Merely that 'all things work together for good' for honest Levin, whereas God's wrath is visited on the two evildoers.Originally Posted by johnw1
I guess I object more to the narrator and his portrayal of Levin than to Levin himself.
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
You see this is precisely where I disagree with this reading - I don't see that Levin is built up as 'good' versus Anna/Vronsky as 'bad' resulting in divine vengeance being exacted upon them. Anna is shown as an honest women and this is why she suffers - in comparison to other society women who have affairs but are more 'subtle' about them. Vronksy is also honest, consistent and loyal in his actions. Their relationship is emotionally powerful. The initial impulse of Karenin to justice gives way to gracious forgiveness. Is not the progress of the events more and and unfortunate than anything else? I think the narrative is the opposite of judgmental.
I think the vengeance is a sort of social vengeance. Anna throws away social conventions and pays the price. Either that or it is her vengeance against Karenin.
Personally I loved Vronsky from the beginning, and at the end at the translation scene I loved him even more. Maybe this is because, I am a male who easily identifies with him and his concepts of Honor and Dignity and his types of passions, so it is easy for me to love him.
Levin on the other hand, I disliked. I did like the scenes where he was hunting with Oblonsky or cutting the grass with the peasants, but whenever he is in any social situation, I loathe him - he seems like such a fool that I could not tolerate him and I many times thought to myself that had I been in that world I would have much liked to challenge him to a dual because he was so frustrating and imbecilic at times that I found him an insult to all men. I know this response is strong, but it is how I feel towards him except for on a couple of occasion where I like him. Much like Pierre in W&P
Also I am glad that discussion on this novel has sparked up and I do hope it lasts, as this is one novel which definitely needs more attention on this forum.
Could it be a sort of double vengeance? I feel like the book was definitely more than just a lecture against adultery (Tolstoy also seems to be saying something about the position of women in society, by letting Oblonsky get away with everything he does). Nobody ever fully wants to commit suicide; they are driven to it by suffering so deep their only instinct is to escape.
Maybe she went too far with her passions, so God punished her by making her jealous and bitter until she committed suicide to revenge herself on Vronsky, for what she imagined was apathy? There's never a clear indication that Vronsky felt much differently about her in the end. I think the apparent change could be due to the narration's being more often from Anna's perspective, and also from natural frustration and confusion on Vronsky's part.
About the characters – Levin I sometimes found tiresome when he was overly abstract and seemed to lose sight of concrete reality in his philosophizing, but overall I consider him a decent person. I can sympathize quite strongly with his social awkwardness.
Vronsky I didn't especially like, but I found him tolerable and admirable sometimes. To my mind a good deal of people are somewhat like Vronsky, only the narrator slightly emphasized his shortcomings. Most people don't have totally consistent and reasonable morals. I just felt a bit upset that he didn't seem to understand the significance of the relationship for her, as a woman.
Also, how deeply did Vronsky really care for her? I think there was some affection, but at times it seems to me almost as if he's flirting with her for fun, or to show off, as he did with Kitty.
I strongly agree. Unfortunately the author forums are pretty far down so no one really bothers to check them :/
I feel a bit sorry for Vronsky. Though his initial passion has subsided, he still remains with Anna, even though she has effectively trapped him. He could have just abandoned her once he felt that the initial passion was dwindling but he sticks by her.
With Anna, it's all or nothing. When Anna and Vronsky first get together, he talks about happiness. She acts as if her life has ended, telling Vronsky that she has nothing else in the world but him (forgetting Seriozha). As soon as Vronsky wavers, that is apathy in Anna's eyes. I always empathised with Vronsky, because no man could reciprocate the passion that Anna feels for him. Even if they initially did, it would be almost impossible to maintain.
Their situation reminds me of a phrase from Tess of The D'Urbervilles: "the cruelty of lust and the fragility of love".
And I love Frederic March
Yes I agree with you, the pressure would be to much for any man. Vronsky loved her as much as a man can love a woman, but for Anna did not only out her love in Vronsky she put her entire life. She sacrificed her entire life for him, and Vronsky knew that - that is an enormous amount of pressure on anyone.
Also Even when Vronsky knows that he is trapped with Anna, I don't think he could have ever left her. Vronsky unlike Anatole (from W&P) has a strong sense of self respect and honor, his honor would have never allowed him to abandon her. In fact when she dies, I think it is his sense of wounded honor and dignity that compels him to seek death in war.
I se a lot of criticism of Vronsky but to be honest ( I say this as a guy) any women would be extremely lucky if in her life a man came to love her as much as Vronsky loved Anna.
I thoroughly agree with this assessment but ask why Anna, once the epitome of poise and discernment, disintegrated to the extent she did, while Vronksy remained steadfast. Psychologically, how the peerless Anna could sink so low and so quickly is quite beyond me.
Karenin's later softening is admirable. Oblonsky is always a little tacky. Levin and Kitty seem something of an unnecessary distraction.
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
I think it's once more because of her "all-or-nothing" perspective. She feels attached to Vronsky with all her life, but at the same time she is strongly attached to her morals of being an honest woman and a good mother. Vronsky doesn't have these additional factors to consider; plus, as a man, the affair even wins a certain admiration for him while for Anna there is only derision.
I agree with the first part, though I don't believe Anna feels a moral duty to be honest, or a good mother. Perhaps honest in the sense that she admits her feelings, but not honest as in 'morally good'. Anna is a good mother because she loves her son. He is the one part of her old life that she cannot bring herself to sacrifice. Surprising as you would have thought that Ani would be more important to her, as she loves her father and not Seriozha's.
Sorry ... that's what I meant to say only the words were unclear. A good mother to Seryozha, and honest as in not lying about her affair or how she really feels.
But she wasn't a good mother, she abandoned her child - she chose to sacrifice her child instead of herself, and that is why she spiraled down into her destruction, the guilt of abandoning her child, much like (we can assume) Vronsky's spiral into self destruction occurs once Anna kills herself.
If anything is consistent in the novel, it is the theme of how internal guilt leads to self destruction. ironically Tolstoy presents us characters where only those who are awakened to life are able to feel such guilt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote