I'm midway through Part IV. I'll be ready to join this conversation sometime around August.

I decided to quote just this part of your post, because I mostly agree with everything else that was said on here, but as far as character development goes, this one left me wanting. I guess you could argue that Tolstoy tries to give an insight into his characters' psychological motivations, but in the case of Anna Karenina, this didn't come across for me. It felt like every chapter served to intensify her neurosis. And while that can be justified given her situation, the last few chapters concerning her and Vronsky just came off as unbearable. Alright, she had an opium problem, that much was obvious. But still, when every exchange serves as a setup for a meaningless conflict which always has the same structure with slightly different wording, it became almost senseless to me. Her inner monologues became so annoying by the end that I couldn't believe her thoughts had any progression. Always the same thoughts, over and over and over. I know, she was ill, but it still felt oh so contrived to me. I don't know..
Concerning the narrative descriptions of characters' mental lives, I still haven't read a better novel than Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse

Anyway, what I really wanted to bring up was that it seemed to me that Tolstoy threw in quite a few comments into the story that appear totally offhand, as though they were meaningless but sound really important at the time. Let me give you an example of what I mean: Levin and Kitty's wedding. In that chapter, there's a passage where the narrator says (of Kitty): All her life, all her desires and hopes were concentrated on this one man, still uncomprehended by her, to whom she was bound by a feeling of alternate attraction and repulsion, even less comprehended than the man himself, and all the while she was going on living in the outward conditions of her old life."

Now, when I read that she was repulsed by him, it sticks in my mind, and all the time I wait for some sort of working through of this repulsion, but it's never resolved in the book. It's just left dangling there, glossed over as it seems and never mentioned again. It just felt... overlooked. And I think I found a couple more instances of this, but can't find the highlights now.

Perhaps the Russian word translated as "repulsion" has a less negative connotation than the English equivalent.

Think of repulsion as the simple opposite of attraction. All couples have qualities that attract one another and other qualities that repel. It's a matter of the importance one places on these differences.

I know a preacher who will carefully prepare his sermons to culminate in his message for the morning He will skillfully accomplish this. Then, instead of closing his bible and walking away with his mission wonderfully accomplished, he would continue on with embellishments to his point losing the power of his closing. I think Tolstoy did the same thing. Part Eight would have been better left out or worked in before the death of Anna.

But maybe he had a different message that I missed completely.

I never thought of it as a linguistic issue. That could be it, thanks.

My curiosity overcame my frugality upon discovering a Pevear/Volokhonsky translation on Amazon.

P/V:
" All her life, all her desires and hopes were concentrated on this one man, still incomprehensible to her, with whom she was united by some feeling still more incomprehensible than the man himself, now drawing her to him, now repulsing her, and all the while she went on living in the circumstances of her former life. Living her old life, she was horrified at herself, at her total, insuperable indifference to her entire past:..."

Garnett:
"All her life, all her desires and hopes were concentrated on this one man, still uncomprehended by her, to whom she was bound by a feeling of alternate attraction and repulsion, even less comprehended than the man himself, and all the while she was going on living in the outward conditions of her old life. Living the old life, she was horrified at herself, at her utter insurmountable callousness to all her own past,..."

Seems to me P/V is saying he was the actor, drawing and repulsing her, the exact opposite of what Garnett is saying.

I've skimmed other parts and the difference is amazing. I would say Garnett is wordier, more stilted...but of course she was translating at the turn of the century. Not totally because it cost 15 bucks, ugh, I prefer Pevear and Volokhonsky and will read the rest of the book with it.

Pevear and Volokhonsky is supposed to be pretty good. I went with the Maude translation and thought it fine.

I've been reading AK one or two sections at a time, especially, since I found out this was originally put out serialized over almost 4 years -- from wikipedia: "...a novel by the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, published in serial installments from 1873 to 1877 in the periodical The Russian Messenger. Tolstoy clashed with its editor Mikhail Katkov over issues that arose in the final installment; therefore, the novel's first complete appearance was in book form." -- I can see how this would do well when published over time like that. For myself, I need the time to think about it, as I read.

I am also curious as to the translated word choices and became even more intrigued by the comments by bobertson, arkietech, Ben G, and CharlieBird. So, of course, instead of doing what I am suppose to be doing, I did some searching based on the below quote from CharlieBird.

I found the Russian book and the passage under discussion, below. Google translate doesn't do it justice and I would love to know how a native Russian speaker would translate it.

I am not familiar with Tolstoy enough to know what his "voice" would be or what his style would be in the word phrasing or choices, so of course, I am now wondering how much I am really missing when reading a translation.

:rofl: Who's up for reading the entire novel rendered into English by Google Translate? :p

Well, this explains a lot..
Thanks a lot for the comparison, CharlieBird. Much appreciated.
Now I wish I'd overcome my frugality as well. Maybe in another life.

I still have 10% left to read, and I agree that the book could have used a good editor.
But I also think that these lengthy parts (like Lewjin's agriculture part and his experiences at the elections) help the reader to understand the characters.

Totally agree. I know for a fact Spanish loses much in translation. But what I really want to know is how in the hell you ever found that passage in the Russian edition. It took me about an hour in the English version using the search key.
d

:laughter: thru lunch and still w/a ePage image clearly in my mind.

Between this and your August comment yesterday...well, you are just too funny.
d

can someone explain how to do a multiple quote post?

Long complicate story about me and understanding those around me. Just picture me with lots of translation dictionaries reading about word meanings and use, then later on using the internet for as many as I could find, just to learn if what was being written or said was what it really was, so I could respond or understand. Then picture me using back translation to see if it really does mean that. Think of your Spanish example and how it doesn't always back translate correctly and misses the meaning that is being conveyed in the original language. I found that meaning can also rely on culture understanding beyond just the what a word means. You can also see syntax and word choice used and get an idea of the original language family which helps in giving an idea of the meaning of a word choice used (even when it is not how it is normally used).

Which is why I know I am missing so much in this book.

So, I had a general idea of place in storyline and started looking for the area used, then translated parts and pieces until I found the section. :)
Right next to the quote button (on the right side) is a smaller button. Just click all those you want to multi quote and then when you are at the last one, just hit the regular quote button. The window will open with all your multi quotes and the final quote one. :)

What struck me about the character of Anna was how her behavior fits that of someone suffering from the personality disorder known as Borderline Personality Disorder.

Explaining her behavior as a personality disorder sounds simplistic but if you've ever worked with or had to deal with someone who has this disorder, the similarity is uncanny. Her actions, her moodiness, her self-destructive behavior seemed predictable if I asked "What would a person with BPD do next"?

I think Tolstoy's genius was in describing this disorder so well without having any name for it (although I think Dostoyevsky used the term "infernal woman" or less often, "infernal man" ). Having read AK, I realize it was around long before it was described in the medical literature.

jay