Anna Karenina

[reasonvemotion]

After reading Anna Karenina I felt incredulity and bewilderment. It left me feeling angry and frustrated with Anna's unwise decisions concerning her own well being. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" is the opening statement in the novel Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy and from page one of the novel the theme of infidelity is present. It causes families to be destroyed and leaves people's lives in ruin. It has been the downfall of many. In this novel the "downfall" of the characters is caused by both Anna and Vronksy, by their mistakes and actions. Or on reflection is it Anna herself or the society in which she lives that is more responsible for her unhappiness? What should we (or not) take into account when trying to balance responsibility to ourselves with responsibility to others.

[duszek]

Vronsky

Vron-sky

the Crow-like (Vorona = Crow, in Russian)

Anna wanted some passion and big love in her life, like many other women in many other novels: Effi Briest, Emma Bovary, the ladies seduced by Bel Ami (a Maupassant´s hero), and many more.

In those days, if you were stuck with a spouse you did not love you had no way out of your misery. And those who rebelled were doomed.

Today a solution can be found if people are willing to cooperate.

In the novel "The mandarines" the husband sends his wife to America because he wants his wife to have a good time with her love there.
Did Jean-Paul Sartre ever do this really ? He was not even married to Simone de B.
The novel is supposed to be autobiographic.

[reasonvemotion]

That was interesting regarding Vronsky's name, as in the novel he did not love Anna, he wanted Anna despite everything that should have stood in his way.

I was thinking in the novel AK, the down slide began when Anna was in the vulnerable position (for the times) of not being wed to and living with her lover and the transgression from passion to domesticity. Anna became totally dependent upon Vronsky and isolated from society because of her unwise sacrifices for him. Her mistake was not to recognise the significance of the events as they loomed in the relationship. It is similar to the Art of War. She let it pass by her without recognising what she must do to secure her place legally, socially and morally with Vronsky. She did have choices and she let them go. Her eyes were closed to the necessity of this. Without recognition of this, their relationship would be destroyed by insecurities and jealousy. Eventually the imbalance was the victor and toppled over into destruction. There was nowhere Anna could go, except to her death. Vronsky could carry on as before.

Simone de Beavoir and Sartre's relationship was similar, yet less fraught with the social outcome. She became reliant upon him in an emotional sense. Outwardly she was the strong, dependent, leader of the new age relationship for women. I believe she had no choice as Sartre was not willing to marry her. As some women do, they accept the "terms" their men offer and she eventually became his procurer of women for his affairs and even shared some women he had affairs with. If she had decided not to accept his terms, I don't think he would have mourned for too long, for his ambition was to have as many women as possible. SB to me was a woman with a man's mind. This relationship was held together by notoriety and fame. It was no grand passion.

[duszek]

It makes sense what you say.

Why are people (mainly women?) so much afraid of being alone again ? Is it really the end of ... what ?

Vronsky was clearly a player, possibly a psychopath. Lots of men are like him. A woman can only keep such a man if she is a player herself and there is a system of checks and balances between them.

[reasonvemotion]

It makes sense what you say.

Why are people (mainly women?) so much afraid of being alone again ? Is it really the end of ... what ?

Vronsky was clearly a player, possibly a psychopath. Lots of men are like him. A woman can only keep such a man if she is a player herself and there is a system of checks and balances between them.

Your answer is insightful.

It is more difficult for women from a practical point of view. Mainly financial. I would imagine if hardship was not an obvious side effect of separation, many more women would leave and be content with their lives. Sometimes it can be quite liberating and satisfying.

Yes, a woman has to embark on a painful journey, if she chooses to remain with a "player". Neither innocence nor wile can win the game for the woman without a price to pay. Every other woman becomes a potential enemy to her and for him every woman a challenge to seduce.

Better to leave than to stay. This would be the beginning. To stay would be the end.

[duszek]

It depends.

If there is a balance of mutual manipulation such a marriage of two inventful players can be rewarding and highly entertaining for both of the two, and there is no victim. It would be a win-win marriage.

You are right about the money problem.
A marriage should be established by contract like a society (in German law: GbR or BGB-Gesellschaft).
The assets of the two Gesellschafter (partner ?) should be put down and two accounts established, and a distribution of gains or losses made at the end of each year. Or on the wedding anniversary, if they prefer.

That way there would be no problem to split if staying together seems worse than continuing.

Unromantic ?
Yes, but how many wives or husbands worry about money because they do not see clear figures.

[duszek]

It is mostly men who play with women and use them for their purposes.
Some of them marry women for money ("The Portrait of a Lady", "Washington Square" etc.)

But it can also be a woman who sponges on a decent man.
In the Polish novel "Lalka" (= the doll) a woman agrees to marry a rich man because her family is in financial difficulties. The generous and honest man, although hopelessly in love, cannot bear this marriage - love affairs of his wife, her arrongance and contemptuousness - and finally commits suicide.

This novel is on the curriculum in Polish grammar or high schools, 19th century realism. I still remember the vexation of my teacher (a man) who said emotionally: "this woman was empty !" (= no soul, no spiritual depth, no character)

[duszek]

Emma Bovary was both: on the one hand she cheated on her husband Charles and on the other hand she was cheated on by her lover Rodolphe.

[reasonvemotion]

Madame Bovery must be a powerful film.

I will get it today, watch it and then discuss with you, as it could be a great example of this conversation.

[reasonvemotion]

I watched the film Madame Bovery today.

This eternal debt she maintained was quite alarming. I think that for me was more worriesome than her constant affairs. The husband was weak and wanted Emma to take charge and she in turn was a devil with the "dollars". I found this film quite disturbing, actually and my opinion of Emma? she was totally incapable of emotional depth or lasting involvement, be it her husband, daughter or the lovers. All in all quite depressing.

[duszek]

She wanted charm and romance in her life, like many women before and after her.

She wanted what I would rather call "melodrama", because Romantic in literature is full of dread and ugly: Frankenstein, vampires, demons, eerieness of all kinds, nightmares ...

"Crime it is unheard of,
Misses has killed Mister... "

The beginning of a Romantic ballad by our main national poet, unheard of outside of Poland, and probably it is better so.

Some men are very skillful in providing sweet melodrama and this gives them powerful trump cards.

I knew one French woman who needed romance in her life badly. She went to the cinema to see the film "Piano" five times in a row. She could not get enough of it.

[reasonvemotion]

She wanted charm and romance in her life.............................

irrespective of the cost to others.

Some men are very skillful in providing sweet melodrama and this gives them powerful trump cards.

Sweet melodrama sounds somewhat toxic

I knew one French woman who needed romance in her life badly. She went to the cinema to see the film "Piano" five times in a row. She could not get enough of it.

Have you every felt that way?

[duszek]

Yes, I felt that way a couple of times. And I have met people who did it too.

Emma should not have married Charles Bovary, Anna should not have married Karenin.
People often marry the wrong people and for wrong reasons.
This is a trap for both of them and a daily misery no matter how much you try to do the best of it.

[reasonvemotion]

A woman can only keep such a man if she is a player herself and there is a system of checks and balances between them.

and you also say

If there is a balance of mutual manipulation such a marriage of two inventful players can be rewarding and highly entertaining for both of the two, and there is no victim. It would be a win-win marriage.

then you come back to reality and say this

This is a trap for both of them and a daily misery no matter how much you try to do the best of it.

If a woman cannot manage an affair outside her marriage, to compensate for the lack of romanticism within it, is it not better to leave the marriage, be alone, start again, rather than seek solace with strangers. A dangerous past time. I am not saying this from a moral point of view, I am saying it from a "walk the tight rope" point of view and how vulnerable a woman becomes emotionally. Men can do this very well, but few women can have affairs and not become involved. Women may want romance men want sex. The last thing a man wants to hear, (if he is married also), after he "comes, is "I love you", I think he would prefer, "darling you were stupendous" or something like that. LOL Is this not so?

[duszek]

But if you really love someone then you are eager to say what the loved one wants to hear. And to do it generously and over-boardingly and adundantely, without any restreints.

So not just: "darling, you were stupendous" but a whole huge praise full of superlatives, in an enthousiastic voice, like a firework, until he lies on his back, disarmed, laughing, and ... begging you to stop.

This is advice from Caterpillar, the voracious personality type.