Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.01 AVERAGE
4.01 AVERAGE
I'd give this book 3.5/5 stars if I could.
I read this book on a recommendation. What should a man do when he has no drive? This book answers that question through tragedy. We are shown the life course of a man who outsiders would call quite successful. He is married, has two surviving children and a maturing career that puts him easily into the upper-middle class.
Despite that, the reader gets plenty of glimpses at how Ilych prioritizes propriety over meaning and frivolity over substance and how Ilych hides from difficult problems (e.g. by finding refuge in his work rather than communicating with his pregnant wife). We see that there is an emptiness there. An emptiness that Ilych doesn’t become aware of until he becomes sick.
The fact that he becomes sick through creating his perfect clone of a home befitting his class is symbolism done well.
It’s when he becomes sick that the façade starts slipping, but Ilych can’t understand this change. Rather than being critical of the shallow, vapid world he has put around himself, he views everyone around him as liars. He grows angry, which appropriately is the second stage of grief. He keeps this anger throughout the decaying of his body for longer than it could be helpful. But through his anger he allows gaps of real human quality to shine through. The relationship with Gerasim, the peasant lad, is the closest he had to an unsullied human relationship.
And so, at the very end of the book, when Ilych’s pain and condition is at its worst does he consider the unthinkable: that he lived his life poorly. The book does grant him the very last moments to enjoy this epiphany. But I do mean only the very last moments.
So how well does the book answer my initial question? About 3/5. Tolstoy’s promotion of a real life, in contrast to an artificial life, is heavy-handed. He’s trying to show an extreme—a caricature that has no sense of curiosity nor interest in seeking meaning—and the dangers (e.g. dying alone) that come with it. While this is a good reminder to live a life with meaning, it’s hard for me to call its message revolutionary. Perhaps it was insightful for its time but not now. The story still competently conveys this message, although I believe the story could have been tighter.
--
As an aside, the way Tolstoy describes living with chronic pain was almost certainly a generation ahead of his time.
I read this book on a recommendation. What should a man do when he has no drive? This book answers that question through tragedy. We are shown the life course of a man who outsiders would call quite successful. He is married, has two surviving children and a maturing career that puts him easily into the upper-middle class.
Despite that, the reader gets plenty of glimpses at how Ilych prioritizes propriety over meaning and frivolity over substance and how Ilych hides from difficult problems (e.g. by finding refuge in his work rather than communicating with his pregnant wife). We see that there is an emptiness there. An emptiness that Ilych doesn’t become aware of until he becomes sick.
The fact that he becomes sick through creating his perfect clone of a home befitting his class is symbolism done well.
It’s when he becomes sick that the façade starts slipping, but Ilych can’t understand this change. Rather than being critical of the shallow, vapid world he has put around himself, he views everyone around him as liars. He grows angry, which appropriately is the second stage of grief. He keeps this anger throughout the decaying of his body for longer than it could be helpful. But through his anger he allows gaps of real human quality to shine through. The relationship with Gerasim, the peasant lad, is the closest he had to an unsullied human relationship.
And so, at the very end of the book, when Ilych’s pain and condition is at its worst does he consider the unthinkable: that he lived his life poorly. The book does grant him the very last moments to enjoy this epiphany. But I do mean only the very last moments.
So how well does the book answer my initial question? About 3/5. Tolstoy’s promotion of a real life, in contrast to an artificial life, is heavy-handed. He’s trying to show an extreme—a caricature that has no sense of curiosity nor interest in seeking meaning—and the dangers (e.g. dying alone) that come with it. While this is a good reminder to live a life with meaning, it’s hard for me to call its message revolutionary. Perhaps it was insightful for its time but not now. The story still competently conveys this message, although I believe the story could have been tighter.
--
As an aside, the way Tolstoy describes living with chronic pain was almost certainly a generation ahead of his time.
dark
emotional
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
"To live? How?" asked the voice of his soul.
"Why, to live as I did before happily and pleasantly."
"As you lived before, happily and pleasantly?" asked the voice.
all of my reading for the next 6 months will be school. but we’re starting off on a really good note
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I read because it's assigned reading for my daughter's HS IB program. I'm glad it was short. It isn't bad, and even though it's set in the 1800's, change a few details and it could easily be set in the present in the U.S.. Not so much has changed.
dark
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes