Henry, I agree with others that your video mini-lectures really elevate your read-alongs. You're teaching me by example to read more vigorously, to appreciate more deeply. I'll read a passage and think it's good -- good plot movement, good characterizations, good descriptions -- but then your expressions of joy over the greatness of those same passages shows me how much more there is. I'm slowly, slowly learning to read with your zeal. Thank you for setting that example.
A restaurant critic friend used to refer to her guest for a meal she was reviewing as her "convive." I just looked it up again, and, unlike "convivial," it's used narrowly in food-related settings. That's how I've come to think of you -- as our convive, showing us we're at a banquet with so much to savor.
Alan, what an incredibly kind message — I love that idea of the convive! It’s honestly such a pleasure to be reading with a group of such engaged and interesting companions. Thank you for taking the time to write such generous feedback.
Such excitement! Such turmoil! You're right, Henry, that we as readers are quite confused over the change in the Karenin-Anna-Vronsky triangle. Anna seems to also have had a change of heart, but is it all just hormone-related guilt? Childbirth is a big deal. What will happen to the baby? Who will raise her and who will she think her father is? What a cliffhanger.
I found the women's lib discussion infuriating (as an American woman in 2025) but was pleased at the Pestov character. Related: I have noticed that Levin is easily swayed on things. His viewpoints are quite malleable, which is good, I think, but it also makes me think he hasn't done a whole lot of critical thinking on some of these topics.
The government committee scenes were pretty funny - the whole thing felt a bit like a farce. Tolstoy is painting the government bureaucrats as a bunch of paper-pushers.
I was suddenly struck during the women’s education conversation that all the women round the table were listening silently, biting their tongues — it makes the conversation seem even more blinkered and bigoted.
I would love to know more about Tolstoy's feelings about government bureaucracy because he does such a great job of making their work seem farcical!
I've also been struck by how Levin's opinions on big matters seem to change on a whim -- his moods, his company, etc. I'm curious what Tolstoy's motivation is there.
As with 'War and Peace', I'm amazed by how cinematic this feels. So much of this section relies on what is unspoken. I'd picked up on the pigeons, the rolls and the schoolchildren - it is just so visual.
Yes, of course, we're all rooting for Kitty and Levin - and LT teases us with things working out for them while things get worse for Anna and Vronsky (and Karenin!).
The discussion about women's rights felt particularly close to the bone - especially the different ways adultery is treated. And then we see how Kitty can forgive Levin (although I for one wouldn't be surprised if his exploits were used against him in later life) but Karenin can't forgive Anna. Or can he?
Kitty and Levin communicating through initial letters reminds me of trying to decipher various hashtags which seem to be just a jumble of letters. In my case, they tend to stay as a jumble of letters until I give up and consult Dr Google - an option not open to our young lovers.
The surprise for me is that I'm warming to Vronsky far more than I expected (and,of course, he was responsible for the Kitty/Levin situation, the cad!). He shows genuine concern when I expected a more cavalier attitude. And when Karenin is affected by the situation, all bets - about anything - are off.
One thing I liked in this section was the walk-on parts - the doormen, the solicitors - who seem fully-formed rather than plot devices. The richness of the characterisation is brilliant.
I love that you pointed out the walk-on parts. Tolstoy really does that well. I read a short story by him some time ago, and the richness of characters that turn out to be bit players struck me then. I had forgotten about it.
I thought that the first phrase could well have opened the novel: “The Karenins, husband and wife, continued living in the same house and met every day, but they were wholly estranged.”
I thought that Vronski’s motivations were well drawn and realistic for staying in the relationship e.g. the contempt he feels for Karenin is in the mix along with his “manner, habitual since childhood, of one who has nothing to be ashamed of …”
I found the dreams section quite startling in C3 as well as the keenly drawn jealousy.
I love the skill of the many lines that imply a character trait. E.g. C4 when Karenin goes to the opera: “He sat through two acts and saw everybody it was necessary for him to see.”
These ‘accumulations’ lead to the complete believability of Karenin thinking “there was still some hope of her dying” in order to mainly save his social embarrassment it seems.
I think I would have been all at sea with the code of initial letters were I with either Kitty or Levin! But what a lovely sequence.
What does the diary contain? That he’s not religious? That he’s slept with other people? Sorry, need a bit of help on that one.
And that meeting between Karenin and Vronsky! Gosh, what a scene.
I love your observation that “The Karenins, husband and wife, continued living in the same house and met every day, but they were wholly estranged” could have opened the novel. Very thought-provoking. I wonder how much -- or how little -- our perspective would have changed if Tolstoy had said they're "wholly estranged" right from the start.
Thanks, Alan. Yes, it would be. I think I agree with Bren from the previous post that the opening line has a universality which this line obviously doesn’t have and indeed that almost implies yet another tedious ‘adultery’ novel
You are correct on the diary's contents. Kitty doesn't care about his lack of belief; I gleaned that she thinks she has enough faith to carry them both. But she is distraught that he has slept with other people. She forgives him because she loves him but is quite upset by it. I don't understand it, but I was her age in the early 2000s, and things had changed ;-)
Before reading this book , while reading Resurrection I think, I read somewhere that Tolstoy himself actually provided to his wife on their wedding night just such a recounting of all his past indiscretions. So I chuckled a little when Levin came to the realization that perhaps this had not been such a good idea after all. A little self own for Tolstoy.
Anna’s infidelity batters her mentally, emotionally and physically. She is evaluated by the cold gaze of society ( and even by her lover). Contrast this with how Oblonsky deals with his infidelity. Contrast Anna to Dolly who has made peace with her societal role as a woman and is shocked at Anna’s behavior. Then Tolstoy places this clever dinner party where we clearly see how society mocks women and discusses them in a highly derogatory fashion. What is enchanting about this author is he holds up mirrors - never points - and invites you to ask what you hate / love about a character says about you and the world you inhabit.
Thank you, Henry, for this, I really enjoyed your comments about the section we've just read.
I think that your description of the organisation behind the dinner party is so right, that it is like a recipe, the people the ingredients, and no one can fail to be there, or it won't work. So Stepan has to chivvy Karenin and oblige him to be there. His discomfort is pushed into the shadows once the Kitty-Levin situation begins to take shape, which is marvellous. Their happiness as a contrast to Karenin's misery, which only increases once he rushes home to Anna's aid. Tolstoy is so good at creating these contrasts of light and dark, hope and despair, life and death.
I feel as if at the end of every instalment, Tolstoy threw down his pen and thought, "I'm done! It's all out of me!" Then he rests, reconsiders, and takes up the story again.
I tend to focus on certain characters in each instalment, so although Levin and Kitty were entirely charming here I was really watching Karenin. He's a hard man to love, but I find his desire for social acceptance to be sad, and sort of endearing. Of course, he wasn't endearing when he wanted his wife to die, but we all have terrible thoughts in our heads that we don't want the world to see.
Karenin spends his days engrossed in bureaucratic procedures and his evenings in a sea of turmoil and repressed emotion. I admit when I started reading I had some idea that Vronsky was a romantic heartbeat of the book, but up to this point I find him the least interesting of all the characters. Maybe that will change with the next instalment.
Thank you, again, Henry, for leading us so capably.
Thank you, Henry. I really enjoy the monthly updates you do. I’m doing several slow reads this year, but this one is my favourite. A rollercoaster of events and emotions - I was tempted to read on but will resist!
I really liked the description of Levin’s ‘loved up’ state. The world became rose-tinted for him for a while.
I was surprised at Karenin’s change of heart towards Anna. Of course this is easier to understand if she were conveniently to die. It will be interesting to see how he behaves now that she is still alive …
I'm really curious how everyone is feeling about Anna at this point. It's odd to me that she is one of my least favorite characters in the novel. Even Karenin and Vronsky moved up slightly for me in this last section. But I find Anna so overly dramatic and manipulative that I don't trust her and find it hard to empathize with her at all. I even reread the chapter about her illness a couple of times because I wasn't convinced at first that she was actually that sick!
Ha! Yes, thank you, Henry, for facilitating a 2nd laugh in response to the glossy-green-Dutch-cucumber description!
Tolstoy’s writing and masterful orchestration of how the story unfolds continues to delight, nourish, and amaze.
I found it interesting in your video comments that at one point, I believe, you said “where did this come from in Levin’s imagination” when you were remarking about Levin and Kitty writing to each each other in code. I experienced it as a slip, with you saying Levin instead of “Tolstoy’s imagination” (although perhaps it wasn’t!). In my mind, though, such a telling parapraxis! It is difficult for me not to imagine that Levin signifies so much about who Tolstoy was.
Levin's love drunkess was far too saccharine for me. It made me miss the discussions on farming we have grown so used to. Still, his ranting to the two women until after midnight was very funny.
Also shout-out to Pestsov. If only we all shared such views!
I am so afraid for Kitty, she's so very young, isn't she? Levin is so much older than her.
"She was timid, frightened, shame-faced and all the more lovely because of it" Eww! Gave me the creeps. Call me cynical, I see all the build up of romance around the proposal and its acceptance by all, and the tears of both Kitty's parents, Prince and Princess Shcherbatsky is a ruse to stop us questioning the huge age gap and how young she really is.
As for Anna, she's increasingly becoming my least favourite character. Manipulative, lazy, hasn't done an honest day's work in her life, has every opportunity but does nothing to further her education or knowledge, and is given to too many flights of fancy. Even Karenin has begun to appear sympathetic in comparison.
Thank you for your insights, Henry, and the references and link to the Nabokov article really add to the reading experience. Let's get on with the next part!
Henry, I agree with others that your video mini-lectures really elevate your read-alongs. You're teaching me by example to read more vigorously, to appreciate more deeply. I'll read a passage and think it's good -- good plot movement, good characterizations, good descriptions -- but then your expressions of joy over the greatness of those same passages shows me how much more there is. I'm slowly, slowly learning to read with your zeal. Thank you for setting that example.
A restaurant critic friend used to refer to her guest for a meal she was reviewing as her "convive." I just looked it up again, and, unlike "convivial," it's used narrowly in food-related settings. That's how I've come to think of you -- as our convive, showing us we're at a banquet with so much to savor.
Alan, what an incredibly kind message — I love that idea of the convive! It’s honestly such a pleasure to be reading with a group of such engaged and interesting companions. Thank you for taking the time to write such generous feedback.
Such excitement! Such turmoil! You're right, Henry, that we as readers are quite confused over the change in the Karenin-Anna-Vronsky triangle. Anna seems to also have had a change of heart, but is it all just hormone-related guilt? Childbirth is a big deal. What will happen to the baby? Who will raise her and who will she think her father is? What a cliffhanger.
I found the women's lib discussion infuriating (as an American woman in 2025) but was pleased at the Pestov character. Related: I have noticed that Levin is easily swayed on things. His viewpoints are quite malleable, which is good, I think, but it also makes me think he hasn't done a whole lot of critical thinking on some of these topics.
The government committee scenes were pretty funny - the whole thing felt a bit like a farce. Tolstoy is painting the government bureaucrats as a bunch of paper-pushers.
I was suddenly struck during the women’s education conversation that all the women round the table were listening silently, biting their tongues — it makes the conversation seem even more blinkered and bigoted.
Yes! It reminds me of the landowner class discussing how the peasantry should live and work without ever consulting a member of the peasantry.
The discussion about women's education reminded me of the political arguments you hear every day now. Not so much the content, but the "logic":
Pestov: Women want to have the right to be independent, educated. They are hampered and oppressed by their consciousness of this not being possible.
Old Prince: And I'm hampered and oppressed that I can't get a job at the Orphanage as a wet-nurse.
*sigh*
Right! Huge eye roll.
I would love to know more about Tolstoy's feelings about government bureaucracy because he does such a great job of making their work seem farcical!
I've also been struck by how Levin's opinions on big matters seem to change on a whim -- his moods, his company, etc. I'm curious what Tolstoy's motivation is there.
As with 'War and Peace', I'm amazed by how cinematic this feels. So much of this section relies on what is unspoken. I'd picked up on the pigeons, the rolls and the schoolchildren - it is just so visual.
Yes, of course, we're all rooting for Kitty and Levin - and LT teases us with things working out for them while things get worse for Anna and Vronsky (and Karenin!).
The discussion about women's rights felt particularly close to the bone - especially the different ways adultery is treated. And then we see how Kitty can forgive Levin (although I for one wouldn't be surprised if his exploits were used against him in later life) but Karenin can't forgive Anna. Or can he?
Kitty and Levin communicating through initial letters reminds me of trying to decipher various hashtags which seem to be just a jumble of letters. In my case, they tend to stay as a jumble of letters until I give up and consult Dr Google - an option not open to our young lovers.
The surprise for me is that I'm warming to Vronsky far more than I expected (and,of course, he was responsible for the Kitty/Levin situation, the cad!). He shows genuine concern when I expected a more cavalier attitude. And when Karenin is affected by the situation, all bets - about anything - are off.
One thing I liked in this section was the walk-on parts - the doormen, the solicitors - who seem fully-formed rather than plot devices. The richness of the characterisation is brilliant.
Bring on the next section!
Thank you Bren — wonderful comments! Completely agree about the rich characterisation of the small parts.
I love that you pointed out the walk-on parts. Tolstoy really does that well. I read a short story by him some time ago, and the richness of characters that turn out to be bit players struck me then. I had forgotten about it.
I thought that the first phrase could well have opened the novel: “The Karenins, husband and wife, continued living in the same house and met every day, but they were wholly estranged.”
I thought that Vronski’s motivations were well drawn and realistic for staying in the relationship e.g. the contempt he feels for Karenin is in the mix along with his “manner, habitual since childhood, of one who has nothing to be ashamed of …”
I found the dreams section quite startling in C3 as well as the keenly drawn jealousy.
I love the skill of the many lines that imply a character trait. E.g. C4 when Karenin goes to the opera: “He sat through two acts and saw everybody it was necessary for him to see.”
These ‘accumulations’ lead to the complete believability of Karenin thinking “there was still some hope of her dying” in order to mainly save his social embarrassment it seems.
I think I would have been all at sea with the code of initial letters were I with either Kitty or Levin! But what a lovely sequence.
What does the diary contain? That he’s not religious? That he’s slept with other people? Sorry, need a bit of help on that one.
And that meeting between Karenin and Vronsky! Gosh, what a scene.
I love your observation that “The Karenins, husband and wife, continued living in the same house and met every day, but they were wholly estranged” could have opened the novel. Very thought-provoking. I wonder how much -- or how little -- our perspective would have changed if Tolstoy had said they're "wholly estranged" right from the start.
Thanks, Alan. Yes, it would be. I think I agree with Bren from the previous post that the opening line has a universality which this line obviously doesn’t have and indeed that almost implies yet another tedious ‘adultery’ novel
You are correct on the diary's contents. Kitty doesn't care about his lack of belief; I gleaned that she thinks she has enough faith to carry them both. But she is distraught that he has slept with other people. She forgives him because she loves him but is quite upset by it. I don't understand it, but I was her age in the early 2000s, and things had changed ;-)
Thank you Kristen
Before reading this book , while reading Resurrection I think, I read somewhere that Tolstoy himself actually provided to his wife on their wedding night just such a recounting of all his past indiscretions. So I chuckled a little when Levin came to the realization that perhaps this had not been such a good idea after all. A little self own for Tolstoy.
Oh, that's funny!
You’re welcome!
Anna’s infidelity batters her mentally, emotionally and physically. She is evaluated by the cold gaze of society ( and even by her lover). Contrast this with how Oblonsky deals with his infidelity. Contrast Anna to Dolly who has made peace with her societal role as a woman and is shocked at Anna’s behavior. Then Tolstoy places this clever dinner party where we clearly see how society mocks women and discusses them in a highly derogatory fashion. What is enchanting about this author is he holds up mirrors - never points - and invites you to ask what you hate / love about a character says about you and the world you inhabit.
This is so well put – it is really enchanting, as you say!
Thank you, Henry, for this, I really enjoyed your comments about the section we've just read.
I think that your description of the organisation behind the dinner party is so right, that it is like a recipe, the people the ingredients, and no one can fail to be there, or it won't work. So Stepan has to chivvy Karenin and oblige him to be there. His discomfort is pushed into the shadows once the Kitty-Levin situation begins to take shape, which is marvellous. Their happiness as a contrast to Karenin's misery, which only increases once he rushes home to Anna's aid. Tolstoy is so good at creating these contrasts of light and dark, hope and despair, life and death.
So well put — the contrasts are brilliant, aren’t they?
I feel as if at the end of every instalment, Tolstoy threw down his pen and thought, "I'm done! It's all out of me!" Then he rests, reconsiders, and takes up the story again.
I tend to focus on certain characters in each instalment, so although Levin and Kitty were entirely charming here I was really watching Karenin. He's a hard man to love, but I find his desire for social acceptance to be sad, and sort of endearing. Of course, he wasn't endearing when he wanted his wife to die, but we all have terrible thoughts in our heads that we don't want the world to see.
Karenin spends his days engrossed in bureaucratic procedures and his evenings in a sea of turmoil and repressed emotion. I admit when I started reading I had some idea that Vronsky was a romantic heartbeat of the book, but up to this point I find him the least interesting of all the characters. Maybe that will change with the next instalment.
Thank you, again, Henry, for leading us so capably.
Thank you, Henry. I really enjoy the monthly updates you do. I’m doing several slow reads this year, but this one is my favourite. A rollercoaster of events and emotions - I was tempted to read on but will resist!
Thanks so much Lynn - I’m so glad you’re enjoying it!
I really liked the description of Levin’s ‘loved up’ state. The world became rose-tinted for him for a while.
I was surprised at Karenin’s change of heart towards Anna. Of course this is easier to understand if she were conveniently to die. It will be interesting to see how he behaves now that she is still alive …
I'm really curious how everyone is feeling about Anna at this point. It's odd to me that she is one of my least favorite characters in the novel. Even Karenin and Vronsky moved up slightly for me in this last section. But I find Anna so overly dramatic and manipulative that I don't trust her and find it hard to empathize with her at all. I even reread the chapter about her illness a couple of times because I wasn't convinced at first that she was actually that sick!
Same! Agree about Anna, my least favourite main character too.
Ha! Yes, thank you, Henry, for facilitating a 2nd laugh in response to the glossy-green-Dutch-cucumber description!
Tolstoy’s writing and masterful orchestration of how the story unfolds continues to delight, nourish, and amaze.
I found it interesting in your video comments that at one point, I believe, you said “where did this come from in Levin’s imagination” when you were remarking about Levin and Kitty writing to each each other in code. I experienced it as a slip, with you saying Levin instead of “Tolstoy’s imagination” (although perhaps it wasn’t!). In my mind, though, such a telling parapraxis! It is difficult for me not to imagine that Levin signifies so much about who Tolstoy was.
That does sound like a slip! I’ll have to listen back. Very telling . . .
Levin's love drunkess was far too saccharine for me. It made me miss the discussions on farming we have grown so used to. Still, his ranting to the two women until after midnight was very funny.
Also shout-out to Pestsov. If only we all shared such views!
I am so afraid for Kitty, she's so very young, isn't she? Levin is so much older than her.
"She was timid, frightened, shame-faced and all the more lovely because of it" Eww! Gave me the creeps. Call me cynical, I see all the build up of romance around the proposal and its acceptance by all, and the tears of both Kitty's parents, Prince and Princess Shcherbatsky is a ruse to stop us questioning the huge age gap and how young she really is.
As for Anna, she's increasingly becoming my least favourite character. Manipulative, lazy, hasn't done an honest day's work in her life, has every opportunity but does nothing to further her education or knowledge, and is given to too many flights of fancy. Even Karenin has begun to appear sympathetic in comparison.
Thank you for your insights, Henry, and the references and link to the Nabokov article really add to the reading experience. Let's get on with the next part!
I agree the age difference feels queasy by today’s standards . . .
Thanks, Henry - I too, enjoy your comments!