The New Classics?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

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.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Surfah

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.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

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, 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.

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Levin

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

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

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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