r/tolstoy

Honestly, Tolstoy is my favorite Russian writer, and I love his works. However, as far as I understand, he was excommunicated by the Church, apparently because of his views on morality and virtue.

This book was a spiritual experience, i didn't know i could relate with a writer and character (Levin) to this limit. I was going through quite the mental turmoil in my life for the better part of the past year and half and out of frustration penned out my thoughts and perspective on life, this was before reading the final chapters of the book and the epiphany that levin has towards love, empathy, compassion and values was penned by me in a similar manner as levin. I burst out crying once i finished reading it, i never knew my troubles could be shared and voiced out in the manner as Tolstoy did, im supremely grateful that i read it and amped for whatever Tolstoy may divulge to me next.

In opposition to what I’ve seen as the common consensus, I believe The Death of Ivan Ilyich is wholly nihilistic, and attempts to describe it in any other way reveal more about the reader's subjectivity than about Tolstoy's writing.

Embodying the popular consensus of Ivan Ilyich is the following quote by the columnist Juan Sota. Wrapping up his article on The Death of Ivan Ilyich, he concludes with "This last act, a free act of love, truly redeems Ivan's life and makes him lose his fear of death." The last act of 'love' which Sota refers to is Ivan's dismissal of his son and wife from his presence, to spare them the pain of standing vigil to his agonizingly slow death. This humanization of Ivan fundamentally misrepresents his character. Ivan was never someone enamored with life; he occupies his time with idle pleasures and intellectual discussions, while simultaneously not being particularly engrossed in either. For example, Ivan begins to spend large swaths of time completely preoccupied with his job as a judge only after he becomes disillusioned with his home life and irate with his wife.

Emblematic of this pervasive disinterest he has felt throughout his adult life, Ivan looks to his childhood for solace as he lies dying. In looking towards his childhood, he seeks an answer to the existential question plaguing him: "If life had not been what it should have been, then what would have been right?" And although he does think of his happiness as a child, and remarks on the stark contrast between then and now, that alone does not constitute an answer. For it is immediately after he asks himself this question that he begins to feel intense pity for his family. By not finding an answer to this question internally, and instead abstracting his emotions away from himself, he inadvertently resolves his ceaseless questioning. The answer is that there is none; in the end, he could not ascertain anything about the meaning of his existence besides the suffering it brought upon others. Following this internal struggle, Ivan completely loses his fear of death. Tolstoy states that "he sought his former accustomed fear of death and did not find it. 'Where is it? What death?' There was no fear because there was no death." Death is defined only by its relationship to life; if there is no life, then there cannot be death, and thus, there is nothing for Ivan to fear.

Nihilism is the belief that all life is meaningless. Nietzsche's response to this belief is that one has to create their own value system; ie, humans are capable of becoming gods unto themselves. In failing to find value in either his actions or the actions of others, Ivan failed at creating meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. To say that Ivan was redeemed at the end, that he discovered what 'truly matters', could not be further from the truth. In fact, he discovered the antithesis of this idea: that life is ultimately meaningless, and that he failed to create meaning. To resolve the antimony that innately exists at this point - that he's alive, yet life is meaningless- Ivan resolves to end his ceaseless suffering - and thus, his life - as soon as he's physically able to.

Sick of Kindle locking everything into its own ecosystem, and Google Books with that interface that looks like it's from 2012. Anyone using something different to read the Russians on their phone? Drop recommendations before I go back to reading crooked PDFs in the browser.

Every time someone quotes the opening — "I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man" — it comes with this solemn prophet-announcing-the-void energy. And I think that's exactly why most people miss the whole chapter.

The guy's liver hurts and he refuses to see a doctor. Out of spite. And he can't even explain who the spite is aimed at. Then he adds that he knows nothing about medicine but is superstitious enough to respect it anyway. That's a joke. That's joke architecture — setup and punchline.

Then he tells us he was an unbearable civil servant who took pleasure in tormenting people at the counter. Builds the whole scene. Proud of it. Two pages later: lie, never happened, I was just amusing myself. He gives you the information and withdraws it in the same breath. That's not tragedy, that's clowning — in the best possible sense.

And the peak: he says he failed to become anything. Not spiteful, not kind. Not a scoundrel, not an honest man. Not a hero, not even an insect. The man can't even manage insect. Read that with a straight face and you're looking at an oracle. Read it the way Dostoevsky wrote it — a forty-year-old alone in a basement, lecturing an audience of "gentlemen" who don't exist — and you're looking at a drunk at the end of the bar that nobody had the heart to shut up.

Here's the kicker: it's more devastating that way. Tragedy grants the man dignity. Comedy grants him nothing. What's frightening about the Underground Man isn't that he's a cursed prophet — it's that he's ridiculous and right at the same time.

So: the first time you read Chapter 1, did you laugh or did you go quiet? And rereading it now, do you laugh in the same places?

Hello lovely people. I’m hoping to get some help choosing a copy of war and peace. I’d like to get a hardback because I can see with paperback the book spine and pages will be destroyed soon… (monte cristo did that to me and it fell apart).

Now the question is should I go for the Oxford classics hardback or Everyman’s library edition? I know both are Maude translation, but the Oxford version had some updates.

Everyman’s split volumes also seems less intimidating and more practical. It is more expensive but with w&p I think it would be worth it.

I don’t own any Oxford classics in hardbacks so I’m not sure what the binding is like, if anyone knows it’s thread sewn or glue bound?

Thank you!

Every time I read this quote, tears automatically start to fall!! Don't know why, lolll!!😭😭

Anna Karenina is not a romantic tragedy. Anna was a narcissist and Levin is an insufferable hypocrite.

Everyone markets Anna Karenina as the ultimate story of love and tragedy, but re-reading it makes the reality impossible to ignore:

Anna isn't a victim of society: She ruined her own life, her son's life, and Vronsky's life out of pure aristocratic boredom and egocentrism. Vronsky gave up his military career for her, yet she played the victim until the very end.

Levin is the ultimate spoiled heir: He spends the entire novel whining about existence, romanticizing peasant poverty (without ever giving away an acre of his own land), and using Kitty as a moral trophy to stroke his own ego.

Tolstoy's writing is top-tier, but romanticizing these two as "deep" or "tragic" ignores just how deeply selfish they both were.

Change my mind.

Every reread I'm more convinced Tolstoy is not a neutral judge here. Anna gets the morphine, the paranoia, the train. Levin gets the mowing scene, the baby, God. The structure itself is the verdict.

But here's the thing: Anna is still the most alive person in the book. Tolstoy's moralism loses to his own eye. He wants to condemn her and can't stop making her magnificent — the jealousy in the last hundred pages is written from so far inside her head that "punishment" starts to feel like sympathy.

So which is it? Did Tolstoy fail to control his own novel, or did he know exactly what he was doing and build a trap where the reader convicts Anna and then feels sick about it?

And be honest — does anyone actually care about Levin's chapters on farm labor, or do we just pretend to because Tolstoy told us to?

​

No dramatic confession, no death, no grand punishment — just two people realizing the hardest part of their story is only beginning. Chekhov's endings rarely resolve anything; they just stop at the moment life keeps going.

If you've read it: did the lack of resolution frustrate you or feel more honest than a typical ending?

I had started reading war and peace at the start of the year and am almost walf way through. Since the book is so huge, I've read quiet a few books in between too( ironically the count of Monte cristo too). I do find the book engaging but it has such a vast set of characters, that makes it hard to follow.

Is the tone of the book same throughout? And should I consider it a slow read.

Can anyone guide me or dm where to find the Briggs translation of Resurrection online for purchase? I can only find the old Edmonds translation online. My ereader is a kobo btw.