Sign in with Facebook
Sammy's Reviews > Anna Karenina
Anna Karenina
by
by
People are going to have to remember that this is the part of the review that is entirely of my own opinion and what I thought of the book, because what follows isn't entirely positive, but I hope it doesn't throw you off the book entirely and you still give it a chance. Now... my thoughts:
I picked up this book upon the advice of Oprah (and her book club) and my friend Kit. They owe me hardcore now. As does Mr. Tolstoy. This book was an extremely long read, not because of it's size and length necessarily, but because of it's content. More often than not I found myself suddenly third a way down the page after my mind wandered off to other thoughts but I kept on reading... am I the only one with the ability to do that? You know, totally zoning out but continuing to read? The subject I passed over though was so thoroughly boring that I didn't bother going back to re-read it... and it didn't affect my understanding of future events taking place later on in the book.
Leo Tolstoy really enjoys tangents. Constantly drifting away from the point of the book to go off on three page rants on farming methods, political policies and elections, or philosophical discussion on God. Even the dialogue drifted off in that sort of manner. Tolstoy constantly made detail of trifling matters, while important subjects that added to what little plot line this story had were just passed over. Here is a small passage that is a wonderful example of what constantly takes place throughout the book:
"Kostia, look out! There's a bee! Won't he sting?" cried Dolly, defending herself from a wasp.
"That's not a bee; that's a wasp!" said Levin.
"Come, now! Give us your theory," demanded Katavasof, evidently provoking Levin to a discussion. "Why shouldn't private persons have that right?"
No mention of the wasp is made again. Just a small example of how Tolstoy focuses much more on philosophical thought, and thought in general, more than any sort of action that will progress the story further. That's part of the reason the story took so long to get through.
The editing and translation of the version I got also wasn't very good. Kit reckons that that's part of the reason I didn't enjoy it as much, and I am apt to agree with her. If you do decide to read this book, your better choice is to go with the Oprah's Book Club edition of Anna Karenina.
The characters weren't too great either and I felt only slightly sympathetic for them at certain moments. The women most often were whiny and weak while the men seemed cruel and judgemental more often than not. Even Anna, who was supposedly strong-willed and intelligent would go off on these irrational rants. The women were constantly jealous and the men were always suspicious.
There's not much else to say that I haven't already said. There were only certain spots in the book which I enjoyed in the littlest, and even then I can't remember them. All in all I did not enjoy this book, and it earned the names Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah.
But remember this is just one girl's opinion, if it sounded like a book you might enjoy I highly advise going out to read it. Just try and get the Oprah edition.
I picked up this book upon the advice of Oprah (and her book club) and my friend Kit. They owe me hardcore now. As does Mr. Tolstoy. This book was an extremely long read, not because of it's size and length necessarily, but because of it's content. More often than not I found myself suddenly third a way down the page after my mind wandered off to other thoughts but I kept on reading... am I the only one with the ability to do that? You know, totally zoning out but continuing to read? The subject I passed over though was so thoroughly boring that I didn't bother going back to re-read it... and it didn't affect my understanding of future events taking place later on in the book.
Leo Tolstoy really enjoys tangents. Constantly drifting away from the point of the book to go off on three page rants on farming methods, political policies and elections, or philosophical discussion on God. Even the dialogue drifted off in that sort of manner. Tolstoy constantly made detail of trifling matters, while important subjects that added to what little plot line this story had were just passed over. Here is a small passage that is a wonderful example of what constantly takes place throughout the book:
"Kostia, look out! There's a bee! Won't he sting?" cried Dolly, defending herself from a wasp.
"That's not a bee; that's a wasp!" said Levin.
"Come, now! Give us your theory," demanded Katavasof, evidently provoking Levin to a discussion. "Why shouldn't private persons have that right?"
No mention of the wasp is made again. Just a small example of how Tolstoy focuses much more on philosophical thought, and thought in general, more than any sort of action that will progress the story further. That's part of the reason the story took so long to get through.
The editing and translation of the version I got also wasn't very good. Kit reckons that that's part of the reason I didn't enjoy it as much, and I am apt to agree with her. If you do decide to read this book, your better choice is to go with the Oprah's Book Club edition of Anna Karenina.
The characters weren't too great either and I felt only slightly sympathetic for them at certain moments. The women most often were whiny and weak while the men seemed cruel and judgemental more often than not. Even Anna, who was supposedly strong-willed and intelligent would go off on these irrational rants. The women were constantly jealous and the men were always suspicious.
There's not much else to say that I haven't already said. There were only certain spots in the book which I enjoyed in the littlest, and even then I can't remember them. All in all I did not enjoy this book, and it earned the names Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah.
But remember this is just one girl's opinion, if it sounded like a book you might enjoy I highly advise going out to read it. Just try and get the Oprah edition.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Anna Karenina.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
October 1, 2004
–
Finished Reading
May 29, 2007
– Shelved
June 12, 2007
– Shelved as:
d-the-bad
Comments Showing 1-50 of 102 (102 new)
message 1:
by
Andrew
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:36AM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Jul 18, 2007 06:28PM
Thanks for saying what you did about Anna Karenina. I began to think I was missing something, which is still possible, but at least if that's the case, I wasn't the only one to miss it. I largely agree with what you say, and I found myself thinking of all sorts of unrelated matters as well.
reply
|
flag
First, I am sorry that you did not happen to pick up the Volokhonsky & Pevear translation--it is a superlative one, and also much more accessible and engaging, I think. I would encourage you to try Anna again, maybe in a few years, and read this version instead.Also (it pains me that you didn't enjoy this book), you have to bear in mind when this book was written (before TV, the internet, movies...), and appreciate the purpose of Tolstoy's very thorough and rich descriptions. You have to admit, anyone who finishes this book will be able to deeply describe pre-Revolutionary Russian life among the upper class. This is not a plot-driven story; it is instead about the characters and their decisions, those hallmarks of adult life. Additionally, Tolstoy was always hesitant to apply the term "novel" to his works; that was still a form being forged, one that did not really come into its own until the 20th century and Modernism.
Lastly, it is worth noting how many women inhabit this story, and how well we get to know them. In this respect, Tolstoy was more progressive than most American writers of the period (just see how many female characters you can name from Mark Twain and Herman Melville's works).
Yup, I agree this book is mostly a bore. I also have the ability to space out AND read at the same time.
Heh, glad to find I'm not the only one in thinking this. I found the book boring and Anna to be a very annoying character. Time had somewhat faded my memories already, but last year I went to see an opera based on the book, and yes, she was still a stupid whiny bitch. For all her strong will and intelligence, she seemed to have terribly much trouble in making her mind up and not going all oh woe is me about everything.
I actually smiled to myself every time Tolstoy went off on his tangents. He has so many opinions and views he so desperately wants to express that he seems to care very little where he puts them or whether they really have anything to do with the story. I looked at this book as being dualistic with one part being a love story and the other his critique of the state Russia at that time.
As an older reader (age 40 when I read it) I especially enjoyed the tangents, the "slowness," the lengthy description. I think that was the popular way to write in the 19th century because without cameras, video, TV, etc. people had to be very gradually tuned in to what an author was describing. I also thought the main point of the book was the supremacy of marriage fidelity and what the lack thereof can do to hurt you.
I'm with you on enjoying the tangents. You also have to enjoy the Levin sub-plot (about equal in length to the Anna one). I not only enjoyed it, I liked it more than Anna's story. Of course, as was the case with Pierre in War and Peace, Levin is the Tolstoy autobiographical character and every bit as interesting as his creator.I agree with the poster who warns that we cannot judge 19th century literature by 21st century sensibilities. It's apples and oranges. This is similar to accusing Mark Twain of being racist for his use of the "n-word" in Huck Finn. Not quite. Truth is, that word was part of the everyday vernacular in Twain's day, and he wrote it as such. Reading the book carefully proves that Twain is about as far from being a racist as I am from being a multi-millionaire.
The same holds for Tolstoy. He is a 19th century Russian writer, working with the literary traditions of his day. Would we take the "Victorian" out of Dickens' work, too, because it is so "wordy" (says us)? Well... it's a bit more complicated than that.
In any event, everyone's entitled to her opinion, and I respect the negative one(s) here. I'm just weighing in with a "respectfully disagree," is all...
Cheers,
NE
I felt the same way as you. I painfully read through the first 200 pages or so and I couldn't force myself anymore. I started it because I got on the Oprah bandwagon and decided to challenge myself. However, I couldn't stand the tangents and found myself in the same boat as you....reading and thinking of something else. Weird how the mind works. Anyway, I put the book down and have never looked back.
I think what you call tangents are really the main point of the book. Tolstoy is weaving a tapestry, so it is naturally going to move in multiple directions with different threads and colors. (BTW, since Levin's main plot line is his spiritual awakening how is "discussion of God" a tangent? Just curious.)
I agree if someone is looking for a quick-paced plot-oriented novel, this is very much the wrong book to meet that desire.
Since I shared many of Sammy's opinions, I just feel the need to respond to some of the comments here. First of all, I totally understand that Tolstoy is writing from a different time, place, and accepted style than modern day. I don't criticize him for that, but it is fair to warn others you're getting a lot of treatise with your story. That's good to know if you're debating whether or not to devote a couple of months to reading this book. (Okay, it was a couple of months for ME, but that was the library's fault. It's probably more like a few weeks for the average reader.) So, my point (mainly in answer to New England's observations) is that it might not be fair to expect something different from Tolstoy, but it IS fair to criticize him for it, assuming most readers will be bringing with them their modern, Western sensibilities.
Secondly, to Mark and other "the-tangents-were-necessary" defenders, I would say Tolstoy's own ambivilence crept too much into the book. He should have refined his own thoughts, then fed them through Levin, not subjected us to the endless debate. There was much discussion of the Church, God, faith, etc. that didn't move Levin's subplot forward, but instead contributed to a general feeling of confusion.
I can respect where your coming from. I'm going to say it is a book more geared for men than woman. Men are more interested in philosophy, religion, farming, the way things should be done. I didn't think it was a snore, but yes a disjointed book in that he leaves the narrative and doesn't go return too it... sometimes indefinitely. I will leave you with this, I was enraptured by the various relationships in this book, and while written 200 hundred years ago I was able to draw 1:1 parallels with my family members interactions with their girlfriends and wives. Like many great books still very relevant. A modern comparison that is NOT really relevant is Grease in my humble opinion. Despite the suicides and.. very strange personalities in this book I believe they are truer to the real world. Peace
hahah Anna Crapenina and Anna krapeniblah, liked what you said...takes guts
Men are more interested in philosophy, religion, farming, the way things should be done. Funny, I always found men to me more interested in staring at boobs, scratching themselves, and posturing in regards to how "tough" they are.
I'm only about half way through this, but I'm also reading "War and Peace" at the same time... I know that women in Russia at that time were expected to behave in a specific manner... but I didn't expect them all to actually be dolts in the book. Tolstoy seems to have a high opinion of the sanctity of marriage, but a very low opinion of women in general.
Yes, it happens to me too. My mind wanderers off to other thoughts but I keep on reading. Usually I get a little mad with it and have to go back :) It's funny you mentioned it.
"Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah"I literally laughed out loud and repeated this to my husband! I loved your review.
People have different tastes, so your opinions are as valid as anyone's. That said, if you think the characters weren't great, then you must have read a REALLY crappy translation. These characters are vividly drawn as three-dimensional, complicate people -- each with a distinct P.O.V.
I disagree with you strongly Sammy. Those "tangents" such as philosophical discussions about God and political policies intricately tie with Anna's story. Tolstoy attempted to do more than simply entertain us with a good story. He tried to show how Russian society at the time was rapidly changing and that a woman like Anna was being tragicly crushed in a very personal way by society, religion and politics. When you step back and consider that these ideas are being discussed in 1870, a few decades before communism and the fall of the Russian Empire, it becomes all the more startling.I think your wasp example is great example of how carefully the book is written! It brilliantly portrays Levin's character and his internal struggles. He is a "man of the earth", a knowledgeable farmer with practical understanding of the world (he knows a bee from a wasp). He is instinctively protective of family (Dolly). The wasp here is then used quite cleverly. Levin is constantly being tugged into philosopical discussions that he wants to abstain from, particularly by his brother. The wasp that is bothering the others is not a pest to him, for him, the real pest is his brother Katasovasof!
Thanks for this! I am struggling with Anna Karenina because I moved house during a particularly boring bit in the middle of this tome of a book, then lost the book. Now I realise I'm going to have to read the whole first half again so I can remember where I am - quite a chore. I like bits of it. Lots of tension, insightful and thinky reading etc but it takes a lot of chewing. Part of me thinks I should read it because it'll be 'good for me' and I'm not sure that's the best reason to read. Plus, I've done an English degree and read hundreds of 'good for me' books so maybe I'm rebelling now! Another part of me thinks I'll love it once I get into it which I have so far failed to do as I have also fallen prey to the 'wandering mind.' Also, my husband's read War and Peace and I haven't yet. I though Anna would be an easy way to break me in. I'm pretty sure that once I've read it I will crow about how great it is and write a glowing report but I'm not there yet.
Rebecca, this may be a case where you should use Cliff Notes for their designed purpose -- to help navigate through difficult and lengthy material. I loved this book and remember that when I read it in college I used the CN just to keep all the people straight.
Thanks for the tip Kareerw. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a difficult novel to understand in any way (compared to translating Anglo Saxon, it's an absolute doddle) it's just not the kind of novel you want to lose mid-move and try to pick up again after a few months! You may have a point though, if I picked up Cliff Notes I could revise the start and not have to read it again... tempting! :) Thanks.
You could also read a different translation if you read it again. Prior to the "new" (Oprah book club) one the translation of choice was the Maude translation. When I read it, I read several important passages in two translations to try to really get it (not just understand it). The book is so rich with meaning that I didn't want to miss a thing. It still makes my top 10 book list -- 25 years after reading it.
Yep! I felt exactly the same. While reading some parts of the book, my mind would be wandering here and there! A few chapters were way too boring. There were parts in which I wondered why the title is Anna Karenna, and not Vronsky? or Dolly? Or Kitty? So much detail has been given about other characters, their lives, their happenings, their thought processes that it felt like it has taken me forever to try to complete this book!
or how about anna dragenina? lol!JG wrote: ""Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah"
I literally laughed out loud and repeated this to my husband! I loved your review."
Want to discuss/laud/bellyache over AK some more?If you have a hard time making it through the thousand page droughts of action, pick up the 'good' translation and stop by to comment every hundred pages or so. (I promise it'll be more fun).
If you're reading a book based on Oprah's suggestion alone, then obviously, you should rethink your motives for reading it.
I agree with your review, and couldn't have written a better one. It is a very dull and boring read and half of everything that is mentioned does not need to be remembered for the rest of the book. DULL!!! I thought I was weird because everyone else seems to really enjoy it and think it's a classic. :-P
It is funny to me that Oprah recommends this book, and 80% of the people who watch Oprah could never appreciate this book.
i don't want to sound rude, but if you can enjoy only straight forward plot there's a solution for you - watch a movie instead. There are some based on "Anna Karenina" they all put Levin, political, religious, philosophical problems aside and just tells you straight melodrama story. There you go! Why bother reading very long serious book if you don't need that? Just because Oprah says smth? hm....
This book is flawed. There are other books out there that have plots that aren't straight forward, that have tangents, etc, etc but there are those that are better than this.
It's not even that. I, for one, don't even like the characters all that much. I don't care what happens to them. When that happens, the book fails for me. You have to feel some connection to the characters.
Having said that, I do like Levin and Kitty the most, but only just a little bit more than the others. Truthfully I don't know why it's called Anna Karenina. It should have a different title. She is one of the most annoying of them all.
Yes, it is boring, because the subject matter is boring and uninteresting. The characters are boring and unlikeable, etc, etc.
So far (I'm not done reading) it's become better after Part 5, but only a little. So, I'm interested in seeing how it'll end.
Truthfully, quite a few of you sound pompous and arrogant. This is just one book. Not everyone will love it. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean they don't like well written, richly textured books. Remember people have opinions. You shouldn't be rude or snobby about yours.
Sara wrote: "First, I am sorry that you did not happen to pick up the Volokhonsky & Pevear translation--it is a superlative one, and also much more accessible and engaging, I think. I would encourage you to tr..."I totally agree, before reading a book we must consider its background. Like the era it was written in & the genre, the background of the writer etc. Judging every book/novel with the same lens is a mistake.
I enjoyed your review far more than the book.
And I am so glad I am not the only person whose mind wanders while reading! LoL
And I am so glad I am not the only person whose mind wanders while reading! LoL
Judging a book/author by characters' degree of likebility is a flawed action. Not liking Kitty or Anna does not make Tolstoi a bad writer...I feel there is a perversion of tastes where the preffered choices are action versus thought, plot versus phylosophy, good characters versus bad, nice in general versus anything that is remotely intense or god forbid mirror of reality...This is how women in Russia were treated at that time, this is how their mentality was, this is how they lived. Anna karenina is a glimpse in that age and it is remarkable how Tolstoi portrays it.
Being brought back to this thread by several Miss' comments I would like to add an advice: DON'T READ THIS TRANSLATION. It's very very bad, it destroys whole Tolstoy cinematic style into something that is not Tolstoy. I have a suspicion about what this "something" is (victorian prose, like Jane Eyre or smth) but not sure.Always read Pevear and Volokhonsky
This is my favorite book of all time. I have read the book once and listened to it several times. I do not pick up on a lot of the philosophical and literary meanings that are in the book but it does not stop me from enjoying it. I actually think of it as two separate books (Levin's and Anna's) that take place at the same time so it is written in one volume. I wonder how well it would do it someone actually separated the two and produced two separate books.If someone finds this book boring and difficult to read I highly recommend getting an audio copy of it. I personally have the version narrated by "Nadia May". Put it on your ipod and take a nice hour long walk in the evening. At about 33 hours it will make a nice summer excersize program. :)
Thank you. I totally agree with you.
Sammy - wait a decade then read it again.As for the lack of a plot - here's my take...
Each character in Anna Karenina is a looking glass for the reader. We often hear the expression, "What was he/she THINKING!?" Well, this book lets the reader know exactly what each character is thinking. Each character's train of thoughts marks a pathway through life of a single soul, pathways for us to examine to see how they work out. Because each of us has only one path of our own to follow, Tolstoy says to us - watch where these paths lead and think of your own!
This is difficult literature. You can't read it like Harry Potter or any other genre novel. Boring maybe, but if you know how to focus and study what you read, this book is immensely satisfying. We read hard books like this to become better thinkers, otherwise we’d all be stuck with See Spot Run.The mind wandering is part of the inability to focus and the need for constant stimulation, a byproduct of consuming endless shallow western media that is like candy (enjoying but bad for you in volume). That’s something you’ll have overcome to enjoy this book.
I would never agree with you. Moreover I think you completly misuderstood the book. Whilst you are clearly unfamiliar with Tolstoy previous work, you making one of the biggest mistakes in understanding literature - readin book without the context when it was written. This book is not about love. This book is about love in the society and trying to drag love story from TOLSTOY'S work i just a very funny and silly thing to do. Tolstoy would never write anythin that primitive and this is in addition to the history of different claases and societies of russia that is beyond your knowledge of russia. Sorry if it sounds harsh but rather then giving two stars and demotivating other people to read this work you could have dobe more search. Unreasonable rating. Again just my personal opinion.
I do that all the time-- read an entire page or more while thinking about something else. Lol. So you're not the only one.
the one comment that stuck out in your review was "Tolstoy focuses much more on philosophical thought, and thought in general, more than any sort of action that will progress the story further. That's part of the reason the story took so long to get through." I think this unwillingness or inability to delve into philosophy, or think about thought, and instead to always be looking for the ACTION is distinctly American (as evidenced by the types of movies that are always being made here and are the blockbusters)...sad and disappointing.
I tried reading Oprah's version a few years ago, then I couldn't justify hauling that huge book onto the subway every day. That plus I'd get distracted & zone off and/or get distracted by the only-in-NY things that would happen. Once e-books came out, fuhgeddabout it! That book stayed on my shelves. Now I've created a new routine. I'll listen to an audio book while knitting before I go to sleep. SO this summer, I'm "reading" Anna. I'll tell you this, even though the narrator takes a few liberties herself, this book is pretty bad. Oh, I'll finish this one alright, but I'm so happy I'm listening to it & not reading it. And I'm so happy I was never assigned this in college! Whew!
I totally agree with you. I had to get through 2 pages describing a little thing in the most explicit details. And it just hurts me that this is called a classic, more than half of the book isnt even about the subject (anna with her affair) but about other people in Russia and their stupid things. I'm almost halfway through it and will finish it.But it's surely not my favorite, I already know that.
Edit: I didn't finish it, it's back at the library
I can zone out and read as well which is what I find myself doing with this book. I have the Oprah edition but it isn't helping. I am 125 pages in and am about to dump it. Why waste the time? There are too many good books to read to waste what will probably take a month to get through.
I agree, it was a very very long book. It was hard to get through, and for the ending that it was...yeah. Not my favorite classic ever. and yes! I can zone out while reading as well!
Gotta love some of the comments here, that basically amount to: "You don't like it because you don't get it!" or "You've got too much of a modern attention span, books like this require patience and hard work!"Seriously? Get off your high horses. I GET this book. I still do not like it. When you include your philosophical or political beliefs in your book, they need to integrate with your story, something I don't think Tolstoy knew how to do. Secondly, the characters are flat and uninteresting. I don't expect to like every character in every book I read, but I expect to at least hold some curiosity as to what happens to them. Dull, boring and bloated.
I love this review! Kudos to you for being so honest. There are certainly many people who would agree with you.
Though I haven't finished AK yet, I agree with you. I've read some of the responses to this review and some have been very dismissive and pretentious. Who cares if she got the review from Oprah? Does that make it a different book? Does that make her review irrelevant? I don't see why.Anyway, I agree because I find the translation that I am reading very cold and distant. If you are not interested in farming philosophy etc. then there is plenty in this book to push you away. I also agree that the characters didn't command much sympathy, though I don't think that it was through their actions but through the distant way in which Tolstoy seems to approach them, as if they are a lesson to be taught - examples or specimens - rather than people.
I'm used to 19th C works: my favourite book is Jane Eyre, which has its share of lengthy passages and tangents, so I can't be accused of being fickle or put off by long-windedness. It's just that this book has felt like a philosophical debate to me rather than a story that I could become engrossed in. I see your point.
I haven't read it yet (it should arrive in the post any day now) But your wasp/bee post makes me want it more - they are very different beasts. I also have the tendency to start shopping lists and conversations with people in my head while I turn pages and continue to read. I often go back and it's all vaguely familiar, the lines come back to me as I reread but they must be re-read or they'd never come back. I'm hoping I can focus on Anna Karenina
Try reading a different translation. It's very difficult to translate russian to english because sometimes, it doesn't have the same literary affect on the reader.
My mind has totally wandered while trying to read this book. I've had to go back a few pages to where I knew what was going on again. I still can't figure out if my mind has wandered, or there seem to be skips in the story where we are just dropped in the middle of a completely new scenario than what was previous. Still, I soldier on.
