To start off, Anna Karenina was not only the best novel/work we’ve read this entire school year, but probably one of the best books I’ve ever read period. I have almost zero qualms over the book. Well, perhaps the length and seemingly pointless meandering of the plot, but hey, a good story with a super-long length can only mean more good right? (This logic corresponds with an equation from my Bible of Thought: “Fat people = More to love”)
Tolstoy impresses in the strangest way. His work proves interesting because of detail – detail being the kryptonite to every IB student who just wants to finish a book. After a good sitting and pondering, I figured out that the reason I liked his detail so much was that it wasn’t just detail in description of the five senses… it was also a painting of each character inside and out. The narrator does a thorough job at describing each character without taking sides, yet at the same time he adopts each personality and allows the reader to fully understand. No one is completely bad in the story, which makes reading rather difficult, but also more realistic. Everyone has his/her own opinions, motives, and prerogatives; there is no bad man behind the curtains cackling (if men are allowed to “cackle”) while bringing destruction unto the hero’s world.
In a sense, everyone and no one is a hero in Anna Karenina. Anna tries to do good, tries the best for her son, and remains honest to her feelings and priorities. She does not love her own daughter, however, remains truthful in her inability to do so and resolves not to pretend. She has her own justices and values. Constantine Levin lives a humble (simultaneously wealthy) life and proves philosophical – without the bombast. But time and time again, evidence shows that he is extremely sensitive, stubborn, and admittedly confused about his views. However, he acknowledges his faults and does try to better them. At first, Vronsky seems to be an antagonistic character because he is the rival of Levin for Kitty’s love. And in the end he leaves her devastated for another woman. But, as the story progresses, we often get a good view of the world to Vronsky, and eventually say, “He’s not such a bad guy after all. Faulty, but good natured and educated”. Soon enough, readers start liking every character (perhaps with the exception of Karenin, but you can’t really say that he was a bad man or “the bad guy”). With this appreciation of each character, I found it very stimulating (a pompous way to say “fun”) to read as the POVs changed from character to character. Moreover, there are small cliffhangers before many POV shifts, leaving the me (the reader) wanting to read more about Levin, yet not so engrossed in it that I cannot delve into Vronsky’s story again. It’s very artistic and strange how Tolstoy achieved such a balance, for an entire 700 freaking pages.
I don’t have too much to say about Anna Karenina due to the fact that I usually have more to say when I hate a book. But really, again, I’d like to say that this was a very very really good book. I just wish the reading schedule wasn’t so tight.
It seems hard that any reader can like someone like Karenin, but I do. Although he’s not emotional, and seems heartless, at least he’s a responsible, upstanding and honest man. That’s admirable enough. Also, being unemotional does have its benefits eh, Kevin?
I agree. I also think, compared with Oblonsky and Lvov, he is a good father to Serezha, especially considering the emotional pain Serezha evokes due to his connection with Anna. However, his weakness to Countess Lydia Ivanovna makes him slightly less respectable.