I decided a couple of weeks ago to read books on my shelves I haven't read yet. I've begun with Tolstoy's "Resurrection", which I've had in plain sight for decades, except for five years when I studied at a seminary in the Midwest of the United States.
Every reader knows about Tolstoy. "War and Peace" is often called the greatest of all novels. Maybe that's true, but it has a few companions: "Don Quixote", Proust's masterpiece, Lady Murasaki's "Genji". And perhaps others. And if you consider not one novel but the life work of a writer, Tolstoy has a roomful of company: Balzac, Dickens, Dostoevsky, and numerous others. I nominate Mary Ann Evans, also known as George Eliot.
Tolstoy's achievement seems larger to me than I thought now that I'm looking at "Resurrection". First, from the very beginning, it reads like a work by Dickens with a Russian flavour. (For me, Dickens is at the center of the novel-writing enterprise. A subject for another blogpost.) Several characteristics demonstrate the point: "Resurrection"'s generosity of style, its sympathy with ordinary people, its sense of what's good, and its grasp of a whole society..
Second, I haven't read a biography of Tolstoy or seen much criticism of his work, so I found two paragraphs from introductory material to be fascinating. Tolstoy wrote: "One of the most widespread superstitions is that every man has his own special definite qualities; that he is kind, cruel, wise, stupid, energetic, apathetic, and so on. Men are not like that. We may say of a man that he is more often energetic than apathetic, or the reverse; but it would not be true to say of one man that he is kind or wise, of another that he is bad or stupid. And yet we always classify mankind in this way. And this is false. Men are like rivers: the water is the same in one and all; but every river is narrow here, more rapid there....Every man bears in himself the germs of every human quality....the man often becomes unlike himself, while still remaining the same man." (Translated by Louise Maude)
And here are some sentences he wrote to a correspondent who was critical of "Resurrection": "All I can say in my defence is that when I read a book what chiefly interests me is the Worldview of the author: what he likes and what he hates. And hope that anyone who reads my book with that view will find out what the author likes and dislikes, and will be influenced by the author's feelings."
These comments came across to me as snapshots of a large mind,
Third, The story of the novel turns on the struggles of young woman unjustly imprisoned for a murder she didn't commit. Tolstoy also examines the changes that take place in the mind and heart of an aristocrat who wronged her years before and might have helped her in her new predicament but failed to.
The main points for me are that Tolstoy criticizes the milieu of the aristocrat, which he himself knew first-hand, and also portrays the woman's plight. He accompanies her to prison and introduces the reader to other inmates. He's aware of their crimes yet doesn't scorn or mock them. He shows their humanity.
Even though I'm only a third of the way through this 500-page book, I see another feature that stands out: Tolstoy's amazing courage. He breaks through time-honored barriers to show friendship to prisoners and outcasts.
Fourth, another aspect of the novel is the extraordinary vividness of Tolstoy's writing, even in translation. I read somewhere that it took him ten years to write "Resurrection". After a brief spell of research, I didn't discover how he used the time. Did he visit prisons and talk to convicts and guards? If not, his work is a remarkable feat of imagination.
Here's a paragraph: "Meanwhile Korableva handed the flask of vodka and a mug to Maslova, who offered some to her and to Horoshavka. These prisoners were considered the aristocracy of the cell because they had some money, and they shared what they possessed with others. In a few minutes Maslova brightened up and related with vivacity what had happened at the Court, mimicking the public prosecutor, and describing what had struck her most, namely, how all the men had followed her about. In the Court they all looked at her, she said, and kept coming into the prisoners' room while she was there."
Tolstoy brings his reader into every scene, yet a few critics have said that he isn't at the height of his powers in this work. Sounds like nit-picking to me. "Resurrection" has many fine qualities.
I don't know how rare literary talent is. There may be more than we commonly think. Photos of Tolstoy show a strong man who was probably hard to approach most of the time, while he was determined enough to push himself to use his abilities the best he could..Tolstoy gives a lesson in dedication to craft and willingness to develop skills.
At the same time, my guess is that he was the sort of man who did what he wanted all his life. As a result, I can think of matters where I'd disagree with him, in particular when he confronts the Christian church with his distrust and misunderstanding, as he does in this novel. At such times, I think of him as a flawed colossus.
I put all this to one side, however, to express admiration for his considerable talents and remarkable achievement.
