Less Could be More in Anna Karenina
Anna Karenina was well-written, with a good plot, and valuable themes. But it fell short in each of these categories, because Tolstoy simply tried to do too much. The language was beautiful but, at times, far too descriptive. The plot was also well written, but tedious and hard to follow in many parts of the book. And the Themes were great and important, but they were many, and at times, not appropriate for this book. The book was great, but it could have said much more, and been better, if Tolstoy had said a little less.
The language in Anna Karenina was wonderful, although graphic and too descriptive in much of the book. Tolstoy was a great writer, and that is why this book is a classic. However, he should have made choices about what to emphasize, and what not to. Tolstoy had a great writing style. He used some wonderful techniques and literary devices in his writing to make is books so great. One example of this is how he often times placed characters in his books that mirrored himself, as is true with Anna Karenina. While this tool can be effective, in Anna Karenina it was mostly awkward. This character seemed to be somewhat misplaced, and unimportant. He also used a good deal of foreshadowing to give his books a more unique style. In one instance during Anna Karenina, Anna arrives at the train station to find that a man has been run-over by the train, which greatly foreshadows her own poignant suicide in part seven of the book. Tolstoy's language is compelling and fluid. He paints a clear and accurate picture in the reader's mind of all the details throughout the book. But his strength can very much be his weakness, because in trying to be so thorough and compelling, he over-analyzed and over-described many parts of the book.
The themes of this book were many. Some were well developed and appropriate to the story, but others seemed unnecessary. The books major themes were marriage and unhappiness, while the book also deals with depression, and making choices. This book follows several marriages and families, and these themes proved themselves to be very important and essential in Anna Karenina.
Alexandra Bergman’s lack of self awareness allows others to forget that she is a woman and, at times, even human, which continuously builds the wall of isolation that surrounds her. As a result, when she reacts to situations as a woman would, rather than as “she” should, those around her don’t know what to make of it. Because she has been such a steady influence for so many years, those around her do not understand that perhaps she did have another dream besides working the land that she seems to care so deeply about. Her brothers in particular are unable to comprehend that Alexandra is a woman and was forced into the life she has lead by their father’s fantasy rather than by her own free will. Perhaps the only people who truly understand her dilemma are Ivar and Carl. Ivar is a “natural man” and a religious mystic and Carl a man who was unable to make a living from the land– neither is respected by their peers, and yet they have some sort of insight to Alexandra’s heart that even she has failed to acknowledge. Alexandra’s walls are brought down only by love: love of her youngest brother, love of the land, and the return of the childhood love she thought was lost to her– as these loves begin to change her, her outlook on her entire life begins to change and meld into something that only those who actually know who and what she is recognize: a woman.
O'Brien gives great meaning to these details by embedding them in this way. When skimming through these lists, the reader becomes desensitized, but by interspersing these mundane item...
In Part I, Meursault is spending the night next to his mother's coffin at a sort of pre-funeral vigil. With him are several old people who were friends of his mother at the home in which she had been living at the time of her death. Meursault has the strange feeling that he can see all of their faces really clearly, that he can observe every detail of their clothing and that they will be indelibly impr...
Every character that revolves around Meursault seems to be in direct contrast to him. Meursault is an amoral person who does not seem to care passionately about anything. He acts in accordance with physical desires. In other words, Meursault is a sensualist person. At this particular time in his life, his path crosses with his neighbor, Raymond, who feels as though his girlfriend is cheating on him. He decides to take revenge with minor aid form Meursault. Meursault helps him only because he thinks he has nothing to lose if he does. As things lead into one another, the first major violent act of the book is committed.
The “Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin and ‘”The Hand” by Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette are similar in theme and setting. Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette and Kate Chopin create the theme of obligatory love and the unhappiness it entails. Both stories illustrate the concealed emotions many women feel in their marriage yet fail to express them. The two stories take place in a sacred room of the house and both transpire in a brief amount of time. The differences between the two stories are seen through the author’s choice of characters in each story. In “The story of an Hour” Kate Chopin involves other characters in Mrs. Mallard’s life, whereas, “The Hand” deals with marriage and togetherness and only involves the husband and wife. Symbolism is seen all throughout “The Hand” not so in ‘The Story of an Hour.” The similarities in “The Story of an Hour” and “The Hand” is portrayed in theme and setting. The differences are illustrated in the choice of characters involved in each story and the amount of symbolism depicted in the different stories.
The conflict between good and evil is one of the most common conventional themes in literature. Coping with evil is a fundamental struggle with which all human beings must contend. Sometimes evil comes from within a character, and sometimes other characters are the source of evil; but evil is always something that the characters struggle to overcome. In two Russian novels, Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment and Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, men and women cope with their problems differently. Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and the Master in The Master and Margarita can not cope and fall apart, whereas Sonya in Crime and Punishment and Margarita in The Master and Margarita, not only cope but pull the men out of their suffering.
Meursault in the book tries to overcome his emotional indifference within himself. One example shows Meursault emotional indifference against Marie. In this quote, “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so.” The quote explains how Meursault doesn’t really think about the consequences of other people’s emotions. When he said in the quote it didn’t mean anything to him, it shows he believes human life and emotions are meaningless. He also says I didn’t think so, showing he struggles to comprehend and make his own interpretations on human emotions from Marie and other people. Another example shown is Meursault against his mother’s funeral. In this quote ‘Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.’ This quote also shows Meursault idea of human life is meaningless. This shows that Meursault believes it doesn’t really matter if his mother died, he’s probably implying that his mother was dying soon...
However, upon deciding to kill a man, he quickly learns that his previous unconcern will not diminish the consequences for his deed. Put to death, Meursault remains stagnant on his opinion of justice, refusing to ever consider that justice possesses any worth. Upon receiving a visit from a chaplain hours before his execution, he merely uttered “I had been right, I was still right, I was always right” (Camus 121) Meursault did not understand why the chaplain wanted to force him to turn to God and gain a moral sense about life. Thus he simply reiterated the motto that he lived by: an apathetic, self-absorbed idea that nothing in life means anything. Meursault’s continual refusal to accept the moral standards of the world prohibited him from every truly finding a true sense of
While coming to terms with the absurd was a gradual process for Meursault, his final days and his heated conversation with the chaplain, and his desire for a hateful crowd of spectators show that he was able to accept the absurdity, and revel in it, finding satisfaction in spite of those around him and justifying his murder. His ego had reached an all-time high as he neared his execution, and his satisfaction left him prepared for the nothingness awaiting him. This process was a natural psychological response to his mortality, for his peace of mind. Therefore, Meursault is not the Stranger, an alien to society, but a troubled man seeking meaning and satisfaction in a life and a world that was overwhelming unsatisfactory and absurd.
Anna in the Tropics is a play written by Nilo Cruz. The story surrounds a family of Cuban immigrants that live in Florida. It’s the 1920’s and they run a cigar factor by rolling cigars the traditional way - by hand. The owner hires a lector who reads to the workers during the hot summers. This cultural custom was practiced in Cuba to keep the hand rollers entertained with dynamic novel choices. What makes this play more interesting is the book choice of the lector. He reads Anna Karenina, a dramatic classic novel written by Leo Tolstoy. The lector brings the cold Russian winter of the story into the factory and insights passion in the workers who find themselves intertwined with the lives of
Meursault’s boss offers him a position in a new office he plans to open in Paris. Meursault replies that it is all the same to him, and his boss becomes angry at his lack of ambition. Meursault muses that he used to have ambition as a student, but then realized that none of it really mattered. Meursault lives his life almost unconsciously, nearly sleepwalking through a ready-made structure that his society provides him.
While it has traditionally been men who have attached the "ball and chain" philosophy to marriage, Kate Chopin gave readers a woman’s view of how repressive and confining marriage can be for a woman, both spiritually and sexually. While many of her works incorporated the notion of women as repressed beings ready to erupt into a sexual a hurricane, none were as tempestuous as The Storm.
On the day of the funeral Meursault immediately notices details such as, “the screws on the casket had been tightened and that there were four men wearing black in the room.” Throughout the day he does not display any signs of grief, and hardly seems to pay any attention to the fact that he is at his own mother’s funeral.
“There is no perfect relationship. The idea that there is gets us into so much trouble.”-Maggie Reyes. Kate Chopin reacts to this certain idea that relationships in a marriage during the late 1800’s were a prison for women. Through the main protagonist of her story, Mrs. Mallard, the audience clearly exemplifies with what feelings she had during the process of her husbands assumed death. Chopin demonstrates in “The Story of an Hour” the oppression that women faced in marriage through the understandings of: forbidden joy of independence, the inherent burdens of marriage between men and women and how these two points help the audience to further understand the norms of this time.
The Absurdist notion that an individual needs no external value to survive is portrayed by Meursault’s lack of remorse shown toward his crime and lack of compassion shown toward Marie. Rather, he is an end to himself, his life being justified by his sole existence. Meursault does not view prison as a punishment for killing the Arab; ins...