the awakening. kate chopin.

i decided to reread kate chopin's the awakening for banned book week.  i came across it while sharing a link to the american library association list of banned/challenged classics.  i have a huge tbr pile right now and decided the awakening would be a fast read, so i decided to squeeze it for banned books week.

i read the awakening in college.  i think it was for a women's studies course.  however, i didn't remember much from it other than the protagonist drowned herself in the sea over a lover.

i hate to say this considering the awakening is an example of early feminist writing, but i did not enjoy the story.  the issue i had with edna, was the same issues that i had with anna karenina.  i just can not sympathize with women that abandon their duties as a mother.  i also can not tolerate women who abandon their duties as wife via infidelity.  in the awakening, edna abandoned her husband and children because she fell in love with another man, robert.  also, robert unleashed all of her inner desires which resulted in her having another affair with a different gentleman.  if edna was single, i would be in full support of her multiple lovers but the fact that she was a mother and a wife caused my dislike of her.

i am normally in support of women not being restricted by gender roles, however, when you decide to become a mother or a wife, there are basic duties that you agree to by assuming these roles.  so for the most part you must meet the most basic duties, care for your children and care for your husband.  there is flexibility within these roles ie women should not be restrict to the realm of the home, but if you can't handle that you shouldn't have assumed the role in the first place.  and i know that i am writing this as a 20th/21st century woman, and it is easy for me to critique because i have the freedom to choose when i want to be a mother or a wife, but i can not sympathize with women who abandon their families, past or present.   it is selfish versus feminist.  

before i go on, so i don't sound completely ignorant, i do realize that at the time chopin was writing, women had only one option in life, marriage.  most women married for financial stability versus actual love and most women did not have a choice when it came to marriage, so many women found themselves in the same situation as edna.  so for that reason i do admire this work for addressing an experience that women encountered but could not discuss.  and to be perfectly honest, if i was in her situation in that time and place, i am not sure what i would have done.  but suicide seems extreme, i mean both edna and anna karenina decided to kill themselves then lead a life without love, which sounds brave but is actually cowardly, especially considering that they had children.  i seen no romance in leaving your children motherless.  i guess chopin wanted to demonstrate how women in these situations have no real options, and rather then life a lie, some women wished for death.

it all seems bleak but it is tough being a women, especially due to the expectations that society places on us.  and i guess i should be sympathetic toward edna because she wasn't the mothering type yet became a mother out of society's expectations.  and i can not hate her for that, some people just don't have a mothering instinct.  okay, maybe i was a little two harsh on edna earlier, but in my defense, it's difficult to seperate my modern mind from the historical context, especially considering how women issues are pretty much the same throughout all of history.

for me, personally, it comes down to the fact that i believe women should not be restricted by their gender, we should do what feels natural to us.  yet, at the same time, i am old-fashioned and conservative when it comes to marriage and motherhood.  to me, marriage vows should be upheld, one should keep the promises that they have made.  and i know that people fall out of love, and sometimes the person your married changes, or you change, life happens.  i am fine with divorce, but i think once you start to feel uncertain about your marriage, you should discuss it with your partner versus cheat.  i know edna didn't really have this option but i hope a modern day work like this would have the protagonist going that route.

and though i do not agree with the infidelity, i must praise chopin for writing about female sexuality.  though i wish edna's awakening came before marriage rather than after but it could have never really been the other way.  the sad truth is that women are expected to be the virgin bride, especially back then.  it is also unfortunate that edna's husband did not awaken her.  but this work is important for women to read (then and now), so that they can see that it is fine to be a sexual person, that you are not abnormal for desiring sex. 

i was raised mormon and though i planned on saving myself for marriage as the church instructed, i must admit that i saw nothing wrong with masturbating though i should have according to the church.  i have no idea where i got the notion that masturbation was okay, maybe it was from the novels (the perks of being a wallflower mentioned masturbation) and the teen magazines i read.  one of my friends and i openly discussed masturbation and i remember encouraging other friends to explore, not by in a "let's have a circle jerk" way,  but in a "hey, don't be ashamed to explore your body" way.  sorry, i just got really honest.  but i guess i am demonstrating how i could have been edna in this modern day.  i am not saying that the standards of the church are wrong, teens should not have sex lives, but their sexuality shouldn't be denied.  i mean i didn't grow up to be this sex-crazed slut because i masturbated in high school.  and even if i did, oh well, it is my body.

wow.  this post kind of went all over the place, but there is a lot of layers to the awakening.  it simply as a story was not for me, i did not sympathize with edna.  however, the issues of motherhood, gender roles, and sexuality that arose from it were important for me to contemplate.  i think the later reason is why this book was banned.  it awoken in people the idea that not all women fit into the mold deemed appropriate by society.  for this, and it's feminist significance, the awakening is a must read for every woman . . . and every man too!  

anna karenina. 2012 film

if you are an avid reader of this blog, you know i read "anna karenina" last year in anticipation of the film. you also may have noticed i never got around to seeing it in theaters. i was disappointed with myself for not seeing it on the big screen but am now quite pleased with myself for only spending $1.20 via redbox versus $12.00 at the landmark because it was atrocious. oddly enough, it was so bad it made me appreciate tolstoy's work so much more.

i was really excited for the film but 10 minutes into it, knew i was going to hate it. i absolutely hated how it was filmed as a stage production. i get that the theater was an important setting for the novel at the end but it made no sense as the setting or style of the entire film. if it was a movie based on a play or musical ie "les miserables" then i would have thought joe wright a genius. instead i thought joe wright was pompous and idiotic. "anna karenina" is a beautifully tragic story and does not and did not need bells and whistles. "anna karenina" simply needs to be told.

and don't get me wrong. the film was beautiful. the scenes with the fields of flowers were like a van gogh painting. the scenes with anna with her son in bed were like an art deco building. and of course, loved our first introduction to kitty which was framed in accordance with the novel. i loved how the train was introduced via anna's son's train. but everything else was pointless and excessive. oblonsky's work scenes and the switching of his coats? the beginning scenes with levin walking around? any scene that involved climbing up and walking among crowds in the risers. these scenes did not help the storyline and could have been replaced with parts that could have demonstrated the depth and beauty of tolstoy's work.

i mean levin is an amazing character and an important part of the novel and he was so one dimensional in the film. i also hated how they cut out the whole
kitty being lovesick and meeting levin's brother during recovery. i did love levin's little speech on love and adultery at dinner but he had so many great moments in the book that were edited out of the film. (btw: when i saw levin's home i thought to myself i would marry him and live in the middle of however, mother russia.)

and i must add i still hate anna. her love was not true love because it was filled with selfishness, she only thought of herself which was demonstrated in all of her actions. and sadly people were devoted to her and she just took advantage of her love. think of her poor son. he loved anna more than his father but anna did not love him more than vronsky. what a horrible woman!

but back to the film. the actors were good. knightly's underbite as always is distracting. i pitied jude law which was ironic considering his adulterous affairs. vronsky was hot. and oblonsky reminded me of kevin kline with a mustache. and whoever played princess betsy had weird lips but oddly it worked.

all in all a horrible adaption of a beautiful classic.

anna karenina. leo tolstoy (62)

(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."

anna karenina. #translationproblems

before i start, i would like to clear up any confusion about the title. surprisingly, i was never that person who corrected people that mispronounced the title but now i will be that person and . . . with a great vladmir nabokov quote,

"her name was anna karenin.  she was not a ballerina."

cute. clever. and very tongue in cheek. so why is there an a on the end? the a signifies that she is a female. ie my russia-fied name would krisha mendozaa. (though maybe that a is excessive. a better example: keira knightlya)

keira knightly and the new movie were only a small factor in my decision to read "anna karenina". another factor was that on twitter i found an article (but could not find again to link here) which listed that the two greatest novels of all time were "anna karenina" and "lolita" (yes but russkies!). but the biggest factor was that my social life in LA was going on a break so i had time for the 1,000 pages. therefore on my next visit to the library, i checked it out.

as i sat reading it, i was surprised that it was a fairly easy read which got me wondering if my translation was watered down. i then looked at the other copy of it at the library; it was also constance garnett's translation so couldn't do a comparison. i then decided to go home and do some research (aka google) and sort out which translation to read.

i googled "best anna karenina translation" "scholar endorsed translation of anna karenina" "nabokov recommended translation of anna karenina" and came across a lot of info.  though there was no solid answer.  i really wanted to read the version that nabokov liked best cos he did share greatest novel title with tolstoy. there was so much debate about which verison is best that i wish a) i knew russian so that i could read it in the original russian and b) that maybe i would read at least two versions to decide for myself.  (i would have done this but seriously, the book is 1,000 pages.  that is back to back readings of 2,000 pages in total. i read alot but even this seemed too much for me.)

i learned that there are 3 major translations: constance garnett, lousie and aylmer maude, and richard pevear and larissa volokhonsky. majority of people avoid garnett's translation because she was too victorian and interjected a word or two of her own. plus nabokov absolutely hated her. so i instantly ruled that one out.

the next was deciding between maude and pevear/volokhonsky. so here's the deal. i hate oprah and according to my google searches, P/V's translation became very popular due to her book club. i mean no where did i see an article about oprah's great translation woe but only about how P/V got a lot of money cos their translation which was published by penguin which was picked by oprah.  and we all know about oprah's midas touch when it comes to books.  though in my opinion, it was prolly some intern that chose it cos the cover was the prettiest (i actually think the cover is boring, which is sad cos i normally like penguin covers.) i mean seriously does oprah even read? i am going to say no because if she did she would have deeper insight to the human experience and would not have asked her tv guests such insensitive questions. so i initially ruled out P/V's translation on oprah alone.

but it was not that easy to disregard the P/V's version cos everyone recommends it (like gushing recommends). my friend emily endorsed it and told me that their translation was award winning, which made me reconsider.  i mean awards count for a lot in my eyes. i had two other friends recommend it after seeing my fb photo about trying to decide which one to read (the above photo). and lastly james wood of the new yorker was all about it! (not that i seriously read the new yorker but strive to one day do so.) should i let my hatred of oprah stop me from reading the best translation?!?!?

well it wasn't oprah that stopped me but actually an article by gary saul morson (i have no idea who he is, i just came across his article thanks to google, i did google him and he seemed pretty legit.) but he wrote an article called the pevearsion of russian literature which explained why the pevear/volokhonsky translation is not all that its cracked up to be.  as he explained in the article:

[P and V] who are married, work in an unusual fashion.  She, a native Russian speacker, renders each book into entirely literal English.  He, who knows insufficient Russian, then works on the rendering with intention of keeping the language as close to the original as possible.  What results from this atttempt at unprecedented fidelity is a word-for-word and syntax-for-syntax version that scarifices tone and miscontrues overall sense.

he then gives examples from other works in which their translations appear simple and unrefined as compared to others.  there is a tone that is lost because they tend to use very mundane words.  (click on the article to see for yourself.) 

this dealt the blow to p/v as a contender, but to make my final decision, i decided to check out both versions and read the first chapters myself to see which one i would read.  i will admit that the blog entry tolstoy vs. tolstoy did make me slightly biased, i wanted to feel a nostalagic connection to the maude translation like the blogger.

after reading the first couple of chapters, i decided to go with maude. just because i found some of p/v word choice uninteresting.

maude:
"All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

p/v: 
"All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

(i like the use of resemble versus are alike.  i think the novel as a whole dealt with the appearance of happiness versus actually being happy, which would make maude's line a better introduction.)

i randomly flipped to chapter 12 of the part 1 perferred maude's:

"Levin's arrival at the beginning of winter, his frequent visits and evident love for Kitty gave rise to her parents' first serious deliberation as to her future, and to disputes between them."

over p/v's

"Levin's appearance at the beginning of the winter, his frequent visits and obvious love for Kitty, gave rise to the first serious conversations between Kitty's parents about her future and to disputes between the prince and the princess."

and lastly, when reading tolstoy's beautiful description of levin's first encounter with kitty, maude read best again:

"He stepped down, avoiding any long look at her as one avoids long looks at the sun, but seeing her as one sees the sun, without looking."

p/v:
"He stepped down, trying not to look long at her, as if she were the sun, yet he saw her, like the sun even without looking."

i will admit that maude isn't perfect but p/v just seemed too simplistic at times.  there were times when the syntax of maude was confusing and when i looked up the sentence in p/v found it more readable.  also p/v had footnotes which helped contextualize the story.  (i used the footnotes when anna and the count visited the russian painter when aboard.) but in the end, i am glad that i chose maude.  they are sometimes sited as having their translation of "war and peace" approved by tolstoy, but as the great translation blog entry explained that is not true.  also check out the great translation chart. it was hilarious and helpful and i suggest you check it out for giggles and to help you chose your next russian lit read. (i used it to help me choose the the anna dunnigan's translation of "war and peace".)

and to be perfectly honest in a year or so, i will pick up the p/v version of "anne karenina" and see for myself which one is better.