First: Even if you are caught up through Part 2, go back and read and respond to Jenn's comments! This lady has brought the proverbial "it" I requested in the last post. I loved reading your thoughts, Jenn...now through the power of peer pressure I encourage the rest of you smart chicks to follow suit. I know you're there thinking all kinds of thoughts. Please share.
Part 2, part 2, part 2. Have you ever found yourself being judgemental of others (I'm sure not, so just pretend and go with me here)? Have you ever found yourself later to have been straight up wrong about your initial judgements? What I'm noticing as I become more deeply involved in the lives of Tolstoy's characters, is that when you are privy to people's inner thoughts/motivations/hang-ups, etc. that it becomes much less black and white and therefore much more difficult to label them one way or another. It gets a little messy. I begin to see the good and the bad co-existing within one person. I'm sure there is a lesson here that is very pertinent to real life. I'll let you flesh that out in your subsequent comments...
I agree with Jenn's comment and in fact think she put it perfectly:
I 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.
Notice that we both used the word "privy"? I think I read Jenn's comment earlier, wrote my own and subconsciously copied her sentiment. Or great minds think alike. But probably the first thing.
AMY: I know you're reading. I know you're busy. I know I love everything your brain comes up with...
KATE: I'm pretty sure you're reading. I know potentially everything you say is intelligent and hilarious...
KRISTI: I know you started. I think you're still reading. I know you are one of the kindest thinking people I know...
TIFFANY and KERRI: I have no idea who you are, what you think, or how you came upon this blog...but I can't wait to find out...
Sooooooo, this discussion could be even greater and more diverse...
Back to Part 2.
Kitty is so charmingly immature, isn't she? I just want to help guide her along somehow in all my infinite life wisdom... I love that she's trying so intently to be a better person. She's trying so hard to grow up; to figure out who she is and who she'll be. I even like that she leans a bit toward the melodramatic. I feel like patting her on the head. What's your reaction to Kitty?
So Anna and Vronsky. Earlier when I was talking about seeing the good and the bad within a person, and how that makes judgment so much more difficult, I was mostly thinking about these two when I said it. Vronsky has pursued and succeeded in catching a married woman, thus compromising...pretty much her whole life. But by the end of Part 2, I liked him more. Anna is in over her head, now an adulteress...and I can't write her off as a miserable excuse for a human. Whether you agree with me in that, or not, you have to agree that Tolstoy has succeeded in writing some complex characters, right?
'For the first time in his life he had experienced a heavy misfortune, a misfortune that was irremediable and for which he himself was to blame.'
ReplyDeleteThis line stood out to me. It seems this will have to be one of those moments in life where the rest of life sort of changes as a result of this experience. Hoping that Vronsky becomes a more serious man.
First, I would like to respond to your comment about this quote, "for which he himself was to blame"....don't you think that the misfortune Tolstoy (and perhaps Vronsky, too) is referring to, isn't just the horse? But maybe Anna, too? You know, just like the horse has been spent and disposed of, maybe Anna, now, too, will have an emotional and, of course, social "being put down"? How sad, because the double standard for men and women in society of that time is obviously apparent.
ReplyDeleteI kind of think the whole scene with Vronsky, the race, and his horse is a foreboding omen to what is to come for Anna.....
Okay, now in response to your initial question regarding premature judgment of individuals....yes, absolutely, I have several times formulated an initial snap judgment of someone that, over time, turned out to be wrong, unsubstantiated or premature.
ReplyDeleteWhat I LOVE is that Tolstoy's characters are so DEEP and real that we actually have the opportunity, in a novel, to make judgments, learn more about the character, discover we're wrong, walk with his characters through their journeys, change our minds, relate to them or not...when was the last time you ever read such depth in a fictional character?
This book has made me think, "Wow, most books I read have characters that make ME feel like I am an over-analytical and complex person." But Tolstoy's characters are so multi-layered that I can believe that he has tuned into writing the depth of humanity, with the ability to flesh out and inter-fold these thoughts and experiences and intentions of real life people.....he must have been very in tune with his own inner life and have been a very perceptive, good listener and watcher of the people in his intimate and peripheral life.
In other words, my opinion is that Tolstoy is formulating, creating characters in his novels that are real and multi-dimensional. This causes the reader to engage, relate and reflect on the intentions and actions of the characters as if the reader has actually met and interacted with these people, which would, as a result, cause a reaction from the reader, a response that would require a choice....wow! That is true CHARACTER development.
Oh, by the way, I have not quite finished part two, alomost...just couldn't resist the discussion Brooke brought up!
I think I'm half way through part two…but felt like adding a bit to what you said Jenn. I am also enjoying all the character development, and falling in and out of like with a few of them. One interaction in particular has been playing through my mind, maybe it’s because I have sisters, and can relate so well with the interplay between Kitty and Dolly.
ReplyDelete“Dolinka, I am so, so wretched!” She whispered penitently. And the sweet face covered with tears hid itself in Darya Alexandrovna’s skirt.
As though tears were the indispensable oil, without which the machinery of mutual confidence could not run smoothly between the two sisters, the sisters after their tears talked, not of what was uppermost in their minds, but, though they talked of outside matters, they understood each other. Kitty knew the words she had uttered in anger about her husband’s infidelity and her humiliating position had cut her poor sister to the heart, but that she had forgiven her.
I can’t count the number of times my sisters and I have fought and understood the hurt we’ve caused one another and forgiven each other without words. I can’t help but think Tolstoy must have had sisters to understand the complexity of sisters’ interactions.
Also…please tell me someone else caught in part one that Prince Shtcherbatsky has a “squirrel-lined dressing-gown”. FINALLY a good use for squirrels!
yes, I caught that, weird, and strange, I wonder how many squirrels had to be sacrificed to make just one of those.....there are enough in Wash Park to make dressing gowns for the whole city!
ReplyDeleteI like your comments about the sisterly interaction. I could relate to Dolly, as the older sister, filling the space where parental guidance/comfort ends and a sister's place begins.
I am loving the character development, too. I love how much my feelings and opinions fluctuate. The characters just seem so real to life. It's not immediately clear who will end up where and I really enjoy being taken through the story that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jenn, I hadn't made a connection between the horse and Anna, but I think that's very interesting. My feelings toward Vronsky have softened a bit as I get to know him more, BUT I do still get the impression that he is detached from other people quite a bit--even Anna---and I think he's unaware of that. His relationship with Anna very well could be another new experience for him, much like being responsible for the horse's death was a new experience that made a big impact on him. I could see the parallels of his own ambitions (first in the race and similarly in life) being the end of Anna--in one way or another.
That's interesting that both of you ladies with sisters noticed the sisters' interactions the way you did. I always wished I had a sibling. I think that ability to forgive easily (or at least completely) is one of the things I covet in a sibling relationship that is far rarer in friendships. At least I've always thought that guaranteed permanence was a difference between siblings and friends.
Does dressing gown mean pajamas? For some reason squirrel-lined pjs seem even more unacceptable to me.
Unacceptable? How about repulsive! Ha! That is too funny.
ReplyDeleteAnd, SPEAKING OF DETACHMENT....I had bookmarked a few pages where we become PRIVY (big smile) to the inner life and thoughts of Anna's husband, Alexei Alexandrovich.
"All his life Alexei Alexandrovich had lived and worked in spheres of service that dealt with reflections of life. And each time he had encountered life itself, he had drawn back from it. Now he experienced a feeling similar to what a man would feel who was calmly walking across a bridge over an abyss and suddenly saw that the bridge had been taken down and below him was the bottomless deep. This bottomless deep was life itself....For the first time he vividly pictured to himself her personal life, her thoughts, her wishes, and the thought that she could and should have her own particular life seemed so frightening to him that he hastened to drive it away. It was that bottomless deep into which it was frightening to look. To put himself in thought and feeling into another being was a mental act alien to Alexei Alexandrovich. He regarded this mental act as harmful and dangerous fantasizing."
Alexei Alexandrovich also, in his thought life, refers to the mental strain of trying to decide what to do about Anna's public interaction with Vronsky as "such inconspicuous domestic use". He even says, "questions of her feelings and so on are questions of her conscience, which can be no business of mine."
Wow, I guess this insight into AA floored me. Was there no such thing as empathy back then? "To put himself in thought and feeling into another being was a mental act alien to Alexei Alexandrovich. He regarded this mental act as harmful and dangerous fantasizing." Why does he think that? Is it how he was raised? Were all men that way? Do men think this way in general? I think our society, or at least the circles I sort of grew up in, there was an emphasis on empathy, you know, the whole, "how can you really understand someone unless you've walked a mile in their shoes?" I know when Mark and I were dating we would randomly ask each other, "what are you thinking", just to gain glimpses into each other's heads, how we thought, what we felt.
And now, in parenting, I know there is a difference in how my children respond to me based on whether or not I am taking the time and energy to empathize with them. Let them know I am really listening and trying to understand them and how they feel.
Anyway, I wonder if AA's business-like, self-centered, un-empathetic thoughts and actions towards his wife are why she doesn't love him and is, later, repulsed by him.
I don't know, did anyone else notice AA's detachment? his complete lack of empathy? Am I understanding him correctly? How can he love Anna without being willing to dwell on how she might feel, what she might want? Is is possible for real love to exist without empathy?
Kudos to Tolstoy for painting, with words, such a VIVID picture of the detached individual, the person who lives without empathy. Is he, by contrast, trying to describe to the reader how to become a more empathetic being, at least in marriage?
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines empathy:
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
Yes, I've definitely noticed AA's detachment. I see it in Vronsky as more of a privileged immaturity where as with AA it seems like a chosen life course. That it seemed dangerous to him -not even to put himself in her shoes, but rather to just REALIZE that she had some shoes in the first place- definitely sheds some light on how Anna could betray her husband.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else seen/heard of that culture that greets each other by saying "I see you," the way we would say "hello"? Such a simple affirmation, but I really like it. One of the awesome things about (a good) marriage is truly being SEEN by another person. In all the good and bad that makes up the person you are, to have another person see that, accept you, and not run the other way, but instead LOVE you, is so powerful. I feel like there were far too many commas in that last sentence, but moving on: So to imagine being married to someone who doesn't see you sounds miserable.
Just you wait for Part 3. AA takes it to a new level. Jerk. Face.
Yes, that is so true (about being seen, known, loved, accepted). Not to be taken for granted.
ReplyDeleteBrooke, I just wanted to let you know that I added one of your above quotes to my all time favorite quotes in my fb profile. I hope that is okay with you!
ReplyDeleteCool! Now I have to go see what quote you put on there :)
ReplyDelete