# Anna Karenina



## EllaSuaveterre (Oct 2, 2016)

I recently reread Tolstoy's best, and it shook me in a way I REALLY did not expect it to. I was touched in a way that I didn't at all feel when I first read it at 16. Now, if you've not read it and are planning to, spoiler alert.

The book is about a wealthy noblewoman in pre-revolutionary Russia who is married to a Mr. Karenin. She falls in love with another man, Count Vronsky, and has an ongoing affair with him. Eventually she moves away from Karenin and their home to elope with Vronsky, but the fact that she cannot legally remarry and the immense subconscious shame she feels leads her into paranoia that Vronsky is cheating on her. That paranoia drives her to suicide. There are other side-stories intertwined with it, but that's the gist of the parts I consider worth retelling.

The first time I read the book, I felt awful for Anna and for Vronsky. It was clear to me that Karenin was a heartless robot who never cared for Anna, that Vronsky was the one who truly loved her for her soul, and if only she weren't so paranoid, she could have been happy with him. 

Now, as a wayward wife myself, I see things differently. I see so much of my husband in Anna's husband Karenin. They are both very reserved, and inwardly- I think- very loving. I may have been reading into things too much and seeing what wasn't there, but it seemed to me, upon rereading the book, that Karenin, despite his outward coldness, is truly tender towards Anna. For example, when she nearly dies having her lover's baby and her husband promises to forgive her and reconcile. This time, the one I felt most sorry for was not Anna, but Karenin. He truly seemed to love her, and to want only the best for her, and to be willing to surrender every scrap of pride he had for her sake, in spite of his rational, cold demeanor.

Has anyone else read Anna Karenina or any other book (or seen a movie, TV show, etc.) and found it had an entirly different meaning to you post-A as it had done pre-A?


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

EllaSuaveterre said:


> I recently reread Tolstoy's best, and it shook me in a way I REALLY did not expect it to. I was touched in a way that I didn't at all feel when I first read it at 16. Now, if you've not read it and are planning to, spoiler alert.
> 
> The book is about a wealthy noblewoman in pre-revolutionary Russia who is married to a Mr. Karenin. She falls in love with another man, Count Vronsky, and has an ongoing affair with him. Eventually she moves away from Karenin and their home to elope with Vronsky, but the fact that she cannot legally remarry and the immense subconscious shame she feels leads her into paranoia that Vronsky is cheating on her. That paranoia drives her to suicide. There are other side-stories intertwined with it, but that's the gist of the parts I consider worth retelling.
> 
> ...


The majesty of the book was that it was possible to be sympathetic to Karenina. Vronsky was easily manipulated, she gave up her children, but the stifling atmosphere was easy to comprehend. Karenin has a very rigid idea of how things should be, which means he is willing to take her back, but it is more attachment to things being proper. I confess, coming back to Tolstoy and find he suddenly seems rather naive to my jaundiced middle aged eyes, whereas Dostoevsky seems fresh still.


----------



## EllaSuaveterre (Oct 2, 2016)

Mr The Other said:


> The majesty of the book was that it was possible to be sympathetic to Karenina. Vronsky was easily manipulated, she gave up her children, but the stifling atmosphere was easy to comprehend. Karenin has a very rigid idea of how things should be, which means he is willing to take her back, but it is more attachment to things being proper. I confess, coming back to Tolstoy and find he suddenly seems rather naive to my jaundiced middle aged eyes, whereas Dostoevsky seems fresh still.


Of course I still felt very sorry for Anna, but I felt worse somehow for Karenin, in a way that I would not have expected to. Again, I could have read too much between the lines, but Karenin was within his rights to grant his wife the divorce and let her move on. Nobody would have shamed him, even back then I don't think, for that choice. But he chose his wife, as much as he possibly could choose her being that she was in love with someone else and all.

Naive? How do you mean?


----------



## 225985 (Dec 29, 2015)

Thanks for spoiling the book for me.


----------



## EllaSuaveterre (Oct 2, 2016)

I did warn you there'd be spoilers. ^.^


----------



## drifter777 (Nov 25, 2013)

What matters here is that you have developed insight, compassion, and the consciousness to care to see things from all points of view. All of these things are characteristics of "wisdom" - combining knowledge AND experience.


----------



## lostmyreligion (Oct 18, 2013)

Thanks for this Ella. After forcing myself to endure Dr Zhivago and slogging through Ayn Rand's torturous novels with their twisted take on 'romantic' relationships, I've never been able to bring myself to the Tolstoy/Dostoevsky trough. 

I might have to do it now just to see how they stand against the reality that is brutal Russian pragmatism.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Since Karenin doesn't brutally kill Vronsky so that his hysterical, animalistic screams weren't giving children nightmares in neighboring communities, I decided to pass.

I absolutely loved War and Peace however.


----------



## ShatteredStill (Dec 20, 2016)

Old Wuthering Heights. The most romantic man ever Heathcliffe!!! What about his poor destroyed wife? Cathy - She was truly a prize too!!

I'm being mean. I know the self destruction is far clearer in the book but most are taking about the film. It always annoys me when certain actors (Depp) consider themselves romantics & compare themselves to heathcliffe!! Even more annoying when my ex (of nearly 30 years!) uses it as an excuse to stalk me.


----------



## threelittlestars (Feb 18, 2016)

I have been studying Russian for a while now, and have read A LOT of Russian books. Most popular, war and peace and Dr. Zhivago. You will notice in reading a lot of Russia's romantic novels glorify affairs.


----------



## Mizzbak (Sep 10, 2016)

I'd say that they actually glorify angst ... but if you want angst, then affairs are always on special in aisle 2. No easier way to create it.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

EllaSuaveterre said:


> Of course I still felt very sorry for Anna, but I felt worse somehow for Karenin, in a way that I would not have expected to. Again, I could have read too much between the lines, but Karenin was within his rights to grant his wife the divorce and let her move on. Nobody would have shamed him, even back then I don't think, for that choice. But he chose his wife, as much as he possibly could choose her being that she was in love with someone else and all.
> 
> Naive? How do you mean?


I have delayed my answer while I tried to think of less cynical wording, but I am afraid I failed. He had a great grasp of people's emotional depth and need to be free. However, he was less suited to understanding the needs people have from each other. As a very wealthy member of the gentry, he was a great catch for any lady and his emotional depth was an asset. However, he seemed at times rather dismissive of Vronsky in comparison to his own avatar of Levin. Levin had not developed a great character for a romantic relationship and seemed rather needy, as such he had emotional demands of his wife when, to be a decent husband, he should have provided emotional support for his wife rather than require emotional support from his wife.

Though not depicted as such, Vronsky was a far more mature character. I suspect, had they got together, Anna would have had very little time for Levin. Being as high born as he was, Tolstoy did not have to worry about such things and it seems he did not.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

threelittlestars said:


> I have been studying Russian for a while now, and have read A LOT of Russian books.


Cool. I'd love to be able to read Solzhenitsyn in the original.


----------



## threelittlestars (Feb 18, 2016)

CharlieParker said:


> Cool. I'd love to be able to read Solzhenitsyn in the original.



i split between translation and original. These old novels in Russian speak in OLD old words that are hardly used among modern Russians. Its kinda like us reading Shakespeare. Its the poetry that loses its beauty in the translation. 

Pushkin is who needs to be read and understood in the original for the true full beauty of his thought and verse to be fully appreciated.


----------



## EllaSuaveterre (Oct 2, 2016)

Mr The Other said:


> I have delayed my answer while I tried to think of less cynical wording, but I am afraid I failed. He had a great grasp of people's emotional depth and need to be free. However, he was less suited to understanding the needs people have from each other. As a very wealthy member of the gentry, he was a great catch for any lady and his emotional depth was an asset. However, he seemed at times rather dismissive of Vronsky in comparison to his own avatar of Levin. Levin had not developed a great character for a romantic relationship and seemed rather needy, as such he had emotional demands of his wife when, to be a decent husband, he should have provided emotional support for his wife rather than require emotional support from his wife.
> 
> Though not depicted as such, Vronsky was a far more mature character. I suspect, had they got together, Anna would have had very little time for Levin. Being as high born as he was, Tolstoy did not have to worry about such things and it seems he did not.


You know, you're actually right. While I greatly loved Levin's emotional depth, and I quite admire angst and a brooding nature in a man, on second thought he did seem- strike that, _was_- emotionally unavailable when Kitty was caring for Nicholas, like he expected Kitty to do all the work while he stayed as far away from the whole situation has possible because he was too squeamish to do it. Not to mention how he felt about his and Kitty's children at first.

As an aside, I wish I were as pure in spirit as Kitty. I'm just not. If anything, I identify most with Levin, being melancholic and continually missing the mark and being of an inclination to hole myself away and drown my sorrows when faced with a less-than-ideal life. Sad really.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

EllaSuaveterre said:


> You know, you're actually right. While I greatly loved Levin's emotional depth, and I quite admire angst and a brooding nature in a man, on second thought he did seem- strike that, _was_- emotionally unavailable when Kitty was caring for Nicholas, like he expected Kitty to do all the work while he stayed as far away from the whole situation has possible because he was too squeamish to do it. Not to mention how he felt about his and Kitty's children at first.
> 
> As an aside, I wish I were as pure in spirit as Kitty. I'm just not. If anything, I identify most with Levin, being melancholic and continually missing the mark and being of an inclination to hole myself away and drown my sorrows when faced with a less-than-ideal life. Sad really.


Thank you. Were Levin to come on here, it would seem like self-pitying drivel (albeit remarkably well written) and we would recommend him No More Mr Nice Guy. And I was do a standard rant about how the 'nice guy' in that book is not a nice guy at all, but an emotionally self-absorbed child.

Kitty is super human in ideal (though I think he would have been shocked how less available she was if he was poor). That you are as self-critical as you are puts you well above Levin in my estimation!


----------

