Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In my opinion, the most “interesting” thing about suicide is how it affects others. Including the option-no way.
It is obvious that I do not want to write about the fact that Levin's line is a line of Tolstoy's statements, without which he could not imagine a novel. Even in War and Peace, Tolstoy gets tired of just telling stories, he wants to express himself directly in a philosophical way. It's the same in AK. The novel and the heroine, as he writes, bore him, he wants to speak directly. Further, Tolstoy generally stops artistic creativity for a long time and speaks disparagingly about what has already been written (including ViM and AK), goes into journalism for 22 years! until the new novel Resurrection.
In my opinion, Levin is the real hero of Anna Karenina. He loves, suffers, but will be saved by action. This is a person who thinks, strives for new things, and is able to take responsibility for himself and his family.
In fact, Karenina herself bored Tolstoy even in the course of writing the novel. He confessed this in a letter to A. A. Fet: “I take on a boring, vulgar Karenina with one desire to quickly find a place for myself-leisure for other activities.” The letter is dated 1875, and Tolstoy worked on the book for two more years. And this is one of the reasons why Levin gradually becomes the main character, and the novel turns from a love-family one into an agricultural-production one. Although Tolstoy already considered the entire work not so successful, which, after receiving the proofs, he wrote to N. N. Strakhov: “Everything in them is bad, and everything must be redone and everything that is printed must be redone, and everything must be messed up, and everything must be abandoned and renounced, and I will say: I am guilty, I will not go ahead, and I will try to write something new, not so clumsy and
It is worth mentioning separately about Levin, who is here the alter ego of the writer: Tolstoy believed that a person like Levin was not worthy of his fate, but attributed such a fate to him only because in real life he wanted to avoid it-he was afraid of getting bogged down in family matters. Here it should be recalled that the work on “Anna Karenina” was directly preceded by Tolstoy's three-year “idle time”: he conceived the novel in 1870, and could only write it in 73, accidentally rereading Pushkin's “Belkin's Stories”.
Another reason is that Tolstoy simply could never finish any of his big things. He constantly reworked, added, “kolupal” his novels. “I don't understand how you can write and not redo everything so many times,” he confessed to A. B. Goldenweiser.
At the same time, Tolstoy, as B. M. Eichenbaum pointed out, was constantly changing, “constantly reacting to everything that he learned and saw, and constantly coming to new decisions and conclusions”: “Therefore, his ideas and writings became old for him sooner than they could be realized.” After all, he conceived the same “Karenina” with only three main characters – Anna, Karenin and Vronsky. Neither Levin nor Kitty were originally even close to the plans. But Karenina, I repeat, bored him even in the course of writing the novel…
This is, among other things, a compositional device similar to that used by Gustave Flaubert in Madame Bovary: although Emma is obviously not only the title character, but also the central character, the book begins with Charles – and ends with Charles (we omit a brief reference on the success of the pharmacist Homais, which, however, is extremely important for revealing the author's plan).
By framing the fate of Emma as that of Charles, Flaubert allows us to take a fresh look at the image of the heroine: in particular, in the sense that she, who had been chasing love all her life (was it love?), actually died because she could not pay off her debts-that is, because of money, and her wayward husband took an extremely romantic death.
The same is true in “Karenina”: the tragedy of the Karenin family (is it a tragedy?) it plays with brighter colors against the background of the idyll of Levin and Kitty (are they idylls?).
Levin appears there for the reason that he is one of the main characters of the novel. It is rather primitive to think that Anna Karenina is the main character; by no means, look at how deeply the image of Konstantin is revealed: here both his character and how his views change, and everything is shown and analyzed in some detail. Levin is one of the staples of the novel, this character plays a role in the second plot of the work, as important as the unhappy love of Karenina and Vronsky.
Because the positive (according to Tolstoy) line (strategy) of Levin's life is opposed to the negative line (strategy) of Anna's life.
But, unfortunately, the public is almost not interested in this fact – of the many film adaptations of the novel, I have seen only one that does not actually end with a scene of being thrown under a train. But Tolstoy still has the most important 8th philosophical chapter of the novel after the train.