Anna Karenina
discussion
Did anyone else absolutely loathe Anna?
I don't like Anna because she was a master in ruining herself and people who ruin themselves frustrate me enormiusly. She made herself completely entrapped by lust. She lacked any rational behaviour and she only thought about her short term pleasure. I feel sorry for her because indeed she was in a very terrible situation but if she felt more responsible maybe she would have save herself from that tragic death and could have started a new life somewhere else using her talents. She was a clever and kind woman but in her relationship with Vronsky she only used her charm. She also acted very wickedly when she tried to seduce the drunken Levin. She is not my favourite character but I don't hate her because she was very pitiful in the end. If anyone I hate in this book, it's no one other than that selfish womanizer Veronsky who took advantage of her loveless but safe marriage and made her to leave everything without any sense of responsibility.
Aylinn wrote: "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."As I read the book, nowhere did I read that Karenin's son being told his mother was dead is directly attributable to Karenin. The countness made up the story and he went along with it.
That said, what difference did that make, awful or not? The reality was that the boy never saw his mother for the rest of his life. And her big production of going to see him on is birthday was not really for his benefit or solace. It is Anna who needed to satisfy her desire, which appeared to be the sole purpose in her life. Psychologically, he would have been better off if he was spared from that drama. We know that as Seryozha was beginning to grow up, he began to avoid thinking about his mother while learning to accept his father. I'm sure he would eventually hate her when he discovered the truth when he grew up. That very thought had crossed Anna's mind upon becoming pregnant, but only in passing. She briefly wondered about what Seryozha would think about his mother when he learned that he abandoned him and left his father for another man. But that was a fleeting moment of consideration. Her need for passionate love outweighed everything else.
Monty J wrote: "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."From all the analysis and critic of the book, nowhere did I find support that Karenin was a villain, let alone the ultimate villain. Neither did I find a sentence where the author said that Karenin was "cold" to Anna. The problem with Karenin was that he was inarticulate and ill equipped to show any overt tenderness. He couldn't even show affection to his child for which the son used to be scared of Karenin (as narrated in the early part of the book). He had feelings of love however, he was unable to express them. That was clearly expounded by the author in the scene where Karenin was rehearsing what to say to his wife while waiting for her to return home.
Even today, many men are like that. My own father was like that. Not only he never made any display of public affection to my mother and his children, I never saw that even in private. Only one time I saw his vulnerable side and that was when my sister, his first born was getting married. He broke down in tears when my sister came to say goodbye to him. Nevertheless, all of us felt his love as we grew older and realized that everything he did, he did for his family.
Even in my own life, it took me years before I was able to make myself vulnerable to my wife. I was able to do so only because I read and learned so much and trained myself to express better.
In Anna Karenina, the problem was that Anna didn't bond with her husband, although she was a dutiful wife and mother until she met Vronsky. It is easy to blame Karenin and suggest that his lack of expressive tenderness led Anna to commit adultery. On the contrary, I would argue that Karenin felt that he a set and contented life with a beautiful wife and a young son, where he was supposed to be a dedicated bureaucrat because held a very high and responsible position. He also was guided by strong Christian faith were faithfulness and honor was supreme. He had strong faith in Anna that she could not do anything wrong or sinful.
Towhid wrote: "As I read the book, nowhere did I read that Karenin's son being told his mother was dead is directly attributable to Karenin. The countness made up the story and he went along with it."Exactly, he went along with it. He allowed her to meddle in his family situation.
However, I agree that Karenin is not a villain. He might have done bad thing out of weakness of character, etc., but in the more ambitious works I like it that often there is no clear distinction who is good and who is evil like in pop culture.
Aylinn wrote: "Exactly, he went along with it. He allowed her to meddle in his family situation. However, I agree that Karenin is not a villain. He might have done bad thing out of weakness of character, etc., but in the more ambitious works I like it that often there is no clear distinction who is good and who is evil like in pop culture."
I would refer you to your own analysis/conclusion in your second paragraph for the indictment of Karenin that "he went along with it. He allowed her to meddle in his family situation". A person of strong convictions and steadfastness of character, he wasn't. Karenin was swayed by other peoples' opinions and ideas, throughout the book.
I agree with your statement, "more ambitious works I like it that often there is no clear distinction who is good and who is evil".
That said, the way I see it, Karenin did nothing wrong. A person's character flaws are not synonymous to doing bad things, doing harm to others. Many blame him for not granting Anna a divorce and not handing their son over to Anna. That is rather simplistic.
It was Anna who refused the divorce and left the son behind when she decided to leave Karenin, when Karenin in his most magnanimous point in his life offered to do both for Anna. The offer was beyond magnanimous because back then, grounds for divorce were narrow and rigid: impotency (of husband), physical absence for 7 years or more, and adultery. In the case of adultery, the guilty party would never be allowed to remarry while the victim could. Karenin offered the divorce that included his taking the blame for adultery so that Anna could remarry. Yet Anna couldn't bring herself to accept his magnanimity.
Later on, when Anna changed her mind and decided that she did want the divorce after all, why couldn't Karenin change his mind as well? The divorce that Anna wanted/needed would have Karenin be accused of adultery. Perhaps he no longer wanted to take the false blame? Perhaps he had moved on with his life that his marital status was inconsequential to him. Many couples remained married yet lived apart, back then. Yes, that psychic's recommendation was a good excuse for a man who became so passive.
I don't hold it against Karenin that he may not have wanted to take the blame for divorce. However, the fact that he allowed to tell his son a lie that Anna died I think was an awful thing to do and a result of his weakness of character.
Aylinn wrote: "but in the more ambitious works I like it that often there is no clear distinction who is good and who is evil like in pop culture" Exactly. And exactly what is tedious about the oversimplification of character that goes on in this forum. Which so far as I can see is simply based on reader stereotyping, incomprehension, judgemental attitude, sexism, etc. None of which brings one to an interesting reading of a novel this complex.
Kallie wrote: "Exactly. And exactly what is tedious about the oversimplification of character that goes on in this forum. Which so far as I can see is simply based on reader stereotyping, incomprehension, judgemental attitude, sexism, etc. None of which brings one to an interesting reading of a novel this complex. ."You can thank/blame Hollywood and entertainment media (like Oprah's book club) for that (oversimplification/stereotyping). Many if not most, seem to fall for their (Hollywood) interpretation.
A Miuda Geek wrote: "Jennifer - it´s Rochester, from Jane Eyre.As for comparing Anna to Scarlett...i beg to disagree: Scarlett made her own way, struggled through hunger, war, deprivation and she rose thought the lat..."
Al wrote: "Oh, I felt sorry for her. In fact the last few chapters took me FOREVER to read, because I knew what was going to happen. I hated what happened to Anna (both emotionally and her ending), but the ch..."
I agree with all of this. I admired Scarlett and would strive to be like - grit, resilience, determination. I didn't hate Anna but I'd hate to be her. They had similar situations but that is where the comparison ends. Scarlett didn't do anything without a plan and Anna didn't do anything with a plan, even killing herself.
Anna was an extremely selfish woman. Yes, she was stuck in an arranged marriage, but her husband loved her and treated her with kindness. He tried to forgive her multiple times, but she insisted on humiliating him publicly.She had a child, and gave him away to be with another man. She didn't care that Vronsky sacrificed his career because of her. He was nearly as much of a social pariah as she was, but he was younger and had a lot more prospects. She took from him for her own pleasure and got angry at him for not giving more.
You can argue that she should have been allowed to divorce and be with the man she loved, but her actions showed that she only cared about her self, not even Vronsky's nor her son's welfare.
Eric wrote: "You can argue that she should have been allowed to divorce and be with the man she loved, but her actions showed that she only cared about her self, not even Vronsky's nor her son's welfare. ..."If you read the analysis/interpretation of the book by Gary Saul Morson, you'll somewhere Mr. Morson suggests that Anna really didn't love any particular person. Rather she was obsessed with the concept of "being in love". She chased a mirage that became an all consuming passion.
While I (we) don't know how developed was the field of human behavior and psychology in the 1800s and whether Tolstoy himself was aware (knowledgeable) of different types of personalities (in psychoanalytical terms), for he never mentioned narcissism while describing Anna or Vronsky. Nor did the word codependency appear in the novel. Perhaps those things were very much in Tolstoy's mind because he wanted to showcase Anna to warn others what happens to life when one becomes self absorbed and codependent in order to exist.
While Tolstoy led Levin through the morass and wilderness of self doubt and futility of human existence, the author delivers him from the jungle of life to a better place. Levin for all his vacillation and morbid thoughts, eventually concludes that such is life, i.e. to have doubts, negative thoughts. But that ought not to lead him to self annihilation because it wouldn't be fair to his wife and his new born son and his extended family.
Yet, Tolstoy provides no such opportunity in Anna's mind for introspection and uplifting thoughts. Anna was simply caught up in her need for passionate love (lust). She felt that there was no love between her and her husband. She felt she finally became alive after being pursued by Vronsky. But she failed to realize that romance and passionate love is not a permanent state of being. When the honeymoon period was over, Anna soon found herself abandoned by Vronsky when he began to return to his normal life, where he had other pursuits other than being with Anna twenty four seven. She failed to grasp that normal everyday is may be boring but that is real life.
Towhid wrote: " She felt she finally became alive after being pursued by Vronsky. But she failed to realize that romance and passionate love is not a permanent state of being."Being "in love" is a state of temporary insanity caused by a hormonal bloom in the amygdala (part of the brain) for the purpose of survival and procreation. When we are "in love" rational thought is suppressed and overridden until the horonal bloom has run its course. Love, if it ever happens, comes later, after the couple have come to know and appreciate one another on a deeper level.
I suspect Anna was pathologically insecure (not unlike Vivien Leigh, who was cast in the role), and Levin didn't have the time to cater to her needs. So she was vulnerable to someone like Vronsky.
It's hard to blame someone who's mentally ill for the damage they cause. We can only try to understand.
This hormonal bloom is probably responsible for most illicit romantic affairs, such as the Clinton/Lewinski incident. You never know when it will strike because it is deeply rooted in the psyche. Unmet needs for nurturing during childhood are suspected to be involved.
Monty J wrote: "Towhid wrote: " She felt she finally became alive after being pursued by Vronsky. But she failed to realize that romance and passionate love is not a permanent state of being."Being "in love" is ..."
The passivity expected of upper class women was also a factor. A person brought up as an object is not likely to have much in the way of inner resources. They are more likely to look outside themselves for fulfillment.
Towhid wrote: "Eric wrote: "You can argue that she should have been allowed to divorce and be with the man she loved, but her actions showed that she only cared about her self, not even Vronsky's nor her son's we..."You really expacted Tolstoy to mention "Narcissism"?
In my opinion the book describes an Aristocratic Society doomed to fall as the rings of Revolution are heard all over the country and most of the world for that matter. This society is based on corruption, betrayal, lies and a fake picture of honesty and virtue. In Anna they are in search of a victim to hide their own wrongdoings and Anna becomes that victim.
We need to look into the social conditions of that era and for that Tolstoy has created another masterpiece Resurrection. This is a testimony of how the society is doomed to disintegrate and what are the basic Socio-Economic foundations of that demise.
He looked at her as a man might look at a faded flower he had plucked, in which it was difficult for him to trace the beauty that had made him pick and so destroy it” ― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
Ruby wrote: "He looked at her as a man might look at a faded flower he had plucked, in which it was difficult for him to trace the beauty that had made him pick and so destroy it” ― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina"
Yes, too typical of how men looked at women before we gained some autonomy. And yet readers go away with Anna being the loathsome one. Hard to figure unless they are ignoring a lot of text.
Ruby wrote: "We need to look into the social conditions of that era and for that Tolstoy has created another masterpiece Resurrection."I have the book. Finding it difficult to get into it.
Kallie wrote: "Ruby wrote: "He looked at her as a man might look at a faded flower he had plucked, in which it was difficult for him to trace the beauty that had made him pick and so destroy it” ― Leo Tolstoy, A..."
Thanks Towhid.
Towhid wrote: "Ruby wrote: "We need to look into the social conditions of that era and for that Tolstoy has created another masterpiece Resurrection."I have the book. Finding it difficult to get into it."
This book is more autobiographical than Tolstoy's other works. You will love it as you advance in the story.
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..."Exactly.
Rachel wrote: "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 ALWAY..."Tolstoy was a great writer but I can't think of a single female character in his work who demonstrates the complexity and strength of an Elizabeth Bennet, or Jane Eyre.
I think the people who hate Anna are not treating the book as an old book that was written in the 19th century on which women didnt have rights at all. I dont understand what did Anna do wrong. She wanted better life. We can guess she has never loved Karenin and had to marry him because her family forced her to do so.
Moreover, she couldn't divorce him due to the fact she is a woman. Would anyone of you just do nothing about unsatisfaction in life? Anna felt bad with Karenin because all he cared about is himself and his pride. She wanted a change. Maybe if the society had given women rights then Anna would have been happy with Vronsky. Why did stepan cheated on dolly several times and the society didnt seem to care? The society stopped the families from being happy and not the people themselves and thats what I think the meaning of the story is.
DAR wrote: "I think the people who hate Anna are not treating the book as an old book that was written in the 19th century on which women didnt have rights at all. I dont understand what did Anna do wrong. S..."
DAR, I always thought it was interesting that most of the hatred and vitriol leveled against Anna didn't come from the men in the book. It was the women who were the worst to her - many of them guilty of the same breaches of conduct, however, they were discreet. It wasn't her affair with Vronsky that made her a pariah. It was her lack of hypocrisy and her lack of discretion that posed a threat to societal norms.
Actually, most of the men in the book were almost universally kind to Anna, but the women held the keys to acceptance in society. Even Karenin was willing to overlook her affair on the single condition that she didn't bring her lover under his roof. He is such a sad character because he had the makings of a decent human being and had it not been for the malignant influence of the Countess Lydia Ivanovna, who probably wanted him for herself. Because of her toxic influence, Karenin ended up falling prey to his worst inclinations and his better self was smothered almost before it could emerge and grow.
And a large part of the story centered around the good-hearted Konstantin Levin's struggle with how to view a "fallen woman". I saw a similar theme repeated in the novel WAR AND PEACE, when Bolkonski is unable to forgive Natasha after she violates his trust and temporarily falls for Anatole.
Honestly, I feel like Tolstoy struggled with these same moral dilemmas in his relationships with women and that it the real point of this book.
I do have to disagree with the notion that Anna was forced into a loveless marriage by her family. There is nothing in the book to imply that. It is possible and certainly happened sometimes. But my reading of this particular story made me feel that Anna was perfectly satisfied to marry Karenin and was fine with her situation in life when she didn't know what passion was. My guess is that in the beginning, she was flattered and elated by the chance at such a good match. It was her passion for Vronsky when it was too late that made her unhappy in her marriage.
I have spent some time in cultures where arranged marriages are common, and the reality is that very, VERY few women are ever actually FORCED to marry against their will. They may be strongly "encouraged" but seldom forced.
History is full of strong women who had enough self-knowledge to refuse a husband who didn't suit them. Their stories are inspiring.
But Anna was not strong. She wasn't strong enough to know that Karenin would not make her happy. She wasn't strong enough to refuse to marry without love, because she was dazzled by the high position and importance in society that she stood to gain. She wasn't strong enough to stick to her marriage when a greater love came along - not even for the sake of her beloved child. She wasn't strong enough to resist her passion for Vronsky, and when she succumbed, she wasn't strong enough to weather the storm that society dished out to her. When she had a daughter by Vronsky, she wasn't strong enough to love that little girl while she pined and pined for the son she had left behind. She wasn't strong enough to make any decision that was deeply rooted in her heart enough to get her through. In the end, it was her own indecision that killed her. Even at the very last, she changed her mind about killing herself after it was too late to stop her fall onto the tracks.
Tolstoy is a wonderful storyteller and was a master at spinning yarns about moral struggles. But strong women characters were not his forte. We need to enjoy ANNA KARENNA for what it is, but for strong female characters we'll have to move on to such works as MANSFIELD PARK, NORTH AND SOUTH, or even the children's novel, ROSE IN BLOOM, where the heroines are as strong as they come.
Linda wrote: "DAR wrote: "I think the people who hate Anna are not treating the book as an old book that was written in the 19th century on which women didnt have rights at all. I dont understand what did Anna..."
I share both opinions: 1) that Anna has to be judged by her times; though some women were stronger, most women, especially upper class women, lived under social pressures that did not encourage strength of character. Austen and Bronte characters are of a different social class and have faced a loss of fortune, or circumstances that demand more of them; 2) Tolstoy though great never wrote a strong woman character; at least Anna is complex and vividly written and deals with some existential issues though she fails to weather them. Natasha simply falls apart when Anatole proves feckless.
These character renderings puzzle me. From what I've read about Tolstoy's wife, I imagine a strong woman. Maybe he didn't like that in women, who seem to irritate and puzzle HIM.
In my opinion, Tolstoy does not divide families by gender, he sees the family as a whole, in a larger entity which is the surrounding environment. There are issues, clashes, unhappiness etc. in his portrayal of personal relationships but he looks deeper into the Social and Economical contradictions and places family relations inside that greater picture.
Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "DAR wrote: "I think the people who hate Anna are not treating the book as an old book that was written in the 19th century on which women didnt have rights at all. I dont understand..."
Sophia Tolstoy was a strong woman and their marriage was complex and very, very troubled. I do think he might have struggled with his attitudes toward women, but I'm not sure who was actually to blame in the catastrophic failure of their relationship. In the end, he left her and died alone.
YouTube has an audiobook on his biography. I am about to listen through it - I think it might give some insight about where he was coming from when he wrote his female characters. You might find it interesting: https://youtu.be/yUZA0Sch5Wg
It is also interesting that Sophia was a writer in her own right, and she sometimes found his female characters to be offensive. I think she might have feared that he played out the problems in their own marriage on the pages of his books. She worried about her reputation and for good reason. Contemporaries who read the things he wrote did come to conclusions about her based on the women in his books.
I don't remember where I read this (it might have been somewhere in the comments in this thread), but I heard somewhere that Anna was not intended to be read as a likable character. In fact, he originally fashioned as someone who was almost a villain, fat and obnoxious. It was only in the revisions and rewrites before it was published that she evolved into the woman we know. Whatever others might have read into this "epic romance", I don't think Tolstoy himself liked her. This book was not a romance, but it was a story that was ultimately about Konstantin coming to terms with his own attitudes toward women - and how his religious idealism comes into a collision course with reality, justice, and compassion. Konstantin's meeting with Anna near the end of the novel is almost a turning point in his life. Most people think that Konstantin was actually the main character and was the voice and conscience of Tolstoy in this novel. This book is not really about Anna, but it is about a man coming to terms with women like Anna.
Kallie wrote: "Tolstoy was a great writer but I can't think of a single female character in his work who demonstrates the complexity and strength of an Elizabeth Bennet, or Jane Eyre"You have a point there. Perhaps Tolstoy was a sexist. After all, the time he lived in must have shaped his ideas and thoughts. Or it could be a simple case of being unable to think like woman. Some authors like the capacity, mental skill, what have you, to think like someone very different than them like a member of the opposite sex, someone criminally insane, etc. So the best Tolstoy could do was describe a woman through their actions or lack thereof.
Linda wrote: "This book was not a romance, but it was a story that was ultimately about Konstantin coming to terms with his own attitudes toward women - and how his religious idealism comes into a collision course with reality, justice, and compassion. Konstantin's meeting with Anna near the end of the novel is almost a turning point in his life. Most people think that Konstantin was actually the main character and was the voice and conscience of Tolstoy in this novel. This book is not really about Anna, but it is about a man coming to terms with women like Anna"I couldn't agree more. It appears many, if not most people read the book without stopping to analyze the plot lines, the narratives, the description of characters, and try to make sense of the whole book. Most readers get caught up with the life of Anna, who isn't the real protagonist in the novel. I read somewhere some critic lamented that had Tolstoy not named the book Anna Karenina, a lot of people would have had a different take on the book.
I am of the belief it was Tolstoy's portent of consequences in life when someone chases after mirages, that epitomized Anna. The resultant scandal was merely collateral damage, and it was a scandal because it occurred in era where extra marital affairs divorce was taboo.
Nevertheless, the same thing happens again and again, in modern times when some men and/or women go chasing after so called happiness that ultimately proves to be elusive. I personally know of three women, who have had multiple marriages, extra marital affairs and divorces, yet ended up alone, pining for their (grown) kids, who would have very little to do with them other than grudgingly acknowledge that those women are their mothers. These women now most menopausal, didn't have time for their kids when they were young because they were too busy having good times and were raised by theirs dads.
Are they any different in their mindset than the 19th century Anna Karenina?
I don't see a problem that Anna is not a strong women. Does every women needs to be strong and admirable in literature? As for all those who harshly judge Anna, I wonder how well and happy they would be trapped in a loveless marriage in times where divorce was impossible and finding help like psychologist or connecting with people who have similar problem on the Internet for example was not possible, which basically means that Anna was left to her own resources with her emotions and problem.
I wonder how well all these harsh critics would do then? It is always easier for a person who is not emotionally involved in a difficult situation to sit on high horse and see the right thing to do, but such a situation is always more difficult if you are emotionally involved.
Also, it seems to me that many people are under impression that if they were the annoying for them character from the book, they would do better and be the admirable hero who faces all obstacles with noble attitude and formidable strength of character. I wonder how close/far their image of themselves is from the reality? Because I am strangely sure that in reality not so few would find themselves not much happier than Anna was and their attempts to find some happiness would not be necessarily more admirable. (I guess many would just end up having a secret affair like most people of that time, which is hardly more admirable.)
Ruby wrote: "Part of a poem written by Iranian Progressive Poet Forook Farrokhzad, about her unhappy marriage:"I think about it and yet I know
I’ll never be able to leave this cage
Even if the warden should l..."
Oh, this is so sad - it makes my heart ache. Every now and then someone succeeds in communicating their innermost feelings to the heart of the reader. Forook Farrokhzad has done that.
Rachel wrote: "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 ALWAY..."I can't buy into this stereotype of men & women.
SOME men are selfish all the time. SOME men are selfish some of the time. SOME men are weak , dishonest, and abusive. SOME men are childish. SOME men are absolute villains.
And MANY men are strong, nurturing, honorable, protective, loving, encouraging, and manly. They sometimes struggle with their lesser/lower natures, but strive to follow what is best in them. Such men are called adults and I've known many of them.
CONVERSELY:
SOME women are selfish all the time and SOME women are selfish some of the time. SOME women are weak and childish, dishonest and abusive. SOME women are childish. SOME women are absolute villains.
And MANY women are strong, nurturing, honorable, protective, loving, encouraging, and womanly. They sometimes struggle with their lesser/lower natures, but strive to follow what is best in them. Such women are called adults and I've known many of them.
All humans are somewhere on this spectrum, and many emerge as better people. But for others, the struggle between the best and the worst in themselves becomes tragically destructive. They either give themselves over to their worst instincts, or the struggle ultimately destroys them.
My take on the book ANNA KARENINA is that Konstantin Levin struggles against his worst and wins. He had his faults in the beginning but grew into a greater person because he was able to successfully identify what part of himself needed to be conquered. Karenin also struggled but could never identify what part of himself needed to be conquered and ultimately his worst inclinations took over. Anna also struggles but is unable to ever settle on who she really is. It ultimately destroyed her. She was a victim, but she was her own worst victimizer.
Aylinn wrote: "I don't see a problem that Anna is not a strong women. Does every women needs to be strong and admirable in literature? As for all those who harshly judge Anna, I wonder how well and happy they w..."
I agree in that I don't see the point in judging characters as well written as Anna. What matters most is if they live in your mind, almost as real people you feel you are getting to know -- maybe more since we can't actually get into other people's minds as well as a novel like Anna Karenina does. It's baffling to me that people feel this need to judge a great or even very good novel's characters, especially by modern psychological parameters -- as if those parameters are objective just because they are contemporary and the parameters to which are own culture-bound values attach importance. All this argumentative thread proves to me is that Anna comes alive for people in a way that inspires us.
I think I can agree with most of that I just think that Anna didnt do anything wrong and the accusations that she was a bad person are completely wrong. I mean, I read the book and fell in love with Anna. I think we should all just treat her as a human and I think we should remember she didnt want to be with Vronsky. Just after a long time that he loves her she agrees to be with him. But I think the society really made Anna's situation to be more complicated.
I found that Anna was written in a light so that you could not really root for her. Half of her plotline was her whining and fighting with Count Vronsky over the absolute dumbest things. We're supposed to watch her fall down a pit of no return, where all anyone can do is scream at the pages of the book, begging for her to stop being so selfish and realize that she's only making this whole situation worse for herself. I personally LOVED reading these parts, especially when they first began, because it was as if you were watching her inevitable fall and there was nothing you could do but read with an open mouth as she essentially loses her mind because of how society is treating her. It's hard to come to a conclusion on whether or not I loathe the character because she is such a fascinating person to read about. As the story goes on, she does become quite obnoxious, but I still feel that it's absolutely enthralling. HOWEVER, Kitty and Levin are the superior couple and I do prefer their POV over listening to Anna for pages on end. Even after all that, I did feel a bit upset that she ended her own life. She was a character that needed more time. Not so much more time on the pages of this book, but more time reflecting on her need for change. Then, it would've been worth it to struggle through all those pages of whining just to realize that she was a dynamic human being with a full character arc. I think that Tolstoy didn't do this because it would've been too much of a fairy-tale sort of ending. He wanted us to dislike Anna even up until those final moments.Did that make any sense? Sorry, it's 3:57 AM and I just wanted to add to this discussion.
Yes, it does make sense and your points are well taken.
C.J. wrote: "I found that Anna was written in a light so that you could not really root for her. Half of her plotline was her whining and fighting with Count Vronsky over the absolute dumbest things. We're supp..."You're comments are interesting and make me want to read Anna again.
Linda wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Part of a poem written by Iranian Progressive Poet Forook Farrokhzad, about her unhappy marriage:"I think about it and yet I know
I’ll never be able to leave this cage
Even if the wa..."
Thanks a lot. She was assassinated in a fake car accident.
Theresa wrote: "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 awa..."Forgive me if someone else has mentioned this already, for I have only skimmed all the comments. However, I think it is quite interesting that I haven't seen anyone mention Stiva yet. I know that this discussion page is for Anna, but I've seen a lot of comments about her motives that have made me think. I'm not going to comment on anything other than some of her actions and motives, nothing such as her whining and the losing of her mind's wellbeing.
A lot of people are attacking Anna for leaving her child and her husband for another lover. However, didn't Stiva do the same exact thing? Why are we so quick to forgive Stiva and forget his infidelity when we read his encounters with Levin, yet he did almost the same thing as Anna. He cheated with the governess, who the family must've become at least slightly acquainted with, even though he has a loyal and charming wife and children. I understand that he went through the efforts of apologizing to Dolly, but that was when he finally got caught. In his conversation with Levin at the restaurant, Stiva states that he loves his wife and was simply just fascinated by another woman. YET!!! He says to Levin,
" 'A man hardly has time to turn around, before he feels that he can no longer love his wife in that way, whatever his regard for her may be. And then all of a sudden love crosses your path, and you're lost, lost!' " (Tolstoy, 49) **Page numbers may vary based on copy**
Anna, who has begun to really despise her husband, is more villainized than Stiva whose only reason for cheating, seemingly, is because he was bored and saw a pretty woman. It really does play into the idea that the time periods are CRUCIAL to how the novel progresses.
IN NO WAY am I defending Anna's actions, but I just think that it is very interesting that no one's mentioned Stiva. Feel free to disagree with me, I just thought that it was definitely an interesting point.
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..."She was still written as selfish!
Kallie wrote: "Linda wrote: "DAR wrote: "I think the people who hate Anna are not treating the book as an old book that was written in the 19th century on which women didnt have rights at all. I dont understand..."
Anna Karenina was one of the best-researched novels ever.
The Anna and Vronsky relationship was inspired by the relationship between Sofia Andreevna Bachmeteva and Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoi. Sofia was a woman with an unpleasant personality.
Anna's suicide was inspired by Anna Pirogova's suicide.
While Janne Austen devised stories, Tolstoy was inspired by real life.
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..."Tolstoy was inspired by the suicide of Anna Pirogova, the relationship Ana and Vronsky in the relationship between Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoi with Sofia Andreevna Bachmeteva. Unlike Anna Karenina, Sofia was an unpleasant woman and who made Alexei's life unhappy, he used morphine after the fights he had with her. He died of an overdose.
The personality and appearance, Tolstois if inspired in Maria Hartung, poet Pushikin's daughter.
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 didn't particularly like Anna Karenina either for the same reasons. But I find that you feel more and more sorry for her as she has lost everything (her son and her reputation). She hates herself and can't live with herself and though she tries to ignore her growing hatred for her husband, she can't stop herself from destroying it all.
I still don't like her but at least I feel like I understand her and Tolstoy's talent seeps through as the more I read, the more I was filled with horror with each action and consequence she had created.
I didn't particularly like Anna Karenina either for the same reasons. But I find that you feel more and more sorry for her as she has lost everything (her son and her reputation). She hates herself and can't live with herself and though she tries to ignore her growing hatred for her husband, she can't stop herself from destroying it all.
I still don't like her but at least I feel like I understand her and Tolstoy's talent seeps through as the more I read, the more I was filled with horror with each action and consequence she had created.
I hated the book. I have friends who have great taste who say it's their favorite book of all time. I will go to my grave not getting why this book is so loved.
Beyond feminist narratives, I find the relentless Anna-Levin juxtapositions rather uncomfortable and more than a tad unfair.I recently read one where the author sketched a customary contrast between Levin's search for God and goodness, and Anna's erratic passions and self-absorption. Or something along those lines. Few seem to be interested in comparing these characters' circumstances, especially access to the object of their respective affections. As I recall, Levin himself was quite passionate about Kitty. Luckily, his persistence pays off and he ends up marrying her. Then he is free to continue his wholesome transcendental quest. Anna never gets a chance to pursue love under legitimate auspices. That'll push the self-o-meter a few notches up.
Elisa Santos wrote: "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."Nonsense. She was married to cardboard.
Sharon wrote: "Being married for 20 years - believe me, there are always going to be times when your husband seems cold, unfeeling and absent. You work through them and doesn't give an excuse to toss your vows. T..."Those were not just 'moments.' Dude was the rigid bureaucrat archetype in every breath he took. Really?
Samsara Voile wrote: "Those were not just 'moments.' Dude was the rigid bureaucrat archetype in every breath he took. Really?"Definitely a mismatch. I remember reading other 'period' novels when I was much younger and feeling horror when a lively heroine married a dud. Oh, in fact Madame Bovary. I guess I was less cynical back then. Anna is far more sympathetic to me than Emma but I pitied both and don't see that they had a lot of choices. It's too easy to loftily judge from our present era, as if we weren't SO much luckier.
Kallie wrote:Definitely a mismatch. I remember reading other 'period' novels when ... It's too easy to loftily judge from our present era, as if we weren't SO much luckier
Our 'present era' is hardly a panacea for all human struggles. Yes, some barriers to personal fulfillment have been removed, but new
ones, of a different nature, have been added. Never mind moderns may have also moved the target up quite a bit. We deal with new sets of aspirations and constraining forces. This means modern humans can still be caught in a nexus of circumstances outside their control and fall short of reaching their ideals. They're still not making choices in a vacuum. The Agency - Structure wrestle match will always be part of the human condition.
The type of curt, face-value judgment featured above comes from a place of rigidity, inability to process the complexity of life, and a desire for predictability and control. The best people never think that way - which doesn't mean they would validate Anna's path.
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...
"I think about it and yet I know
I’ll never be able to leave this cage
Even if the warden should let me go
I’ve lost the strength to fly away."