Printable View
I just got through reading Tolstoy's book, Anna Kerenina, and I'm just completly confused. All of a sudden she throws herself under a train because her boyfriend treats her so badly! Has anyone read the book before? I have read some of Dostoyevsky's work and got it just fine. Can anyone tell me how you felt about Anna Kerenina.
Every interesting chapter was followed by two or three chapters of long, boring narratives. By the end of the book I was glad she threw herself under the train.
Quote:
I just got through reading Tolstoy's book, Anna Kerenina, and I'm just completly confused. All of a sudden she throws herself under a train because her boyfriend treats her so badly!
Put yourself in her shoes. She's not the type to have an affair - she's a woman of class. She gives up everything - her society, her son - for this guy, and all the time she's sweating with self-loathing. All she did was fall in love: she feels 'guilty and yet not to blame'.
And, yes, paranoia sets in. When she becomes convinced that Vronsky's going to leave her, where else can she turn? You're not supposed to like her, you're supposed to empathise with her - and I do.
Empathize with her? I wanted to slap her for being such a spineless wimp. I also wanted to slap Tolstoy for making me suffer through so many slooooow boring chapters to get to her big moment of abandonment for love. And then this big passion is presented as 'she falls off the couch'!!!! Like a fool I kept hanging in there hoping it would get better. After multiple chapters of her endless angst and whining her suicide was a relief!
Are you really ten years old? Sometimes it seems as if you're just a normal guy, secretly laughing your head off at our ignorant gullible replies... As if you're deliberately trying to talk like a ten year-old would...
*Conspiracy mode off*
This thought has crossed my mind also.
First, she was Anna Karenina.
And why she threw herself under the train? Well, Tolstoy was a great moralist. For him faithlessness was a horrible sin only death can expiate.
I haven't read the book (only "Resurrection" so far) but I have made a point to watch 3 different movie adaptations of Anna Karenina. My comments:
1. 1948 with Vivian Leigh. Hollywood meets Tolstoy. I felt it was an American love story, with only patronizing references to Russia. I guess Vivian Leigh was OK, but it didn't move me.
2. 1985 with Christopher Reeve and Jacqueline Bisset. I thought this was absolutely awful. I felt no emotion for anybody in this film. I wish Reeve had fallen in front of the train.
3. 1997 with Sophie Marceau. This one is beautiful. It was filmed in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The scenery is great and Marceau is stunning. And there were actually some Russian speaking parts! I was glad I sat through this one, I saw a lot of Russia and learned some things as well.
Having read Resurrection, I can see how adapting Tolstoy to film only tells part of the story. There is so much that is written that has nothing to do with moving the plot along, so why put it in the movie.
Вообще-то странно. По-моему ты лукавишь, что тебе понравился Достоевский :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ночь-проводник
:D Hello! I finished reading that novel about two months ago I think...I liked it personally. At first I thought it was really boring but I totally got the message and what Tolstoy was getting at. When you think about it, it's fairly obvious. She was a woman of high society trapped in a loveless marriage and fell in love by accident really. Leaving her son tormented her and the fact that she later gave birth to a baby girl didn't make things better. Vronsky was sick of her jealous rages and struggled to keep his so-called manliness. What was to be done? What I felt though, was extreme pity for Seryozha, her son...poor little boy! The message with Stiva was related to the fact that he was not managing his money correctly, Alexei Karenin was just a freak :?, and people like Princess Tverskaya were just traitors. They prented to be Anna's friends and when her position changed, they were not there to support her in her lonliness and sorrow. The most beautiful plot of all was *of course* Katya and Kostya's relationship. It was pure love and the fact that Konstantin experienced a sort of resurrection to God was just wow! I loved how Tolstoy managed to weave all of these different plots together into one *big!* story. :D Loved it! No wonder it's considered a classic...
Oh well might as well throw in my 2 kopecks.
I loved the way Tolstoy described characters and motivations. Admittedly he's already played his hand in the description of Oblonsky at the beginning, which is marvellous, but generally it was the characterisations that kept me going.
I also felt sort of cheated by Anna's suicide at the end, but I can't say that I found it unbelievable. Don't forget the world that these people lived in was very different to ours.
Btw princess - Karenin 'just a freak'? I don't think that's what Tolstoy was trying to say!
Preferred Crime and Punishment on the whole. :|
Sorry Waxwing about the "just a freak" part of my post...if I went into long descriptions for what Tolstoy was trying to say it would be too tiring to read. :oops: When I said that, I meant that the way into which he was pulled into the new mysticism by the Countess Lidya Ivanovna and her french friend was extremely bizarre. I also felt a bit of pity for him though. :cry: He was an intelligent, hardworking, honest man who never commited fornication, unlike Anna. The problem was that he wasn't a loving husband and was away too often. I also felt that he didn't particularly show affection towards his only son. I actually liked his character very much it was just in the religious aspect which I had a different opinion. I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me oh great Waxwing! :wink:
How could I not forgive you, beautiful принцесса ( or should that be княгина - maybe soon to be королева? :D ) ??
I thought something quite interesting about the book was the contrast between the two 'heroes' - one of them all heart and no head, the other all head and no heart. Of course, neither of them were really heroes in the end. Neither could save Anna
Oh stop it you got me crying now :cry: :cry: :cry:
:oops: What is the meaning of this word? I'm a beginner! :cry: Oh and don't cry! Not my intention...if you do then i'll start too! By the way...who do you think the two heroes were? Obviously Vronsky was one, the other was Konstantin no? So how could Kostya save Anna if they only met once? Also you said, "one of them all heart and no head, the other all head and no heart." The first one I take it the Count. The second Kostya because he was so intellectual. Here is where I disagree...I do think that he had a heart. He was very passionately in love with Katya. Do you remember that part where they're at the table and the way he proposes? I thought it was very romantic! :D I also believe that in the end it was he who turned out to be the true hero of the story. (Of course, you do know that Kostya was modeled after Tolstoy, which is a wee bit egotistical if you think about it.) Bye! :D
княгиняQuote:
Originally Posted by waxwing
принцесса (male form=принц ) - princess (the sovereign's daughter or other member of the royal family)Quote:
Originally Posted by amazon princess
княгиня (male form=князь) - princess (a title of a noblewoman, not necessarily from the royal family)
королева - a queen
My guess is that the hero "with head" was Karenin and "with heart" was Vronskiy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by amazon princess
Friendy understands me only too well :lol: