I've decided that I need to seriously start reading again and get through more classics. I loved reading at university and sometimes the time restraint made me feel like I couldn't enjoy a book and I was just reading it like a machine. So I've taken it upon myself to pick up from where I left off. I hope to be able to add some thoughts about my reading along the way to get some ideas out there, even if it's stating the obvious in some cases.
I've recently finished reading Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. No doubt it's a well-written piece; it's not a classic for no reason.
Firstly, I've read the HarperPerennial Classics kindle edition and I can't seem to find out who translated it unfortunately.
Right from the get go, the novel plunged into a domestic crisis, which consequently introduced some of the key characters. Some of the key themes include infidelity, loyalty, love, romance, family, religion, politics, war, importance of character, Russian agriculture versus European agriculture as well as social class structures and more.
For me, being someone who often has a tendency to go on about women's rights and the rest of it, it really made me ask some questions not only to myself but generally, since I may well answer certain questions with my own worldview in mind, but would not necessarily be getting genuine answers from "the everyday person" who doesn't share my worldview or beliefs.
Some points that I felt were raised:
- Is a woman's infidelity of greater consequence and gravity than a man's infidelity?
- Is infidelity pardonable?
- Does forgiveness for infidelity often lie in whether there are children or not?
- How does society punish infidelity? Is it punished equally between sexes?
- Why is it considered more of a taboo for a wife to leave her husband after he has cheated than the husband to leave the wife? Is this even the case?
- Is it a woman's beauty that leads to this corruption in society?
- Is compassion and mercy expected more from women because of the gendered attribute?
The novel is beautifully crafted in that it describes the mental processes of core characters so well, putting it against a backdrop of how they are perceived in society and consequently making the reader judge them through the hypocrisies, inconsistencies and consistencies, as well as their reactions to uncomfortable situations. The development of Russia as a state is no doubt always present and it's equally interested in life in the country and in tune with nature as that of life in the city full of corruption. The search for truth is present largely through the character of Levin and the debate of religion versus reason is one of his great inner struggles.
Having just watched the 2012 film adaptation a couple of days ago to celebrate having wifi and having finished the novel, I felt the detail dedicated to Levin's search and struggles was unfortunately not as close to the novel itself but there were indications of it and ultimately film has its own restrictions as a medium of art, and thus I feel that it wasn't a bad adaptation. It kept quite closely to the storyline, omitting parts due to time and perhaps other factors in film production. I wasn't quite happy with the actor chosen for Vronsky but that's just a matter of personal preference and imagination.
I'm currently reading Crime and Punishment and I'm looking forward to blogging about that one soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment