Impact: Anna Karenina

The Man Who Wrote God and Grain

Leo Tolstoy was born in 1828 into one of Russia's oldest noble families, on a sprawling estate called Yasnaya Polyana about 120 miles south of Moscow. He inherited the estate at nineteen, after a childhood of aristocratic chaos — his mother died when he was two, his father when he was nine — and he spent the next several decades writing, farming, gambling, chasing women, and arguing with himself about God. By the time he started Anna Karenina in 1873, he was already the author of War and Peace, had fathered thirteen children with his wife Sophia, and was in the grip of a spiritual crisis that would eventually lead him to renounce his own novels as morally worthless.

That crisis is not incidental to Anna Karenina — it is baked into its structure. Tolstoy originally conceived the novel as a morality tale about a fallen woman, and his first drafts were considerably harsher toward Anna. But the book changed under his hands as he wrote it, because Tolstoy was constitutionally unable to write about people without coming to understand them. The character of Konstantin Levin — the introspective landowner who spends the novel farming, philosophizing, and failing to find peace — is barely disguised autobiography. The name Levin is a thin rearrangement of Tolstoy's own. When Levin finds a kind of grace at the novel's end through simple work and human love, it is Tolstoy working out in fiction what he was failing to resolve in life.

An Immediate Sensation

Anna Karenina did not have to wait for posterity. It was serialized in the journal Russky Vestnik and readers devoured each installment as it appeared. In a culture where literary fiction was central to public life in a way that's almost impossible to imagine today, the novel's episodes were discussed in drawing rooms, debated in newspapers, and read aloud in households across Russia. The editor of Russky Vestnik, Mikhail Katkov, was so uncomfortable with the novel's concluding section — in which Tolstoy sharply criticized Russian volunteers going to fight in Serbia, views Katkov found politically objectionable — that he refused to publish it. Tolstoy published the final part himself as a standalone pamphlet. The argument made headlines.

Dostoevsky, then editing his own publication, wrote at length about Anna Karenina as it appeared, calling it 'a perfect artistic production' and arguing that it demonstrated something uniquely Russian about the national conscience. Foreign admirers agreed. When the novel was translated into French and English in the early 1880s, Matthew Arnold reviewed it in 1887 and called Tolstoy's work superior to Flaubert's — a comparison that had obvious implications, since Madame Bovary covered recognizably similar territory. The books get compared constantly, and it's worth being specific about the difference: Emma Bovary is destroyed by romanticism and self-delusion; Anna Karenina is destroyed by a social system that she sees clearly and cannot escape.

What the Novel Is Actually About

The famous opening line — 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way' — is so well known that it has become almost invisible, like a painting hung too long in the same hallway. But it is worth slowing down for. Tolstoy is not making a cozy observation about domestic life. He is announcing a principle of structure: the novel will follow unhappiness in its specific, particular, irreducible forms, and he will not sentimentalize it. The very first scene demonstrates this with surgical precision. Stiva Oblonsky, having been caught in an affair, does not feel guilt exactly — he feels the acute discomfort of having been seen. When his wife confronts him, his face involuntarily assumes what Tolstoy calls its 'habitual, good-humored, and therefore idiotic smile.' The word 'idiotic' lands like a stone. Tolstoy is not sympathizing.

The novel runs two parallel stories that are almost never parallel in mood or energy. Anna's story is the one we remember: the magnetic St. Petersburg socialite who abandons her cold, bureaucratic husband Karenin for the dashing cavalry officer Vronsky, loses her social standing, becomes increasingly isolated, and eventually steps in front of a train. Levin's story — courtship, marriage, farming, faith — seems almost tediously domestic by comparison, and many readers confess to skimming it on first read. They are wrong to do so. Tolstoy structures the novel so that Levin's hard-won contentment is the answer to a question Anna's tragedy poses: is it possible to live honestly inside the constraints society provides? Levin barely manages it. Anna cannot manage it at all. The novel does not punish her for trying.

The Woman and the Train

It is worth being honest about what Tolstoy does to Anna, because it has troubled readers for nearly 150 years. She is the most vivid character in the book — charming, perceptive, warm, and more intelligent than nearly everyone around her — and the novel systematically destroys her. She loses her son. She loses her reputation. She loses Vronsky's love, or at least her certainty of it, and that loss is compounded by the fact that she is by then entirely dependent on him since everything else is gone. She descends into paranoia. She takes morphine to sleep. And then she throws herself under a train at a provincial railway station.

Critics in Tolstoy's own time argued about whether he was condemning Anna or condemning the society that condemned her. The epigraph Tolstoy chose — 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay' — comes from Romans 12:19, and it hangs over the novel like a question mark. Who is speaking? God, warning against human judgment of Anna? Or God, pronouncing judgment on Anna herself? Tolstoy reportedly said he didn't know when he chose it. What the novel makes unmistakably clear is that the people who shun Anna at the opera, who refuse to receive her in their homes, who cut her dead in the street — they are not moral authorities. They are hypocrites. Stiva's affair with the governess is an open secret in Moscow society. No one shuns him. He keeps his government post and his club membership and his charming social life. He is a man.

Cultural Footprint

Anna Karenina has been adapted for film more than thirty times, a number that reflects both the story's cinematic power and the persistent difficulty of capturing it on screen. The 1948 British version starred Vivien Leigh; the 1997 version starred Sophie Marceau; the 2012 version, directed by Joe Wright with a screenplay by Tom Stoppard, staged the action inside a theatre as a formal experiment, with characters moving between the stage and the wings and the auditorium. Critics were divided. Keira Knightley's Anna was nearly universally praised. The adaptation revealed something important: the novel's theatricality — its sense of characters performing for social audiences, always watched — is already there in the text. Stoppard didn't impose a metaphor; he made one visible.

The novel's influence on subsequent fiction is enormous and specific. Faulkner cited Tolstoy. Thomas Mann called him a master. Hemingway, who famously advised writers to simply read Anna Karenina and War and Peace and not waste time asking questions about writing, absorbed Tolstoy's technique of revealing character through physical gesture — the idiotic smile, the reaching hand, the involuntary blush — and stripped it down to its essentials. More recently, writers like Elif Batuman and Ian McEwan have written directly about what Tolstoy means to them. The novel's central problem — how do you live an authentic life inside systems designed to punish authenticity — has never stopped being contemporary.

Why It Still Matters

There is a version of this essay that would tell you Anna Karenina matters because it asks timeless questions about love and freedom. That is true but insufficient. What makes the novel still sharp after nearly 150 years is its specificity — its refusal to let any character, including Anna, off the hook through abstraction. Tolstoy does not say 'society is cruel.' He shows you exactly which social mechanisms grind a person down, in what order, and at what cost. He shows you Karenin signing the divorce papers and then not signing them and then signing them again, and you understand the bureaucracy of marital anguish in a way that no general statement could produce. He shows you Anna watching Vronsky for signs of cooling interest and being unable to stop herself from watching, and it is one of the most psychologically exact portraits of jealousy in literature.

The novel is also, despite everything, full of life in the most literal sense. The scene where Levin mows hay with the peasants on a summer morning — losing himself in physical rhythm, the scythe swinging, time dissolving — is one of the most beautiful descriptions of happiness in all of fiction. Tolstoy wrote a novel about destruction and filled it with scenes of such precise, embodied joy that the destruction becomes more terrible by contrast. That is not an accident. That is the architecture of the whole thing: to make you feel what is being lost as it is being lost, and to hold you responsible for noticing.

Further Reading & Resources

Related Works in Our Library