The Death of Ivan Ilych by Leo Tolstoy

Ivan Ilych lived a good life. He lived the kind of life most people think they would have loved to have. The question is, was it really as good as it looked or was it like a pretty cake that tasted like cardboard? Ivan grew up climbing the social ladder almost before he could climb out of his crib. His education, social life and family life all centred on moving up and earning more, to cover that debt one ran up from spending just a little more than one earned. He considers himself quite happy, excepting a little marital discomfort and occasional problems with his children. However, he manages to focus his attention on the positive things in his life, like promotion, pay raises and social status and with that life little discomforts fade into the background. Then one day, Ivan hits his side while redecorating his newly purchased house, which goes with his promotion, and subsequently falls ill several weeks later. Although it is unclear exactly what is wrong with him, everyone knows that Ivan is dying.

Unable to do anything for many weeks on end, but lay on his couch dying a slow and painful death, Ivan has lots of time to reflect on his life and whether it was really all it was cracked up to be. He begins to regret his lack of a happy family life and to see his family members in a new light, and in turn, sees that his social climbing was really quite different and less rewarding than he had told himself it was. He spent much of his life fooling himself and now feels he must atone for this in death.

Fortunately, this is more of a short story than a full blown novel. Had it been longer, it might have become quite depressing and very tedious. It’s a good length for the subject matter and I found it to be surprisingly good and slightly less depressing than I had assumed it would be. It feels almost like a voyeuristic novel in as much as you are privy to Ivan’s thoughts as well as his actions. It’s like watching someone think while he lives his life, which allows the reader to see that what Ivan sees doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.

I’m not sure how accurately I can review this book. I have a feeling that in order to figure out what Tolstoy wanted to say, you need to know more about him and his works. So, in a bid to get a little more information, I looked the book up in Wikipedia and found this:

“In his lectures on Russian Literature Russian-born novelist and critic Vladimir Nabokov argues that, for Tolstoy, a sinful life (such as Ivan's) is moral death. Therefore death, the return of the soul to God is, for Tolstoy, moral life. To quote Nabokov: "The Tolstoyan formula is: Ivan lived a bad life and since the bad life is nothing but the death of the soul, then Ivan lived a living death; and since beyond death is God's living light, then Ivan died into a new life- Life with a capital” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Ivan_Ilyich)

With the knowledge, or lack thereof, I have of Tolstoy, I think Nobokov’s take seems pretty accurate, at least as an interpretive reflection of the work. Ivan was saved through his slow and painful death as he had time to reflect and regret his life. It was as if he went through Purgatory prior to death and came out triumphant. It does leave me wondering, however, what Tolstoy’s take on Ivan’s life would have been had he bypassed Purgatory by slow death by dying a quick and painless death. What would that mean for Tolstoy? Would Ivan’s life have been just worthless? That would, in an extended sense, mean that society as a whole is fairly worthless and that basically we are all just spinning out wheels unless we strive for a higher goal of living a morally meaningful life. Thus, the story can be seen not only as a criticism of one man’s life, but of a whole society of Ivan Ilychs as well.

One final thought, even though The Death of Ivan Ilych was written well over a hundred years ago, it could have been written last week without losing any relevance at all. Society as a whole still functions pretty much the same and many still live their lives climbing the social ladder. I wonder if Tolstoy would be shocked to see what has become of us, or rather how static people have remained despite the changes over the last century.

Challenges: Classics Challenge 2010

Anna Karenina

I’ve re-named this book Gone With the Windski in my mind. It probably sounds quite odd, but it’s because Anna so strongly reminds me of Scarlet O’Hara. Both women are caught up in situations which neither suit their wants, needs, nor temperaments, yet they cannot escape due to the social restrictions placed upon them. However, both women are very selfish and manipulative and for the large part, bring their own misery down upon themselves by either going about things the wrong way, or trying to make their surroundings bend to their wants. Instead of making the best of their situations as they are and looking for happiness where they would have a chance of finding it, they look for it where they want to find it, and that is what ultimately brings about their own destruction. Granted, Scarlet is neither completely destroyed nor does she capitulate at the end of the book, but she did lose everything she was striving for and will have to start all over again. Anna, on the other hand, watches as she destroys her own life and not being able to face reality, completes her own, and her lover Vronski’s, destruction.

Anna Karenina does have another interesting facet: Kitty. Kitty is the antithesis of Anna. She shows the reader what Anna should have been and how Anna should have acted. Not having gotten what she wanted, Kitty was able to regain her life by looking towards things she should want and which were attainable instead of reaching out for things she could and would never have. It’s quite interesting the way that Tolstoy plays the two women’s stories against each other. Their lives are intertwined by the people they know, yet they go two completely different ways which almost seem to mirror each other the way that a picture negative mirrors a picture. They are the same, yet completely different.

I suppose that reader is meant to sympathize with Anna, but I can’t. I find her horribly arrogant, selfish and manipulative to the point in which these traits overshadow any of her good points. The only thing I do sympathize with is that she was damned by her own nature. I doubt she could have changed had she wanted to, so ultimately, there was really nothing she could do about it. Still, that doesn’t make me like her any better. Every time she made another choice, all I could think was “stupid woman”. The things she chose were so obviously wrong that she was either stupid or blind. Either way, it made no difference. She chose the wrong things and had to pay for her decisions in the end.

Tolstoy also managed to wind in two other themes into his story. The first is the Russian nobility of the nineteenth century. They glimpse Tolstoy gives of them makes them seem to be some of the most extravagant, decadent and thoughtless people in the world. Viewing them with the knowledge of what happens in Russia during the following century, it becomes easier to see why communism seemed appealing to many of the Russian people. An overthrow of the system must have seemed the best way to eradicate the Russian people of the ultimately destructive element of their nobility; seeing as how the nobles controlled politics at the time, there really way no other way. The second is philosophy. Tolstoy introduces Levin, Kitty’s future husband, at the beginning of the book. Levin epitomizes the Russian spirit of the 19th century with his depressing and dark outlook on life. Always trying to make sense of the world as he saw it, Levin goes through many different phases of both personal and political philosophy, changing it according to the people he meets and the experiences he has. Again though, like Kitty, Levin doesn’t try and strive for things beyond his reach, but eventually realizes that to be truly happy, he must reach for things that are attainable and be happy with what he has. On the whole, both his and Kitty’s stories are what make this an uplifting novel.

All in all it was a good read. It’s the first Russian classic I’ve ever managed to get through. Up until now the Russians have always been too heavy for my taste. Anna Karenina is a lighter, although not totally frivolous novel, and I can recommend it to anyone.