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.

Origins and Adultery

In keeping with the tail end of Scott’s post, I’ve also been thinking a lot about characters’ origins and how Tolstoy’s been playing with locales as a means of characterization and social commentary.  It seems significant to me that the Vronskys, upper-crust characters of debatable moral fiber, are from St. Petersburg, while Levin, a lower-class noble but an ultimately more sympathetic character, prefers country life, kasha, and peasant traditions to the conventions of high society.  I especially enjoyed Vronsky’s conversation with Levin where he expressed that all Muscovites “have something edgy about them” and “keep rearing up for some reason, getting angry, as if they want to make you feel something,” and  the inclusion of the passage where Kitty’s father describes Vronsky as a “little fop from Petersburg” who’s been “made by machine”.  We’ve also come across the trope of the wealthy noble selling off country estates to pay his debts in the form of Prince Oblonsky, who is also wrapped up in the business of city life, government work, and adultry.  At the very least, Tolstoy seems to be critiquing the nobility’s disconnect from their Russian roots; beyond this, it seems he is equating urban life with mechanization, modernization, and the importation of European culture, all processes which he portrays as corrupting and antithetical to traditional Russian  life. 

I also think Tolstoy is trying to draw parallels between adultery and the adoption of European customs and culture.  I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that Stiva cheats on Dolly with the French governess, and I also think it’s significant that a good number of the Russian princesses have adopted European nicknames.  Beyond this, the periodic inclusion of lines spoken in French and English seems to contrast with the many allusions to Puskin (some accurate, others not so much).  SO.  What do you guys think?  Do you see any other ways Tolstoy plays with setting or concepts of Russian national identity in his characterizations?   

Choo Choo

Tolstoy introduces the image of the train early in Anna Karenina and it seems like they will play an important role in the novel.  Vronsky and Anna first meet at the train station and see a man crushed by the train—which Anna sees as a bad omen.  Trains are typically connected with modernization and Tolstoy could be employing them to give modern overtones to Vronsky and Anna’s budding infatuation.  Despite not emphasizing generational differences to the degree of Turgenev, Tolstoy does suggest that love and conceptions of marriage are changing and this is causing a great deal of confusion for many.  He represents this in particular with the Shcherbatsky’s and Kitty’s decision about whom to marry.  The image of the train does give a very modern overtone to the start of Anna and Vronsky’s relationship and makes it clear that their relationship will not be a traditional arrangement. 

Train imagery also reinforces the notion that this is a novel about the aristocracy.  It reinforces the wealth they have at their disposal and is key in developing the role of setting, particularly the role of Moscow vs. St. Petersburg that we talked about in class. If we take Levin as a stand-in for Tolstoy then it does appear that so far Tolstoy is suggesting that the village is superior to the city.  I know other Russian authors have used trains to represent modernization and the conflict it sparks between the city and village and I think it will be interesting to see how Tolstoy negotiates these dynamics, as well as the differences between Petersburg and Moscow. 

Now and then

I have read both Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina before, when I was about 14-15 years old and it seems amazing to me how much my perspective changed. I did not look so much into Raskolnikov's reasons for murdering the old lady and I remember completely buying his theory about the old crone. Also, I thought his relationship with Sonya was all about true love and pure emotions.
As we are now starting to read Anna Karenina, I feel ambivalent towards it. The last time I read it I was highly prejudiced against Anna, but I also profoundly disliked Vronsky. The only character I liked and pitied was Levin, though most of the passages about his life in the country bored me terribly. As I am re-entering the universe of this book again and trying to pretend not to have read it before, I have a different perception of Anna and I am more indulgent of her.
Maybe it is because we are reading these books in a class, but I am also paying much more attention to details and I find new meanings in small things, which I did not do years ago. In some way, it feels as if I am reading a different book, as if Tolstoy or Dostoevsky had severely edited parts of their novels in the past years and now I am reading the new, updated version.

Have you read any of the books we have been reading in this class before?If so, how is your perception of the characters different? Do you like them more or less? Are there symbols that you notice now and you didn't notice the first time?


Photo sources:
1.http://www.moviezit.com/wp-content/pictures/Anna-Karenina-1948-1948-movie-hd-wallpaper.jpg
2.http://www.filmtrophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ANNA-KARENINA-Keira-Knightley-As-Anna-Karenina.jpg

Pulcheria Alexandrovna: Purpose?

Throughout the novel, we come across many different characters, each representing a theme, are a foil of Raskolnikov in some way, and serve a purpose to understanding the novel. We have discussed some of these purposes in class. For example, Razumikhin shows the loveable, friendly side that Raskolnikov could achieve if Raskolnikov had money. Sonya, the religious, meek woman character, saves Raskolnikov with religion and eventually makes him a part of society with his inability to part from her. Dunya, Raskolnikov’s sister, is very intelligent and similar to Raskolnikov in many ways, however, Dunya is able to show compassion to her family and other people while Raskolnikov can not.

Although all of the mentioned characters play an essential role in the novel, I could not pinpoint why Raskolnikov’s mother, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, was part of the novel. She seems to have a purpose in the beginning when she writes Raskolnikov a letter explaining that Dunya has agreed to marry Luzhin in order to help Raskolnikov with his money problems. She reappears later after Razumikhin has committed the two murders but never really brings anything new to the novel except for concern for Razumikhin. Razumikhin seems to easily dismiss his mother and sister with out ever looking back.

My thought is that Pulcheria and his sister are there to ground Razumikhin to reality. Razumikhin goes in and out of reality throughout the book and by easily dismissing his sister and mother he tries to get rid of any part of his life that connects him to society, and further, reality. Do you agree? What other reasons do you think Pulcheria is a part of the novel?