GMALL Lectures - Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" and the Meaning of Life

Anyone has a recommandation on which version of the book to buy ? Like a good version for the translation, the print size so its readable and not too small, etc?

I read it when I was 15, and I have the idea of reading it again with the expectation that I will discover a lot.

Does anyone know which edition/publication is being used during this lecture?

It's really an intense book that causes the reader to think and feel very deeply.

I love this lecturer! Can I take your class 😊??? Also like your biblical references.

Great class!

😮❤

You make me want to reread it. Her suicide and the pages leading up to it were so gripping. Also, can’t believe I skipped over the subtle details Tolstoy inserted here and there.

спасибо.

Wow. I could go hours listening to her lecture.

Wow, loved this lecture.
Listening after watching one of the older movies on you tube.
I always loved Russian History, being a Kiwi I haven’t been much exposed to it but will be sure to watch many more lectures by Julie.

Thank you so so much for this video! Julie is amazing, she gives insights that help expand the meaning of this great novel. I wish I had Julie for a teacher growing up, how much better of a person would I now be?

So insightful, particularly regarding the epigraph ( not included in my Constance Garnett translation). But is it odd, even in a short lecture, that there’s little or no mention of Anna being a mother? This certainly seems important to Tolstoy. And parenthood as well as brotherhood are crucial for Levin.

Love love her knowledge ❤, I grew up in Russian culture and I’m glad to listening the analysis

great lecture, thanks.

great lecture

Excellent analysis.

Omg what a beautiful analysis ❤ I am watching it twice ❤

Great video but the spoilers ruined my reading 😞

Great analysis!

If Tolstoy's novel bore its true title, my guess is that hardly anyone would care to read it. Anna Karenina is nothing more than a marketing ploy, a literary teaser for an age that cannot get enough of tales involving tragic females. Anna is a secondary character, one Tolstoy does not even bother to describe fully. This book should be called "Constantin Levin", with the subtitle "The Inner Struggles of a Neurotic Russian Gentleman Farmer". Note that, while we are told of Constantin's every thought, emotion and action in excruciating detail, we know almost nothing about Anna's past. Her life with count Vronsky, her lover, surfaces throughout the book only in disconnected fragments; why she falls in love with a man who is like hundreds of other handsome but frivolous Russian officers remains a mystery; her sudden transformation from a compassionate woman who helps reconcile her sister-in-law with her unfaithful husband into a vindictive adulteress is equally puzzling---and quite unbelievable.

Anna is not even an interesting character. Leaving aside the fact that her decisions are presented by Tolstoy not as personal choices, but as the result of an evil external influence (the Devil?),which by itself should raise a huge red flag for any reader, how can one deny that she is a very common type? Anna is a pathologically selfish, jealous and vengeful creature constantly preoccupied with her power over men. She confuses love with her capacity to attract the other sex exclusively through her feminine charms. Hence her refusal to have children or to get married. In either case, she would no longer be loved for herself (meaning her physical beauty).

Anna is nothing more than a foil for the relatively happy love affair and married life of Levin, a young dour Russian aristocrat who lives in the countryside---and the real hero of the book. Apparently, Constantin Levin is just a literary reflection of Tolstoy himself. Tolstoy uses him to describe his own moral struggles, struggles we don't care about because Levin, who is clearly a reincarnation of the bumbling Pierre Bezukhov, is such an infuriating fool, such an unlikable character to begin with.Tolstoy also uses this eternal adolescent to drag us not only into hunting parties that stretch through several chapters (Tolstoy hated war but loved hunting!) but also endless conversations about such riveting topics as farm management and administrative decentralization in late nineteenth-century Russia. Tolstoy cannot refrain from mixing genres: he wants to be a novelist, but also a philosopher and a polemicist. And he doesn't use symbolism or the plot to convey his ideas, which is what good writers such as Thomas Hardy do.When it comes to his pet ideas, Tolstoy has no use for subtlety. He just has his puppet characters utter his ideas or those of his opponents directly:welcome to humorless and charmless Platonic dialogues on Russian politics and agriculture! One cannot escape the feeling that Tolstoy writes not so much for others, as for himself, to convince himself of the truth of his latest mystic creed or political fancy, duly conveyed to him by a guileless Russian peasant.

So forget the hype peddled by self-proclaimed specialists. Above all, don't even dream that the book is a kind of feminist manifesto. It is quite the opposite: Anna Karenina is an unapologetic plea for family and traditional morality. Frankly, if you want to read a fine novel written in beautiful prose (Tolstoy's writes the dullest prose in the world) about an unhappy woman and the social injustice to women, forget Anna and turn to Tess d'Urberville. If you want to read a delightful novel on Russia, grab A Gentleman in Moscow by Amor Towles. Thin on content, but what a relief after the preachy Tolstoy!

Absolutely superb.

The lecturer truly embraces Tolstoy’s novel. Great explanation.

Fantastic explanation from this presenter

Thanks for the lecture Prof.Cassidy. It helped me to understand the novel much better. I will search for your lectures on other books as well.

Sorry didn't like this lecture but then again I don't like readers. They are simply too passive. Personally what Tolstoy writes of is nothing new to me. He was writing about his own life and his perception of the world he lived in. However I can appreciate his writing which can be a guidance to some people.

I imagine the adultery genre emerged in the context of the new social freedom to choose one's own marriage partner - love marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages based on economics and family command. The rulers of European empires had intense love matches - Nicholas and Alexandra, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, Victoria and Albert, for instance.
Because of my failing eyesight, I'm in the midst of an audiobook version of Anna Karenina, narrated brilliantly by David Horovitch.
Fantastic, thought compelling lecture. Thank you.

Just finished this book. I have decided this will be the first book in my life that I will re-read. I have decided also that this re-read will be a deep dive with my own annotations (my first ever). I never even noticed - Vengence is mine ; I will repay. Looking forward to a deep dive. I will use whatever you tube videos I can find that will help me. Thank you for this.

Thank you, I loved this!

This was fantastic and great insight. Thank you!

Off to a slow start, but hang in there, she gets better, c. 10.00.

Amazing, very enlightening thank you!

You don't have to try hard to imagine what Tolstoy would be like if he lived today (latter part of video). He would be Chomsky.

Anna Karenina is not a novel of "adultery". If it was it would not be such a great novel. Note that Madam Bovary would be by default the more important novel (it came first) compared to Anna Karenina if the theme of adultery were the most important characteristic of the latter novel. Yet Anna Karenina is by far the better novel. A better characterization would be to call it THE "psychological novel" as it probes the minds of main characters in an incredible way.

This novel as the speaker said has two main parallel plots and yet 90% of the talk was about the first plot and this plot is not even the more interesting one. The Levin plot is more interesting and shows the genius of Tolstoy when he can describe a happy life and yet make it interesting.

Good discussion until she starts concluding (incorrectly) that Tolstoy’s conclusion is that you should abandon reason and live by faith. The truth is quite the opposite and if you read Tolstoy’s greatest works (all non-fiction) you will find this to be true and you will understand his novels and the moral message perfectly. READ “What I Believe” by Leo Tolstoy. READ “The Gospel In Brief” by Leo Tolstoy. This man was one of the few REAL disciples of Christ on the planet and only after about 60 years of age did he figure it out completely. What he left for the rest of us (the puzzle he put together from scattered pieces of diamonds and trash all mixed together) is the real teaching of Jesus Christ untangled from all of the mythology of this religion or that religion (Orthodoxy) - a real understanding of the great man from Nazareth and what it really means to follow his teaching and his example. This is the only “rational” thing to do according to Tolstoy as it is the only way to REAL life. All other roads lead to death (which is counter to reason).

Also to call Tolstoy a sexist is absurd and ignorant of what the man believed and what he did as a consequence of his beliefs. This novel is not a book about adultery it is (like ALL of Tolstoy’s books) about how to behave morally (always centered around one of Christ’s five commandments outlined in “What I Believe.” Lastly, anarchism to Tolstoy meant “no rulers” not “chaos” (such as Antifa which she mentioned would suggest). This is also the only position compatible with Christ’s real teaching. Accordingly Tolstoy’s position, on everything, would remain completely unchanged because he drilled down the the one fundamental law (the axiomatic cornerstone) of the universe which is completely unchanging throughout time and space.

Amazing lecture, ate up every minute

Why do you think that Tolstoy named the book Anna Karenina rather than Konstantin Levin?

For how long was Levin gone from the moment he was rejected by Kitty until he returned to Kitty and asked her for her love a second time?

Hi 👋 This is the most interesting explanation of this book I’ve listened to! A friend recommended this book and as I read I found that I was much more interested in the people who could see this book as “groundbreaking” and a “masterpiece” than the story itself, which I found silly, contrived, cliche and Tolstoy’s attempt at describing the inner thoughts of women ridiculous and shallow and pretty corny. There’s a LOT of videos giving this story meaning, though this one gave me the best understanding of the Russian history and the times Tolstoy lived in. Great job 👏 thank you 😊

Tolstoy is sexist...

Amazing explanation of the last section.

What a great lecture. It is obvious that the professor has lived with the novel in a significant way.

Excellent and interesting summary.

good lecturer

I read this long ago...but I don't recall that Vronsky was a "ne'er do well".

Great lecture, loved the parallel with M. Bovary.

Wonderful how you explained this novel thank you smart and educated woman aiam not educated as well as you but I have a very hi iou and love listening to educated people

Regarding movies of Aииa - there is a recent Яussiaи mini series ‘Vronsky’s Story’. Thirty years afterwards he is wounded (Russo-Japanese War) and his doctor is Seryozia, Anna’s son. Told in flashback, it is opulent, convincing, complete with Anna’s willful curls. It is in Russian with subtitles. Simple to rewind if you miss anything.
None of the parallel Levin story, since Vronsky meets him maybe twice; and a very simpatico Dolly.