Anna Karenina
discussion
Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?
deleted user wrote: "I haven't really started reading the book yet, but I know what happens and based on what I've heard I really just don't know.Anna seems like someone I would dislike, even hate, because she become..."
Am I the only one who felt she didn't love her children, since most here seem to feel that she loved her children. She had the daughter, whom she openly admitted to not love (in fact she barely knew anything about the child and literally threw everything to the nurse and governess). She had the son, whom she loved a bit more and whom she believes she loves... that is although she literally forgot about him for the longest time ever.
Well, to be fair though, in any case she probably loves him the most (along with Vronsky maybe?), I don't think there is a debate about that, but I think that's still far lesser than how much she loves herself.
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..."Your review of Anna is the best thus far, however we should not forget that Tolstoy does not promote hatred or "Loathing" suggested by the title of this discussion. We need to look deeper into the social relations of his time, a corrupt society that needs a victim to wash it's sins, a society on the path of destruction by an inevitable new social system.
I highly recommend Tolstoy's "Resurrection", which as in all his books has a bit of himself. He foresaw the demise of the system and he himself took action by dividing his own lands among the peasants...
I have never seen and still do not see the point of vilifying any fictional character, much less a character from over 100 years in the past, a culture as alien to us as we would be to people living 100 years in the future (assuming humans last that long). Anyway, who cares whether or not Anna is "likable" by today's standards? She comes across as real, as alive, as believable or this thread would not be so popular. The requirement that characters be likable makes absolutely zero sense to me.
Anna is possibly likeable by today’s standards, since most people assume she’s trapped by the society she lived in and she is trying to break free. That’s what her speech SOUNDS like, for example when she complains that the law certainly will work in Karenin’s favour (in the sense that it’s because he is a male or he has higher status, in a way that’s not fair.) The truth is, the law SHOULD work in Karenin’s favour, she’s the one having an affair, not Karenin and Karenin didn’t even really want to marry her.
She certainly wasn’t much of a likeable character back then, after all she becomes a complete outcast in the book, even by other morally righteous characters (she deserves it).
Although I was really irritated by Anna, I did like the book, possibly because her portion was only about half the book. I don’t think the question was related to whether one liked the book though, it was merely about the character (whom, I feel, is so often glorified today!)
I think you missed the point. Women were often trapped in loveless marriages at that time. Women had few rights in that time period. Today it is easier to get a divorce and women can make their own living. Ideally, people only marry because they want to be together and love each other not because of society and economics.
I wouldn't say I loathe her, I felt bad for her and what happened to her in the end.
David wrote: "I think you missed the point. Women were often trapped in loveless marriages at that time. Women had few rights in that time period."You are absolutely right. At the time usually parents of a girl decided whom she would marry and love was the least of concerns. Sometimes marriages were negotiated much earlier than the future wife became of age.
I just finished the book last night, and I'm sure it will keep me thinking about the characters for some time. The complexity of the characters makes it almost impossible for me to form concrete judgements of any of them. I loathed many things about Anna, but I could not convince myself one way or another whether her circumstances defined her, or she simply was a deeply flawed person who created this mess for herself. Part of me hates her, part of me feels sorry for her.Levin, on the other hand, was an easier read for me. I don't question his authenticity, his inherit goodness, but I found his insufferable self-pity too much. I couldn't stand him, and in a deep and dark place in my soul, I wish it were he that found himself under the steel horse.
You have to think of 19th century marriage. People were often trapped in unhappy marriages. Remember Checkov’s “ The Lady with A Dog “?
My feelings about her stemmed from her relationship with Vronsky. She did not love her daughter with Vronksy, and used her as a way to manipulate Vronksy (without spoiling anything I'm referring to when she wanted Vronsky to return home early from his trip). She played all sorts of head games, on meeting Levin she flirted with him to get attention, and Tolstoy mentioned this was something she did with all men. I understand the dynamics of 19th century marriage, which is why I did feel sorry for her until I seemed to get to know her better.
Kallie wrote: "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. "I, for one, was not interested about the "social context". What bothered me about the character, Anna, was that how cavalierly she ran off with her lover, abandoning her child and her family, without any regard for their feelings nor their future. That made her a horrible person.
I believe Tolstoy wrote the novel in an attempt to make us stop and ponder on the ramifications of reckless behavior and conduct.
While most 20 year old romantics and those who are forever committed to passions may shout as to why doesn't Anna deserve to seek happiness and passionate relationship, because her husband is a "cold fish". That isn't how I found Karenin's character to be. I believe Tolstoy deliberately painted a rather one dimensional character in order not to lose focus on Anna, as the dominant character. That said, there was enough Tolstoy wrote about Karenin which informed me, he was far from being a cold fish. Actually, the problem was two fold. One was Karenin being inarticulate. The other fact was Anna's refusal to acknowledge him as a human being, let alone someone capable of having feelings. In her mind, she painted Karenin to be a monster. Karenin's inadequacy to be articulate in expressing his emotions and feelings was simply a function of the circumstances and environment he was raised. Nevertheless, he did try to express his tender feelings for his wife quite a few times in the novel. The very first time was when he went to the railway station to receive Anna on her return trip from Moscow. But, Anna wasn't interested in listening to his vague attempt at "love talk". And that was because Anna was already enamored by Vronsky.
Here is the other thing I have to say, most people sympathetic to Anna always blamed Karenin because he lacked passion and therefore, Anna was entitled to seek passion elsewhere. My question to that, why all the blame on the guy? They were a couple committed to each other (until Anna decided to be unfaithful). In a solid (good) relationship, aren't we supposed to grow and mature together? If Karenin lacked romantic notions, why couldn't Anna teach him to be so?
Anyway, those are all aside to me. My main point being that Anna upended too many lives simply because of her selfish, unthinking and unfeeling (towards others) behavior and conduct. She destroyed her husband's career, left him emotionally cripple and all alone, abandoned a young son, who, until her passions overcame her, was the light of her live, to whom she supposed gave all her tender feelings and care, and couldn't imagine to be apart from. The girl she gave birth to, didn't make her stir, and finally, no thoughts about how her passion of passions, Vronksy, would cope with life, without her. That is one heck of unthinking, unfeeling. selfish woman.
I, for one, was not interested about the "social context". ..." That's a pretty huge element to dismiss as though it doesn't matter. There are contemporary cultures in which people have no place if they don't marry, and that certainly was true in Tolstoy's time, especially for women. Of course people are going to settle or choose someone who doesn't really suit them rather than live as a pitied, disrespected person in a social void. I think we take our freedom to choose too much for granted. It's so easy to judge a character in a vastly different era. I don't see the point of character judgment in contemporary American novels, let alone a novel like Anna Karenina.
Anna is the victim of a shitty society and anyone who can't see that would most likely have happily embraced the status quo that was putting women into asylums en masse at that time if they did anything unexpected.
See Min wrote: "deleted user wrote: "I haven't really started reading the book yet, but I know what happens and based on what I've heard I really just don't know.Anna seems like someone I would dislike, even hat..."
The High Society in all countries in that era had its rules, Mothers did not nurse or care for the children, they had nannies and once a day for a half-hour or so the mother would go to the nursery and visit the child. The motherly love only existed among the Lower Classes.
Kallie wrote: "I, for one, was not interested about the "social context". ..." That's a pretty huge element to dismiss as though it doesn't matter. There are contemporary cultures in which people have no place if..."I agree. She was a victim of the social expectations for women. Maybe if she had lived in our times and had more freedom, she would have never chosen to marry someone like Karenin in the first place.
And while I agree that Anna may have handled the situation in a more mature and praiseworthy way, I think that the fact she was not a flawless person made her feel more human.
Besides, even if Anna didn't deal with the problem in the most mature way possible, it does not erase the fact that she found herself in a difficult situation, because of how the society was at that time. Also, I am not sure that it is fair to expect from victims of a difficult situation to behave in the most mature/praiseworthy way possible. It would, of course, be good if they did. Better for them, but I find it understandable that they may not find it in themselves to do it.
My greatest objection to this question about loathing Anna stems from how superficial and reductive this thinking is toward a great novel. From Vronsky's p.o.v.: "Seeing Alexei Alexandrovich (Karenin) . . . he . . . experienced an unpleasant feeling, like that of a man suffering from thirst who comes to a spring and finds in it a dog, a sheep or a pig who has both drunk and muddied the water. The gait of Alexei Alexandrovich, swinging his whole pelvis and his blunt feet, was especially offensive to Vronsky. Only for himself did he acknowledge the unquestionable right to love her. . . ."
Later, there is a passage in which he vows to pursue her everywhere, after he as seen her with her husband.
Yet there is no discussion about whether or not we should loathe Vronsky (not that there should be!). However, readers who love to loathe Anna seem t exempt Vronsky from responsibility. I suppose because he is so comparatively limited as a human being.
From the introduction of the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation: "In the early versions, Tolstoy clearly sympathized with the saintly husband and despised with the adulterous wife. As he worked on the novel, however, he gradually enlarged the figure of Anna morally and diminished the figure of the husband; the sinner grew in beauty and spontaneity, while the saint turned more and more hypocritical. The young officer also lost his youthful bloom and poetic sensibility, to become, in Nabokov's description, 'a blunt fellow with a mediocre mind' ."
Ruby wrote: "The High Society in all countries in that era had its rules, Mothers did not nurse or care for the children, they had nannies and once a day for a half-hour or so the mother would go to the nursery and visit the child. The motherly love only existed among the Lower Classes."The so called high societies back then were made of too many Stepan Arkadyevich Oblonsky ("Stiva"). It seems like nearly most adults were caught up in hedonism. Everything else were secondary. But because they had huge egos, they needed to procreate so that their "names" would continue. That's were problems began because to procreate one needs to have relationship(s), which in turn resulted in relationships i.e. "children". If I were to have been born in those times, I would have preferred to be born in the lower classes where I would have mother's love and remain in close proximity.
Kallie wrote: "I, for one, was not interested about the "social context". ..." That's a pretty huge element to dismiss as though it doesn't matter. There are contemporary cultures in which people have no place if..."I was being merely facetious when I stated I discounted societal impact. Of course it does. Although "norms", what is acceptable what isn't, and the barometer of "judgement" changes with progression of time, our social environment impact most of us, if not all.
That said, to me "society" was secondary because Anna wasn't a little girl born yesterday, wholly immature. She was fully aware what she was doing and how it would impact her life, her family and by extension, her social class. No, she was in fact a cunning person, not a simple minded woman like her sister-in-law, Dolly, or her sister, Kitty. Perhaps you and like minded folks like you missed the very fact that Anna began lying as soon as the novel began, when she traveled to her brother's house to reconcile her brother to his wife, wronged by him.
What I find disheartening is that far too many young folks read the novel through rose colored glasses, romanticizing, and idealizing, Anna, as the heroine, and the only true victim.
Anna victimized herself through her own self deception and continual deceit. Anna was Gone With Wind's Scarlett, "Oh, I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow". Tomorrow never came and she killed herself on mere whim to spite her lover. If she wasn't such an extreme person with extreme thoughts that got the better of her. If she stopped to calm herself and ponder what she did, what she was doing, like most normal people, the outcome most likely would have not been fatal.
Kallie wrote: "My greatest objection to this question about loathing Anna stems from how superficial and reductive this thinking is toward a great novel. From Vronsky's p.o.v.: "Seeing Alexei Alexandrovich (Kar..."
I, for one, cannot be accused of such double standard. To me, Vronsky was a true scumbag, the ultimate hypocrite. This is the same man who believed "husbands were ridiculous and superfluous", yet in the end he wanted to be husband of Anna. Vronsky was a heartless person who had no qualms for leading Kitty on and then dropping her like a hat upon meeting Anna. He had no remorse for being the cause of Kitty's mental breakdown. It didn't bother his conscience, because he didn't have one, to bring shame to Anna, to break her family apart, to make Anna abandon her child.
Having that said, most critics say Vronsky was a mere device plot.
Aylinn wrote: "I agree. She was a victim of the social expectations for women. Maybe if she had lived in our times and had more freedom, she would have never chosen to marry someone like Karenin in the first place. And while I agree that Anna may have handled the situation in a more mature and praiseworthy way, I think that the fact she was not a flawless person made her feel more human.
Besides, even if Anna didn't deal with the problem in the most mature way possible, it does not erase the fact that she found herself in a difficult situation, because of how the society was at that time. Also, I am not sure that it is fair to expect from victims of a difficult situation to behave in the most mature/praiseworthy way possible. It would, of course, be good if they did. Better for them, but I find it understandable that they may not find it in themselves to do it"
It is quite impossible to live outside of societal expectations, even today. Although modern societies have become far more accepting, shunning and shaming continues, perhaps not in wider scale. Nevertheless, isolation occurs within immediate social groups, like within relatives/families, extended families, groups of friends, even among people working together (friendships acquired in work settings). As such Anna's isolation wasn't unique. Nor was her being a social pariah the cause of her isolation from her son, and ultimately, her death. Although she brought about her death on a mere whim, her abandonment of her son, was a conscious choice. She was not compelled to make that choice.
Perhaps this could provide a saner perspective.
Towhid wrote: "It is quite impossible to live outside of societal expectations, even today. Although modern societies have become far more accepting, shunning and shaming continues, perhaps not in wider scale. Nevertheless, isolation occurs within immediate social groups, like within relatives/families, extended families, groups of friends, even among people working together (friendships acquired in work settings). As such Anna's isolation wasn't unique. Nor was her being a social pariah the cause of her isolation from her son, and ultimately, her death. Although she brought about her death on a mere whim, her abandonment of her son, was a conscious choice. She was not compelled to make that choice."Yes, there are still expectations, but there is a huge difference between the options that women have now compared to options they had in the past at the time this story takes place. The difference is huge enough to make the problem impossible to exist to such an extent in many developed countries where women can choose who they want to marry and get a divorce if their marriage is a failure without losing contact with their children and forfeiting being in a relationship to make their personal decision of leaving the husband more palatable for the society. This cannot be denied.
Towhid wrote: "Although she brought about her death on a mere whim, her abandonment of her son, was a conscious choice. She was not compelled to make that choice...."I don't agree that Anna killed herself on a whim. She very clearly, in preceding passages, went through a sort of existential questioning and agonizing that culminated in an act far from whimsical. I also don't believe Tolstoy wrote her as some sort of morality lesson. Anna comes to life because Tolstoy does not make her a puppet for expression of his thoughts and feelings. His novel raises existential questions rather than answering them. So I don't think this forum's question does his art justice because it makes the reader's loathing or loving of a character far too important -- as if that is an important question to take away from reading Anna Karenina.
Your point about rose-colored glasses does not apply, as far as my reading and perception go. I don't see this a romantic novel or Anna as a romantic character and sympathize with her as such. It's more a novel about human dilemmas arising out of unfulfilled desires and dreams, and those -- once aroused, and especially in a passionate person who has no other outlet save through her relationships -- coming up against reality, one's role in the world and finally, in Anna's case, disillusionment with others, herself, life itself. Vronsky was merely an extremely disappointing projection of Anna's desire for a life fully lived. She didn't fling herself into a train's path out of pique; she saw all this, but saw no way for her but out. You can criticize all you like about how immature or selfish that was, but such arguments obviously come from the mind, which is in times of emotional crises no match for the kind of psychic extremity Anna was experiencing. You might as well argue that a tornado should not destroy buildings in its path. That near inevitable failure of mind over aroused emotion is part of the dilemma that drives this story.
Kallie wrote:I don't agree that Anna killed herself on a whim
If you don't agree, I would like to submit that you either misread the book, parts of the book, or key sentences/paragraphs.
When Anna returned home after visiting Dolly and discovered Vronsky still didn't return home, she decided she will go and see him herself at his mother's house. Before leaving she packed some clothes and other essentials in her red bag, with the intention of not returning to Moscow, if there is no reconciliation, but rather making a vague plan to journey on to the next railway station (after Vronsky's place) and remain there for a while to think what to do next. That, doesn't appear to be the mindset of a person who has decided to end her life.
Furthermore, after she threw herself under the train and was about to be struck by it, she suddenly thought to herself, "Where am I? What am I doing?" as if waking up from a trance. Anna tried to get up but it was too late and was struck by the train. Does this sound like a deliberate act to commit suicide?
The problem with Anna was that she vacillated and was driven by impulse. She behaved and took action on the spur of the moment which she later regretted. Like the time when she confessed to her husband in the carriage on the way home that she was Vronsky's mistress. The following morning she asked herself why did she do so.
Kallie wrote:
I also don't believe Tolstoy wrote her as some sort of morality lesson
Not just I, many literary authors and critics, believe the novel was indeed Tolstoy's commentary and admonition on (about) morality.
If Tolstoy's chief objective was to write a novel about oppression or plight of a Russian high society woman that causes her psychological disorder leading to a conscious choice of death, he would not have created the other primary characters like Levin and Kitty, Dolly, and a parallel plot lines. I believe he did so for comparison and contrast. Also, the biggest giveaway is the opening line, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".
As an aside, I would like to point out that this issue of constraints placed on 18th/19th century women was an affliction limited to high/upper society. Not middle or lower class. Even then, many lived on own their terms and without any consequences or repercussion. The famous novelist, George Eliot, comes to my mind, as an example.
Janis wrote: "I have to agree with you David. I said before and continue to see Anna as a vapid empty man or woman chasing after something that would never exist in reality. It has nothing to do with 19th centur..."Couldn't agree more.
See Min wrote: "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 Lie..."That is exactly I found the book to be. I believe many readers failed to see/understand/distinguish the difference between an "authorial view" of a character as opposed to how a character is seen (judged) by another character. Most films depicted and perhaps a great number of readers concurred Karenin to be a cold and self absorbed person whose only goal in life was career advancement. That he didn't care for his son and was aloof towards his wife. No! That is how Anna began to feel about Karenin having met Vronsky in Moscow.
i agree all those movies or adaptations make all the characters flat! vronsky and karenin had feelings and act against what we would expect of them and so did anna. i dont see how someone can dislike her. she is not a easy character but she didint meant to be one as no one of other characters on russian literatury is really confortable or pleasent.. if you think about war and peace Karenina is not only a masterpiece but still its pretty hard to understand how toltoy allowed anna to be such a great novel.. here he almost stopped being the moralist and theorical he was and allow the character to live! ( thats wihy they can be annoyng they are living) sorry for the spelling english isant my native language.
Towhid wrote: "Kallie wrote:I don't agree that Anna killed herself on a whim
If you don't agree, I would like to submit that you either misread the book, parts of the book, or key sentences/paragraphs.
When An..."
You have totally ignored what contradicts your opinion and repeated statements, including the post about Pevear's introduction, which relates how Anna's character changed as Tolstoy re-drafted and made her more and more the focus, and more sympathetic rather than a conduit for his morality. You also ignore the pages preceding her suicide, which as I said very definitely present inner dialogue, in fact the sort of thoughts and feelings that contradict your assertion about whimsical suicide. So I think it is you who have misread, or not read very carefully. I don't care who agrees with you. I do not.
Anne might not have been the most likeable person on earth, but to tell the truth I don't see a problem. No person is perfect and flawless and even if Anna were an angel and took her difficult situation in the best way possible, it would not change the fact that the society's double and unfair standards is the real cause of the problem. More fair standards and the whole tragedy can be easily avoided.
Kallie wrote: You have totally ignored what contradicts your opinion and repeated statements, including the post about Pevear's introduction, which relates how Anna's character changed as Tolstoy re-drafted and made her more and more the focus, and more sympathetic rather than a conduit for his moralityI fail to comprehend why I should be concerned about a translator's foreword/introduction/commentary. A translation cannot and must not change the core content of the original author. Unlike a movie script that changes an original book's content through the use of poetic license, a translator isn't at liberty to do the same. If such is the case, then that no longer remains the original author's creation.
As a literary work of fiction is not a mathematical proof, we ought to agree to disagree.
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..."It's the flaws that make characters interesting. Within limits, the deeper the flaw, the more interesting the character.
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..."MontyJ Wrote: "It's the flaws that make characters interesting. Within limits, the deeper the flaw, the more interesting the character."
Monty, I do agree that the flaws in a character make it more interesting, just as complexity makes a story more interesting. It is easier to identify with a character that struggles with his/her nature and sometimes flaws actually make one more sympathetic rather than causing the reader to loathe them.
The heroine of the novel EMMA by Jane Austen was a flawed but deeply sympathetic character. Her flaws were not minor and her meddling and manipulation came frighteningly close to ruining the lives of others. But when redemption came, it was complete and not surprising because the reader can sense her underlying good heart from the beginning.
But your statement "within limits" is a good point. The example that comes to mind for me is the novel CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. Raskolnikov is probably the most complex and flawed character I've ever read. But his flaws were so hideous and the description of his crime was so graphic that I had serious problems getting past my loathing of what he did and it tainted my ability to accept his ultimate redemption when it came. In short, I couldn't trust him, which made the ending uncomfortable and unsatisfying to me. And maybe that was one of the revealing points of the story - how deeply can we believe in the miracle of redemption? For me, his final resolution had an authentic feel, but as a reader, I was definitely not as forgiving as God was in this story. For Sonya to be able to see past the crime and recognize something that was truly salvageable in this man makes her either the most saintly or the most foolish of women.
Anna was flawed but has some sympathetic elements in her character. I wanted her to resolve her situation and have the happy ending that was not to be. She was her own worst enemy and her own most pathetic victim. She left several ruined lives in her wake, and yet the reader wishes it could have been different. However, Anna was not to find redemption while Raskolnikov ultimately did. What is the difference between the two?
At the end of the day, I make more sense of this story if I take the position that Anna was the "title character" but not the protagonist. The true redemption in ANNA KARENINA wasn't Anna, or Karenin, or even Vronsky. It was Konstantin Levin - who was complex and flawed, but in the end, was able to learn from his mistakes, rise above his flaws and become the person he was meant to be. Anna simply couldn't cope with her situation and it killed her. Vronsky sunk into despair, never to rise. Karenin bore his burdens but never truly cast them off - even though he came tragically close. Konstantin was the only one who got his happy ending and that was because he allowed circumstances to teach him rather than crush him.
Linda wrote: "Anna was flawed but has some sympathetic elements in her character. I wanted her to resolve her situation and have the happy ending that was not to be. She was her own worst enemy and her own most pathetic victim. She left several ruined lives in her wake, and yet the reader wishes it could have been different. However, Anna was not to find redemption while Raskolnikov ultimately did. What is the difference between the two?"I understand your disappointment. It is laudable to want people to redeem themselves, and it is hard to accept that there are people for whom redemption is impossible. There are real people like this.
When an author creates a character with this unredeemable nature, what is the value of it if not to confront the reader with reality. The lesson for the reader is not to harbor hope where none may exist, not to invest resources and emotional energy in such people.
I give as examples: Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Cal Trask's mother Cathy/Kate and Anna Karenina. These people were sociopathic. Sociopath's exist. They ruin lives. We need to understand that such people DO in fact exist so that we do not become their victims.
This, in my mind, is the overriding message of Tolstoy in this novel--a cautionary tale to warn us so that we can avoid being trapped into a relationship with an "Anna Karenina." The wreckage such people leave behind can be horrific if they are not stopped. They live by different rules that those established for a thriving and decent society. (Donald Trump is another.)
(Steinbeck did a similar thing with Cal's mother Cathy in East of Eden, although she achieves partial redemption by loaning Cal money to speculate in bean futures, but she went on to continue ruining peoples' lives.)
Monty J wrote: "I give as examples: Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Cal Trask's mother Cathy/Kate and Anna Karenina. These people were sociopathic. Sociopath's exist. They ruin lives. We need to understand that such people DO in fact exist so that we do not become their victims."To me Anna didn't come across a sociopathic at all. As far as I remember she suffered, because society rejected her and because it treated her as a fallen woman while Vronsky was treated differently and the society had no such problem with him. He was not condemned.
For me Anna was overwhelmed with the situation and it broke her. There are situations that break people and for everyone it is individual where the limits are, but this is how it is. There is not always a happy ending to struggles and difficult situations.
Aylinn wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I give as examples: Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Cal Trask's mother Cathy/Kate and Anna Karenina. These people were sociopathic. Sociopath's exist. They ruin lives. We need to under..."I agree. I never thought Anna was a sociopath, but she was a woman who made some very unfortunate choices with terrible consequences. In my mind, the sociopath was Raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. After reading both books, I have to wonder why a person like Anna couldn't be rescued, while a hideous murderer like Raskolnikov found his peace and enjoyed a happily ever after. I think in the case of ANNA KARENINA, she couldn't be rescued because she could not resolve the issue of forgiveness and redemption. In the case of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, Raskolnikov ultimately found forgiveness and peace with God and was able to accept redemption and freedom when it came.
Aylinn wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I give as examples: Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Cal Trask's mother Cathy/Kate and Anna Karenina. These people were sociopathic. Sociopath's exist. They ruin lives. We need to under..."It's been years since I read it. I'll have to put it back on my list. I was never very sympathetic toward her because of EE's Cathy/Kate, which I'd read soon before my initial reading. I happen to like powerful female villains.
Aylinn wrote: "To me Anna didn't come across a sociopathic at all. As far as I remember she suffered, because society rejected her and because it treated her as a fallen woman while Vronsky was treated differently and the society had no such problem with him. He was not condemned. For me Anna was overwhelmed with the situation and it broke her. There are situations that break people and for everyone it is individual where the limits are, but this is how it is. There is not always a happy ending to struggles and difficult situations"
According to classic definition of sociopath, Anna was sociopath alright. The definition says: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Anna Karenina, according to many psychologists, indeed have a personality disorder, and she had no conscience. Otherwise, for most women, it is unthinkable to abandon a child, particularly, if that child was so precious to her.
Even today, when all the rage is about open marriages/relationships, I find a common thread in discussions (forums, articles and essays), and that is how most women in open relationships always want to protect their children and safeguard their welfare. They are not willing to compromise let alone sacrifice their child for a partner.
Towhid wrote: "They are not willing to compromise let alone sacrifice their child for a partner.."I suppose that was the main thing, although Anna's abandonment of her marriage to ruin Vronsky's military career and family name also figured heavily. Dignity and honor in self-sacrifice was left dangling in the wind while she chose selfishness.
As I recall, Vronsky was willing to break off the relationship more than once, and it was Anna who was the aggressor. So the two roles are not on the same plane to judge.
Tolstoy judges her with Victorian harshness, perhaps because he grew up without his mother, who died when he was two, thus denying him the warmth and nurturing a healthy child craves and needs.
Monty J wrote: "It's been years since I read it. I'll have to put it back on my list. I was never very sympathetic toward her because of EE's Cathy/Kate, which I'd read soon before my initial reading. I happen to like powerful female villains."Ah, I thought Cathy was more of a victim of her mother's expectations and not great advice.
Towhid wrote: "Anna Karenina, according to many psychologists, indeed have a personality disorder, and she had no conscience. Otherwise, for most women, it is unthinkable to abandon a child, particularly, if that child was so precious to her."
As far as I remember while Anna leaves Karnin, she wants to keep contact with her son. However, Karnin doesn't allow Anna to meet with her son. He even go as far as telling his son that his mother is dead. Still, Anna does go to meet with her son on his birthday.
Aylinn wrote: "Ah, I thought Cathy was more of a victim of her mother's expectations and not great advice.Victim?
Hmmm, it's hard for me to accept her as any kind of victim when she seduces her male playmates, murders her parents, steals the father's company payroll and leaves town, then abandons her newborn twins, shoots her husband and becomes a prostitute, then tricks the madam into signing over the deed to all her property in her will and then murders her. It's hard for me to imagine a much more complete villain.
But perhaps it's just a matter of personal taste.
She’s much like Scarlet in Gone with the Wind, isn’t she? After slogging through this huge book, I felt as if the last few chapters were a rush job - added at the last minute and without much thought. I was very disappointed in the abrupt ending. I felt at least somewhat cheated after investing so much time in the book....
Regena wrote: "She’s much like Scarlet in Gone with the Wind, isn’t she? After slogging through this huge book, I felt as if the last few chapters were a rush job - added at the last minute and without much thoug..."I can see some similarities between Anna and Scarlett. They were both self-obsessed, beautiful, wealthy, and they both were willing to go to extremes to have their dreams fulfilled.
But I think Scarlett was a much stronger character. No matter what happened or how low she fell, she always landed on her feet and fought her way back up to the top. People hated her, but she didn't care. She had her regrets, but she didn't feel the need for apologies. When GWTW ended, I got the feeling that Scarlett would live a long and eventful life, and die at age 100 years old - still looking beautiful (of course)!
Anna, on the other hand, seemed weak. She is the victim of everyone and she makes everyone her victim. She vacillated between decisions and couldn't commit to anything. She punished herself without mercy, but never found repentance. She wrecked her life and lost her beauty before she grew old. People hated her and it crushed her. At the end of the book, she died young and defeated.
So there are some paralells, but I think the differences are greater than the similarities.
Regena wrote: "She’s much like Scarlet in Gone with the Wind, isn’t she? After slogging through this huge book, I felt as if the last few chapters were a rush job - added at the last minute and without much thoug..."I felt the same way. The end of Anna's story appeared rather abrupt. In contrast, Levin's story was followed through. I don't know why Tolstoy couldn't leave Anna's fate with a vague culmination, leaving the reader to imagine whatever s/he wished to conclude.
Aylinn wrote: "As far as I remember while Anna leaves Karnin, she wants to keep contact with her son. However, Karnin doesn't allow Anna to meet with her son. He even go as far as telling his son that his mother is dead. Still, Anna does go to meet with her son on his birthday"Did you read the book or watched the film (with Keira Knightley as Anna)? What you state doesn't appear to match what's in the book.
Soon after Anna's recovery, when Karenin agreed to give Anna a divorce, where he would take the blame as an adulterer, as well as consented to let Anna take her son with her, Anna did not accept either of the offers. There was no mention of Anna's desire to maintain contact with her son, in the book. She decided to leave with Vronsky with the baby on a trip to Italy. After Vronsky had his fill of his European honeymoon and wanted to return to Russia, immediately upon returning to Petersburg, Anna desired to see her son because she missed him. Mind you, there was no mention that she was desperately missing her son while she was on her fun filled honeymoon. With Anna it was "out of sight is out of mind". Yet, as soon as she returned home, she was missing him and wanted to see him, especially when Seryozha's birthday was coming up. At first Anna thought she would write to her husband seeking permission for a visit. She decided against it and thought it would be better to make an appeal to countess Lydia Ivanovna. It was the countess who opposed the idea. On the contrary, when the countess informed Karenina about Anna's letter, he said he didn't see how he could deny her (Anna's) wishes as it was her right to see her son. The countess, who hated Anna, convinced Karenin otherwise. It was also the countess who informed Anna (in reply to Anna letter) that they told Seryozha his mother died. It was the countess's machinations.
Anna was in love with the idea of loving her son, not the real act of loving and wanting to be with her son.
Linda wrote: "Regena wrote: "She’s much like Scarlet in Gone with the Wind, isn’t she? After slogging through this huge book, I felt as if the last few chapters were a rush job - added at the last minute and wit..."Scarlet was written by a woman. Anna written by a man. I suspect this made a significant difference.
Monty J wrote: "Linda wrote: "Regena wrote: "She’s much like Scarlet in Gone with the Wind, isn’t she? After slogging through this huge book, I felt as if the last few chapters were a rush job - added at the last ..."Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that angle before, but you are exactly right. I think it probably did make a difference.
And the two stories are so different in their overall message that it is almost like comparing apples to oranges.
Linda wrote: "Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that angle before, but you are exactly right. I think it probably did make a difference. And the two stories are so different in their overall message that it is almost like comparing apples to oranges"
It is indeed comparing apples to oranges. Gone With The Wind was primarily about a woman's survival instincts in a time of major catastrophe while Anna Karenina was about a woman in upper crust decadent society vacillating about her life choices.
The only commonality between the two (primary) characters are about putting off serious thoughts. In the case of GWTW, it was of hardly any consequences because Scarlett was just too caught up in her daily battle to survive, whereas for Anna, who had not a care in the world about survival, and lived a life of luxury, her indecisiveness mixed with mercurial temperament was the cause of her demise.
Monty J wrote: Victim?
Hmmm, it's hard for me to accept her as any kind of victim when she seduces her..."
Ah, sorry I misread your post and for some reason thought you are talking about Princess Katerina Alexandrovna Shcherbatskaya.
Towhid wrote: "Aylinn wrote: "As far as I remember while Anna leaves Karnin, she wants to keep contact with her son. However, Karnin doesn't allow Anna to meet with her son. He even go as far as telling his son t..."
Whether Karenin was manipulated or not, it was an awful thing to say to Seryozha that Anna is dead. Karenin was his father so the last word belonged to him.
From part 5 Chapter 29
"Mother, darling, sweet one!" he shouted, flinging himself on her again and hugging her. It was as though only now, on seeing her smile, he fully grasped what had happened.
"I don't want that on," he said, taking off her hat. And as it were, seeing her afresh without her hat, he fell to kissing her again.
"But what did you think about me? You didn't think I was dead?"
"I never believed it."
"You didn't believe it, my sweet?"
"I knew, I knew!" he repeated his favorite phrase, and snatching the hand that was stroking his hair, he pressed the open palm to his mouth and kissed it.
Aylinn wrote: '"But what did you think about me? You didn't think I was dead?""I never believed it."
"You didn't believe it, my sweet?"
"I knew, I knew!" he repeated his favorite phrase, and snatching the hand that was stroking his hair, he pressed the open palm to his mouth and kissed it. '
Maternal nurturing is vital to the mental health of every child, and a sure way a parent can guarantee a lifetime of devotion is for a mother to withhold that affection during early childhood, for the adult child (from my personal observation) will spent his/her life striving to earn the love they were denied as a child.
By abandoning her marriage, Anna did just that--withheld affection from the boy, making him crave her all the much more. She was cognizant of her need for him but apparently oblivious of the damage it would cause the boy by such a withholding.
Over time, Anna got more and more dependent upon the opiate drug Laudanum, dulling her senses and pushing her farther and farther away from any hope of reconciliation with her son. Perhaps this is what kills her, the inner realization of that lost hope and its associated guilt.
Karenin himself may be the novel's ultimate villain, for it is apparently his coldness that made Anna vulnerable to Vronsky's dishonorable conduct. And yet Anna initially chose to be with Karenin. So maybe a toss-up between them as to who's the more responsible.
Monty J wrote: "Maternal nurturing is fundamental to the mental health of every child, and a sure way to guarantee a lifetime of parental devotion is for a mother to withhold that affection during the early part of childhood. By abandoning her marriage, Anna did just that--withheld her affection from the boy, making him crave her all that much more. She was cognizant of her need for him but oblivious of his need for her and the damage it would cause by denying that. "
I think Anna was in a difficult situation. She was in a loveless marriage and being with the person she loved meant ostracism and condemnation from the society. Leaving her son was not good, but she was not a monster either.
The main problem here is the society and its double standards. If society back then didn't have ridiculous ideas of how women should be and what they can(not) do, the drama would not exists.
Also, I wonder how much mothering Anna was doing. The higher class women were not expected to take care of their children so much. Children had nannies, governesses, etc. for it.
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...
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..."
You're too kind towards Anna. Anna herself says that she wants to kill herself to make Vronsky regret 'how he treated her' (which although could have been better at time he really treated her quite well... the only problem was that he didn't know how to deal with her insecurities).
By the way, she believes that she doesn't love her daughter and only her son... whom she actually forgot about for months!