Hi Allycat! This is my second time reading this paper and I love it even more. Also, I adored your presentation.
First, I loved your thesis statement, per usual. "In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy uses the dual plotline, religiously charged language, and a philosophical approach to assert that the hedonistic pursuit of happiness ultimately results in unforgiving consequences for women. It is only through the repression of these desires that women can be secure, revealing that society only values the happiness of women when it conforms to their archetypal roles." I think that it not only addressed the complexity and social commentary within Tolstoy's work, but it also outlined the essay of support that was to follow. It perfectly demonstrates what should be included in a thesis statement: the acknowledgment of the author's style and literary devices, and how these contribute to larger themes.
Second, I enjoyed your analysis on Tolstoy's view of women through his ambiguous treatment of his heroine, Anna. I liked how you pointed out how there was very admiring, God-like diction surrounding her (grace, beauty, truthfulness (Tolstoy 700)), yet he almost justified the actions of society against her after her adulterous actions. I also liked how you pointed out the fact that she killed herself at the end of the novel implies that Tolstoy finds it impossible for women to be empowered in society or achieve the same status as men.
Finally, I think one of the most helpful things in your paper was its incorporation of uncommon literary devices and terms that will come in very handy on the AP Test, but also, obviously, contributed to the work on a larger scale. I like how you addressed how comedies weren't necessarily funny but rather about the rise in fortune of an "average" character, how In excelsis was a third person omniscient story telling, Anagnorisis was a moment of clairvoyant insight, the Hamartia was a fatal flaw, the Soteriology was things related with religion and salvation, and Peripeteia was a plot reversal amongst others.
Dear Ally, Sigh, this is the second time I'm typing this because in the middle of typing the my comment the page randomly refreshed and I'm sad. I always thought Anna Karenina was a romantic love story, but you have proven me very, very wrong. But you proved it very beautifully so it's ok :). I loved how you began the paper with the story of Emma Sulkowicz, which introduced all the issues hidden away in Anna Karenina straight away, in a poignant and meaningful style. It is good to see that Anna Karenina is still so relevant but also sad to see that we are still struggling with the same issues of misogyny and double standards today. I also loved how you analyzed the one meeting of Levin and Anna so in-depthly. In the perfect example of an argument, you gave the concession that Anna gave other people, like Levin, the illusion that she was moral and that she was good, but in reality, she was purposefully seeking out to entice them for the sake of her own selfishness and esteem. That put it in a way that I could see clearly the "promiscuous" side of her. I also like the way you describe Tolstoy almost as if he was a character himself in the novel, the "god" who delivers out his justice and wrath on the characters. I thought it was a very astute observation. The "vengeance is mind; I will repay" epigraph now makes a lot of sense and is slightly creepy, in a good way though. I guess my last thoughts would be on the double standards that you saw in the novel, because I think your thesis that the "hedonistic pursuit of happiness" leads to doom could be applied to both men and women. I just wish I could see a little more evidence of the double standard. I know you contrasted Anna with Levin, but I'm not sure I see the "hedonistic" side of Levin's pursuit since you did describe how Tolstoy venerated his character. That it is all. Your paper was very enlightening and interesting. Sincerely, Tina
Hi Allycat!
ReplyDeleteThis is my second time reading this paper and I love it even more. Also, I adored your presentation.
First, I loved your thesis statement, per usual. "In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy uses the dual plotline, religiously charged language, and a philosophical approach to assert that the hedonistic pursuit of happiness ultimately results in unforgiving consequences for women. It is only through the repression of these desires that women can be secure, revealing that society only values the happiness of women when it conforms to their archetypal roles." I think that it not only addressed the complexity and social commentary within Tolstoy's work, but it also outlined the essay of support that was to follow. It perfectly demonstrates what should be included in a thesis statement: the acknowledgment of the author's style and literary devices, and how these contribute to larger themes.
Second, I enjoyed your analysis on Tolstoy's view of women through his ambiguous treatment of his heroine, Anna. I liked how you pointed out how there was very admiring, God-like diction surrounding her (grace, beauty, truthfulness (Tolstoy 700)), yet he almost justified the actions of society against her after her adulterous actions. I also liked how you pointed out the fact that she killed herself at the end of the novel implies that Tolstoy finds it impossible for women to be empowered in society or achieve the same status as men.
Finally, I think one of the most helpful things in your paper was its incorporation of uncommon literary devices and terms that will come in very handy on the AP Test, but also, obviously, contributed to the work on a larger scale. I like how you addressed how comedies weren't necessarily funny but rather about the rise in fortune of an "average" character, how In excelsis was a third person omniscient story telling, Anagnorisis was a moment of clairvoyant insight, the Hamartia was a fatal flaw, the Soteriology was things related with religion and salvation, and Peripeteia was a plot reversal amongst others.
Dear Ally,
ReplyDeleteSigh, this is the second time I'm typing this because in the middle of typing the my comment the page randomly refreshed and I'm sad.
I always thought Anna Karenina was a romantic love story, but you have proven me very, very wrong. But you proved it very beautifully so it's ok :).
I loved how you began the paper with the story of Emma Sulkowicz, which introduced all the issues hidden away in Anna Karenina straight away, in a poignant and meaningful style. It is good to see that Anna Karenina is still so relevant but also sad to see that we are still struggling with the same issues of misogyny and double standards today. I also loved how you analyzed the one meeting of Levin and Anna so in-depthly. In the perfect example of an argument, you gave the concession that Anna gave other people, like Levin, the illusion that she was moral and that she was good, but in reality, she was purposefully seeking out to entice them for the sake of her own selfishness and esteem. That put it in a way that I could see clearly the "promiscuous" side of her. I also like the way you describe Tolstoy almost as if he was a character himself in the novel, the "god" who delivers out his justice and wrath on the characters. I thought it was a very astute observation. The "vengeance is mind; I will repay" epigraph now makes a lot of sense and is slightly creepy, in a good way though.
I guess my last thoughts would be on the double standards that you saw in the novel, because I think your thesis that the "hedonistic pursuit of happiness" leads to doom could be applied to both men and women. I just wish I could see a little more evidence of the double standard. I know you contrasted Anna with Levin, but I'm not sure I see the "hedonistic" side of Levin's pursuit since you did describe how Tolstoy venerated his character. That it is all. Your paper was very enlightening and interesting.
Sincerely,
Tina