Anna Karenina读后感10篇
《Anna Karenina》是一本由Leo Tolstoy著作，Bantam Classics出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：CAD 9.95，页数：873，文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《Anna Karenina》读后感(一)：安娜是个什么人呢？
记得小时间看到过一句话，大意是说读一本书不要读一遍就再也不读了，而要在人不同的年龄读，书虽然没有任何变化，由于读书人人生阅历和思想的进步，人能从一本好书里面解读出来的东西就更多。
当时我是嗤之以鼻的，要知道我是一个连自己写完的东西撂笔都不愿再读一遍的人。总觉得在读活着写第一遍的时候，投入全部的精力就可以了，就已经精疲力竭了。可以想象，我基本上没有读两遍的小说。
《安娜卡列尼娜》出于客观原因，我不得不在多年后的今天重新读一遍。果然感受不太一样，之前在印象里，这些大部头的名著都是压抑的感觉，今天在读，发现果然名著要细细品，它们确实不会过时。换句话说，安娜也好——一个真实有魅力又被宠坏的少妇，列文也好——一个讨厌虚伪特立独行又积极思考的大龄男青年，换身衣服就可以是我们身边的某一个人。充满了现实意义。
安娜，让人恨不起来，她从来没有坏心眼，所以被她伤害或束缚住的人即便自己受委屈，也不忍心加之于罪。
她的错大概是从来没有认清现实，一直活在自己的理想世界里，不愿意妥协。她年纪很小就嫁给了有钱有权又稳重的丈夫卡列宁，丈夫简直是完美，却没有经营他们之间的爱情，这对于成熟女性并不算什么事情，但对于安娜，却是一个心结。她爱戴丈夫，从始至终。有人说过人生的任何一个阶段都是不能跳过去的，如果当时跳过去了，之后也是要补回来的。这个说法不好说对错，但是放在安娜身上，却能一部分解释她对与渥伦斯基的追求的回应。
但是她的自私和不妥协却引导她走向悲剧。她很长一段时间坚持不离婚也不回家，既不放弃原本家庭给予她的儿子和名誉，也不放弃新来的爱情。她不知道，她不离婚，她的儿子也已经饱受社会的舆论，他成长中也注定因为母亲而备受议论；她也没想过，她不组建新家庭，对与渥伦斯基和他们的女儿来说是一种怎样的侮辱和苟且。总是要逼到绝境才想要放手一点自己拥有的东西，这就是任性。她的这种行为，虽然能被爱人一时包容，却难以让人永远接受，不满只是时间问题。她深刻的明白自己的魅力所在，她知道怎么掌控渥伦斯基，但是当这些重复太多次，渥伦斯基或许行为上依旧控制不了自己去服从她，但内心也开始厌烦这种重复的模式，他看着她精心打扮，魅力十足的等着他，她依然像他当时第一眼看到时那么漂亮和充满魅力，但是这种刻意营造已经开始在他心底开始引起反感，他既反感她，也反感自己。
安娜的人生可以算得任性之至，她一直服从她内心的声音，做了自己想要做的事情。她的招人疼爱和好运气，使她一直顺风顺水，但是这种纵容，也让她忘记了怎么样妥协和受委屈。然而这又是人活着必须要学会的事情。
未完待续。
《Anna Karenina》读后感(二)：regard for anna
while i was reading gone with the wind, i mostly want to become someone like Melanie, physically fragile yet at the same time stronger than anyone else. Here, as i read through the lines of Anna, i sensed the utmost beauty that radiate out of her, a kindness without any pretention, the most touching purity of humankind.
《Anna Karenina》读后感(三)：没落的帝国里的人们
贵族与平民间的差距越来越小，但贵族们仍极力保持自己的优越感；
婚姻自由的思想逐渐潜入贵族家庭，但同时又仍然受到传统思想的束缚；
书中以anna和levin两人各自的爱情（以及信仰）为主线，涉及了各个阶层的形形色色的人，像是一幅历史长卷。
2013.3.20
Anna 与 Levin，在那个大家对于逐渐转变的社会和思想都还没有完全适应的环境下，都是冲破传统的人，只不过，Anna挣扎的结果是悲剧，而Levin的结果是平和幸福的人生。
书的最后，对于Levin思想的转变的心理状态，以及对于Anna自杀前的心理状态，都描写得非常详细和深刻。Levin最终有了坚定的信仰并渐渐的适应那个正在转变的社会，而Anna最终迷失在患得患失的“爱情”里。
===============================================
有一处提到Vronsky赛前去马房看他的赛马，对马的形象做了很详细的描述，如此详尽的描述看似奇怪，而最后一句“Vronsky买这匹马主要是因为它的blood”点亮了整段话，这其实是流淌在Vronsky身体里的贵族血液在作祟。
2013.1.11
不知不觉看到一半。
每个人都在发生蜕变。
Levin，受过良好的教育，爱好创新。在时代的变换中，他一开始也是反感阶级融合的，但逐渐认可了这种变化，并积极的寻找解决办法。
Kate，天真烂漫，对爱情有美好的憧憬却在被vrosky伤害后颠覆了人生，开始寻找支撑自己的新的信念。
Anna，在没有爱的环境中度过了许多年，才终于在遇到Vronsky后，炽热的燃烧。而这种被世俗不解和唾弃的爱情最终剥去了她的高贵与迷人，剩下自怜与悲情。
Vronsky，最初被Anna的高贵和美丽所吸引，为了爱情可以抛弃一切。而对于成就的潜在渴望，还有变得世俗和疑心起来的Anna，使他的激情渐渐冷却。
社会中不同的思想在碰撞，对于农业和农民合作方式的思考，对于阶层的思考，对于社会性质的思考，都在逐渐的深入。
===============================================
Levin对于经济的理解，似乎更偏向于社会主义。他和Steva争论的那段，让我觉得，Levin的脑袋好像不太够用。。。
Anna与Vronsky去乡下开始了新生活。这里提到了Dolly对Anna的看法。她其实是羡慕并且有些嫉妒的，但也无法跨出世俗的束缚。Dolly是一个在婚姻中得不到幸福的女人，对于爱情和自由有偷偷的渴望和幻想。
Anna与Vronsky，在那个年代的爱情，是被社会所遗弃的。
《Anna Karenina》读后感(四)：安娜是个什么人呢？
记得小时间看到过一句话，大意是说读一本书不要读一遍就再也不读了，而要在人不同的年龄读，书虽然没有任何变化，由于读书人人生阅历和思想的进步，人能从一本好书里面解读出来的东西就更多。
当时我是嗤之以鼻的，要知道我是一个连自己写完的东西撂笔都不愿再读一遍的人。总觉得在读活着写第一遍的时候，投入全部的精力就可以了，就已经精疲力竭了。可以想象，我基本上没有读两遍的小说。
《安娜卡列尼娜》出于客观原因，我不得不在多年后的今天重新读一遍。果然感受不太一样，之前在印象里，这些大部头的名著都是压抑的感觉，今天在读，发现果然名著要细细品，它们确实不会过时。换句话说，安娜也好——一个真实有魅力又被宠坏的少妇，列文也好——一个讨厌虚伪特立独行又积极思考的大龄男青年，换身衣服就可以是我们身边的某一个人。充满了现实意义。
安娜，让人恨不起来，她从来没有坏心眼，所以被她伤害或束缚住的人即便自己受委屈，也不忍心加之于罪。
她的错大概是从来没有认清现实，一直活在自己的理想世界里，不愿意妥协。她年纪很小就嫁给了有钱有权又稳重的丈夫卡列宁，丈夫简直是完美，却没有经营他们之间的爱情，这对于成熟女性并不算什么事情，但对于安娜，却是一个心结。她爱戴丈夫，从始至终。有人说过人生的任何一个阶段都是不能跳过去的，如果当时跳过去了，之后也是要补回来的。这个说法不好说对错，但是放在安娜身上，却能一部分解释她对与渥伦斯基的追求的回应。
但是她的自私和不妥协却引导她走向悲剧。她很长一段时间坚持不离婚也不回家，既不放弃原本家庭给予她的儿子和名誉，也不放弃新来的爱情。她不知道，她不离婚，她的儿子也已经饱受社会的舆论，他成长中也注定因为母亲而备受议论；她也没想过，她不组建新家庭，对与渥伦斯基和他们的女儿来说是一种怎样的侮辱和苟且。总是要逼到绝境才想要放手一点自己拥有的东西，这就是任性。她的这种行为，虽然能被爱人一时包容，却难以让人永远接受，不满只是时间问题。她深刻的明白自己的魅力所在，她知道怎么掌控渥伦斯基，但是当这些重复太多次，渥伦斯基或许行为上依旧控制不了自己去服从她，但内心也开始厌烦这种重复的模式，他看着她精心打扮，魅力十足的等着他，她依然像他当时第一眼看到时那么漂亮和充满魅力，但是这种刻意营造已经开始在他心底开始引起反感，他既反感她，也反感自己。
安娜的人生可以算得任性之至，她一直服从她内心的声音，做了自己想要做的事情。她的招人疼爱和好运气，使她一直顺风顺水，但是这种纵容，也让她忘记了怎么样妥协和受委屈。然而这又是人活着必须要学会的事情。
未完待续。
《Anna Karenina》读后感(五)：命运所趋，还是内心所向？
说来惭愧，是去年看《傲骨贤妻》时戴安的一席话让我产生强烈的冲动把这本书翻出来开始读的。
历时3个多月读完了，后来想想自己也是作，俄文的书读英文版本，自己都想给自己翻个白眼儿。
对于安娜，归根结底只能是感慨一声。她把爱情看得太重，而且看得不实，想要的太多。再受到社会所限，悲剧无可避免的酿成了。
看了BBC版的《战争与和平》，似乎要比这一本更深刻，准备读一读。
来自The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/is-anna-karenina-a-love-story
Tolstoy, I think, doesn’t know exactly how to think about Anna’s role in her own downfall, just as he doesn’t know exactly how to think about the free will of the soldiers and generals in “War and Peace.” He believes that we make choices, and that our sense of free will is based on something real. But he also has a deep respect for the complexity and power of our circumstances, and he considers our personalities and psychologies to be “circumstances,” too. There are limits to what we can do out there in the world, and there are also limits to what we can feel, endure, know, and imagine within ourselves. These inner limits may be just as permanent as the outer ones. In Anna’s case, she may have been hemmed in on all sides: driven, in her soul, to love Vronsky, while living in a world that made acting on that love unwise and unendurable. Or, she may have made an unwise choice, giving into desires she could have resisted because she underestimated how unyielding the world would be. We will never know what happened, exactly, just as Anna could not know. That’s one of the dreadful lessons of Anna’s story: she herself could not distinguish between what she was choosing to do and what she was driven to do. In life, we sometimes relinquish our freedom too easily, while, at other times, we struggle unwisely against laws that will not change. Give in too easily, and you drift through life; struggle too much, and you suffer for it.
After Anna dies, much of the end of the novel is devoted to Levin, who struggles to come to terms with the very small role he has played in his own happiness. Levin is likable, thoughtful, and sincere, but he is not particularly wise, experienced, or brilliant. (Tolstoy’s wife, Sonia, told Tolstoy that Levin was “you, without the talent.”) He is like Anna, in that he spends much of the novel debating, in a more overt and deliberate way, the same questions that Anna faces. Should he try to force the people and institutions around him to change, so that he can live in accordance with the dictates of his soul (for example, by remaking his farm along “modern” lines, politically and agriculturally)？ Or should he submit to one of the pre-determined possibilities his world offers him and become a completely conventional gentleman farmer？ Because he’s a rich, independent man, the stakes for him are lower than they are for Anna, but they’re still substantive: Levin feels that none of the usual ways of life will be meaningful for him, and he doesn’t want his life to be meaningless.
The thing about Levin is that, through some accident of temperament and circumstances, he ends up figuring things out. He struggles and shapes his own destiny just enough to be happy, while never going out of bounds, and ending up like Anna, or like his brother Nikolai, a political radical, who dies impoverished and angry. Somehow, over the course of the book, Levin achieves everything he wants: he is married to Kitty, and they have a beautiful family. And yet, he senses, he has not really improved himself in his soul, and he has done nothing to deserve his happiness. He still feels powerless, pointless, useless. “Happy in his family life,” Tolstoy writes, “a healthy man, Levin was several times so close to suicide that he hid a rope lest he hang himself with it, and was afraid to go about with a rifle lest he shoot himself.” In the end, he is carried along by the flow of life, and keeps on living. He finds his way to a diffuse kind of faith. There will be no radical transformations, he realizes, either romantic or religious. What is, is. He will try his best to be a good person, within the constraints that his circumstances and nature have placed upon him, and that will be good enough:
I’ll get angry in the same way with the coachman Ivan, argue in the same way, speak my mind inappropriately, there will be the same wall between my soul’s holy of holies and other people, even my wife, I’ll accuse her in the same way of my own fear and then regret it, I’ll fail in the same way to understand with my reason why I pray, and yet I will pray—but my life now, my whole life, regardless of all that may happen to me, every minute of it, is not only not meaningless, as it was before, but has the unquestionable meaning of the good which it is in my power to put into it!
The novel leaves us with an answer that is also a riddle. Why was Levin able to find this peace, while Anna was not？ Levin’s realization itself suggests that there’s no answer to that question. In “The Hedgehog and the Fox,” Isaiah Berlin writes that, for Tolstoy, wisdom consists in the ability “to grasp what human will and human reason can do, and what they cannot.” The only way to find those limits is to struggle against them, but gently, with the goal of finding and accepting them. You can’t think your way to the limits. You have to feel your way, learning through experience and suffering. And there is a risk in experimenting with what will and will not work in life, which is that it might not work. You might move to New York to pursue your dreams, and end up with no career to speak of. You might think you can wait to find the perfect spouse, but wait too long, and end up alone. You might think you can have that affair and still have the love of your spouse and children—but you may be mistaken about what’s possible, and lose everything.
There’s a deep conservatism to this way of thinking. It’s fatalistic, in an off-putting way, since it suggests that the limits of what’s possible are just not knowable in advance, and that experience and tradition are probably our best guides. In Anna’s case, it suggests that she should have tried harder to accept her unhappy marriage with Karenin. If she did try, and found herself hemmed in by limits on all sides, then there’s no making sense, in human terms, of her suffering. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay” is from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; it’s in the middle of a beautiful passage about the difficulties of accepting injustices and differences. “We have many members in one body,” Paul says, “and all members have not the same office.”
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good…Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
To read “Anna Karenina” is to care about Anna. She is one of the best characters in fiction; everyone in “Anna Karenina” loves her, and so do we. Reading about her struggle, it’s natural to want to understand it. Should Anna be applauded for her passion, or condemned for her foolhardiness？ Is she to be admired, or spurned？ Wright and Stoppard know that “Anna Karenina” urges you to push those questions aside. In its final minutes, their film asks you to contemplate the injustice and unknowability of it all. Watching Levin and Kitty with their baby in the film’s closing minutes, you feel how blessed they are. Vikander and Gleeson share a silent, reverent look, and in it you see their consciousness of their own undeserved happiness—of God’s grace. Even so, the movie can never quite escape its love-story roots. Its characters are too typed—wicked Anna, pure Kitty—and it doesn’t show us enough of their ordinary, unromantic lives for us to understand how similar they are to one another. Wright’s film only shows its characters falling in love. Tolstoy’s novel can take its time, showing how these characters struggle and hesitate, think and watch, imagine and debate, suffer and forgive. It can rise above the very human questions of admiration and condemnation, above the might-have-beens and should-have-dones, and simply say: this is the way things are. Be thankful for your happiness.
《Anna Karenina》读后感(六)：Alexey Alexandrovitch: A Cuckold's Guide to a Failed Marriage and an Unfaithful Wife(only 200 pa
This is only a tentative analysis of the character, Alexey Alexandrovitch Karenin, Anna Karenina's lawful husband. As the title of this short piece suggests, my understanding of this character is based on the first 200 pages that I at the moment have read of this book. As my reading progresses, I'll most likely review this review and make remedial changes and further this anatomy of literary history's famous cuckold.
Our first encounter of Alexey Alexandrovitch is through Stiva Oblonsky, Anna's brother, in the passage where we get to know how Stiva Oblonsky has obtained his official job in the state institution, from which we have a vague understanding of the important position of Alexey Alexandrovitch in Russian politics and society. Subsequently, we get to meet this personage in person and that is when Anna gets back to St. Petersburg from Moscow on the train station. Our first real glance of this man through Anna's eyes is tainted by his less than satisfactory looks, especially his weirdly shaped ears according to Anna, I believe, in contrast to the sublimely sculptured face of Vronsky who followed her to Petersburg. Our perception of Alexey Alexandrovitch might be tipped to the unfavorable side as a result of his routinely contemptuous and sarcastic tone whereby he converses with his wife. Why is he being sarcastic？ Is this a personality flaw that is consistent throughout his interactions with his fellow humans or is this tone directed at his wife in particular？ I still have no answer and am wandering if more will be revealed on this subject later on as the novel goes on.
Then we get to the pages where his daily routine is detailed which seems very nuanced and attention-demanding and his evening reading habit sheds light on the state of his mind that is inquisitive and sophisticated. We now have a more or less full-fledged image of this man. He is devoted to state affairs and very much occupied by his duties and the rest of his time is dedicated to reading and contemplating. Hence the tragedy of his wife who has not much to do but soirees, ballroom conversations and afternoon tea, who meanwhile desires attention and love and something more of her life.
After Anna's affair starts, Alexey Alexandrovitch first tries to talk to her, the failure of which prompts him to fully clam up and refuse to touch this sensitive issue that potentially puts him to contempt and humiliation. Anna sees his reaction to her extramarital engagement as a way to keep up appearances and avoid scandal, rather than his love for her. She sees nothing but ambition in his husband's eyes.But is it true that Alexey Alexandrovitch's wish to maintain his marriage just to advance his ambitions in politics？
Let's take a look at his mental journey right before he decides to talk to his wife about her possible affair;
quot;Alexey Alexandrovitch was standing face to face with life, with the possibility of his wife's loving someone other than himself, and this seemed to him very irrational and incomprehensible because it was life itself. All his life Alexey Alexandrovitch had lived and worked in official spheres, having to do with the reflection of life. And every time he had stumbled against life itself he had shrunk away from it."
As we have learned that Alexey is a man of profound knowledge and sophistication, now we get to the center of it that exposes him as a man that only lives in theories and refrains from the entanglements of real life events that could, as he possibly perceives, trivialize his existence. In other words, he would like to think he lives above the normal life and detests the emotional messiness that imbues it. Hence "he somewhat regretted that he should have to use his time and mental powers for domestic consumption, " Putting away all his personal feelings that he deems shameful, he has mapped out what he should say to his wife, which is painfully rational and impersonal:
quot;I must say and express fully the following points: first, exposition of the value to be attached to public opinion and to decorum; secondly, exposition of religious significance of marriage; thirdly, if need be, reference to the calamity possibly ensuing to our son; fourthly, reference to the unhappiness likely to result to herself."
A man of reason, a child of the Enlightenment, a husband who is destined to fail in a married life. Truth is he loves his life and has had complete confidence in her and respect for her, but he could not get down his pedestal that he builds for himself and present himself as a human being that is capable of feelings and love. His reason and rationality which he values more than his life ultimately paves the way for the tragic demise of his marriage.
Despite all his flaws as a human, he is as efficient as an advanced robot in his official duties and here is one of his secrets:
quot;Every minute of Alexey Alexandrovitch's life was portioned out and occupied. And to make time to get through all that lay before him every day, he adhered to the strictest punctuality. "Unhasting and unresting," was his motto."
《Anna Karenina》读后感(七)：幸与不幸，从何而来？
《安娜·卡列宁娜》的第一句大家早已耳熟能详，幸福的家庭都是相似的，不幸的家庭却各有各的不幸。可是，这句话背后至少有两个问题：幸福如何而来？不幸又是如何而来？当我读完托尔斯泰写就的这部巨著时，我心里有了答案。
1. 列文和安娜两条主线
《安娜》一书有两条主线：安娜追求爱情、最终失去爱情甚至更多；列文追求人生的意义、最后在跟佃户的交流中意外找到答案。乍看之下，这两条线毫不相关。安娜跟列文是十足的远亲，若不是列文死心塌地的爱着基蒂，也就是安娜哥哥斯蒂瓦的老婆多莉的妹妹，他们俩也许不会有任何交集。至始至终，安娜与列文真正的交流只有一次。托尔斯泰为什么要安排这两条线呢？
托翁的编辑拿到手稿后也有这个疑问，为此还专门致信质疑列文这条线的意义。托翁回信的大意是，如果你看得足够仔细，你早晚会意识到这两条线内在的关联。我想表达的是一个非常宏大的主题，而对这个主题任何直接的描写都不能完全把它表达出来，所以我最终安排了这两条线。而真理，你能从这两条线的间隙中悟道。
2. 安娜、列文人物的刻画
这两条主线的关键之处就在于安娜与列文性格的相似，和生命追求的不同。这两个人表面上看完全相反，一个最终以悲剧收场，另一个却找到了真理。但实际上，他们有一个重要的共同点，那就是真实。在列文与安娜唯一一次正式的会面中，列文深深的被安娜的气质所吸引，虽然当时她已经处在千夫所指的尴尬境地。在列文眼里，安娜除了高雅，聪慧，美丽迷人以外，她还无比真诚，她不愿隐藏自己的苦楚。而列文自己，也是这样一个真实的人。他不愿剥削压榨佃户，不愿因为自身是贵族就居高临下盛气凌人。他甚至不顾自己的社会地位，亲自到农田锄地，经手所有农杂。而更有说服力的一个细节，就是当他还不是信徒时，也在跟结婚前跟基蒂坦白自己失贞的事实。所以，在安娜的世界里，安娜是最孤独的一个；而在列文的世界里，列文也是最孤独的一个。可是，安娜的世界和列文的世界却少有重合之处。
但安娜跟列文有一个巨大的不同点，那就是人生追求的不同。安娜18岁嫁给卡列宁，生了萨廖莎后生活平淡而充实，第一次离开儿子时她思念无比——她当时的生活很简单。直到，她的欲望被弗龙斯基唤醒，她的童真一去不回。从车站那场相遇开始，安娜的生命有了新的追求——爱情。弗龙斯基的翩翩风度、他的英姿、他对安娜执着地追求化解了安娜内心的最后防线。和弗龙斯基在一起，对安娜来说便是幸福，便是开心，便是一切。这个追求在当时的俄国，迫于种种压力，自然是很难实现的，但安娜是忠于内心的，她说，I can't act except from the heart. 她忠于内心，而非道德准则。她后来对卡利宁造成的巨大伤害，以及最终她决定抱复弗龙斯基，都基于同一点——安娜是忠于内心的。她要爱情，爱情！她绝不要虚情假意，绝不伪善。
跟安娜同样真实的列文，只是因为追求的东西不同，最终的命运跟安娜迥然不同。他追求的是真理，是人生的意义。对列文来说，Without knowing what I am and why I am, life is impossible. 列文曾经是基督信徒，可是那时随着进化论和其他科学技术的不断进步，人们逐渐开始抛弃宗教信仰，改做无神论者。由于进化论和创世纪看上去的冲突，因为列文实事求是，他也变成了无神论者。可是，没有了上帝，生命的意义就变得无从解释。人为什么要活着，如果人是从猴子进化来的，猴子又是从其他生物进化来的，难道人就是偶然出现在地球上的吗？人生的目的就是为了吃喝拉撒、生儿育女吗？为了找到人生的意义，列文不断阅读，跟上流社会的其他人交换意见，孜孜不倦地钻研哲学著作。可结果都是惘然。直到最后，他遇到了一个佃户，他说了很简单的几句话，可对列文说却如同一道闪电，照亮了他的希望，让他重新找回失散多年的耶稣。那位佃户说，Folks are different, one man lives for his own wants and nothing else…and someone else lives for his soul, he does not forget God.
而安娜，无疑就是 live for her own wants, 而列文却是坚定地要 lives for his soul，要为上帝而活，要正直地活着。
3. 其他人物的刻画
托尔斯泰的小说对我而言最迷人的地方，不是剧情、不是结构、不是文笔，而是人物的刻画。我从来没有见识过这么仁慈这么充满爱的作家，他笔下的每个人物都仿佛是他亲生一般，他不仅无比了解笔下的每个人物，而且完全不会给他们”扣帽子“或下定论，而是让读者们都切身同情这些人物，没办法不去理解他们。为了防止读者评判安娜，他甚至在书的扉页写了: Vengeance is mine, I will repay（伸冤在我，我必报应，出自圣经《罗马书》12章19节）.
安娜的哥哥斯蒂瓦、她的丈夫卡列宁、她的情人弗龙斯基、她的嫂子多莉；列文的妻子基蒂、列文的哥哥谢尔盖和他的弟弟⋯⋯托尔斯泰笔下的人物是活的。他们虽然各自都有一些小缺点，可读来却依然令人喜爱。而在《安娜》中，这些人物还有重要的功能，就是作为安娜和列文的对比。安娜追求内心，列文想以不违背内心的方式追求真理。在这两个极端之间，许多人物都可以对号入座。
弗龙斯基追求欲望，他爱安娜，可他不只爱安娜。他还爱赛马，还渴望仕途，还留恋上流圈。虽然在安娜分娩时，他的所有其他渴望都瞬间消失了，可在跟安娜私奔后，他的其他欲望又苏醒了。跟安娜一同私奔去意大利后，他发现，in spite of the complete realization of what had so long desired, was not perfectly happy. He soon felt that the realization of his desires gave him no more than a grain of sand out of the mountain of happiness he had expected. 弗龙斯基的心理变化道出了人性的真理之一：
It showed him the mistake men make in picturing to themselves happiness as the realization of their desires（人们总误以为幸福在于满足自己的欲望）⋯⋯跟安娜生活在一起后，他感到满足，可这满足感并没持续多久。他的内心马上开始涌现对欲望本身的渴望。所以，弗龙斯基是为了满足欲望而活着。
卡列宁则是忠于原则地活着。他是虔诚的基督徒，生活无比规律，每天从起床，上班，回家，吃饭，看书，入寝都是精确到分的。每次遇到棘手的问题，他都会理性分析，反复确认自己的行为是不违背原则的。他的冷静开始有点让人难以接受，我很惊讶，他得知妻子出轨后居然不勃然大怒，而是努力控制情绪，思考离婚、分居、和好等等情况下对自己的利弊，各自情况是否有违基督教准则⋯⋯可是，他对原则的捍卫不是佯装出来的，不然，他也不会在安娜的病榻前原谅她跟弗龙斯基。卡列宁一生都尊重原则，丝毫不怠慢，最后也收养了安娜跟弗龙斯基收养的女儿，可以说也是问心无愧了。我是越看到后来越越喜欢他。
斯蒂瓦、多莉、基蒂也都有许多独特的地方，她们活着都有不一样的追求，结果也不尽相同，这里我就不一一展开了。但我真心想说的一句是，没有人可以像托尔斯泰那样可以塑造出会犯错，会发疯，会令人愤怒，可同时却又惹人怜爱，令人喜欢的角色。他没有强加任何道德枷锁给任何一个人，他爱并且尊重笔下的每个角色。你甚至很难读到负面的形容词。
另一方面，托尔斯泰的心理描写也堪称一绝。他让读者真实地听到了安娜和列文内心的声音，他似乎就是住在人物心房里的人。一般的小说叙述者都挺统一，要么是第一人称，要么是第三人称。可《安娜》里却有多种声音，有的章节是以安娜为第一人称写的，有的是弗龙斯基，有的是卡列宁，有的是斯蒂瓦，有的是多莉，有的是基蒂。当然，这些叙述的过渡都无比自然，但我忍不住猜想，托尔斯泰是要有多了解人的内心，才能写得如此细致啊！
4.回到主题——幸或不幸，从何而来？
大家都说《安娜》这书主题极为复杂，我才疏学浅，可能现在看到的只是其中的几个方面，希望大家多思考多探索。回到开头的问题，幸福和不幸福的原因，我找到的答案是：幸福或不幸福，在于人生追求什么。
幸福不来自于真诚或忠于内心，因为安娜没有得到幸福。幸福也不来自于绝对的境遇，因为全书最惨的卡列宁，因为安娜失去家庭失去声誉甚至失去了对儿子的爱，可最后却因为遵循耶稣的教诲，原谅了他们，找到了内心的平和。幸福也不来自欲望的满足。因为弗龙斯基至少有一段时间，既有钱，又有才，又有仕途，又有人们的尊敬，还有他爱的安娜，可即使是在那段时间，他的内心依然是空虚的⋯⋯ 还有多莉、基蒂、斯蒂瓦，他们生活安逸，可我却不认为是真正的幸福。
全书，唯一找到幸福的，我认为是列文。为什么？还是去原书里找答案吧。
5. 其他一些我比较喜欢的一些句子
I have heard that women love men even for their vices, Anna began suddenly, but I hate him for his virtues. I can't live with him.
It is only those two creatures that I love, and one excludes the other. I can't have them together, and that's the only thing I want. And since I can't have them both, I don't care about the rest.
If without loving me, from duty he'll be good and kind to me, without what I want, that's a thousand times worse than unkindness! That's——hell！
ut I am married, and believe me, in getting to know thoroughly one's wife, if one loves her, as someone has said, one gets to know all women better than if one knew thousands of them.
Just as you can only carry a fardeau and do something with your hands, when the fardeau is tied on your back, and that's marriage. But to drag that fardeau about with you without marriage, your hands will always be so full that you can do nothings.
Duties are bound up with rights——power, money, honor; those are what women are seeking.
Freedom! What is freedom for？ Happiness is only in loving and wishing her wishes, thinking her thoughts, that is to say, not freedom at all.
6.小提醒
《安娜》这书已被千万读者热爱了百多年。如果有机会，还是读原著或英译本吧，但一定要选个全译本噢！节译本删了不少。中文的译本没英文的多，如果英文还可以，就花上一个月时间读读吧，我相信你会有收获，也会有惊喜。P.S. 我读的是Garnett版的英译本。
文|Yihan
想看更多文章？-> 去她的个人网站
《Anna Karenina》读后感(八)：不完美的人
这本书今年听了两遍，一直想写点笔记，拖到年末只能匆匆把些零碎想法概括几笔。托尔斯泰对万事万物观察之细体贴之深就不说了，这小说之所以能连听两遍享受主要在这里。
1.安娜与列文是非常相像的两个人，最大的不同是性别而已。这一点在听第二遍的时候感觉尤其深刻。他们情感的爆发力，情绪的不稳定，坦诚、偏执、缺乏安全感，在结尾处安娜死前的独白和列文找到上帝前的心理状态简直是如出一辙。这样相似的人有这样不同的结局是命运安排也是性别的差异。安娜如果是个男人有那样出身不会是这种下场。她迟迟不能离婚也是可以理解的，东正教的离婚跟我们今天所见的离婚是完全不同的概念。安娜的挣扎不是儿子与情人之间的挣扎，如果社会能承认她独立的地位给她一个普通人的自由和尊严，她对弗龙斯基大概不至于那样依赖，相比之下，列文对吉蒂的占有欲和嫉妒心更让我有些不能忍受。在某种程度上，甚至安娜与列文的结局也有相似处，安娜失去了爱情，这爱情被车轮生生轧断，列文，也就是托尔斯泰本人，后来实际上也失去了爱情，只是过程更漫长复杂而已，在生养了十三个孩子之后，他与他当年深爱的“吉蒂”几乎成了仇人，老托晚年写过一部男人杀妻的中篇，写得叫一个咬牙切齿，大概是帮他过了瘾了。有趣的是，老托过世也是在火车站，与几十年前先他而去的安娜又接上了头。
2.列文，也就是老托，在结尾处找到信仰，他看到单纯的俄罗斯农民的单纯美德，把他的希望及生活全部意义寄托在这种生活和信仰里，这个结局让我失望。所谓单纯无非是蒙昧的褒义词。善良、贫穷、苦难的俄罗斯人民和善良、贫穷、苦难的世界各国人民一样需要帮助，值得尊敬，他们的生活应该大写特写，但那种生活不是人的希望和意义所在。单纯的人民也可能是迷信而排外的，比《安娜》早不过一百多年，莫斯科还有外国商人被淳朴的俄罗斯人民自发的抓住烧死。善良的农民回家也能把老婆打的死去活来，当然在旧时俄罗斯，据说农民对老婆反而比贵族对老婆好些，因女人在农村是要派用场的，贵族不缺劳动力，打死了老婆可以再娶一个，东正教规定可以最多换三个老婆，至于换下去的老婆是死是活教义是不管的。到《安娜》的时代，贵族女人受的教育和待遇都好得多了，但对女人的轻视在小说中是显见的。
3.安娜生女儿濒死的时候与卡列宁达成的互相谅解一段非常感人，我们自以为很了解卡列宁这个人了，可是他做出了让所有人意想不到的事，我们读着他种种使人意外的想法又感到信服，这是老托神来之笔。他抓住了基督教的元气所在，那种卑微人心中的博爱，把骄傲和自尊双手奉献给人。安娜和卡列宁之前不是这样的人，之后也没能把这一时刻延续下去，这没有关系，永远博爱永远奉献这本是反人性的，但是一个这样纯净无私的时刻又含在人性之中，可以照亮卡列宁这样平凡人的一生。同理说到老托，我对书中很多部分颇有微词，也可以看出他显然并没有一种万能的对所有人心的洞悉和普照大地的同情，到小说后半部分，他对安娜的同情和耐心都见了底。但是，能写出这样一些辉煌的章节足以使整部小说不朽。老托的信仰不能让我满意，但他的天才让我折服。