Is it worth the ~900 pages?

If you like parlor-room romantic intrigues about a witty, young aristocrat seduces a married woman, then I suggest Madam bovary. It's shorter, the prose is bloated with superfluous information, and it's significantly more worth your time. If you feel like reading a long book, read Les Miserables or Count of Monte Cristo. If you're curious about this book, save yourself time, effort, and money (if you actually planned to buy the doorstopper) and go read the wiki article about it. If you are wondering why it's so popular and world renown, it's because people at the time of it's publication loved reading about frilly dresses, frock coats, and menage a trois love-dramas; they couldn't get enough of them. If you're one of those people then go for it.

6/10

Yes, and that's the best edition.

Yes. And focus on details.

Too little Nikolai Levin, too much Anna Karenina.

But overall decent book,

Fuck, I meant Konstantin Levin, not that alcoholic asshole.

kys

Every single page is pure genius, so yes, it's worth it.

i've had it on my shelf for 5 years

Of course it is. It's an excellent book.

Tolstoy was a favorite of mine between the ages of 10 and 15, and thereafter. I suggest reading his complete works between 14 and 15. If you are older than that and asking seriously if his works should be read or not then there is little hope for you anyway... Do what you like with your time and leave this board henceforth.

In regards to Anna Karenina, be aware that nobody takes his utilitarian moralism seriously. Nevertheless, Anna Karenina has incomparable prose artistry. It is the supreme masterpiece of 19th-century literature, but only if you read it in Russian.

You're a faggot
(OP)
Yes, its fantastic

She looked like Oscar Wilde

When I was between the ages of 10 and 15 I was smoking weed and getting into skatepark fights (even though I diddent even skateboard), and I can guarantee I am smarter than you.

I mean, I know its bait, but bait works for a reason, right?

go to bed nabokov

literally Monty-Python-sketch-in-drag tier

Just read Book 3, it's the only good part.

Yes, but only if you read it in the original Russian (it would help if you read Tolstoy's original manuscript too, so you could count the tearstains in Book Three).

I feel the same, the chapters with Levin are the most enjoyable and meaningful

Is AK worse or better than Pride and Prejudice?

Anna Karenina is an objectively better book. That said, I still enjoyed P&P.

Anna karenina is about a bunch of russian aristocrats who are sad that they are too good looking and have too much money.

Yeah thats why she wrote so well. Same with jane austen. Both dogfaced women who werent getting any and who turned to writing to be "interesting" or just to vent their sexual frustration.

Levin is an asshole in his own way. He's an insuferrable little bitch who wildly switches from passive and depressive to angry and possessive.

Oblonsky is the man.

I remember finding some parts of this book very boring, such as the 100-200 pages Tolstoy spends talking about Russian agriculture or something like that. Nonetheless, the characters were remarkable but I hardly remember much about them and if it weren't for the earlier posts I wouldn't have been able to name anyone but the Karenina girl herself. The ending was pretty shocking if I remember correctly. Anyway, I'm not a great fan of Tolstoy. Unlike Knobakov, I prefer Dostoevsky.

>I remember finding some parts of this book very boring, such as the 100-200 pages Tolstoy spends talking about Russian agriculture or something like that.

The most plebeian sentence that will be written on Veeky Forums today.

>The most plebeian sentence that will be written on Veeky Forums today.

Also just kind of dumb. Levin doesn't spend almost 1/4 of the book talking about agriculture; he may be in a field somewhere, but he's mulling over the nature of country life, his nonexistent faith, his role in society, etc.

It's not "just" agriculture.

That's not what I meant. There was, if memory serves me right, a lengthy section of the book where Tolstoy rambles on about some boring agrarian reforms. You get a lot of that rubbish in 19th century novels probably due to the serial format of their original publication. The author and the publisher earned more money by milking the cow for as long as they could.

I recently began reading the book and I'm approaching the end.
However, peeping into this thread I slowly realized that the text I was using apparently omitted plenty of the original at worst, or reordered chapters at best.
Is anybody aware if there is an "alternate" edition like that? It's killing me, knowing I invested all this time in a viciously slashed novel.

Look up the ISBN of your book.

I made the same mistake with War and Peace. I got 600 pages into it and realized it was an abridged version. Now I check the inside cover on classics to see if it's abridged or extended or whatever. Never again.

I've found people complaining about the translation's quality, but this is far beyond that.

I've been comparing chapters (part 3, mostly) to an english version I found online and most of them check out. But every now and then there's a paragraph missing, or chapters are combined into one.
I'm not sure what I'd find out by checking the ISBN. It's not registered as abridged or modified, just as a spanish translation.

I put off reading Anna Karenina for a long time because I was reluctant to read a book about a woman. I'm glad I finally read it though. The scenes with Levin mowing grain or hunting ducks with his dog were so damn comfy. Also Vronsky was alpha as fuck, racing horses, fucking bitches and then going to Serbia to remove kebab. How based can you get? Well worth the read, OP.

I laughed.

Why the fuck would you do that? Just because one of the main characters was a woman? Really?
How sad.

He probably also only fucks dudes for the same reason

hi vlad

>going to Serbia to remove kebab
That's not supposed to be a good thing you dumb fuck

>smoking weed at 15

Your brain has been fired my man. Like a dummy you bought into the marijuana is harmless meme, which was based on old ass research. The new stuff, which can get into a lot of neurological detail now, shows that smoking weed is absolutely harmful to a developing brain. You shouldn't smoke at all, but if you must be a degenerate you should at least wait till you're 21+

Who thinks that sexual/social competition isn't a part of drama and universal human experience. Poorfag virgin 14 yr olds probably.

fellow spanishfag here, would you mind telling me if your book is the spanish penguin classics edition or is it from another publisher?

Read some of it and fucking find out, it's not like your time is so precious that you can't possibly waste it

How can removing kebab not be a good thing?