Category: Anna Karenina

In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy’s novel of conflicted romances, Vronsky, Karenin, and Anna tries to break free from the social atmosphere of the 1800’s Russia to attain a love that is not accepted by the public. Things considered “normal” by society turn into a way of life, and those who do not accept these rules often find themselves lost, excluded, and even abandoned by their peers. This immense pressure can affect a person’s thoughts and actions tremendously as they feel forced to act with the societal norms. Although the beauty and grace of Anna seem to place her above her detesting society, her peers’ skewed judgments and sexist expectations influence nearly every aspect of her life, ultimately leading to the loss of her social standing and the demise of her affair with Vronsky. The society also imposes an effect on the marriage between Karenin and Anna. With their marriage growing apart due to Anna’s affair, their high social standings are only hanging by a thread. It would be humiliating if society found out that they have a failing marriage. Thus, Anna is unable to be with the person she loves and has to uphold a public image that she herself no longer wants. Due to the pressures placed upon them by society, Anna and Karenin must lead their lives of either falsehood or persecution. By demonstrating the impossibility of maintaining a relationship simply by love, Anna Karenina emphasizes the unavoidable implications of social class on the life and happiness of an individual.

Society foists its opinions and expectations on both the lives and relationships of Vronsky and Anna. In the article “Keeping Secrets in Anna Karenina,” Mary Ann Mefi expresses that “from the start, Anna and her brother Stiva Oblonsky are associated with a tendency to let the outer world mold them in a way which prohibits the inner life from flowing into consciousness and becoming their main motivator” (Mefi). These two characters are greatly influenced by their societies. Instead of living for their own desires, their actions are primarily shaped by the people around them. Tolstoy uses Oblonsky as an example of this influence as he “adhered firmly to the view of the majority” (Tolstoy 19) on all subjects, and his opinions went along with the public view. In spite of the fact that Oblonsky had an affair, he is not shunned by his actions, as affairs with men do not go against the accepted status quo for men. The notion of the contrast in treatment based on gender is evident throughout the novel. Oblonsky’s peers perceive him in the same dignified status before and after the affair. Vronsky, who is also considered a sociable individual, also does not receive any penalty for his affair. Other men, upon learning of Vronsky’s relationship, commend him for “the exalted position of Karenin, and the consequent publicity of their connection os society” (Tolstoy 162). He is idolized for his love affair as he took the wife of a high-seated man in society.

Though her lover is idolized for his love affair, Anna, because of her high role in society, becomes the subject of public scrutiny. After the news of Anna’s affair begins to spread, “The greater number of the young women, who envied Anna and had long been weary of hearing her called virtuous, rejoiced at the fulfillment of their predictions and were only waiting for a decisive turn in public opinion to fall upon her with all the weight of their scorn” (Tolstoy 162). The assets and substance of her character do not seem to influence Anna’s position in society as her peers are willing to alter their view of her when the opportunity presents itself (Roberts). Social Reputations are ??? concepts that rely mainly on the way society views an individual rather than the personality and behavior of an individual. Anna is treated poorly for loving someone, which manifests the hypocrisy of society in its treatment of women and men for parallel actions.

Societal pressure impacts Anna’s relationship with her husband, Karenin. Upon learning of her affair, Karenin proclaims that he will disregard it “so long as [his] name is not disgraced…and that only in the event of your compromising me shall I be obliged to take steps to secure my honor.” (Tolstoy 297). Karenin states that he would rather have a troubled marriage than confess to Anna’s affair as his social status is more valuable to him than his relationship. As stated by Henry Pickford in the Tolstoy Studies Journal, Karenin is not troubled that Anna is cheating on him as he is his marriage was not for happiness, but simply due to the fact that it is discerned as necessary by society (Pickford). Thus, Anna is unable to be with the person she loves and has to uphold a public image that she herself no longer wants. Because of the pressure laid upon them from society, Karenin and Anna must lead lives of either falsehood or persecution.

After pursuing their affair, the inhibition of their public images becomes so prominent in their daily lives that Vronsky and Anna attempt to escape to Italy. In spite of being in a different country, Vronsky and Anna only affiliate with Russian people and quickly become disdained by their surroundings: “The palazzo suddenly seemed so obtrusively old and dirty, the spots on the curtains, the cracks in the floor, the broken plaster on the cornices became so disagreeable obvious… that they had to make some change” (Tolstoy 444). Vronsky and Anna’s escape could not last because the Italian environment is not adequate for them due to the exorbitant Russian social conditioning. In no environment are they able to find peace; thus they are unable to extricate themselves from the influence of their social circles. Tolstoy uses imagery in this setting to highlight these cultural pressures. While in Italy, Vronsky and Anna meet a Russian painter and request a portrait of Anna upon seeing his skill. Once the painting was completed, Vronsky was astonished that the painter had encapsulated Anna’s signature beauty: “One needs to know and love her as I have loved her to discover the very sweetest expression of her soul” (Tolstoy 442). However, the narrator states, “it was only from this portrait that Vronsky had himself learned this sweetest expression of her soul. But the expression was so true that he, and others too, fancied they had long known it” (Tolstoy 442). The social perspective that Anna is perceived from, as well as this painting, establishes an unreachable ideal of beauty that does not exist. Despite the fact that Vronsky feels as though he has known this idea of her, his finding of this “characteristic beauty” (Tolstoy 442) is established simply because it is placed in front of him. Although starting positively, in which their reputations precede them, the critical eye on Vronsky and Anna becomes a negative outlook.

Screen adaptations of literary works have always been a popular film genre throughout the world and some of the greatest films have been based on famous literary pieces, most commonly novels. The most common debates or discussions that could have been occurred during that were about the notions of a specificity and fidelity. Specificity is when literature and film have individual material and formal structures that distinguish and differentiate them from other practices, whilst, fidelity is notion that measures the extent to which a work of literature has been accurately recreated as a movie.

Emphasizing the textual specificity of literature and film clearly complicates. The aim is to faithfully adapt a book as a movie, since it implies a translation between languages that will always be only approximate of the original text. Mediating the grounds between specificity and fidelity, moreover, are the different industrial and commercial structures that reinforce the textual differences dividing a literary work and its filmic adaptation, such as the technologies of production which are for example print compared to moving images and the mechanisms of reception, for example reading versus viewing. To the degree that a film is faithful or not to the textual specificity of a literary work (the narrative voice and textual style, as well as characters, settings, and plots) or to the so-called spirit of that original, cinematic adaptations will always measure both the power of film – to assimilate, to transform, to distort, or to overcome – the specifics of that source material.

While most of casual responses to film adaptations usually call upon some notion of specificity and fidelity, where the movie rarely able to do justice to the book for most viewers, the most important film scholars and critics of the twentieth century have also taken strong positions around these terms, frequently as a way of defending the power and art of cinema.

In the ex-Soviet Union and in Russia a special attention has been accorded to Russian classics of the XIX century by such authors as Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoevskij, Lermontov, Chekhov. One of the main characteristics of most of these adaptations was their fidelity to the source material. The films thereby provided loyal cinematic illustrations of the well-known literary works. The tradition of screen adaptations continues into the last decades of the Soviet State and into the post-Soviet age. The 90s see several adaptations, which, differently from the previous periods, update their XIX century subject matter to modern Russia, proving that old texts can say something that has a meaning about Russia even hundred years later. In the last two decades, the adaptations of Russian classics of the XIX and XX centuries have moved from cinema screens to TV screens.

With more than 30 cinematic adaptations produced through the years, Anna Karenina is undeniably a favorite of world screen media. The first silent adaptation of the novel appeared in 1911, just one year after Tolstoy’s death, while the last one was released by Joe Wright in 2012. In the interim, numerous other versions have been produced.

First let us analyse the adaptation of Aleksander Zakhir on Leo Tolstoy’s novel “Anna Karenina”. This adaptation is the most famous one, moreover, the most celebrated one of Tolstoy’s novel in Russia. The film stars some of the most popular Soviet actors of those times. Furthermore, the role for countess Betsy Tverskaya played world-known Russian ballerina Maya Plisetskaya. The main and the lead role for Anna Karenina played Tatyana Samoylova, who is the perfect actress for Anna and gained the sympathy of audience of many Russians. The soundtrack for the film was written by a famous Russian composer Rodion Schedrin.

As mentioned by the associate Professor at The Ohio State University, Alexander Burry, who is also an author of Multi-Mediated Dostoevski (transporting novels into Opera, Film or Drama), nearly all directors simply reduce the novel to the Anna plot, ignoring or minimizing Levin. However, Zarkhi, tried to incorporate Levin more fully into the film. Nevertheless, doing so results in what could best be termed a collection of scenes from “Anna Karenina”. In the movie, we can see how one part quickly moves to the next part, which including in each just the main lines of dialogue and making quick, frequent, and jarring cuts. An example of this is opening scene, with the conversation of Stiva and Dolly about the unfaithfulness, which is then followed by the discussion with Levin about Kitty. All this was made without any transition. The film also draws together various threads of the novel in the scene when Anna meets Levin. During their conversation, her comments on her desperate need for love intersect with Levin’s own suicidal thoughts, along with the narrator’s more general commentary on marital relations. Viewers may not find this comparison effective, however, it is a valiant attempt to make the film about Levin as well as Anna.

Besides its great casting, acting and the camera works this adaptation has other parts to like, such as the music who was written with the leading Soviet and post-Soviet composer Rodion Shchedrin. Here in this film the music creates connection between the scenes, and this happened sometimes with the help of motifs. The clarinet theme, which was a little bit strange, is followed by a staccato motif in the trumpets in the train station scene when Anna passes Vronsky. This same scene appears again when Anna sees Vronsky at the Shcherbatskys’, however, this time music was with the strings. This music, along with the parallel shots of Anna standing on stairs above Vronsky, links the two unexpected meetings.

Then it comes the Ball scene with the waltz which is seemed to be cheerful, however, as the music becomes tempo and dissonance, it quickly transforms to something which is terrifying. The ball in the film rationalizes the action from the equivalent scene in the novel, but Shchedrin’s music faithfully preserves the essential sense of discontinuity that is the keynote of the scene as read (Kitty and Vronsky starting their dance as the music stops, or Kitty somehow “hearing” Anna and Vronsky’s conversation): by being neither a realistic representation of the music actually played at the ball, nor an expressionistic portrayal of Kitty’s emotional state, but something in between, it perfectly mirrors Tolstoy’s free indirect discourse, his subliminal imitation.

Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina realistically portrays a socially and psychologically incarcerated female protagonist in her marriage in 19th century Russia. Although she ends her marriage, she forces herself into a seemingly loving relationship with Vronsky, her lover. However, the relationship of Anna Karenina and Vronsky showcases the polarization between the distinct gender roles in society. Although considered humdrum, the steeplechase scene symbolizes the rigid gender roles and male authority found within structures of Imperial Russia in the 19th century.

The setting of the scene further associates sports as being male-dominated and allows Tolstoy to establish the type of authority men have in Russian society. Horse-racing in nineteenth-century Imperial Russia was dominated by men as it was illegal for women to participate. During the steeplechase scene, Tolstoy showcases this distinction by contrasting the stagnant female characters to the male characters that are racing. The setting of a race-track also emphasizes dominance and cruelty to animals as we see Vronsky’s treatment of his horse, Frou Frou. The normalized violence and mistreatment of animals are also apparent in scenes where the men are hunting. For example, with Velosky and his hunt with Levin, we see his abuse and overworking of his dogs and horses. Tolstoy almost suggests that with every male-dominated sport shown there seems to be a sort of sadistic impulse underlying the motivation of the men in Anna Karenina.

Vronsky’s reluctance to take into consideration his actions towards Frou Frou showcases male irresponsibility and authoritarian control. When we first start the scene, Vronsky is told by Cord, Frou Frou’s trainer, “Don’t be in a hurry and remember one thing: don’t hold her in at the fences, and don’t urge her on; let her go as she likes.” (Tolstoy 182). Vronsky, of course, doesn’t obey the rules given by the trainer and throughout the race, he insists on applying pressure to Frou Frou’s veins and trying to control her movements. We see Vronsky “holding in the mare with all his force as she tugged at the bridle.”(Tolstoy 183) Another indication of Vronsky’s assertive force can be seen in how Vronsky “saw the uncertainty in the mare’s ears and lifted the whip, but at the same time felt that his fears were groundless.”(Tolstoy 185). In this case, Vronsky is seen as the one in authority while Frou Frou can be seen as a victim in this situation. Her underlying movements can all be seen to support Vronsky and the race. But in the end, she is deemed useless to Vronsky drives her to her death. Her submission rather than fighting back at Vronsky when he is tugging at her veins shows reinforces the structure of authority. In fact, Frou Frou indicates that she knows what Vronsky wants her to do in order to win this race: “Just at the same moment, Vronsky thought Makhotin now had to be passed, Frou-Frou herself…put on a substantial burst of speed and began closing in on Makhotin.” (Tolstoy 184). Frou Frou is stuck in the grasp of Vronsky as her life depends on it. Winning the race becomes a mission for her as it determines whether she lives or dies.

When Frou Frou falls, Vronsky is unaware of her injury and he assumes that if he exercises more force, she will get back up again and win the race for him. “Still unable to realize what happened, Vronsky tugged at his mare’s reigns. Again, she struggled all over like a fish. Vronsky kicked her with his heel in the stomach and again fell to tugging at the rein.”(Tolstoy 186). His tendency to go straight to violence when dealing with issues, signify the abuse and violence that men have on women in society. Not only does he not care for Frou Frou’s injury, but his mind is also all focused on the race. His first reaction when he sees the injured mare is “The race is lost!” (Tolstoy 186) There is no sorrow or pity for the horse but rather Vronsky almost views the horse as some sort of object that can be used at his expense. This mentality reinforces such structures and provides further victimization and subordination of women and animals.

While Frou Frou has broken her back, Vronsky is completely fine. This can be seen as an allegory to the views of gender and double standard in Russian Society. While women are given the blame, the men are unscathed. We see this clearly in one of the main issues of the book, adultery. At the beginning of the novel, we are given the situation with Stephan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky committing adultery with the family’s governess. When Dolly and Anna chastise him for adultery, his reaction is not so much regret for his wrongdoing but rather regret at being caught. Despite his wrongdoing, Tolstoy does not depict him as a villainous character but rather a joyful and kind man. On the contrary, he represents an ordinary man in 19th century Europe. On the other hand, when Anna commits adultery, she is considered a fallen woman by society and completely shunned. She is depicted by Tolstoy as miserable and a woman that has run away from all her proper responsibilities as a woman and a mother. This drives her to the point of madness and even to her death, just like Frou Frou.

Due to Frou Frou’s mane being injured, she is no longer deemed useful to Vronsky anymore. This was then decided as Vronsky “could not answer any questions. He turned.. walked away from the race-course.” (Tolstoy 186) Vronsky had the chance to try to prevent the killing of Frou Frou but instead, he just walked off and decided not to intervene. This is a total contrast to how he intervened at the train station when the peasant was killed but he couldn’t do it for a mere animal that had lost him the race. The killing of Frou Frou was unnecessary but Vronsky’s action is a depiction of this sort of violence and cruelty that men had over women. Frou Frou is clearly aligned with the female consciousness and his chapter draws several connections to her and Anna Karenina. Not only is this chapter an allegory of Vronsky’s treatment of Anna and him driving her to her death, it is also an allegory of male authority. Death is not only seen as a symbol, but the very sport of a steeplechase race upholds the values of a patriarchal society. As men are only allowed to race, horses are put through cruelty and abuse, the normalization of killing an animal when it’s not of use. All these reinforce the structure of patriarchy in 19th century Imperial Russia.

The steeplechase scene is a prime example of a hierarchical society that depends on the physical and sexual abuse of women and animals. Nineteenth-Century Russian society men were dominant in the workplace, community, and government. This was not only a product of social values but also one that was solidified in law. Although Tolstoy showcases this depressing issue, he also showcases scenes of female empowerment, feminism, and modernization for this old social system through female characters like Kitty Shcherbatsky and Varenka Andreevna. His inclusion of these scenes shows that it is possible for improvements in their corrupt society.

Leo Tolstoy born on August 28, 1828. He was a Russian writer, and he was also the author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina which are two of his most well-known works. The Death of Ivan Ilych begins with Ivan’s death and the news of Ivan’s death spread around to his friends and co-workers. Ivan is a judge he is a magistrate, official of the court. He was living in Russia in the 1800s. When Ivan’s friends hear about his death, they were not distraught, they don’t think about his family. They rather think about how his death might personally benefit them. According to me the sad aspect in his story was, Ivan leads a conventionally happy and conventional by all accounts life. He goes with the flow of what society asks and expects of him and he does this in a way that, during his life, he is pleased and complacent and contest. However, as he gets closer to his death, he becomes less content and less assured that the course he has maintained throughout his life is, in fact, the right one. Before Ivan got ill, he had a job as a magistrate, but he’s wasn’t happy with the job, he was hoping for a job that gets a bigger paycheck. So, went to St. Petersburg and requests an audience with a friend of his. So, he attained that job, which would pay him 5,000 rubles a year.

After he got the job, he bought a house, he decorated the house in a way that is befitting of an upper-class individual. In the decorating process, he climbed up a ladder and while adjusting drapes, he slips off the ladder and hits the side of his torso. Over time the injury becomes more and more malicious and becomes more and more serious. Ivan goes to see a lot of doctors and they treated him in the same perfunctory, in the same style that he used to treat the petitioners at the court. They don’t treat him like a person but like a case or a problem to be solved. He begins to despair that they don’t have his best interests at heart. He had one friend in the household and his name was Gerasim, he was a young servant. He recognized Ivans was on a downward slope.

At the end of their life, Ivan had a discussion with his inner soul. The soul asks him “Ivan what do you want.” Ivan responds, “I want to live.” His inner soul responds and asks him “the quality of life you had before you were ill is that truly living.” The moral of the story as if you live a conventional life up to and in line with the expectations of the society of the day, then you’re going to be happy in a conventional was. But at the end of your life, you might look back upon your accomplishment and you might begin to despair because those accomplishments look hollow and empty in the light of that you accomplished them only because you were expected to.

ABC’s ‘The Critic’s Luke Buckmaster states that “one of the reasons Anna Karenina still a relevant text today are the key themes and key messages of infidelity, yearning for love and broken relationships which are never going to fall out of relevance.”

One of the great virtues of the adaption of Anna Karenina’s‘ The Beautiful Lie’ is that it relies on the story from the original author Tolstoy to understand the perspectives of the other characters, in turn, allowing the viewer to sympathise and empathise with a wider variety of views. Even Skeet who is at a first glance superficial and careless with other people’s feelings has moments of great honesty and insight. Now let’s address the old saying that has followed screen adaptation studies since the beginning of film itself. can any screen version be as good as the book? Therefore, Is the new ABC miniseries ‘The Beautiful Lie’ the latest film adaptation of Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy as good as the book? As with ‘The Beautiful Lie’ the adaptations of the novel on screen take us to a very different creative territory, given a contemporary makeover by the writers of ‘The Beautiful Lie’ Alice Bell and Jonathan Gavin. In the show, Anna and Alexander’s status as modern-day tennis celebrities help guide their transition from Tolstoy’s 19th century Russia to 21st century Australia within a familiar context while Vronsky’s military power translates into that of independent record producer Skeet.

The script also has a particularly Australian setting instead of replicating 19th-century Russia, the writer’s Bell and Gavin create a contemporary Australian family drama compelling to their 21st-century audience.

Everyone plays in a decidedly Australian cultural and geographical context. But what is handled with the greatest in this modern version of Anna Karenina is the humor that is often left out of the adaptations of Russian realistic literature. The marriage fights of Anna’s brother Kingsley and his wife dolly has been able to successfully integrate a type of soft comedy and kittys teenage anguish plays a to that in a similar way.

The series takes us one step closer to the heat of the matter in a more unusual integration of the narrative voice. the adaptation of the first-person narration from book to the screen is traditionally considered as problematic in the sense of how does the visual narrator translates the first-person narrative through the camera lens that sees everything? Well, voiceover is used sparingly on the screen, in this adaptation Annas dominant voiceover positions us with her from the beginning as a way of filtering our experience of the drama as it unfolds and creating an intimacy with the viewer. It takes the drama to a different emotional territory but is universally relevant for the type of audience from the 21st century. ‘The Beautiful Lie’ is a recount that tells the story in a way that differs from Tolstoy’s realistic mode of narration.

Analysis of Europe after the Rain II and Travelling Woman At the turn of the twentieth century, artists began experimenting with different mediums of art attempting to represent the world they lived in through abstract presentations. This was exemplified in many different social and political movements which spanned across the world. Many of the movements were centered in Europe. Two such artworks which exemplified avant-garde movements are Lyubov Popova’s Travelling Woman and Max Ernst’s Europe after the Rain II. These two artists represent two different artistic movements that represented differing values within Europe.

Max Ernst was a representative of the Surrealist movement. The Surrealist movement focused on channeling the unconscious mind through their works. Max Ernst’s Europe after the Rain II is a great example of the Surrealist vision with its many new techniques. Lyubov Popova was an artist who began creating Cubo-Futurist artwork in the early 1910’s and then transitioned to suprematism in the late tens up until her death in 1924. The Suprematism movement was founded in the early 1910’s by Kazimir Malevich and artworks that were produced were characterized by simple geometric shapes. The true Suprematist works were predated by the Cubo-Futurist works. Popova’s Travelling Woman is a great example of a Cubo-Futurist work that predated her experimentation with suprematism. Max Ernst was a German-born artist who was influential in the Dada and Surrealist movements that were taking place during the interwar period into the second world war. His most influential piece of art he created was his painting Europe after the Rain II. In this painting, Ernst used several new techniques which he developed in order to create his Surrealist masterpiece. Ernst was somewhat of an oddity in the sphere of Surrealist artists with which he associated with.

Unlike many of the other artists, Ernst utilized all different modes of expression for his works. Some of his early surrealist works are collages and illustrations. In creating Europe after the Rain II, Ernst used a relatively new technique called decalcomania. This technique involved applying a covering material over a wet painted canvas and then pulling away the covering material to distort the image. Ernst had a special way of doing this in which he used glass as the cover and produced highly distorted images like those we see in Europe after the Rain II. In this painting, many different scenes can be explored and examined. As a whole, we see a ravaged landscape that is meant to represent Europe. On the right-hand side of the artwork we see what looks like a series of ravaged and destroyed buildings which seem to look like they have been decaying for quite some time now. Protruding from the ravaged landscape are two figures. The female figure closest to the center can be seen wearing a dress and hat which could characterize her as a female representing the ideals of Europe prior to the war; however, she her body is set inside of the rubble. This causes her movement to be restricted and leaves her unable to face the destruction, rather she gazes upon some landscape that is not visible to the viewer. Placed next to her is a representation of a creature with the body of a man and the head of a bird. This creature is standing very stoutly and seems to suggest his agency in creating this destruction. The painting is bisected by a large greyish, green column which seems to represent some sort of division within the destruction of the landscape. On the left-hand side of the painting, Ernst created a much more natural and beautiful landscape. It seems as though the left side of the painting is much less developed and touched by humanity. Ernst did not include man-made structures on the left side of the painting.

A clear distinction between the natural world and the civilized world can be seen here. Also contained in the left-hand side is a depiction of beautiful women who are not altered in any way. This lack of destruction and presence of beauty seems to suggest the natural world will not be affected by the rain because it is being caused by the motives of the civilized world. Ernst also differed the color scheme on both sides of the painting. On the left side of the painting, Ernst chose to paint a brighter, lighter landscape which enhanced the idea of beauty and purity. On the right side of the work, darker, cooler colors contribute to the theme of destruction and the grotesque nature of the scene. Ernst’s use of decalcomania is very apparent in this painting. The formations and ravaged structures are very interestingly depicted. They seem to appear as some sort of choral formations which contributes to the title of the work. The title suggests that Europe is being destroyed by some kind of rain which is exemplified through the destruction which appears as if it has been caused by the landscape being submerged in water.

Lyubov Popova was a Russian artist who was very influential in the Suprematist movement. In her early artworks she experimented with the techniques of Cubo-Futurists. Her piece, Travelling Woman, shows an example of a transitionary period between Cubo-Futurism and Suprematism which can be seen in many of the artists which practiced within this movement. This piece is representative of Cubo-Futurism and lacks the use of simple geometric instillations that give meaning to the work. In this work, we see the use of very defined lines which create a sense of separation within the work. Unlike Ernst’s use of a separating line, Popova’s separation seems random and chaotic. This chaos is furthered through the use of dark red, black, and grey tones used in the artwork. The main two separating lines form a triangle in the center of the work and create two triangular scenes on either side of the central triangle; however, the subject matter of the work continues uninterrupted by the lines which suggests they are not meant to be separating the action of the work. The dark greys and black color of several of the objects in the work suggest some sort of mechanized technology.

The distorted figure of a man can be seen in the top center and top right portion of the work. Due to the attire of the man and his top hat, it is suggested that he may be of a higher class standing. Popova also used a cyclical outline through the curved lines which seems to create a circle that surrounds the entire work. This, along with the representation of the mechanized technology leads to the interpretation of some sort of technological advancement such as a train. This interpretation is furthered through the title of the work which is Travelling Woman. This causes the viewer to get a sense of the movement of the train’s wheel. Ernst began his exploration of this theme of destruction with his initial work under the same name, Europe after the Rain I. In this painting, Ernst attempts to represent a map of Europe that does not have distinct borders and is meant to represent the conflicts in Europe at the time. Original Europe after the Rain was created in 1933. This painting was created in response to the rise of Hitler and the growing nationalist sentiment which was rising in Europe at the time. Ernst was influenced by his experiences in World War I and feared what another war could do the continent. Following the outbreak of World War II, Ernst began painting Europe after the Rain II. This artwork remains one of the most important surrealist works ever created. Although Ernst never stated the true meaning of this work, we can interpret its title and depiction to be representative of Europe following the war.

The work’s use of color contributes to the tone of the artwork in interesting ways. Due to the very distinct and separate depictions of the landscapes, the use of color was very important to emphasize the meaning of the work. There are no manmade structures on the left side of the painting, which leads the viewer to interpret it as the untouched natural world. Ernst’s use of warmer, brighter colors on the natural side of the painting lead to the central belief of the beauty of the untouched world. On the civilized side of the painting, the viewer is confronted with signs of destruction and pillaging that create a sense of culpability in the destruction. This culpability arises from the presence of manmade buildings and structures which are destroyed. The stark contrast between these two landscapes sets up a very interesting statement on behalf of Ernst. The viewer can interpret that Ernst was in stark opposition of the war and did not support the sentiment of the European powers. Lyubov Popova’s Travelling Woman was quite unique in her use color. The dark colors were not very common to the Cubo-Futurist movement and were more influenced by the subject matter rather than the movement the artwork was a part of.

The title of the work and the subject matter suggest a scene of a train and some sort of brutalist destruction caused by the movement of it. This scene can be interpreted multiple ways; however, perhaps most interestingly, it can be interpreted as a representation of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. In the novel, Karenina commits suicide by jumping on the wheels of a moving train. Popova’s use of the bright red tones suggests the spreading of blood throughout the canvas. The cyclical motion that is suggested by the curved lines throughout the work causes the viewer to interpret some sort of horrible tragedy that has just occurred. The viewer can interpret the movement as the train’s wheels turning and the red color causes the interpretation of blood and death. Although this painting is quite reminiscent of Tolstoy’s novel, it may be suggesting a greater motive. Popova may have included this representation of Tolstoy’s novel as a simple recreation of the plot; however, it seems to be presenting Popova’s discontent with the new technological advances. During the time she was creating this artwork, World War I was just beginning and new technological advances in transportation and weaponry were causing obscene amounts of destruction and devastation throughout the European continent. These new technologies were making it much easier to inflict devastation on a much larger scale than ever before. It seems as though Popova likened the advancement of technology to the widespread reach of the new war to end all wars and created Travelling Woman to represent the horrors of war and technology.

Is Anna Entirely To Blame For Her Death?

It may be easy to point the finger at Anna for the cause of her own death. Yes, she did make the choice to commit adultery. She had the choice to not be in an affair with Vronsky. But, she is not one hundred percent to blame for her death. If we take a step back and look at the people who surround Anna’s life, certain people are also to blame for her passing. First-person to slowly eat away at Anna, Vronsky. He penetrated into her soul to win her over. When he succeeds, what she thought would turn into happiness, became a living hell. Their relationship is only built on infatuation. Through Vronksy’s eye, we only see Anna as this object which he controls. Her husband, Karenin, showed absolutely no affection towards her. Their relationship has no means of communication. Karenin’s only desire is for Anna to behave in society so her actions don’t backfire at Karenin. Karenin wants his name to stay clean, not conflicted with drama that could bring his name to shame. As Anna keeps disobeying his wishes, she then loses her right to see her son. Thus, a huge part of Anna has died. Most of all, Society is what finishes Anna off. Society no longer welcomes Anna to balls, operas or to even be accepted by her so-called “friends”. One by one, Anna is slowly condensed into her own box. There is little air left inside this box that she is left in. She slowly suffocates when she is left alone with her own thoughts.

In Leo Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”, we see Anna slowly going in a downward spiral with her mental health. There are many benefactors as to why she led to suicide. Some of why she became so ill are due to her own actions, but also the people she surrounds herself with. This also includes society’s factors. I believe this all begins with the night of the ball. Vronsky was supposed to be with kitty, yet he chose Anna instead. Thus, the kitty’s jealousy and dislike towards Anna. For kitty, this felt like a betrayal. As I stated earlier, we never really see Anna for who she is, but we see her through other peoples’ eyes. She is solely looked at to be an object for men.

What Vronsky finds fatally attractive in Anna is precisely the tenuously maintained balance of forces that he senses in her almost immediately (at the ball). Vronsky is an egoist, and therefore a creature of stasis, who strives above all to stay within himself and draw everything he wants into himself. In comparison with him, Anna, quick and open, is spiritual. Vronsky misinterprets her and only sees in her only what a completely earthbound creature can see.

Vronsky mainly thought of himself. He did not truly realize the sort of pain that Anna had gone through. How many sacrifices and losses she has gone through for Vronsky. Although Vronsky wanted to finally be officially married and have more children with Anna, I firmly believe he used Anna to gain a higher status. He never did try to comply with her or to gain a deeper understanding of what she has lost in order to be with him.

In Donna Orwin’s book “Tolstoy’s art and thought,” she describes how Anna’s soul is trying to fight off the devil. Anna knows deep down in her soul that what she is doing is wrong, yet that devil who lies on her left shoulder tells her to give in. Donna Orwin states, “The first three parts of the novel chart Anna’s spiritual struggle against the evil demon in her soul that wants to occupy it exclusively. Her conscience speaks many times, making it possible for readers to blame her (because she knows the good and still chooses the bad) and to pity and admire her for her noble struggle.”(Page 185, Donna Orwin). Thus, once Vronsky is able to take over Anna, he penetrates through her soul and wins her over. Anna does not stand a chance against Vronsky. What appears to be Anna’s deathbed during childbirth, that evil entity vanishes. The good Anna is back once again and repents for forgiveness as her dying wish.

Anna rejects the other who she fell in love with. She only desires Karenin’s forgiveness and then death. Bad Ana is resurrected and comes to dominate her soul again. Her surrender to Vronsky has meant the fatal dominion of the body over the soul, a dominion challenged only when Anna is dying.

Anna chooses Vronsky again, which means a fatal dominion of the body oversoul. As death fails to do its part, the evil entity once again returns and controls Anna. She seeks more than physical touch. She desires a more spiritual bond on a deeper level, onto which Vronsky could not provide for her. Thus, is one of the ways that drives Anna into a spiral. Eventually, this is also a betrayal to Anna’s husband, Karenin. Once Karenin learns how much compassion Anna shows towards Vronsky at the horse race, he asks Anna to not show such emotion in society. He says it looks very bad for their public figure. He would prefer society to not be involved in their affairs to ruin his status. After the races, Anna tells Karenin about her infidelity. Funny enough, Karenin does not appear to be angry at her for committing adultery. It is not that he accepts her relationship with Vronsky, but he only asks her to obey his every command and to stop seeing Vronsky. Anna is rebellious to her husband’s wishes to not flaunt her new relationship to the public eye. She continues to flaunt her feelings and society begins to notice it. The word gets out quickly to the public. In Gary L. Browning’s chapter of “The Death of Anna Karenina. Anna’s share of the blame”, he writes how Frou Frou’s death foreshadows and intertwines with Anna’s unfortunate death. Browning also agrees that Vronsky is involved with Anna’s death. Vronsky is who killed Anna’s innocent alter ego, frou-frou, the horse. There is a lot of guilt that resides with Vronsky.

Although many readers acknowledge that Anna contributes to her demise, but feel that if Vronsky had been more competent and sensitive, that her tragedy might well have been averted. Most who have written about Anna Karenina correctly observe that the horse race symbolically depicts Vronsky’s principle deficiencies-his failure to keep up with the pace”, and, as a result, his ten-day to commit the awkward movement, especially at critical times. This weakness arises from a general superficiality, dilettantism, insensitivity, and overconfidence. Vronsky, of course, has positive sides to his appearance, personality, and behavior, and he does try to rise above his former social code. But Tolstoy reminds his readers that Vronsky’s flaws are significant in the tragedy of Anna, as they are decisive in the death of Frou Frou.

As I was mentioning earlier, Anna was supposedly dying from childbirth. At this time, we see a change in character with Karenin. He becomes to appear like a saint and even shows raw emotion for her. Something we had never seen during the entire novel until this moment. As Anna is asking Karenin for forgiveness, she does not entirely give the sincerest apology. She blames it was this ̈other ̈person who had taken control of her and made these poor decisions. In reality, Anna is not taking the entire blame for falling in love with another person. Once she recovers, she moves out of Karenin’s household. Men had power and ownership of all of the women’s belongings. Anna can’t even have a letter to keep for herself. Since Anna made the decision to leave and be with Vronsky, she is no longer allowed to return to her home, nor is she allowed to ever see her son again. Although it is Anna’s choice to abandon her son for the one she loves, she more so does this for Vronsky ́s sake. According to Anna, she feels he does not comprehend the pain she has gone through to keep his love. Anna ́s relationship is compared to Frou Frou because of the highs Vronsky has with his horse. There is a high of ecstasy and pleasure, but what goes up must come down. Eventually resulting in her death and unhappiness.

Society is one of the key weapons that killed Anna. Society in contemporary times expects us to play a certain role, to act as a certain norm. In an essay by (so and so) wrote that Tolstoy painted Anna as a sympathetic character, unable to stay true to herself because of society’s corruption. She observes how Tolstoy pinpoints his views on women in society during this age, whether they are happy, unhappy, high class, low class, city life, and rural life. Throughout this novel, it has been made very clear that many people who are in relationships themselves committed adultery.

Anna is not condemned in society for having an affair, but for blatantly flaunting society’s norms of discrete conduct. Having an affair wasn’t was considered heinous. Princess Betsy, a cousin of Vronsky ́s even encourages Anna’s affair at the beginning, though when Anna leaves Karenin, Betsy both refuses to see her and to reintroduce her into society, despite the fact that Betsy herself has been having an affair. Many in Anna ́s high circle class know of her affair at the beginning, but find nothing shameful in it until Anna and Vronsky cease to hide their affections.

As much as Anna ́s husband wishes for her to not show any sign of emotion for society to see, Anna realizes she can not like these feelings that consume her. Her disregard for society’s demands for a false front is what offends society, not her affair. What society views as unacceptable are to break apart one ́s family and flaunt One’s affair in front of the world. While many other characters in the novel have affairs, none of them are reprimanded or suffer the consequence as Anna has.

This in fact goes for women in Anna Karenina. Society imposed its expectations on Anna, although there is a double standard based on gender. We are able to witness how men and women are treated completely differently after committing adultery. She is very well influenced by society. She likes to go out into the public, to balls and operas. However, her world grows smaller and smaller. She is trapped inside her own grave that she and others have dug for her. She learns she is no longer wanted at any event. People around her despite her and feel disgusted to even be in her presence as if having an affair is contagious. She is shunned for attending the opera.

Vronsky advises Anna to not go to the opera house because he believes she will find nothing but pain from the outside world who is against her actions. Once Anna left Karenina and lives with Vronsky “demonstrates the contempt Anna faces from society for her actions.” As Anna enters the opera, she knows how completely vulnerable she is and how she will be betrayed or stabbed by people she was once close with. “Her shoulders are bare, she stands out proudly in front of the row box. This scene describes Anna’s painful answer to her dilemma of whether to stay true to herself and reveal herself for what she is, having had an affair while married, or hide away from society and pretend that their censure does not matter”. Despite knowing the consequences of attending the ball, she did not expect to be publicly humiliated and having everyone watch her every move.

She has nowhere to go but in her room at the house. Towards the end of the novel, she starts to develop this very erratic behavior. She has many manic spells of jealousy. Her belief is that Vronsky no longer loves her and is flirting with other women as he pleases. Her surroundings even become strange. She does not trust her own actions even with proof, becomes very delirious, and doubts her every action. She is left alone with delirious thoughts. In order to sleep, she starts to take morphine to calm her nerves. The public judges her and thinks of her as being a worthless and despicable woman for loving another man while being married. Yet, Anna’s brother, Oblonsky, has an affair but isn’t ostracized for his infidelity. For men, they can get away with adultery. Treatment based on gender is a common theme in this novel by Leo Tolstoy. To me, it seems like Vronsky is being praised for being with a woman whose husband is higher in society.

Anna has an unwanted child outside of wedlock. She shows little to no attention to her daughter. In fact, she has her own nanny to watch over her daughter. She has no affection for her. It’s as if seeing her daughter reminds her of the terrible choices that she made, therefore she tries to avoid being confronted with the truth. It also seems that the birth of her daughter was one of the last straws that broke the camel’s back. Her love resides with her son, Seryozha. She shows him love and compassion. Her world is torn when she learns that Karenin doesn’t allow her to see her son, and they even tell Seryozha his mom is dead. They would rather tell a lie than tell the truth of what happened between them. Is it better to lie than to be truthful in this situation? Her son is a huge part of her life. Anna mourns for her son and arrives unannounced at Karenina’s house. They both embrace each other and cry. She knows this will be the last time she sees her son. Psychologically thinking, this tears Anna apart because not only is she not wanted in society, but now she has lost her role as a mother to all her children. At this point forward, Anna only desires death. She wishes that she had died during childbirth than to face any more heartache in her life.

Taking everything into consideration, Anna was not only to blame for her tragic and sudden death. Vronsky, her husband who did not love her, took her son away from her, and society smothering her for staying true to herself are the main reasons why she chose death. Firstly, If Anna were to have a great relationship that involved a well-developed communication style, then maybe certain issues would never have occurred. Secondly, Karenin should have followed through with his divorce papers, even if it may have ruined his role in society. By pretending to be in a relationship, where anna no longer loves him and is made clear that she loves Vronsky only makes his case look worse than to have a witness to testify his accusation of adultery was true. However, even if he were to go through with divorce papers, Karenin still punishes Anna by not allowing her to even set eyes on her son. Thirdly, Vronsky not being able to show sympathy and understanding for the woman he wants to marry, only makes Anna feel like a fool and that all of what she has done is for nothing. Lastly, society puts the cherry on top. There is no hope, but only death in anna ́s eyes.

INTRODUCTION TO AUTHOR

Leo Tolstoy is a critically acclaimed Russian novelist who dared to go against the contemporary orthodox ideas of his time in his quest for truth. He was a realist who didn’t believe in conventional norms of romanticization of literature which was prevalent in his time. He believed that painting a rosy picture of society does nothing but create a façade in front of the readers and takes them away from the grim realities of the actual happenings of the society to a point of no return.

Tolstoy, in his diary, wrote, “ Art is a microscope which the artist aims at the mysteries of his soul and which reveals these mysteries common to all ”. This metaphorical microscope focuses on the infinitesimal of details that apparently are considered ‘unimportant’ and brings in front of the readers a hundred times enrichened version of the detail. No writing of his other than the well-acclaimed, ‘War and Peace’ pays impetus to the aforementioned point. This work of his didn’t portray any ‘hero-figure’ in it, neither did it revolve around any single plot. It is a tale of more than six hundred-odd characters who were mostly unrelated when studied superficially, but then they all share one thing in common; the fact that they were all in some way affected by the Napoleonic invasions. It displays very vividly the contrasts that life holds in store for people. It’s a book filled with binaries; love and hate, life and death, utopia and dystopia, etc.

Bringing out social contrasts and realities wasn’t the only thing he portrayed in his works. He held his own set of critical opinions on religion and moralities which was clearly seen across a multitude of his works. His works like, ‘ Chto takoye iskusstvo? ’ clearly put on display his inclinations towards communism. He contemplated how masses were ‘enslaved’ and exploited by the elites of the society and how the decadent bourgeoise institutions like the value system and the state are mere ways of institutionalized exploitative relationships. Other works of his like, ‘Anna Karenina’ go to great depths to analyze orthodox Christianity, the struggle of the labor class, communism, and the moral standings of the feudal society. In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy goes to great extents to criticize the orthodox church of Russia, the hierarchical, thus, inherently classist bureaucracy, the state-owned education system, and even the peasantry. Due to his constant and brutal criticism of the conservative Russian church, he has declared an apostate and denounced from the fraternity of the church, and was under the watch list of the state.

INTRODUCTION TO AGE AND SOCIETY

The story is set in feudal Russia, headed by Czar, where bureaucracy held a divine position but for most parts didn’t hold much relevance to the common masses. The entire bureaucratical institution was unapproachable and was held sacrosanct. When a character is seen to be more integrated into the mainstream society, what usually follows is the fact that the person holds a high and comfortable rank in the aforementioned feudal system and his entire social and personal identity is often seen to be revolving around his feudal rank. Masculinity was defined in the terms of how a man enforced and adhered to the social identities that were bestowed upon him by the virtue of his position in the military or the bureaucracy, as was seen in the case of Vronsky and Karenin. Karenin at some points in the story seemed to be more troubled with the fact that his wife had fallen in love with lower-ranked military personnel than him than the very fact that his wife had betrayed their marriage and committed adultery. While men like Karenin and Vronsky were shown to be at the epitome of the pyramid of masculinity, men like Levin who did actual manual labor, had a good bonding with the working-class people, had out of the box ideas of transforming the methods of agriculture, was rejected by his lady love merely because of societal pressure.

There was a second theme, the impact of Christianity on the societal norms, that went hand in hand with the ongoing backdrop of the old-school feudal Russian society. Two perspectives of Christianity were portrayed with such mellifluous ease that they transitioned in and out of each other without leaving any jagged edges. On one hand, Karenin was portrayed as an old school Russian aristocrat who was so engrossed in holding a high moral ground of ‘Christian forgiveness’ that at the end he ended up ripping apart his and Anna’s life into shreds just for a façade of the perfect Christian Aristocratic family in Russia. On the other hand was Countess Lydia who was shallow and didn’t have an iota of interest in Christianity but made sure to masquerade as an intellectual who believed in a more liberal and elitist Christianity.

SYNOPSIS

The book has multiple storylines going on at the same time that beautifully cascade and mingle together to flow as one coherent and well-written story. The book starts with a grief-stricken Dolly who was cheated upon by her long-standing husband, Prince Stepan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky, Stiva. He turns to his sister, Anna Arkadyevna to help them strike peace with each other. In a parallel storyline, Konstantin Levin, Stiva’s friend shows up in Moscow to confess his long-standing love to Kitty Shtcherbatsky and ask her for marriage. Kitty was held up in a squabble because she had two suitors between whom she had to choose. On one hand, was Levin for whom she had always had feelings and on other hand was Count Vronsky who was a fairly high-ranked military candidate and cynosure of her mother’s eyes. Held up in the belief that Vronsky had fallen for her, she straightway rejected Levin’s proposal but was left heartbroken when she saw that Vronsky had fallen for Anna in the ball. Levin returns back to his countryside farming ways and Anna leaves for St. Petersburg, but this time around, she is followed by Vronsky.

Kitty fell severely ill after being rejected and had to be taken to Germany to find a cure. There she met a Russian woman who had a very liberal and unique approach towards Christianity and was influenced by her. She tried to escape her feminine side while under the influence of religion. Later on, though, she realized the absurdity and went back to Russia, out of depression.

Karenin was doubtful of his wife’s change in behavior but wanted to believe that his wife can never be promiscuous. But, at every turn, Anna made it very clear that she had formed an attachment with Vronsky and that she never really was happy with Karenin. Vronsky was conflicted between his career and love interest. Things get worse when Anna gets pregnant with Vronsky’s child. Anna had to confess her adultery in front of Karenin who didn’t want to divorce her for the sake of his image in the society and wanted it to seem like they still were the best example of the ideal ‘perfect aristocratic family’. Later on, though, he had a change of mind and did go to a divorce lawyer. Anna bore a daughter after which she became severely ill. While on her figurative ‘deathbed’, Karenin forgave her for all her acts. Out of guilt, Vronsky tried to commit suicide but after Anna’s condition improved they went abroad to start afresh even though Anna had denied signing the divorce papers out of the fear of losing her son.

0n the other hand, Levin, and Kitty got married. The series of unfortunate events that led to the death of Nicolai left Levin in a very emotional state of mind. Kitty got pregnant with Levin’s baby.

After having spent her honeymoon in St. Petersburg, Anna got even closer to Vronsky because she missed her son and she felt that she now had no one but Vronsky. When Vronsky asks her not to attend the theatre, she doesn’t pay heed to him and goes there. She gets humiliated and mocked there and Vronsky being angry at her ignorance of his advice, shows no sympathy for her humiliation. This is a turning point in their relationship. When Dolly visits Anna she feels as if Anna was living a better life than she was but the reality was that neither Vronsky nor Anna was happy with each other. Anna, later on, gave up any expectations from life and committed suicide.

Karenin turned towards religion after being influenced by Countess Lydia Ivanova. Vronsky volunteered in the military during the Russo-Turkish war. Levin came across the concept of salvation after which he decided to ‘live for his soul’ rather than his individual self-interest. Levin, in the end, manages to find peace within himself.

CHARACTER ANALYSIS

ANNA KARENINA

Anna’s character was that of a Russian Noblewoman in the 19th century who seemingly had ‘the perfect family life with her husband at a high administrative position and a son. Though seemingly flawless, she was miles away from being happy with her husband Karenin. Though she most probably did honor him, the essence of love and affection that tied couples together was missing in their relationship.

As luck would have it, she found her beckoning in Count Vronsky who was enrolled in the military and was a potential suitor for her sister-in-law’s younger sister, Kitty. As their fling proceeded and Vronsky followed her all the way back to St. Petersburg, where she tried remaining in denial regarding her deepest and darkest of desires. As time flew by, she became visibly attached to Vronsky and got pregnant with his child. Her husband who had observed very closely the developments of her relationship didn’t want to divorce her even after she confessed about her adultery because he didn’t want his reputation to get tarnished and wanted Anna to move away from Vronsky if she wanted to be forgiven by him.

Even after she moved out to the countryside with Vronsky, she was lonely because Vronsky found it tough to juggle between his career and love life. She felt humiliated and patronized by the attitude and lack of sympathy of Vronsky after the theatre incident. This was a huge turning point for her as she felt that she had no one but Vronsky because her son was under Karenin’s custody. Vronsky’s alienation from her left her emotionally disheveled and messed up. In the end, she ended up taking her own life by jumping in front of a train.

Anna’s life was filled with emotional injuries that scarred her heart badly, but the fact still remains that she cheated upon her husband, with whom she already had a family. Not being happy with her relationship doesn’t entitle her to the privilege to cheat. She was burdened with social norms laid down for the aristocrats, Especially the noblewomen. Her mere bonding with Vronsky led to rumors being spread about her that upset her husband and reduced her value in front of him. Later on, even after she moved out with Vronsky, she wasn’t happy because she felt as if Vronsky didn’t love her as much as he used to and she felt alienation of sorts tearing them apart. Not once did she stop to think rationally that Vronsky really just was busy dealing with his career and that he has a world that’s beyond her. At some point, she became overbearing and passive-aggressive. She felt the need to go to the theatre to prove her love for Vronsky after being advised against it multiple times.

KONSTANTIN DMITRIEVICH LEVIN

Levin starts as a lovelorn, lost, and seemingly aimless individual whose entire life seems to be revolving around his long-standing love interest, Princess Kitty. At the very beginning of the story, his character seemed like that of an average Russian landowner in the countryside who was mostly alienated from the lives of peasants who worked for him. But, after getting rejected by Kitty, he was a changed man. He went back to his countryside and started involving himself in the affairs of the peasantry, not as their master and lord, but as one amongst them. Levin was aware of the social changes going around Russia at that time and wanted to be a part of it. So, he tried to bring agricultural reforms to his area.

Levin has this overbearing habit of over-analyzing and making things seem more complex than they actually are. He tends to question norms whose answers are right in front of his eyes. This is precisely the reason why he has often been depicted to be failing at having humane emotions as was the case when his brother Nicolai was on his death bed. His analytical mindset leads him to question his religion right before his marriage and he has been depicted asking the priest about the existence of God.

At the very end, his search for answers comes to an end when he finds true peace in letting things go and not holding onto them with a sense of materialistic attachment. He finds true happiness in lying down on the grass and admiring the simplicity of the practically bare but astonishingly beautiful sky. The novel portrayed in front of the reader the journey of Levin as he grew from a lost, wandering soul to a learned man who knew the meaning of life.

SOCIAL AND GENDER NORMS

19th century Russia had a very clear division of hierarchy in the administration and the military. The position at which men stood in this hierarchical extravaganza governed the way they were supposed to behave in society and what kind of actions they were allowed or not allowed to do. Even within this stringent feudal structure, there existed other sub-classifications that were predominantly seen amongst the Russian high-society, like the Gender norms. Femininity and Masculinity were defined using very hard and fast descriptors and any act of a person of either of the sexes that didn’t confide to the boundaries of these descriptors was ridiculed and the person was ostracized from society. In the case of Anna, though she did cheat on Karenin with Vronsky, the fact remained that adultery and sexual promiscuity were very common and ‘fashionable’ amongst the men of the high society.

HYPOCRISY

This aspect is first looked into in the book’s epigraph, “ Vengeance is mine, I shall repay.” Though passive-aggressive, this constructs an idea for the reader to proceed to the actual text. The reference serves as a deterrent to the Russian society that is waist-deep in ‘sins’ but leaves no opportunities to fling mud at individuals who dare step against norms, and that no one but God can judge them. As was seen in the book, though polygamy and polyamory were prevalent in Russian society, Anna was ridiculed for her actions. Levin was treated as an outcast just because he was from the countryside and didn’t hold a high position in the feudal rungs even though the village economy was the backbone of Soviet Russia.

FAMILY

The family has been portrayed as the most important institution in the book. It has been portrayed as hallowed and sacrosanct that shouldn’t be destroyed under any circumstances even when it causes mental duress to either of the spouses. Karenin didn’t divorce Anna not because he wasn’t affected by Anna’s adultery, but because he wanted to maintain a good image of his family in front of society. The same was the story with that of the Scherbatskys. Kitty and Dolly were portrayed as virtuous Christian women who took care of both, their husbands and their maternal family.

MOTIFS

THE INTERIOR MONOLOGUE

He was the trailblazer of a literary device called, ‘The Interior Monologue’. This concept was a novelty in the 19th century. This device depicts the thought process of the characters directly. This helps the reader in forming a bonding of sorts with the character. This device was used extensively in the case of Levin in the form of utter dejection and hopelessness after being rejected by Kitty, the epitome of jubilancy in working alongside the farmers and apprehension during Kitty’s childbirth. It was again used for Anna during her last moments before she decided to jump in front of the train.

CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS

Though less morally polarizing than other 19th century classics, it still had a recurring theme of forgiveness revolving around Christianity. The plot of the story revolves around the main issue,i.e, adultery and forgiveness has often been shown as its solution, as was seen during the episode where Anna was on her death bed and Karenin ‘forgave’ her right then and there. While mediating between Oblonsky and Dolly, Anna says, “If you forgive, it’s completely, completely”. This sentence sets a stage for every other act of ‘forgiveness’ that follows later on. This shows the reader that ‘Christian forgiveness’ isn’t based upon actual empathy but on the sheer fact that every sin must be forgiven because Christ said so.

Anna Karenina is one of Leo Tolstoy’s most famous novels, it begins with a phrase that became an aphorism: ‘All happy families resemble one another each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’. This is a book that vividly depicts the eternal values of love, family, faith, and human dignity.

In the book, Anna Karenina is the main character, a beautiful woman with a husband and adored son who possesses status in society and wealth. In the beginning, she has strong personal beliefs of what constitutes right and wrong and a keen sense of justice. These closely-held principles and values that are deeply ingrained in her personal character will abruptly change when she meets Officer Count Vronsky when she arrives in Moscow. She travels there with her brothers’ request to attempt to convince his wife Dolly to forgive him. She was warned by her husband about trying to fix the personal problems of others, but Anna ignores the warnings and leaves anyway, leaving behind her son Serezha who didn’t want her to go either. Soon after this fateful meeting with Count Vronsky she loses her sense of moral bearing and rejects her marriage and turns to Vronsky to fulfill her passionate nature with devastating results.

At its core, Anna Karenina is a love story. Tolstoy brings the theme of love to live in his writing in all of its yearnings, blissful, and heartbreaking aspects. He creates in detail warm and comforting images of family and romantic love and merciless heartache from love lost. Love is portrayed by the writer in this book in all its power, but in the end, love is not enough to sustain. Tolstoy renders through excruciating images of pain, rejection, and loss hardships that every reader can understand and identify with. His writing is emotionally charged and floods the reader with feelings of sympathy and empathy for the characters facing a multitude of personal hardships. Tolstoy’s writing is so captivating that readers are consumed with finding out what happens next in the story and are often slow to appreciate the depth of the tragedies his characters suffer. He brings to life the personal impact and cost of marital disintegration on the couple involved, their children, extended family, friends, and the society in which they live. The characters are realistically portrayed through their thoughts, actions, and decision making clearly illustrating all of the best and worst in human nature leading the heroine to her eventful demise. Tolstoy leaves his readers with a painful understanding of heartbreak and loss through passages of unreciprocated love and death.

While reading this book the reader goes through a continuously changing set of emotions and impressions of the characters. At some moments one can come to feel love or hate towards the characters or be ashamed for the characters. But Tolstoy’s writing makes this all feel natural and enables the reader to experience the morphing of their feelings with each of the characters. It is fair to say that Tolstoy certainly was successful in making his readers care about all of his characters, and very fair to say this book was written by a man who was infinitely knowledgeable of human nature and profoundly in love with life. Grandmother’s words that her sweet little girl should read this book by the ‘fat lion’ when the time is right, rang true. To appreciate all aspects of this literary masterpiece readers must have their adolescent years behind them with the beginnings of an understanding of human nature and life’s hardships, and of the driving forces behind interactions within society.