Anna Karenina
discussion
Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?
Yes, I see your point. But I still think that, like death, Anna is something people are either fascinated with or want to keep away from themselves as far as possible. And as for falling into Vronsky's arms and later regretting it, I felt that because she's such a ghost, she only regretted it because of the dire consequences and not because of her own sense of morality or integrity. Like a murderer who regrets being caught, not being responsible for someone's life ending. When people live off other people's life force and not their own, they regret nothing real. Just the loss they suffer. Of course, I'm not a shrink and I might be wrong, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one.
I swear I'm the only person I know who doesn't think she was selfish!
Joseph wrote: "I swear I'm the only person I know who doesn't think she was selfish!"I certainly don't think she was any more selfish than any other character in the book.
Mel, i know people who go through life already predisposed to be bored with the simple act of living...maybe Tolstoy inspired one of these persons.
Well said! Bored with the simple act of living. That's true of some people I know too.:-)
Kallie wrote: "Joseph wrote: "I swear I'm the only person I know who doesn't think she was selfish!"I certainly don't think she was any more selfish than any other character in the book."
THANK YOU!! I mean , a selfish person wouldn't leave the person she valued most , her son , to go help her brother keep his family.
Joseph wrote: " I mean , a selfish person wouldn't leave the person she valued most , her son , to go help her brother keep his family. ..."Good point. And people in the novel seemed to rely on her to soothe and arbitrate. How could that have been the case if she'd never given to others in that way before? The infatuation with Vronsky threw her off, out of her usual self. And those emotions would have been all the stronger after years of bottling them up to live with her husband. What a stick.
Kallie wrote: "Joseph wrote: " I mean , a selfish person wouldn't leave the person she valued most , her son , to go help her brother keep his family. ..."Good point. And people in the novel seemed to rely on ..."
What's worse are the people who praise her husband for being so kind and for how he handled himself when she told him about her lover, him not caring isn't a good thing at all. If anything it showed how much Anna was neglected and unvalued.
Cemre wrote: "I've liked her a lot. The people who got on my nerves were Levin and Kitty."why? im curious to know :O
I have read many comments wishing that Anna, so alike characters such as Tess in Tess of the D'Ubervilles, would have merely stood up for themselves. Yet, from a feminist lens, this is exactly what this books displays, whether Tolstoy intended for it or not. Anna's brother cheated on his wife, as many men did in this era, and received no social ostracism of any type other than an upset wife. Anna carries on an affair with another man, and suddenly she is as though a leper in Moscow. They are victims of their era- to wish they had stood up for themselves when a woman often had to be give permission to even speak during this age, is laughable. Rather, Anna's actions were defying social constraints in their own manner.
Anna wrote: "I have read many comments wishing that Anna, so alike characters such as Tess in Tess of the D'Ubervilles, would have merely stood up for themselves. Yet, from a feminist lens, this is exactly what..."Yes, they might have "stood up for themselves" but then where would they have been permitted to go? This brings to mind an Iranian film I saw about women trying to physically escape their situations and ending up back in the same place or in jail, thwarted by their evident gender.
Anna Karenina: I realize not all Russians are the same. But I read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov and thought these are the greatest book I have ever read. So then I thought it was time for Tolstoy and so many people told me that Anna Karenina was their favourite novel of all time. I have just finished AK and I hate to say this but it may have been the biggest waste of time I've ever spent on a book. There are worse books but usually I had the sense to toss the book off to the side. But given AK is a "classic" that at some point it would come together. It didn't. No time to go into detail but I didn't like AK. She was horrible to her husband. She humiliated him in the worst way. And then after finally having her dream to live with Vronsky she still managed to whine non-stop. I'm not a violent man, nor cruel or sadistic, but when she jumped between those train cars I prayed that even God would think, "Good riddance." Fortunately I bough this on Kindle so I don't have to have it stare back at me from my bookshelf. I will read War and Peace but not for a long while. I don't think I could take being so disappointed again.
Ha! She's very shallow and self centered. There are other redeeming characters.
Charles wrote: "Anna Karenina: I realize not all Russians are the same. But I read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov and thought these are the greatest book I have ever read. So then I thought it was..."
If you really want to be happy about another character in a Russian classic dying violently, read Dr Zhivago.
Mind you Madame Bovary is French, and I felt the same.
But yet, I loved ANna Karenina and Madame Bovary ( and Dr Zhivago) , you do not have to like the characters to like the novel.In my opinion....
If you really want to be happy about another character in a Russian classic dying violently, read Dr Zhivago.
Mind you Madame Bovary is French, and I felt the same.
But yet, I loved ANna Karenina and Madame Bovary ( and Dr Zhivago) , you do not have to like the characters to like the novel.In my opinion....
Lucie wrote: "you do not have to like the characters to like the novel.In my opinion. ..."Very true. There are so many great novels we would be obliged to dislike were that the case.
I didn't like her. The movie made my dislike her even more. Levin and Kitty were much more likeable characters.
According to Anne Krupskaya, Lenin read Anna Karenian at least 100 times. Every time he wanted to start a new work on Women's Rights or how corrupt the society was when it came to the question of "morality" he read it over and over again. The book shows the corruption of the system and the way a victim is treated by all those who do the same and know about others who do it.A system that gives the children to the father, even when they have not actually fathered the child.
I could not feel sympathy for Anna. All I saw was a selfish woman, set on doing as she pleased, whenever it suited her. As soon as something didn't turn out as she wished, she would shift blame away from herself & her actions onto the closest scapegoat she could find. She puts herself ahead of her children, husband, & lover.
Yes, but that does not make it a bad book. Tolstoy created marvellous characters and stories. I did not like Anna any more than Emma Bovary, but both books are my favourite 19th century novels.
No, I understood her!
Women had no choices like we do.
Michelle wrote: "No, Anna wasn't a bad person, just in a bad situation, in a society that gave women absolutely NO rights, in a society where women were treated as "less than human". Men were ALWAYS doing selfish t..."Geeze Michelle! NO rights? ALL men? ALWAYS?????? You sound like a woman who needs a little perspective! Take a deep breath and read FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD - a great novel from this same era, about a strong woman who abuses her power and the quiet, brave, long suffering man who loves her. She is a good person - but immature - and she needs life to teach her a thing or two. Injustice happens to everyone and in ANNA KARENINA, it happens to a woman. In FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD, it happens to a man. I think you'll really love this awesome story. ;-)
And remember that in ANNA KARENINA, the people most guilty of treating Anna as "less than human" were catty, snobby, gossipy women. Most of the men treated her with respect. Karenin, was a complex, unfortunate man who had his own demons to battle. He was not incapable of love, but was incapable of showing it until deep in the book when it was too late to help Anna. To a large part Karenin was manipulated by A WOMAN - Countess Lydia Ivanovna, who was instrumental in influencing his decision to deny Anna contact with her child, when his better side was trying to come out and he was wavering on this point. I think that Karenin was the most tragic character in the whole story because at times he shows the potential to be a good man. It is buried deep, but I think it is there. He just didn't get the help he needed - especially not from Anna, who was satisfied with their shallow, loveless existence until her path crossed with a handsome scapegrace who swept her off her feet. Then, she magnified every single flaw in her husband in an effort to assuage her own guilt.
Anna suffered injustice for sure, but it wasn't because all men were evil and all women were angels. It was because men and women alike willingly participated in a deeply unjust social, religious and legal system.
Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point of view. With Anna, however, I just could not follow her..."I'm not a fan of her either. Anna and Vronsky have a passionate romance and I think people sometimes get swept up in that and lose sight of their flaws or the terrible things they did.
Maybe Tolstoy normally shows people's flaws at first and then eases into their point of view, but in Anna's case, her loneliness, social grace, beauty and the great "love" of Vronsky tended to blind me at first because the passion of a forbidden love that was "meant to be" hits like a tidal wave in the opening chapters. Then, as the story progressed, I saw her less and less as a victim and more as a shallow, manipulative woman who commits adultery, abandons her husband and child, elopes with a rich, handsome "bad boy" and after getting what she wants, proceeds to make her lover miserable with her hysterical jealousy, BUT somehow sees herself and a tragic heroine. Her life choices are abysmal, she is filled with psychotic guilt and self loathing, but never really finds it in her heart to change and doesn't appear to understand that she needs to change.
I thought it was interesting that Vronsky was SO INFATUATED with Anna, but when he finally gets the prize (so precious that he deliberately seduced a married woman, destroyed her marriage and her child), he suddenly feels trapped and has feelings of regret - not for the wrong he has done, but because he isn't as happy as he thought he'd be. If she hadn't died, I wonder how long his "LUV" would have held out. As it was, he was so consumed by HIS grief, and HIS loss that he gave his daughter away and faded into the oblivion.
Karenin, on the other hand came across to me as a pure villain at first but as the story progressed, I came to see him as the true tragic victim. He had issues to be sure, but he would have been reachable with the right help and Anna wasn't interested in giving it to him. She was what we, in modern times would call a Trophy Wife. Before she met Vronsky, she seemed content with her shallow, loveless marriage to an older, wealthy man. She loved her beautiful clothes, high social standing, life of privilege and the freedom that few women in history have enjoyed.
Karenin didn't love her as he ought, but neither did she love him. Does anyone ever wonder how Karenin might have been different if she had loved him and treated him with tenderness? She participated in this marriage for her own ends until something better came along. Then, suddenly, she hated her husband's physical appearance, his knuckle cracking and his remoteness - all things that had never troubled her before!
As this yarn unfolded, I realized that, at least SOME of the unflattering description of Karenin was told from Anna's perspective when she was desperate to justify her own behavior. But a little at a time, you get glimpses of something in Karenin that is reachable. I downright cried when he had the epiphany at Anna's deathbed and was able to forgive them both. The joy that this act gave him brought about what appeared to me to be a genuine change. This is not the action of a truly hard man. Let's be real. How many people, men or women, could be saintly and gracious upon hearing the news that their spouse has been unfaithful and is having a child with a lover? Even though he had issues with needing a spotless social standing, he was able to get past that in some very significant ways if you really pay attention to this part of the story. I think that if he had been given sound advice from someone with a good heart instead of Countess Lydia Ivanovna, he probably would have even shared custody of Seriozha with Anna and Vronsky. People who fault him for what he did, don't understand the kind of bondage people can be victimized by when under the rule of a Godless religion. I don't think it was hate that motivated him - it was confusion about what God demands and a fear of offending Him.
So to answer your question: I didn't like Anna, but neither did I loathe her. This novel is long, complex and full of three dimensional characters. There weren't many who were wholly bad or wholly good. There were plenty of bad choices with terrible, terrible consequences. And there was a beautiful love story between Kitty and Konstantin that I quite enjoyed, but even this couple had their foibles. I rooted for Kitty and Konstantin. I felt sorry for Anna, but I also thought she brought her troubles on herself. I felt that Stiva was a shallow, empty man with a lot of outward graces, but no inner beauty. Karenin and Dolly were true victims. And the one lead character that I had no pity for was Vronsky, who (in spite of his passion and weeping) single - handedly destroyed a family to seduce a woman that he didn't really, deeply love in the end.
Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point of view. With Anna, however, I just could no..."Thanks. Your comment encourages me to read the book again because it reminds me that Anna Karenina is a social novel, a kind of anti-romance.. It's been so long . . . So, is Vronsky the type of man who would not want any woman he actually wins? Is it the woman he imagines rather than the actual Anna that he wants? Maybe there is something about romance that sets women and men up for disappointment.
Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point of view. With Anna, however, I..."Kallie, I'm not sure how he would have been with an uncomplicated romance - if Anna had not been married and if they were free to be happy. I suspect that it wasn't necessarily the thrill of a forbidden love that attracted him, but a more simple need to have exactly what he wanted no matter what the cost. As the book progressed, I thought his feelings were not truly "love", but more correctly defined as "obsession". He had to have her and so he stalked her until he wore her down. He was dashing and exciting and she gave in, but would Anna have been nearly as tempted if he had been a good hearted, simple farmer like Konstantin? I doubt it.
Many of the hallmarks of true love were missing from Vronsky, for example the ability to give up what you want for the sake of the one you love. If he loved her, why did he expose her to the shame and censure of society? He didn't suffer for their affair, but she did! If he loved her, why did he harbor a low grade dislike of her son? He didn't suffer for the loss of her son, but she did! If he loved her, why didn't he treasure the daughter they had together, instead of giving her away to Karenin (who was supposed to be the villain) after she was dead? None of this seems like love to me. It seems like passion and obsession.
In the end, I really did think that poor, hard working, boring, repressed, unattractive Karenin had a greater capacity for true love, and after he was able to forgive Anna, showed a greater desire to protect her good name and protect and love the child that wasn't even his. Vronsky was dashing able to feel passion and provide excitement but never love. Karenin was able to feel love even though he was unable to show it. Flawed as he was, he was truly the better man.
Lucie wrote: "Women had no choices like we do."Lucie wrote: "Women had no choices like we do."
I agree in so many levels.
Linda wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point of view. With A..."All good questions. And women are still taken in by the dashing Vronskies of the world, but many of us learn from that and choose better next time. My question re Tolstoy: did he respect and empathize with women, or was he simply demonstrating how easily fooled they were by dashing men (like Natasha and Anna). We don't really learn so much about Kitty, except that was fortunate in marrying Levin rather than the original man of her dreams, Vronsky. As Lucie says, women had fewer choices; they were educated to fill very limited, passive roles that did not prepare them for important choices (those who had any choice at all, that is). I don't think Tolstoy acknowledged or appreciated that; to me he simply saw women as weak-minded but failed to see that patriarchal values wanted and kept them that way.
Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point o..."Daria Aleksandrovna also married for love, had plenty of children and still wasn't able to fill her role as admirable wife, as she always had in mind some child was in need of something - a French tutor, a new winter coat - not to mention her husband high in debits and often going astray. There seems to be no 'right' path for women to shelter themselves in, only different configurations of caged hells.
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..."
Anna no doubt loved her child Seryozha but no doubt herself more, she reproaches herself for leaving him for Vronsky but doesn't do anything to correct this, she tells Stiva to do anything to get a divorce and her child if possible, not at all costs but if possible. In the end her committing suicide was not a way of saving her children but it was a way to get away from everyone and punish Vronsky, a man who she stupidly convinced herself didn't love her.
I also disliked Anna. She was in an unhappy marriage that is true and his husband was far not a good man, but Anna was a horrible person. Leaving his son for her lover, giving borth to a daughter she later on practically hated. It was mentioned before that she was childlike - I totally agree. Her tantrums, jelaousy, sudden moodswings are the proofs. She was unhappy with Vronsky? Well, that was her choice...Adult need to face the outcomes of their decisions. Her husband would have even let her keep her lover, only forbid her to meet him in their house which is understendable. Why did she break this bargain? Because it is a lie? But this way she would have been able to live with her beloved son. Then a divorce was offered which she did not accept in order not to lose her son. Seems like she was just rolling with the events. Make up your mind, woman!! I think Vronsky really loved her. It was mentioned several times that he regarded her as a wife even though they were not married. Naturally he wanted hee to behave as a wife. Have children and have a family together. Women should be a part of society, having their own occupation wich was not possible for Anna as she became an outcast. Vronsky's fault? Partly, but Anna left to Italy without a divorce... So mainly I blame her. It was her life that was ruined and it was the consequence of her decisions.
Which really disturbs me that even her suicide was meant to hurt Vronsky. That was her last act which suited excellently to her horrible character. She ruined herself and ruined everyone around he, among them two innocent children.
As for the book as a whole: I pitied Dolly and I liked that storyline. My favourites were Kitty and Levin. They were imperfect alone but so perfect together. The real love existed between them, the way they knew each other's thoughts without saying anything. I had a girlish smile on my face when Levin proposed to her - with just letters, as words were not needed for them.:) And when their baby was born Tolstoy made my eyes moist. That is why this book is in the ultimate favourite collection for me even though I despised the title-character.
Siobhan wrote: "I liked her at first, but the way she treated Vronsky put me right off her. All Vronsky did was love her despite what she'd become in society. I disliked that she thought, because she was unhappy w..."Couldn't agree more on that count, how she treated/reacted towards her husband after she fell for Vronsky. I wish Tolstoy explained Anna's animus towards Karenin. Unless of course, he left it up to the reader to guess the obvious: it was her defense mechanism to unburden her guilty conscience.
Luca wrote: "Yes. I thought she was shallow. Much preferred Levin & Kitty."Accidentaly read your message as "I thought she swallow".
Anyway I don't like Anna but not absolutely loathe.
Oleg wrote: "Luca wrote: "Yes. I thought she was shallow. Much preferred Levin & Kitty."Accidentaly read your message as "I thought she swallow".
Anyway I don't like Anna but not absolutely loathe."
Elizabeth wrote: "No, I love Anna, and love all her ambiguities."
There's nothing new about settling for "second choice" (when Kitty settles down with Levin after being jilted by Vronsky) . I know many, including my sister, who did just that. Look at it from that person's perspective. Why not settle for someone who is head over heels for you although you may not feel the same passion for him/her? Isn't logical/sensible to assume that that person shall always treat you right because you are number one in his/her world?
Linda wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point of view. With A..."Yes, absolutely. If Karenin was really the villain, how come he gets left "holding the bag" so to speak, after Anna commits suicide? Wasn't it a cop out for Vronsky to leave his daughter to be raised by Karenin when he believed that Karenin wouldn't/couldn't love children fathered by Vronsky? He goes off to war in an attempt for martyrdom, which may or may not happen, after destroying Karenin's family and leaving him a broken man.
For Vronsky it was all about lust and conquest and very little to do with love. Where is the proof? I quote the following from the novel:
"Vronsky meanwhile, in spite of the complete fulfilment of what he had so long desired, was not completely happy. He soon felt that the realization of his longing gave him only one grain of the mountain of bliss he had anticipated. That realization showed him the eternal error men make by imagining that happiness consists in the gratification of their wishes. When first he united his life with hers and donned civilian clothes, he felt the delight of freedom in general, such as he had not before known, and also the freedom of love—he was contented then, but not for long. Soon he felt rising in his soul a desire for desires—boredom. Involuntarily he began to snatch at every passing caprice, mistaking it for a desire and a purpose."
Just as Vronsky didn't love his mother yet gave her respect and tried to be a dutiful son, he did the same with Anna after he conquered her. He tried to be a good partner out of a sense of obligation and duty, not for his immense love for her. So then, where is the difference between him and Karenin in the end? While Karenin had married Anna out of a sense of obligation, duty, and honor, Tolstoy gave us enough material to deduce that Karenin deeply cared for Anna and loved her, although that realization came after she left.
So those who believe Karenin was a villain and responsible for Anna's misery, they came to a wrong conclusion.
While I enjoyed reading War and Peace, Anna Karenina left me perturbed. Thanks Tolstoy! But what a great writer.
Towhid wrote: "Linda wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "Ian wrote: "As one of the reviewers mentioned, Tolstoy has a way of presenting a character in a disagreeable light and then later showing us their point o..."Excellent perspective. I think if you were left perturbed after reading this book, you actually got to the core of what Tolstoy was going for in the story. It starts out seeming like a Romeo and Juliet romance of forbidden love and ends up challenging our ability to make sound judgements regarding good and evil.
Tolstoy shows us that people are seldom completely good or completely bad. Unrealistic expectations are responsible for much of the world's misery and there is something incomplete in our understanding when most people respond to Anna and Vronsky as the tragic heroes of this story and judge Karenin to be the villain. I can't help but feel this is not what Tolstoy actually intended when he wrote this many-faceted story.
You have to look no farther than the evolution of the characters of Konstantin Levin and Kitty, to realize that this book is absolutely about changing perspectives and maturing judgements. And how a person's perception of truth isn't necessarily what is real. Early in te story when Anna's and Vronsky's love is new and passion strong, the reader is caught up in the excitement and passion of the forbidden romance. As the book progresses, the reader is led down an uncomfortable path that ought to end in questioning our own moral compass. Perturbation is an apt conclusion.
Well, all this discussion encourages me to read the book for a 3rd time, because it's for sure that reading will have me asking how I missed some important aspects of this novel.
Most commentary and critical analysis by many pundits, even various study guides pontificating that Anna was a victim and her husband was her tormentor, the villain. This theme has been reinforced by Hollywood and many film makers who needed to glorify passion, romantic love and physical attraction. That analysis just didn't sit well with me. From the beginning, I did not see Alexei Karenin in bad light. The only fault he may have had is his inability to express himself to his life partner, in a manner that would have delighted Anna. Neither it is true that there was no love in their marriage. For Tolstoy wrote:"Anna smiled, as one smiles at the weaknesses of people one loves, and slipping her hand under his arm walked with him to the study door...."
"'After all, he is a good man: truthful, kind, and remarkable in his own sphere,' Anna said to herself when she returned to her room, as if defending him from someone who accused him and declared it was impossible to love him"
And finally:
"'And what right had he to look at him as he did?' thought Anna, remembering how Vronsky had looked at Karenin."
Nor it is true that Karenin was a dull and cold person. Had he really been a cold person devoid of any emotion, why did Tolstoy write the following?
"From the moment that Karenin understood from his conversations with Betsy and Oblonksy that all that was asked of him was that he should leave his wife in peace, and not trouble her with his presence and that his wife herself wished this, he felt so lost that he could decide nothing for himself, did not know what he now wanted ..."
"What was most painful in his situation was his inability to reconcile his past life with the present state of things."
Fact is, Karenin, loved his wife, Anna, deeply and devotedly. The following passage attests to it.
"He proposed, and devoted to his betrothed and to his wife all the feeling of which he was capable."
"His attachment to Anna excluded from his soul any need he had felt for affectionate relations with other persons;"
The real story is that Karenin was real victim, just like Dolly, and Anna's children.
OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly loses her mind, but I'm 200 pages in and when she calls herself "wretched" I just have to agree.
Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly loses her mind, but I'm 200 pages..."I totally agree with you!!
Jéssica wrote: "Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly loses her mind, but ..."I don't agree with hating/denouncing characters so clearly restrained and repressed into lifetime choices dictated by social context. I don't know how many Victorian era novels I've read and felt a horrible sense of dread and pity for characters forced to choose mates with whom they could not expect to be in the least emotionally or sexually content. It's all very well to say, well Karenin had a much greater capacity to really love. Maybe he did, but he didn't express that and he and Anna were incompatible. Saying to a young person: give up all your desires and accept the sensible choice (we or you have made) is absurd, as demonstrated in so many novels, which was one reason why they were written in the first place.
Agreei>Kallie wrote: "Jéssica wrote: "Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly lose..."
Yes, I think we must read Anna as a woman of her time--trapped by this expectation or that, others' as well as her own. It's all very well and good to say she should have been her own woman--but to me, that's what her search was all about, becoming her own woman. How can one not love a woman of passion, and being torn apart by two loves (here, I mean the lover and the son, not the lover and husband) definitely brings on sympathy and torment in her own soul. She cannot have the love she wants and respectability, too. She cannot have the love she wants from a sympathetic, tender man and her son, too. It is the portrait of an excruciating choice, not just the portrait of a woman.
Loved Anna, but Levin was a colossal bore.
Kallie wrote: "Jéssica wrote: "Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly lose..."I don't blame her for hating her situation - forced into marriage - or not loving Karenin (but I disagree with you when you said he didn't express his love, I think he did it over and over again and she was the one who didn't see it - we were reading from her point of view most of the time). What I hated about her, was how she behaved, the attitude, being selfish and capricious most of the time. Of course the repression has a weight on that, but she could've being more understanding towards Karenin (bring the lover to his house?? WHY??), more resposible to her children (it was not their fault after all, was it?), less selfish with people (trying to seduce Levin just for the sake of it was very immature) and more patient and less demanding with Vronsky as well. Nothing of this is towards having an affair or getting divorced or not loving Karenin. We all agree these things were totally justified!!
:)
Think of how women were trapped in loveless marriages at that time. This does not excuse Anna, but it help us to understand her. I wonder if this novel can be compared to “Madam Bovary?”
Joanna wrote: "Yes, I think we must read Anna as a woman of her time--trapped by this expectation or that, others' as well as her own. It's all very well and good to say she should have been her own woman--but to..."Well said, and I agree with David that there is a parallel with Madam Bovary. We also could remember that Anna and Emma are rendered (and I men rendered) through the points of view and sensibilities of male writers, however brilliant. I don't think there was a Russian or French Bronte sister, let alone a Jean Rhys.
Jéssica wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Jéssica wrote: "Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that ..."I think I might need to re-read the book. I never got the impression that Anna was forced to marry Karenin. On the contrary, I thought she willingly entered into a marriage with a man she didn't love because his important social position and wealth were attractive to her. Until she met Vronsky, I didn't think she was discontent at all with her situation.
However, it has been a few years since I read this story so I might have missed something (or forgot what it said). I keep reading how people say that she was forced into her marriage but don't remember that this was the case. She might have been "encouraged" to accept Karenin, but "forced" is a really strong word.
Am I wrong about this? Could you please set me straight by telling me exactly where the book says she was forced into her marriage? Thanks!
Kallie wrote: "Jéssica wrote: "Greg wrote: "OMG! I can't stand Anna. If I were the train, I would jump track, hunt her down, and run over her about a hundred times (along with Vronsky). I get that she slowly lose..."A more logical approach to this character, who is a victim of the society. Tolstoy did not create mean people, he was too humane to do that. He never imagined that this great work will provoke so much hatred in 21st. Century! He understood the social mal of Russia in his time and tried to reflect them in his works. He also clearly saw the social changes that were inevitable and about to lead to the Revolution. We can clearly see this aspect in "Resurrection", as he distributes his land among the peasants. Anna reflects how that corrupt society functioned and hence the need for a change.
Jacqueline wrote: "I'm sorry, but I can not abide women who let themselves be pushed around so much by society and the moralists of the day. Tess of the D'Ubervilles, is another, and The French Lieutenant's Woman... ..."I disagree. I really don't think she was being pushed around by society and instead thoroughly deserved it. The way she talks however seems as if she BELIEVES that she is being pushed around by society, just because she is certainly the only one right.
(view spoiler)
Anna tried to make us believe that her husband was cold towards her. I never saw that. I only saw that she refused to believe it was otherwise. Granted, Karenin didn't understand his wife, at the very least though he tries much more than she does to understand the other.
I really hated Vronsky at the start and I really hoped that Anna who seemed so good at the start wouldn't choose such a horrid man. By the end I was pitying Vronsky for being stuck and in love with such a whiny and selfish person.
I hope that Tolstoy had meant her to be horrible because from a moral standpoint I saw little in what was wrong in how she was treated by society.
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, she might as well hate life, but she made a move to change it - that indicates that she is not solely a leach, but at some point she actually thought that she could make a turn for the best, only to fall in to Vronsky´s arms - maybe not the best choice. He was there and eager for her: she was bored and wanted a change. But never put real thought if, in the long run, it would last or be bettern for her, than what she already had. And, in the end, she regretted it, bitterly, but there was no way to escape, by that time.