Why Tolstoy Needed a Good Editor and Other Observations: Comments on Style

       Background to the post (and to the blog as a whole): I’m reading Anna Karenina, the horrifically long but very good novel by Leo Tolstoy. The book focuses mainly on two storylines; that of the adulteress Anna, her husband Alexei Karenin, and her lover Alexei Vronsky, and that of Konstantin Levin, an awkward, reclusive landowner, and in the second half of the novel his wife Kitty. These intertwine throughout the novel, and in very interesting ways.

       Tolstoy’s style in the novel is pretty simple; he loves detail. If there’s one complaint I have about the book, it’s that he REALLY needed a good editor. As much as I enjoy the descriptive style and the insight into the lives of Russia’s upper classes in the 19^th century, I don’t like having to read 15-20 pages about hunting snipe if there’s no apparent point to it. So far in the novel, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon. There are plenty of parts with great character development and plot, but a few times Tolstoy seems to forget his audience and go into a rant about something that interests him (and, as it feels to the reader, ONLY him). For example, one of the most difficult sections of the novel was a 50 page or so stretch that consists almost entirely of Levin’s thoughts on Russian agricultural philosophy. It gives the reader some insight into his character, but it’s clearly excessive and doesn’t contribute to the plot.

       I have also noticed that the narration seems very objective. This is consistent with many other 19^th century novels, but it especially stands out in Anna Karenina. The point of view, again consistent with the time, is third person. Even in the parts where one would expect to see emotion in the writing—for example, in Anna’s intense inner debate whether to keep her status in society and stay with her husband or to become an outcast and live with her lover—the emotion seems to stay completely contained within the character. I think this is mostly as a result of the stiff, formal language, which is alien to the modern reader. To give you an idea: Vronsky and Anna are living together, but they are having problems in their relationship. It is clearly a difficult and strongly emotional situation, but as Tolstoy writes it,

 “Vronsky experienced for the first time a feeling of vexation, almost of anger, with Anna for her deliberate refusal to understand her position. This feeling was intensified by his being unable to explain to her the cause of his vexation. If he had told her directly what he thought, he would have said: ‘To appear in the theatre in that attire and with that notorious princess is not only to acknowledge your position as a ruined woman but also to throw down a challenge to society—that is, to renounce it for ever’ ” (543).

This is obviously a product of the time it was written, but unfortunately, I think this limits the extent to which the modern reader is able to engage with the text and to identify with or feel for the characters.

       My last comment is on another phenomenon I’ve noticed. Tolstoy writes very bluntly, despite the flowery language. He will just say his ideas straight out. With this come some strange similes, which, though they make sense, just sound weird. For example:

“A man can spend several hours sitting cross-legged in the same position if he knows that nothing prevents him from changing it; but if he knows that he has to sit with his legs crossed like that, he will get cramps, his legs will twitch and strain towards where he would like to stretch them. That was what Vronsky felt with regard to society” (528).

See? You get what he’s trying to say, but it just sounds like something no one would actually say in real life. This happens several times throughout the novel, and I find it interesting.