(please note: this is a long blog, but in my defense it is a long novel.)
as i mentioned in my previous post, i was inspired to read "anna karenina" because it was listed as one of the greatest novels of all time. people are crazy about this work. even after i finished reading it, i came across another list via flavorpill in which "anna karenina" was on top. brainpicking's greatest books of all time (i'll discuss "madame bovary" in another post. i don't get the appeal of that book, but i may have read the wrong version.)
so would i list "anna karenina" as the greatest of all time? i'm not too sure. i will say that i loved tolstoy's style of writing. i enjoyed how the eyes of his characters seemed to talk on their own.
"that only proves you have no heart," she said. but her look said she knew he had a heart and that she therefore feared him."
". . . and every time they met kitty's eyes said: 'who are you? what are you? surely are the delightful creature i imagine you to be?"
i loved how he shared the thoughts of everyone, even the levin's dog.
and his descriptions were so picturesque and clever. one of my favorites was this description of karenin's anger:
"he dressed in haste, and as if he were carrying a cup brimful of wrath and was afraid of spilling any . . ."
i have been that angry before where you don't want to lose any steam before confronting the person you are upset with.
i did enjoy the storylines. i rooted for levin thoughout the whole book. and his characters had such depth that i felt as though i knew them. i worried about dolly, became frustrated with oblonsky, felt bad for serezha and was proud of kitty. yet there was still something that prevented me from falling completely in love with this work.
i think what stopped me from absolute love was anna. if tolstoy had named his work "Constantine Dmitrich Levin", i probably would have been head over heels like everyone else, but having anna as the title and thus lead character, my heart couldn't give its all. sorry romeo but a rose by any other name would smell sweeter. and gertrude stein a rose is not a rose is not a rose.
i did not believe in anna and vronsky's love. i may have said this before in another blog but i am really not one for love stories. there have been a handful that i have read and in the end (and also during) questioned this is love? and the odd thing is that i am totally one for romantic comedies. i was just in tears over "celeste and jesse forever" yet there are some literary works i just can't fall for. i will be the first to admit that my lack of a love life results in me not relating. but even then its not that i don't believe in love, i just find some things insincere. anna is an example of this. when anna gave up her son and life for "love" i couldn't understand why because it all seemed illogical and silly to me.
i understand that it was a different time but regardless of society's standards then, anna was not completely bound by them. though it was frowned upon, divorce was initially an option for her. so she doesn't get any sympathy from me in regards to that. and the whole issue of her avoiding a divorce so she could would not lose her son was illogical. if she truly wanted to be with her son she would have snuck off and found ways to be with him just has she had found ways to be with vronsky at the beginning. i guess growing up with an absent father has reared me incapable of sympathizing with anna. if she really wanted to see and be with her son, she would have found the means. furthermore, her neglect of her daughter further demonstrated her selfishness when it came to parenting.
another reason i was not invested in their romance was because i don't understand infidelity and adultery. i know it may seem contradictory to not believe in love and be against adultery but adultery is not an issue of love but respect. have the decency to let the other person know you fell out of love with them (please know that i am not biased and disliked oblonsky throughout the novel as well). i get that love can be fluid but don't cheat on a person; end the relationship and get on in life. and i get it was all the rage in certain segment of russian society but it was still a horrible and dishonest act. i am all for free love and being with you who you want but if you are married, please be monogamous (unless your partner is okay with it.)
[random current politics rant: seriously adulterers are actual destroyers of "the sanctity of marriage". god was pretty explicit when it came to the ten commandments. yet society does not marginalized those individuals or prevent their rights and access to marriage like gays. seriously christians please stop being so wishy washy when it comes to upholding your bible.]
and what annoyed me more was anna's justification for her affair. she said there was never any love in her marriage to karenin. but what did she expect, when her aunt tricked karenin into marrying her. if she wanted to be upset with someone it should be her aunt!
in the end i could not sympathize with her. her love affair was tragic because she made bad decisions throughout life. i believe she made her bed and she had to live in it. fate did not curse her but she did it to herself. i was shock by the ending to her story but at the same time understood why she did it, she was such a sad soul.
(this just occurred to me: my frustration with anna reminded me of my frustration with real housewife of beverly hills, taylor armstrong. i can not handle weak women that complain and do nothing to make a difference. anna complained about her uncertain position in life but when vronsky suggested a divorce to help her back into society, she avoided the issue. it's like do something or don't bitch.)
my indifference to anna is actually a testament to tolstoy's writing. and just as he created a character that repulsed me, tolstoy also created a character that enchanted me, levin.
it's interesting because by nature levin was an introvert but he is the one that readers become invested in. i found it endearing that he was a little rough and cold yet at the heart of it simply wanted to be a good family man.
i found his love for kitty sweet. i was sad that he was rejected by her but was happy that he did not lose hope. (see i am one for romance, it's just that levin and kitty were actual love versus the mess that was anna and vronsky). i loved how tolstoy told the birth of levin and kitty's first child from his perspective. childbirth is dangerous and scary and it was interesting to see the fear and responsibility that levin felt if kitty died during childbirth. it was even more interesting to see how levin did not connect instantly with the child. women have carried that child around for 9 months and with nursing and everything so connections are established. but for men it is different. it's like "juno" quote "women become mothers during pregnancy but men become fathers when they see the child." granted it took levin a couple of looks but it makes sense.
this is not to say that levin was insensitive but just needed to learn lessons of life. i could relate with levin when he had to deal with death. i always feel that awkwardness when someone i know has a relative that passes away. one wants to do and say the right thing but it's not always innate. and it doesn't mean that your intentions are poor just that you don't have the means of expressing them. death is a scary beast so it is fine that one does not always know how to interact with it.
last but not least it would not be a russian novel if it did not have some peasants in it! and there was some! i appreciated how levin toiled in the fields with the peasants (though he was not that good). and his inability to manage his land reminded me of my high school world history course when we discussed communism and russia. from what i remember from that class was that the intelligencia tried to apply the theories of marx but being an agricultural based economy and not industrialized like the west, it did not succeed. and i think this is what tolstoy was trying to demonstrate? he did expose how excessive bureaucracies can be. what is the point of a committee when it's doesn't regulate that segment of society? as oblonsky demonstrated it was simply to keep the rich, rich. i do not know anything about russian politics so can not go into too depth with this. however history never changes, only repeats itself so their is definitely a metaphor for america's current politics and economy.
last but not least, the incident with the clairvoyant reminded me of a 19th century class i took at ucla. one of things we discussed was how clairvoyance and séances became the fashion. so it was interesting to see both in this novel.
i think the problem for me was that going into this i expected a great love story and to me there wasn't one. there was an honest portrayal of how lives fall apart when infidelity rears its ugly head. they was also a demonstration of what hard work and dedication can get one out of life. it's funny because as i read anna, vronsky, golebishchev poke fun at the french for
their realism, i realized that tolstoy was being a ironic. what made this work great was that it was honest. he did not make his characters braver, smarter or more noble when confronted with issues, they reacted as many of us would, as people do. so i guess in this light than yes it is a great work but i do need to re-read it one more time before it gets the title of greatest of all time. (light bulb: actually that is the issue, i haven't read all the classics so i can't make that call!)
quotations:
“i think . . . if it is true that
there are as many minds as there
are heads, then there are as many
kinds of love as there are hearts.”
"just when the question of how to live had become a little clearer to him, a new insoluble problem presented itself--Death."
". . . but he knew his soul, it was dear to him, and he guarded it as the eyelid guards the eye, and never let anyone enter his heart without the key of love."
" . . . if one loves, one loves the whole person as he or she is, and not as one might wish them to be."
No comments:
Post a Comment