The Classics discussion

What, am I all alone here? *crying piteously*

I've just crossed the 50% mark, so it's a big day for me.

Levin's one of the most interesting characters for me. I can't for the life of me decide whether he's a buffoon or not. (There were a couple posts earlier about this, I think, but they looked like they contained minor spoilers so I skipped 'em.)

You are right, he is a complex character that I vacillate on all the time. He does appear to be the spiritual center of the novel, and his love affair with Kitty is contrasted against that of Vronsky's and Anna's quite clearly. He is like Anna - rather emotional and in that sense they both exhibit a trace of Madame Bovary or a later incarnation, Edna Montpelier of Chopin's 'The Awakening." However, to me Levin, though prone to flights of fancy, naive idealism and rash thought processes, elicits sympathy in the end. He does tend to reel himself in and displays a sort of determination that is admirable and softens the view of his character for the reader.

Having well past the 50% mark (heh heh), I am really enjoying this translation and should be done by the end of next week.

Nice to see you, Milt. I'm at 60%ish now.

I gotta say, one of the problems with commenting on this book is that it's so complicated, and I have so much respect for it, that I hesitate to say what I think of anyone because I might be wrong. I think Tolstoy is capable of flipping things on a moment's notice and showing us how any one character whom I thought was okay, or not okay, or whatever, might in fact be something far shallower. Or other. I think that's part of his point - that in times of stress, things come out of us that we weren't aware of, for better or for worse. And he's not like a mystery writer, where he lays clues that you might follow; he's all psychological, he shows you each layer of his players' minds, and leaves it to you to find out what the deepest layer is.

Er...anyone watch Breaking Bad? I'm reminded of Hank's arc.

I can make judgments on many, I think. Anna herself is...sortof helpless, right? She lacks initiative. She's being swept through life. Vronsky is a douche. Stepan has no soul; he's a pleasant man and he means well, he just lacks any deep feelings at all. Alexei is none too bright, and none too good; he's concerned entirely with how he's seen by others, and has no room for himself.

Levin and Kitty, though...those two, I haven't figured out yet.

I was going to mess with you and say I`m at 62% (lol), but I`m treating this book like making love to a woman - I`m taking my time and savouring the experience: no rush here *wink.

I actually think that the difference between the Anna of the opening section of the novel to the later Anna we see is kind of vast. Normally, in novels of adultery you do feel for the adultress but Anna becomes so unlikeable to me, while the Anna I encountered early on was somewhat charming. Maybe Tolstoy didn`t handle her character as well as some of the others. There is an incongruency there somewhere...

Vronsky is totally unsympathetic; I hate him. Anna`s husband to me gains in stature through the novel. At first he was a typical, cold Victorian man a la mode Soames Forsyte: more concerned about appearances and his place in the social order (by the way if you have not read The Forsyte Saga yet, DO IT). However, he has his moment of epiphany and I started to relate to him. This contrasts with Anna whose leap to adultress was related to us, rather than depicted - which might be why it seems a bit strained and lacking.

I see Stepan as a bit of a lovable scoundrel.

Oh and you're right Alex: the novel is very complex and layered but don't hesitate to share your views :). We all can learn from one another.

I'M AT 63%!!!!!!!!

That's a lie; I watched Survivor tonight.

I actually pegged you as someone who was re-reading the book and doing me a favor by chatting with me. :P

Re. Anna, I felt the exact same way: at first I was sympathetic, and I still am, but I see her essential weakness more and more. She can't make a decision. But I think Tolstoy knows what he's doing. He's peeling layers from these people, right? Showing us what they think they are, and then what they might be, and then what they really are.

SPOILERS FOR PART V:
Ugh...you may be further than me with Alexei, but I was depressed by his revelation after their estrangement. "He was totally lacking in depth of imagination, in that inner capacity owing to which the notions evoked by the imagination became so real that they demand to be brought into correspondence with other notions and with reality." He finds false succour in God; he doesn't even believe it, he just needs something to latch onto. (For personal context, I'm an atheist.)

I feel like Anna is a shallow person, married to a shallow person, who runs to a shallow person. That's why I think Levin and Kitty are core to the novel; they're the people through whom I think Tolstoy will eventually tell us what he really thinks. Whatever happens to them, that's when I'll know whether this is an idealistic or a cynical book. I"m not sure yet whether they're shallow.

I think Levin is the opposite of shallow. He's introspective to a fault.

He's my favorite character.

Me too Beth! ...I think. I'm not totally sure that any of these people are like me, and I fear that it'll turn out that I'm more like someone else, but Levin is, so far, the character I like the most.

My wife had an interesting perspective. She's reading it with me, and she's read it twice before - both when she was around college age - and those first times, she was bored by the Levin stuff. She skipped past his parts her second time through; when she was young, it was Anna's story that engaged her. She says now it's Levin and Kitty that engage her. And she thinks that makes Tolstoy amazing, right? He can get deep into a wide range of people, such that his book answers different questions at different times in one's life.

It's a pretty good book.

Beth is spot on and succinct - he IS introspective to a fault.

On a personal level, I relate somewhat to his love story and find myself rooting for him.

With a huge, well written novel, there would generally be many complex and well delineated characters so I understand how your wife finds more and more every time she goes back to the well :).

Ha...yeah, totally Catherine. Kirsten was attracted to the desperate love Anna is helpless for. Now, as a grown-up, it seems sad.

I'm kinda nervous to find out what Tolstoy has in mind for Levin. I want so much for him to turn out well, but I certainly see potential for him to end up just as deconstructed as everyone else.

I agree with regard to Anna. She becomes less and less likable. Is the morale that adultery is an immoral act that corrupts the soul? Wasn't Tolstoy fairly pious?

Alexei seems tragic. A quintessential non-modern man not in touch with his emotions. It seems to me much of his ill-doing stems from him actually loving Anna but not realizing it and not realizing his hurt when she tells him how she feels.

Vronsky reminds me so much of Isabel Archer's husband in James' portrait of a lady. Both are cold and not aware of the glaring discrepancy between what they think they are and what they actually are. I am not even sure he truly loves Anna, especially towards the end. Anna was something to be had, conquered - a glorious fantasy. When the cold light of reality hits, he doesn't know how to handle it all.

And yeah Ronnie, Tolstoy was a very religious man and like most novels about adultery written in those most pious of times, Anna's adultery would be something inimical to him, although he is maybe a bit more sympathetic than appears on the surface.