked and then settled for the next best thing: a man that really loved her for what she was and had waited for ..."Yes, I too am far more drawn to Anna than to Kitty--
Alla wrote: "Agree about Kitty. She didn't chose her destiny in comparison to Anna, Vronsky stopped being interested in her, she got sick, recovered and then magically she fell in love with Levin. Looks suspicious to me. Levin at least was always in search, looking for something, new ways of farming, organising, living his life (I remember his fleeting thought to marry just a random woman from village and to devote his life to her education and development, even though it was just for a moment, we have to understand to what extent revolutionary ideas he came up during his considerations)...."Kitty, in my view setled herself with living with a man that was tottaly devoted to her, and she letted herself be loved, like a goddess.
In regards to the original question - it´s not that i loathed Anna: it´s just that i wanted to slapp her silly, by the end. It was really painfull to read her chapters after she went away with Vronsky. But i am still to read it a 2nd time, as i have the sense that a lot of the sub-plots escaped me .
Someone above said that a good book stirr our emotions, even in a negative way - this is absolutly true. I don´t remember the books that were meh - i remember those who stirred me to no end, good or bad.
Anna to me personally personifies a character who is brave enough to heed to her own desires irrespective of whatever the society thinks of her which though keeping in mind the timeline of the story is equally novel and charming.The fact that over a period of time she commits herself to suicide only represents the fragility and the moderate incapacity to bear the vanity of sin of the human soul who finally desires to set itself free from the bondage of pleasure,pain and constant disappointment over ones actions.
Levin is indeed a stand-in for Tolstoy--the last four chapters of the book duplicate much of Tolstoy's "Confession." He's still a good character, struggling with existential angst and trying to balance his power as an aristocrat with his empathy for the Russian peasants. Kitty is less interesting....Anna is a person who has been debased by her beauty--I've known a few, male and female--and always frets that Vronsky won't continue to love her as she grows older. At the same time, Karenin didn't love her for her inner qualities; she was a trophy wife to him, whom he snagged at the peak of his career. I felt sorry for him but would not have wanted to know him in real life.
Stepan is completely self-serving, in effect the male equivalent of his sister, yet never loses his social standing. And of course, many of Anna's social peers are having affairs right and left but are allowed to indulge because they are "discreet" and don't fracture society's façade. Kitty, as others have commented, had fallen for Vronksy and accepted Levin only after Vronsky spurned her for Anna. Vronsky set out to seduce Anna but then fell in love with her and gave up his career, in effect, for her. But Anna, self-centered and adolescent, began to harangue him for affairs even she acknowledged were imaginary. Not a very attractive character.
Overall, I much preferred "War and Peace," which I think far better merits the epithet of "greatest novel." What a profound exploration of human nature! And a hell of a story too.
I thought that while she was definitely the most interesting and detailed character, she was also pretty stupid, pushy, and annoying. I mean, she had what she wanted, and she threw it away out of the fear of losing it? How does that make any sense?
I did not actually loathe Anna, though I did find her abandoning her son for romance and then feeling insecure inspite of Vronsky's dedication towards her not becoming of a central character as celebrated as Anna Karenina. Probably that's what love does to people (e.i makes one illogical and un-pragmatic)...and I have seen people do things like these. However the portion where Anna does stand out from other females in the book is her ability to take a stance on her life...irrespective of the fact that she could not bear the consequences (whether due to her own inabilities or the hypocrisies abound in the elite society of Czarist Russia) and ended her own life eventually. I also felt for Vronsky as for once he was seriously involved with someone and put at stake everything he had ever worked for but in the end he did not have anything...not even the child he fathered. Tolstoy gives a fleeting account of Vronsky going to war post Anna..I really would have loved it to have some insight into Vronsky post Anna's death. Going to war is an attempt at suicide in a situation of extreme depression and sense of failure. But life is hard to get rid of..
Luca wrote: "Yes. I thought she was shallow. Much preferred Levin & Kitty."That's cause Tolstoy portrayed his own beliefs in Levin. And, Kitty is kind of based on his own real wife. Tolstoy is pretty much into "admirable" Levin, while everyone else is kind of silly, pitiful, vengeful, etc. Considering how silly Kitty is portrayed at times, I wonder if he thought his own wife (or all women for that matter) was kind of like that too, you know, shallow, especially when compared to "honorable, thoughtful" Levin, aka Leo Tolstoy.
I didn't loathe her, but I didn't like her. I find it hard to take her seriously because she's so shallow and inconsequential. It's not like she fought for any causes or wanted to be a great mother or struggled to be/become an artist. She was just an empty person, always grasping for attention and that's not because of the time she lived in.
I confess! I didn't enjoy it, nor the 30 pages about tilling a field, but after the movie wih Keira Knightley I fell for the story and want to read it again!
i agree somehow but i have to admit since i was having a psychology course while reading the book i couldnt help but apply all that i learned to the situations in the book. (my teacher was thrilled by this).so little by little i started realizing how human this book is.
anyway dont get me wrong, i did felt sometimes she was a drama queen and her death wasnt shocking for me, it was the ultimate puncture in the heart, the ultimate drama act for vronsky.
Camila wrote: "the ultimate drama act for vronsky..."Hmm. there is the (I think psychological) theory that suicide can be the desire to murder turned on oneself. But as I remember, Anna's despair was real. There was no place for her in the world she knew best. Vronsky suffered too, but he had somewhere to go.
Kallie wrote: "Camila wrote: "the ultimate drama act for vronsky..."Hmm. there is the (I think psychological) theory that suicide can be the desire to murder turned on oneself. But as I remember, Anna's despa..."
well yeah, but it was like a mass of burden that started being formed throughout the story, and if i can recall when she was thinking about suicide she even mentioned how much it would hurt Vronsky.
I never thought that the act of killing herself would also be some sort of revenge or tugg at the heart of Vronsky....she did not fit in the world that she always knew and was depressed and at the same time it was like she said to him "take this!" having the last word in a quarrel.Makes sense, also.
I've read it probably four times in about 40 years and while I've never loathed her she has shifted over the decades from romantic heroine to spoiled brat. I think someone else on this thread described her as capricious - perfect description - also - I don't think she's all that bright.
Susan wrote: "I've read it probably four times in about 40 years and while I've never loathed her she has shifted over the decades from romantic heroine to spoiled brat. I think someone else on this thread desc..."Was any Tolstoy female character all that bright? Even Natasha goes from charming yet flighty to somewhat bovine.
Maria wrote: "I never thought that the act of killing herself would also be some sort of revenge or tugg at the heart of Vronsky....she did not fit in the world that she always knew and was depressed and at the ..."We must also consider her as an addicted at the point she commits suicide. She must have known, in some level, her future was uncertain so putting and end to it it's an individualist last (either selfish
or selfless) free will act.
Carrie wrote: "We must also consider her as an addicted at the point she commits suicide. She must have known, in some level, her future was uncertain so putting and end to it it's an individualist last (either selfish or selfless) free will act...."Yes, yes - the morphine addiction.
It´s safe to say that it was a combination of facts that led to this outcome.
Susan - i didn´t thought her very bright, also. She
was a woman of her time and status, that was expected to be a good ornament beside her husband, but that does not not mean she was bright, she was just carefree, at the begining and then depressed, addicted and loveless at the end.
Couldn't stand her. I think Tolstoy is a total misogynist.
My thoughts... The only chapter with a name is called Death and the book is named Anna Karenina, and I started thinking maybe Anna is Lady Death for Tolstoy. I mean, death is everywhere she goes and she is introduced with a death in the first few scenes. Also, the way Tolstoy describes her: her pale skin, insisting on the whiteness of it, the dark, haunted eyes, the black dress she wears to the Ball, the sound of her voice and her ''airy'' manner. She's a ghost. She hates life. First her husband, her position, her own daughter she can't seem to love either, and Vronsky himself. She has no real life of her own, but only the force she sucks out of others. Anna=death. That's my sort of far fetched theory...:-)
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...
