The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Ch.4 Nocturnal Pain
Ch.5 Hatred!
Ch.6 Depair

As I am reading I cannot help but to wonder is the illness of Ivan Ilyich an internal manifestation of his discontent, unhappiness, and regret of his own life?

It seems that no doctor can proper diagnosis what is wrong with him and all disagree upon the cause of the illness and none of their treatments seems to work.

Furthermore, he almost manages to convince himself that he is getting better, and is only reminded again of his illness when he encounters some misfortune in his life, which he than blames upon the fact of the illness:

But as soon as he had a mischance, some unpleasant words with his wife, a failure in his official work and unlucky hand at "screw" he was at once acutely sensible of his illness.

It also seems that it begins to flare up the most when he is in the presence of his family, and particularly his wife.

Silver- I think his injury was real and is forcing him to face his "discontent, unhappiness, and regret." His suffering tears down the "screens" he had in place to avoid all that unpleasantness.

What stood out most to me in these chapters was his complete loneliness. No one knows what he is going through and those closest to him are doing their best to ignore his battle with mortality. Add to that the knowledge that it was all due to his hanging curtains for a house that we've learned was generic to all families of his standing! How tragic! He isn't even left with a "screen" of heroism as he might of been if his injury was from storming a fort. Instead he has to look death, IT, face to face.

Melissa wrote: "Silver- I think his injury was real and is forcing him to face his "discontent, unhappiness, and regret." His suffering tears down the "screens" he had in place to avoid all that unpleasantness...."

I feel that there is also a metaphoric side to his illness as well. I think that there is more to the story and his condition than simply the fact that he is physically ill. And while he may truly have an actual physcial illness I think that physical illness is representative of something more than just that and is a reflection upon his inner discontent with how he has lived his life.

Also there is the fact that some physical illness can in fact be caused by such things as stress and psychological problems. He can be turning his unhappiness inward upon himself and creating the illness.

Because clearly exactly what the illness is, is not important, since we are never given a clear straight answer. We are told it may be this or that, I think there is a reason for why we are not told in plain terms what is acutally wrong with him.

Silver wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Silver- I think his injury was real and is forcing him to face his "discontent, unhappiness, and regret." His suffering tears down the "screens" he had in place to avoid all that un..."

I am not certain of this, but in my memory of that part of the story, I got the impression that the doctors were always just guessing, not because his pains weren't real, but because doctor's aren't god, so to speak! They are themselves ignorant despite their knowledge. At least that is how I read it. Also, I do seem to remember that we are cleary told by the narrator that his demise, his illness, is a direct result of the curtain episode! Was it his liver that was supposed to have been punctured?

After his first visit to the doctor it says

The ache did not grow less; but Ivan Ilytich made great efforts to force himself to beleive that he was better. And he succeeded in deceiving himself so long as nothing happened to disturb him

I think this statement could also be used to describe the nature of his life. Though we have made some harsh criticisms about his life becasue that is what Tolstoy is leading us to do at the same time in retrospect his life really is not that terrible.

As had been stated before it is a pretty average, mundane life that is reflective of the life that many people lead, nothing particuarly exceptional, but nor anything truly tragic.

So in a way his life is like a constant dull ache for him. It is not what he wants for himself, and the condition of his life never improves, yet he can manage to try and convenience himself that he is content with his lot in life. But for those moments in which some particular hardship emerges before him it forces him to give a closer examination of his life and once more reminds me him of how unhappy he is with his current state, and consequently at these moments is when he most acutely aware of his illness as well.

Christi wrote: "Silver wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Silver- I think his injury was real and is forcing him to face his "discontent, unhappiness, and regret." His suffering tears down the "screens" he had in place to av..."

The guessing done by the doctors seemed to illustrate their ineptitude in the face of death. There is no cure for dying and so they hide the futility of it all in scheduling medications and such.

In the first three chapters, I wasn't impressed with him. But I do have a lot of sympathy for him after these next three chapters. As others have said, he's all alone - his wife and family aren't supportive, his friends seem almost nonexistent in his life, and the doctors are clueless.

As for the doctors, Tolstoy doesn't seem impressed with the profession. Reminds me of Dickens with lawyers. ;)

I found the interaction between Ivan Ilych and the doctors very interesting. To be fair. . . doctors in 1882 did not have all of the diagnostic tricks they have today, so if there is no outward bruising and the urine test (whatever it was they were looking for) didn't reveal anything, they would have a limited amount of information to figure out what physical ailment occurred.

That being said. I found it interesting that both the trained physicians and the celebrity quacks would not give him a straight answer. This bothers him immensley. He started to compare their detachment from their patient to his detachment from the person standing before him for judgement. That seems to bother him. Was he like that? Did he pass judgement without all the information like the doctors picking ailments for him without a full case history? Are only his questions as judge important and not the defendant's--like the doctors only wanting their questions answered and don't bother to answer his as the patient?

While I think he is in real pain and that it started with the curtain incident, I think his pain is amplified by his realization that he is detached from his own life. He is detached at work, where only the things he chooses affect his ruling. He is detached from his family, where things change once he is ill and not the way he wanted--the family actually seems to grow bored with his ailment and finds it inconvenient to their routine.

These 3 chapters were interesting to me. As mentioned above, his isolation really comes through. Previously I thought his wife was a jerk, but after doing this week's reading, have more empathy. We all handle the death of those closest to us differently. Some choose to ignore it. Some choose to comfort. Clearly his wife is really not accepting what is happening to Ivan. She even disagrees with what her brother sees after not seeing Ivan for a while. She keeps trying to say everything is fine when clearly it is not.

The lack of knowledge of the doctor's was reminiscent to me of today's docs. Ivan docs are all treating symptoms instead of Ivan as a person or a whole being. Docs still do that today. Also, in medical school they learn the phrase when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras. In other words, it is most likely something common, not rare. That has them focusing on typical instead of what the symptoms indicate. Today they are further hampered by our litigious society - they will act depending on what they feel the risk is for a lawsuit. Sad, but true. I wonder how much of the confusion of Ivan's docs are due to lack of info or something similar to what our docs go through today.

Also, it was interesting that Ivan tried to think himself well. Today they are doing a lot of research about how visualization and beliefs help or hamper healing. Here centuries before we even think of these things, Tolstoy touches on them.

Chronic illness can be extremely frustrating and debilitating in more ways than you think. It wears down your attitude and happiness level; and reduces you to somebody just trying to survive another day. We're seeing this in Ivan.

The illness is changing his perspective on everything which is not unusual for chronically ill people. He's beginning to take stock of his actions (i.e. how he handled his cases) and beginning to question his values.

I also found Ivan's discontent with how he was being treated by the doctors to be interesting, particularly in the way in which it showed the doctors being more concerned truly with the disease or ailment and yet in the mind of the doctor the life of Ivan to them was of no consequence.

The idea of having more sensitivity to the patients as human beings, opposed to just treating them according to their symptoms, illness, diagnoses, etc. was a more of a modern conception so it was interesting to see Ivan express his awareness and discontent of receiving this kind of treatment.

Also in the way in which it expresses the arrogance of the doctors in the fact that they determine for themselves which questions are the important ones and which ones should be asked and what they think to just be foolish. And the fact that the question of Ivan's very life and death to them means nothing and not worth their addressing.

And though we never are told directly what is wrong with him because the doctors remain in disagreement about what this cause is, the fact that it seems one of the reoccurring possibilities for his ailment is a "loose kidney" is another way in which his physical illness is reflective of his life.

He is suffering from the possibility of the fact that one of his organs has detached itself in the same way in which Ivan has become detached from his own life. He is not really rooted to his family, and does not have any real close connections with friends, and this does end further enhancing his suffering. He has in a way just sort of drifted through life because he has always just put in minimum effort and because of this he has isolated himself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uzkc...

"loose kidney" as described in a 1900's medical record. Apparently not a term used today, however. Notes elsewhere indicate the symptoms may have been associated with sedentary occupations.

Silver wrote: I think that physical illness is representative of something more than just that and is a reflection upon his inner discontent with how he has lived his life.....Because clearly exactly what the illness is, is not important, since we are never given a clear straight answer. We are told it may be this or that, I think there is a reason for why we are not told in plain terms what is acutally wrong with him.

I agree Silver, whatever the illness is it is not really important. It is his reactions to it and those of others around it, and of our own, which are the crux of the story.

I understand when Silver and MadgeUK say that the illness may not be the most important thing; that his reaction to it is perhaps most important. At the same time, there can be no doubt that Tolstoy wants the reader to know that his illness is a direct result of a choice he made, which was to buy new curtains and to hang them. It has to be taken that his own 'folly' led him to his untimely death. If this illness is only a sideline to his death, it could have been written about as cancer or some other totally random illness, that had no obvious connection to any action.

Lily wrote: "http://books.google.com/books?id=Uzkc......"

Interesting!

Christi wrote:..there can be no doubt that Tolstoy wants the reader to know that his illness is a direct result of a choice he made, which was to buy new curtains and to hang them.

I think that this is such a trivial reason that it amounts to nothing - that Tolstoy meant that anything could have led to his illness and subsequent death. Which is true - 'in the midst of life we are in death' as I think the Book of Common Prayer says?

MadgeUK wrote: "Christi wrote:..there can be no doubt that Tolstoy wants the reader to know that his illness is a direct result of a choice he made, which was to buy new curtains and to hang them.

I think that th..."

You may very well be right, but I cannot shake the feeling that it is pivotal in understanding the story. It might not be! But, I am of that opinion. I guess I will go look at some literary criticism and see what has been generally written about it.

I think if the illness or how it came about wasn't important to Ivan Ilych's story, Tolstoy wouldn't have mentioned it. He even has Ivan Ilych say,
"It really is so! I lost my life over that curtain....How terrible and how stupid."
If Ivan Ilych hadn't been so concerned about what others thought, he wouldn't have been caught up in decorating his house and injured himself. Like Christi pointed out, "his own 'folly' led to his untimely death."
In some scenes, I get the impression that Tolstoy believed how we live our lives is evidence to how we will leave our lives.

I think Tolstoy had a reason for choosing a kidney aliment as the disease from which Ivan Ilyich died. In the Old Testament mention of the kidneys is often a   symbolic representation of interior truth. Once Ivan became ill, he began his struggle to look for the truth in his life.

I found the following excerpt about the spiritual function of the kidneys to be very interesting. 

"The two kidneys are the "male" and "female" advisors of the soul. The right kidney advises how to rectify one's character traits through the process of careful introspection (the sense of thought of the month of Iyar). The left kidney advises how to absorb truth into one's consciousness (the sense of hearing of the month of Av)" http://www.inner.org/times/av/av.htm

Also Traditional Chinese medicine instructs us that "the role of the kidneys is to store life essence". 

Melissa, I love your comment "I get the impression that Tolstoy believed how we live our lives is evidence to how we will leave our lives." I think you are so right about that in terms of this story.

And I also love Seeuuder's thoughts on the symbolic aspects of the kidneys. I think the quote is amazingly applicable to this story, especially to the later chapters that show us the transformation of Ivan's soul.

I did some not-to-in depth research on the story, and found a bunch of interesting items about the illness and ladder/curtain scene. But I don't want to share them here because they tie in to the entire story, including the ending, and we aren't there in this thread yet.

How did this story affect your own attitude toward death? Anyone?

I read this story nearly 25 years ago, and the impression it left stays with me to this day. I can't count the number of times I've had to remind myself over the years that life is absurd. It Only takes but the slightest trigger, i.e., the experience of something either trivial or annoying, to put things back into perspective, that all things pale in the face of death.

Lyle Scott Lee wrote: "How did this story affect your own attitude toward death? Anyone?

I read this story nearly 25 years ago, and the impression it left stays with me to this day. I can't count the number of times I'v..."

I have always been rather macabre and find all things related to death to be fascinating, I don't really find the subject of death uncomfortable, nor do I really fear death so I cannot say that this story really affected my own attitude about death.

I think this story says more about our attitudes towards life and how we choose to respond to the prospects of death. Ivan in many ways choose his own misery and though the knowledge of his death may have began to make him reflect more upon the state of his life and his unhappiness he still was not propelled to take action into attempting to change his current state of things.

At least at this point in the story we do not see any evidence of his making any positive changes in his life and his thinking. Instead of trying to help his family understand more he persistently pushes them away which only makes things worth. He really only thinks about his own suffering and not how it can also have an affect upon those around him.

He has always been very self-centered in his desire not to have his marriage interferer with his own personal amusements and so now he chooses to completely isolate himself.

The prospects of his near death could have been a wake call for him to truly become more actively engaged within life but instead he sinks into lamentation of how unfortunate he is.

Tolstoy certainly didn't have much use for doctors and I personally don't either. Doctors today are generally specialists in one area and don't look at how the body functions as a whole. As a result they can't always determine what the illness is and what causes the malady. I love the quote: "The doctor said: This and that proves that you have such-and-such a thing wrong inside you; but if that is not confirmed by analysis of this and that, then we must assume this and that. If we assume this and that, then--and so on."

I personally think that Ivan has an illness that is not fatal, but his negative thought processes, his loneliness, and his fear of dying create a sense of hopelessness that leads to his death.

Emily wrote: "I personally think that Ivan has an illness that is not fatal, but his negative thought processes, his loneliness, and his fear of dying create a sense of hopelessness that leads to his death..."

And Tolstoy may have been there with you in telling this story. There is certainly evidence that people can curtail or hasten their own death, even within the parameters of any particular disease. However, I find applying that view to any particular real individual a precarious position to take and not particularly one conducive to inducing healing, if one also believes to some extent in our abilities to support and heal each other in living out our destinies.

(One can certainly find support for the plot line you suggest in Tolstoy's own final journey as portrayed in "The Last Station.")

Lily wrote: "Emily wrote: "I personally think that Ivan has an illness that is not fatal, but his negative thought processes, his loneliness, and his fear of dying create a sense of hopelessness that leads to h..."

I know of people who have recovered from diseases through prayer and loving support from their family and friends. They were not expected to live or recover, but they did. On the opposite extreme, I know a woman right now who has convinced herself she is dying, refuses all support from others, and, as a result, IS dying. She does have a chronic illness which colors her view on life, but she doesn't do anything to ameliorate her symptoms or to help herself.

Do I believe everyone will get better with prayer and a loving support system? No. However, dying, which is part of the cycle of life, can still be a peaceful and natural event that is filled with love and caring.

But Ivan is sick and perhaps dying without a loving and caring support system. He has convinced himself that he is dying, yet is terrified of death. He feels hopeless and helpless and is distrustful of everyone around him. He doesn't believe that he has much to live for, and not having a reason to live, will die.

(I'm wondering if Ivan injured his spleen when he fell. My son injured his spleen and had a terrible pain in his side until it healed.)

He is depressed and hopeless and withdrawing even further from people than he was previously because he is dying of either an injury or an illness. The depression and hopelessness, coupled with an overall lack of emotional support, may be in some way exacerbating his symptoms, but those are not the things that are killing him. There is also no indication that the absence of those things would "save" him.

To be honest, I also do not think we even have completely solid evidence that it was the fall that caused the problem, although I may have missed something. Was that theory ever corroborated by a doctor?

Denae wrote: To be honest, I also do not think we even have completely solid evidence that it was the fall that caused the problem, although I may have missed something. Was that theory ever corroborated by a doctor? "

I was wondering the same thing. I was begining to think there was something I overlooked, becasue when reading I did not recall anything which clearly stated that the injury was a direct result of the fall.

I will have to recehck with my text.

The pain in the side began after the fall. I thought there was a connection and so did Ivan. In the beginning of his pain, he says, "Yes, the beginning of my illness. I knocked my side, and I was just the same, that day and the days after; it ached a little, then more, then doctors, then depression, misery and again doctors..."
(Chapter 5).

At the end of chapter 6, it states that "he would go into the drawing-room where he had fallen, for which--how bitterly ludicrous it was for him to think of it!--for the decoration of which he had sacrificed his life, for he knew that it was that bruise that had started his illness."

His wife believed it too because she would warn him to not move something himself because "you'll hurt yourself again."

Whether that was truly the cause of the pain and illness, the doctors were incapable of answering. However, in the mind of Ivan and his wife, there were no doubts.

Silver wrote: "Lyle Scott Lee wrote: "How did this story affect your own attitude toward death? Anyone?
..
I have always been rather macabre and find all things related to death to be fascinating, I don't really find the subject of death uncomfortable, nor do I really fear death..."

Speaking of attitude toward death, Bertrand Russell, who lived to a ripe old age of 97, wrote in the essay "How to Grow Old":

"The best way to overcome [the fear of death] -so at least it seems to me- is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal, until bit by bit the walls of the ego recede, and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life. An individual human existence should be like a river: small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past rocks and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue."

(I found the full text of the essay from the web and posted it on my blog, if anyone is interested. Russell does have a wicked sense of humor. :) )

Bertrand Russell was a friend of my father's and we took tea with him at the House of Lords several times in his late old age:). He was always very amusing and I admired him greatly. I have never had a fear of death, indeed at my present age I quite welcome it and look forward to fertilising a piece of ground somewhere:).

This is quite a good little piece on How to Stay Young. I particularly like:-

'Throw out non-essential numbers. This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctor worry about them. That is why you pay him/her.

I've shrunk two inches, so that's seven more pounds to lose to reach my recommended maximum healthy weight! I've lost 45 pounds so far -- a good start, I'd say.'

http://www.hbingham.com/onaging.htm

Those passages stick with me too, Emily. The fact that he was on a ladder when this accident happened is probably also symbolic. He was climbing the ladder of success for years, then he had this fall, a fall that was literal and symbolic. Before the fall, he was caught up in what the author thinks is the trivial parts of life, after the fall, he is awakened to the important parts of life (one of which is death).

BunWat wrote: "I did a little checking. Apparently "loose kidney," is now known as renal ptosis or nephroptosis, and is when a kidney sits abnormally low, or becomes misplaced or prolapsed. It often causes no s..."

In a sense, I agree that maybe what Ivan suffered from (A loose kidney) may not be as important as the fact that he suffered period. Still, I think that when a writer like Tolstoy creates a short story, there are no random words placed anywhere. This is a story that can be taken on many levels. If one is too examine it in detail, each detail was placed there for a specific reason, and it is imortant for the author. A writer like Tolstoy, if he were to mention Moscow, or St Petersburg, would have a reason for choosing the city he did. Each city has a history of it's own, and a meaning inherent in it that would have significance, if not to the average reader, to the Russian reader it would. A short story by a great writer is not just a random selection of events, it is a carefully constructed work, that can be looked at in new ways with each reading. I believe every single word that Tolstoy put into this story is there for a reason.

Wow, I was just thinking about Bunwat's comment that a name could be Vladimir or Feydor. I always check out names in works of literature, because often times they are chosen for a reason. And I think Ivan, in this story has meaning too! Ivan is a super common Russian name. I think our Ivan is Everyman. I really think that Tolstoy gave him his name for that reason, and maybe other reasons too.

Christi wrote: "Wow, I was just thinking about Bunwat's comment that a name could be Vladimir or Feydor. I always check out names in works of literature, because often times they are chosen for a reason. And I thi..."

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your analysis.

I think our Ivan is Everyman.

And perhaps his disease is every disease and Moscow/St Petersburg is every city?

MadgeUK wrote: "I think our Ivan is Everyman.

And perhaps his disease is every disease and Moscow/St Petersburg is every city?"

Lol, if you think that fits, then that can be your belief :)

TheTreatmentCenter.com -- Did you all have this advertisement alongside this morning? (We restore hope. You can do it together.) Is the appropriate response to laugh?

(Just checked it out -- for drug/alcohol addiction, not something like cancer (or loose kidney?), as I had guessed from the picture!)

Although I may be off-base in sensing this, I get the impression that I have offended someone. If so, I did not intend too. I have always loved discussions of literature, where all opinions can be absorbed and contemplated. There are no hard feelings, on my part, when I disagree or when others disagree with me. That's what's fun about free-flowing discussions; we get insights from the comments of others that increase our awareness of an idea. Anyway, if I have seemed not to display respect for others, I have to apologize. I certainly have not felt a lack of respect for any opinion here. Have I offended anyone?! If you would rather I not participate in your talks, Please tell me and I will go away!

I am sure you haven't offended anyone here Christi - it is just the normal cut and thrust of our conversations here:). You are a very welcome recruit to RR.

Me too!

Christi wrote: "Although I may be off-base in sensing this, I get the impression that I have offended someone. If so, I did not intend too. I have always loved discussions of literature, where all opinions can be ..."

Don't go. I appreciate your comments and haven't seen any indication of disrespect from what you have written.

Denae wrote: To be honest, I also do not think we even have completely solid evidence that it was the fall that caused the problem, although I may have missed something. Was that theory ever corroborated by a doctor?

If I remember correctly, that was one of the questions that Ivan wanted to ask the doctors, but they were not intersted in answering (at least in Ivan's opinion). So while Tolstoy never tells us if the doctors believe the pain started with the fall, Ivan believes that to be the case.

I wonder though. . .have you ever had an injury (slipped on the ice, bumped your elbow, whatever) and the pain from that injury causes you to focus on the pain in your body. Then, when the pain you noticed subsides there is still a pain there that won't go away. (or, in the same thread, you go to the doctor's for a simple sore throat only to learn that something more serious is wrong, like cancer. But you didn't notice anything but the sore throat.) Maybe that's what happened. Maybe the ailment had been in Ivan for years, gradually building up in pain at a level that the body could mask it and he didn't notice it. But once he fell off the ladder--then he noticed that something was wrong. Whether the fall caused the injury or not, Ivan will always believe it did.

I like the analogy of the ladder in the room and Ivan's career 'ladder' and how everything changed with 'the fall'. It does have a nice, literary balance to it. :-)

Kris wrote: "Denae wrote: To be honest, I also do not think we even have completely solid evidence that it was the fall that caused the problem, although I may have missed something. Was that theory ever corrob..."

Oh, the fall is definitely symbolic, and I definitely agree that one minor ailment can sometimes lead to the discover of a much larger, unrelated ailment.

I find Ivan's recounting of his interactions with the doctors suspect. Were they arrogant and high-handed, probably, but we have no way of knowing how thorough they actually were. We only see them though Ivan's perspective. It could be that they asked all of the questions they needed to ask, but Ivan had "WebMD syndrome" and was convinced he knew better than they or that they were doing their job poorly. It's hard to know clearly.

Christi wrote: "Although I may be off-base in sensing this, I get the impression that I have offended someone. If so, I did not intend too. I have always loved discussions of literature, where all opinions can be ..."

Not offended here either Christi. I think you are a welcomed addition to the group. Relax and have fun.

Denae wrote: "Kris wrote: "Denae wrote: To be honest, I also do not think we even have completely solid evidence that it was the fall that caused the problem, although I may have missed something. Was that theor..."

Or he didn't have WebMD syndrome and the docs were truly arrogant. I spent two years with docs at one point trying to get things worked out. They each treated a symptom, not the whole. I even went to one and said there's something wrong. I workout constantly and I'm gaining weight that is not muscle mass. In the middle of this conversation the doc said I would feel better if I LOST WEIGHT! Duh? Don't think he was listening properly. It happens a lot in the medical field here.

BunWat wrote: "I don't think either Ivan or the doctors are solely at fault in their failure to communicate. Its all part of Ivan's life lived wrongly, he and the doctors and his family and his friends are all c..."

I agree wholeheartedly.

Lots of doctor "hating" here. ;) Sorry, just teasing.

Since everyone seem to have already dissected the chapters thoroughly (no pun intended), I don't have much to add.

I agree that the actual diagnosis isn't important, but I do think that the fact that the doctors had no clue has some relevance to the rest of the story.

I could be wrong, but it's also difficult to pinpoint what Ivan's faults are in the book. In the first chapters, he's not a horrible man, but he's not a good guy either. He seems like the average man - trying to move up the ladder, move in the right circles, have a social life, and finding more fulfillment in work than family life. So to try to connect his illness as some payback to something he did "wrong" is - to me - impossible.

It's a very negative view of life in general. We are born, we struggle through life, and die alone - sometimes horribly.

Deborah wrote: "Christi wrote: "Although I may be off-base in sensing this, I get the impression that I have offended someone. If so, I did not intend too. I have always loved discussions of literature, where all ..."

As Deborah wrote, do relax and have fun. I have enjoyed your comments to date. If there was something in particular that led you to feel unwanted, I recommend you set it aside or deal directly with that person with a personal note or be more specific to us all so we understand -- with my leaning being towards the first of those three options, at least until you have some confirmation of whatever it was you sensed.

Lynnm wrote:I could be wrong, but it's also difficult to pinpoint what Ivan's faults are in the book. In the first chapters, he's not a horrible man, but he's not a good guy either. He seems like the average man - trying to move up the ladder, move in the right circles, have a social life, and finding more fulfillment in work than family life. So to try to connect his illness as some payback to something he did "wrong" is - to me - impossible. "

I do not really think his illness it meant to be seen in terms of a sort of punishment becasue of something "wrong" that he committed.

But rather I think it is more of a culmination of his own misery he has fallen into that rut that I think is relatable to many people. The fact that he had attempted to do what he believed were all the "right things."

He got the kind of job that was expected of him, he has found some pleasures in life outside of work, he got married.

Yet he is alienated from his family, and has not developed any real genuine connections with his friends and though he make take some interest in his job there is not the impression that it truly satisfies him or that he has any real passion for it because though he uses it as a way to avoid his family at times it does not seem to be truly filling in that void of something missing in his life.

He has what could be seen as an average, and all in all decent life, but he is not content with it, yet he does not seem to have any true goals for what he truly wants in life. He is not happy where he is at and yet he also lacks any real ambition, or drive to try and achieve something greater for himself.

There would be nothing wrong with his life and what he has done within it, if he himself genuinely took enjoyment in the choices he has made and what he has done.

But it seems as if he does lack any genuine enjoyment or interest in anything in life. He is not really fulfilled by anything. At the same time he seems incapable of knowing what would fulfill him.

One thing that troubles me about Ivan is something that troubles me about Tolstoy -- and it probably applies to most of us at some point or another -- the difficulties in being kind to each other and in expressing caring/loving in simple, effortless ways. It is with Ivan and Kitty in AK, I think as much as any of his characters, that Tolstoy demonstrates he recognizes people can consciously make that effort and succeed. For so many of his other characters, it is almost more nature than honest effort that gives rise to those little humanities -- although one can argue Gerasim here makes the effort; his caring is more than just innate goodness. (Which fits with Tolstoy's evaluation of the humanity of the serfs and peasants.)