The question of judgment and sympathies in Anna Karenina is one that seems to become more complicated each time I read the novel. The basic problem with locating the voice of judgment is that throughout the novel, there are places where we feel less than comfortable with the seemingly straightforward, at times even didactic presentation of Anna and Vronsky's fall into sin alongside Levin's constant moral struggle. As Anna's story unfolds in its episodic manner within the context of the rest of the novel, Tolstoy seems to be trying to make the fact of her guilt more and more clear to us; at the same time though, we have more and more difficulty in tracing out the specific locus of that guilt. In a novel as consummately constructed as this one is, we are tempted to look for places where the undercurrents of the text, the places where the text takes on its own life and force, run against, or at least complicate, the discernment of authorial judgment. By closely examining Tolstoy's treatment of Anna's moral crisis as compared with his handling of Levin, we might attempt to unravel the book's rather layered and complex system of condemnation.
The novel's epigraph sets a certain tone for us before we even begin reading; the biblically inflected "Vengeance is mine; I will repay," plants in our heads the idea that wrong will be done and punishment exacted. Indeed, we come across a wrong in the very first lines of the opening chapter, in Stepan Arkadyich's dalliance with the French governess, which has thrown the Oblonsky house into "confusion."(1) Tolstoy's descriptions of Stepan Arkadyich as a pleasant, honest, well-liked bon vivant seem at times to drip with contempt. He is "lazy and mischievous"(14), his life...
... middle of paper ...
...he end, perhaps because Tolstoy was a better writer than he was true moralist, I'm not sure that Tolstoy ever reconciled the novel's judgment of Anna with his own sympathy and love for her. The result is a novel divided, uneasy with the Œvengefulness' of its own condemnation, perhaps proud of its over-riding message of living for truth and "the good"(817) in life, but ultimately unable to fully convince us that it gravitates toward its own confused and forced moral center.
Works Cited and Consulted
Cherneshevsky, Nikolai. "The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy" in Edie, Scanlan and Zeldin, eds., Russian Philosophy Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965.
Tolstoy, Leo. Anna Karenina, trans. Constance Garnett New York: The Modern Library, 1993.
Turgenev, Ivan. Sketches From a Hunter's Album, trans. Richard Freeborn London: Penguin Books, 1990.
He abandons omniscience, the story’s main narration style, and writes in the first-person: “The hero of my story, whom I love with all my heart and soul, whom I have attempted to portray in all his beauty and who has always been, is now and always will be supremely magnificent, is truth” (Tolstoy 109 [1986]). Unlike many literary works, there is no analysis needed in order to uncover Tolstoy’s primary message — he directly expresses to readers that truth is the center of the text. Essentially, the story’s characters, settings, and plot are merely vehicles Tolstoy manipulates to bring him to this final sentence where the central theme is revealed; everything in the piece ties back to the concept and central theme of truth. Some might say this ending degrades the story’s literary appeal because it does not allow for a clean resolution, but in many ways, this proclamation serves as the story’s climax. In this moment, the veil of fiction is lifted away from the reader’s eyes and only then can they see the story clearly.
He was a big supporter of the revolution and the Directory and served them well. According to the Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia of January, 2013: “Napoleon’s remarkable early success was in part a matter of good fortune and in part the product of an unconquerable will and energy that took the maximum advantage of every political and military opportunity” (Rollyson). He was a brigadier general for the revolution, but was imprisoned when Jacobins were taken out of power and Thermidorean was sent into it. He however was soon released. With many great victories in Egypt and a powerful marriage, he was a very known and liked man. Napoleon was able to overthrow the Directory in 1799. Napoleon was a great leader and settled the chaos of the revolution down. He was able to restore France’s relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope in 1801. He proclaimed himself supreme Emperor of France in 1804. He also gave religious freedom to Protestants and Jews. He also published the Napoleonic Code/Civil Code of 1804. This code established political and legal equality for all adult men; therefore, religion no longer had a prejudice in court or people of authorities. With this code; however, he restricted the freedom of speech and freedom of the media. Throughout his career, he expanded France’s borders to the size of an empire. The only reason Napoleon was not able to take all of Europe
...truly is through an act of violence. Gradually, like Marmeladov, she realizes that on judgment day, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. O’Connor and Dostoevsky developed two pieces of literature that inevitably awaken their readers. All their readers must face their own pride and prejudice both in relating with the characters’ feelings and admitting their own feeling of superiority over these flawed characters. Both of these brilliant writers effectively strike their readers with their shared idea that it is only by the grace of God that anyone can be saved.
First, Dostoevsky gives the reader the character, Raskolnokov. He is the main character, whom Fyodor uses to show two sides of people their admirable side and their disgusting side. He loves Raskolnokov, which is why Fyodor uses Raskolnokov’s point of view throughout the whole novel. Personally, Fyodor dislikes some of his qualities but understands that all people are plagued with some bad traits, and that Raskolnokv is trying to make emends for some of his wrong doings, i.e. the murder of the pawnbroker and her sister. He knows that what he did was wrong and is willing to suffer for his crime, and he does throughout the whole book with his constant depression. Dostoesky believes in punishment for your crimes, this is why he shows Raskolnokov suffering through most of the novel, to show his great love for penance. Dostoevsky likes the kind giving nature of people; this is why he portrays the main character as a kind, gentle, and giving, person. Often, Raskolnokov thinks only of others benefits such as when he helped Katerina by giving her all his money for Marmelodov, as well as his caring about what happens to his sister with her marriage to Luzhin. Raskolnokov hates Luzhin’s arrogant and pompous attitude, which reflects Dostoevsky’s animosity of the same qualities in people in the real world.
Napoleon was a man known for his greatest powers and successes as a leader. One of the many successful things Napoleon did early in his life was develop a highly successful military strategy. His tragedy consisted of starting a battle with an enemy while holding his forces back. He would then look for the enemies weakest points and throw all his strength against that point. This newly developed strategy helped him to win many of his attacks such as his attack on and defeat in Italy against Austria and his battle and defeat in Egypt against the Turks.
...t is . What really accentuated the story's realness was the cold-harsh fact that no one is exempt from death. This was given when Gerasim said to Ivan that everyone dies (p135). As the last book Tolstoy made before his conversion to Christianity: this book, delving deep into death, could reveal some clues about what the bible is trying to tell us about the truth of death. Is death the end, the process, or...the beginning? Who knows? One thing for certain is that every individual goes through the grief process a bit differently, and Tolstoy has proven that through his main character, Ivan Illych.
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment begins with Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov living in poverty and isolation in St. Petersburg. The reader soon learns that he was, until somewhat recently, a successful student at the local university. His character at that point was not uncommon. However, the environment of the grim and individualistic city eventually encourages Raskolnikov’s undeveloped detachment and sense of superiority to its current state of desperation. This state is worsening when Raskolnikov visits an old pawnbroker to sell a watch. During the visit, the reader slowly realizes that Raskolnikov plans to murder the woman with his superiority as a justification. After the Raskolnikov commits the murder, the novel deeply explores his psychology, yet it also touches on countless other topics including nihilism, the idea of a “superman,” and the value of human life. In this way, the greatness of Crime and Punishment comes not just from its examination of the main topic of the psychology of isolation and murder, but the variety topics which naturally arise in the discussion.
The French Revolution could not have made a better time for Napoleon to rise to the top. It was a time of chaos and weakness in Europe and Napoleon being an opportunist took the opening to gain as much power as he could. He saw France as a source of power and not his country for he had none. Seeming heartless, Napoleon did not believe in religion, democracy ...
Napoleon’s military career is what eventually led to his prominence. Napoleon began his military career above most of the other men his age. He rapidly made his way through the ranks eventually gaining a great support system. As the directory leaned more and more heavily upon the military, a coup d’état developed. Because of his military expertise, he immediately became first consul of France. The empire of France was soon to grow once Napoleon was in reign. In the 1790s the French army was near one million men, an advantage in the Austrian wars as well as future ventures. Wars raged with other European countries in the early 1800s. Napoleon was able to beat the continental coalition, thus gaining territory for France. France annexed some of Italy but also controlled states such as Spain, Holland ...
Within the opening conflict of the novel—Stiva’s affair with the French governess and his wife’s reaction when learning of it—Tolstoy first presents this tension between honesty and speech. Before Dolly and Oblonsky’s exchanges, Tolstoy interposes a short confrontation between Oblonsky and his son, Grisha. Oblonsky is “conscious of not caring as much for the boy as for the girl, but [does] his best to treat them both alike” (7). Although he says, “Good morning” to Grisha, Oblonsky’s words are insufficient to mask his inner feelings, and his actions betray him through a “cold smile” (7). Grisha, significantly, does not reply. To reply with some pleasantness would be to pretend that Oblonsky was sincere in his greeting, and Grisha is too naïve to use speech to do anything but to tell the truth. Short of accusing his father of not loving him, which he is already old enough to understand would be entirely inappropriate, he can only remain silent.
To some, he was an extraordinary military commander who led an army to victory. To others, he was a distinguished civil administrator, and yet others thought of him as a great man that was tossed complicated twists in his short life. He is both a historical figure and a legend and it is sometimes difficult to separate the two. There have been many successful military leaders through out time but no leader has ever taken over the whole world. This task was nearly accomplished by the greatest military leader in history better known as Napoleon Bonaparte was. In his lifetime, he took over most of Europe before conquering Moscow. History Place the publishers of the internet site napoleon Emperor of France had this to say about the way napoleon acted, "Having that much power can sometimes makes a man lose control and do bizarre things but in his short lifetime he was so puzzling to his opponents it drove them mad." All of these things help explain why Napoleon was a very complex person.
Generally, human nature's first instinct is to despise a man with such poor morals. As the reader continues with the story, their opinion of Stepan cannot help but change. Tolstoy's description of this character is of a man who does not mean to put his wife through hardship, but ...
In life every great leader has had their own story to tell. Napoleon was born a Corsican, at Ajaccio, in 1769. He had seven brothers and sisters and he was also a descendent from the Florentine nobility. He moved to France and started school at the age of nine. At school he was picked on because of his Italian accent and because of his influent French. When he turned sixteen he joined the French artillery and became a lieutenant in a short period of time. Napoleon spent the next seven years reading the works of philosophers and educating himself in military matters, by studying the campaigns of great military leaders of the past. He then became a general and then in 1795 was appointed to stop an uprising in Paris and seceded in doing so. After stopping the uprising he was then given the position of commander in chief of the interior French army in Italy. In 1799 he was elected as the First Consul of France because the people were sick of the directory. He rose up in power in the military and also politically. He then formed his own empire and won many battles with his brilliance.
Overall, Napoleon was a great war leader for the French. He got his power through books and military school. He was always learning and studying so he can be the best of the best. He wanted to win and be leader and that’s what he got because of his knowledge. Making that one mistake with the Continental System really ended his ruling but other than that he helped out France and a country a ton. Such as adding laws, getting a strong army, making the people be able to have free religion, and things like that. Napoleon was a great leader with great decisions, just that one mistake lead to the end of his reign.
Of the two protagonists of the novel, Anna Karenin and Constantine Levin, Levin is the one I admire most. Directly depicted as an honest, moral man, Levin is well liked among people he meets and does not try to escape to a fantasy world as Anna did. The novel goes in-depth by indirectly depicting him to be a philosophical thinker and an atheist, who is torn apart by his beliefs. The manner Tolstoy describes Levin is appealing, for I admire all of the qualities he possesses and that is why I chose him for my character of study. By using both direct and indirect characterizations, Tolstoy aimed to depict Levin as the role model for Russians in the eighteenth century.