Talk:Anna Karenina

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anna Karenina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Novels: 19th century Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Russia: Language & literature High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.

Translation studies Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oprah's Thesis?

Hmmm. Wikipedia isn't exactly a place to promote an interpretation or thesis, so I'm not sure the new rewrites should stand. Surely this reader got the idea after the last Oprah installment on TV? Mandel 06:38, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Russian diminutives in synopsis; note on transliteration

Someone recently changed the names Kitty and Dolly to "Katya" and "Dasha." While these are both correct in general, they are not correct in the context of AK. English was a fashionable language among the upper classes (though not as much as French), and these English names (along with Betsy and Annie) appear phonetically spelled out in the original Russian text as Кити, Долли, Бетси, and Ани.

I never quite knew why these characters had such diminutives, but I'm guessing it was one of Tolstoy's jabs at aristocratic affectations. In any case, if anyone would like to check out the original, here's a link to the original Russian text.

Also, I strongly feel that the Russian letter Щ should be transliterated as "shch", and not as "shtch", as a previous contributor had done. (Actually, I feel it should just be transliterated as "sh," since it's easier for us, and it's pretty much how most Russians pronounce it anyway, but I guess that's not linguistically accurate...)

Wikipedia also recommends the "shch" transliteration (see Transliteration of Russian into English), as it's the standard in the U.N., RF, blah blah blah. And frankly, I've never seen "shtch" before. I'm not a native speaker, but I've been studying and speaking Russian for over 15 years (including time spent living in the FSU), and this is a new one to me. "Shch" is jarring enough in English, and even though I understand the logic behind it, "shtch" is just too much!

--dablaze 16:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aha, now I see why Dasha and Katya were abbreviated to Dolly and Kitty. I thought it was just someone being lazy and using anglicised versions. Olga Raskolnikova 13:32, 26 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Wikipedia's article in ANNA KARENINA in several languages: French, German, Italian. They all use the English nicknames "Kitty" and "Dolly" for Ekaterina and Darya, presumably reflecting how the novel is translated in those languages. So I guess that even in Russian, Tolstoy had the English nicknames in mind. A previous poster said this was "one of Tolstoy's jabs at aristocratic affectations"; yet the novel treats the Sherbatskis sympathetically, not as pompous aristocrats.71.59.43.26 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought here was best place for my query. Why is it Anna Karenina when my copy is Anna Karenin (Penguin Classic) throughout and in title. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Karenina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911191008/http://www.pitt.edu/~slavic/sisc/SISC2/makoveeva.pdf to http://www.pitt.edu/~slavic/sisc/SISC2/makoveeva.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New lede

I have tried to expand/ improve the lead of this article. I think it's better now but happy if anyone else wants to pitch in as well. Budapest Joe (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)BudapestJoe[reply]

Opening line and "A Tale of the Tub"

Compare Karenina's opening line to this from Jonathan Swift's Preface to "A Tale of the Tub":

For, as health is but one thing, and has been always the same, whereas diseases are by thousands, besides new and daily additions; so, all the virtues that have been ever in mankind, are to be counted upon a few fingers, but his follies and vices are innumerable, and time adds hourly to the heap.

Snapdragon630 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Work Of Literature Ever Anywhere All Time End of Story Full Stop.

The lead section claim that this is the number one best work of literature is bonkers. It's based on a single source [1] .. which ironically calls into question the very notion of ranking literature in the first place. Yes, we have a list that ranked it number one, in the year 2007, based on a limited survey of a few people. but there are other similar lists that do not rank it number one. It's ridiculous to make this claim on Wikipedia at all, much less based on this single source that is nearly 18 years old. It is true that the novel is often included in such lists, but not true it is universally considered number one. -- GreenC 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered it. Who gave you that power to decide if it isn’t? Wiki admins are so full of shit it’s unbelievable lmao 204.48.77.219 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not number 1 (Forbes)
Not number 1 (World Library)
Not number 1 (Modern Library)
Not number 1 (The Guardian)

There are 1000s of "Best of Literature" lists. And for most of them, Anna Karenina is not number 1. Who gave you the power to say so many sources are wrong? -- GreenC 21:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>uses Forbes as a “source” for literature Lmao yeah alright dude, you totally know more than me. 204.48.79.233 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]