Anna Karenina--Anna and Vronsky, Levin and Kitty

 Anna's decision to go to Italy saddens me tremendously. It saddened me to see her willingly give into pernicious temptation at the cusp of her recovery. She had fought hard to repent and overcome her unhealthy addiction of meeting with Vronsky but let that go. She had shamed herself too much and could hardly even forgive herself; she had even come to believe that she herself was bad. Ultimately, she made a decision she knew to be wrong; by going with Vronsky, she certainly evaded her suffering but replaced it in its stead with empty pleasure and frivolties. She knew that her life would have no meaning without her son, and yet she forsakes him. So sad, but so relatable.

By contrast, the intimacy between Levin and Kitty is so pleasant and euphonious. Both of them endured tremendous suffering just to achieve closeness and marriage. When I read the moments the two shared before their marriage, I felt that Tolstoy presented their relationship in such a dramatic and awe-inspring manner that the scene evoked strong emotions of joy and love within me. Maybe that's just me though. The theme of having to suffer to achieve true love seems salient across writings; it was also in Jane Eyre, King Lear. I didn't see that in Steinbeck, however. (Steinbeck is a straight up savage though. He kills half the characters by the end of the novel, and the ending is seldom happy, but meaningful nonetheless. I've basing my remarks from Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath, and East of Eden.)

But one thing that I honestly dislike about Tolstoy's is his injection of seemingly tangential political and philosophical arguments between characters into the chapters. For example, it was quite uncomfortable to read a three page political argument about women's rights in Russia. I mean, even some of the characters making their arguments didn't really care what their argument was so long as they at least had an argument; Tolstoy explicitly indicates so himself. I don't know why Tolstoy included these types of scenes several times throughout the novel, from Levin's conversations with his brother Koznyshov to discussions at dinner parties.

Going back to Anna, I think she was selected to be the titular character in part because she endured the strongest push and pull between good and bad decisions. She faced many dynamic choices of loyalty and comparative boredom versus dishonesty and joy, all of which were centered around Vronsky. On the other hand, characters like Levin and Kitty made it through tough times and made important decisions (such as Levin's decision to go live amongst the peasants) but none of the decisions seemed of the sort that would make either character torn on what decision to make. (I think Levin's decision to forsake his plain plan of living and working with the peasants due to his love for Kitty is the one that comes closest.)

Man, I hate Vronsky. He seems like such a shady character. He just goes around making people suffer and luring them. Could it be possible that Tolstoy presented Vronsky as a devilish character? But he is also a man, and a competitive, ambitious, and accomplished man at that. How can it be that he hardly concerns himself with making the correct, long-term decisions? The only time I remember is when he covered his face from shame in front of Karenin. But I don't know about him. The kind of person that unflinchingly breaks social customs surrounding marriage in such a manner as he does is not one that seems respectable. The narration does express the idea of there being something honorable in doing what Vronsky did to Anna, but maybe it's just hard for me to relate with that. I think today's society would hardly be forgiving to a man like Vronsky in that regard.