The relation of the people to the soil

Anna Karenina is one of the books I wanted to finish reading this summer. It's quite an epic book (800 pages or so) - a classic, written by Leo Tolstoy. I started reading it last summer while doing research in the basement, but only got about 1/4th of the way. So far, I've done another 1/4th and a bit. I don't find it in any way boring, it's just a lot to take in at once. This leads me to believe that I will not finish the book until next year (I don't tend to read much during the year just because of school/other things I'm doing).

The title of this post is probably one of the lines that stands out the most, just because it sounds amusing to me. It comes from this paragraph:

"In order to work out the whole subject theoretically and to complete his book, which, in Levin’s day-dreams, was not merely to effect a revolution in political economy, but to annihilate that science entirely and to lay the foundation of a new science of the relation of the people to the soil, all that was left to do was to make a tour abroad, and to study on the spot all that had been done in the same direction, and to collect conclusive evidence that all that had been done there was not what was wanted."

In the book, Levin is a wealthy landowner from the provinces who could move in aristocratic circles, but who prefers to work on his estate in the country. So that's where his interest about the economy and farming comes in.

In any case, I think what I really enjoy about the book is Tolstoy's style of writing. Apparently it's called stream of consciousness - tis a literary technique that seeks to portray an individual's point of view by giving the written equivalent of the character's thought processes, either in a loose interior monologue, or in connection to his or her sensory reactions to external occurrences.
Usually what bores me in books is detailed descriptions of scenery/battles. On the other hand, I really enjoy looking into/analyzing people's thoughts...so this really works in my favor :P It's also not very hard to pick up after a lengthy hiatus.

Another thing I like is that is Tolstoy's mixing of real and fictional events throughout.

Wiki explains it better than I do:

Characters in Anna Karenina debate significant sociopolitical issues affecting Russia in the latter half of the nineteenth century, such as the proper role of the serfs in society, education reform, and women's rights. Tolstoy's depiction of the characters in these debates, and of their arguments, allows him to anonymously communicate his own political beliefs to his audience.
Characters often attend social functions that Tolstoy attended, and he includes in these passages his own observations of the ideologies, behaviors, and ideas running through contemporary Russia through the thoughts of Konstantin Levin. The broad array of situations and ideas depicted in Anna Karenina allows Tolstoy to present a treatise on his era's Russia, and, by virtue of its very breadth and depth, all of human society. This stylistic technique, as well as the novel's use of perspective, greatly contributes to the thematic structure of Anna Karenina.

Although I am for the most part quite the sciency person, I did enjoy my CEGEP classes on Political Science (What is Justice? / Ethics and Democracy) and my only complementary at University, POLI 202 (Intro to Polisci). I particularly enjoyed the 1st half of the material dealing with the beginnings of certain theories (liberalism, conservatism, socialism, etc and how they developed over time). So, Tolstoy's thoughts portrayed through Levin about Russia and its political system really interest me too :)

Another wiki excerpt about the themes:

The novel, set among the highest circles of Russian society, is generally thought by the casual reader to be nothing more than the story of a tragic romance. However, Tolstoy was both a moralist and severe critic of the excesses of his aristocratic peers, and Anna Karenina is often interpreted overall as a parable on the difficulty of being honest to oneself when the rest of society accepts falseness.

A common way to interpret Anna's tragedy, then, is that she could neither be completely honest nor completely false.

The novel also contains the parallel and contrasting love story of Konstantin Levin. Levin is a wealthy landowner from the provinces who could move in aristocratic circles, but who prefers to work on his estate in the country. Levin tries unsuccessfully to fit into high society when wooing the young Kitty Shcherbatsky in Moscow; he wins her only when he allows himself to be himself.

The joyous, honest and solid relationship of Levin and Kitty is continually contrasted in the novel with that of Anna and Vronsky, which is tainted by its uncertain status (marriage) resulting in constant upheaval, backbiting, and suspicion. Tolstoy supposedly did not want readers to sympathise with her supposed mistreatment, but rather to recognize that it was her inability to truly commit to her own happiness or self-truth which led to her demise.

I will probably see one of the movie's once I finish it, and it doesn't bother me so much that I know the ending already. Given that I really like it so far, I think I might try and tackle more Tolstoy in the future (perhaps War and Peace), but who knows. I could also try out some Dostoyevsky. I'm not sure why I'm interested in these Russian authors...it might just be that they sounded really cool on the Biography Channel.

On a side note, taking the title of this blog literally - The relation of the people to the soil is that it hurts :P Especially if the soil is in the form of asphalt (somehow many people I know are falling off their bikes this summer, including myself).