All the names in Anna Karenina

It has been suggested that no Prime Minister would want to make the second chamber elected because then they would have as much moral authority as the House of Commons. (And bishops are lords but they don't like to use the title nowadays so as not to seem pompous.)

Anyway the British nobility is very much alive. Making the second chamber elected would warrant a more democratic process, but that is not enough. You must have good candidates with sound moral standards and the will and the ability to contribute positively to government. Both our chambers are elected and yet the composition is very bad.
I´m posting the link of the short story "The Overcoat", by Gogol. Right at the beginning it tells about the choice of the first name of the baby. And I think it is one of the best Russian short stories ever:
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-st...oks/Over.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

It has been suggested that no Prime Minister would want to make the second chamber elected because then they would have as much moral authority as the House of Commons. (And bishops are lords but they don't like to use the title nowadays so as not to seem pompous.)

---

Lords Spiritual or Spiritual Peers according to Wikipedia, and there are 26 of them.

An appointed second house means there doesn't need to be any popularist showboating. Its members are of an age to be beyond any vaunting ambition, and because they are Lords for life, they are free to act on their consciences. They can't propose or pass any laws. Their job is to scutinise proposals from that other (elected) place (mainly to see if it is even legal), mark it, and send it back.

I think it is a system that works well. To have two houses of commons would be twice the shambles we have now. The only tweaking I would like, is to draw its members from a wider range of society. We need plumbers and electricians in there, and people who know what it is to bring up 3 kids on the dole.

Back to kev's Opening Post. Dickens' novels often come with a cast of characters at the beginning (and risks plot spoilers). I'm sure it would be useful to have a similar list for Tolstoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

I have started reading Anna Karenina. It is my first Russian book. One thing that has struck me is that there are a lot of names. Not only are there a lot of characters, but they are frequently called by different names. I thought I would have more trouble than I have had, but I have been noting down the names in a pad and perhaps that helped. For example, the character the book starts with is variously called Oblonsky, Stepan Arkadyich or Stiva. I think his full title is Prince Stepan Arkadyich Oblonsky, and Stiva is a nickname. Anna Karenina herself is often referred to as Anna Arkadyevna. There are a surprising number of princes and princesses in the book, considering they do not seem to be siblings.

---

Your post reminds me of how I felt when I read my first Russian novel, Dr. Zhivago. I had to keep referring to the list of characters (with all aliases and nicknames) that the editors had helpfully provided, but by the time I read Anna Karenina I'd read a fair few, and was used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Back to kev's Opening Post. Dickens' novels often come with a cast of characters at the beginning (and risks plot spoilers). I'm sure it would be useful to have a similar list for Tolstoy.

---

War and Peace has some 100 or more characters, and I'm sure I was not keeping track of half of them. I read it in three volumes, and by the time I came to volume 3 I'd forgotten most of volume one. That is one big book.