Why do you not like Anna?

johann cruyff wrote:

Quote:

---

There is,IMO,a special kind of people who are never happy with their life.Never happy with what they have,who they have,especially in contrast to all those who haven't got anything.Those are the people who will always put blame on people surrounding them and look for reasons for their own discontent in the actions of others.Those are the self-centered,egocentric people who will stop at nothing in pursue of their own abstract happiness without looking back at those whose lives they have destroyed in the process.That's Anna Karenina.That's why I hate her.

---

Why would Anna be happy with her life? Why would anyone be happy with his life? From our perspective sometimes someone should be happy, but that doesn't necessarily means he or she is happy. Yes, Anna had husband, son and she was rich but she wasn't happy. Materialism is not happiness. You know the story about the peasant and his shirt? Same with Anna.

Anna never put blame on anyone. She just wanted some happiness she couldn't find in her marriage. If you remember, Anna said to Dolly: ''Ne želim nikome ništa dokazivati, želim samo normalno živjeti. Ne nanosim nikome zlo osim samoj sebi. Na to imam pravo, nije li tako? '' I really like that quote, so I still remember it. Society blamed her, she didn't blame no one. Actions of others - remember Stiva's actions. He act like Anna, but no one ever even got an idea to think about him, and Anna was excluded from society.

Anna's road to happiness - it's normal for every human to look for his happiness, and it's normal to be slightly egocentric in that. You're probably pointing on Vronsky or Karenin because I think her death maybe great impact on their lives. In order to make them happy, Anna also had to be happy; because if you want to make someone happy, you also have to be happy and Anna wasn't. And in situation where she supposed to choose who's happiness she want more; her choice was completely normal: she had chosen her! I don't find anything wrong in that, every normal human would be probably do the same.

First of all,suicide is quite possibly the most egocentric thing you can do: I don't care how miserable you are,as long as you have someone,anyone,who cares about you,even in cold manner a la Karenin,you don't kill yourself.If you have two children,why not let them fulfill your life?You don't kill yourself.Anna could be viewed as an egocentric monster,placing herself before her children,a man(well,two men) who love her(sorry,loved her,but that's her fault,and her fault only),her family.I guess the only way I could condone suicide is if the person has no one,and I mean no one in this world.Yes,then the world becomes a cold,ruthless,scary place - one in which I,too,would hate to find myself in.

But that's not the position she found herself in.I seriously can't find a good quality in this character - she was the only guilty party - and even her suicide is just icing on the cake - yes,I've destroyed several lives already,mostly because I don't appreciate that which most others don't have,but hey,why should I face any consequences?I'll just kill myself - what an easy way to escape.As for the rest of them - screw them!(I think this word best describes what I'm looking to say:) )

And I don't agree that we should,or can,place our own,totally individual happiness before everything and everyone.My spiritual world,yes,that's my business,and I have the right to act according to my preferences,but if that happiness transcends my personal world and affects at least a dozen other people so directly - I have no right to act the way Anna Karenina acted.

That about sums it up,if you're not convinced,please bear in mind that the arguments of both of us would probably sound a lot better in our native language(s).;)

I agree that suicide doesn't solve anything but that's Russian realism, you just have to die!:D

His cold love was one thing that was destroying her life so I don't think she had to care for him, actually she would be much better without his love. I agree that she had Anna and Seryozha, but actually she didn't have them, at least not in normal way. Seryozha was taken away from her and little Anna was remembering her how here life once was. Vronski also - he was showing love on very strange way. Whenever she needed him, he just ran away with his buddies ( he was also under influence of those macho things and leaving although he did regret in his head, but that's not enough). I think that we have to realize that all that situation left some impact on her, she just couldn't stay normal!


I didn't mean out happiness should be in front of everything and everyone ( yes, I would like to use native language now :D ), but also everyone shouldn't be in front of our happiness. Yes, child-parent or husband-wife OK, but that's it! (glupi engleski:lol: :lol: !) Look, I think that we have to try live in some normal relations with our environment, but some things should never be questioned because of nothing and nobody. If they are, goodbye everyone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I agree that suicide doesn't solve anything but that's Russian realism, you just have to die!:D

---

Have you read Steppenwolf?If so,do you remember that little book that Heller finds,the one about lonely Wolves and suicide?That's where it is best described - that kind of suicide I can understand.So,I'd say,you don't have to die in Russian realism,and if you do,well,it's your fault.

BTW,I'm much more well versed in modern literature,that's my cup of tea,so yeah,you could probably take me down in discussions like these.See you when you look to talk about Kafka,Hesse,Camus,Sartre etc.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

So,I'd say,you don't have to die in Russian realism,and if you do,well,it's your fault.

BTW,I'm much more well versed in modern literature,that's my cup of tea,so yeah,you could probably take me down in discussions like these.See you when you look to talk about Kafka,Hesse,Camus,Sartre etc.:D

---

I meant that in Russian realism everyone dies, mostly from their own hands :D and so did Anna.

Well, I read Camus and Kafka and I am always ready to discuss, but Hesse and Sartre are not my area. At least, not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I meant that in Russian realism everyone dies, mostly from their own hands :D and so did Anna.

---

I know what you meant.Yes,they mostly die in realism,but their suicide comes as a consequence of their own actions.Hence,it's their fault.In modern literature,however,their impending death doesn't come as an act of redemption,but as a reaction to the surroundings.

Do you think people who kill themselves are in a normal state of mind? Depression is a mental sickness, and I don't think any of us are in measure to judge suicide. Also, I believe that our own life is the supreme thing of which we should be completely free about.

"If you have two children,why not let them fulfill your life?You don't kill yourself.Anna could be viewed as an egocentric monster,placing herself before her children,a man(well,two men) who love her(sorry,loved her,but that's her fault,and her fault only),her family."

And if someone simply decides to leave the men/women who love them, is that being an egocentric monster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Vronski also - he was showing love on very strange way. Whenever she needed him, he just ran away with his buddies (he was also under influence of those macho things and leaving although he did regret in his head, but that's not enough).

---

To say that Vronsky ‘just ran away’ seems less than fair. His sustained devotion to Anna was remarkable in the circumstances but all of us need room to move. With her claustrophobic love, Anna would have distanced anyone. Vronsky was fighting for Anna’s sanity and his own…both losing battles in the end.

If Vronsky living with Anna is blameless, I agree that drug addled Anna’s behaviour deteriorates terribly. In her defence, her social situation is worse than Vronsky’s, although the plight of a young, rich, married couple with a healthy daughter, well respected in the local community, is hardly Spartan. But is johann cruyff right to condemn her for leaving cold Karenin? Should she, a young woman, have simply made the best of a loveless relationship…for Seryozha sake? Did she marry too young to understand? And did she indeed place her ‘own, totally individual happiness before everything’? A more interesting question: would she have been happier in the long term had she stayed with Karenin?

Levin sought fulfilment through labour: his writing, farming, affinity with the peasantry, family life and the ultimately, the sacred. Having found romance wanting, Kitty flirted with philanthropy before looking beyond. Anna and Vronsky’s quest for happiness through romantic love was double edged. Vronsky conscientiously looked for pastimes complementary to his life with Anna, until an increasingly self-centred Anna suicided. Did Anna fare worse with Karenin?

Also a lover of Kafka, Camus and Kierkegaard, I tend to see suicide as a whim of the moment, with consequences for those left behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Do you think people who kill themselves are in a normal state of mind? Depression is a mental sickness, and I don't think any of us are in measure to judge suicide. Also, I believe that our own life is the supreme thing of which we should be completely free about.

---

Of course not.But I firmly believe that the act of suicide in modern literature can be somewhat justified,as opposed to what Anna K. did,which was just selfish and egoistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

And if someone simply decides to leave the men/women who love them, is that being an egocentric monster?

---

Obviously,love is a two-way street,and someone shouldn't be forced to spend their life with someone who they have no interest in.However,this Karenin situation was far different,given the background of it.(years together,a child,love that at least existed)With that in mind,yes,I do think her leaving him was egocentric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

Of course not.But I firmly believe that the act of suicide in modern literature can be somewhat justified,as opposed to what Anna K. did,which was just selfish and egoistic.

---

Hmm? I don't see your point here.

Quote:

---

Obviously,love is a two-way street,and someone shouldn't be forced to spend their life with someone who they have no interest in.However,this Karenin situation was far different,given the background of it.(years together,a child,love that at least existed)With that in mind,yes,I do think her leaving him was egocentric.

---

Well let's agree to disagree then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

I know what you meant.Yes,they mostly die in realism,but their suicide comes as a consequence of their own actions.Hence,it's their fault.In modern literature,however,their impending death doesn't come as an act of redemption,but as a reaction to the surroundings.

---

I think society made greater influence on Anna's death then in Mersault's case, for example so; so I don't think you can blame her for everything. If society had acted normal to her ( not normal from today's perception; I would consider it as something like they did to Stiva), I think nothing serious would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

To say that Vronsky ‘just ran away’ seems less than fair. His sustained devotion to Anna was remarkable in the circumstances but all of us need room to move. With her claustrophobic love, Anna would have distanced anyone. Vronsky was fighting for Anna’s sanity and his own…both losing battles in the end.

---

But there are some situations when ''room to move''isn't priority. When she said please stay, I need you; he ran away with his buddies. That's not fair!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

But is johann cruyff right to condemn her for leaving cold Karenin? Should she, a young woman, have simply made the best of a loveless relationship…for Seryozha sake? Did she marry too young to understand? And did she indeed place her ‘own, totally individual happiness before everything’? A more interesting question: would she have been happier in the long term had she stayed with Karenin?

---

Mother should leave any personal interests when child is an a question and in this point I agree with johanncruyff.

No, I think things would been even worse if she stayed with him, escalation was just a question of time.

Also, we shouldn't compare Anna with Levin because he was too too idealized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

Obviously,love is a two-way street,and someone shouldn't be forced to spend their life with someone who they have no interest in.However,this Karenin situation was far different,given the background of it.(years together,a child,love that at least existed)With that in mind,yes,I do think her leaving him was egocentric.

---

Only Seryozha is important, other things like love and friendship come and go. She should realize that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

No, I think things would been even worse if she stayed with him, escalation was just a question of time.

---

Had the gracious and noble Anna - as she surely was before meeting Vronsky - stayed faithful to Karenin, would she have been driven to drugs, despair and suicide? I think not. In the beginning she had friends, relatives and a beloved son; she was a woman of remarkable poise and dignity. However unpalatable to our romantic notions a cold marriage may be, a virtuous Anna would have survived more or less intact until husband Karenin died. I find this paradox fascinating.

Alternatively, if Anna, like brother Stiva and the odd duchess, had merely indulged in a passing affairs, all may have been well, since her marriage was already cold. Her downfall seems to have been an everlasting and heartfelt commitment out of wedlock. In a sense, she is punished for loyalty and integrity, were it not for Seryozha. But can we, in part, blame Karenin here? He could have released the child, for whom he cared little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

johann cruyff wrote:



Anna never put blame on anyone. She just wanted some happiness she couldn't find in her marriage. If you remember, Anna said to Dolly: ''Ne želim nikome ništa dokazivati, želim samo normalno živjeti. Ne nanosim nikome zlo osim samoj sebi. Na to imam pravo, nije li tako? '' I really like that quote, so I still remember it. Society blamed her, she didn't blame no one. Actions of others - remember Stiva's actions. He act like Anna, but no one ever even got an idea to think about him, and Anna was excluded from society.

---

interesting... why do you quote Tolstoy's work in Bosnian? "I do not wish to prove anything to anyone, I wish only to live normally...."

just wondering :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

interesting... why do you quote Tolstoy's work in Bosnian? "I do not wish to prove anything to anyone, I wish only to live normally...."

just wondering :)

---

Because both bazarov and myself speak Croatian and Bosnian,respectively,as our native languages.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

But can we, in part, blame Karenin here? He could have released the child, for whom he cared little.

---

No, we cannot blame Karenin. Why? What did he do? She had an affair, what was shocking for those times, she embarrassed him and then he would suppose to give her a child? His only child and a son? No way! He didn't cared little, it's in male's nature that he shows feelings lesser then females. It was his son and he loved him same like Anna did.
What situation would we have if Anna did get Seryozha? Affair, divorce and a child? So Anna gets everything and it's impossible for her or anyone to come out of situation like that as a winner. We could wish Anna's happiness but that would be not real. And this is realism... Sorry Anna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

interesting... why do you quote Tolstoy's work in Bosnian? "I do not wish to prove anything to anyone, I wish only to live normally...."

just wondering :)

---

Because I started this thread like a debate with johanncruyff ( of course, everyone else is also welcomed) and I knew he will understand me, and I don't like to quote wrong and I am too lazy to search it in english translation, and Croatian is closer to Russian original.

I have almost finished the book and although Tolstoy strikes me as a mysogynist (there seems to be quite a consensus about that in the threads - i have read almost all the Anna Karenina threads in the site) that didin't diminish my pleasure of reading the novel ;)
I agree with everything Baz says here ;)
I liked that Anna character very much (most interesting character of the book, although i quite enjoyed Levin's "ranting" :lol: ).

Thanks!:)
I've read somewhere that Levin is actually Tolstoy so he had to be great.:D

[QUOTE=Gladys;536912] [B]But is johann cruyff right to condemn her for leaving cold Karenin? Should she, a young woman, have simply made the best of a loveless relationship…for Seryozha sake? Did she marry too young to understand ? And did she indeed place her ‘own, totally individual happiness before everything’?


I don't think that Anna was selfish to leave cold Karenin to pursue love and romantic / passionate fulfillment. She was a young, beautiful and passionate woman who was widely admired for her beauty and femininity. It was quite natural that she would eventually succumb to the adoration that was bestowed upon her, since only a cold stone with no heart or imagination would not be affected by this --- particularly when she was involved in a boring, cold and passionless marriage with a person like Karenin.

There was definitely no love in the marriage. Anna married him at 17, under pressure from her aunt with whom she was living ( parents were deceased ) and who obviously wanted to get rid of her. Karenin visited Anna at the instigation of the aunt, but he was not in love with her and he wasn't thrilled by the prospect of the marriage. He agreed to marry her against his better judgement ( i.e. his own rule that in doubt one should refrain from action ) and at the insinuation of the aunt that if he didn't, Anna, a young marriageable girl, would be " compromised ". So, he married her and gave her " all the feeling he was capable of " ( Tolstoy's words, although not sure of the exact quote ) --- which, we can surmise, was not a lot, since Tolstoy frequently described him as not capable of close, heartfelt relationships with people.

Anna at first was attached to the much older Karenin ( 24-year difference ), since he was a father figure / substitute father. There was probably affection ( of the friendship variety ) and certainly there was good communication ( as in Anna always confiding into Karenin about everything ), but that shouldn't be enough for a young, healthy woman. And material wealth is not a substitute for happiness, since it's more important for a soul to lead a rich life. And Anna's soul was stifled.

She was just an unfortunate woman, living at the wrong time in a society with double standards. She could have fulfilled herself much more, if she lived in modern times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olichka

…it's more important for a soul to lead a rich life. And Anna's soul was stifled.

---

Tolstoy seduces us. Before she leaves Karenin, the reader is well-disposed towards Anna, despite her marital unfaithfulness and her plainly pejorative view of her husband, who has treated her as a friend and amply provided for her. Given Tolstoy’s insight into motives, we might be sympathetic to any evildoer…to any human. Perhaps, we should be so seduced more often.

Nevertheless, 'Anna's soul was stifled' by her adventure with Vronsky! Had she stayed faithful to Karenin, Anna would have remained that endearing, confident and resilient woman, who had rescued the marriage of brother Stiva and Dolly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Tolstoy seduces us. Before she leaves Karenin, the reader is well-disposed towards Anna, despite her marital unfaithfulness and her plainly pejorative view of her husband, who has treated her as a friend and amply provided for her. Given Tolstoy’s insight into motives, we might be sympathetic to any evildoer…to any human. Perhaps, we should be so seduced more often.

Nevertheless, 'Anna's soul was stifled' by her adventure with Vronsky! Had she stayed faithful to Karenin, Anna would have remained that endearing, confident and resilient woman, who had rescued the marriage of brother Stiva and Dolly.

---

Well, everyone here certainly has very interesting insights into Anna's character. I begin to see different sides of the issue now. As well, it's time to re-read the book ! :brow:

While Vronky is increasingly likable and Anna narcissistic, I thought Karenin - though briefly heroic - a rather pathetic figure towards the end.

That Karenin ‘was living a very superficial life’ is well illustrated by his curious relationship with Lidia Ivanovna towards the end of the novel. I suppose he was searching for happiness though there is something tragic about him.

In the beginning, I also was 'impressed with Anna's individualism' but thought she had so much more: an exceptional measure of maturity, balance and integrity. Her angelic love seemed to ‘embrace duty, responsibility and commitment’ with consummate ease.

Consequently, I found her fall into ‘selfishness and self-centeredness’ nigh incomprehensible. Opium addiction hardly explains it. I remained so puzzled that dislike for Anna was indefinitely forestalled.

"He (Karenin) has taken her daughter. Alexey was ready to agree to anything at first. Now it worries him terribly that he should have given his own child away to another man. But he can't take back his word. Karenin came to the funeral. But we tried to prevent his meeting Alexey. For him, for her husband, it was easier, anyway. She had set him free. But my poor son was utterly given up to her. He had thrown up everything, his career, me, and even then she had no mercy on him, but of set purpose she made his ruin complete. No, say what you will, her very death was the death of a vile woman, of no religious feeling. God forgive me, but I can't help hating the memory of her, when I look at my son's misery!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

But that's not the position she found herself in.I seriously can't find a good quality in this character - she was the only guilty party - and even her suicide is just icing on the cake - yes,I've destroyed several lives already,mostly because I don't appreciate that which most others don't have,but hey,why should I face any consequences?I'll just kill myself - what an easy way to escape.As for the rest of them - screw them!(I think this word best describes what I'm looking to say:) )

---

Guilty how? She certainly wasn't any worse than her brother, or numerous other characters, but she was regarded differently after her infidelity.

As for Anna not facing any consequences... you're kidding right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

No, we cannot blame Karenin. Why? What did he do? She had an affair, what was shocking for those times, she embarrassed him and then he would suppose to give her a child? His only child and a son? No way! He didn't cared little, it's in male's nature that he shows feelings lesser then females. It was his son and he loved him same like Anna did.
What situation would we have if Anna did get Seryozha? Affair, divorce and a child? So Anna gets everything and it's impossible for her or anyone to come out of situation like that as a winner. We could wish Anna's happiness but that would be not real. And this is realism... Sorry Anna.

---

He didn't like Serezha. Karenin said multiple times that Serezha was connected with his revulsion towards Anna, and that besides that, he was disappointing.

I don't dislike Anna. She is unfortunate in her personality, which is obsessive. There is an element of selfishness- she dreams that both Karenin and Vronsky are her husbands and that all three are happy.

Great novel. Tolstoy was a master at crafting characters right down to the bone..He was so good, at one point in the novel, I was like,"Yo, Why is Anna such a *****?!"

In regards to the thread, I liked the character because I genuinely hated her selfish-ego trippin' personality, and that's what made the book so good. ONce you thought Anna wasn't gonna sink any lower by taking off with Vronsky and ABANDONING her child, lo n behold she jumps in front of a train.

I have shifting feelings towards Anna, while I'm in the book I have sympathy for her. Afterwards, outside Tolstoy's world, when I analyse her actions and atitude I don't care for her much. That is why Tolstoy is a genius, no one puts you inside a character like he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Afterwards, outside Tolstoy's world, when I analyse her actions and atitude I don't care for her much. That is why Tolstoy is a genius, no one puts you inside a character like he does.

---

I agree. Each character has an argument.

Hi,
I would like to share my view and see if anyone agrees. I am in the group, which seems to be the minority, that views Anna's character positively. I believe the tragedy that ensues is an indictment of the society in which she lives. I view Anna's insanity, which culminates in her suicide as a product of the stress placed upon her by society. She is torn between her love for Vronsky and for her son and is given no air to breath by society or her husband. Arguably she should have stuck with the husband she had committed to, but she made a mistake in marrying too young to someone she did not really love. To me, her and Vronsky had great potential as people. In today's society Anna and Alexei could have been divorced and gone on to lead separate fulfilling lives, and with both maintaining a relationship with their son. In the time and place of the novel however, society was never going to permit this, and the consequence is the tragic death of Anna and probably Vronsky, leaving their daughter parentless, Alexei half mad and Seryoza in a terrible position.

Just had another point, further to my post above. Rationally, Anna could have said to herself that in the circumstances in which she found herself (i.e. in love with Vronsky, but in a loveless marriage and living in a society that would not tolerate divorce) the best course of action would be to forget Vronsky and stay with her husband. But in a different time and place (i.e. today's society) the greater cost/ lesser good might have been to stay with Alexei rather than cause some short term turmoil to Alexei and Seryoza for ultimately a better life for all of them if she followed her heart. I think this ties in with Levin's thoughts at the end of the novel, where he sets aside his rationalising of the meaning of life and finds the truth in his heart. Anna follows her heart, but she is crushed by the society of the day, causing irreparable harm also to Vronsky, Alexei, her children and others close to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I have almost finished the book and although Tolstoy strikes me as a mysogynist (there seems to be quite a consensus about that in the threads - i have read almost all the Anna Karenina threads in the site) that didin't diminish my pleasure of reading the novel ;)

---

I disagree with Tolstoy portraying misogynistic feelings in this book. Both Karenin and Vronsky are shown as flawed and ultimately both fail Anna.

(I've started a thread as a reply to the misogyny question)

I dislike Anna not so much because of the adultery and abandonment of her child but rather because of the way she handled the whole situation. She fell for Vromsky. Alright, I suppose she couldn't help it, and apparently she was indeed unhappy, so pursuit of happiness and whatnot. But there were a hundred ways she could have broken the news to her husband - none of them easy, I know - but she may have picked the worst possible one. In case you don't have that scene present in your mind, I'll sum it up for you: she is cold and snappy when dealing with her husband, as though blaming him for her lust, and then suddenly she says she hates him and that she has a lover.

But wait, it gets better. She goes on to say, 'do what you like'. Alright, putting herself at his mercy, that gets her some martyr points. And indeed Karenin does what he likes: he keeps her and asks her to stop seeing Vromsky. You can question the wisdom of that decision (and it is very questionable), but because she wavered her will on the matter, so she's sure to accept it. Wrong. She grows restless and wants a divorce. And he's willing to divorce her, but she falls ill and then, understandably, seeing the end drawing near, wants him to forgive her. And he does! Is she happy? No! As soon as she's well again she wants to elope.

And that she does, which leads me to my final and most crucial point: she abandons the child she claims to love above everything. No matter how you look at it and in which century you live, she willingly deserted the one person she truly cares about for a lover, and that's all there is to it. Forget about the train, in the end what she really dies of is remorse.

After all this, how am I supposed to sympathise with her? Maybe some people do, and that's all very well, but me, I just can't.

Her disobeying Karenin is because she has realised what she had missed out on by marrying an older man. She resents Karenin for this and rejects his frigidity. There is evidence at the beginning that the couple are very close and both know exactly what the other character will hate, so it is a shame in that sense that she leaves Karenin as her relationship with Vronsky may be more passionate but he doesn't realy know her.

I just finished the book, and bottom line, she is self-involved to the core. For all her supposed charm and beauty, she lacked substance, which made her a weak willed character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC22

For all her supposed charm and beauty, she lacked substance...

---

Did the Anna of the early chapters really lack substance?

At the start of the novel she is seen as a societal "darling".
She is also shown as a devoted friend, like when she helped Dotty to reconcile with Stiva (irony a its finest).

In the beginning, she seems to have it all, but as the novel progresses we see her core character disintegrate.


The fact that she married Karenin because it was "expected", and not because she loved him, set her up to be unsatisfied in marriage. This makes her a sympathetic figure.


However, she becomes a vain, neurotic, insecure mess toward the end of the novel, which makes her decidedly unlikeable.