Anna Karenina

I just finished this book as part of a summer read-together with friends via zoom. We broke the story up into five Zoom chats based on the parts of the book, and it was a great way to work our way through the story. This book has a lot of things to discuss, and fostered great conversations and insights. From my perspective, I'm so glad I read it. It is a story rich in detail and depth, with characters that I enjoyed reading about, even if I didn't always like them very much. This is a book that I will hold on to to read again sometime in the future. There is so much that I likely missed the first time through. For anyone who feels that this book isn't accessible to them, please give it a shot. I read the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition with the translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky and the writing is so good. The fact that the writing is a translation makes it even more impressive. Be prepared to like this more than you thought you might, and to need to take reading it a little slower than normal. It's a great book.

Really enjoyed the realism of the relationships portrayed (the good, the bad and the ugly) but have to remove a star because there's so much fluff in between about politics and farming that's nowhere near as fun to read.

I can't say anything about this masterpiece that hasn't already been said. My thoughts are my own. First, this was the perfect book to read during a pandemic as it had nothing to do with what was going on in the world right now and I needed the escape. I spent 2 hours researching paper knives because I had never heard of one before.
Second, it reads like a textbook for how to live life, and that's the first time I've really experienced that in a novel. I loved Levin, even though he could be a bit of a downer because he was so thoughtful. I loved his ideas, I was even enthralled with the discussion of the peasant and the idea that they may own some of the lands.
Now, Anna. I think the problem here was not that Anna did not love Vronsky (and vice versa). It had everything to do with the fact that Anna lost Anna. She had no place outside of society and was no longer a parent to her son (I understand why she saw her daughter as a symbol of her old life, but I can't excuse it). A relationship needs two complete people. Vronsky had a life, a home, and Anna. Anna had Vronsky. If she were alive today, this may have been a completely different story, but maybe not. She chose to obsess over him. The death scene was heartbreaking.
My favorite part was when Levin was working in the fields and came up with his idea of a”working cure”. I too love to lose myself in mindless tasks, such as raking leaves. I always feel better physically afterward and my mind has the freedom to wander while my arms do the work.
The only part that really dragged for me was the voting in of the new marshall. I just felt that went on forever.
I'm so glad I can cross this one off the TBR. It was a great read.

So. It's enormous, and I would estimate about 40% too long. Tolstoy does love him some philosophizing. It is also, basically, the Real Housewives of St. Petersburg, circa 1873. I'm glad I can say I read it, but it won't be a lasting favorite.

It is brilliant... but I had forgotten that Tolstoy was very Christian.
So - Anna goes mad and accidentally kills herself, but Levin gets his religion on, so all if well.
This is really not a love story between Anna and Vronsky. Levin is the MC here. But - I suppose if people were aware of it, a lot of people wouldn't read this book :-D

BTW, I hate AnnaI found her extremely selfish, stupid, mean, entitled bitch. Even her death... sigh Stupid bitch!
I feel so bad for Seryozha. I can't imagine how Anna Alexeyich's life is going to be, being brought up by Karenin, who hated both her parents. I can imagine how Seryozha hates his little sister who is a symbol of what took his mother away from him. I wish Anna had taken Seryozha and run away when she wanted to. Never mind Karenin's letter and wishes. Obviously she didn't really care about what he thought.
I was expecting Anna to be more judged, but people weren't really that nasty to her. One incident, which she should have expected to happen. I mean, how would she not understand people see her as the marriage breaker, when she is the only one who was unfaithful to her spouse? Vronsky was unmarried, Karenin never cheated on anyone.
And Vronsky really loved her and tried to do what was best for her. She was just so f-ing wound up with herself that she didn't even hear him. And, no, I don't accept the way the society and her husband treated her as any excuse. She refused to divorce him, and then she started whining because he changed his mind. After all, she lost her son when she chose Vronsky... even when Karenin had seen to that she could have a respectable life as a wife and mother, AND all the love and sex with Vronsky. I can only assume she was sick (like bipolar or something), and that, I suppose, is excuse enough. But I still don't like her.

I also love the description of Levin and the birth of his son :-D

I was a bit surprised by all the politics going on in the book. I didn't know about that.

A laborious, thoroughly-explained explanation of what it means to be Russian & how that manifests in the lives of the well-off and the not-so-well. I give it three stars, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it. In fact, I very much did. Although I would've preferred for it to be titled something else, or at least for the title character to have more of something to do with it, you realise in the last three-quarters that everything had to do with her. It's not necessarily a book about anything except the sheer magnitude of human energy & that influence on others. The explanations might drag onward into small history lessons, but as someone who likes them, I found the majority of them to be interesting ( although, of course, there were many that weren't. ) Three stars means that I probably won't be giving this a re-read, now that I've finally finished it, but it's something that I will recall & be able to discuss thoroughly. In my opinion, the prose reads a bit like a discussion; whilst things are not left “open-ended”, there are many places where you could easily drift off into conversation with whomever is reading it with you, much like the characters & the narrators drift off. I think Tolstoy does a very good job in reflecting just how stream-of-consciousness human beings are, and how all of us have moments of intense self-introspection. Realistic, lengthy, and arduous.

Particularly when it comes to English speakers, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are categorised within the typical binary of Dostoevsky as the psychologist, and Tolstoy as the world-builder. But I don't think this is accurate. Tolstoy's portrayal of Anna is so harrowingly on point - I cannot think of a male author who conveys femininity with such startling accuracy.
It is always difficult to talk about a book that has such a powerful effect on you. I become so acutely aware of the inadequacy of my own vocabulary to even begin to discuss the different parts that had an effect on me.

What is this tendency to treat works of classical literature with this sort of reverence, as if they are untouchable, or beyond criticism?
This also exists alongside a willingness to attribute a profundity to it, that sometimes is quite simply not just there.
Anna Karenina - even as a physical book - is a tower of literature. And yet, there is something so pitiful about its universe - how almost pathetically human its characters are. As the story of Levin is autobiographical for Tolstoy, by extension, how pathetic Tolstoy is.
And this is truly what makes Russian literature so unique. There is none of this attempt to attribute nobility to flaws - you see them, in all of their squalor - with no redemption, with the characters just falling back into the same self-destructive habits, the same agony of inertia.


Anna Karenina suffers the same fate that every piece of Russian literature that ever is translated into another language suffers - it far too often, and unforgivably misinterpreted.
I'm not going to lecture too long about how a lot of meaning is lost in translation, because I think people who tend to do that sound wanky. I'll just give a brief example - many people are familiar with the famous first opening words of Anna - the second sentence of the novel: “Everything was in confusion in the Oblonsky's home.” In Russian text, the word ‘dom' is repeated 8 times in 6 sentences. This solemn reptition ‘dom, dom, dom, dom' tolling, as it does, for doomed family life, is one such way.

The first cardinal misinterpretations is that of Karenina's moral issue. The story is not about oppressive social standards that drive a woman who engages in a forbidden romance to suicide. Nor is the “moral” that Anna, having commited adultery, Anna must “pay” for this (which is the moral of the French piece of trite that goes by the name of ‘Madame Bovary'). Nor are we, as the reader, even expected to sympathise with Anna.

First, regarding the point about how the story is misinterpreted as being about how a parochial, outdated system of social norms stifled and suffocated Anna and Vronsky's passionate love affair. Think of the word of Darya (Kitty's sister), in response to the discussion of Anna's potential divorce: “Anything but divorce! She will be lost!”
I cannot even initiate my analysis of why this is such an incorrect way to interpret the text without fulling getting my feelings about how offended this interpretation makes me off my chest [yes, I'm allowed to be self-indulgent about my own sensibilities, this is my own blog]. Do you really think that Tolstoy is so simple minded that this story is merely a social critique? How could anybody possibly, possibly believe that Russians are so pitifully simplistically minded? In the Russian society that Anna inhabits, affairs were commonplace and known about - and therefore, often the novel is interpreted as exposing the hypocrisy of how this stratified society allows affairs, yet forbids “serious love affairs”. Nothing could be a more perverse interpretation of this text. The conventions of society are temporal - as all conventions are - and have very little to do with the eternal demands of morality which Tolstoy was so paralyzed by.
There's a reason why in a book that is nearly 1,000 pages long, almost no attention is paid to what Anna's social circle is saying.
To interpret Anna and Vronky's pathetic “love affair” (which is being far too generous to either of these selfish hedonists) as two people who were “prevented” from being together not only demonstrates (i) a really awful reading comprehension skill but (ii) a toleration for harmful hedonism which is reminiscent of the nihilism which ironically, Tolstoy himself so detested and feared.

Instead, the moral point that Tolstoy makes is that: when love becomes egotistic, such a love is carnal. Love that is carnal destroys, rather than creates.
The direct juxtaposition of the Lyovin-Kitty story and the Vronski-Anna story hammers this point down.
Lyovin's marriage to Kitty (which is Tolstoy's autobiographical account of his own marriage) is based on a metaphysical concept of love, that includes a willingness of self-sacrifice. Anna's love is so excessively carnal that the egotism it generates borders on the pathological.
Lyovin's love is austere, unromantic, and painfully Christian. The riches of sensual nature are still there, but harmonious in the atmosphere of tenderness, truth and responsibility.
Nothing could be a more harsh contrast than that of Anna, who although appears richly sensual, is entirely spiritually sterile.
Yet this is not to say that we are to take from this a


ANNA'S LAST DAY
The stream of consciousness employed by Tolstoy is noteworthy as a method of expression which is entirely Tolstoy's creation (although admittedly refined and improved later, by James Joyce). The narrative is an erratic record of Anna's mind switching from idea to image without any comment from Tolstoy: “Was that really me? Those red hands? Everything that seemed so wonderful and unattainable is now so worthless, and what I had then is out of my reach forever! How awful that paint smells. Why is it that they are always painting buildings? Dressmaker.” This contrast between the incidental (specific) and the dramatic (general) give the text an almost anxiety inducing quality. To read Anna switch effortlessly from recognising a passer-by, to instantly thinking about how she will never ever again see her son - this instant juxtaposition is utterly terrifying.

As much as I was annoyed by the melodrama and the length of the thing, I did enjoy the book. There are many diversions that don't take us very far and characters that are so pathetic at times. In fact, by the end, I wanted to throw Anna down onto the train tracks myself.

Russian society in the 19th century is not something I could much relate to, but I found myself instead picture Southern society. It made much more sense that way. I'd love to see it retold in a movie like that.

The melodrama is a bit over the top much of the time, but Tolstoy has a wit that had me emitting a loud HA! on more than one occasion. And I did really appreciate the character of Levin. Though his thoughts do get him in a bad way, I do appreciate his searching for answers that takes us all the way to the novel's conclusion.

The book is a long haul, but one worth getting through. I'm sure that I'll feel its influence for some time.

Counting this as my Russia book around the world.

This was looooong, and it sure felt long. I really enjoyed it in the end, and found Katya, her sister, and Lenin to be my most preferred characters. The POV changes so often I found it hard to stay interested, but overall I can appreciate the book for what it is and I cared about some of the characters.

What really made me like this book was all the political discussions about class and gender and the frequency in those discussions happened. Also..the scene with Katya and Lenin's brother? So good. Such a good beautiful scene in which Katya showed her strength in such a touching way.

I heard it called the world's best known soap opera. I heard it called the world's greatest novel.

It's the world's greatest novel.

It's a brilliant intertwining of characters, characters who are as fully human as you can ever get on the page. There is Dolly Oblonsky, a matronly wife who has lost her husband's affections and doesn't know why and doesn't know what to do. There's her husband, Stiva Oblonsky, the womanizing yet charming fellow who can't stop flirting with women and can't manage money. There is Kitty Alexandrovna, the woman at the height of her beauty who is intrigued with the easily-bored Count Alexei Vronsky. There is Konstantin Levin, a country farmer, confused about life, estranged from religion, and deeply taken with the young Kitty. There is Alexei Karenin, the dutiful husband who seeks guidance about what is right. And there is Anna Karenina herself, the title character, who is swept up in a mad romance with Count Vronsky, and has to deal with the consequences, a situation where no move is a happy one for herself or for anyone else.

I was especially taken with Konstantin Levin and his anguished search for truth and happiness, in his work relations with others, in the choosing of his wife, in his philosophy of life. I will never forget the final paragraph of this book, a paragraph that deeply resonates with me, lines from Levin as he finally is able to put together everything he has learned into a wonderful personal philosophy of life:

“I shall go on in the same way, losing my temper with Ivan the coachman, falling into angry discussions, expressing my opinions tactlessly; there will be still the same wall between the holy of holies of my soul and other people, even my wife; I shall still go on scolding her for my own fright and being remorseful for it; I shall still be as unable to understand with my reason why I pray, and I shall still go on praying; but my life now, my whole life apart from anything that can happen to me, every minute of it is no more meaningless, as it was before, but it has the positive meaning of goodness, which I have the power to put into it.”

I can see that I am going to be pushing everyone I meet to read this book. I apologize in advance. It's, after all, over eight hundred pages. But it's worth it. It's definitely worth it.

istentelenül pocsék lett kb. a felétől.

הכריחו אותי ללמוד את היצירה האדירה הזו בלימודי רוסית לבגרות 5 יח”ל אי שם באמצע שנות התשעים. כצפוי כמו כל שאר היצירות שלמדתי אז גם זו הפכה שנואה עליי ולקח שנים ארוכות עד שהמחשבה לקרוא את הרומן רחב היריעה הזה מרצוני החופשי חזרה אליי .( הקטעים ששיעממו אותי בגיל 17 היו בין הקטעים שפחות נהניתי מהם גם עכשיו. ההבדל הוא ששאר 97% מהספר לגמרי פיצו על כך הפעם)

אין דרך להמנע מקלישאות כנראה, אבל “אנה קרנינה” הוא פשוט ספר מדהים. עם תיאורים על מה מתרחש בנפש פנימה שהם מעמיקים ומדויקים להדהים ובמיוחד לאותה תקופה בה כלל לא דיברו על דברים שכאלה.
טולסטוי מדייק בתיאורי אהבה, התאהבות, רגעים בינו לבינה ובין הורים לילדיהם, כולל משפט מדויק לרמת שחזור ההרגשה המתאר את האם המניקה , שמי בכלל חשב שגבר בסוף המאה ה19 מסוגל להבין ולדעת בכאלה דברים.

Versi ini susah betul dibaca. Pertama: karena ceritanya betul-betul diperas sampai-sampai nuansanya jadi hilang semua. Kedua: terjemahannya kurang enak diikuti, kurang mengalir.

Sebaiknya baca bahasa Inggrisnya saja atau yang terbitan KPG. Semoga nanti bisa kalau ada waktu (dan duit).

'..a 2007 poll of 125 contemporary authors in Time, which declared that Anna Karenina is the “greatest book ever written.”‘

Still just a romance. Ana loves Bob. Bob loves Maria. Maria loves Pedro. Pedro loves Ana. This is the crux of the book. If this is interesting to you, go right ahead and read it.

4:07/35:26 12%

A FUCKING CLASSIC
You should read it and think about the topics and debates of the XIX Century and the big debate about love, and find out what really matters in love.
Tolstoi is amazing when it comes to show you the emotions, and his a master whit his dialogues and situations that describe 19th Century Russia. Also, notice the incredible detail when it comes to describing the countryside( after all Tolstoi lived in the countryside a part of his life)

I expected this to be better because of the hype... Still solid, but I think it could have been cut down.

Haven't read anything more ponderous than Anna Karenina. But the only thing that tired me was my Kindle constantly telling me how many hours were remaining in the book.

Anna Karenina, in originale “Aнна Каренина” è un romanzo di Lev Tolstoj che fu pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1877. Tolstoj vedeva in questo libro, considerato un capolavoro del realismo, il suo primo vero romanzo. La storia apparve inizialmente a puntate su un periodico a partire dal 1875, ma nel 1877 gli venne pubblicato solo un sunto di poche righe della fine del romanzo e Tolstoj, che lì aveva preso delle posizioni antinazionaliste, fu costretto a far pubblicare a proprie spese e separatamente l'ottava parte. Per la stesura di Anna Karenina egli trasse ispirazione da una raccolta di racconti dello scrittore Puškin. Sebbene la maggior parte della critica russa stroncasse il romanzo fin dalla prima pubblicazione, definendolo «un romanzo frivolo dell'alta società», secondo Dostoevskij Anna Karenina era un'opera d'arte della perfezione... La sua opinione fu condivisa da Nabokov, che lo definì il capolavoro assoluto della letteratura del diciannovesimo secolo. Eppure, come accadde in molte altre circostanze durante il corso della sua vita, Tolstoj rinnegò il romanzo: nel 1881, in una lettera al critico Strasov, scrisse: “Quanto alla Karenina: io vi assicuro che per me quello schifo di romanzo non esiste più”.

In Anna Karenina vengono raccontate le vicende, viste in parallelo, dell'amore adulterino tra Anna e il giovane conte Akeksej Vronskij e del felice matrimonio tra Kitty e Levin. I personaggi del romanzo, decritti da un punto di vista psicologico ed introspettivo, sono tutti legati tra loro da vincoli di parentela e amicizia. La protagonista del romanzo, Anna, è sposata con l'ufficiale governativo Karenin, verso il quale nutre un sentimento di estraneità molto lontano dall'amore. La donna viene invitata a Mosca dal fratello Stepan Arkad'ič Oblonskij per tentare di convincere la moglie di lui, Dolly, a non lasciarlo dopo l'ennesimo tradimento. È proprio nella capitale russa che la giovane donna conosce Aleksej Vronskij, un seducente e fascinoso conte destinato a sconvolgerle la vita. Nel frattempo altri eventi si intrecciano nella fitta trama: scopriamo infatti che un amico di Stepan, Levin (alter ego dell'autore stesso), si sta recando a Mosca per chiedere la mano di Kitty, sorella minore di Dolly. La giovane donna è però innamorata proprio dell'affascinante Aleksej e, ignara della scintilla scoppiata tra il conte e Anna, spera sia lui a chiederle la mano. Determinata a non cadere in tentazione, Anna decide di tornare a San Pietroburgo dal marito e dal figlio, ma Aleksej non ha intenzione di lasciarsi scappare la donna di cui si è innamorato: dopo averla inseguita, le dichiara il proprio amore e tra i due si accende ben presto una travolgente passione che porterà Anna verso un tragico destino.

Il romanzo, ambientato nelle più alte classi sociali russe, approfondisce i temi dell'ipocrisia, della gelosia, della fede, della fedeltà, della famiglia, del matrimonio, della società, del progresso, del desiderio carnale e della passione, nonché il conflitto tra lo stile di vita agrario e quello urbano. Il tema fondamentale, tuttavia, è quello della colpa, anticipato dall'epigrafe tratta dal Deuteronomio: “A me spetta la vendetta, e sarò io a ricompensare”. Anna non è una dissoluta (come è invece Stiva, che Tolstoj però non punisce con il suicidio), ma una persona che, per amore, va al di là della propria morale: è per questo un personaggio che nasce tragico, con un destino che in qualche modo è già scritto. Piena d'angoscia, di sensi di colpa e di ossessioni, Anna condanna se stessa nel momento stesso in cui si innamora e in qualche modo si perde.

Cominciato nel 1873, il romanzo ha avuto varie riscritture, nelle quali il personaggio di Levin otteneva sempre più spazio. È stato completato nel 1877. Levin è spesso considerato un ritratto semi-autobiografico di Tolstoj, delle sue credenze, delle sue lotte e dei suoi eventi di vita.Inoltre, il primo nome di Tolstoj è “Lev”, e il cognome russo “Levin” significa “di Lev”.

In ogni caso, per quanto mi riguarda, ogni volta che leggo Tolstoj un senso di pace mi avvolge completamente. Se “Guerra e Pace” è un libro che punta i riflettori sull'anima dei personaggi e racconta tanto gli eventi storici, quanto quelli personali — chi l'avrà letto ricorderà i capitoli dedicati alle battaglie nella steppa e le vicende delle due famiglie messe in scena dall'autore —, “Anna Karenina” non è da meno. Tolstoj mette in scena un dramma che parte dalle infelicità delle famiglie protagoniste e tocca tutto lo spettro dei sentimenti che animano la cultura russa del 1800: “ogni famiglia infelice è infelice a modo suo.”

Tolstoj con la sua scrittura è in grado di rendere sensazionale anche l'azione o il dialogo più insignificante. E' facile ritrovare in ognuno di noi qualche particolare dei suoi personaggi: l'allegria di Stiva, la serietà di Karenin, la disperazione di Dolly, la fermezza di Kitty, le crisi di Levin, l'istintività e la grandezza di Vronskij, l'egoismo e il tormento di Anna, la dolcezza di Varienka; questo perché Tolstoj era una gran conoscitore di animi umani. La bravura di Tolstoj consiste proprio in questo: nel saper catapultare il lettore all'interno delle vicende narrate, ed è questo che mi accade ogni volta che leggo una sua opera.

I due amori così diversi di questo libro: quello di Anna e Vronskij che si fonda soltanto sull'amore carnale e al cui centro esiste solo l'io egoistico di Anna che non ha scrupoli ad abbondare tutto e tutti in nome di una felicità che si rivelerà falsa e quello di Kitty e Levin, sincero, reale e maturo, nato da un affetto spirituale iniziale, un amore che occupa anima e corpo, sono così agli antipodi ma così riportati fedelmente al lettore che non potrete non amarli entrambi.

Fin qui non volevo certo fare un'analisi completa di “Anna Karenina” - prima di tutto perché me ne mancano le basi e poi perché è un romanzo troppo ampio -, ma volevo farvi capire come questo romanzo sia complesso e completo, e appunto per questo di una bellezza rara. Sebbene non è sempre facile seguire Tolstoj in Anna Karenina lo è ancor di più in “Guerra e Pace” e dunque se siete alla prima lettura dello scrittore russo vi consiglio caldamente di partire da qui. L'ambientazione russa è come sempre spettacolare, i personaggi splendidi nella loro complessità, la trama perfetta.

Se non avete mai letto Tolstoj, avete solo bisogno di cominciare.

I definitely understand why this is repeatedly chosen as the best novel ever.

Two things struck me about the book. First, it is True in its depiction of the human condition, and therefore applicable and understandable even by those in different circumstances. The relationship between Anna and Vronsky, especially as shown clearly in part 7, was remarkably like the relationship I had with a friend. I was Vronsky, he was Anna. Nothing in external circumstances was alike at all. Two men, not lovers; but the personalities and the way they clashed, Anna's pain and internal monologues: I understood my former friend so much better by understanding Anna. As far as I know, my friend has not thrown himself under a train, and I pray he never does, thought it would not surprise me if he did. However, the anguish which got Anna to her climax and my friend to his are so similar in their fantastical inability to live in the world as it is.

Second, I loved the final section and am glad I read it. I have read a few reviewers who hated it, hated it, and who wrote that it was written under duress and that nobody should read it. I think maybe I now understand why those reviewer hated it so much, and I think they must be thorough-going materialists unable to deal with a differing point of view, as is so often the case. The account of Levin's ruminations and spiritual life speak to me. I am far more orthodox in my theology than he, but his process of reaching his particular accommodation is similar to mine–similar enough that I feel a close kinship with him.

A wonderful book! As with all good literature, I think I know the human condition, the whole world, and myself better for having read it.

No one is probably more upset by my three-star rating than I am. I love the Russian greats. I love epic novels. I love Tolstoy. And yet, despite Anna Karenina's status as a classic, this one only mildly worked for me.

First of all, the story is great. I love the drama. Whether it be Kitty and Vronsky, Anna and Karenin, Dolly and Oblonsky, Anna and Vronsky, Kitty and Levin, or Levin and Levin's ego, I was entertained by the constant building up and tearing down of relationships. And these characters are wonderful. Their lives aren't always the most exciting (though sometimes they are), but their internal dialogue really paints characters I want to know better.

I thought the foreshadowing was done exceptionally well, and though it was perhaps too evident what was going to happen in the end (it was the horse race that did it for me), the novel was not guilty of pandering to less observant readers. Further, some of the philosophical ramblings and moral considerations were entertaining and thought-provoking. Certainly it wouldn't be Tolstoy without them.

For me, Anna K. lacked direction and focus, however. I've read War & Peace. I knew to expect long scenes and longer ramblings. But even with its epic cast and wide setting, W&P was a more tightly focused novel.

This lack of focus is evident in the title. Shouldn't a book named Anna Kareninabe about Anna Karenina? But really, it's not. Sure, she's a central figure and probably her story is the most memorable of the stories in the novel, but she's not the most prominent character, nor is she necessarily the most well-drawn or interesting character.

The themes in Anna K. are strong and well-thought-out, yet Tolstoy's net is cast so wide that many of them slip right through. What is this novel about? Well, love obviously. As well as gender roles, family, compassion, and... well... other stuff. Lots of other stuff.

I think these themes would've come through clearer had Tolstoy spent less time theorizing and more time on the building of characters. The story of Anna and Vronsky, for instance, appears more as a slide show than as a complete story: here is where we met click this is our first date click this is us post-shag click. I never really get a complete sense of who the people are. I understand what motivates Anna, but I want to see her decisions played out. I want to better feel—no, I want to see her turmoil played out. This turmoil is evident, as I mentioned earlier, in the thoughts of the characters, but I want see it unleashed on stage. The reader gets a vision of this turmoil during what I'll call “the unraveling,” but I would've liked to have seen more of it earlier.

I've watched enough Russian films and read enough Russian stories to know that Russians do not like to be rushed. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but I have yet to encounter one. Any story that can be told in 45 minutes will probably be stretched to two hours in the hand of a Russian. That's fine. I can respect that. But in Anna Karenina, not only is Tolstoy taking his time to tell the story, but he's running around, letting his ADD get the best of him while telling the story.

It's a good story. If you haven't already read it, then you should. But it's possible (very possible) your mind will wander. If this wandering mind bothers you, just consider it an exercise in better understanding the author. And remember, not everything Tolstoy wrote was quite so digressive (long-winded, yes; but not without coherence).

Admittedly, I haven't read that much Russian literature before. I think I enjoyed the first part of the story more, and Anna's parts more than the Levin parts. Some of the Levin parts were a bit too slow going to the point that I got frustrated.
Okay, so the characters didn't appear that sympathetic at times, particularly Anna, but the book does give an insight into the Russian society of the time and in particular the hypocritical way Anna is treated - forced not only to live in as kind of semi-married stasis but also to be treated like a social pariah for loving Vronsky (who it seems is unaffected socially by the match).
Not an easy read and it's taken me months to finish it, but I'm glad I read it.

Loved this novel! Worth every minute spent on reading the 940 pages!

Hallelujah! I'm finished. Finally.

Glad I stuck it out and finished but now I know I am not a Tolstoy fan. Tolstoy's writing wanders all over the place with tangents. I admit there were a number of times I zoned out but kept going. It was like a soap opera. I still knew what was going on even if I missed an episode. And as if the all the tangents weren't enough, at one point, Tolstoy thought it was a brilliant idea to hear/read the dog's thoughts. Yes, the dog.

Thank god for Levin and Kitty - at least when she wasn't being a whiny, lovesick girl and he wasn't yapping about farming with the peasants. Without them I would have wanted to throw the whole book under the train with Anna.

With all the going-ons, there's a bit of a soap opera feel to the book. But of course, it's so much more than just a soap. Aside from the main story of adultry, there're plenty of musings about life, nature, etc. Not an easy book to get through and much perseverance is required.

How can one man understand so much about human nature and portray it so vividly and so beautifully? Tolstoy seems to have lived a thousand lives. Whether he is telling the thoughts of a mother as she gives birth, the reasonings of a man who is trying to find meaning in the conflicting worlds of science and religion, the anxious feelings of young lovers or, amusingly, the thoughts of a dog as it runs through the woods chasing birds in a hunt, the descriptions flow so effortlessly and incisively that I found myself laughing and crying and with goosebumps over and over as I read.

There is never a sense of hurry in the story–that the best way to read it was to enjoy the prose and let the plot unfold in its slow, meandering way without expecting it or anticipating it. It's a book that should be enjoyed with leisure and pondered over time.