So we've got 6 characters that we've become pretty familiar with in Part 1...and a whole lot of names. Apparently all of the names can be explained like this: Traditionally, people were often referred to by not only their first name, but also that of their father. So for instance, Prince Stepan Arkadyich, whose last name is Oblonsky, is also called Stiva. That's like Robert being called Bob, or Richard being called Dick---sort of a less formal nick-name.
Ekaterina Alexandrovna (father is Prince Alexander Dmitrievich) or Katerina, or Kitty or Katia, or Katenka
Anna Arkadeyvna Karenina, or Princess Oblonsky
Count Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky or Alyosha
Princess Darya Alexandrovna or Dolly or Dasha or Dashenka or Dollenka
Konstantin Dmitrich Levin or Kostya
(don't you feel a little bad for how hard it must be for Russian children when they're first learning how to spell their name(s)? I spelled Brooke B O O R K E quite often when I was first learning. Imagine if I had half a dozen different Russian names? Probably would have failed kindergarten and then where would I be? Certainly not hosting a blog discussing 800-page-long books.)
...................................................................................................................................................
Liking:
--I appreciate how Tolstoy gets you acquainted with each character without coming straight out and telling you, Vronsky prefers convenience and personal pleasure to depth and responsibility. Instead he shows us by describing a character's thoughts/reactions/interests/pet-peeves/etc. So a fuller picture seems to develop in my mind of who that person is.
--Levin. And I feel like I'm going to keep liking him more and more. Others, I'm not as sure of.
Not liking:
--That I think I might have a double standard in regards to men or women and infidelity...I'm hoping to eliminate this in myself before I'm absolutely certain it's there. But as I began to like and respect Anna along with everyone else (in the story) she began to feel guilty about her interactions with Vronsky. So of course it seems obvious that something is developing there. Do I immediately decide she needs the same crass consequences that I mentioned Stiva needed in an earlier post? No. I start thinking, well I wonder what awful things her husband has done to make her start to stray? There must be more behind this. Surely she wouldn't be capable of infidelity unless --fill in the blank (blank to be filled in in Part 2, I'm sure). Not proud, just saying.
--Vronsky. He's too smooth, right? Or do you like him just like every woman in the book does? Maybe I like him, too...I just don't trust him? I'm not sure yet.
So now, what are your reactions? And if you have great questions to ask us, please do---We need great questions to get the discussion started!
I found this little explanation online:
ReplyDelete'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.'
These famous opening lines of Anna Karenina hearken back to the genre of the family novel, a type of work that had been popular in Russia several decades earlier but was already outmoded by the 1870s. Tolstoy revisits this old genre in order to give his own spin on family values, which were a popular target of attack for young Russian liberals at the time. Moreover, this opening sentence of Anna Karenina sets a philosophical tone that persists throughout the work. It is not a narrative beginning that tells a story about particular characters and their actions. Rather, it is a generalization, much like a philosophical or scientific argument. It makes a universal statement and is set in the present tense rather than the novelist’s preferred past tense. Tolstoy thus announces that he is more than just a novelist, and that his aims are greater than simply weaving a tale for us. He wants us to philosophize about happiness, in the grand tradition set by the philosopher Plato two thousand years earlier.
That is interesting. Where did you find it?
ReplyDeleteAlmost done with Part 1, I hope to finish tonight after kids are in bed....
Ummm...that's a good question. I forget---I should have bookmarked it! Sorry :(
ReplyDeleteI have been anxiously awaiting bedtime so that I could enter the discussion after finishing part 1.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the greatest things I appreciate about AK so far is the way Tolstoy develops the characters. We are privy to thoughts and intentions of each character but Tolstoy usually seems to let them unfold in a non-judgmental way. Sometimes we see the way others see them but sometimes we get their perspective. I love the candid way each character is exposed....it almost seems unfair! :) But I find myself identifying with certain thoughts and intentions of various characters, their noble thoughts as well as their shameful ones.
like brother, like sister? I don't know. Oblonsky, on the one hand, seems to have followed pure lust, infatuation, as he called it. But Anna's encounter with Vronsky seems to have uncovered an overall discontentment with her life, suddennly she finds fault with everything and everyone. Almost like if we see a movie with a certain life we'd rather have or, see a magazine with a certain body we would rather be in.....but I guess you could say that Oblonsky's indiscretion was a result of not being content, too? But, Anna hasn't really strayed....yet.
This is a difficult topic because on the one hand I think most people have something I like to call "inspirational dissatisfaction" - much like what would drive us (mostly moms?) to start a book club online reading a mentally challenging classic of literature.....but then there is the overall dissatisfaction with life, an underlying discontentment that might cause us to go looking for something (or respond to something?) that seems shinier, more fun, more desireable, more fulfilling than current life circumstances seem to offer...to the point that we might betray someone(s) we love. Which does Anna have?
Personally, I don't like to separate "us" and "them" because I think there is no temptation that is not common to (wo)man......
and I digress...anyone, thoughts, on part 1?
Brooke, I like Levin, too. Oh Kitty, your choices might be very sad for you....
ReplyDeleteVronsky, don't like him. And definitely don't trust him. It seems to me that he is driven by his ego, any woman attracted to him is a great big long stroke to his ego. Ha, if you catch my drift! :)
ReplyDeleteI think even his draw to Anna is an ego fix. For one, she's married, which is more appealing to a guy who doesn't want to attach....and she's a challenge, if he can turn her head (or whatever else the short-stroker has in mind) it's a great big ego-asm for him!
I agree....Vronsky is definitely not to be trusted. I find it interesting the differences in modern thinking and what's being expressed in the book. Adultery seems much more accepted in the book than now. Also, the way Kitty "becomes ill" after the "Vronsky" ordeal is not what happens today either. Interesting how a hundred plus years changes societies way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteKerri, I know what you mean. I am so glad that we have seen enough progress for women so that we are not just slaves to whatever marriage we are "sold" into. We have so many more rights and choices, we can have careers, own property, be as independent as we want to. We are educated and don't have the whole of society telling us we can't make choices for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are still so many avenues closed to women, double standards that exist and certainly women all around the world do not enjoy the same freedoms that we do in the U.S. and in western civilization.
I read a really interesting book by Wen Spencer called, "A Brother's Price". It was so good. It was based on the premise that, for every 15 females born, there is only 1 male born.....so with this one premise the author spins out a whole society, government, social rules, etc. and what we see in this sci-fi fantasy novel is a very interesting story and the characters live in an extremely different world than the one we know and the roles and interactions between men are women are sort of upside down and turned around compared to the world we know.
Anyway, hadn't read anything quite like it! But Wen Spencer is a very good author if you are looking for some good, quick and entertaining reads!
Tangent, sorry. ;)
Tolstoy wrote this during the same time the story takes place. I was thinking about that today and really appreciated that fact. The book is so detailed in regards to all of the many facets/ins and outs/nuances of society at that time. So much so, that it seems like one would have to have been writing at a later time when things were no longer that way. Am I making sense? Tolstoy creates such a clear picture of how things would have been, it seems hard to believe someone would have been so aware of all of those nuances when they had never lived in another, different time. Like if I were to try and write, or even just explain the societal norms and expectations and typical interactions of people today, I feel like I would fail to notice a lot of things because they're just so typical.
ReplyDeleteI think Tolstoy's writing meets and exceeds expectations--and this is one of the ways that stood out to me today.
And Kerri, about the balance (or imbalance) of the sexes---it is hard to believe sometimes that although this is a fictional book, it very accurately portrays the way it was. Crazy. And that in many places it still is. Crazier. I recently read The Bone Worshiper by someone who's name escapes me right now. It's about a modern-day young woman who's mother is American and father is Iranian and the process her parents go through to arrange her marriage, as well as her contradictory feelings about it. There are so many people who go that route, which is hard for me to understand, but I felt like I was able to understand that thinking a bit more after reading the book. That Wen Spencer book Jenn mentioned sounds interesting. This comment is so all over the place.