Anna Karenina

[Noga]

I read this book twice and i am still dont understand some things about it. for exsample Levin's place in it.
If there is anybody who would like to disscus with me about this book, I will be happy.

[Ian Walkinshaw]

I read this book ten years ago for a Russian literature course. God, ten years ago!! I can't remember anything about the character of Levin; in fact I've got the book right here, and rereading it doesn't ring a bell.

I was fascinated by the two main characters, Anna and Vronsky.

[vladivo]

Levin is no less than the novel´s "hero". He´s the model of a "true man" in Tolstoy´s view. Vronsky is not one of the two main charachters, Ana is, with Levin.

[Ian Walkinshaw]

He seemed pretty boring for a 'true man'. Maybe that's the way Tolstoy intended to portray him! How can Vronsky not be one of the main characters? It's his love affair with Anna that ultimately destroys her - and him. He goes from a dashing army officer to an unhappy civilian struggling to hold together the doomed relationship that is the fruit of his passion. After Anna tops herself, he volunteers for the war, the implication being that he just wants to kill himself also. All because he couldn't keep his plonker in his pants where it belonged. Levin may be the ideal man - I don't know because I still can't remember much about him - but the true man (whether we like the picture or not) is Vronsky.

[JCruyff]

Vronsky is true in a sense that he is REAL. Levin, on the other hand, is what a MAN should be, in Tolstoy's opinion.

[MarsMonster]

and do you think her suicide was justified?
i don't think that at all. though i read the book a long time ago.
still, to kill herself for love or whatever.
i don't know. more or less the book seems to have been written for elderly women who are professional housewives.

[JCruyff]

If you don't accept suicide, then you wouldn't accept it regardless...

Let's just not confuse a real life with a novel...

Also...housewives? That was funny:)

To what circle Anna Karenina do you think belonged?

No offense, but you should be familiar at least somewhat with the Russian history, before venturing into Leo Tolstoy's works...

He is describing the life of the Russian nobility pertaining to his times...

The "housewife" term, professional, amateur or elderly, just doesn't belong there:)

[MarsMonster]

o-k. lets just try not to be rude.
i do know a lot about russian history. and i didn't say anything about the circle which anna came from.
now as for housewives: i am not saying that he wrote the book for them (though as i recall he did on some ocasion say that anna has dissapointed him) but i did say this and i meant it: the book is perfect fore elderly housewives (precisely because he describes the life of nobility) though now they have TV so they wouldn't read.
i also didn't say that i disliked the book. i liked it a lot. i just don't think it is very realistic, not that a book needs to be, and i simply can't put it in the same basket with his other works or with any works of serious literature. it is a book that's read in the afternoon drinking coffee.

suicide? i don't approve and you've got the point if i don't approve of suicide in real life i would never approve in a novel (and isn't that surprising?!)
but, i asked if other people thought it was justified.

[Ian Walkinshaw]

I don't think Anna killed herself for love. She had given away everything for love already - her position in society, her friends, even her children. All so she could be with Vronsky. I think Anna killed herself out of despair, because it fast became clear that she had thrown it all away and that Vronsky was never going to make up for that.

Apparently, Tolstoy hated the advent of the railway system in Russia, for reasons I can't remember. that's why he had anna jump in front of a train.

I think there's more to the book than just 'pleasing the housewives'. He had to write about the nobility - most books from that period are about the nobility, whether right or wrong: forster, Maugham, James...all about nobility and upper-class families. I guess they were the writers' market.
But tolstoy's sub-text is below all that: he's talking about how irrational love is. We're all 'civilised' and see ourselves as above such things as blind passion; but he says that our true nature is about passion - and who we feel passion for is completely illogical and defies our 'civilisation'.

[Koa]

I'm not a housewife ;), but the pages before anna's suicide impressed me a lot.
I think that's what makes a writer great: the ability to describe human feelings in a powerful way, so that others may recognise themselves in the character.
All those thoughts of Anna's...love, hate, doubts, indecision, strength, weaknesses...the scary awareness of having fought so hard for something she (and vronskij too) probably dont really want anymore...
I remember reading those pages almost breathless, thinking that's how it happens, that's what you come to think sometimes...how can he (--> Tolstoj) know so well, and most of all how can he describe it so well, so plainly, so deep to touch the reader...
It probably made me perceive the greatness of literature, and the difference between a good writer and a great, immortal one.



As for Vronskij and Levin, i must say that i liked Levin much more than Vronskij. V. seems to me so full of himself...almost slimey...some kinf of spoiled guy who has to get what he wants.... L. is the deep, maybe melancholic soul, who can accept to try and give up on his love... To me, they represent the 2 main kinds of real men....the self-confident kind of guy i don't like (Vronskij), and the 'original' (in the sense, that he distinguish himself from others) one (Levin), that i find infinitely deep and interesting. If they were real and in front of me, i'd definitely choose Levin, as my ideal man, it might be the unconventional choice, but that's where all the interest is (if someone manages to understand what i'm saying...........;))

[Ian Walkinshaw]

God, I really need to reread this book...I read it ten years ago for a Russian Literature course. As I've said previously, I can barely remember Levin at all, and a lot of the details are still sketchy to me.

The pages before Anna kills herself are definitely fantastic in describing the depth and breadth of human emotion in a time of despair. He writes it entirely without pretension, or sentimentality. I shiver when I read it now.

[MarsMonster]

all that you said about the book only proves that it was written for housevifes. ok if you are insluted i'm sorry. i was joking when i said housewives, i meant the book is afternoon literature. something you read and enjoy and it isn't the kind of a book that makes a big impression. if you're not a housewife. :)

yes, he does describe human emotions beautifuly, and yes most of the books of the same type are about nobility, and yes he was a great writer. but still, anna is NOT his best book, and is NOT a book to worship. that is all i'm saying.

and, about the suicide, if she gave up everything for love and killed herself because she gave up everything, does it not mean that she killed herself for love??? :)

[Koa]

Oh it's not that, at all! it's not one of the books i worship, cos it does have some weak moments (Levin working in the fields tended to be unbereable, almost as an advert about joining with nature...), some of which seem linked to the era in which he was written and ideas of nobility and sentimenatlism and blah blah blah...

Housewives couldnt stand 2 lines of that book! Too deep, too cultural...it shows feelings that the 'housewife' as we are intending it here doesnt even recognise, cos all she knows about are brommsticks and cooking...

It is a story where his author shows how deeply a sensitive writer can enquire the human feelings.

[Ian Walkinshaw]

Yeah, I'm kind of wondering about the housewife thing too. Housewives in New Zealand read Danielle Steele, not Tolstoy. There must be some sharp housewives in Belgrade!!

[Koa]

lol....indeed :)

(i read a book by danielle steel a few years ago (i used to read everything i found...)....i'm still laughing ;))

[MarsMonster]

too deep? hahhaa it is as deep as it gets!

the truth is my grandmother read karenina and she loved it. and she read jane air too and she loved it. and she has been nothing but a housewife all her life. just an example.

housewives! :P

[sam1]

The only part that seemed unrealistic was Anna leaving her husband without taking the divorce. Tolstoy had her do that to show why divorce is important. She killed herself because she had no security in her position in life.

Levine is alot how Tolstoy saw himself. He is a composite of Pierre and Prince Andrew from War and Peace.

Kitty is alos a central character, as much as Vronsky. Levine and Kitty are comfortable with themselves, and emotionally stable, so they are happy. Anna and Levine do not know how to deal with their emotional needs, and they ruin themselves.

"All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

[Molko]

In my opinion, I think that Levin's purpose in the novel was to contrast Anna's. There is a great comparison between the relationships of Levin and Kitty with Anna and Vronsky's. The beginning of the novel, with its famous opening, foreshadows the contents of the novel; i.e. the happy and unhappy lives of its characters.