Levin: Unstable and Unreal

     Levin seems to be an incredibly bipolar character. He bounces from elation and pure bliss to despair and depression almost instantly, with the tiniest of conflicts tipping him one way or another. While reading about his emotional swings, on one hand I sympathize with his feelings--he usually seems to have a (at least partially) legitimate reason for being upset, but he always lets himself dramatize the situation in his head until he is no longer upset by a real event but rather an escalated, dramatized version of the event that he created in his head.

     Reading this, I wonder where this is going. Is he going to snap? Frankly, I was surprised that everyone made it through that hunting expedition alive. I was half expecting him to kill Veslovsky. Do you think that Levin will lose his temper and do something stupid? Or do you think he will gain control of his emotions and pull himself together eventually?

    Additionally, I wonder why Tolstoy makes Levin, the character that transparently represents Tolstoy himself, this crazy. So far, I think Levin is the only character in this book that is so utterly ridiculous that I can't picture his character as a real person. It seems strange that his character is so unbelievable when he is actually the character who is clearly modeled after a real person.

Superfluous superfluous superfluous

A theme consistent throughout the Russian literature we have read is the superfluous man. We have discussed this topic a lot in class, and pretty much beaten it to death. But I want to bring it up once again. This is going to be a summary type of post, maybe with some analysis thrown in.

We first saw the superfluous man in The Captain's Daughter with Pyotr. He's a wealthy, ignorant (to begin with) officer in the military whose goal is simply to be with the girl he loves. He manages to avoid properly fighting for his own army while maintaining neutrality with the enemy. He doesn't produce anything for the greater good of society, except maybe his memoirs. Pyotr is superfluous, but he is in a position as an officer where he could be of distinct use to his country if he was so inclined.

Next we meet Pechorin, the anti-hero superfluous man. He is a military officer as well, but he doesn't seem to really have any true responsibilities. Unlike Pyotr, most of his time is spent not being in love with people and telling the reader just how much he doesn't love people. He contributes absolutely nothing to the greater good, except maybe his journals.

In Fathers and Children we have more than one superfluous man. The prime example is Pavel. The majority of his life was spent in pursuit of a woman who didn't even love him back. The men in Fathers and Children illustrate the path the Russian novel has taken from the adventure of military life to a focus on domesticity.

At this point, it seems that all of the authors are writing for the nobility of Russia (the only people who were truly literate) about topics that they could relate to. This trend doesn't disappear after this, but we see a change with Dostoevsky' Crime and Punishment. Despite the shift away from adventure and the military, the Russian novel still refuses to break from the theme of the superfluous man.

Raskolnikov is different from the previously observed types of superfluous men. He isn't part of the nobility, he hasn't ever had any real job, and he lives in poverty. He is interesting because he doesn't think that he is superfluous (hence his theory of exceptional men), but he doesn't do anything for society except think about it. At leas Pechorin seems to understand that he is superfluous, but Raskolnikov is blind to it.

Lastly we see Vronsky, who starts off as a very classical military officer superfluous man to a artistic/romantic superfluous man. As a military officer his duties seem to be keeping everyone entertained. As a romantic, his time is spent avoiding getting bored. Vronsky's character seems to be the best amalgamation (I'm pretty sure that's the right word) of all the different superfluous men we have seen. He has the military bearing and wealth of Pyotr, the boredom of Pechorin, the throwing-it-all-away-for-love of Pavel, and he has the total uselessness of Raskolnikov. It seems that Russian novels are written by taking the idea of the superfluous man and putting him in different situations to see what happens.

Both the readers and the authors of these books (for the most part) could relate to superfluous men, so it makes sense that it is an important theme. Also, stories about people who have to work all day everyday are boring, so it is simply more interesting to read about than other types of characters.

Now I hope you guys are as tired of reading the word 'superfluous' as I am of writing it...

Tears and Jam

Even in translation, Tolstoy's sentences leave those of the writers we've read so far--and probably those of any writer anyone will read--seeming crippled, anemic, asthmatic. It took me until part 2 to really notice the incredible motion, the athleticism, of his sentences: they are almost scenes unto themselves. A few examples:

" 'Well, bonne chance,' she added, giving Vronsky a free finger of the hand holding her fan, and lowering the slightly ridden-up bodice of her dress with a movement of her shoulders, so as to be well and properly naked when she stepped out to the foot of the stage under the gaslight's and everyone's eyes"(131).

"The dairymaids, hitching up their skirts, their bare, white, as yet untanned legs splashing in the mud, ran with switches after the calves and drove them, lowing and crazed with spring joy, into the yard"(153).

"Seeing their mother, they were frightened, but peering into her face, they understood that they were doing a good thing, laughed, and their mouths full of cake, began wiping their smiling lips with their hands smearing tears and jam all over their beaming faces"(264).

The ridden-up dress, the untanned legs, the tears and jam--these details are lively by themselves, but Tolstoy doesn't simply present them to us: he moves them around, changes them, makes them part of a mini-scene. That is: Betsy's shoulders lower her dress; the white legs splash and run (we can picture, too, the dark mud on the white legs); and the children smear the tears and jam across their faces. These sentences--along with many, many others in the novel--begin in one place and end in another. They do this on the level of the images they describe but also, in the case of the last one, on the level of the character's perception. At the start of the sentence, the children are scared; then they have a little epiphany; then they laugh and smile, their faces still wet with tears. And all while chewing.

Characters are always moving in the novel--even the smallest scenes are full of cracking knuckles, trembling hands, nervous fingers--but somehow this movement is most powerful when condensed into a sentence. And when Tolstoy condenses it, he is often doing so to convey a change in his characters' perceptions--those many mini epiphanies. This is because Tolstoy is interested in those moments when we see the world differently, when everything changes--or at least seems like it does. Even after that charming scene with the tears and jam, a little bad behavior from her children "suddenly destroyed for Darya Alexandrovna all that day's happiness and pride"(271). That is a trivial example compared to Anna's sudden perception of her husband's ugly ears, or Karenin's own brief change of heart. Levin is perhaps most susceptible to epiphany, and after his engagement to Kitty his perception of the world is transformed--"in particular it was him, Levin, that they all loved so much that night"(400). He becomes astoundingly self-absorbed.

Tolstoy's sentences are still themselves very dynamic--"a boy ran up to a pigeon and, smiling, looked at Levin; the pigeon flapped its wings and fluttered off, sparkling in the sun amidst the air trembling with snowdust, while the smell of baked bread wafted form the window as the rolls appeared in it"--but as a whole, in this section, they freeze time. They mirror Levin's self absorption by becoming haltingly absorbed in details. Is epiphany really so dynamic after all? Perhaps the sentence itself, like Tolstoy's characters, has its limits of perception and change.

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.