Charly’s Comments (group member since Nov 19, 2009)

Charly’s comments from the The Classics group.

Ronnie wrote: "Just to add a little nuance to the portrayal of Levin he also says

"...It's vexing and upsetting too see on all sides this impoverishment of the nobility, to which I belong and, despite the mergin..."

No, Levin is actually responding to his brother, Ivanovich, not Vronsky. The philosopher who comes and crashes his farm.

(moderate spoilers through part III)

I think Alexei Alexandrovich (Karenin) or Vronsky would be better candidates for personficiations of "evil" -- the one, cold, unfeeling, almost un-human, diplomatically gifted though he may be; the other, blessed with all the foresight of a 15-year-old, materialistic (less in the love-of-money sense, and more in the can-only-understand-the-tangilbe one), and self-centered. Yes, Stiva is a blithe adulterer, but he strikes me as merely "bad" rather than "evil" -- truly evil characters have far more force of personality; think of Lord Byron's play "Cain" or Dante's Inferno.

So, that leaves the question of who represents "goodness"? To Tolstoy, it seems that genuineness=good. When Kitty is doing good deeds to be more like Varenka, and not for the good of the deed itself, it backfires on her, and Mr. Scherbatsky gives her a good-natured ribbing. However, being "true to yourself" can backfire, and Tolstoy clearly has some conservative, Edmund Burkian values, as illustrated in the character of Anna Karenina. From Elizabeth Bennett to Nancy Drew to the protagonist of any chick lit novel, Anna shares a lot of the same qualities that make a "likable heroine:" spunky, passionate, smart, beautiful, kind-hearted. Yet Tolstoy allows his leading lady to experience a social downfall; the feeling is there that it's NOT going to be all okay in the end . . . more Hugo than Dickens. (I reject the notion that Dolly can reprsent "good" out of hand -- she's too damned tired to be much of anything but nagging and crying.) This leaves Levin as the most likely candidate -- as Pevear's translation makes clear, Levin is very autobiographical. Quite frankly, I would probably rather be friends with an Anna over a Levin -- I have known both sorts; this could raise the question of how possible it is for an author of a given gender to sympathize and draw a portrait of the other. What do you think of Tolstoy's women? I find them more believable than, say, Dostoevsky's or even Chekhov's (Chekhov's men are brilliant - the women, eh, not so much; Dostoevsky is much more a Philosophy and Big Ideas man than character-driven.) I think that Tolstoy infuses life and believability and humor into his women (Mrs. Scherbatsky's concerns, particularly, seem like they could come straight from any 40-something mother I know), yet they always seem to be colored with a man's take. Vronsky, on the other hand -- hell, I swear I know 2 or 3 men who have acted like him, down to the last mannerism!

@Carol: The dinner party where Vronsky and Levin awkwardly meet.

(I can't put this book down! I'm already well into part 3!)