I have to say this one really has me scratching my head. This book has been described as "the greatest novel ever written" and a "flawless work of art". The love affair between the title character and her lover Count Vronsky is described as "tragic" and "passionate". If someone had handed me this book and asked me to read and tell them what I thought I would have said it is a scathing satire about the Russian aristocracy. But classic tragic love story? No. I found Anna to be childish, selfish and completely unsympathetic. Count Vronsky is less annoying, but still ridiculous at times. For starters, these two fall madly passionately forever-and-ever in love across a crowded room. They literally have barely exchanged 5 sentences before they are willing to endanger Anna's marriage which includes estrangement from her only child for the sake of their romance. Can you say high school?
She confesses her affair to her husband who after consideration tells her to carry on if she wants to, but to keep it discreet and that Count Vronsky is not allowed in their home. That seems more than reasonable. But of course Anna decides that she can't bear not being with Vronsky and invites him to the house. Childish.
Later in the story Anna abandons her son to take off on a grand tour of Europe with Vronsky and their illegitimate daughter. She then is very surprised when upon their return her husband is hesitant to let her visit the son. Can't say I blame him. While Anna and Vronsky are touring Europe together Vronsky decides he wants to learn to paint. To quote from the book, "Medieval Italian life had at that time become so fascinating to him that he even began to wear his hat and throw his cloak across his shoulder in a medieval manner which was very becoming to him." Ridiculous. During this tour the happy couple visits an up-and-coming artist. They agree that he is very talented, but also agree that his talent could not develop because he does not have the education that they have. Snobs. I don't like them.
At some point Anna reveals that while she misses her abandoned son terribly, she really hasn't formed an emotional bond with her daughter with Vronsky. She begins to tutor a child and develops an emotional bond with that child that seems to exceed her bond with her own daughter. When Vronsky mentions this she flips her lid and accuses him of not loving her. I don't like her. Someone suggests that instead of tutoring one child Anna could tutor at a local orphanage. She replies that she couldn't possibly work with those "dirty orphans". I really don't like her.
After their return, they establish a house in Moscow where Vronsky attempts to create a life for himself. Not so fast, Count. You've forgotten about the love of your life. He finds that he is not allowed to socialize without her, because (again quoting from the book) "one attempt of that kind had produced in Anna an unexpected fit of depression quite disproportionate to the offence of a late supper with some acquaintances." This is not love. This is a grown woman throwing a tantrum. How am I supposed to take these people seriously?
While I appreciate the insight into political and social realm of post-feudal, pre-revolution Russia, I found other characters -- specifically Levin and Kitty -- much more interesting, likeable and believable. I cannot understand why Anna is held up as an example of a classic tragic heroine.
Another classic duly read. I'm glad it's over.
No comments:
Post a Comment