Like-Minded Couples

While Kitty is away at the spa recovering from the heartbreak brought upon by Vronsky and coming to terms with her feelings concerning Levin, she comes across Varenka, who Kitty ends up loving for her modesty and simplicity.  I would like to point out the similarities between Varenka and Levin. Both Levin and Varenka are orphans, underestimate their potential value in terms of relationships, have both been rejected by those they were in love with, and both shy away from society and attention. Varenka and Levin can be seen as mirror characters, and it is symbolic that Kitty would come across and love a mirror of Levin during this time of heartbreak recovery.

Even more interesting, Kitty attempts to imitate Varenka, and therefore she is also imitating Levin. In class, we have touched on people in relationships being of “like minds” and this seems to cement Kitty and Levin as a pair. However, in the end, Kitty halts her attempts to be like Varenka. How does this fit into the idea of like-minded couples within the novel? Perhaps these couples are not as like-minded as we thought. The other couple whose relationship is based on love and mutual attraction, Anna and Vronsky, I see as very different in terms of personality and all the spouses of this generation are very different from each other and unhappy.

Women's Emancipation and Marriage

In chapter 10 of part 4, a group of male characters discusses the issue of women's rights and women's emancipation. Among them are Stepan Arkadyich and Alexei Alexandrovich. These characters each express opposing views on the subject. While Alexei Alexandrovich appears to believe that the question of women's emancipation is pernicious, Stepan Arkadyich expresses the contrasting opinion that women's emancipation might be a good thing and he suggests that women will most likely be very capable of doing many of the jobs that men typically do.

It is interesting these characters hold these competing views on women's emancipation when we consider each of their conduct with regard to their wives. Stepan Arkadyich, who cheated on his own wife, holds the more progressive view and Alexei Alexandrovich whose wife left him for another man holds a more conservative opinion about women's emancipation.

It seems as though each character's personal experience with their wives must somehow influence their opinion the issue of women's emancipation. In the case of Alexei Alexandrovich, the conservative position seems pretty natural. He feels deceived and quite possibly threatened by his wife and other women so he would want to maintain women's subjection.

How Stepan Arkadyich's experience with his wife has influenced his views on emancipation is less clear. His decision to have an affair with another woman doesn't really seem to bear at all on his idea that women would serve just as well in traditionally male roles. Maybe, then, these two character's difference in opinion lies not in their personal experience with women but in a generational difference. Stepan is supposed to be around 30 and is described as a liberal at numerous points throughout the book and Alexei is supposed to be around 50 (I believe). It is possible that this difference in age accounts for their difference in opinion. Regardless, I still think it it is interesting to relate their ideas on emancipation to their own actions...

Levin & Russia

In class we discussed how Levin's character reflects Tolstoy's because of his wildness and his determination to improve himself. I think we can draw another interesting parallel between Levin's character and the sentiment of the Russian nation during this time.

Compared to almost all of the other characters, Levin is portrayed as the most Russian because of his beard, his love of farming and his preference for the country. On page 350, he even becomes "disgusted with himself" for using non-Russian words.

Throughout the novel, we see Levin coming into contact with more Western ideas (like communism) and characters (like Oblonsky). As he tries to process these influences and situate them within his own personal philosophy, Levin fluctuates between experiencing overwhelming self-doubt and intense pride. Similarly, as new methods of transportation began to connect Russia to the west, the country became more self-conscious of its backwardness and equally aware of the uniqueness of its spread-out, agricultural society. I think the dichotomy between Russian self-doubt and self-confidence is particularly evident in the scenes at the European spa. While Kitty and her mother try to act more European and even feel shame for Nikolai when he acts as a sloppy representation of Russia, the Prince exaggerates his Russian qualities and rejects European behavior.

If we accept Levin as a symbol of Russia for his wildness and the moments he alternates between self-doubt and confidence, we are using the same justification that connects him to Tolstoy. This has interesting implications for Tolstoy's presentation of himself, since he's clearly proud of his Russian-ness. This could explain why he seems more sympathetic to the more Russian characters, like Levin and the Prince.

“Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”

“Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” This line is the opening statement in the novel Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, who sets the mood right away. Interestingly, we as readers do not know whom “I” refers to in the statement, or to whom it was meant. However, it is clear that someone will pay for whatever the “act” has been committed. Thus far in the novel, we can see that there are many motifs that have emerged, which could lead “the speaker” or Tolstoy in this case to want vengeance. The most important of these is the motif of infidelity, or also adultery. From the very first chapter of the novel, the motif of adultery has been present to the reader. Right from the start, the reader finds out about Stiva, Anna’s brother was unfaithful to his wife Dolly. In this novel, unfaithfulness has caused families to be broken apart and lives to be ruined. It has been the cause of the downfall of many of the characters in the novel. However, this downfall has been caused by their actions and mistakes.

In this case the infidelity is predominantly evident in the love affair between Vronsky and Anna. From their very first encounter at the train station, it was clear to the reader that this relationship was destined for destruction. Their relationship takes on a very deceptive and superficial quality. Vronsky knew from the very beginning about Anna’s marital status, yet this did not dissuade his attraction to her, or his persuasion. It is important to note that it is Vronsky’s frivolous nature that is responsible for his inability to fully love Anna with the passion that she desperately needs from him. Vronsky initially believes that he loves Anna, but Tolstoy shows the reader that Vronsky’s love for her is noy absolute, not complete. His love is not based upon firm emotional commitment, and it is easily questioned and redefined through the novel. Eventually, Anna’s love becomes burdensome to him, mainly because he remains steeped in the pursuit of his own freedom and pleasures, without placing importance of Anna’s tormented existence. Vronsky begins a relationship that he is not ready for, and he is dishonest with himself with his true intentions. Throughout the novel, Vronsky believes that he can love Anna in the “right way,” yet he fails to find solution to their situation and in serious situation he dismisses the whole issue. This example is demonstrated when he found out for the first time that Anna is pregnant.

While reading this novel, I could not help but think that Tolstoy tries to suggest that Vronsky’s and Anna’s relationship will be destroyed not by outside party/forces but by their own hands. They will cause their own destruction. But also, to some extent, it seems that like Tolstoy wants them to pay for the betrayal and dishonesty.

Running on Empty?

As we have discussed extensively in class thus far, Tolstoy employs symbolism throughout Anna Karenina. One instance of this symbolism that particularly resonates with me is Tolstoy's portrayal of Anna as a horse - an animal to be controlled by man and literally pushed to the brink. What I find so interesting about this particular symbolic representation is that Tolstoy uses it to position the reader squarely in Anna's camp, even though she is clearly guilty of adultery.

Tolstoy accomplishes this by using the language of horse racing and domination. He writes that Vronsky's horse Frou-Frou "was drawing on her last reserve," but that Vronsky believes she has "more than enough for the last five hundred yards" (199). Because Vronsky pushes Frou-Frou too hard, he ends up having "broken her back" (199). As the reader progresses further into the novel, it becomes clear that this language of horse racing and domination is equally applicable to Anna's situation. In describing Anna's observation of the race, Tolstoy draws attention to how Anna "watched [Vronsky] going up to his horse and mounting her," very forceful language.

Though less explicit, Karenin ultimately decides to treat Anna like Vronsky treats his horse - as an object. Tolstoy describes how Karenin "became convinced that there was only one solution [to Anna's infidelity]: to keep her with him, concealing what had happened from society, and taking all possible measures to stop their affair and above all ... to punish her" - to push Anna to the brink (282). This language of horse racing and domination ominously suggests that as the novel continues to unfold, Anna is going to be pushed to draw on her last reserve. All the while, this language increases the reader's sympathy for Anna's situation, even though she is the guilty party.

Frou Frou and the Fate of Women

We talked in class about the role of Frou Frou the horse being symbolic of Anna and Vronsky's relationship, and we've come to the point where I doubt any of us are expecting a happy ending to the novel. Frou Frou was a young, nervous, but beautiful horse, and Vronsky led it to a violent death. I see this horse representing not only Anna, but other women in the novel like Dolly and Kitty. Race horses are used vigorously for a short time, then retired to a life in the pasture. This reads to me like a frenzied courtship and marriage, then the sort of anticlimax of family life. Dolly and Stiva, who married for love, certainly now have a relationship of entrapment, of having no way out, but also of complacency. Dolly is very much described as sort of a used-up race horse, she's a "worn-out, aged, no longer beautiful woman, not remarkable for anything, simple, merely a kind mother of a family." (3) Anna and Kitty are in the throes of such courtships. Kitty, we see after Vronsky leaves her, is ill and hollow, recovering slowly, and Anna is becoming ruined in society. The race of courtship is running them down, and even should they succeed in marriage, they have only fading beauty and usefulness to look forward to. Levin is not the same sort of courter as Stiva and Vronsky surely were, but we have no evidence of his love of Kitty being any more than a desire based on physical attraction. Frou Frou the horse would have had a complacent life after her racing days were over, but are we meant to see that future, Dolly's life, as desirable? Or was it better for Frou Frou to be cut down in her prime of life rather than suffer the slow degradation of time? What do you think lies in store for Anna and Kitty?

Dream, Hallucination, or Storybook Fantasy: Anna Karenina, Part 1, Chapter 29

In this post, I will attempt to deconstruct and closely examine the meaning, and ultimately the role in the overall story, of the dreamlike scene in Part 1, Chapter 29 of Anna Karenina. In this scene, the titular character is on a train en route from Moscow, the place of her peacekeeping role with her brother's family, of her introduction to Vronsky, of their mutual deepening of the feelings between them. She is returning to St. Petersburg, where her home, her son, and her husband await her. But it is the space inbetween--no more in Moscow, but not yet in Petersburg--that is important, and that is what shall be examined in this post.

The first time I read this scene, I assumed Anna was hallucinating. After all, the things she sees have a scary-fantastical aspect to them, and unlike a dream, there is no indication of her being anything less than perfectly alert: "She felt her nerves tighten more and more, like strings on winding pegs. She felt her eyes open wider and wider, her fingers and toes move nervously; something inside her stopped her breath" (Tolstoy 101). However, she reacts to the strangeness around her not with apprehension, but rather excitement.

I would contest that the fact this hallucination-dream happens, and the minute details of what exactly Anna sees, are ultimately trivial. As far as dream sequences having symbolism goes, this one is not very indicative of underlying meaning. However, I see Anna's reaction to the scene as very revealing of her character. It seems to show, even more so than her earlier comment about vicariously living her English novel, that Anna wants adventure. She wants her life to be out of the ordinary, and revels in the sensation when it seems to happen to her. This may explain, at least partially, why Anna makes her way so readily into Vronsky's arms and affections later in the novel.

I would also theorize that this scene, more so than any other early scene in the novel, acts as a minor turning point for the plot. I see it as very similar to a rite of passage--Anna is passing through a time of troubles, of mystery and magic, and comes through the other side a changed woman. The fact that what she experiences isn't, in the strictest terms, quite real, still does not cheapen its role in characterization and plot development.