Topic started by Vishvesh Obla (@ unknown-24-9.pilot.net) on Thu Jan 4 13:05:35 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

There was a comment somewhere that the genre of Novels found its ultimate expression in Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina". It could be slightly exaggerated, but still the work deserves great attention to the perfection of realism in the inner turmoils on one side of a beautiful woman (Anna) filled with life who is unable to get into terms with the conventions of the society around her and on the other side of a dynamic and sensitive mind (Levin) who is in the eternal struggle for finding a content to his life.

Tolstoy was a great moralist (he even preferred the works of Charles Di*kens to those of Shakespheare !) but he was primarily an artist of the first kind, which is written all over there in this work. An artist's duty is to observe life in all its intricate nuances and present it without bias in the related art form. A painter sees it with the eye that is related to his medium of expression, the eye that sees the relation of his mind and the object in its essential reality and which is again a reality that underlies the pure exchange of consciousness that is so essential in preserving the inter-relations of life itself. A photograph could get a far better picture of all the painting of Van Gogh's Sunflowers he was obsessed with. These essential relations which are beyond intellectual explanations are those that preserve life which we see abounding in all our older civilizations, but that is another issue. In all the great novels we find this attempt of presenting life in its essential reality and not the outward reality alone which we are obsessed with by only our intellectual development. Anna Karenina is a passionate married woman who hopelessly falls in love and enters into a life of adultery. Now, while the subject matter becomes a controversial one which our modern minds would love to argue for or against, Tolstoy by the weight of his artistic genius, which could look only at the intrinsic essential realities, never takes a stand and start talking about the moralistic issues (remember he was a great moralist), but beautifully presents the tragedy of our human life through such a condition. One must note that he miserably fails as an artist when he takes such a stand in his later work "Resurrection". It is this spirit of looking at life that makes him a great artist. And the other character Levin (who is even more fascinating than Anna) is forever evolving and doesn't get stuck up with a nauseating solution of religion which appears so false when Karenin decides to take the role of a saint and even excuse Anna. The last paragraph of the novel is a beautiful passage of his wonderful understanding of the ever-evolving nature of 'dynamic' life and his perception that he has
to remain forever in his quest to keep himself 'living' as he wanted to.


This forum, apart from Tamil History, as it appears to me, hasn't kicked off yet and a discussion of such subjects could make it much richer.

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ alb-66-24-214-34.nycap.rr.com) on: Thu Mar 7 10:30:04
  
  SR,
  
  Agreed that one's subjectivity depends on one's intellect. I was only trying to point out the fallacy of your statement earlier. But now since you say that such things depend on one's level of intellect, why don't you elaborate on why you would prefer Goethe to Tolstoy. Please note that I am not being sarcastic. I have only heard of Goethe and never had the opportunity to read him and I would only be happy to see if you could make a substantial case instead of saying simply that he is a greater writer than Tolstoy.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 11:39:54
  
  You're right - better or worse is a fallacy of opinion in literature. Perhaps I'm going about trying to convince people to read Goethe in the wrong way... I regret the discrepancy. A substantial case for Goethe? Thats already been made! Anyway, here's a link to Faust. By the way, one of the introductory scenes is taken out of Hindu mythology.
  
  http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Goethe/faust.gth
  
  
• From: Expat (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 11:44:53
  
  I should have pointed out, he is to the Scandanavian world what Shakespeare is to the English-speaking world. In fact, he is so famous that you find references to him scattered throughout the works of philosophers from that (Scandanavian) part of the world.
  
  
• From: santosh (@ 209.137.67.12) on: Thu Mar 7 12:19:20
  
  SR and/or expat,
  
  Well, i think that goethe doesn't need substantial evidence to prove his worth. I am sure vish would know it too. I think he made a point on ur comparision with Tolsoty and asked you how he is greater as you had mentioned. I would also like to hear if u have anything to say about it.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 19:06:37
  
  Santosh:
  
  I pointed out his impact on philosophy... need I say more? No German philosopher, or any philosopher for that matter, had the nerve to criticize Goethe... taking the example of Nietzsche, he criticized Christianity, women, Wagner, Kant, German culture, and a host of other things, but never once did he criticize Goethe... when it comes to criticism, Goethe is one of the few great geniuses who cannot be criticized - the same can be said of Shakespeare. Does the fact that he's free of all criticism make the ultimate case for Goethe? In my opinion, yes. Like Emerson said, the poet is the namer of man. In my opinion, if the poet of poets is Goethe, then Goethe is truly the namer of man.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 19:11:24
  
  The genius of geniuses needs no vindication from lesser beings... but here is a link to his biography, anyway.
  
  http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/goethe.htm
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ alb-66-24-214-34.nycap.rr.com) on: Thu Mar 7 19:45:22
  
  SR,
  
  As Santosh says, there is no vindication needed to prove if Goethe was a great writer or not. His genius has been recognized all over the literary world. But since this thread was on Tolstoy and since you said that Goethe is far superior to him, I asked you if you have anything to say as to why you did find so. If you wanted to write about Goethe, well, you could have done it in another thread. There was no need for a comparison at all. But since you did it, you would stand better to have substantiated it instead of pointing out to the websites on his genius. And you seem to stretch it to my discomfort when you say You're right - better or worse is a fallacy of opinion in literature . You yourself said earlier Obviously, your judgment will depend on how cultured you are... and don’t you see you are contradicting yourself there?
  
  Well Pal, no harm meant. It would be nice if you had something to say about either writer from your own learning experience, for such forums, I believe, are meant for such personal exchanges.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 22:19:29
  
  Actually, I'm not contradicting myself there... just being a bit vague, resulting in your misunderstanding. Let me say a little more about better or worse being a fallacy of opinion in literature. If we refer to better or worse entirely on subjective grounds, that is personal opinion, then yes, the fallacy lies in the fact that no right answer (good or bad) exists. On the other hand, if we utilize the medium of historical impact, and base our judgment entirely on the latter, then claims for better or worse can indeed be substantiated objectively. Which is precisely where I'm going with Goethe. His influence extends much farther than does Tolstoy's. Philosophy, music, literature, poetry, and architecture - these are only a few of the areas to which his influence extends. Can the same be said of Tolstoy? I doubt it.
  
  The conclusion to be drawn is that, from a historical perspective, Goethe is a far greater writer than Tolstoy. I rest my case.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 22:21:58
  
  I posted a thread on the Iliad, but got absolutely no responses, so I would be surprised if anyone here's even heard of Goethe. If people want to waste their time on "To Kill a Mockingbird," thats not my fault.
  
  
• From: SR (@ mail.waldorf.edu) on: Thu Mar 7 22:25:10
  
  Before you jump at me for questioning"To Kill a Mockingbird" I don't hold anything against that book, but there are certain things you have to read; if the only thing you ever read is "Mockingbird," then yes, you are wasting your time.
  
  
• From: Anoop (@ 203.199.213.5) on: Mon Mar 25 01:52:13
  
  As compared to Anna Karenina, as Obla rightly pointed out, Resurrection, a later work of his is slightly irksome in the moralistic stance that Tolstoy seeks to bring about over and above a possibly more interesting open ended literary dissection of the moral and other questions that the book strove to raise.
  
  Interesting as the questions of regeneration and redemption and the theme of emancipation were, the novel, I felt, fell really flat towards its end when Tolstoy tried to present seemingly absolute answers to questions that Nekhlyudov's and Maslova's characters (along with countless other characters and circumstances) raised during the course of the book. Maybe it is to be expected of that maturing process in a person that comes with age, that the moralistic and religious inclinations come to the forefront over more open ended thinking associated with men of younger blood? I felt that Anna Karenina was a far more satisfying read.
  
  
• From: Rameez Rahman (@ ip-69-31-11-21.nlayer.net) on: Tue Feb 10 16:14:59
  
  This is in response to Goethe being a "far greater writer than Tolstoy". It only shows the sophomorism of the writer. The fact is that at the level of Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe, Tolstoy, etc there is only a very very fine difference of grade in artistic genius. As for Tolstoy's influence, it is in no way less than that of Goethe. Gandhi and Martin Luther King to name just two out of many many people that Tolstoy influenced to a great degree.
  The fact is that all of them are geniuses. As for the fact that Goethe was never criticized, that's mostly due to his revolutionary perspective at his time, not for his universal and everlasting omniscience. In fact, there are lot of things in Goethe, as in the work of any great man (or man, for that matter) even prophets like Christ, Mohamamad, Buddha etc or artists like Goethe, Shakespeare and Tolstoy etc that can easily be criticized. As Chekhov said, "It is a sad truth that man's work is never free from blemish."
  I was just reading Goethe's Sorrows of Werther and on almost every line, i would exclaim, "What a genius, what profound philosophy in so few words" yet there were also many lines where i felt he could have been criticized. No big deal, It's the case with every human being.
  As for Tolstoy, he was not just an artist or philosopher. Perhaps, the most important facet of his personality was his indignation at the injustices in this world and his desire to end this strife, not just through sweet, romantic art or idle philosophical works but through concrete actions. And in this Tolstoy is ahead of geniuses like Shakespeare, Goethe etc.
  
  
• From: oig (@ netcache.spectranet.com) on: Wed Feb 11 00:44:23 EST 2004
  
  I think Tolstoy wrought work beyond the gate ways of time and opened gates to our collective consciousness in a semi ornamental fashion. The character of Vronsky in particular has always fascinated us. I think the link for this is at
  http://ornamentalirongates.com/ or is it
  http://indiairon.com/
  
  
• From: Rameez Rahman (@ ip-69-31-11-21.nlayer.net) on: Wed Feb 11 07:59:44 EST 2004
  
  One thing that i forgot to mention about Tolstoy. More than any other writer i have read, there is in Tolstoy this burning, unbiased desire to discover the truth and added to that are his passionate efforts to perfect himself and the world around him.
  thanks for the link oig
  
  
• From: Rameez Rahman (@ ip-69-31-11-17.nlayer.net) on: Wed Feb 11 08:24:06 EST 2004
  
  Someone said above, actually in the top most message, that "Tolstoy miserably fails as an artist when he takes such a stand in his later work "Resurrection""
  Now i will be the first to admit that Resurrection is in no way as good as either War and Peace or Anna Karenina. But the fact is that Tolstoy hasn't "failed miserably" in Resurrection. It is only in comparison to his other great full length novels that we find Resurrection to be lacking. Otherwise, i feel, considered alone, Resurrection is a pretty good novel.
  And remember we don't have to fall prey to the run of the mill argument of true art critics, who regard anything political in art to be propaganda and weak art. If we accept this argument then we would have to conclude that everyone from Prem Chand, Krishn Chandra, Ismat Chughtai, Manto, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, and countless others also failed miserably because the fact is that they definitely took moral stands in their works.
  So yes, Resurrection is no Anna Karenin but it is a very good novel
  
  
• From: mark Astor (@ 203.129.207.109) on: Mon Feb 23 02:28:30 EST 2004
  
  It was a blunder not to give the Nobel prz to a writer of Tolstoy's calibre who was a psychologist,story teller, and social Philosopher in one.
  
  

Want to post a response?