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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Within the context of th ebook, I liked all the chracters, including Levin. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
No doubt, Levin reminds SU of his own father.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
I've read only 7 books on that list.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.