As I already wrote somewhere , Tolstoï might be quite imposing. Up from his pedestal, he seems to look down upon us - mere mortals - with his monumental writings… Well, nothing new, so far. We feel somewhat pressured by this heavy weight, but it's mainly a matter of self censorship.

Tolstoï in 1885, 4 ans before publication of Resurrection

Truly, the literature - and notably with the Russian classics - is full of intimidating works. Yet, if we get closer, as soon as we get acquainted to it and feel the quality, it begins to appear as rare opportunities.

There's something specific with literature - and it appears crystal clear with Tolstoy's last novel "Resurrection", theme of this post - as it's not only a question of style (like great writings skills), but also a matter of ideas and thoughts.
Indeed, the force of great works, their power if you will, also comes from a strong underlying idea and leitmotiv, a "super-objective" as would say Stanislavsky (in the sense of an intention, which drives the whole thing).

In this novel, we actually find two of them :

1. Something about institutions, and their possible perversion for personal gains (power, social status, enrichment…)
2. The question of internal regeneration, redemption or, as would say Tolstoy : resurrection. Obviously, this title shows a strong Christian connotation - not only for us, readers of the XXIst century, but also for his contemporary readers. It clearly appears as an obstacle, a drag, towards the novel, as this association generates apprehension for quite a few among us (myself included). It's a pity, but it isn't very surprising. Indeed, during the later years of his life, Tolstoy became some kind of an anarchist and wouldn't mind provoking the world around. Yet, I believe the provocation or challenge was (and still is to this day) quite fruitful, as soon as we withstand and overcome it. In my opinion, the kind of reading does stimulate the brain and this is, together with emotions, the best that could happen to us thanks to literature.

Tolstoy had arrived to a point, almost iconoclastic. He did not hesitate any more to go quite frontally after institutions and even to burn his vessels. 
I'm obviously not an expert (at all) in his life and works, but this impression is there, directly taken from the text, in the manner of objective proofs.
By the way, it's worth stating that the confrontation to the political order was so direct that the book was forbidden in Russia for a long time. Tolstoy was even "excommunicated" (*) by the Orthodox church for a very simple reason : in the book, we witness a service given inside a prison, and it feels like the worst that could happen in religion : a ritual with any depth, nor even sense. Of course, when the sharpness of writings hits its target, that badly hurts. There is a truly subversive dimension there, with a text capable of making readers reflect about their own experience, and thus understanding some of the "not too clean" realities, up to a point where people might detach themselves from the system (Tolstoy actually helped a community, called the Doukhobors, to move away from Russian governments and churches, to find their way of life in Canada). Obviously, all of it could only lead to tensions with the people in power.

Apart of the questions raised by the church system, Tolstoy also confronts the judicial institutions and the prison system. 

Everything begins with an atmosphere, when someone enters the tribunal, with its heavy but specific ceremonial… up to a point when we witness internal life of the officials (a writing technique that Tolstoy truly mastered) : personal thoughts and concerns of the main judge, the defense lawyer, or the prosecutor are actually pretty common, the kind of which any person might have from day to day… All of it is quite natural, really, only this happens at the same time when defendants risk death penalty or years of hard labor. And, even worse, when one of those officials is not actually thinking about his dinner to come, he then takes advantage of this court for his career, not thinking for even a second whether defendants are guilty or not, and that they still are human beings on the verge of damnation (pronounced by other human beings).

Of course, these men are not supermen, but they are supposed to represent a higher truth than themselves, the so-called Justice. Doing so, they are given enormous powers, which rational is somewhat arguable. In a few words (chapters), all of this scandal is exposed.

Photo taken by Anton Chekhov, at the Sakhaline islands, in the 1900's. He shared some conceptions with Tolstoy and new him quite well.

In this last "full sized novel", the writing style is still invigorating, with elements quite specific of Tolstoy's ways : fine psychology, those famous internal monologues and, as said before, a true force that drives the story from beginning to end.

Yet, to be honest, it is not up to "War & Peace" level. 
In this other work, the literary form was more definite and perfected, with a wonderful psychological acuteness and a stylistic quality which were exceptional. We entered deep into the main characters minds and souls, we totally understood them, all of this in great style.
In "Resurrection", it appears to be less finished, at least on the form. Its pretty good, but not absolutely marvellous.

Maybe was it a conscient choice by the author : to somewhat abandon the lavish style, in order to focus on the content ?
Anyway, I guess we're not diving as deep in the story… 

It has been reproached to Tolstoy to convey mono-dimensional characters, who would mainly have an external side (what we can read from their attitude) and a certain depth (the internal life). 
Actually they do evolve within the story, which provides them a second dimension, but the perspective is not as impressive and strong as in "War and Peace" or, most notably, a short story like "Kholstomer / The Strider". In the latter story, which I warmly recommend to discover, we have a true dynamic, all of it in a rather short format : from the appearance of the horse (which would trigger reactions of most humans) to his deep inner reality, together with a fundamental evolution throughout its life… If expressed in two words only : great literature !
In "Resurrection", we do find some of this, but not that finely put. I'm afraid that it might limits the audience reach, mostly to those who are already acquainted to his style.

But, apart from the structure and style of the novel, there still is a great human dimension, personal and quite "new" (as strange as it may sound to write / read, 125 years after the publication) - and this truly is quite exceptional. 
It's expressed throughout the course of the two main protagonists and their personal journey. 
First, they are somewhat defined by circumstances, their past and values mostly inherited from family and childhood (and obviously perverted later on) : that's where we come from. Then comes the question of "where we're going to" : the fair and right life. 

You've noted that it's not about the good and happy life, but really about conducting a fair and right one. 
Such a question is quite unique. Of course, Tolstoy hasn't been the one and only thinker / author dealing with it, but it still is very rare, because this is a slippery slope ! 
For Tolstoy, the question is whether or not we serve the Other, to put one's life at the services of other human beings, maybe even doing things against one's own interests. As we all know, this philosophy works totally against our habits, especially in our society : not to help one's own interests, is it not to be to good and then too dumb ?
In this story, that's quite the opposite : we meet people, who actually work against their personal interests and they are right in doing so ! Isn't it something worth experiencing, at least through literature ?

A word about translation. 
I've began reading the novel in French, with a translation realized by prince Constantin Mourroussy. This man, who obviously came from a noble family, closely connected to the imperial family, had an outstanding French level - it would probably put to shame most Frenchmen nowadays, thanks to the formal quality. Nevertheless, for this novel, it seems heavy. It really looks as if the author wanted to show off his skills, and that is something almost unforgivable for someone who's supposed to serve not himself but the art work. 
Anyway, after a few attempts to find something better, I've decided to shift to English, with a translation done by Miss Louise Maude (edited in e-book thanks to the Gutenberg project). I'm probably not capable of measuring all the qualities and possible defects of this, but it ringed to my ear with a lightness and fluidity, which did the trick for me. It really looked like an excellent work and I recommend it to you, dear English readers.

To conclude, let's get back for a minute to the fundamentals : Resurrection is a great novel. 
While there is continuity to previous works by Tolstoy, it may not has the same style excellency nor the same level of emotional reach, but we were also dealing with works of exception. 
It remains a highly recommendable novel, at least for those who like literature that makes sense (which aim isn't so much about entertainment).
Once again, this literary movement is recognizable by the fact that is it grounded and driven by a strong idea, relevant and even disrupting. 

So yes, it may be less entertaining, but it's deeper and lead the reader into thinking. And that is truly essential.

* In reality, it wasn't exactly excommunication, but rather an official alert to him.

V.