Discovering Russian Literature discussion

One of the things which I really enjoy about this novel is how relevant it is, and how the questions and issues addressed within the book really do transcend through time, as well as cultures and deals with things of which even today are still being struggled with.

The question of communal land vs private ownership is something that I think can be seen popping up at various different points throughout time. At fist it made me think of the Transcendental movement, which was a 19th century movement popular particularly in America that believed in the idea of people living communally together. I was brought to the mind of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance which is about a group of people who are living communally on a farm together. It also made me think of Hippy communes of the 70's and going back in time Thomas Moore's Utopia also deals with a similar idea. So dealing with this question, is something that is part of the shared human experience.

And perhaps part of the reason why it is such a prevalent is became maybe living communally really is our natural state, but we have been conditioned to relevant against the idea. Prior to what we call civilization, people did used to live communally.

I wonder if man really does have an inherent right to claim a piece of land, a piece of the Earth, something of which preexists themselves, as truly belonging to themselves? Does man really have the right to deny the land, something of which he himself had no hand in the creation of, to other people and keep it only for his own gains?

Tolstoy also addresses the question of people being forced more and more to move into urban areas from the rural countryside, which is something else that comes up time and again, and was particularly a product of the industrial revolution and we are given a glance at seeing just how this change affects people and families and their lifestyle.

being a muslim i think you do have the right to own land
in the Quran it clearly states that if u cultivate a piece of land that is not OWNED by anyone it belongs to you. If you take care of the land and keep it fertile you are doing good for the earth, when we "inherited" the land we were also given hands to take care of it and thats a whole responsibility into itself.

Silver wrote: "I wonder if man really does have an inherent right to claim a piece of land, a piece of the Earth, something of which preexists themselves, as truly belonging to themselves? Does man really have the right to deny the land, something of which he himself had no hand in the creation of, to other people and keep it only for his own gains?"

I think it's ok if someone has a piece of land; what is not ok is the overwork, the exploitation of the peasants.
Land gives nourishment in a lot of different ways so it must be worked, somebody must take care of it in order to pick up what it produces. It must be owned by somebody, there must be rules because otherwise there would be problems.
If a person is rich and wants to buy land, why shouldn't he? If he has peasants that work for him and he pays a good salary, why shoudn't he? I don't think that exploitation stops if there are no more landowners. There should me respect for everybody and this has nothing to do with the possession of land; also a rich man can respect humble workers.

I am little bit against this "everything is for everybody" and "divide equally". This isn't possible; it is possible only theoretically but non in real life. We see it also in Resurrection, that the division is difficult (though they at the end find a deal): why should somebody who isn't able to work the land have a piece of land? Why who doesn't want a piece of land mustn't pay taxes for the community? He can make another work and pay taxes too. I don't agree a lot. Such a organisation is very difficult to carry on in real life; perhaps it is possible only in small communities but not in the whole society. I think it is an utopia.

I definitely think that if a person claims an unused piece of land and starts to cultivate it, in essence it "belongs" to them. Nobody else should be allowed to walk in and take over. I don't like the idea of a rich person owning a large amount of land and getting other people to do all the work without much in return. That's bordering on slavery, in my opinion. If they're being paid fair wages and given a decent place to live, that's different - that's a job. Everyone deserves to call some small portion of this planet their own, whether they're rich or poor, and to earn enough money to provide health and comfort for themselves and their families.

I don't believe in communal living, but I do believe in community. We're not designed to go through this life on our own, but we ARE designed to want our personal space and privacy.

From a philosophical point of view though, I think it is an interesting question. If the land was here long before man himself was here, than what right does he really have to declare that it belongs to him?

Take the moon for example, would any one individual or country, corporation, etc. have the right to suddenly declare that the moon belonged to them?

I can't see a philosophical point of view in this.

If we would live in a perfect world, without prevarications, without people who want to be clever and we would live in a society where everybody is respectful of the others, and where everybody is honest, then the land could be of everyone.
For example: in a wood there are a lot of mushrooms, everybody can take only one and there is enough for everybody; in a garden there are apples and everyone can take one. But this isn't possible because there will always be clever persons who will take without giving you anything. But mushrooms and apples grow also alone; if we want other things that need work, it is necessary that somebody owns the piece of land because people would never agree about who can take more or less, who has worked more or less.

It is not like the sea where you can go fishing and you can have the fish you are able to take. Here there isn't work, there can't be competition: if you are able you can take as many fishes as you can; if you aren't able you must pay to have a fish. But with the earth, where people must work hard, it is different. I think somebody must own it in order that the ground has its fruits. Otherwise there will always be those who work hard and those who do nothing and take however what they need.

The earth could be of everybody if there isn't work, perhaps.

dely wrote: "I can't see a philosophical point of view in this.

If we would live in a perfect world, without prevarications, without people who want to be clever and we would live in a society where everybody ..."

You seem to be confusing a philosophical view point with utilitarianism. Your argument against the philosophical idea that man does not inherently have the right to own land is an argument about the practicality of it or lack of practicality.

But since when is any philosophical idea actually practical when put into use?

Philosophy is about the study of ideas and theories, and exchange of thoughts. So the question of whether or not man does have an actual "right" to own land does make for an interesting philosophical question.

But if in the real world, at least the world we have now it would be practical for man now to own land that is something altogether different.

That is what Tolstoy is attempting to do here, make people ponder over the issues, gives us a different way of thinking and a different perspective on how we view things.

If you do not see the philosophical view than it would seem you are missing the purposes and point of the book. Which is a philosophical examination of these ideas.

Just because we contemplate the questions and ideas, does not mean we are all going to, or all should become Nekhlyudov's.

Though to address the practical of the idea of land being communal, such is a system that had at one time (and still is in some parts of the world) put into practice and has proven to be possible. Native Americans, lived communally for a very long time, and there are still parts of the world in which tribal people reside who live according to the ways of their ancestors practically untouched by Western Civilization and its influences.

So it is not utterly impossible, but the world has changed and thus are way of thinking has changed so that we have been conditioned in a way that would make it difficult to live communally. The way society has been structured now, it would not be practical to just suddenly give up our land and revert back to such a life on a global scale.

Also it seems that you are somewhat misunderstanding the point of the question (and this is also where the Philosophical side of it comes into play) just because it might be in many ways more practical for a person to own land, does not by default mean they have a natural born right to do so.

The question is not one purely of whether or not man should own land but if he has the inherent right to do so, which are slightly different things.

This concept can also be seen reflected in Nekhlyudov's ideas relating to prison, and the punishment of criminals. While society for reasons of order and practicality made the decision that people who behave in a certain way should be punished, and that they should be removed from society. Nekhlyudov questions whether or not one has the actual right to imprison another human being.

It is something that is done as a necessity for society to function in an orderly fashion and not have total anarchy but does that mean that one individual, or group individuals has the actual right to decide the fate of another human being and decide to take away another human beings freedom?

Again, this does not mean we shouldn't lock up criminals but it is a question of just because it might make practical sense to do it, do we have the inborn right to do it?

The question is not one purely of whether or not man should own land but if he has the inherent right to do so, which are slightly different things.

From this point of view we can't say that we are the owners of the land as well as nobody can say that he owns the seas, the air or the sun.
We can say that both theories are right: the earth belongs to mankind and we must have respect for it (so we haven't the right to say that it is ours); but a small pieces of earth has a temporary owner but he mustn't damage the whole ground and so a person has the right to say that he is the owner of that piece of land as long as he works it without damaging the whole world with his work (working bad, with polution, damaging other people and so on).


That is what Tolstoy is attempting to do here, make people ponder over the issues, gives us a different way of thinking and a different perspective on how we view things.

If you do not see the philosophical view than it would seem you are missing the purposes and point of the book. Which is a philosophical examination of these ideas.

I am watching to these ideas from another point of view. I see more Tolstoj's thoughts about the respect among each other. The idea that we never should subdue other persons, that everybody has his rights and they must be respected; there shouldn't be exploitation, there shouldn't be people who are too poor and people who are too rich and so on. I see more the human side of this theory both when he talks about the landowner and when he talks about the prisons.
I don't think that his theory about the property of the land would change something in the life of the peasants, the poor, the exploited. People must change.


It is something that is done as a necessity for society to function in an orderly fashion and not have total anarchy but does that mean that one individual, or group individuals has the actual right to decide the fate of another human being and decide to take away another human beings freedom?

Again, this does not mean we shouldn't lock up criminals but it is a question of just because it might make practical sense to do it, do we have the inborn right to do it?

I liked when Tolstoj said that we should make the possible that everybody lives good in society so there is no need to steal. We must change society in order that there will be no more crimes; we must prevent crimes trying to understand other people. Or, as Ghandi said, we must be the changes we want to see in the world.
I think we haven't the inborn right to take away freedom to other people (above all to take away life with the capital punishment). And if we are obliged to put somebody in a prison there should however be respected the basic human rights. And of course justice should be functional, there shouldn't be innocent people in a prison.
It isn't an inborn right; it is a right that some people take in order to have a sort of functional society where crime is punished (otherwise we would live in an anarchy where everybody does what he wants). But also in this case, if people would change there would be no need of prisons and punishments.

This is an interesting thread. I'm simply checking in to say I'm still participating. ;}

One of the things which I thought was quite amusing, in part because it was sadly true was when Nekhlyudov brings up the issue of class discrimination in relation to the court/jail system, and the way in which the working class and peasants are imprisoned while other individuals of the nobility and the wealthy serve as members of the senate, or mayors and other positions are guilty of the same crimes that the imprisoned poor are guilty of.

I think this is something that we still very much see today in our own politicians and what they can get away with, and even with celebrities. Also made me think of blue collar crime vs white collar crime, and often those convicted of white collar crime end up these almost resort like institutions.

I found the discussion between Nekhlyudov and his brother-in-law interesting because I found myself agreeing with both sides to a point. Nekhlyudov's arguments did make me think, but I also questions how practical and realistic they really were. For a part of me had to agree with his brother-in-law when he stated that a thief knows he is doing wrong when he steals.

It does bring up that question of "innocence" in regards to the idea that innocent people should not be held in prison, but than what really constitutes as innocent?

From Nekhlyudov's point of view he seems to view all prisoners as essentially innocent even if they had in fact committed the crimes of which they are accused because he believes that outside forces led up to them committing those crimes and that they are truly not at fault for having committed them.

But of course, as similar with the land discussion, I do not think we should have murderers walking the streets even if it is the "system" or how they were raised, and the economics, or etc.. which led up to them murdering another person in the first place.

And Nekhlyudov argues that a person who commits a crime of passion cannot really be held responsible for what they have done.

I have finished the book, and for the most part I did love it. However, Tolstoy's view on punishment started to frustrate me after a while for the reasons you mentioned Silver.

We are taught as children what is right and wrong. Even if you are from a poor family, uneducated, or have had bad parents you should still know the difference between right and wrong.

People have to be held responsible for their actions. It would be absolute chaos if people weren't punished for their crimes, and it would be pointless to have laws in place because no one would abide by them. Why would people be 'good' if the 'bad' people in world can commit crimes and get away with it?

Tolstoy seems to think that punishment doesn't stop the crimes from being committed, but in today's age we see countless cases of people re-offending because their sentence wasn't harsh enough...

Anyway, I may not agree with everything Tolstoy says in the book, but it is certainly a book that gets you thinking.

Leanne wrote: "I have finished the book, and for the most part I did love it. However, Tolstoy's view on punishment started to frustrate me after a while for the reasons you mentioned Silver.

We are taught as ch..."

I will say that I do think that part of the point Tolstoy was trying to make in regards to the crime issue is the fact that everyone is not held to the same standard and that the lower classes are just following example.

He tries to argue that how can a peasant know it is wrong to steal or be expected to abide the law when he sees those responsible for enforcing the law commit the same crimes they are being accused of.

So if he is being stole from, and the one doing the stealing is promoted rather than punished why should he, or how should he know/presume that stealing is wrong?

Silver wrote: "I think this is something that we still very much see today in our own politicians and what they can get away with, and even with celebrities. Also made me think of blue collar crime vs white collar crime, and often those convicted of white collar crime end up these almost resort like institutions. "

We don't have them here. Can you explain me the differences between blue and white collar and what they are?


It is surprising how the problems mentioned by Tolstoj are still existing and we still haven't found a solution.

i just finished part one i think the part that stuck with me is when he went to get his estate in order and "found out" or "remembered" how unfair he was being to the peasants.the scene where he battles with himself about his true intention of really being "resurrected"(this book was rightly named) whether he was doing everything for himself or rather to be admired of men (but i think the crowd that he was keeping would actually laugh at him behind his back and encourage him publicly. It is very hard for a man to reform as we see with Nekhludoff the devil inside of him still tries to get the better part but he still fights it.there were alot of psychological insights into the human nature,i think the point in Tolstoys life where he wrote this book was much like Nekludoffs, If another species were to read this book they would understand or get a feel human hardships, between themselves and other humans.

dely - White collar refers to the upper classes, and "white collar crime" includes things like art theft, embezzlement... the rich stealing from the rich. "Blue collar crime" refers to the lower class kind of crimes - theft, vandalism, rape, etc.

What I find interesting about the "philosophical" questions in this book is that Nekhlyudov isn't sitting around to ponder them (at least not in what I've read so far). He's acting on his beliefs, not thinking in circles about what his beliefs should be. He sees that life is hard for these people, and he's trying to make them better. Unfortunately, he's being hindered by red tape and the people themselves, which is always the most frustrating part of trying to do the right thing. He sees that the system isn't working, but he's still trying to use the system for good. If that makes sense.

In a way I agree with dely - of course we don't have the inborn right to own what isn't ours or to punish other human beings, that goes without saying, but society is set up in such a way that we do. Instead of using all our time questioning that, we should use what we have for the benefit of others. A world where people are 100% free, not answerable to anyone, not owning anything but sharing all... that kind of world cannot exist. There are too many people out there who would take advantage of it to make other people's lives miserable. It's just in our nature. So no, we don't have the right to live the way we live, and it's a horrible thing that people are driven to crime by the way society treats them and then spend the rest of their lives being treated even worse for doing what came naturally to them to do - but that's the way things are, the way they have always been, and the way they are always going to be. Those of us who are wise enough to see the damage the system is doing should try to work within it to bring comfort and help to those people who are suffering - BEING the change we want to see, rather than wasting our efforts trying to change everyone else.

It's a frustrating thing to feel as strongly about this subject as Tolstoy felt and to know that he couldn't do anything big enough to change the way things worked. He gave away his wealth and wrote books like this in the hopes that he could influence others to do the same, and I think those are wonderful, valiant things. But I also think that doing good deeds on a smaller scale - helping one person at a time - is a very efficient way to change the world for the better.

I agree with you, Faye, and thanks for the explanation of the collars.

Discussing War and Peace we talked about the points in commons between Gandhi and Tolstoj:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

from message 7, only the last paragraph, so you don't read spoilers (though there aren't big spoilers). Above all in mess. 10 you find two interesting links.

The more I read Resurrection the more I see the influence of the Eastern philosophy.

In chapter 25 there is this sentence:

...because it's the thoughts that produce bad actions. A bad action opens the way to other bad actions, bad thoughts dragg inexorably on this path.

Translation made by me (I am reading the book in Italian).

This is Bhagavad Gita! This is also the yoga-sutra by Patanjali.
Everything starts from the thoughts and if we have a bad thought we must absolutely stay aware because from a bad thought it is very probable that we have a bad action. The power of thoughts is very big, we must never understimate the strenght of the thoughts. We can have good actions only if we have good thoughts and Nechlujdov understands this concept always clearer; it's because of this that he feels ashame when he reflects if he has made the right choice to give the land to the peasants and the decision to marry Maslova. He understands the danger to have such thoughts; he is scared that he will again start his old way of life. Tolstoj underlines also the difficulty to change. It is not at all an easy change to do and we can have often rethinking and this makes us weak and so the bad thoughts take over and can become bad actions.

Do you understand what I mean?

kind of its like karma, life is a full circle what goes around comes around. If you get away with a bad action you try again and if you get away with that you you keep going and going until u Resurrect or you end up like "the old general of repute".

That's very interesting, and very true. Thanks for pointing that out, dely!

No, I am not talking about karma; I refer to the strenght of thoughts and their influence on our action. Though we want to do a good action often we have bad thoughts and so at the end we listen to them and don't make the good action.

I have finished the second part and it was awesome, above all chapters 28, 29, 30!
I have found other notions present in the Bhagavad Gita.
In ch. 29 when Nechljudov knows what Maslova had done in the infirmary (though it wasn't true) and he suffers because of her behaviour and he struggles because he doesn't know if he must continue to help her; and at the end he decides to continue to help her because he understands that the right action must be done without waiting for rewards, without expectations. Also in the Gita: the right action must be done, we must follow our consciousness. He understands that if he stops helping her, he would damage only himself and not Maslova. When you have the right consciousness you know that the right thing must be done, regardless of everything above all rewards.
If you do it with expectations it isn't anymore a "right" action. At the end of the chapter he understands this concept and he understands that everything must be done for the others and for God. Also in the Gita: all our actions must be done in the name of God and not for ourselves.


I liked a lot also the chapter 30 when Nechljudov says that people would be much better if they would live in a better society; that everybody needs compassion and understanding. We mustn't judge what they do but we must also understand why they have done it and if the fault is of the society; that a lot of persons do terrible things because they think that this is the only way to behave and if they would have had people who cared about them they would have been better persons. I totally agree with these thoughts. We should always understand why a person behaves in a certain way, and we shouldn't judge too easily.



Another interesting part was chapter 40 when he says: ...all those people, the director, the soldier and others, for the most part good and gentle, has become evil only to the needs of the service.
It remembered me about what is called in psychology "moral disengagement". If you are a good person, a lovely father but you are, for ex. a jailer, as soon as you wear the uniform you change and though you execute orders, you hurt other persons. Tolstoj explains this very good. People are able to hurt, to kill saying that it is not their fault, they have executed only orders. At the end the fault is of nobody. It is explained in books by Albert Bandura or Philip G. Zimbardo.
I totally agree with Tolstoj when he says that we must be more afraid of such people than be scared by brigants because the first one have no pity and no love for other people.
Very interesting also the sentence: ...if it can be admitted in exceptional cases, even for a moment, that there is something more important than human feeling, then you can commit any crime against man without feeling guilty.
We must never forget that also prisoners, thieves, robbers, are human beings.

I'm enjoying this novel. However, it does seem very much a mouthpiece for Tolstoy's beliefs . . . or someone's beliefs . . . which I suppose is the general criticism-- I expected 15+ pages of characters delivering speeches (a la Ayn Rand). Not so, or at least not yet. That's refreshing.

On a shallower note... Does anyone else find the cast in Maslova's eye rather irritating? It's the little princess' downy upper lip from War and Peace all over again. Why did Tolstoy need to remind us of them on every page, I wonder?

MountainShelby wrote: "I'm enjoying this novel. However, it does seem very much a mouthpiece for Tolstoy's beliefs . . . or someone's beliefs . . . which I suppose is the general criticism-- I expected 15+ pages of chara..."

I think part of that has to do with the fact that this was the last novel her wrote before his death. And so I imagine he wrote this as an older, wiser man reflecting back upon the mistakes and regrets of his own youth. And perhaps in a way this was sort of his treatise.

Faye wrote: "On a shallower note... Does anyone else find the cast in Maslova's eye rather irritating? It's the little princess' downy upper lip from War and Peace all over again. Why did Tolstoy need to remind..."

Do you mean the strabism? Yes, a little bit and me too I can't understand why he always repeats it :) But at the end it didn't disturbed me too much.

Faye wrote: "On a shallower note... Does anyone else find the cast in Maslova's eye rather irritating? It's the little princess' downy upper lip from War and Peace all over again. Why did Tolstoy need to remind..."

Yes! It seems as if he mentions it practically every time Maslova appears. And, haha, I remember noticing how often Lise's downy upper lip was mentioned too. I can understand bringing it up a few times since they're salient aspects of each character's appearance, but mentioning it with that kind of frequency didn't really contribute anything.

I'm further along than I thought I would be--about 40 pages from the end. Why am I thinking of Wordsworth every time N. laments on the harsh treatment of the prisoners, working men, etc. . .I'm thinking of both Y and W romanticizing the peasantry and "lower classes." I forgive you Leo, but it's all a bit heavy handed.

I think a good companion piece to Resurrection is The House of the Dead.

I've really enjoyed this reading session . . . otherwise I would never have moved this novel to the top of my list.

I finished the book yesterday. I'll hold off on any potential spoiler comments. I think despite its flaws, the book is quite powerful. Had Tolstoy been able to produce another draft (!), sigh. A couple of thoughts:

1. Question: Did anyone else feel as if the novel was foreshadowing the tragic events in WWII? I sure did, especially the commentary about the nature of men/humans/mankind following orders. I will check if that's a part 3 or 4 comment, but it was quite good.

2. Observation: I always enjoy when authors refer to other works--in this case, Beethoven's 5th, the writings of Thoreau . . .


Hope everyone is enjoying the reading or at least finding it rewarding.

I also just finished yesterday,this book was easy to read,the chapters flowed into one another. I liked how he pointed out the introduction of western/European ideas into Russian society.He also clearly stated that the "present" Russian government was not working and how it needed to be changed.well i think thats all i can say right now....I liked the end i would have never guessed that to happen heheeh thats not a spoiler is it?.......Well enjoy reading the rest Of the book i found it very rewarding indeed!!!

I'd like to see a discussion of the ending in Part 3. It didn't work for me.;} At all. ;}!!!

I've just read Isaiah Berlin's lecture about Turgenev's Fathers and Sons in which he says that (because of repression) literature was more or less the one forum for discussion (albeit veiled) about political and agarian reform, and so it was considered an author's responsibility to write about these big picture issues. Maybe this is why the Big Russians have enduring popularity, they didn't write navel-gazing novels, they wrote about issues of significant social concern, and many of those issues are still relevant today.

dely wrote: "Silver wrote: "I think this is something that we still very much see today in our own politicians and what they can get away with, and even with celebrities. Also made me think of blue collar crime..."

dely wrote: "Silver wrote: "I think this is something that we still very much see today in our own politicians and what they can get away with, and even with celebrities. Also made me think of blue collar crime..."
White collar crime is committed in an office, with pencil & paper or a computer keyboard. In contrast to other types of crime, which involve direct assault on a person or theft of an individual's property, it is theoretically victimless, in the sense that e.g. embezzling from the company doesn't hurt a specific individual, it hurts the company's bottom line (though of course individual investors will suffer a financial loss too). The term comes from the time when all office workers wore suits with white shirts.
One of the reasons this type of criminal gets off with lighter penalties is because it's harder to prove, and trials are long and expensive, often taking years and then the person gets off. Often the prosecution will cut a deal to get a quick conviction i.e. offer them a lesser punishment of they plead guilty. It's not corruption, it's common sense to do this, and some people argue that it fits with community values i.e. crimes of violence should get harsher penalties to protect the community.

Lisa wrote: "dely wrote: "Silver wrote: "I think this is something that we still very much see today in our own politicians and what they can get away with, and even with celebrities. Also made me think of blue..."

Wow, thanks for the detailed explanation!

Sarah wrote: "Faye wrote: "On a shallower note... Does anyone else find the cast in Maslova's eye rather irritating? It's the little princess' downy upper lip from War and Peace all over again. Why did Tolstoy n..."
Could it have been that he was influenced by Dickens' way of creating caricatures by defining them with some memorable physical attribute? But (answering my own question) Dickens only did that with minor characters. Though (following my own disorganised train of thought) Maslova for a main character isn't very well developed, ok she's not Tolstoy's main interest, Nekludov and his awakening is, but it seemed to me that she was just there to show that moral crimes sometimes can't be 'put right' because the damage done to Maslova was too great.