The New Classics?
 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2020...207349,00.html

I thought it was funny to see The Road and Bridget Jones Diary on the same list.

The Road better than Into Thin Air? This list has no credibility.

This may be the worst of these sorts of lists I've ever seen. And I'm a McCarthy fan. But consider the source.

Bel Canto and The Lovely Bones were two of the worst books I have read in the past 25 years. Yuck.

One of the few things they got right.

Seriously? A "classic"?

They did the same thing for movies and it was the worst list of movies I have ever seen.

The secret purpose of the best of these lists is not to get the right ranking, but to have a subtext, a theme.

Here is a great one from the Guardian:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/art...061083,00.html

I call it great not because I adopt the ranking. I don't. I like how it makes a statement. The subtext? Story over literary pretense. Note Joyce gets the smack down. Ulysses is obligatory, but relegated to number 45, and nothing else from Joyce. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man always shows up on these lists, but not here. Also, there's a heavy bias for novels originally written in English (of course, the Guardian is in London), despite the ironic no. 1, which no one could strongly argue against since it is likely the first Western novel ever written.

Aargh!

"27. Anna Karenina Leo Tolstoy
The supreme novel of the married woman's passion for a younger man."

Why don't people ever talk about Levin! Seriously, Anna's descent is only used as a foil for Levin's rise! It's the title that throws people off.

Yeah, I was just trying to tease Waters and the others around here who dislike Krakauer.

Levin was the least likeable character in the novel. Totally full of himself, pious, judgmental, blind to the plight of his serfs and his wife, impractical, a latent socialist living off the fat of the land, lacking in self-awareness. He's probably the reason I much prefer several other Tolstoy novels. Oblonsky would be a lot more fun to go have a vodka with or shoot some birds with, I know that much.

So Oblonsky is redemptive because he would be more fun to shoot birds and vodka with?

I think that was more of an aside. Oblonsky was a very flawed person, but likeable in some ways nevertheless. He was very charming and polite. I think he really tried to help his sister. But Levin was pretty indifferent to Anna after his wife was so horrified at his infatuation with that adulteress. That was his reaction, first infatuation, then dismissal. Levin was insufferable in many ways. (Tolstoy's wife said Levin was a self-portrait; maybe she secretly loathed him.) The characters in War and Peace are more endearing and in some ways better developed, in my humble opinion.

I was joking more than anything. I liked Oblonsky much more than Anna. Anna often irritated me probably the way Levin made you disinterested. I always picture Oblonsky as Jude Law for some reason. Probably cause he shacked up with his kids' nanny too.

I have heard that Levin was Tolstoy himself which I can buy. Tells you much about Tolstoy himself.

I'd probably rather want to shoot birds and vodka with Oblonsky than do farm work with Levin and his serfs myself.

Oblonsky's a shallow fool who would bore me in about two seconds; and whatever sincere depths you would glimpse, it would make you uncomfortable b/c you know it's so out of the ordinary. But then he'd close up, slap you on the back, tell a good joke, order another appetizer, and float on.

You obviously miss the point of dynamic literature, and underappreciate Tolstoy's greatest gift. Levin is the supreme character b/c he is the one who is most self-aware and most honest, and in the end, changes the most. Tolstoy uses him to showplace his greatest skill: describing the inner life of man as you, me, and everybody else experiences it when we are completely honest with ourselves. No other character has their inner life put on display with such clarity. Every other is clouded by the consequences of past actions and the multiple layers of self-deception (see Oblonsky and Anna; must run in the family). But Levin is the character whose integrity Tolstoy protects until the end.

And your description of Levin is completely wrongheaded; makes me wonder if you even read the book. Let me take them one by one:

pious -- Levin is agnostic for most of the book; he yearns for faith, but doubts he can ever find it, and when he finally finds it, he's the farthest thing from pious, realizing that, in action, he's no different than before. I think by pious you really mean sincere, which would bug you for obvious reasons.

judgmental -- huh? he makes observations of others, he gets frustrated by his brother's mistakes, he's confused by the reckless and passionate decisions of others, but he's not judgmental; in all his relationships, in the end, he's empathetic and understanding b/c he knows you can never be sure you are 100% correct

blind to the plight of his serfs -- he's the character who dreams of educating his serfs; who actually works in the fields with the serfs (albeit for recreation more than to help); in fact, the serfs are who redeem him in the end; you should have remembered this. And the act of redemption was made possible only b/c he viewed the serfs as his fellow sojourners who had something to teach him. Okay, so he didn't emancipate, but he was the George Washington of his time (we don't know if he freed them in his will).

blind to the plight of his wife -- I call bull shit; they worked out their deals, just like every couple does. She had to compromise too. Is that such a bad thing?

impractical -- blah

latent socialist living off the fat of the land -- you mean tireless farmer who always tried to improve his processes not only for his own gain, but for the well-being of his workers as well?

lacking in self-awareness -- now this just makes me think that this entire exercise was one big troll, for which I hate you.

But Oblonsky would be more fun at a party.

Within the context of th ebook, I liked all the chracters, including Levin.

But who would you rather be? Tucker Max would be more fun at a party too.

Did you lift this from the Cliff Notes? Your post just proves most of my points. "He makes observations about others, he gets frustrated by his brother's mistakes, he's confused by the reckless and passionate decisions of others," but he's not judgmental? LOL. Self-aware and not indifferent to his serfs? He congratulated himself for picking up a spade and spending a few hours with the serfs every now and then, but then he went out of the sun and ate his gourmet meals and slept in his good bed. Why didn't he give land to them? Make them fee simple owners? He inherited the land and essentially employed slave labor. They had as much claim to it as him; their ancestors were the slaves of Levin's ancestors. People like Levin helped bring on Lenin.

I read every word of the book closely, but if I had an urge to scan or skim it was during Levin's internal monologues.

I would much rather be Levin, if forced to choose. But Levin would be a little stiff to hang around, it hink.

He doesn't understand them; he doesn't get them; but he doesn't sit in judgment of them. If anything, he yearns to fit in and belong with them.

You'd be a terrible historian. I'd hate to read the biography you'd write on any person who happened to live before you. Levin was the George Washington of his time, but based on your response you probably think President Washington "helped bring on Lenin." LOL.

Speaks volumes, and you missed what Tolstoy wanted to give you most: himself.

No doubt, Levin reminds SU of his own father.

In a sense Oblonsky was extremely self-aware. Just as DDD noted the same thing about Tucker Max.

I think if we matched characters with CG personalities, Waters would be Levin, DDD Oblsonsky, Levin the crazy lady with the Frenchman who told Anna's husband not to let Anna have custody of her son, and I would be a conflation of Vronsky and Anna. If there were a kindly wise abbot like in TBK I'd give that role to Creekster.

Oblonsky had fits of self-awareness, but that's what made him even more unappealing -- he quickly closed the curtain so he could return to his women, his food, and his cards.

If you are talking Russian literature I would take The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov over any of Tolstoy's stuff but that is probably just me.

This is truly one of the most hilarious posts I've ever read on CG.

SU fancies himself a cross of Anna and Vronsky --- Vronsky the strong, handsome lover who slowly begins to feel more and more trapped until he wants out, but he can't; they've gone too far; he becomes more and more miserable; runs away; becomes a superficial artisit to fill a void; still faithful to the point of misery; wants to die; his only escape is Anna's suicide.

Anna --- remarkably beautiful and delicate, but with an unmistakable inner strength and confidence; marries for security; flirts despite herself; wrecks her family, and abandons her son, in the pursuit of a burning passion; is the first of the lovers to suffer the insecurity that comes from requiring each other to give up so much (she her family, he his social life and career); the insecurity begins to eat at her; does Vronsky still love her? Does he wish they'd never met? She feels guilt about her son; is disgusted when her husband forgives her; she does not want to be forgiven; her relationship with Vronsky can no longer survive under the weight of what they've given up; she throws herself in front of a train.

SU, why do you think you're a cross between Vronsky and Anna?

Adieu.

This is very judgmental.

They were cast out, isolated from the insular, self-satisfied, petty and hypocritical society into which they were born.

But Levin never thought it. Levin just wondered how he could be as happy as Stepan.

By their own selfish (and superficial) decisions, albeit driven by feelings they thought were right but which ultimately led to unhappiness.

Interesting -- you focused more on the society's effect on the departed; I focused more on the departed's effect on themselves.

As did Tolstoy. He was critical of society but Vornsky and Anna's problems were hteir own doing.

But with Tolstoy, at least in reading the novel, I never thought he was sitting in judgment of Anna. I sensed an abiding affection for his heroine, wishing he could shield her from the consequences of her decisions. But I never sensed he thought she made the wrong decisions.

I disagree with both of you. For example, Tolstoy didn't approve of Anna's isolation from ther son by Russian law and society and religion. It's easy to sit and judge today, what with no-fault divorce, joint custody, laws favoring custody, particularly mothers. She was caught in a terrible trap made by her hidebound, judgmental and backward society.

Anyway, who cares what Tolstoy "intended?" The book now belongs to the ages. Tolstoy said a lot of things he may not have intended because he was trapped in his age and his book was not. I'm sure many careful readers of AK today are more compassionate for Anna and Vronsky than Tolstoy was in his own mind. I find the epigraph to the book very puzzling and judgmental sounding unless I just don't get it.

Tolstoy said more than he realized. Like all great novels this one has no easy answers. It more raises the great issues than anything else.

I am not trying to judge them, and I recognize TOlstoy's criticism of Russian society, but Tolstoy ultimately, through the rise of Levin, as Levin put it, and otherwsie, shows the descent of Anna and Vornsky and how the relatiojship itslef was doomed. THeirs was a tremendous passion that had to manifest; it could not be denmied, and she was willing to sacrifice everyhting for it. But in doing so, she also lost the very thing she was trying to obtain and this was not as a result of social standards (except to the extent that they informed her own view of herself, I suppose) but as a result of her own choices which could not be changed, but which were doomed to failure. My heart ached for Anna, but I htink even she would agree that it was her chocies and not the society that put her where she ended up.

I was puzzled by the epigraph too, but you know its source: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19. Interesting that Tolstoy only quoted the "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" portion, when if he had quoted the entire passage, the clear message would be the exact opposite than the one you take from it: people shouldn't take judgment and vengeance into your own hads; let God worry about it.

I don't disagree with this. As for Anna, strong, well-adjusted people would always rather believe they suffered a fate of their own making, karma, than that they were totally victimized.

The subject in the epigraph, IMO, are our own actions. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" -- The "I" is not God, it's not society, and it's not Tolstoy the author. It's us; our choices. And that's where I think Creekster hit it on the head: Tolstoy's heart ached for Anna too, but there was nothing he could do.

I agree with you that Anna was victimized; but the choice the propelled all others was her marriage to Alexei. And she did that for security and status. After the marriage, she was a victim of many things; but it's her choice to marry Alexei where I don't think she was a victim. Yes, she wanted status and wealth, and her society demanded that she try to maintain them, but . . .

I've read only 7 books on that list.