The Classics discussion

Alright troops. This is it.

We'll be reading Part 1 from April 1 - April 10. We have a few extra days because of when the beginning of the month starts. Post any and all thoughts here.

Tolstoy begins the book with an epigraph "Vengeance is mine, I shall repay" which is an incomplete quote from Romans 12:19 -- why did he not finish with "saith the Lord?"

Tolstoy begins CH 1 with "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The Russian word for happy in this sentence is similar to 'blessed" (like the greek "makarios" used in the Beatitudes). This type of "happiness" refers to an internal happiness which cannot be affected by outward circumstances.

I was wondering: how far does part 1 go?
and this is where we discuss the book, right?

I think the quote is explained in the introduction to the book, at least in the edition I have.
But I think he cut it because it means that someone in the book is the I-person and will repay for something through the book. If he had written "said the Lord" it wouldn't really concern someone in the book in the same way.. does that make sense?

Carol, do you mean that in a way Tolstoy meant that: "Blessed families are all alike"? and if they're blessed, that means they're happy?

Here's some of my opinions on beginning of the book:
I think Tolstoy opened the book very well, because then we're faced with a problem at the very beginning, and that makes it exciting. I also really like his language, and think he describes the situation very well. It might be a little bit referring at times, and I think that sometimes the story goes a little bit slow, f.eks. during the dialogs, but then there are dialogs which are very natural and well formed, and I think that makes it really good reading.

Sigrid wrote: "I was wondering: how far does part 1 go? "
Part 1 is 34 chapters long, in the Pevear/ Volokhonsky translation it is the first 115 pages. This is a different online version: http://www.literature.org/authors/tol...

Carol, do you mean that in a way Tolstoy meant that: "Blessed families are all alike"? and if they're blessed, that means they're happy? "
I was trying to define the russian word Tolstoy used for happiness which is similar to the greek word which, we in english translate as blessed. This type of "happiness" refers to an internal happiness which cannot be affected by outward circumstances. So no matter what happens in your day-to-day living, this type of "happiness" will remain with you and will not change.

Anyone have a favorite scene from part 1?
I especially like when Levin and Kitty are ice skating.

@Carol: The dinner party where Vronsky and Levin awkwardly meet.

(I can't put this book down! I'm already well into part 3!)

@Carol: Possibly the description of Levins feelings toward Kitty. Nervousness, insecurity and yet determination (that spans a few scenes).


My curiosity has had me peek at little at secondary literature. One of the things that intrigue me is the claim that Stiva represents evil (in opposition to Dolly representing good). Evil in a very ordinary and realistic way. He is liked by everyone but he doesn't truly commit to anything or one. That is, he forgets his responsibilities and commitments as soon as he is away from the objects thereof. He genuinely wishes both Levin and Vronsky the best in their pursuit of Kitty but he doesn't see the contradiction in doing so. He quickly forgets the horror of the accident at the train station as well as his pity for his wife. He doesn't seem to preoccupied with his children and what makes him skilled at his job is his lack of passion. The argument would be that although Stiva has no malicious intent it is this "benign" evil that is the true culprit in life. Partly because it is so unassuming. Would anyone agree or disagree with this?

I'm reminded of existentialist writers e.g. Sastre or Kirkegaard who write about the commitment of choice. Something that doesn't seem to concern Stiva. Im wondering what relationship Tolstoy had to religion!?

Anyway, this was just some of my random thoughts that I figured I could share :) Hope people are enjoying the book so far.

I finally got started on Anna Karenina a few days ago, and thanks to "working from home" (cough) yesterday I'm already into Part II. I love it so far. Just really interesting to read.

I knew nothing about Russian culture from the time, and I was struck by how familiar it is. The same balls and social maneuvering and conversation topics that I'm familiar with from, say, Dorian Gray, which I think is set at the same time.

(Does anyone know when Anna Karenina is set? It was published in the 1870s, so I'm assuming it's set in the same time.)

Speaking of Dorian Gray, I saw some faint resemblance between Stiva and Lord Henry, so it's interesting that Ronnie brings up Stiva representing evil. Henry's more consciously manipulative, but they share a sort of blithe ignorance of human emotion. So yeah, Ronnie, in the early going here it had occurred to me that Stiva is...what's that quote about the banality of evil?

I'm really not good at writing my own conclusions but wanted to share what I read at sparknotes on Levin.

"Despite his status as a loner, Levin is not self-centered, and he shows no signs of viewing himself as exceptional or superior. If Tolstoy makes Levin a hero in the novel, his heroism is not in his unique achievements but in his ability to savor common human experiences. His most unforgettable experiences in the novel—his bliss at being in love, his fear for his wife in childbirth—are not rare or aristocratic but shared by millions. Anyone can feel these emotions; Levin is special simply in feeling them so deeply and openly. This commonality gives him a humanitarian breadth that no other character in the novel displays. His comfort with his peasants and his loathing of social pretension characterize him as an ordinary man, one of the Russian people despite his aristocratic lineage. When Levin mows for an entire day alongside his peasants, we get no sense that he is deliberately slumming with the commoners—he sincerely enjoys the labor. Tolstoy’s representation of Levin’s final discovery of faith, which he learns from a peasant, is equally ordinary. In this regard, Levin incarnates the simple virtues of life and Tolstoy’s vision of a model human being."

Of course this is one person's take on the character, but sounds reasonable in what I have read in the book so far.
Lisa in IN

Just to add a little nuance to the portrayal of Levin he also says

"...It's vexing and upsetting too see on all sides this impoverishment of the nobility, to which I belong and, despite the merging of the classes, am glad to belong."

"... I consider myself an aristocrat and people like myself, who can point to three or four honest generations in their families past, who had a high degree of education (talent and intelligence are another thing) and who never lowered themselves before anyone,..."

These exclamations seem to paint a picture of someone slightly more elitist than above. However they are said in connection with his distress over Vronsky and especially the last one is in connection with Levin speaking of the difference between himself and Vronsky so maybe they are brought on by his emotional distress.
Also, Im assuming the parenthesis about talent and intelligence is from the narrator?!

@ Alex; I haven't read Dorian Gray but I'm adding it to my list :)

Gah, I'm skipping these past two posts 'cause I'm afraid they'll have mild spoilers. Ronnie, Dorian Gray is worth reading. I loved it; not everyone who read it with me loved it. But hell, it's short, so who cares?

(moderate spoilers through part III)

I think Alexei Alexandrovich (Karenin) or Vronsky would be better candidates for personficiations of "evil" -- the one, cold, unfeeling, almost un-human, diplomatically gifted though he may be; the other, blessed with all the foresight of a 15-year-old, materialistic (less in the love-of-money sense, and more in the can-only-understand-the-tangilbe one), and self-centered. Yes, Stiva is a blithe adulterer, but he strikes me as merely "bad" rather than "evil" -- truly evil characters have far more force of personality; think of Lord Byron's play "Cain" or Dante's Inferno.

So, that leaves the question of who represents "goodness"? To Tolstoy, it seems that genuineness=good. When Kitty is doing good deeds to be more like Varenka, and not for the good of the deed itself, it backfires on her, and Mr. Scherbatsky gives her a good-natured ribbing. However, being "true to yourself" can backfire, and Tolstoy clearly has some conservative, Edmund Burkian values, as illustrated in the character of Anna Karenina. From Elizabeth Bennett to Nancy Drew to the protagonist of any chick lit novel, Anna shares a lot of the same qualities that make a "likable heroine:" spunky, passionate, smart, beautiful, kind-hearted. Yet Tolstoy allows his leading lady to experience a social downfall; the feeling is there that it's NOT going to be all okay in the end . . . more Hugo than Dickens. (I reject the notion that Dolly can reprsent "good" out of hand -- she's too damned tired to be much of anything but nagging and crying.) This leaves Levin as the most likely candidate -- as Pevear's translation makes clear, Levin is very autobiographical. Quite frankly, I would probably rather be friends with an Anna over a Levin -- I have known both sorts; this could raise the question of how possible it is for an author of a given gender to sympathize and draw a portrait of the other. What do you think of Tolstoy's women? I find them more believable than, say, Dostoevsky's or even Chekhov's (Chekhov's men are brilliant - the women, eh, not so much; Dostoevsky is much more a Philosophy and Big Ideas man than character-driven.) I think that Tolstoy infuses life and believability and humor into his women (Mrs. Scherbatsky's concerns, particularly, seem like they could come straight from any 40-something mother I know), yet they always seem to be colored with a man's take. Vronsky, on the other hand -- hell, I swear I know 2 or 3 men who have acted like him, down to the last mannerism!

Ronnie wrote: "Just to add a little nuance to the portrayal of Levin he also says

"...It's vexing and upsetting too see on all sides this impoverishment of the nobility, to which I belong and, despite the mergin..."

No, Levin is actually responding to his brother, Ivanovich, not Vronsky. The philosopher who comes and crashes his farm.

@Charly;
?? It's from chapter XVII (around page 245), where Stephan is selling his wood too cheap according to Levin. Do you mean that the true course of his statement has to do with his brother? It's not really hinted at in that chapter!?

My point was that it's the news of Kitty and Vronsky that put's him in a bad mood. So if you wanted to characterize him as being very meak and humble (as in Lisa's reference) you could downplay those statements as being a result of his distressed state, or what do you think? :)

One of my favourite parts too is when Kitty and Levin are ice skating. I also like the part when we first meet Anna :)
So far I love the book, but I haven't come so far iet.. but I agree with the first posts by Carol and Ronnie about Levin and Stiva

Just found this awesome bit about Tolstoy's total hatred of Shakespeare on his Wikipedia page:

"The unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits,—thereby distorting their esthetic and ethical understanding,—is a great evil, as is every untruth."

Full text, which is sortof amusing in its thorough and superficially convincing takedown of Lear. Tolstoy complains, among many other things, about "that wearisome uneasiness which one experiences when listening to jokes which are not witty," which, honestly, I often get during Shakespeare's comedic interludes. Tastes in humor change, I suppose.

And here's a response from, of all people, George Orwell, in which he totally dismantles Tolstoy. Orwell points out that Tolstoy bizarrely compares Shakespeare to Darwin, as two men who, though in different spheres, similarly caught public fancy despite their insignificance; Darwin, Tolstoy concludes smugly, is already "beginning to be forgotten." Oops.

Thought y'all might find that interesting.

phew, I have had a busy 2-3 weeks. Im only just past 500 pages. Hopefully I'll make up for it the coming weeks.

@Alex: Hillarious! It's always fun when intellectual "giants" are bashing each other.

It's interesting to see how Anna's opinion of her husband changes after she meets Vronsky. On that note, Vronsky seems more interested in being loved than himself loving others. As if it's a completely foreign concept to him. I immediately thought his actions akin to a sociopath but that's probably because I watch too much tv.

theduckthief wrote: "Vronsky seems more interested in being loved than himself loving others."

That's a smart point, yeah.

I have a tendency to jump to the "sociopath" diagnosis too. Damn cop shows.