I love personal, down-to-earth style of Alexaner Werth writing. He is a true, honest journalist who doesn't want to raise himself over his heroes like some other "military historians". Rather, he is an objective observer who lets you feel what is it like to be in that other guy's shoes.

Not only this book serves as an excellent historical account of the Stalingrad battle and events preceding and following it, but it's also a human account. Because Werth spends a lot of time explaining the atmosphere and people of 1942, it is so much easier to understand those people, their decisions and actions. I'm also grateful to Alexander Werth for sharing his knowledge and admiration for the Russian culture and people with the English-speaking world.

Having read several modern books that deal with numbers, dry facts only and try to view those different times with today's people's mentality and context, Werth's book is a pleasant contrast that comes from the first source. History is not a technical discipline or definite science, and Alexander Werth sets an example on how it should be taught.

This book is exhausting but well worth the time spent. Victor Serge was an active Bolshevik who lived throught he events he describes; thus there is almost a narrative feel to it. The book conveys the hardships of the revolution well; Serge shows how close Trotsky's army came to losing and the hope preserved by his victory. A must for anyone interested in the Russian or any revolution.

This newest edition of "Zhukov" is a must for anyone that has an interest in the Marshal's career and/or an interest in the former USSR military machine and how it operated. After years of false and censored information on Zhukov and the Soviet military, "Zhukov" brings to light the the personalities (and incompetence) of such Soviet individuals as Stalin, Khruschev, and Breznev. The book helps show how these 'leaders' (through their low level of intelligence and maturity) helped stunt the growth of the USSR as a nation. Most importantly, the book brings to light the actual accomplishments of Marshal Zhukov (ie. Moscow, Stalingrad, Berlin, etc.) and how much of a role he had in the planning of these operations. From these accomplishments of the Marshal, one can see how 'cults of personalities' were able to appear in such magnitude in the former USSR. The book is a fast reader and highly enjoyable. Read it if interested in WWII from the Soviet perspective.

Les Miserables will be a tough read for some. Victor Hugo, in typical Nineteenth Century prose, is exceedingly verbose. His character introductions go on literally page after page, covering minute details that some modern readers will find tedious. Not only are they long, but they break the modern writing rule of "show rather than tell." When he presents new characters, we don't hear them converse or see their actions to form our own opinions. Hugo simply regurgitates a ten or twenty-page biography on them.

But this was how books were written then, and he did it as well as it could be done. The language is marvelous and rich, the characters interesting and complete, and the story sweeping and classic.

Jean Valjean, freshly released from a French prison, is caught stealing silver from an extraordinarily pious Bishop. Amazingly, this Bishop denies the silver is stolen, allowing Valjean to go free. Valjean, brutalized by nineteen years of life in "the galleys" and suffering poverty and maltreatment as an ex-convict, is so affected by this merciful act that he vows to reform. Seven years later he has changed his name and transformed himself into a righteous and contributing member of society, now a prominent factory owner and town Mayor. Life is good as he shares his profits and kind heart with the poor and unfortunate--until his past catches up with him. Valjean is then faced with an incredible predicament whose genius and complexity can be appreciated only by plowing through the full text.

Historically, this is an important literary work. Much of its political and religious sub-text may be lost, however, on those unfamiliar with the basics of the French Revolution. Like Valjean, readers will be better people for making the journey through this book. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes, author of Wake Up Dead.

Les Miserables begins in the same year as Dumas' Monte Cristo (1815) with the escape of Jean Vajean from prison, where he spent 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. After becoming the mayor of a French city under another name, Valjean meets a woman named Fantine and a police inspector named Javert. One's desperation will move his heart to pity while the other's relentless adherence to the letter of the law will cause him to live in perpetual hiding.

I read this book in high school and, to tell the truth, I can't really remember what I was thinking at the time I started it. After all, I don't think most high school students (myself included) would understand the full historical weight of such a work. If Monte Cristo is a historical lesson unto itself, Les Miserables is a veritable tome of 19th century French culture and politics. Weighing in at 1463 pages, Hugo's story will bore you sometimes but will also move you at least as much. This is the book wherein lies Hugo's famous account of the Battle of Waterloo (which, at about 60 pages, has apparently little to do with the actual storyline) in all of its detail, dark descriptions of Paris' sewers which were used by revolutionaries, and of course the vivid account of the city of Paris itself in all of its glory. Hugo names every street and shop and almost every other minor detail and character you could possibly imagine along the way. We follow the characters of Valjean, Fantine, Cosette (the daughter of Fantine), Javert, Thenardier, Marius and others for nearly 20 years. Aptly titling his work "The Miserable", Hugo takes us to the very bottom of Paris' underground world of poverty, prostitution, and suffering. Indeed, Les Miserables involves, like most novels, a struggle of sorts. But here everything seems more painful, more hopeless than your typical novel. The fictional characters, embedded in a stunningly detailed historical time and place, are unusually real and fallible. And in the end this is a story about justice, mainly for the weak and the opressed.

Now for some casual thoughts. The only other novel I've read that's similar to this one (at least in time and place) is Monte Cristo, so I often find myself comparing the two. Although they share a common historical backdrop, the two works are very different in feeling. Dumas' is a story of justice and revenge but it incorporates adventure and psychological thriller purely for entertainment. Monte Cristo is also a lighter read, more agile on its feet and quick to please; we get engaging and tense dialogue and characters who are slightly unbelievable in their wit or lack thereof. Les Miserables, however, is a heavy book (in more ways than one). Hugo takes all the time in the world to introduce us to each and every character and describe geographical, political, and historical events with a ferocious attention to detail. And while Monte Cristo is primarily about a single man and his fallible-ridden philosophy of vengeance, Les Miserables is about a whole society and its faults. Hugo's scope is thus incomparably more vast than your average novel.

After reading this book I felt like I'd been on an epic journey to other worlds and back, and at the end of it all I was...tired, very tired. But then again a lot of great literature is like that.

My experience with Victor Hugo's classic, Les Misérables, was quite by accident. While studying France's political turmoil during the 1800's, my tenth grade world history professor decided to waste some class time by showing us a video. At first, I paid no attention to the video, considering the fact that most of the movies he showed us were taped off of the history channel a good century ago. Soon I found myself intrigued with the plot twists and characters. After we finished the movie, I decided to read the book for English. Thinking that if the book was too boring, I had already seen the movie so I could fake my way through the essay test. I have never loved a book so much in my life! I found myself reading it during films in Spanish, under my desk in history, and losing sleep because I was staying up all night to read. I finished the complete unabridged novel in five days, a very enormous feat for a busy teenager! I found Javert to be the most interesting character and felt that if his dedication to justice hadn't been misguided, he could have been a hero in the story. He could have been Enjolras. I wish every high school student was required to read this book, although I know it would not bring them as much joy as it brought me. The only reason I love this story so much, is because it wasn't force-feed to me. I now have tickets to see the musical this summer in Toronto and can hardly wait to go. Everyone can find a character they identify with. Many young girls can relate to Eponine's love for Marius that is not returned, while others may relate to Enjolras' continued struggle for his beliefs. There are many lessons Hugo has included in this book: redemption, forgiveness, justice, honor, love, war, poverty, bravery, and the division among social classes. Even though this book was written in a different time, in a different place, its controversy and story will always live on because its themes are timeless.

These Russians really know how to tackle the big issues in literature. I started with Solzenitsyn's Day in the Life, then did War and Peace, then Crime and Punishment, and most recently, The Brothers Karamazov, and I have to say that I am much the better for reading these books.

Phew, I thought War and Peace was good (and it was), but the Brothers Karamazov locks horns with the problems we face as human beings, wrestles them to the ground, exposes us for the weak, sinful things that we are, then gives us hope.

Principally (to me, anyhow), the novel was about the problem of overthrown authority. God and the church were starting to be questioned as the ultimate authority, and the air in Russia at the time was begining to move towards reform, begining to become modern. Its themes are just as relevant today as they were for Dostoyevsky's time, and there are several passages in "The Russian Monk" chapter that were profoundly prophetic of the problems of modern society- if you replace some words with modern equivelents you have a very good picture of the USA today. Isolation of the individual, invented needs, the problem of freedom- these are some of the things Dostoyevsky tries to tackle.

Several chapters are masterpieces enclosed within the work itself, 'Pro and Contra,' 'A Little Demon,' 'The Russian Monk' the chapter where Mrs Kholaklova (spelling) professes her lack of faith to the Elder Zosima, the chapter that focuses on the relationship between Snegiyrov and Illyushin, his son, showing how children lose their innocence and become indoctrinated into this harsh adult world- with bad consequences when violence is present. And of course, there is the 'Grand Inquisitor' chapter. Wow. WOW. Had to read that three times before I think I got everything in it, but I think if every human being on Earth read 'The Grand Inquisitor' 'The Russian Monk' and then 'The Speech at the Stone' we would all be very much the better for it. eh, just read the whole thing while you're at it.

Dostoyevsky's conclusion seems to be that faith will be the ultimate healing salve for all humanity- once everybody realizes the stupidity of everything other then selfless, active love, we shall all move forward and life shall be paradise. We've had 120 years or so more progress towards it since Dostoyevsky wrote it, but it looks like we're still not doing very well (thank you very much Ms Ayn Rand). Dostoyevsky provides enough sustenence for people with less ardent faith to continue on- one of the characters, Rakitin, says 'Man kind will find the strength to live for virtue wether or not he believes in the immortality of the soul.' The Devil, in the chapter where he has a conversational duel with Ivan, mocks this idea as 'most charming.'

Each of the primary characters- Alyosha, Ivan, Dmitry, and Fyodor Pavlovich, is a guide to a certain way of living. Alyosha the christ-man, Ivan the intellectual skeptic (Raskolnikov mk II), Dmitry the noble savage, and Fyodor Pavlovich as the great sinner. Each character has his own climax in the book, and everybody should be able to identify with at least one of the characters, or find that they may be 10% Dmitry, 50% Ivan, and 40% Alyosha.

This should be an exceptional book for any young person trying to figure out what the heck life is all about. There's some good stuff between those covers- Dostoyevsky has a very deep understanding of human nature.

So in closing, whatever your beliefs are, don't eat the pineapple compote, and don't take the earthly loaves.

Dostoevsky's final work, The Brothers Karamazov constitutes the culmination of his life's work, drawing from all of his previous writings. It is the tale of the three Karamazov brothers--Alyosha, the pious spiritualist; Ivan, the tormented, calculating atheist and author of that famed passage, The Grand Inquisitor; and Mitya, the sensualist involved in a twisted sort of love triangle in which the participants maliciously chicane one another--and their illegitimate half-brother Smerdyakov, sickly and conniving. The central plot focuses on the murder of the brothers' father, Fyodor, and the trial of the suspected murderer (whom I will not name, lest I spoil the book for any would-be readers). Of course, the novel transcends mere murder mystery and courtroom drama; indeed, these elements serve merely as a background for what truly concerns Dostoevsky, the battle for the soul, in which the forces of modern ideologies (e.g. socialism) struggle against the forces of religion, specifically orthodox Christianity. This war for the spirit wreaks havoc on the individual, disorients and incapacitates him; in fact, the most interesting character in the book is not Dostoevsky's declared hero, Alyosha, but rather his brother Ivan, the atheist, whose contemplation of the lack of moral restraint effected by God's absence places him in the most fragile of mental states, which collapses when he must make a moral judgment. It was Dostoevsky's genius to recognize that socialism is more than a form of labor organization, that it is "above all an atheistic phenomenon, the modern manifestation of atheism, one more tower of Babel built without God, not in order to reach out toward heaven from earth, but to bring heaven down to earth." And there lies his enduring relevance to modern times, over one hundred years after his death. Communism and socialism, indeed, have been virtually routed as viable political and economic systems. But the fight of the West versus Communism was not simply a political-economic one; it was, as Dostoevsky would have recognized--and, indeed, as his modern heirs such as Whitaker Chambers and Alexander Solzhenytsin understood--merely a continuation of that great war for the human soul. And that struggle was not, and has not been, won. For those who wish to understand that fight and to take it up with the foe, Dostoevsky is the essential starting point.

there are numerous versions of this masterpiece. try to read a translation that is on your level because it would be a shame if one didn't truly appreciate and understand this book. the search for faith is an underlying theme: ivan repudiates god, alyosha is a man of god and dmitri after much suffering discovers god. we get to know these men after their depraved father is found murdered. during the investigation each person is scrutinized and the mystery unfolds until one brother is wrongly accused of the crime. at the end of the book, as in "crime & punishment", the sufferer becomes a new and better man. this novel has it all: family rivalry, parricide, mystery, an exciting trial and a somewhat positive ending. it sums up russia at the end of the 19th century and the major societal changes just over the horizon. read this book for it is a true classic.

I initially approached this book with a great deal of trepidation. I had never read Dostoyevsky, and was concerned that I would get bogged down in some lengthy, mind-numbingly boring, nineteenth-century treatise on the bestial nature of man or something. I am happy to report this is not the case. Instead, and to my delight, it is a smoothly flowing and fascinating story of a young man who succumbs to the most base desire, and the impact this has both psychologically and otherwise on himself and those around him.

To be sure, the book seems wordy in places, but I suspect this has to do with the translation. And what translator in his right mind would be bold enough to edit the great Dostoyevsky? But this is a very minor problem.

What we get with Dostoyevsky is dramatic tension, detailed and believable human characters, and brilliant insight into human nature. Early in the novel our hero meets and has a lengthy conversation with Marmeladov, a drunkard. This conversation is never uninteresting and ultimately becomes pathetic and heartbreaking, but I kept wondering why so much time was spent on it. As I got deeper into the book, I understood why this conversation was so important, and realized that I was in the hands of a master storyteller. This is also indicative of the way in which the story reveals itself. Nothing is hurried. These people speak the way we actually speak to one another in real life, and more importantly, Dostoyevsky is able to flesh out his characters into whole, three-dimensional human beings.

And what a diverse group of characters! Each is fleshed out, each is marvelously complex. Razujmikhin, the talkative, gregarious, good-hearted, insecure and destitute student; Sonia, the tragic child-prostitute, with a sense of rightness in the world; Petrovich, the self-important, self-made man, completely out of touch with his own humanity; Dunia, the honorable, wronged sister: we feel like we know these people because we've met people like them. They fit within our understanding of the way human beings are.

Dostoyevsky also displays great insight into human nature. Svidrigailov, for example, talks of his wife as liking to be offended. "We all like to be offended," he says, "but she in particular loved to be offended." It suddenly struck me how true this is. It gives us a chance to act indignantly, to lash out at our enemies, to gain favor with our allies. I don't believe I've ever seen this thought expressed in literature before. In fact, it never occurred to me in real life! Petrovich, Dunia's suitor, not only expects to be loved, but because of his money, and her destitution, he expects to be adored! To be worshipped! He intentionally sought out a woman from whome he expected to get this, and is comletely flummoxed when she rejects him. His is an unusual character, but completely realized.

There is so much more to talk about: the character of Raskolnikov, which is meticulously and carefully revealed; the sense of isolation which descends on him after committing his crime; the cat and mouse game played on him by the police detective. I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the historical and social context in which this takes place. Suffice to say this is a very rich book.

Do not expect it to be a rip-roaring page turner. Sit down, relax, take your time, and savor it. It will be a very rewarding experience. And thank you SL, for recommending it.

Like many writers of his era, Dostoyevsky uses a lot of prose and little dialogue, which makes reading the book a bit of a plodding chore.

However, the story is anything but boring: Raskilnov, a poor student, comes up with the philosophy that killing an old female pawnbroker will actually be good for the world because she cheats people and is otherwise useless. It's premeditated --- he even counts exactly how many steps it takes from his place to her door.

The book also recounts the following few days when Raskilnov's mother and sister come to visit and he has to play his 'family role' i.e. "I'm a good son and brother when I'm not killing old women." In addition, he is involved with a family consisting of a dying mother, a father, 3 young sons and an 18-year-old daughter who must go into prostitution to support them.

So what happens to all of these characters in pre-Revolutionary Russia? What will be Raskilnov's punishment? Does he actually think he was right to kill? The answers unfold as you read this gem from the world of Russian literature -- so renown you feel like you really achieved something when you read it!

This novel stands out as one of the finest pieces of actual literature I have read. Top 5 at least.

First, let me pay tribute to "Everyman's Library Series". They make very handsome novels, complete with soft cream pages, and a built in fabric book mark. They all come in moroon, and add a certain pinache to any book collection. Best of all, they are well priced.

As for Crime and Punishment. I was very impressed. More often than not, I read the classics, and wonder how it is they have become classics. For Dostoevsky, there can be no doubt. And Crime and Punishment is his best known effort. Not his best though. C&P is the exploration of the world that it's hero/villain Raskolnikov occupies. He takes it apon himself to murder a particularly vile pawnbroker(thus making him a villain) under the guise of the highest moral resposibility. Well, no plan is perfect, and most of the book is an involved psycological examination of it's main character, the ways he tries to justify his crime to himself, and the people around him who have no idea what the hell is going on. Dostoevsky creates living breathing people that you care about in this tale. It's simple premise gives way to an incredibly complex story. The dialogues bewtween Raskolnikov, and Porfiry( the ever suspicious investigator) are wonderful. And then theres the clever and sneaky Svidrigailov, whom I found rather amusing at times. To me the book was very suspenseful. never knowing if or when young Raskolnikov would confess, or continue to hide in uncertainty due to the circumstancial evidence that linked him to the crime. SO many times I wanted to read to the end to find out. But I didn't, and neither should you. There's just so much depth to this book, I have no doubt it will recieve a return read. Perhaps in another 10 years I will read it, and get even more out of it. That's how all great books are. Highest recommendation.

I had finally read my 10 year old copy of Anna Karenina to death. Therefore I decided to buy a new one. I was a bit leery about trying a new translation, but this edition pleased me very much.

There are three main reasons that I recommend this book:

1. Great Story
2. Very good Translation
3. Durable Hard Cover

Great Story

In this novel Tolstoy presents marriage and human relationships in a realistic manner. Anna Karenina details a passionate love affair and it's doleful consequences. The reader experiences this tumultuous love from the point of view of the two paramours, as well as the friends and family members whom their lives touch.

Nevertheless, a tale about a cheating wife does not great literature make.

The existential struggle for meaning in life and the nature of God figures strongly as a theme in Anna Karenina. Overshadowing, in my opinion, even the experiences of the book's namesake. Any lover of philosophy will enjoy this book immensely.

The Translation

As I mentioned before, this is a good translation. By good, I mean the following:

1. Russian words are footnoted - Some words lose their meaning and cultural context when translated to English. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky did a wonderful job leaving these terms in tact. There are notes at the back of the book that fully explain each Russian word.

For example, who knew that the "roll" that Stiva eats in my previous translation was actually a "kalatch?"

2. Names of the Characters are Preserved - Princess Darya Alexandrovna Oblonsky is also known as Darya and sometimes as Dolly. The use of names and nicknames is very important in language. I appreciate that the translator preserved the use of the patronymic and various names of each character. Too bad there is not a way to translate the Russian forms of address. Sigh.

3. Foreign Language Passages are Footnoted - Many of the members of the social sphere in which the book is set spoke multiple languages. Thankfully, when Tolstoy wrote a passage in French or German, the translators let it alone and wrote a translation at the bottom of the text.

Hardback

I tend to manhandle my books, so I like hardback. I think I've had this book for about a year. It's held up pretty well.

Unless you're the kind of person who uses bookmarks and doesn't fold pages, I recommend this edition instead of a softback book.

In conclusion, Pevear and Volokhonsky's work stands out as a stellar translation of one of literature's greatest masterpieces. I highly recommend this book!

Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is undoubtedly one of the greatest works of literature ever written. It is by no means a "light book" or an "easy read." As the reader diligently reads through this voluminous, 800 plus page, novel they live and experience the struggles of the characters. The novel centers on the two contrasting yet interwoven plots of the honest, loving and faithful relationship of Princess Kitty and Constanine Levin contrasted against the socially and morally condemned adulterous love affair of Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky. The novel's epigraph "Vengeance is mine, I shall repay; saith the Lord" alludes to the novel's theme of divine retribution, where the choices and actions made by the characters are either rewarded or punished by God. Anna Karenina is not a victim of fate or destiny but of her own selfishness and dishonesty to herself and others which leads to her eventual demise. Kitty and Levin are rewarded with happiness and a successful marriage because of their honesty and unselfish love. Anna Karenina delves not only into the human conscience but also into the conscience of Russian society; it is also full of symbolism for example Vronsky's tragic horse race, which symbolizes his part in Anna's destruction. As I read through all of the reviews I noticed that an important issue was neglected even from the review written by the publisher and that is that Levin is a partial autobiography by Tolstoy. Levin's strong inner conflicts, agnosticism and search for meaning in life was a reflection of Tolsoy's own beliefs. I wrote a term paper on Anna Karenina and through all the reading, research and time I put in paid off immensely and not just in terms of the grade. Although I at times resented Anna for her selfishness I could empathize with her struggle for independence which she never achieves. I cried when she killed herself yet hated her for this final act of selfness. This novel is a complex weaving of characters, emotions, and struggles but in the end the reader is rewarded by Tolstoy's pure genius.

After two months, I have finished the great novel ANNA KARENINA by Leo Tolstoy that was given to me by Jenny and Gerry (thank you!). I was nervous to take it on, this edition has 924 pages, but I am so, so, so glad that I did. I enjoyed almost every bit of the book, and feel I have from reading it a new understanding of writing and of literature.

This edition from Modern Library Classics was translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett with a revision by Leonard Kent and Nina Berberova. The prose reads very easily, in clear, accessible English for today. (But don't worry: It's not "The Good News Bible does Tolstoy.") While the book is long, and by looking at a calendar and my new paperback's rumpled cover and scuffed binding, I could tell I'd been reading it a long time, it felt as if it were passing quickly. Tolstoy's narrative moves easily from stage to stage -- there's no feeling of contrived suspense or narrative manipulation. The lives of the characters progress naturally, and what Tolstoy tells the reader, the reader believes and doesn't question (this reader didn't.)

The story focuses on just a few main characters, Anna Arkadyevna Karenina (and her husband Aleksey Alexandrovich Karenin), Count Aleksey Kirilich Vronksy, Konstantin Dmitrich Levin and Kitty Scherbatskaya. These individuals propel the story, and it is their lives and relationships that we follow most closely. Supporting characters include Prince Stepan Arkadyevich Oblonsky, his wife Darya Alexandrovna Oblonskaya and Levin's brothers, a small cast for a grand Russian novel.

On the back cover, a quote about the novel, attributed to Matthew Arnold, says that we are "not to take ANNA KARENINA as a work of art; we are to take it as a slice of life." I think it is really both.

The theme of the novel centers on relationships, and those relationships in 19th Century Russian artistocratic society of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Anna Karenina is an elite, beautiful woman married to a powerful government official, Aleksey Karenin, with whom she has a son, Seryozha. She falls in love with and has an extended affair with the rich, dapper Count Aleksey Vronksy, and has a child with him, a daughter. Their story follows her inability to ask for or later receive a divorce from her husband, and her increasing unhappiness in the relationship with Vronsky, as she is bannished by society and resents the freedom he has as a man to move in his old circles. Her jealousy and insecurity grow throughout the course of the novel, rendering her nearly mad.

The other relationship, which serves as a contrast and foil for Karenina and Vronsky, is that of Levin and Kitty Scherbatskaya. Levin is a somewhat older man than the young and beautiful Kitty, daughter of one of Moscow's many princes. He is an aristocratic farmer and cares for his family's vast agrarian holdings in the country thoughtfully and meticulously. At the beginning of the novel, he has been courting Kitty, but had returned to the country for awhile. When he returns to ask her to marry him, he sees that she is infatuated with Vronksy, whom he doesn't trust. Vronsky meets Anna Karenina at a ball and stops calling on Kitty, breaking her heart. After a long separation, Kitty and Levin meet again and she agrees to marry him, happily. Their storyline follows their marriage and the birth of their son, Dimitry.

It is definitely true that this novel is most definitely a slice out of life. The characters are incredibly realistic as is the pace and plot of the novel. But the artistry lies in Tolstoy's effective setting of one relationship against another. It's not as black and white as it might be in a lesser writer's hands. The "good couple" Levin and Kitty have difficulties in adjusting to each other and in their relationship. Levin, like Anna, is jealous, but unlike Vronsky and Anna, he is motivated by love and generosity to overcome his angry feelings for the benefit of a harmonious home. Other aspects of the two different relationships are set off by one another. A very compelling character is made of Aleksey Alexandrovich Karenin, whom Anna despises, but who undergoes a convincing and sad degeneration of self as Anna leaves him and he maintains custody of the son that she loves. (He gets caught up with a society woman who has converted to a fundamentalist, ecstatic Christianity and gives him advice, ultimately leading him to allow a French faux-mystic to decide the fate of his marriage to Anna.)

The novel has a well-known climax, which I won't reveal if you don't know it, but it has beautifully written and rich "falling action" which allows the reader to come through the shock and pain to what Levin discovers beyond the love of the family life he craved.

This is definitely a masterwork, completely readable and worth the time spent on every page.