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.
Leo? Is that you?
He's name was Lev
beso berdzenishvili hahahahahaha dude that’s hilarious
Its Lev
@@alex_xela4447 which means lion or leo in russian
The way you explained this all is just incomparable and very mesmerizing
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.
You can find those easily online
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
Hi Michael, nice to see you again! And Anna Karenina - yes, it’s great.
Oh yes, you know me as Ludovika.
Hello, Ludovika!!
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 started reading today. I am excited to see why is it such a classic of world litterature.
Krunoslav Kovacec how was it?
Started reading Anna Karenina recently and made a lot of errors.
Excellent analysis, thank you.
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights and the cautionary commentary for the cautionary tale :)
If I had got to go to Oxford, I expected someone like Mr. Bunker to have been the Literature tutor!
I'm reading this book next...after I recover from War and peace (it is so perfect and I may never recover lol)
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).
more classic literature content pleeeease 😫🤩
Sure thing! Make some book suggestions.
Thanks a lot for those tips sir , it helped me having a clearer opinion about this book !
I loved this video! Thank you
awesome ✍️
Also was Anna Karinina written in the time where marriage was more about alliances and business than love?
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.
Marriage is still a contract.
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.
i tried going to the website. Has it been taken down or made inactive?
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.
When do you think the story takes place? Does it happen about the same time Tolstoy was writing it?
I think it supposed to be that way. It seems right.
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).
What is your preferred translation?
I like the Constance Garnett translation, and it is the one I read the most often.
@@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.
@@MichaelBunker Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it.
how about... one on "fathers and sons - turgenev" sometime? 🤓🙏🏻
Love it! One of my favorite books. Will definitely do that.
Are you leo Tolstoy?
interesting, thanks...
Love it.. some great points.
.. is thirdscribe officially finished now?
This just popped into my recommendations!
I think the novel considered the greatest novel ever written is 'Don Quixote'.
tolstoy didn't write in a squeaky chair...
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.
Why not widen your experience of different mindsets? Why only stick to things that confirm your pre-existing sentiments?
It is NOT an eastern book. It is firmly at the forefront of the novel in the western tradition, even if it comes from Russia.