Done! Done done done!
May. 5th, 2006 12:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philenaI finished War and Peace this evening. And I have come to the conclusion that many, many people have reached before me: Anna Karenina is significantly better. There are two reasons for this: first, the stories of the main characters are much, much more satisfying, both in their tragedy and in their triumph. At the time I found Anna's doomed affair with Vronsky a bit tiresome. It was so clear that she was destroying her happiness with her husband (such as it was--maybe domestic peace without a knowledge of discontent would be closer to what she destroyed) by starting the affair first, and then her ridiculous, baseless jealousy almost from the beginning was destroying her possibility for happiness with Vronsky. I much preferrred the Kitty/Levin story, even right down to Levin's epiphany at the end, which lovely, darling Daniel takes issue with. However, these issues are something we've discussed in some depth, and have much more to do with personal outlooks on religion/spirituality/existence of God/(in)applicability of Levin's discovery to actual life than with with the literary merit of the book. As far as I was concerned, Levin is conflicted and unhappy throughout the whole book, and when he finds a meaning for his life in the end he's happy, and I like him, so I'm happy.
In War and Peace, a similar type of epiphany comes to various characters--Pierre, Andrei, Andrei again, Pierre again (they have a lot of spiritual action), which is fine, whether or not I agree with them. I like them both, I like that they are comforted by whatever philosophy they decide to subscribe to, and the story moves along nicely. Even if they're not, these discoveries of theirs are realistic, and the sorts of things that fundamentally good people would think who are trying to figure out why they shouldn't be depressed and disillusioned with life and the world. For example, I was almost offended by Tolstoy's description of the happy marriages between Natasha and Pierre (good grief, talk about gender roles and the naked-barefoot-in-the-kitchen stereotype!), although I thought the relationship between Maria and Andrei was very rich and interesting, which I thought would be difficult, considering how much potential for disgusting goody-goodiness is inherent in Maria's character from the beginning. But I like the characters, and if they're happy, then I'm happy. It's good writing and a good story, even if I don't agree with the message.
However, significant portions of the story is interrupted to give way to Tolstoy's ruminations on the nature of the science of history, which I actually can see and be persuaded by to some ignorant, un-tutored extent. But the ruminations do not move the story along, do not illuminate the characters of the characters, and are not good story-telling. For that matter, as I said earlier, it's not even very good writing. However valid Tolstoy's ideas might seem to me, they don't belong in a novel, because what he does well in novels is not philosophy (Dostoevsky weaves that into his stories much more skillfully), but inventing thoroughly realistic characters and making the reader love the characters and follow their stories with baited breath. Anna Karenina has proportionally more of that than War and Peace does, which I think is a large part of why it is a better book. The part of War and Peace that is devoted to the people and not the history (pretty much the time of peace between Austerlitz and the invasion of Russia) is brilliant, and just as good as Anna Karenina, but when he moves away from that sort of story-telling the novel suffers.Don't get me wrong--I thoroughly enjoyed most of it (the last fifty pages were a real slog); I just shouldn't have read Anna Karenina first. Except of course if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had any motivation to read all of this.
Oh, and by the way, I also finished my BA. And Margaretta and I are hanging out in Belmont on Saturday! I've been in a real slump all week, but this seems to be exactly the thing I need to get me out of it, short of Daniel appearing on my doorstep.
In War and Peace, a similar type of epiphany comes to various characters--Pierre, Andrei, Andrei again, Pierre again (they have a lot of spiritual action), which is fine, whether or not I agree with them. I like them both, I like that they are comforted by whatever philosophy they decide to subscribe to, and the story moves along nicely. Even if they're not, these discoveries of theirs are realistic, and the sorts of things that fundamentally good people would think who are trying to figure out why they shouldn't be depressed and disillusioned with life and the world. For example, I was almost offended by Tolstoy's description of the happy marriages between Natasha and Pierre (good grief, talk about gender roles and the naked-barefoot-in-the-kitchen stereotype!), although I thought the relationship between Maria and Andrei was very rich and interesting, which I thought would be difficult, considering how much potential for disgusting goody-goodiness is inherent in Maria's character from the beginning. But I like the characters, and if they're happy, then I'm happy. It's good writing and a good story, even if I don't agree with the message.
However, significant portions of the story is interrupted to give way to Tolstoy's ruminations on the nature of the science of history, which I actually can see and be persuaded by to some ignorant, un-tutored extent. But the ruminations do not move the story along, do not illuminate the characters of the characters, and are not good story-telling. For that matter, as I said earlier, it's not even very good writing. However valid Tolstoy's ideas might seem to me, they don't belong in a novel, because what he does well in novels is not philosophy (Dostoevsky weaves that into his stories much more skillfully), but inventing thoroughly realistic characters and making the reader love the characters and follow their stories with baited breath. Anna Karenina has proportionally more of that than War and Peace does, which I think is a large part of why it is a better book. The part of War and Peace that is devoted to the people and not the history (pretty much the time of peace between Austerlitz and the invasion of Russia) is brilliant, and just as good as Anna Karenina, but when he moves away from that sort of story-telling the novel suffers.Don't get me wrong--I thoroughly enjoyed most of it (the last fifty pages were a real slog); I just shouldn't have read Anna Karenina first. Except of course if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had any motivation to read all of this.
Oh, and by the way, I also finished my BA. And Margaretta and I are hanging out in Belmont on Saturday! I've been in a real slump all week, but this seems to be exactly the thing I need to get me out of it, short of Daniel appearing on my doorstep.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 08:06 pm (UTC)