Structure and Character

During the first half of the semester we read novels from the nineteenth century and after reading our first twentieth century novel, We by Zamyatin, differences between the two century can be noted. Firstly, the structure of the novel differs from those we have read. Unlike traditional chapters told by a third person narrator, We is told through a series of records narrated by our main character D-503. The records are brief and are basically series of stream of consciousness.  I sort of see this structure as a combination of Pechorin’s diary and Raskolnikov’s episodes of dementia.

Secondly what struck me was the way Zamyatin characterizes his characters. Forget detailed physical descriptions that we saw with Tolstoy, Zamyatin gives his characters, who are named with a single a letter and a number, one or two traits i.e. O has the wrists and the color pink. In this sense, Zamyatin downplays his characters which I guess could represent the idea that the communal is greater than the individual; the description of the One State trumps that of the ciphers. This lack of physical characterization made the novel harder for me to read as I, a visual learner, had a hard time envisioning what was going on. 

Combine the stream of consciousness with the lack of vivid imagery I found reading We much more challenging than anything we read from the 19^th century. Am  I the only one?

Utilitarianism versus Love and Compassion, Round 1

In We, Zamyatin shows, through D-503’s transformation from an almost emotionless individual to a compassionate and loving one, that the One State’s utilitarian ethics conflict with the values of compassion and love.

An essential characteristic One State is that it aims to provide collective happiness. The One State operates by a utilitarian ethic under which the proper course of action is the one that produces the most happiness for the largest amount of people. You can find evidence for this interpretation page thirteen when D-503 expresses vexation with ancient laws: “To kill a man, that is, to decrease the sum of human life by fifty years—this was criminal. But decreasing the sum of many humans’ lives by fifty million years—this was not criminal. Isn’t that funny?”

D-503’s surprise at these ancient laws reveals what he things the proper laws of the One State are. He implies that killing a single man is less reprehensible than doing a lesser harm to many more people. This sort of estimation is typical of utilitarianism because it can be reached by a calculation to determine which action has a greater effect on gross happiness.

The values of love and compassion are not guided by these calculations and they’re typically focused on individuals, not collectives. As the novel progresses, D-503 devotes more of his records to individuals (R-13, I-330, 0-90) rather than to the whole of the One State. He also begins to express compassion and love for certain characters, I-330 in particular. He falls uncontrollably in love with I-330 (he mentions it on page 57) and the deeper he falls, the less he is able to be a functioning member of the One-State, he has to be listed as sick, he cant go to work, cant sleep when supposed to etc.

This simultaneous transition from emotionless to loving and function member of the State to delinquent is how Zamyatin’s intended to show love and compassion are incompatible with the One State’s utilitarianism. As D-503 develops these emotions, he himself becomes incompatible with the One State.

What could have been

I've already expressed my confusion at the fact that the two main characters only actually cross paths once in the novel via discussion questions. But since it was an event that made me think  a lot about the course the novel would and could take, I felt the need to emphasize it more.

None of the relationships in the novel seem to work out to well. Kitty and Levin does to an extent, but it still feels like there's something wrong. The novel just seems to be based on various stages of bad relationships.

The meeting between Anna and Levin made me think they could have made it work. They both seem to want the same thing – love, and they both seem fairly similar in their core character traits. They’re both intelligent, (moderately) sincere and each in their own way a pariah of society. I feel that if they had met sooner the novel would have had a much more content, and possibly boring, conclusion.

And in the light of Levin being modeled on the author himself, it made me wonder if perhaps Tolstoy was caught up in a similar situation. And if so, did he develop the plot line as it actually was or did he try to gauge what could have been? What do you think?

Tolstoy and The Pre-Raphaelites

I know I already mentioned this in class but I would like to show a few images of Pre-Raphaelite paintings that especially reminded me of Anna Karenina. The Pre-Raphaelites started in 1848 in England and are mentioned in the novel several times, even scoffed at. The group started with archaic subject matters and then moved on to landscapes and realist images of social happenings. Many of the scenes in Anna Karenina center around unhappy women, tragic love and displays of wealth—all topics that this art movement portrayed in their context of Victorian England. In the 1860s, Daniel Gabriel Rossetti, one of the founding members, focused on Elizabeth Siddall, a model friend, and much of his work focused on women. Much of his work portrays Siddall as a helpless, passive and sad woman and reminds me of Anna's relationship with Vronsky.
The similarities between Pre-Raphaelitism and Tolstoy seemed so related that I searched online and actually found some helpful pages. John Ruskin, an English art critic and painter himself who worked with and influenced the original three member Pre-Raphaelite group, was a figure that influenced Tolstoy as well. The author thought of Ruskin as a hugely significant figure and even followed his work and writings on modern technology and developments—a big theme of the Pre-Raphaelites. So they are connected!

Institutionalized moral and Anna Karenina

Moral can be individualized or social and as such institutionalized. Once moral is institutionalized, it has a tendency to limit individual behavior in an implicit but powerful way. Outside legal system, institutionalized moral is the only thing left to the “audience or public” to base their judgment about one’s actions. Can we today, from this temporal and ideological distance, even pretend to understand the actions of Anna Karenina?

We can think of the commonly used classification of institutionalized moral such as ethical minimum and ethical maximum. Most people are not willing to go any further than the ethical minimum, while ethical maximum may be seen as an ideal. Did Anna exit from the sphere of ethical minimum? Based on the prevailing ethical norms of the 19^th century Russia, the answer seems to be yes. While her flirting with Vronsky initially may be seen as acceptable or even stylish by Russian aristocracy at the time, her divorce and leaving her son may not be (even if it is legal). The question truly is: Why is flirting of a married woman within the boundaries of ethical minimum but divorcing is not? Institutionalized moral indeed is difficult to grasp at times.

Living in a society and at a time where and when two thirds of marriages are divorced, the institution of marriage seems to be a very “fluid” category. And, true passion and love are rarely the reasons for the divorce. Can we then really appreciate the level of emotion and passion, sacrifice and self-distraction exhibited by both Anna Karenina and Alexei Vronsky? I beg the answer is no. But for sure we can pass judgments from our armchairs based on the unachievable ethical maximum while living our lives based on ever declining ethical minimum of today and here.

Oprah's Anna

           As we wrap up the book, I’m curious what you all think about how the book has been advertised. The 2000 Penguin edition translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky has a very romantic cover (romantic is a kind word-- I've yet to see how hydrangeas and knees fit into the story). The 1981 Bantam Classic edition I brought from home has a more topical cover bearing a portrait of a sad rich lady (boo hoo) and describes the book as “A magnificent drama of vengeance, infidelity, and retribution” and “the moving story of people whose emotions conflict with the dominant social mores of the time.” For a truly bizarre (in my opinion) take on the book, skim the Oprah’s Book Club page, which describes Anna Karenina as “An extremely sexy and engrossing read, this book tells the tale of one of the most enthralling love affairs in the history of literature—it truly was the "Harlequin Romance" of its day.”

            I guess it’s just surprising to me that these descriptions of the book are so sympathetic to the emotional drama of the characters (particularly Anna), since for me at least, none of the characters are particularly likeable. In fact, I find myself especially disliking Anna, who the back of my book describes as “a woman who dares to transgress the strictures of a patriarchal world.” To me, the most compelling part of this book has not been the relationship drama, but rather the way that Tolstoy presents Russia on the cusp of European “progress,” posing questions about the monumental social changes that occurred between Pushkin’s time and the Russian Revolution. How would Russia fare in this transition—how much culture could it retain while responding to the changing world around it? Most importantly, what would it give up? This question is especially interesting when applied to the nobility we see in Anna Karenina, whose privilege in some ways may be coming to an end. 

            Is Oprah right? Is the book primarily a portrait of human passion and suffering? I haven’t read it that way, but the readers of the approximately 900,000 copies of Anna Karenina sold after Oprah's endorsement may have been led to think differently. In short, what do you think is valuable about the novel, and do you find descriptions like Bantam's and Oprah's as jarring as I did?

Razumihin versus Raskolnikov – Reason versus Split (Personality)

            In Crime and Punishment, a profound contrast in personality, life philosophy and ideology is presented through the characters of Razumihin and Raskolnikov. Razumihin’s name is based on word “razum,” which when translated to English suggests reason, unlike Raskolnikov whose name based on word ”raskol” suggests split (personality, in this case). In other words, Razumihin tries to reason, think and debate with both him and others about actions of others or state of the world. Raskolnikov, on the other hand, holds strong beliefs and acts accordingly only to be haunted later, after the fact, by his inner voices of reason or faith.

Razumihin is, just like Raskolnikov, in a difficult financial situation. However, he tries to work hard and make sacrifices to escape from that reality and so prove that, for a man, there is no hopeless situation. He also debates with the view of socialists, accepted by Raskolnikov that a crime is a protest against immorality of the social system and as such acceptable. Moreover, Razumihin is skeptical about the perfect social system, praised by Raskolnikov, designed by a genius mathematician who could create just and sinless humanity, oblivious to any living process or historical heritage.

            When the environment begins to have doubts about Raskolnikov being the killer, even then

Razumihin is trying to reason and find an argument to defend him. Indeed, passing quick judgment is not in

his nature even when facts are fairly obvious. Yet, he is able after some reflection to come to his own

conclusion that his consciousness cannot accept and allow human blood on his hands for some fantastic

idealistic reasons. That is also contrasted to Raskolnikov who defends such position rather fanatically.