Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Levin was the least likeable character in the novel. Totally full of himself, pious, judgmental, blind to the plight of his serfs and his wife, impractical, a latent socialist living off the fat of the land, lacking in self-awareness. He's probably the reason I much prefer several other Tolstoy novels. Oblonsky would be a lot more fun to go have a vodka with or shoot some birds with, I know that much.
|
Oblonsky's a shallow fool who would bore me in about two seconds; and whatever sincere depths you would glimpse, it would make you uncomfortable b/c you know it's so out of the ordinary. But then he'd close up, slap you on the back, tell a good joke, order another appetizer, and float on.
You obviously miss the point of dynamic literature, and underappreciate Tolstoy's greatest gift. Levin is the supreme character b/c he is the one who is most self-aware and most honest, and in the end, changes the most. Tolstoy uses him to showplace his greatest skill: describing the inner life of man as you, me, and everybody else experiences it when we are completely honest with ourselves. No other character has their inner life put on display with such clarity. Every other is clouded by the consequences of past actions and the multiple layers of self-deception (see Oblonsky and Anna; must run in the family). But Levin is the character whose integrity Tolstoy protects until the end.
And your description of Levin is
completely wrongheaded; makes me wonder if you even read the book. Let me take them one by one:
pious -- Levin is agnostic for most of the book; he yearns for faith, but doubts he can ever find it, and when he finally finds it, he's the farthest thing from pious, realizing that, in action, he's no different than before. I think by pious you really mean sincere, which would bug you for obvious reasons.
judgmental -- huh? he makes observations of others, he gets frustrated by his brother's mistakes, he's confused by the reckless and passionate decisions of others, but he's not judgmental; in all his relationships, in the end, he's empathetic and understanding b/c he knows you can never be sure you are 100% correct
blind to the plight of his serfs -- he's the character who dreams of educating his serfs; who actually works in the fields with the serfs (albeit for recreation more than to help); in fact, the serfs are who redeem him in the end; you should have remembered this. And the act of redemption was made possible only b/c he viewed the serfs as his fellow sojourners who had something to teach him. Okay, so he didn't emancipate, but he was the George Washington of his time (we don't know if he freed them in his will).
blind to the plight of his wife -- I call bull shit; they worked out their deals, just like every couple does. She had to compromise too. Is that such a bad thing?
impractical -- blah
latent socialist living off the fat of the land -- you mean tireless farmer who always tried to improve his processes not only for his own gain, but for the well-being of his workers as well?
lacking in self-awareness -- now this just makes me think that this entire exercise was one big troll, for which I hate you.