Customer Reviews

Anna Karenina (Signet Classics)

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Don't go through life without reading "Anna Karenina." This novel is excellent on so many levels that you can read it again and again, as I have, and still thoroughly enjoy it. Tolstoy skillfully tells two different stories simultaneously, based on the same theme: How does one find true happiness? Anna makes a choice and tries to bravely see it through, trying all the while to persuade herself that she's found happiness, but you can feel the strain build as the novel nears its climax. Levin nearly drives himself insane in his mental tug-of-war over where his place in life should be, but eventually comes full circle. In their journeys, Anna and Levin cross paths, with fascinating results. I can't stress enough that this book is a must-read. Be prepared to be thoughtful, depressed, elated and emotionally drained.

"Anna Karenina" is why the novel was invented. It is a colossal achievement that fully exploits the possibilities inherent in the literary form. The purpose of the 19th-century novel was to explore character and to critique society, and Tolstoy here has achieved the quintessence of both aims. The thing about Tolstoy is that you can trust him -- he is utterly honest. He doesn't revise, or simplify, or sugar-coat. He presents the human mind, in its various guises, precisely as it is. Levin, to my mind, rivals Hamlet as the most vivid, fully living character in literature, and he is probably much more self-consistent than the Melancholy Dane. Anna's story, which is more melodramatic and plot-heavy, might strike some as a flaw in comparison to Levin's. And maybe it is a flaw. But one must talk about flaws in "Anna Karenina" as one talks about flaws in Beethoven's 9th Symphony -- blemishes on a masterpiece which, if it errs, errs only in striving further than the art form is supposed to go.

Tolstoy's genius at depicting character and psychology is matched by his ability to construct vivid, memorable setpieces. No one who has read "Anna Karenina" can ever forget the hay-mowing, or Vronksy's horse race, or the heartbreaking scenes of Levin's sickly brother.

Even Dickens, with all his glorious phantasmagoria, never achieved what Tolstoy has done here. Tolstoy caught lightning in a bottle: homo sapiens, captured in 800-odd pages. There are only a handful of comparable achievements in all of Western art.

For the longest time I have been reticent to write a review of Anna for fear of not being able to do the book justice. I still have that fear, but the time has come to at least say that this is my favorite novel of all time. I refer to the Magarshack translation which I have read and now re-read. I can't imagine a more intriguing story... admittedly however, it would help if the reader had an interest in the world that Tolstoy inhabited. There are so many (often lengthy) asides into his thoughts on abstention from worldly riches / social reconstruction etc. Tolstoy gets his character Levin to do reams of his own preaching on these subjects but again, because I find Tolstoy himself to be one of the most interesting characters Russia has ever produced, I don't mind finding him so obviously entrenched in his own story here.

But "Anna" is first and foremost a LOVE story which depicts the fleeting and disastrous effects of tempestous/undisciplined love (Anna and Vronsky) over against the lasting and mutually beneficial results of patient/disciplined love (Levin and Kitty). This book is an important masterpiece without rival in literature. Reading such a book on one's death-bed would not be a waste of time.

When I think of Anna, I am reminded of something that Solzhenitsyn made one of his fictional characters say in his book The First Circle: "In the 17th century there was Rembrandt, and there is Rembrandt today. Just try to improve on him. And yet the technology of the 17th century now seems primitive to us. Or take the technological innovations of the 1870's. For us they're child's play. But that was when Anna Karenina was written. What can you name that's superior?"

Read Anna... and you will be as silent as I am on that one!

There are two stories in this novel, which are connected at the beginning but become pretty much completely separate in the end. There's the title story of Anna, who runs off with a good-looking army officer leaving behind her stolid politician husband and young son. Then there's the highly autobiographical story of the quiet, unconfident Levin, who's quite happy to live a peaceful life in the countryside (and gets regarded as a fool as a result), except when he ventures into society (quote unquote) to try and woo the woman he loves, who sadly has eyes only for the man Anna fixes her attention on.

I have to confess that I found Levin's story a lot more interesting than Anna's. I sympathised a lot with his lack of confidence and search for purpose in life, and ended up rushing the bits about Anna to read about him.

However, both are well-excecuted, Tolstoy's piercing insights into human nature creeping in. Levin's behaviour in particular was eminently understandable and recognisable.

I have a hard time deciding whether I enjoyed War and Peace or this more - certainly the character of Levin surpasses the ones in War and Peace. Read them both, that's my advice.

The book is magnificent. Just read some of the other posted reviews.

The translation is less than ideal.... After working my way through half of the David Magarshack's translation, I found myself sitting on the floor in a bookstore re-reading sections of the book in other translations. This translation uses dated idioms, often (seems to) tranlate different Russian words into the same English word (judging by other translations), rarely translates the French, and often uses rather banal (maybe 'academic') wording where more emotive words could have been used to better evoke the mood of the passage.

It's not necessary for me to repeat the high praise heaped upon ANNA KARENINA, which although slow-going in spots is nonetheless highly recommended by practically everyone, a world class read. But an argument is handy among those who would argue the merits of various translators and translations. Below are four of them with four representative passages from the opening paragraphs of this novel:

Constance Garnett (1901, with many revisions by others, many available for sale here, also for free online):
"the wife had discovered that the husband was carrying on an intrigue with a French girl,..."

(Introducing Prince Stephan Arkadyevich):
" -- Stiva, as he was known in the fashionable world -- "

"He turned over his stout, well-cared-for person on the springy sofa,"


Louise and Aylmer Maud (1918), available here as an Oxford World Classic:
"His wife had discovered an intrigue between her husband and the former French governess,..."

" -- Stiva, as he was called by his set in Society[note cap. "S"] -- "

"He turned his plump, well-kept body over on the springy sofa,"


David Magarshak (1961), Signet(Mass Market) Paperback:
"The wife had found out that the husband had had an affair with the French governess,..."

"(Stiva, as he was called by his society friends),"

"He turned his plump, well-cared-for body on the springy sofa,..."


Peavar/Volokhonsky, 1991 (Penguin Classic and [same pagination, fancier cover] Oprah's Pick):
"The wife had found out that the husband was having an affair with the former French governess . . . "

" -- Stiva, as he was called in society -- "

"He rolled his full, well-tended body over the springs of the sofa,..."


The first thing to say is that these four quotations have a great deal more in common with each other than not. Nonetheless, there are differences: note that only two of the four mention that the object of Stiva's affection was a former employee. Despite several layers of revision, Garnett's translation, nearly a century old, at times slips into archaism: note the reference to high society as the "fashionable world," a term for which modern readers could be excused for construing something along the lines of couture, high fashion in clothing. Both the Garnett and the Maude version maintain the euphemism "intrigue" for "love-affair," while the two more recent translations keep to the more contemporary and less euphemistic "affair." In the Magarshack translation (1961), the use of the pluperfect in "the husband had had an affair" is technically correct, even today, but the P&V version with its "was having" just rolls by better to me.

Overall, though, of the four my personal favorite is the 1961 Magarshak trans-lation, also the cheapest (but smallest in trim size). If I had to conduct a group discussion of ANNA KARENINA, though, I would almost cetainly gravitate to the much-better-distributed Peaver/Volokshonky edition because the differences or any presumed demerits, to me, are not as significant as granting the easiest accessibility to a group of individual readers. I could probably muddle through the archaisms in the Maude version -- it is the most reworked and in many respects the most solid, despite its age -- but I know I would have problems with the Constance Garrett.

The important thing to remember is that ANNA KARENINA is a book that demands to be read, and the reader who takes the time to read it fully will be well rewarded in vivid characterization, deft plotting, romance, social insight, and history, despite how one feels about the (sometimes exasperating) agrarian-political theorizing of Tolstoy's stand-in, Levin.

What a great reason to learn Russian -- the book is much better in its native language. However, even the English version is rather beyound words. This true masterpiece of literature is worth rereading many times. Tolstoy has an amazing insite into human nature; his characters and far more than 3 dimentional -- the palate of detailed nuances that Tolstoy supplies his readers is unmatched by its completness. The scale of the book is grandiose and it rather indescribable. You simply MUST read it and experience for yourself -- you will NOT be sorry!

This book made me want to take notes--I didn't want to lose one insight into human sympathy, societies' hypocrosies or Russian history. Tolstoy's unparalleled exposition of the psyche and soul amaze, and the scintillating plot propels through the long read and through time.

Like many people who begin reading Anna Karenina, I was intimidated by the size of the novel. As I'm a slow reader, I took it at my own pace. It's 900+ pages took me just under 2 months to read.

Now that the story is over, I miss my window into Tolstoy's world. I loved the array of characters in this novel and while I found that I identified with certain characters more than others, I think there's something for everyone in one story line or another. I did find that there were parts of the novel that bored me, such as Levin's confusion at the election process and the hunting trip that took place in the later part of the book. However, I was captivated by Levin's struggle to find meaning in life and his consideration of what it means to have morals without religion.

I enjoyed getting into Anna's head, but also appreciated understanding the feelings of her husband as well as her lover. Tolstoy's ability to write from different perspectives and opposing points of view, male and female, was my favorite aspect of the book.

Oblonsky was, without question, my favorite character. You meet him right away, and though he's not always a key player in the novel, Anna and Levin's lives always intertwined with Oblonsky just enough to leave me wanting more. His character is larger than life, and one I will keep with me as a literary favorite.

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"

- Leo Tolstoy "Anna Karenina"

Anna Karenina is a beautifully written novel about three families: the Oblonskys, the Levins, and the Karenins. The first line (one of the most famous in literature) hints at Tolstoy's own views about happy and unhappy marriages having these same three families also represent three very different societal and physical locations in Russia in addition to distinctly different views on love, loyalty, fidelity, happiness and marital bliss.

Tolstoy seems to stress that `trusting companionships" are more durable and filled with happiness versus "romantic passion" that bursts with flames and then slowly; leaves ashes rather than a firm, solid foundation to build upon.

It is like reading a soap opera with all of its twists and turns where the observer is allowed to enter into the homes, the minds and the spirits of its main characters. The moral compass in the book belongs to Levin whose life and courtship of Kitty mirrors much of Leo Tolstoy's own courtship of his wife Sophia. Levin's personality and spiritual quest is Tolstoy's veiled attempt at bringing to life his own spiritual peaks and valleys and the self doubts that plagued him his entire life despite his happy family life and the fact that he too found love in his life and a committed durable marriage. At the other end of the spectrum is Anna, who also because of her individual choices and circumstances, falls into despair.

It is clear that Tolstoy wants the reader to come away with many messages about the sanctity of marriage, love and family life. He also wants us to be mindful of the choices that we make in life and the affect that these choices have upon ourselves, our station and path in life as well as the affect upon those that we profess to love. Tolstoy also wants us to examine what makes our lives happy or not; and what is at the root of either end result. Levin and Kitty are the happiest married couple; yet Levin faces his own double bind when struggling against domestic bliss and his need for independence on the other hand and how to achieve both (if that is possible) without relinquishing that which made him who he was born to be.

Anna Karenina and Konstantin Levin are the primary protagonists in the novel and both are rich and fine characters in their own right. Both of them focus on self; one however finds the self to be a nurturer which puts value into life very much as a farmer; while the other views self with despair and as a punisher or destroyer. Both views, diametrically opposed, force the characters on very different paths and lives for themselves. Then there is the dilemma of forgiveness versus vengeance. The very epigram for the novel from Romans states: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." Yet vengeance upon oneself or others is not up to individuals but God; and yet the characters are haunted about what forgiveness is or isn't and by the hollowness of words versus heartfelt and soulfully reflective actions. The themes of social change in Russia, family life's blessings and virtues and farming (even if it is simply the goodness one puts into life and how one cultivates it and others) dominate the novel's landscape. Trains also play a symbolic importance in the novel and it is odd that Tolstoy himself years after writing Anna Karenina dies himself in a train station after setting off from his home in an emotional cloud.

Sometimes the names of the characters themselves can be confusing: so a hint to the reader might be to think of each Russian character's name as having three parts: the first name (examples here are for Levin and Kitty) like Konstantin or Ekaterina, a patronymic which is the father's first name accompanied by a suffix which means son of or daughter of like Dmitrich (son of Dmitri) or Alexandrovna (daughter of Alexander) and then the surname like Levin or Shcherbatskaya. Thus the explanations for the Ekaterina Alexandrovna Shcherbatskaya (nicknamed Kitty) and Konstantin Dmitrich Levin (Levin).

I loved the book and its details and the richness of the characterizations as well as the storytelling technique of the great Tolstoy and I have to agree with Tolstoy when he stated, "I am very proud of its architecture-its vaults are joined so that one cannot even notice where the keystone is. " The vaults: "Anna and Levin" are joined with the very first line of the novel and with their focus on themselves.


Rating: A

Bentley/2007