Michael Bunker discusses errors to avoid when reading Anna Karenina in order to better enjoy and understand the story. Find links to the books (E-book and Paperback) in the comments.
I think some classic literature should come with summarys that explain who characters are and what their roles are. It helped me a lot to have things explained in easier to understand language.
Thanks Michael for this Video , Anna Karenina is one of the best books I’ve ever read and I will certainly read it over and over , very passionate ... I’m a big fan of Russian Literature I consider it the best
This novel seems to be about types of relationships at a certain point in history and in a certain location-18th century Russia. However, if we remove these factors, we realize that Tolstoy was actually great at representing in fiction typical human relationships with all their drama and intricacies, which has made him, and this novel in particular, enduring.
I really thought Levin's thinking might be similar to that of the author because it was hinted at a lot of times.. example the reference to the "wildness"(Tolstoys were called wild), "rationality", "not being comfortable with social conventions", "having a life with purpose", etc. Only a person having crisp thoughts on such sensitive topics can write it so eloquently... Also Levin was the only character that I connected with soulfully... Thank you for confirming it😊. I will come here after reading the entire book. Edit: so completed reading it... ummm.. Well, to be frank, I was really disappointed with Anna. Like her decisions, rashness, etc. I was getting genuinely pissed as the chapters flew by. Eg: She abandons her son to go live with Vronsky, got obsessed with him and even her death. Every decision of hers was so naive and didn't seem to have any sign of forethought. I forced myself reading through the later chapters.
I guess the rash actions of Anna can be rooted to her natural rebellious character that can be seen in multiple, subtle occasions. More so, and especially, it's her response to the unnaturally high and superficial regard of her social cliques to her, before her act of adultery. And I guess one can add the fact that her marriage is too mundane to her liking that it is rather a farce to her, not only to the motive of their marriage but also to her husband, Alexey, in whom she felt irritated and, in some point, internally mocks his imperfections (like his squeaky voice).
It was a time of change in that respect. Even in the book itself the author describes a generational difference in views on arranged marriages and this reflects the growing romantic sensibilities. England is described as particularly liberal in the context of the the time.
One thing I didnt quite understand in the novel is why Anna wouldn't be allowed to legitimately re-marry after divorcing Karenin (if he actually divorced her). Even if she was the one who broke her marriage vows, why would her union with vronsky not be recognized? Was this because of a religious belief- that god would not accept a union that came out of sin- or a government law? And were men allowed to re-marry? Also, what did it mean when someone said anna didn't just break the law, she broke the rules?
All the divorce issues were managed by the Russian Orthodox church. People of both genders could divorce in the following cases: adultery, inability to have intercourse, if a spouse was convicted to exile in Siberia and all his/her property was to be ceased, in case of person's "absence" for more than 5 years, or if a spouse wanted to become a monk/nun (in this case there should be no young children in the family). For adultery, one would need at least 2-3 direct witnesses or an illegitimate child. Other evidences were considered very weak and not substantial. In general, opposite to many other countries, divorce legislation was getting stricter in the 19th century, not softer, which contradicted shifting cultural norms. Church agreed to introduce some changes in 1917 only, but as we know it was too late. At the end of the 19th century there were less than 1000 divorces per year for a country of 100mln Orthodox believers while up to 25% of children were born out of marriage. As for the second marriage, this process was regulated by civil legislation. Limitations and conditions: age (16 for girls, 18 for men, max age -80), mental health, guardian's approval, being under arrest, being a gulty side in a divorce case (That's why Anna would not be able to remarry), and bigamy.
You and I already spoke about this, but in case anyone else is curious. The Book club is defunct. The company hosting the site closed down. We are considering a Bunker Nation Book Club here on YT if people are interested.
I would say the novel was conceived from the start as a Realist work happening in the (then) current society. The last part makes a reference to a historical event that was just happening at the time Tolstoy was writing it; the Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878).
@@MichaelBunker May I ask if there is any particular reason? No disrespect. I just bought Anna Karenina today, and my copy is the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation. I'm just curious if there are translation differences, or any set reason you gravitate to the Constance Garnett translation. You seem very perspicacious, so I am wondering if my version may lack in any way.
I just did a little research at the time and it seemed that a lot of scholars believed it to be one of the best. After I'd read it a few times, I just kind of liked it so I've stuck with it. I'm sure the other translations are good too.
Yes it is a very eastern book, with extremely tedious sections on land reform, etc. Anyone with western sensibilities should read Flaubert's Madame Bovary instead.
