One quick thought…I wonder if it’s possible that the reason Tolstoy highlighted the shallow, uncaring responses to Ivan’s death was that Ivan, possibly, acted in the same manner in relation to others. Maybe Ivan is getting what he, in some way, deserved. Could this be a lesson from Tolstoy, something along the lines of one reaping what one sows? I guess we’ll find out soon…
I was just going to add a thought similar to yours.
Reading the next sections, Ivan comes across as a not-very-friendly or warm person, efficient and cold in his dealings with the world, or his professional connections, anyway. So, could be that his colleagues really had no warm and fuzzies about him, except for the one who went to his funeral. And so, they're reaction is business-like, calculating, because that was him, too.
Right. He is a jerk later when he gets passed over for a promotion. Also that stuff about feeling smug and satisfied in his work because he has the power to crush people, and actually feels magnanimous when he doesn’t. It’s like he has no inner compass pointing toward morality or compassion for humanity or for his family for that matter. He’s rather loveless.
Agreed he's rather loveless, but it seems that's how he was raised and socialized, so where would he get such an "inner compass" from? Also, we haven't got to the end of the story yet, and, given what George has said in his post above about Tolstoy choosing to highlight only certain aspects of the men's thoughts (on p. 41), I'm guessing Tolstoy has also chosen to highlight only certain aspects of Ivan I's thoughts as well. I don't really know, though. I have to confess I'm now feeling a bit confused about a whole bunch of things about this story in particular and about literature in general.
I don't know. Some people transcend their upbringing, backround, whatever and do acquire compass. But great comment Annemarie about literature. I'm with you on that, and think probably if it wasn't confusing it wouldn't attract us so much. Thinking confusion might be the same as mystery, here.
And, might literature's role be looking for and asking big questions, not necessarily answering them. ?
Yes, I guess some people do transcend. I wonder if human beings will ever figure out for sure how they do it--and I mean for "sure," not just with this or that theory of nature, nurture, or whatever. On the other hand, it might be better if we never know, I suppose. Thanks for the reminder about the benefits of confusion and of asking big questions vs answering them. I feel a bit more relaxed now. :)
The problem I see with "answers" is they become dogma, and the exploration, and wonder, is over. I think that's boring. But yeah, sometimes knowing a bit more wouldn't hurt:)
Some people definitely transcend their upbringings- circumstances- tragedies, hardships- I’ve been shocked a few times upon realising that some calm funny unembittered high achievers have come from abused hellish circumstances. I’ve thought it might’ve had something to do with innate intelligence. Intelligent people tend to be self aware and aware of the discomfort of others- which is a framework for general equality and kindness. On the other hand I’ve known successful, breathtakingly well read individuals who seem light hearted and expansive- only to find that they are irretrievably broken or dead inside- from their childhood.
I think with one parent believing 100% in a child’s goodness- a kid has a good chance of achieving happiness.
Also. Rare. But Some ppl just have happy constitutions- they wake up blissfully happy every day of their lives. I’ve studied one. Fascinating. But ultimately- there were times they shouldn’t have been happy with their own behaviour but still carried a beaming glow of goodness. When they’d lied all night the night before. Ha. There’s funny ppl about.
I think Tolstoy was critical of the uncaring attitude of bureaucrats in general. He does it in an even more pointed manner in his novel Resurrection that I am currently reading.
Perhaps he showed us this cold aspect of Ivan's collegues to better surprise us later on...with something different. I didn't read the rest so am just speculating. Perhaps he proceeds from the general context to the individual. Or maybe he believes that the instinct of survival would be the first to manifest: money. And the more noble, non selfish sentiments would occcur after that. Of course it's not like this for everybody, but here we're confronted with a particular public, the bureaucracy of 19th c. Russia; I suppose we can expect them to have rater a similar mentality to survive in this context.
I’m doing a slow read of war and peace (footnotes and tangents) Tolstoy’s view of people is witty and sarcastic. Watch the simple descriptions as you read. He reveals self importance and survival often in one sentence . He would have been fun to have a drink with. Although I think he might be off putting to the sensitive.
I'm doing a slow read of Anna Karenina - and his timelessness is really something - both the humor and the emotional read of people. I agree, he really would have been someone interesting to have a drink with.
Yes, how he presents both the self-importance and survival instinct is very compelling. With a few drinks in him, that would be fascinating! :-)!
I am also doing a Footnotes and Tangents slow read, Wolf Hall. The toughest part is holding off seeing the Wolf Hall series on Masterpiece. I could easily listen to Mark Rylance or Damian Lewis or Claire Foy read the dictionary.
Back in 2020, A Public Space hosted a group read-along of War and Peace with Liyun Li, who later published a book called Tolstoy Together with collected thoughts and discussions about the book. I don't know how far you're into W&P, but last year I reread it with the Yi book, and it was a wonderful co-read.
George, I agree it's possible that Tolstoy was bringing forward one of just many possible thoughts Ivan's colleagues had. But I have a slightly different take. It's important that these are Ivan's work colleagues and this conversation happens at work. In that context, yes, the natural and overwhelming thought is about the self. (The first thing you learn in the business world, as a group or company leader, is when you announce a difficult personnel or organizational change, people a) express or internalize shock, depending on the announcement and then b) quickly move to, what does this mean for me/my future?).
I think Tolstoy may be making a point about the dissonance between the amount of time we spend at work, most of the day, some of whom we take to be friends as well as colleagues. But that isn't the case. The place where we invest our time and energies has a different purpose and we fool ourselves into thinking the accomplishments are so magnificent. The satisfaction of where we work may be economic (extrinsic reward) but the value can only ever be intrinisic. The nature of one's employment in a company or bureaucracy makes it so, because that entity by design has it's own identity and purpose apart from human relations.
Not to be a suck-up, which clearly now having said that I'm going to be, but I think that is one aspect of stories like Ghoul that is so amazing. You set up the world in that (and other stories) so that it encompasses work, family, and home. It is all wrapped up, and it is because of that blurring that your characters DO have to process and think on multiple levels (to themselves and the reader). They get conflicted and have to parse out the different layers, which is the way we think often outside of work, and even in it. But in a hierarchical work/business setting, the ill fortune of others is naturally received first and foremost as: how do I benefit, or at least make sure I'm not worse off.
I would suggest that these days there are some families and homes (and other institutions, e.g., education) that are also very hierarchical, competitive, and business/work-like, however. And it's interesting how many businesses like to get their employees to think of their colleagues and bosses as "family."
I had a similar thought. If these men had been at home with the families or playing cards together when they got the news of his death they may have had very different responses. In the work environment, depending on how much of a snake pit it might be, will certainly color ones thinking. I like you final point, let's make sure this does not leave me worse off!!!
I think this has been stated already, but my sense about that chorus of excited and self important souls is that a landscape is being laid out as a foundation for how we'll later understand Ivan's agony as he is leaving this realm. The world of which he is a part is steeped in making gains, including a higher income, grabbing more prestige, and yes, Tolstoy was fairly obsessed with Dickens (I read somewhere that he used to travel with a large portrait of Dickens and would hang it in various rooms he would stay in), and the comparative scene that is coming to me is the one in which Scrooge is observing how he's being discussed after his death as various shopkeepers and villagers are dispersing his expensive belongings (curtains may have been one of these items, which we want to remember in a few chapters to come -- I'm trying hard not to inadvertently mess up here and spoil what's in store), and he's overcome with anguish and horror at what he perceives to be a callous disregard for his demise. It's also a reminder of his soon-to-be really underwhelming community legacy. But this means a lot to Scrooge.
And it means a whole helluva lot to Ivan, too. Ivan wants the love of his family to be sure, but he wants more than anything to have been respected by his peers, and these initial comments we're eavesdropping on reflect this same idea -- no respect, no legacy, just "all about me" as they volley the possibilities of future advancement. This is also one of my favorite stories of all time, and I just want to thank you again, George, for assigning it.
By the way, terrific quotes at the bottom of the post! (Especially yours....)
Yes! It was interesting because I read the first quote one way, not having scrolled down further, then returned later to read GS's quote and it shed new light on the first.
I'm now here for short story discussion, and discussion of quotes of the week.
I don't know Tolstoy the man well, but I don't think he had a high opinion of Russia's bureaucratic culture. I think that's part of the scene he's painting early on. A culture seemingly driven by externalities, positions, society's idea of decorum . He using a broad brush here. And he continues this through Parts 11 and 111 too, repeating over and over, though now more specific to Ivan, whose life, with a few hiccups, is lived pleasantly. in comfort, with propriety. We hear this repeated over and over and it made me a little sick, so much did it remind me of my Neo Puritan childhood in New England. Everything is an ACT, in deference to pursuit of "pleasant lightheadedness and decorum.
My first take not having read the rest of the story yet was that Tolstoy highlighted the selfish part of these characters to, 1) set the tone of the world (uncaring, cold) and 2) for some dark humor. It’s inherently funny that they all have the same reaction and that reaction has nothing to do with the deceased. It’s like a warning shot across the bow to let us know what it’s about.
Really enjoying this idea of streamlined thoughts. It reminds me of the cocktail party effect - the ability of the brain to focus on a single voice and filter out surrounding babble. It doesn't mean there isn't other noise (of regret, grief etc) but this is what Tolstoy wants us to hear. Love it.
I think this is very nicely framed, George, but I also think that is only one of two questions I'm asking about Tolstoy's portrayal of these people. One possibility is what you lay out, namely that Tolstoy knows perfectly well that these folks, like most of us most of the time, have multiple competing motives and ideas going on in their minds. So when he singles out their self-interest for emphasis, it makes all the sense in the world that we would ask your question: why does he make this choice?
But of course there is also another possibility. It might be the case that Tolstoy thinks people are really like this. That even if there might be some other thoughts in their heads, their self-interest is so dominant or overwhelming that it just drowns the other things out, as if they hadn't really been there in the first place. (His apparent universalization of the motive might lend credence to this possibility.) And if this is the case, we would ask a rather different question: is he right? (Or perhaps: why would he have thought this? But the former is the more interesting question.)
I should note that I write this as someone who has read only a very little Tolstoy and who does not remember a lot about the little he has read. So I don't have any particular opinion about which of these paths is the right one. But I do think they both need to be in our minds as possibilities while we read.
I agree with your possibility because I know Tolstoy hated judges and also I think we have to embrace the conceit that Tolstoy presents in order to have the correct frame for what follows in the story. I will say that this story hits harder after reading A Christmas Carol. Talk about a story with no one to root for!
Could you make the case that he's "right" in this case, whatever he's saying, because it suits the story, and that's all that matters. Not that he's "right" out in the big wide world.
Certainly you could make that case! (And you have been working to make it in your various comments here and last time.) But I still want to know--as a reader and as a human being--whether he thinks it's true, period, outside the story also, and, if so, whether he's right.
I get the feeling, from a lot of commenters, that writers of fiction (especially GREAT writers of fiction...) are generally supposed to offer us "truths about human nature", snapshots of what people really are like, in each description of them. But truths that are revealed in a story may be much harder to dig for (or may result from the patterns of interaction of the characters, or may only appear when the story reaches its end) than Tolstoy/narrator's choice of selfish thoughts and flippant attitudes might suppose. Great writers in particular don't tell us what to think, we have to work for it.
As we saw in the discussion of Chapter One, Tolstoy depicts Ivan's colleagues as pretty much unmoved by his death beyond thinking of the consequences in the sphere of work, and how bothersome the funeral will be. And Tolstoy/narrator clearly states on four occasions that people "always" react in this petty and self-centred way. (Brian Granger showed us the Russian text and told us that the word used was indeed "always" and not some milder variant.) That troubles us because it is evidently untrue. Does Tolstoy really think it's true? Surely not. So why is he saying it?
Well, it's the narrator who's saying it, and he's operating at a shift aside from Tolstoy. His stance towards the men in question is covertly satirical. We only have to look at the incidents in the chapter, the silly bowing and crossing, the pouf with the runaway springs, to be quite certain Tolstoy is not out to be realistic, but is, to use a vulgar expression, taking the piss out of his characters as a group (widow included). Probably because he has little respect for them. Possibly also because Ivan Ilyich belongs to this class himself... But wait and see.
So I'd come down on Tod's side, that this is "all in the story" and is not a statement about "truth" in the real world (though it may be commentary on the real world).
Such a good reminder that "Great writers in particular don't tell us what to think, we have to work for it." I've been reading Mircea Cartarescu's novel, Solenoid, over the past couple of months and he's certainly been making me work very hard indeed--and I mean this as the highest compliment to him. I think maybe some of my current confusion with DOII (as per my comment this evening to Tod above)--which I'm now thinking probably translates to my not "working for it" hard enough, even though I like to think I have been--has to do at least partly with the time and energy I'm spending on the Cartarescu. Interesting to consider how reading a couple or several texts at around the same time forms another type of "context" that can affect a) the reader and b) the reader's interpretation and understanding of the texts themselves.
Oh, I'm happy to wait and see, and I haven't drawn any conclusions, only asked questions. But I can only comment on what I've read so far.
As for whether the claim that people "always" act this way is evidently untrue--I think it's untrue, yes. But other people have thought it was true. People have disagreed with me right here in the comments, after all. If he thought it, Tolstoy would not have been the first person to do so. So I'm curious whether he did.
And the silly bowing and crossing and the pouf with the runaway springs--those things, I think, are in fact all too realistic. Funny and satirical, but very true to life. I couldn't agree that they show Tolstoy is not being realistic.
So I'm left with the question. And will read the next chunk soon!
I disagree here: A great writer writes to uncover human truth. Otherwise he couldn't truth. Even fairy tales are true, all depends on our age when we read them.
Or perhaps because these aspects are shameful and hidden from others; and Tolstoy, despising this social hypocrisy, especially in the bourgoisie around him, he shoots straight to the point in his descriptions; eg Karenin, the husband of Anna Karenina, just one of the same company.
Many people think “what’s in it for me?” when someone passes. Always has been this way, apparently. You want to put your finger on the pulse of humanity?” Read a Russian writer. (and George)
And we can make the small large - in a good or a bad way- in our minds by really examining what it means to be human today. How do we think about our "enemies." Do we give them too much power, to hold our thoughts? Or do we forget that they too have fears and self-doubts? And allow ourselves a little sympathy. How do we behave when we are afraid and doubt-filled? I think this is what T was getting at. Both sections of this story show the men and women he writes about in a most unsympathetic light. Selfish, thoughtless, careless, swayed by material gains. Enough to make me scream 3 days if I should find myself dying in this present world!
I like the anaogy of several trains of thought simultaneously running down several different tracks. I mostly aggree that we can normaly only devote our concious attentention to one train at a time ~but~ I've met a few folks over the years that give off a feeling of having the abilty to run 3 or 4 trains of thought effectively & simultaneously. I don't know if that's for real but it sure appears like it.
During one conversation? Like, you're sitting down to dinner with someone, and you get the sense - based on what they mention - that these simultaneous tracks of thought are running through their mind?
It may sound like I am being facetious, or ironic, but I really am interested.
Also, maybe these issues had some connection that only those folks could see. There is a story - is it Edgar Allan Poe? Two guys (Dupin?) are walking down a street, one makes an offhand comment about something...then a long period passes, the two guys continue in silence down the street, and half an hour later one of the guys answers a question the other never seemed to ask. Before he can catch himself, the guy resumes the conversation - then stops when he realizes his friend seemed to read his mind. Maybe it was a bit like that.
One quick thought…I wonder if it’s possible that the reason Tolstoy highlighted the shallow, uncaring responses to Ivan’s death was that Ivan, possibly, acted in the same manner in relation to others. Maybe Ivan is getting what he, in some way, deserved. Could this be a lesson from Tolstoy, something along the lines of one reaping what one sows? I guess we’ll find out soon…
I was just going to add a thought similar to yours.
Reading the next sections, Ivan comes across as a not-very-friendly or warm person, efficient and cold in his dealings with the world, or his professional connections, anyway. So, could be that his colleagues really had no warm and fuzzies about him, except for the one who went to his funeral. And so, they're reaction is business-like, calculating, because that was him, too.
Right. He is a jerk later when he gets passed over for a promotion. Also that stuff about feeling smug and satisfied in his work because he has the power to crush people, and actually feels magnanimous when he doesn’t. It’s like he has no inner compass pointing toward morality or compassion for humanity or for his family for that matter. He’s rather loveless.
Agreed he's rather loveless, but it seems that's how he was raised and socialized, so where would he get such an "inner compass" from? Also, we haven't got to the end of the story yet, and, given what George has said in his post above about Tolstoy choosing to highlight only certain aspects of the men's thoughts (on p. 41), I'm guessing Tolstoy has also chosen to highlight only certain aspects of Ivan I's thoughts as well. I don't really know, though. I have to confess I'm now feeling a bit confused about a whole bunch of things about this story in particular and about literature in general.
I don't know. Some people transcend their upbringing, backround, whatever and do acquire compass. But great comment Annemarie about literature. I'm with you on that, and think probably if it wasn't confusing it wouldn't attract us so much. Thinking confusion might be the same as mystery, here.
And, might literature's role be looking for and asking big questions, not necessarily answering them. ?
Yes, I guess some people do transcend. I wonder if human beings will ever figure out for sure how they do it--and I mean for "sure," not just with this or that theory of nature, nurture, or whatever. On the other hand, it might be better if we never know, I suppose. Thanks for the reminder about the benefits of confusion and of asking big questions vs answering them. I feel a bit more relaxed now. :)
The problem I see with "answers" is they become dogma, and the exploration, and wonder, is over. I think that's boring. But yeah, sometimes knowing a bit more wouldn't hurt:)
Some people definitely transcend their upbringings- circumstances- tragedies, hardships- I’ve been shocked a few times upon realising that some calm funny unembittered high achievers have come from abused hellish circumstances. I’ve thought it might’ve had something to do with innate intelligence. Intelligent people tend to be self aware and aware of the discomfort of others- which is a framework for general equality and kindness. On the other hand I’ve known successful, breathtakingly well read individuals who seem light hearted and expansive- only to find that they are irretrievably broken or dead inside- from their childhood.
I think with one parent believing 100% in a child’s goodness- a kid has a good chance of achieving happiness.
Also. Rare. But Some ppl just have happy constitutions- they wake up blissfully happy every day of their lives. I’ve studied one. Fascinating. But ultimately- there were times they shouldn’t have been happy with their own behaviour but still carried a beaming glow of goodness. When they’d lied all night the night before. Ha. There’s funny ppl about.
I think Tolstoy was critical of the uncaring attitude of bureaucrats in general. He does it in an even more pointed manner in his novel Resurrection that I am currently reading.
Yes, I thought that too and think it will be interesting to find out exactly what kind of man Ivan was in his dealings with others.
What a perfect answer, yes, people sympathize accordingly to the person.. i never thought of that.
Perhaps he showed us this cold aspect of Ivan's collegues to better surprise us later on...with something different. I didn't read the rest so am just speculating. Perhaps he proceeds from the general context to the individual. Or maybe he believes that the instinct of survival would be the first to manifest: money. And the more noble, non selfish sentiments would occcur after that. Of course it's not like this for everybody, but here we're confronted with a particular public, the bureaucracy of 19th c. Russia; I suppose we can expect them to have rater a similar mentality to survive in this context.
After reading many comments, I am also coming to the same conclusion that Ivan is just getting back what he himself had carved out for himself.
I’m doing a slow read of war and peace (footnotes and tangents) Tolstoy’s view of people is witty and sarcastic. Watch the simple descriptions as you read. He reveals self importance and survival often in one sentence . He would have been fun to have a drink with. Although I think he might be off putting to the sensitive.
I'm doing a slow read of Anna Karenina - and his timelessness is really something - both the humor and the emotional read of people. I agree, he really would have been someone interesting to have a drink with.
Anyone in Seattle? Let’s meet for a drink!
I’m in the Seattle area! Would love to meet up for a drink! Let’s do it!
I'll be in Seattle 18-23rd. think the 21st is free
Yes, how he presents both the self-importance and survival instinct is very compelling. With a few drinks in him, that would be fascinating! :-)!
I am also doing a Footnotes and Tangents slow read, Wolf Hall. The toughest part is holding off seeing the Wolf Hall series on Masterpiece. I could easily listen to Mark Rylance or Damian Lewis or Claire Foy read the dictionary.
I've had similar thoughts about all the writers we've looked at in SC.
Back in 2020, A Public Space hosted a group read-along of War and Peace with Liyun Li, who later published a book called Tolstoy Together with collected thoughts and discussions about the book. I don't know how far you're into W&P, but last year I reread it with the Yi book, and it was a wonderful co-read.
George, I agree it's possible that Tolstoy was bringing forward one of just many possible thoughts Ivan's colleagues had. But I have a slightly different take. It's important that these are Ivan's work colleagues and this conversation happens at work. In that context, yes, the natural and overwhelming thought is about the self. (The first thing you learn in the business world, as a group or company leader, is when you announce a difficult personnel or organizational change, people a) express or internalize shock, depending on the announcement and then b) quickly move to, what does this mean for me/my future?).
I think Tolstoy may be making a point about the dissonance between the amount of time we spend at work, most of the day, some of whom we take to be friends as well as colleagues. But that isn't the case. The place where we invest our time and energies has a different purpose and we fool ourselves into thinking the accomplishments are so magnificent. The satisfaction of where we work may be economic (extrinsic reward) but the value can only ever be intrinisic. The nature of one's employment in a company or bureaucracy makes it so, because that entity by design has it's own identity and purpose apart from human relations.
Not to be a suck-up, which clearly now having said that I'm going to be, but I think that is one aspect of stories like Ghoul that is so amazing. You set up the world in that (and other stories) so that it encompasses work, family, and home. It is all wrapped up, and it is because of that blurring that your characters DO have to process and think on multiple levels (to themselves and the reader). They get conflicted and have to parse out the different layers, which is the way we think often outside of work, and even in it. But in a hierarchical work/business setting, the ill fortune of others is naturally received first and foremost as: how do I benefit, or at least make sure I'm not worse off.
I would suggest that these days there are some families and homes (and other institutions, e.g., education) that are also very hierarchical, competitive, and business/work-like, however. And it's interesting how many businesses like to get their employees to think of their colleagues and bosses as "family."
I had a similar thought. If these men had been at home with the families or playing cards together when they got the news of his death they may have had very different responses. In the work environment, depending on how much of a snake pit it might be, will certainly color ones thinking. I like you final point, let's make sure this does not leave me worse off!!!
OR if they were just meditating...how diferent their feelings would have been.
A human being is not simple and the possibilities are endless.
I think this has been stated already, but my sense about that chorus of excited and self important souls is that a landscape is being laid out as a foundation for how we'll later understand Ivan's agony as he is leaving this realm. The world of which he is a part is steeped in making gains, including a higher income, grabbing more prestige, and yes, Tolstoy was fairly obsessed with Dickens (I read somewhere that he used to travel with a large portrait of Dickens and would hang it in various rooms he would stay in), and the comparative scene that is coming to me is the one in which Scrooge is observing how he's being discussed after his death as various shopkeepers and villagers are dispersing his expensive belongings (curtains may have been one of these items, which we want to remember in a few chapters to come -- I'm trying hard not to inadvertently mess up here and spoil what's in store), and he's overcome with anguish and horror at what he perceives to be a callous disregard for his demise. It's also a reminder of his soon-to-be really underwhelming community legacy. But this means a lot to Scrooge.
And it means a whole helluva lot to Ivan, too. Ivan wants the love of his family to be sure, but he wants more than anything to have been respected by his peers, and these initial comments we're eavesdropping on reflect this same idea -- no respect, no legacy, just "all about me" as they volley the possibilities of future advancement. This is also one of my favorite stories of all time, and I just want to thank you again, George, for assigning it.
By the way, terrific quotes at the bottom of the post! (Especially yours....)
Quotes at the end of this post are fabulous.
Yes! It was interesting because I read the first quote one way, not having scrolled down further, then returned later to read GS's quote and it shed new light on the first.
I'm now here for short story discussion, and discussion of quotes of the week.
It’d be funny to spend as much time breaking down quotes! “Quote Club.”
I don't know Tolstoy the man well, but I don't think he had a high opinion of Russia's bureaucratic culture. I think that's part of the scene he's painting early on. A culture seemingly driven by externalities, positions, society's idea of decorum . He using a broad brush here. And he continues this through Parts 11 and 111 too, repeating over and over, though now more specific to Ivan, whose life, with a few hiccups, is lived pleasantly. in comfort, with propriety. We hear this repeated over and over and it made me a little sick, so much did it remind me of my Neo Puritan childhood in New England. Everything is an ACT, in deference to pursuit of "pleasant lightheadedness and decorum.
Yes he mocked bureaucrats.
But in a manner not to be offensive
You mean from a distance, without involvement; That makes it most powerful.
Probably prudent not to be too offensive, though between the lines seems clear enough.
My first take not having read the rest of the story yet was that Tolstoy highlighted the selfish part of these characters to, 1) set the tone of the world (uncaring, cold) and 2) for some dark humor. It’s inherently funny that they all have the same reaction and that reaction has nothing to do with the deceased. It’s like a warning shot across the bow to let us know what it’s about.
Really enjoying this idea of streamlined thoughts. It reminds me of the cocktail party effect - the ability of the brain to focus on a single voice and filter out surrounding babble. It doesn't mean there isn't other noise (of regret, grief etc) but this is what Tolstoy wants us to hear. Love it.
Nice analogy :)
I think this is very nicely framed, George, but I also think that is only one of two questions I'm asking about Tolstoy's portrayal of these people. One possibility is what you lay out, namely that Tolstoy knows perfectly well that these folks, like most of us most of the time, have multiple competing motives and ideas going on in their minds. So when he singles out their self-interest for emphasis, it makes all the sense in the world that we would ask your question: why does he make this choice?
But of course there is also another possibility. It might be the case that Tolstoy thinks people are really like this. That even if there might be some other thoughts in their heads, their self-interest is so dominant or overwhelming that it just drowns the other things out, as if they hadn't really been there in the first place. (His apparent universalization of the motive might lend credence to this possibility.) And if this is the case, we would ask a rather different question: is he right? (Or perhaps: why would he have thought this? But the former is the more interesting question.)
I should note that I write this as someone who has read only a very little Tolstoy and who does not remember a lot about the little he has read. So I don't have any particular opinion about which of these paths is the right one. But I do think they both need to be in our minds as possibilities while we read.
I agree with your possibility because I know Tolstoy hated judges and also I think we have to embrace the conceit that Tolstoy presents in order to have the correct frame for what follows in the story. I will say that this story hits harder after reading A Christmas Carol. Talk about a story with no one to root for!
Could you make the case that he's "right" in this case, whatever he's saying, because it suits the story, and that's all that matters. Not that he's "right" out in the big wide world.
Certainly you could make that case! (And you have been working to make it in your various comments here and last time.) But I still want to know--as a reader and as a human being--whether he thinks it's true, period, outside the story also, and, if so, whether he's right.
I get the feeling, from a lot of commenters, that writers of fiction (especially GREAT writers of fiction...) are generally supposed to offer us "truths about human nature", snapshots of what people really are like, in each description of them. But truths that are revealed in a story may be much harder to dig for (or may result from the patterns of interaction of the characters, or may only appear when the story reaches its end) than Tolstoy/narrator's choice of selfish thoughts and flippant attitudes might suppose. Great writers in particular don't tell us what to think, we have to work for it.
As we saw in the discussion of Chapter One, Tolstoy depicts Ivan's colleagues as pretty much unmoved by his death beyond thinking of the consequences in the sphere of work, and how bothersome the funeral will be. And Tolstoy/narrator clearly states on four occasions that people "always" react in this petty and self-centred way. (Brian Granger showed us the Russian text and told us that the word used was indeed "always" and not some milder variant.) That troubles us because it is evidently untrue. Does Tolstoy really think it's true? Surely not. So why is he saying it?
Well, it's the narrator who's saying it, and he's operating at a shift aside from Tolstoy. His stance towards the men in question is covertly satirical. We only have to look at the incidents in the chapter, the silly bowing and crossing, the pouf with the runaway springs, to be quite certain Tolstoy is not out to be realistic, but is, to use a vulgar expression, taking the piss out of his characters as a group (widow included). Probably because he has little respect for them. Possibly also because Ivan Ilyich belongs to this class himself... But wait and see.
So I'd come down on Tod's side, that this is "all in the story" and is not a statement about "truth" in the real world (though it may be commentary on the real world).
Such a good reminder that "Great writers in particular don't tell us what to think, we have to work for it." I've been reading Mircea Cartarescu's novel, Solenoid, over the past couple of months and he's certainly been making me work very hard indeed--and I mean this as the highest compliment to him. I think maybe some of my current confusion with DOII (as per my comment this evening to Tod above)--which I'm now thinking probably translates to my not "working for it" hard enough, even though I like to think I have been--has to do at least partly with the time and energy I'm spending on the Cartarescu. Interesting to consider how reading a couple or several texts at around the same time forms another type of "context" that can affect a) the reader and b) the reader's interpretation and understanding of the texts themselves.
I should add whatever "the texts themselves" means.
Oh, I'm happy to wait and see, and I haven't drawn any conclusions, only asked questions. But I can only comment on what I've read so far.
As for whether the claim that people "always" act this way is evidently untrue--I think it's untrue, yes. But other people have thought it was true. People have disagreed with me right here in the comments, after all. If he thought it, Tolstoy would not have been the first person to do so. So I'm curious whether he did.
And the silly bowing and crossing and the pouf with the runaway springs--those things, I think, are in fact all too realistic. Funny and satirical, but very true to life. I couldn't agree that they show Tolstoy is not being realistic.
So I'm left with the question. And will read the next chunk soon!
I disagree here: A great writer writes to uncover human truth. Otherwise he couldn't truth. Even fairy tales are true, all depends on our age when we read them.
Ah okay. You are asking bigger questions of the story , and perhaps of all stories than I do Peter.
Or perhaps because these aspects are shameful and hidden from others; and Tolstoy, despising this social hypocrisy, especially in the bourgoisie around him, he shoots straight to the point in his descriptions; eg Karenin, the husband of Anna Karenina, just one of the same company.
Many people think “what’s in it for me?” when someone passes. Always has been this way, apparently. You want to put your finger on the pulse of humanity?” Read a Russian writer. (and George)
Love all who read this from Canada 💕
Vive le Canada!
The two quotes at the end are the BEST! They're going in my journal!
I just copied them into mine!
And we can make the small large - in a good or a bad way- in our minds by really examining what it means to be human today. How do we think about our "enemies." Do we give them too much power, to hold our thoughts? Or do we forget that they too have fears and self-doubts? And allow ourselves a little sympathy. How do we behave when we are afraid and doubt-filled? I think this is what T was getting at. Both sections of this story show the men and women he writes about in a most unsympathetic light. Selfish, thoughtless, careless, swayed by material gains. Enough to make me scream 3 days if I should find myself dying in this present world!
This story is really so modern. Swap out bridge for pickleball. 🤣🤣
I think Tolstoy is cultivating our sensitivity in a specific direction so that he can guide us to a particular experience later in the story.
I like the anaogy of several trains of thought simultaneously running down several different tracks. I mostly aggree that we can normaly only devote our concious attentention to one train at a time ~but~ I've met a few folks over the years that give off a feeling of having the abilty to run 3 or 4 trains of thought effectively & simultaneously. I don't know if that's for real but it sure appears like it.
What did that look like? Do you mean that they can accept contradictions?
Not so much that as it was the feeling those individuals were giving serious consideration to several unrelated issues simultaneously
During one conversation? Like, you're sitting down to dinner with someone, and you get the sense - based on what they mention - that these simultaneous tracks of thought are running through their mind?
It may sound like I am being facetious, or ironic, but I really am interested.
Also, maybe these issues had some connection that only those folks could see. There is a story - is it Edgar Allan Poe? Two guys (Dupin?) are walking down a street, one makes an offhand comment about something...then a long period passes, the two guys continue in silence down the street, and half an hour later one of the guys answers a question the other never seemed to ask. Before he can catch himself, the guy resumes the conversation - then stops when he realizes his friend seemed to read his mind. Maybe it was a bit like that.