Anna Karenina has been a struggle but now having reached the midway point of the book it's picked up and has become an enjoyable reading experience. Anyway, this passage in particular strikes a chord in me... though I would change the attribution of savages to fanatics. A believer and a non-believer is the same thing when one is a fanatic of belief and the other a fanatic of non-belief. It's all so common.

from Part 5, Chapter 9:

I have met him. But he's a queer fish, and quite without breeding. You know, one of those uncouth new people one's so often coming across nowadays, One of those free-thinkers you know, who are reared d'emblee in theories of atheism, scepticism, and materialism. In former days," said Golenishtchev, not observing, or not willing to observe, that both Anna and Vronsky wanted to speak, "in former days the free-thinker was a man who had been brought up in ideas of religion, law, and morality, and only through conflict and struggle came to free-thought; but now there has sprung up a new type of born free-thinkers who grow up without even having heard of principles of morality or of religion, of the existence of authorities, who grow up directly in ideas of negation in everything, that is to say, savages.

Kevin wrote:Anna Karenina has been a struggle but now having reached the midway point of the book it's picked up and has become an enjoyable reading experience. Anyway, this passage in particular strikes a chord in me... though I would change the attribution of savages to fanatics. A believer and a non-believer is the same thing when one is a fanatic of belief and the other a fanatic of non-belief. It's all so common.

from Part 5, Chapter 9:

I have met him. But he's a queer fish, and quite without breeding. You know, one of those uncouth new people one's so often coming across nowadays, One of those free-thinkers you know, who are reared d'emblee in theories of atheism, scepticism, and materialism. In former days," said Golenishtchev, not observing, or not willing to observe, that both Anna and Vronsky wanted to speak, "in former days the free-thinker was a man who had been brought up in ideas of religion, law, and morality, and only through conflict and struggle came to free-thought; but now there has sprung up a new type of born free-thinkers who grow up without even having heard of principles of morality or of religion, of the existence of authorities, who grow up directly in ideas of negation in everything, that is to say, savages.

I recently finished reading Karenina with another book group. It is interesting how each era seems to think that the latest generation is completely going to the dogs. I enjoyed looking at the Russia of the era from Tolstoy's perspective.

The savages reference is actually to a particular type of non-believer. It refers to someone distinctly different than your typical old-school free-thinker. The old school free-thinker is a person who understands well the details of religion, law, and morality, so arrive at their free-thinking status as a more informed individual.

The new breed of free-thinker that the speaker mentions is a person who has only had access to the "disbelief" mentalities - skepticism/atheism/ect. Such a person may not be fanatical about their free-thought, but the position is still hard to justify, considering the lack of understanding of those topics which they reject. What sort of a person reject religion without first having a good understanding of morality?

Any ideology will have it's bandwagoners, parroting talking points without ever truly understanding the other side. Unless you're a scholar and passionate about learning a tremendous amount about the heated topics, you'll never be informed enough to justify taking sides. Most people here a very small handful of facts, then based on those facts(and youthful predispositions), they attach themselves emotionally to one of the sides. The rest of the information is filled in by bits and pieces, and more often than not it's rationalized to fit.

lindad_amato wrote:I recently finished reading Karenina with another book group.

I am confident now I'm going to finish it. I found it extremely hard trudging through the first half but from Part 4 through the midway point of Part 5, which is where I'm currently at I have enjoyed it quite a bit.

It is interesting how each era seems to think that the latest generation is completely going to the dogs.

They've been right, as far as I'm concerned! I think though that here it is a more specific, and narrower criticism built around the charge that a viewpoint critical of the established line of thought, brought about through doubt and struggle, has been institutionalized into a simple matter of sneering. I take it as an extension that it's the idea that it's not religion that causes extreme behavior, but fanaticism. It's the case being made that thinking, reduced to sloganeering, loses its credibility.

I enjoyed looking at the Russia of the era from Tolstoy's perspective.

I've read a few of his short stories and I concur with this statement!EDIT: Dostoyevsky is also excellent in this regard.

I had a hard time with the first part of the book as well. It seemed like it was just too boring and was not going anywhere. I realize that a clear understanding of the way things were at the time was necessary for readers to get the rest, but had to read further to see that point. It is a great piece of literature and no doubt Tolstoy is a great talent. We can see that the mores of the times are the cause of great suffering and pain. The writing conveys passion both positive and negative and it appears to say that either are very dangerous.

And for me it is a typical situation where women have no rights at all. While the men of this and many eras could wander around committing any acts they pleased while married with virtually no consequences, the women were at risk of being ostracized and worse. They were expected to stand around, dress well, be pretty and keep silent.

We abhore these times and say we are glad they are over. They are not over!!! Didn't we just all read about a wife that was stoned for unacceptable behavior in the Middle East? She was "owned" by her husband and he could make a decision to just kill her if he wanted to. We have gotten past that, but not every culture has.

I do believe that it is a clear portrayal of the times and the culture and that throughout we can each read what we know will be the result of actions based on the way the society is structured and how these rules must all be obeyed or the whole of it will crumble. Not something that these people are willing to happen. Is she not the most popular at one time, but is there anyone who will stand with her when she fails to meet the standard?

It is a clear indication of Tolstoy's viewpoint toward this type of society and his total disrespect for these people's values.

Casey2012 wrote:I had a hard time with the first part of the book as well. It seemed like it was just too boring and was not going anywhere. I realize that a clear understanding of the way things were at the time was necessary for readers to get the rest, but had to read further to see that point. It is a great piece of literature and no doubt Tolstoy is a great talent. We can see that the mores of the times are the cause of great suffering and pain. The writing conveys passion both positive and negative and it appears to say that either are very dangerous.

And for me it is a typical situation where women have no rights at all. While the men of this and many eras could wander around committing any acts they pleased while married with virtually no consequences, the women were at risk of being ostracized and worse. They were expected to stand around, dress well, be pretty and keep silent.

We abhore these times and say we are glad they are over. They are not over!!! Didn't we just all read about a wife that was stoned for unacceptable behavior in the Middle East? She was "owned" by her husband and he could make a decision to just kill her if he wanted to. We have gotten past that, but not every culture has.

I do believe that it is a clear portrayal of the times and the culture and that throughout we can each read what we know will be the result of actions based on the way the society is structured and how these rules must all be obeyed or the whole of it will crumble. Not something that these people are willing to happen. Is she not the most popular at one time, but is there anyone who will stand with her when she fails to meet the standard?

It is a clear indication of Tolstoy's viewpoint toward this type of society and his total disrespect for these people's values.

Thanks for the post. I am just beginning Part 7 of AK so my comments obviously are made with a very incomplete knowledge of the book. My knowledge of Tolstoy is even more incomplete. I do know he was disenchanted with society, was a follower of Jesus but rejected most of the Bible, and that he formed a commune. I agree with the notion that Tolstoy did not approve of the society he was living in, as I've already mentioned, but disrespect doesn't fit my impression of the man. I don't consider him to have been a rabble rouser or a bomb-thrower. I'm not sure he ever disrespected anyone or anything. I think he was more revolutionary than that, or at least belonged to a different type of revolutionary ideal. I can see, say, Dostoyevsky flipping someone off but not Tolstoy. He'd just walk on by.

As I said I haven't yet finished the book but thus far Vronsky has actually been faithful in every respect to Anna. I am thinking now of the scene in which Anna comes riding up on a horse to a visiting countess, and of course riding is not something that women were supposed to be doing. The countess is thinking to herself how natural Anna looks and presumably (or does it explicitely say it?) that it's a silly notion that prevents them from doing so all the time. I am thinking too that Vronsky knows of Anna's activities and thus approves of it, or at least that he hasn't thrown a fit over it. I'm beginning to think of Vronsky as being something of an Oskar Schindler - not a lot of apparent admirable qualities but given the opportunity he shines brightly. But now I'm thtinking that he too forsakes Anna... well I'll see.

Kevin, yes I did use the word "disrepect" inapproriately. He was a very respectful individual and yes I think he was more disappointed in his times than anything else. It comes out very clearly in his books and writings.

This whole women riding deal throughout history. What a jumble. Times it was okay, times it was expected in society (the hunt). Women rode side saddle if they were respectable. Parted skirts so they could get onto the horse and keep their dignity. Those saddles are ridiculous and dangerous and so was all that material!!!

Seems the rule or custom varied rather than evolved. There were times when it was okay and then times it was not and then times it was again. Go figure. There is probably a book on it, but I don't think I am that interested.

However, a time that did interest me was Tudor England. Henry VIII (of course when he was younger and fit) rode out and spent days hunting. But so did Elizabeth. He had birds of prey to hunt as well as other weapons, but I think she stuck to birds of prey and perhaps I remember reading she used a cross-bow, can't recall. It seems that most women rode a bit more sedately then, but after all she was queen.

A tangent!!! Vronsky. Well I made the mistake of seeing several versions of the book on film, so I tended to put a face to him from these examples. And then I am looking at him from the perspective of today's standards so I think he was first a player and then wimped out. But even then and in those times it is difficult to justify his actions. It was not like a lady then to actually throw herself on a man, especially if she was married. And although the husband was a complete jerk and cold as ice, well that was not unusual. And women could take lovers, if quietly.

Tolstoy wrote in so much passion though, as if these two could not help themselves from creating a public scandal and displaying their feelings all over the place. This escalation of what appeared in public to be fine to the scandalous behavior and then the eventual tragedy, well I just think that was far more drama than these situations involved. I am a bit cynical though.

And talk about friends who just don't stand by a person when the times get tough!!!!

As to her husband, not many even today would be accepting of their spouse having an affair, especially where there was clearly more interest and passion in this relationship than in the marriage. There are certainly instances today where a woman or a man would have a fit and even go to court to retain a child if they felt their spouse was not fit. The difference of course is that women were owned by men, so Anna did not even have a right to visit her child and she was totally shunned and tormented.

It seems that the whole thing had such an inevitably about it that one who reads it wants to say to Anna "no stop don't do this" as the reader can see how it is all going to end.

It is great literature and that is not in doubt, and that is more evident than anything in the characters' human failings and disappointments that are infused with Tolstoy's own. I did really enjoy the book.

I'v been reading this thread and it has inspired me to give "Anna Karenina" a second chance. I got more than half way through it and just had to cry uncle because I found it unbearably boring. However I may have to blame it on the translation. Could you guys reccomend the best translation of AK? Can't say what I was reading, I donated it to the library but it had a black and white picture of train tracks on the cover.

Thanks

Suzanne wrote:boring. However I may have to blame it on the translation.

Reminds me of when I read Tolstoy's War and Peace in 1993. I was living on weekends in Sydney and working in Canberra, catching the bus back and forth each week, and avidly devouring this wonderful epic of the Napoleonic War. When I got almost to the end, enchanted, I sadly left my beautiful old edition of the Maude translation on the bus, in a fit of absentitis. No matter I thought, I went to the library and got another copy, but alack and alay! found the translation unreadable. I had to hunt down the Maude translation in order to finish reading the book.

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

The version I'm reading is a paperback Airmont Classics published in 1966 and translated by Constance Garnett. I don't know how it stacks up to other versions. What I can say though is that this is probably the earliest book I can recall, as the cover is pretty much in my earliest memories. It's quite raggedy now, though the covers are still hanging on, and even though the pages are turning yellow they are of a fairly high quality and are still in decent condition. The book has an initial selling price of 95 cents. It's a different version (or at least different cover) than the one you were reading since it shows Anna and Vronsky in the forefront with Alexey in the background, all awash in a sea of pastel colors. There is a name and a room number written on the inside cover and this confirms my suspicion of it being my grandmother's book as "Room 269" can only reasonably refer to a school room number. My grandmother was a teacher. Anyway, yes give it a shot! The second half of the book I've found to be more enjoyable than the first.