Anna Karenina Part 2

Taken at George St, Providence

My last post made Anna Karenina seem like a rather depressing book. While it is definitely a tragedy, I wouldn't be doing it justice if I didn't acknowledge the uplifting and inspiring ideas it presents as well. The depth to which Tolstoy explores the issues in Anna Karenina is too deep to capture in something like a blog post, but I'd like to conclude this little series with a few final observations.

Now that I've finished the novel, it's obvious that Tolstoy supports traditional values of family and faith that were central in Russian society at the time. His critical view of modern city living, and disdain for abstract thinking is clear as well. Yet the various complications that present themselves within the pages of Anna Karenina make a rock solid conclusion difficult to draw out from among these favoritisms.

For example, Tolstoy does support a traditional family and the values that come with it.

SPOILERS
This can be seen from the ultimate chapter of the book being dedicated to Levin and Kitty's family, and the meaning that Levin derives from it.

Yet nearly the entirety of Anna Karenina is spent describing unhappy families. The first line of the novel perfectly captures the nuanced familial relationships and politics that Tolstoy explores.

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Anna Karenina starts with Stiva (Anna's brother) cheating on his wife. It then turns to Anna's affair. Levin SPOILERSand Kitty get married, only to have a chapter right afterwards describing his disillusionment.

Tolstoy's depictions of faith follow a similar trend. Alexei has a revelation when he sees Anna dying, and in his newly found magnanimity, forgives Anna for her transgressions against him while Vronsky sulks in a corner. But right after that, Anna recovers, she hates Alexei even more, and his forgiveness ultimately means absolutely nothing. Kitty's revelation to faith seems powerful when it begins, but the speed and ease with which she is converted ultimately reinforces the simple and naive nature of her character. In fact, Tolstoy even chooses to strike down the "holiness" of her teacher within two chapters.

"she felt that the heavenly image of Madame Stahl, which she had carried for a whole month in her heart, had vanished, never to return, just as the fantastic figure made up of some clothes thrown down at random vanishes when one sees that it is only some garment lying there."

In all of this, Tolstoy is exploring the necessity of trials and mistakes to make these institutions work. It is only through the various obstacles within the story that Levin and Kitty reach their ultimately happy endings.

But what of Anna and Alexei's relationship and political struggles? If faith and family are so supported, why do they both appear so ineffective throughout the majority of the book? Like life itself, I think Tolstoy is acknowledging the ambiguity within these artificially simplified concepts. The way in which all of these forces interact is frankly, a complete mess, and Tolstoy wouldn't have it any other way.

In the end, what's most important about Levin's story is that he stops thinking so much. He doesn't come to any deep, profound conclusions on the events transpiring in his life. He doesn't come to terms with any of the philosophy books he reads.

Instead he encounters both a literal and figurative flash of lightning SPOILERS that he thinks may have killed Kitty and their son. Levin realizes what matters in life, and vows to never lose sight of it again. Despite the complexity of the novel and the themes explored in it, the final pages are simple. With all things wrapped up for better or for worse, Levin moves on with his life. And what a beautiful thing it is.