Anna Karenina: Leo Tolstoy

As a graduate of Russian, I've often felt a bit embarrassed by the fact I have never read Tolstoy, and Anna Karenina is definitely one of those books that you intend to read but never quite pluck up the courage to tackle. Well dear readers, I have finally been brave enough to plough though it (and please pardon the pun, those of you who have already endured the endless farming philosophy within this book!) and I can safely say I am very glad I got there in the end.Anna Karenina is a sweeping novel that follows the lives of several characters - the beautiful, fascinating Anna, her dull husband Karenin, her rogue but lovable brother Oblonsky and his long-suffering wife Dolly, Dolly's sweet sister Kitty, Oblonsky's thoughtful friend Levin, and of course the irresistible Count Alexei Vronsky... We follow them all as their lives weave in and out of each other, understanding their loves, daily business and fears. The main draw of the novel is naturally the passionate affair between Anna and Vronsky, but the novel is wider than this in its exploration, taking the reader on a journey through 19th century Russian society where we learn the strict social decorum of the time and what happens when you go against it. In parallel to the tragedy that unfolds for Anna, we follow in depth Levin's voyage to reform farming techniques on his estates and improve the lives of his peasant workers (be warned - there is a LOT on this, and some of it is pretty dry if farming isn't really your thing) as well as his heartwarming courtship of Kitty.I have to admit to skim reading some bits of the book (the sections where Levin was debating farming and countryside politics with himself or others) but all in all they don't detract from the real beauty of the novel. This is hailed as one of the earliest instances of literary realism, and now I know why - I felt like I was living alongside these characters, and every little detail got under my skin. I agree with some other reviewers that Anna is an annoying character, and I was not that surprised that Tolstoy finally abandoned her rather viciously a section before the end, but at the same time I pitied her despair and how stifling the society of that time must have been to live in with all its rules and etiquette. It's a shame really that Tolstoy uses the novel as a vehicle for a lot of his own ideas and philosophies, and that the novel kind of trails to an end without tying up all the loose ends. However it still remains a remarkable novel and well worth the effort to read.A note on the translation - I started reading the free Kindle download (that had been typed by teams of volunteers, apparently) because I was daunted by the size of the novel, but the translation and edition were awful (no disrespect to those volunteers, but I can't stand spelling mistakes and typos when I am reading a book.) After digging around I heard the Pevear and Volokhonsky version was the best so I gave in and bought the paperback. I am really glad I did. Their translation was impeccable and a joy to read.

This novel is well known, reviewed and analysed many times, so these are just a few observations in no particular order and on the assumption that is a fine book.The actress who plays Anna in the most recent film version thought that Tolstoy hated Anna. I don't think he did, but she does become increasingly irritating as the novel goes on. She fears that Vronsky will stop loving her and, in the process, turn his attention elsewhere. She fears this so much that she makes this outcome more likely, driving herself towards insanity. Her suicide is the method by which she punishes him for his perceived lack of love and attention, and it works. But her self-absorption is increasingly tedious, as it would be in anyone else.It is clear that in that time, in Russia, living in sin was relatively easy for the man and very difficult for the woman, who could not appear at social gatherings and, if she did, was likely to be snubbed. The hypocrisy here is obvious, and well brought out by Tolstoy. It means that Vronsky can get out and about as he always has, enjoying life outside the home, while Anna is trapped.In this novel, though, the situation is complicated by the fact that Vronsky isn't married while Anna is. So when it comes to the arithmetic of sin, Anna comes out worse. It is also complicated by the fact that while Vronsky wants to marry Anna, she is no hurry to get divorced, the problem for her being access to her son. So Vronsky wants to do `the right thing' and Anna makes it difficult.Of the many other characters, the one who stands out most is Levin. A few chapters in, I began to suspect that Levin was Tolstoy in disguise. Knowing little of Tolstoy's life, I checked online. It seems that Levin does articulate much of Tolstoy's thinking, for example, when it comes to the Russian peasantry. But the development of Levin as a character is strange. He marries a woman he loves, they have a child and what does he do? - he becomes increasingly depressed (though not in the clinical sense) because he cannot answer the question, what's it all about? And this troubles him so much he contemplates suicide.As this character has been portrayed throughout most of the book, anyone less likely to commit suicide - even as the logical solution to an intellectual problem - would be hard to imagine. But it may be that Tolstoy himself had this experience. In the end, Levin believes he has solved his problem, though it seems a bit woolly to me. I read that the editor of the magazine in which the book first appeared in instalments refused to accept this ending, something which Tolstoy remedied in the first edition of the book as a single volume with the conclusion we have today.I have never encountered so many princes and princesses. They are much given to speaking in foreign languages, particularly French and English. They use French most, as a way of discussing their affairs in the presence of the servants yet keeping them private. They also use German on occasion, most often in connection with mechanical matters such as farm equipment, though German philosophers are mentioned too.And then there is hunting, which is described because it takes place. One hunt in particular is described at great length. It wasn't a good move to be a snipe, a grouse or a bear in these parts. There is no attempt to analyse hunting, so the impression given is that it's fine for these ostensibly God-fearing folk to bump off large numbers of God's creatures.Lastly, the book appeared in instalments over four years. This is one reason why it so long. It didn't have to be. States of mind are often described at great length, the author giving us access to the characters' thoughts in direct speech. I felt this was overdone. How do we know a person? By his actions and his words. Tolstoy gives us this, of course, but there are too many pages devoted to creating the character by analysis and giving it to us on a plate.