is 'anna karenina' the best novel ever or not?

[evening_read]

oppinions please. cant have my own oppinion since i havent read it yet, but ive heard so much about this book... is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE?

[JBI]

Best novel ever, from my experience, would have to probably be Pushkin's Evgeny Onegin. It was perhaps the first novel I fell in love with, and nothing I have read has past it. Don Quixote perhaps is the classic example of "best novel" but I think Pushkin is far more interesting and enduring. What he asks is still so terribly relevant to today's audience, in a way I feel no other novel could be, and in truth, his style is the greatest.

[Mopey Droney]

I don't think it's Anna, though I don't know what it would be. There can never be one.

I'll seek out that Pushkin, JBI.

[evening_read]

JBI - your words make me add 'evgeny onegin' to my ~to read~ list. *goes to wikipedia for more information*

Mopey Droney - but what was the book that impressed you the most from everything you read until now? whats your all time favorite?

[mayneverhave]

There are a few plays and poems that challenge my favorite novels but I would have to say either The Sound and the Fury or Ulysses. I seem to be one of the few people to actually like the book - many people praise it but few like it.

I haven't read Tolstoy, aside from The Death of Ivan Illych, but I'm aware of Anna's reputation. Tolstoy, like many other great writers, is still waiting for me to read.

[Mopey Droney]

Mopey Droney - but what was the book that impressed you the most from everything you read until now? whats your all time favorite?Oh, it's easy for me to say my personal favorite is Great Expectations, though sometimes I think it might by Ulysses. It depends on my mood. I am antsy about calling any one book "the best".

There are a few plays and poems that challenge my favorite novels but I would have to say either The Sound and the Fury or Ulysses. I seem to be one of the few people to actually like the book - many people praise it but few like it.Me too! I loved Ulysses. Whenever I say it is one of my favorites people give me a look like I'm just trying to impress them, but I genuinely enjoyed it, not just for all the style and language, but I also loved Bloom as a character.

[evening_read]

i guess that after all the greatest book isnt the one which is considered the best in general but the one that impressed each of us the most. its all about taste. personally i love 'iliad' the most

mayneverhave - can you please recommend me some of those poems that challenge your favorite novels? maybe i'll love and add them to my magical poems collection. but only if theyre in english or spanish since these are the only foreign languages i controll...

[Quark]

is it really the most valuable book ever?

The last half might be, but the beginning is rather slow. The Levin story is particularly tedious early on, but the novel does pick up as it progresses. Some parts of it are amazing, and it's certainly worth a read. I'm not even much of a Tolstoy fan and I say that.

[mayneverhave]

mayneverhave - can you please recommend me some of those poems that challenge your favorite novels? maybe i'll love and add them to my magical poems collection. but only if theyre in english or spanish since these are the only foreign languages i controll...

In terms of poetry, just a few examples might be: The Waste Land, Paradise Lost, the Great Odes of Keats, poetry of W.B. Yeats, etc.

In terms of plays: Waiting for Godot, Hamlet, King Lear, etc.

[Virgil]

oppinions please. cant have my own oppinion since i havent read it yet, but ive heard so much about this book... is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE?

I don't know about the best ever, but it's damn close. It is a masterpiece. :) I think I had it in my top five.

[jon1jt]

I read that book over a summer and in no uncertain terms it stands as the worst book I ever read. He goes on for 16 pages about managing a farm and the peasants who distrusted him even though he, a gentleman, sat and ate his lunch with them. And that description of him cutting the field with a scythe. Drown me.

C'mon. We need to stop exaggerating the novels of the same handful of authors, from Homer and that other one, James the Leprechaun Joyce, and that other bum, D.H. Lawrence. I read his Letters From Iceland, another snore.

[JBI]

I read that book over a summer and in no uncertain stands it stands as the worst book I ever read. He goes on for 16 pages about managing a farm and how the peasants distrusted him even though he sat and ate his lunch with them. And that description of him cutting the field with a scythe. Drown me.

C'mon. We need to stop exaggerating the novels of the same handful of authors, from Homer and that other one, James the Leprechaun Joyce, and that other bum, D.H. Lawrence. I read his Letters From Iceland, another snore.

It's a two way street, if those are exaggerated, whose aren't? What is the best novel? Some posters have stated their favorites, or their vote, but you haven't provided yours for similar ridicule or agreement.

[jon1jt]

It's a two way street, if those are exaggerated, whose aren't? What is the best novel? Some posters have stated their favorites, or their vote, but you haven't provided yours for similar ridicule or agreement.

Best novel or my favorite novel? The difference is that I would not recommend my favorite novel because we live in a doleful age, whereas a best novel should be read by others for its message, one that educates, that is human and rises above the body.

My pick for best novel, then, would have to go to Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

[Quark]

I read that book over a summer and in no uncertain stands it stands as the worst book I ever read. He goes on for 16 pages about managing a farm and how the peasants distrusted him even though he sat and ate his lunch with them. And that description of him cutting the field with a scythe. Drown me.

Yes, this is horrible monotony of the first four hundred pages of Anna Karenina. Hearing about Levin's management style is less than exciting, but Tolstoy apparently thought this stuff was just great. It does improve, though.

[mortalterror]

Having read my share of Russian literature, I don't think it is that good. I also don't think very highly of War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, or Eugene Onegin. Nor would I rank Don Quixote very highly on my list of truly great literature. The best novel that I have read is probably Madame Bovary. I've seen people do almost everything in that book better, but I've never seen such a flawless novel. Moby Dick was more awe-inspiring to read, but at the same time it was deeply flawed. The Great Gatsby shares a similar polish but it's subject is inferior. Pere Goriot has a magnificent plot but nowhere does it combine all the beauties of modern literature so completely and harmoniously as does Flaubert's novel. Compared to Madame Bovary, Tolstoy's books are little more than loose baggy monsters. However, I do respect the opening lines of Anna Karenina, and hold them in the same high esteem in which I place the opening lines of The Aeneid and A Tale of Two Cities. Tolstoy's accomplishment is in psychological portraiture, his realistic depiction of a large and complex cast of characters, a clarity of style, and a remarkable evenness uncharacteristic of long novels.

[Zee.]

I don't think i can pick a favourite novel, it seems almost impossbile. But.. recently i've discovered a new favourite author, so that's good enough for me.

Faulkner.

[jon1jt]

Tolstoy's accomplishment is in psychological portraiture, his realistic depiction of a large and complex cast of characters, a clarity of style, and a remarkable evenness uncharacteristic of long novels.


This comes across with the same kind of drumming one hears when somebody rummages thru their underwear drawer and pulls out a pair of dirty socks. :(

Look, I don't mean to insult you or anything, I'm just saying that you're part of that cachophony of literary bumblers always hacking up graciousness in your gobs of spit. C'mon, say it like it is, Tolstoy sucks.

[Mopey Droney]

How anti! Personally I'd sooner say Kerouac sucks. That's just me though.

I don't mean to insult you, but [savage insult].

[JBI]

Best novel or my favorite novel? The difference is that I would not recommend my favorite novel because we live in a doleful age, whereas a best novel should be read by others for its message, one that educates, that is human and rises above the body.

My pick for best novel, then, would have to go to Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Yes, third-age feel-good American tripe, AKA watered down appropriated Indian thought is far superior to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Joyce, or whomever. Seriously, when it comes down to it, Harry Potter could probably have a better case made for it than Richard Bach, and you all, or at least most of you, know my stance on the Potter.

But even beyond that, I think Mortal offers another good suggestion for best novel, though I still think Pushkin better, and acknowledge sadly that neither of us can comment too fully, being that we rely to heavily on translation, and therefore cannot accurately criticize the language and style of Tolstoy, or Pushkin, or Dostoevsky who is bound to pop up here sooner or later.

[JBI]

I don't think i can pick a favourite novel, it seems almost impossbile. But.. recently i've discovered a new favourite author, so that's good enough for me.

Faulkner.

True, but Faulkner has quite the range - what to pick, Light in August, As I lay Dying, Absalom Absalom, the Sound and the Fury? So much to choose from - which one is the best?

[jon1jt]

Yes, third-age feel-good American tripe, AKA watered down appropriated Indian thought is far superior to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Joyce, or whomever. Seriously, when it comes down to it, Harry Potter could probably have a better case made for it than Richard Bach, and you all, or at least most of you, know my stance on the Potter.

But even beyond that, I think Mortal offers another good suggestion for best novel, though I still think Pushkin better, and acknowledge sadly that neither of us can comment too fully, being that we rely to heavily on translation, and therefore cannot accurately criticize the language and style of Tolstoy, or Pushkin, or Dostoevsky who is bound to pop up here sooner or later.

If you wind me up I'll throw urine-soaked crumbled pages of Tolstoy at you, and note that I aim for the forehead, but preferably your left ear. :sick:

[Quark]

The best novel that I have read is probably Madame Bovary. I've seen people do almost everything in that book better, but I've never seen such a flawless novel.

I suppose since Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina share similar themes, they would be easy to compare, but I'm not sure that Madame Bovary would come out ahead. Both have heroines obsessed with romantic fantasies, but Anna is used to more effect. In Flaubert's novel, this theme is merely used to satarize the fancied, unrealistic expectations of society. Tolstoy, though, is interested in making a much larger point about narratives--particularly those we tell ourselves. Anna also comes across as a more complete character who is troubled by her own lies. Madame Bovary, however, is only target for Flaubert's attacks, though.


Compared to Madame Bovary, Tolstoy's books are little more than loose baggy monsters.

That's largely Tolstoy's point. A Slavic scholar named Gary Morson wrote a pretty well-received book about this in the early 90's. He says:

"Tolstoy's view is...real life is lived in the small and ordinary moments. It is both prosaic and undramatic and is lived best when there is no story to tell. The reason that all happy families resemble each other whereas each unhappy is unhappy in its own way is that unhappy families, like unhappy lives, are dramatic; they have a story and each story is different. But happy families and happy lives, filled with undramatic incidents, do not make a good story; and it is in this sense that they all resemble each other. In his notebooks and letters of the period, Tolstoy at least twice quotes a French proverb father of all from Anna's romantic ethos: "Happy people have no history." Plot, especially when known in advance, is an index of error."

Anna Karenina spreads out because it's not limited to what's only relevant to its plot.

[mortalterror]

Yes, third-age feel-good American tripe, AKA watered down appropriated Indian thought is far superior to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Joyce, or whomever. Seriously, when it comes down to it, Harry Potter could probably have a better case made for it than Richard Bach, and you all, or at least most of you, know my stance on the Potter.

But even beyond that, I think Mortal offers another good suggestion for best novel, though I still think Pushkin better, and acknowledge sadly that neither of us can comment too fully, being that we rely to heavily on translation, and therefore cannot accurately criticize the language and style of Tolstoy, or Pushkin, or Dostoevsky who is bound to pop up here sooner or later.

I like Pushkin's prose works better than his poetry, but as you say, I am at a loss reading them in translation. In Russia, he holds a place of very high esteem akin to Shakespeare in England or Goethe in Germany. I love the economy of his language and the careful attention to plot structure and pacing. Unlike Tolstoy, Pushkin's books do not overstay their welcome, and I like them for that.

[JBI]

yes, but where else can you get this ironic punch:



Sad that our finest aspiration
Our freshest dreams and meditations,
In swift succession should decay,
Like Autumn leaves that rot away.

[mortalterror]

yes, but where else can you get this ironic punch:

I don't know. It actually reminds me of Edna Vincent Millay's poem The Spring and the Fall which concludes:

Year be springing or year be falling,
The bark will drip and the birds be calling.
There's much that's fine to see and hear
In the spring of a year, in the fall of a year.
'Tis not love's going hurt my days.
But that it went in little ways.

[evening_read]

jon1jt - im sure tolstoy has his fans


what i noticed is that readers kinda like tolstoy's war and peace more than anna k. but writers in general appreciate anna karenina more than war and peace. tolstoy himself was more proud of anna than of war and peace and dostoevsky said 'anna karenina' is perfect.

[Joreads]

I am kind of hoping that I haven't read the best novel ever yet because if I have what is the point in reading anything else - just a little thought there. Anna K is an OK read but it would not make my great reads list.

[Dr. Hill]

Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov are the best novels I've ever read.

[stlukesguild]

My pick for best novel, then, would have to go to Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

:lol::lol: My God, man! You certainly gave me the greatest laugh of the day! I couldn't have come up with a more absurd pick myself. :lol::lol:

[bazarov]

oppinions please. cant have my own oppinion since i havent read it yet, but ive heard so much about this book... is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE?

No. It's not even Tolstoy's best work; War and Peace is better.


Best novel ever, from my experience, would have to probably be Pushkin's Evgeny Onegin. It was perhaps the first novel I fell in love with, and nothing I have read has past it. Don Quixote perhaps is the classic example of "best novel" but I think Pushkin is far more interesting and enduring. What he asks is still so terribly relevant to today's audience, in a way I feel no other novel could be, and in truth, his style is the greatest.

Eugene Onegin is novel in verse, actually something different from typical novel. But it is great, I agree.


Oh, it's easy for me to say my personal favorite is Great Expectations

One of the most boring novels I ever read.

-----

Here is list of 100 best books (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40711) by this forum members and Anna Karenina is on 18th place. It would be higher in my opinion, but not the best. My pick would definitely be Brothers Karamazov.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've not read the greatest novel yet I'm pretty sure of that, in some ways I think we are always searching for it anyway. I want to read the likes of Anna Karenina and The Brothers Karamazov and some of the others mentioned here but I haven't the time to devote myself to works of that length with Uni, work and the rest of it yet. Of what I have read I would go with Crime and Punishment, Madam Bovary, or Wuthering Heights, probably Wuthering Heights, surprised that it has not been mentioned yet.

Edit to that: I think the best British novel certainly would be Wuthering Heights or at the very top of the list if not. The likes of Hardy deserve to be up there, certainly with Jude and Tess I wouldn't under-estimate Shelley's Frankenstein either, then of course there is Austen, Thackeray, Eliot, Woolf and Joyce to name the more obvious contenders but I would personally place Wuthering Heights as the best British novel above those.

[kasie]

Like other posters, I have the feeling that the search for the best novel ever is something like travelling towards a mirage in the desert - each new book holds out its seductive promise but you never quite reach it. The journey is (usually) worth it though!

AK is one of my favourite novels - I primly disapproved of Anna when I was young but age and experience has mellowed my attitude towards her, though I still cannot comprehend her decision regarding her child (whoops, nearly a spoiler there!) I love the character of Levin, a great, gentle bear of a man - the scene where he proposes to Kitty is one of literature's great love scenes. I even like the countryside scenes.

But, OP, no amount of other people's opinions should make your mind up for you - you really must decide for yourself. If you haven't the time to read it now, and it is a long book, then put it aside until you do have the time or the inclination to use that amount of time in that way, then decide for yourself if it is the greatest or among the greatest novels ever written.

[stlukesguild]

I find myself, in a great number of ways, agreeing with MortalTerror (gasp!:eek2:). Well not quite in total. I most certainly would place Don Quixote near the pinnacle on my personal list of greatest novels... along with Sterne's Tristam Shandy and Proust's In Search of Lost Time... which I know MT has suggested is far too poetic and uneventful... but still magnificent... but yes... Madame Bovary is almost as near perfect a novel as I have come across. I find that for all the baggage or even imperfections, War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, Moby Dick, In Search of Lost Time, and certainly Don Quixote strike me a greater works of art... but not more perfect. Flaubert seemingly polished this novel to the sort of level of perfection that one finds in poetry... but rarely sustained for the course of an entire novel. Nabokov achieved something similar with Lolita, and Dickens comes as close as he ever will with the Tale of Two Cities... and yes, The Great Gatsby is also such a polished work.

[PeterL]

No, Anna Karenina is not the best novel ever.

[Bumbeli]

It's a really great book, but I really don't think it is the best novel ever. There are quite a few novels I'd like to read I got recommended very often, but of those I have read, Brothers Karamazov is the greatest.

[Quark]

I'm guess by evening read's question in the opening post "is it really the most valuable book ever?" that they are looking for a book that is a great experience or has some meaningful substance. These would be things of value. Evening read probably isn't asking about personal favorites or technically perfect novels. Obviously, I don't know what the original poster meant entirely, but the word "valuable" points to something extrinsically important. I would say Anna Karenina certainly fits that description, and it does so more than many of the other suggestions that have been made. Madame Bovary is an engrossing story with its charms, but one doesn't take much away from it. The Brothers Karamazov, Moby Dick, and some others mentioned come closer perhaps, but I think Anna Karenina would be better read first since its more entertaining that Dostoevsky and easier to get through than Moby Dick.

In any case, though, if anyone asks whether a particular novel is the best, greatest, or any other superlative, almost everyone will respond with some variant of:


No, Anna Karenina is not the best novel ever.

The sheer volume of great works (I have bookcases of novels I would consider great) means that almost no one is going to agree on anything like this.

[mayneverhave]

It's a really great book, but I really don't think it is the best novel ever. There are quite a few novels I'd like to read I got recommended very often, but of those I have read, Brothers Karamazov is the greatest.

Dostoevsky, and especially The Brothers Karamazov, seem to have a fantastic reputation on these forums - as made evident by both Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov placing in the top 3 of our 100 greatest novels list.

The Brothers Karamazov is certainly great, but I think it is the epitome of the "loose baggy monster". I notice that Dostoevsky tends to be slipshod and writes without a great deal of polish. It's hard to say its the greatest for this reason. Certainly very good, but far from perfection.

[Dr. Hill]

I wholly disagree with you. Dostoevsky has never wrote messily. Not once. He's about as precise and perfect a writer as one gets. Every sentence is there for a reason.

[Saladin]

The Brothers Karamazov is absolute perfection. I concur what Dr.Hill wrote.

[Quark]

I notice that Dostoevsky tends to be slipshod and writes without a great deal of polish. It's hard to say its the greatest for this reason. Certainly very good, but far from perfection.

He's about as precise and perfect a writer as one gets.

All this talk of polish and perfection might be beside the point for two reasons. First, the original post asks


is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE

Evening read wants something that has value which I would take to be more like meaning or entertainment than craft. The charge that a novel lacks polish probably doesn't carry much force when the question is about value. Of course, if the book is so poorly put together then it would affect the experience reading it and obscure its meaning, but neither Anna Karenina or The Brothers Karamazov suffer from this. This is my second point: these stories were composed with imprecision in mind. Tolstoy was interested in the minuetae of everyday life, and thought that "real" life was lived in undramatic moments. His novels include prosaic chapters because Tolstoy thought that those were the important moments. Anna, meanwhile, lives only the "polished" or "perfect" moments and suffers. Dostoevsky had similar intentions in The Brothers Karamazov. He wanted to show how many actions could occur from one motivation, and that simple, linear narratives about our lives are incomplete without registering all these possible actions. Remember the scene where Dmitri is interrogated:


"But what object had you in view in arming yourself with such a
weapon?"

"What object? No object. I just picked it up and ran off."

"What for, if you had no object?"

Mitya's wrath flared up. He looked intently at "the boy" and
smiled gloomily and malignantly. He was feeling more and more
ashamed at having told "such people" the story of his jealousy so
sincerely and spontaneously.

"Bother the pestle!" broke from him suddenly.

"But still-"

"Oh, to keep off dogs... Oh, because it was dark.... In case
anything turned up."

"But have you ever on previous occasions taken a weapon with you
when you went out, since you're afraid of the dark?" . . .

"Well, upon my word, gentlemen! Yes, I took the pestle.... What
does one pick things up for at such moments? I don't know what for.
I snatched it up and ran- that's all. "

Dmitri has any number of answers for the police, but his interrogators can't understand how this is possible. They miss the point that Dostoevsky is trying to make. They're believe that this is simply a murder mystery where one culprit has one motive which leads to one action. Dostoevsky is trying to break that expectation, and to show this requires more pages. A perfect, polished who-done-it tale might come in lighter, but it wouldn't have the value of The Brothers Karamazov.

[Dr. Hill]

The Brothers Karamazov has a habit of taking everything to the next level, and deepening even the most seemingly arbitrary events. It is an absolute work of genius. While my favorite novel will probably always be Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov is a more philosophical piece of literature.

[JBI]

I wholly disagree with you. Dostoevsky has never wrote messily. Not once. He's about as precise and perfect a writer as one gets. Every sentence is there for a reason.

I trust you read him in Russian, right? If not, then you cannot comment on his sloppiness, as you are reading an interpretation, while somewhat of a consensus agrees that his prose improves somewhat in translation. The greatest prose writer of his time, I would argue, in terms of language, would have to be Turgenev, from what I understand of Russian critical consensus.

[Dr. Hill]

Ok..sorry?

[wessexgirl]

Ok..sorry?

What for? You are entitled to your opinions.

[mortalterror]

The Brothers Karamazov has a habit of taking everything to the next level, and deepening even the most seemingly arbitrary events. It is an absolute work of genius. While my favorite novel will probably always be Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov is a more philosophical piece of literature.

Dostoyevski get's a lot of credit, undo credit I think, for being so philosophical with his novels. As I told my Russian literature class in college, "If you want a viable philosophy, read the philosophers. Don't read novelists. That's not their strength and it's not their job." Personally, I think that Hemingway is just as philosophical as Dostoyevski or Sartre, but his philosophy doesn't wear it's intellect on it's sleeve. It's very understated like the rest of his writing. What Dostoyevski does is "Look at me!" writing "Oh, I'm making a big point here!" writing, very labored, very obvious, dare I say an artless kind of writing. Stoicism has it's roots in a world nearly two thousand years old. Existentialism is novel. I will not say contemporary because Stoicism is still very much with us. Existentialism is novel in the way that Postmodernism is novel, in that it is new, it is impractical, it is strange, and retains the charm of things which can be put to almost no practical use. It appeals to youths and frivolous people, those who fancy themselves as artists and minds, those poor deluded "creative souls."

People who are drawn to Dostoyevski's writing are often drawn to his philosophy for many of the same reasons. It's big, unwieldy, complicated and strange. They cannot handle the subtleties of conventional morality, or conventional art, and so are always seeking after the exotic. They must have big novels, gigantic things that press upon the reader their importance, or they are not impressed. They must have melodrama and murders to titillate them; or and this is also true, they must have no action at all. The intemperate live in one extreme or another because ambiguity and moderation are too much for them. I do not find it strange at all that the same people who love Dostoyevski should also love Joyce, and Proust. They praise gibberish and run on sentences. They make a cult of the weird and unwieldy. But I guess that is a discussion for another time.

[Virgil]

Dostoyevski get's a lot of credit, undo credit I think, for being so philosophical with his novels. As I told my Russian literature class in college, "If you want a viable philosophy, read the philosophers. Don't read novelists. That's not their strength and it's not their job."

Mortal I have repeatedly said something very similar about people who insist on ideas, whether philosophical or political or cultural, in their literature or art in general. "If the writer was striving to communicate ideas he would have written an essay. But he didn't. He created a work of art."

That said, I still think Dostoyevski is a great writer.

[jon1jt]

How anti! Personally I'd sooner say Kerouac sucks. That's just me though.

I don't mean to insult you, but [savage insult].

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm "anti," mophead. We could discuss Kerouac but I doubt you have anything you can tell me that I don't already know about him.

Oh you don't insult me, you just need to open your eyes because this thread is considering whether Anna Karenina is a great or sucky novel. I voted it worst novel.

[Dr. Hill]

@Mortalterror:
I don't believe Dostoevsky has ever been artless. I think that philosophy is more effective in prose than it is in direct essay writing, as one may see the philosophy acted out. Sure, his characters are unrealistic, but they're archetypes. You may say Dostoevsky was showing off, but knowing his history and the kind of man he was said to be, I doubt this highly. Dostoevsky's philosophy is actually very basic, not big, unwieldy or strange in any manner. It goes to the very root of the human psyche and isn't afraid to show the true colors of its subjects. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But the fact is that his philosophy isn't strange, it's very universal and simple, only never presented in the way Dostoevsky presents it, because it seems that a lot of it may be embarrassing to humanity.

[PeterL]

The sheer volume of great works (I have bookcases of novels I would consider great) means that almost no one is going to agree on anything like this.

I thought it was very funny that anyone would ever ask such a question.

[Mopey Droney]

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm "anti," mophead. We could discuss Kerouac but I doubt you have anything you can tell me that I don't already know about him.Sorry if I thought your indictment of the spittle-lipped sheep who happen to sometimes like established old works was a self-congratulatory punk rock position, beret.

Oh you don't insult me, you just need to open your eyes because this thread is considering whether Anna Karenina is a great or sucky novel. I voted it worst novel.I don't care what your or anyone else's opinion of Anna is enough to insult someone. I just thought it was interesting to say "I don't mean to insult you but" followed by your insulting him.

[joseph90ie]

I don't think it's true that you can't judge the sloppiness of prose in translation. Sentence-size and simplicity of thought are there or not. The neatness and modesty of the writer's mind are there or not there, regardless of translation.

If style didn't translate, then there'd by something boringly similar about all translation; but, to the contrary, they are as alive and individual as books in one's own language.

Dostoyevsky is wonderful, but anyone can see that his writing is very mixed in quality. I don't need to know Russian to see that he's very fond of superlatives and over-excitement, and often repetition. But then, I wouldn't change this; he may never have arrived at his best words and thoughts by any other route. Criticizing the best books is like criticizing a human being: something very begrudging about it.

[MarkBastable]

Not.

Next question.

[Snowqueen]

oppinions please. cant have my own oppinion since i havent read it yet, but ive heard so much about this book... is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE?

I really like this book, and i suggest that you must read it, I think 'Anna Karenina' has a very good plot
and wonderful characterization. I am sure you will enjoy it.
:)

[MarkBastable]

Dostoyevski get's a lot of credit, undo credit I think, for being so philosophical with his novels. As I told my Russian literature class in college, "If you want a viable philosophy, read the philosophers. Don't read novelists. That's not their strength and it's not their job."

Er...undue credit...

You taught literature?

[Tyler Self]

Where this whole thing about Anna Karenina being the greatest novel of all time was when there was a survey taken from 125 writers, and through what they ranked in their top 10, Anna Karenina appeared the most and highest.

I thought Anna Karenina was a terrific novel along with The Death of Ivan Ilyich. I had planned on reading Wuthering Heights very soon, so since I heard good news about it here, I think I definitely will pick it up.

[Gladys]

While Anna Karenin enchanted me up to the flat ending, Wuthering Heights was overwhelmingly powerful and convincing.

[Dr. Hill]

Er...undue credit...

You taught literature?

He wouldn't teach a Russian Lit. class if he didn't like Dostoevskii.

[wat??]

jon1jt - im sure tolstoy has his fans


what i noticed is that readers kinda like tolstoy's war and peace more than anna k. but writers in general appreciate anna karenina more than war and peace. tolstoy himself was more proud of anna than of war and peace and dostoevsky said 'anna karenina' is perfect.

Dostoevsky thought that Anna Karenina was long winded and lacked substance actually.

[wat??]

He wouldn't teach a Russian Lit. class if he didn't like Dostoevskii.

Why not? Apparently he did just that.

[Gladys]

Dostoevsky thought that Anna Karenina was long winded and lacked substance actually. The novel promises so much yet delivers so little.

[bazarov]

The novel promises so much yet delivers so little.

Really? Why?

[Gladys]

I had expected Tolstoy’s would return to wavering Karenin, honest Vronsky, or at least to the unpredictable Kitty, rather than end with the born again egotist, Levin. Anna's change in personality from Jekyll to Hide seems implausible unless one blames the opium.

[MarkBastable]

He wouldn't teach a Russian Lit. class if he didn't like Dostoevskii.


My point was that I'd expect a teacher of literature to be able to spell 'undue'.

Call me old-fashioned.

[Olga4real]

oppinions please. cant have my own oppinion since i havent read it yet, but ive heard so much about this book... is it really the most valuable book ever? if you dont think its 'anna karenina', then what book do you think its THE ONE?

I think that the best novel ever writeen by Tolstoy is 'War and Peace'. I like this author, but I prefer Dostoevsky.
However for me the best novel is 'Master and Margarita'.
For every one there is his or her own best, for one it is a comix, for other it is 'Crime and Punishment'

[medusa_woman]

Definitely a loose baggy monster. I think it's popularity is that it's attractive to many people. A fun read on the surface -- a soap opera really. I wonder what Oprah's readers got out of it last year? But there's so much depth to it. Dark at times -- though nowhere near Dostoyevsky. A social commentary on the times. Marvelously fleshed out real, flawed characters. Every time Oblonsky appeared, I wanted to jump into the pages and eat and converse with him. I could have done without the ending -- most of the stuff after "THE SCENE". The title leads one to believe that it should end at that point. But the parallel story of Levin is concluded and used by Tolstoy to show his views. I guess he's entitled to it. However, it was done well and much less preachy than the ending of Sinclair's Jungle, where he preached and rambled on about the virtues of socialism.

[Nabokov_love]

I know my post is a little late, but I actually just finished readng 'Anna Karenina' last week and must say that although it is an excellent piece of literature, I am unsure as whether it could be classified as the 'most valuable book ever'.
In retrospect it would probably actually have to be a religious text that would fall under the 'most important' header, but as far as just books you MUST read before dying, I would vote for something by Nabokov or Henry Miller even. But in all honesty I think that to choose one book as the most important would be very difficult if not impossible. Every book has its own values, errors and lessons to offer.

yet read it! If you haven't already by now :)

[Kevets]

I read that book over a summer and in no uncertain terms it stands as the worst book I ever read. He goes on for 16 pages about managing a farm and the peasants who distrusted him even though he, a gentleman, sat and ate his lunch with them. And that description of him cutting the field with a scythe. Drown me.
I can agree with the first part - the details of Russian farm council politics were definitely skim-worthy at best. Reminded me of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, where you could skip two pages of species names.

But the scything section is actually called out in the new book The Elegance of the Hedgehog, and I agree with that author that this is a wonderful bit of writing. I sometimes lose myself in moments of effort (or if I'm very lucky, guitar playing) and these are some of the best moments of my life. Levin thought the water he drank from the sharpening box, complete with rust and grass clippings, some of the best water he ever had. And that struck me.

The other thing I admire about this book is the capturing of the chaos of internal thoughts. And in fact Levin struggling with trying to understand (or even give a fig) about the aforementioned council politics made those parts almost enjoyable.

[MorpheusSandman]

Lots of really great discussion in this thread.

While I'm not extremely well versed in classic literature (and that automatically limits and lessens the value of my opinion), War & Peace is the best I've read. It's one those works of art that seems to contain the whole of humanity within itself. Every major, minor, relevant, and irrelevant theme ever related to mankind. It's so incredibly inclusive, so gorgeously written, simple and at the same time complex, a mammoth book full of small moments and small people, a book about grand, macro themes expressed through the smallest events, a book that can evoke the most elaborate metaphors or the most simplest poetry in a few words.

So I'd say W&P, but that may definitely change the more I read.

[Babak Movahed]

I wouldn't call it the best novel of all time but without a doubt it has to be top 10. The main reason I felt that the novel isn't the best is because Tolstoy would go into such precise details for parts of the text that didn't require that much lenghty description. None the less I liked it a lot but the best novel of all time in my opinion has got to be "Crime and Punishment" it's just one of those works that changes your view on life.

[JhKreisler]

Well,
You probably never heard of one Willem Elsschot? He's assumed to be one of the greatest (and if not the greatest) Belgian writer. (You probably never heard of one Belgium too? ; ) ) If you find the novel "Het dwaallicht" (translated as: "Will o' the Wisp") in one of your libraries, certainly take a moment to read this one. It's only about 56pages, so it won't take you long, but you'll enjoy from the first word to the last. It's enjoyable in its simplicity, it's a masterwork in its simplicity, and that is that. Nothing more left to say about this one.

[Desolation]

Just finished Anna Karenina yesterday, after having it sit under my pillow for about a year, so I thought I'd try to add a bit to this very old discussion.

Anna Karenina is a terribly mundane story, with horrid characters that one must struggle to connect with or care about...but Tolstoy makes us care. He makes us care quite a lot, in fact. Even when one is bored to tears by Levin's farm...and Levin's farm is discussed at great length without ever being interesting...Tolstoy will find a way to hook them back in. I didn't make it very far through War and Peace, and I've never read Pushkin, I also preferred Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov; but I would definitely say that Anna Karenina has a legitimate claim to the title of "Best Novel Ever."

[kelby_lake]

Compared to Madame Bovary, Tolstoy's books are little more than loose baggy monsters.

Isn't that what Henry James called War and Peace?

[kelby_lake]

I think even people who love the novel will admit that they found the agricultural passages tedious at times, but we're not familiar with that type of life- of course we'd find them boring, just as most people find the architecture passages in The Hunchback of Notre Dame boring.

Personally I love the novel and I became attached to pretty much all the characters. Of course most people expect the Anna/Vronsky affair to be the vast majority of the novel because that's the juicy stuff but I think the Lenin passages provide a nice contrast. As a study of adultery, Anna Karenina is brilliant, and it definitely has a claim to greatness.

[mande2013]

Dostoyevski get's a lot of credit, undo credit I think, for being so philosophical with his novels. As I told my Russian literature class in college, "If you want a viable philosophy, read the philosophers. Don't read novelists. That's not their strength and it's not their job." Personally, I think that Hemingway is just as philosophical as Dostoyevski or Sartre, but his philosophy doesn't wear it's intellect on it's sleeve. It's very understated like the rest of his writing. What Dostoyevski does is "Look at me!" writing "Oh, I'm making a big point here!" writing, very labored, very obvious, dare I say an artless kind of writing. Stoicism has it's roots in a world nearly two thousand years old. Existentialism is novel. I will not say contemporary because Stoicism is still very much with us. Existentialism is novel in the way that Postmodernism is novel, in that it is new, it is impractical, it is strange, and retains the charm of things which can be put to almost no practical use. It appeals to youths and frivolous people, those who fancy themselves as artists and minds, those poor deluded "creative souls."

People who are drawn to Dostoyevski's writing are often drawn to his philosophy for many of the same reasons. It's big, unwieldy, complicated and strange. They cannot handle the subtleties of conventional morality, or conventional art, and so are always seeking after the exotic. They must have big novels, gigantic things that press upon the reader their importance, or they are not impressed. They must have melodrama and murders to titillate them; or and this is also true, they must have no action at all. The intemperate live in one extreme or another because ambiguity and moderation are too much for them. I do not find it strange at all that the same people who love Dostoyevski should also love Joyce, and Proust. They praise gibberish and run on sentences. They make a cult of the weird and unwieldy. But I guess that is a discussion for another time.

So...? I think "exoticism" is part of art's draw in general. I think people seek out what might be described as 'culture' to 'awaken' themselves from the mundane nature of daily life on most Western societies. So I just don't see how seeking out Proust or Dostoevsky for the reasons you describe is necessarily a bad thing. Are you can accuse people of seeking out the 'exotic' when they take a trip to Colombia or Morocco or wherever? Your attitude just seems like rank and file anti-snob snobbery, if only here, as I'm sure you're an intelligent guy in general.

[Red Terror]

I don't think Eugene Onegin classifies as a novel; it is narrative poetry. Also, I read a list from Time magazine which took a survey of American writers to ask what is the greatest book of literature of all time. Here is the list:

http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html