Resurrection (Oxford World's Classics) [Paperback]

This has been on my shelf for a number of years and only recently have I gotten around to reading it. I've read all of Tolstoy with the exception of Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth and a few selections from Tolstoy: Tales of Courage and Conflict; so I know his style as well as anyone can hope who doesn't read or speak the Russian language or have a Ph.D. in Russian Literature. I think--before I get farther--I would recommend the Rosemary Edmonds translation. It is very similar to Maude's, but flows much better. After I finished reading this book, I read a very effusive praising of the opening paragraph from someone fluent in both English and Russian. I hadn't given much thought to the opening and even found it a bit bungled, but this made me compare the translation I had read with a few others, and that was a good thing. In Maude's translation it is broken in such a stilted manner that it loses coherence by a too faithful, slightly word-for-word translation that seems constantly underfoot (I really dislike the trend of Peaverizing currently sweeping the literary world by storm, the most ridiculous example being the Proust Peaverizing by Penguin). I know Tolstoy uses different techniques and his writing and one of those was to mimic poor or sloppy writing, but the chance of ever rendering into English things that have no syntactic equivalent is simply a stubborn indulgence on the translator's part. But the first paragraph is remarkable because it's essentially a distillation of the novel, and humanity itself if you take the novel's message to heart. Now if you look at the Edmonds' translation of the first paragraph you get a specific idea (in a sweeping establishing shot a la Dickens, a personal favorite of Tolstoy's by the way) of the scene as a unified whole with those pieces of late-life Tolstoy cynicism common to his later work smeared into the edges. Perhaps the staccato is missing but the entire thrust is more clearly understood. Again (to labor the point) look at the last scene between Nekhlyudov and Maslova. It's brutally concise, and considering the novel consistently centers around Nekhlydov's relationship to her, it should be emotionally resonant even in its brevity. Tolstoy never shied away from rendering his character's inner thoughts or feelings, he is perhaps the strongest novelist in this aspect, so the scene though brief and filled with ineffable thoughts from both characters is very important to the novel and what follows. This scene (and the one preceding it involving the General's daughter) read much better in the Edmonds translation.

The structure of the book is much like Gogol's Dead Souls with Nekhlydov as a Chichikovian wanderer through the different strata of Russian society. He might have more of a connection to these scenes than the much slighter and unctious Chichokov, who sometimes seems an inert fixture before all the provincial pageantry Gogol conjures up. Funny enough, the initial scenes of Nekhlyudov's dealings within the aristocratic society are clipped and vaguely trenchant. Remarkable for the fact that Tolstoy rarely approached these scenes and others with such a heavy hand, so it's a little forced and unnatural, a quality not usually found in any of Tolstoy's work. Perhaps it was his intention to assist the reader in making the transition that Nekhlydov is making as he becomes more alienated and disgusted by that high society. This aspect is probably what has given the novel it's poor reputation among Tolstoy admirers.

There are parts of this novel that you see very distinctly the two conflicting aspects of Tolstoy's personality, encapsulated before in the contrasting duality that is Anna and Levin in Anna Karenina. Probably less effective here in this novel than ever before as full reign is given to the sententious idealist, the Levin if you will. Though if you've read stories from the Tales of Courage you may be accustomed to the christian pedagogy overtook his work as he approached death.

Fortunately there are enough scenes and descriptions by the Master for a pleasing read, so I don't think this book is entirely devoid of merit; and as a book that is the last substantial contribution of one of the great 19th century authors it should be considered essential reading (Hadji Murad is actually his last work, fittingly, it's more novella than novel, a swan song to the artistic, aesthetic side that was all but squeezed out of this novel by excessive moralizing). I believe the resentments readers have is that they are denied entrance into those splendid drawing rooms of the rich, always a supreme treat of Tolstoy's then and today. But if you like Zola-type earthiness some of the prison scenes, particularly the early scene in the women's prison and the later ones that center around a group of political prisoners, are to me more affirmation of his writing prowess. Actually, I think he's doing Zola one better than Zola.

Fundamentally, this is an existential book about the human condition. You feel and sometimes identify with Nekhlyudov (I would think anyone who reads this is a thoughtful, moral person like Nekhlyudov) and Tolstoy shows that it's easier said than done, trying to make this world a better place, somehow beyond our power. But he has chosen to illustrate that question in this novel, quite well I think, and it's one we will eternally ask ourselves. The "why" of life.

So if you want a novel with a sociological power-train, try it out. The fact it's Tolstoy is a blessing. You won't particularly like Nekhlyudov, but you pity him and sympathize with struggle. Overall, the realm of Dostoevsky (ideas, philosophies, cruxes as novels) as tried on by Tolstoy. Interesting and compelling nonetheless.

Tolstoy's third and last novel is about resurrection from moral and spiritual death to an entirely different and improved new life. In its closing pages, Dmitri Nekhlyudov arrives at an understanding of what he sees as the correct - indeed, the only acceptable - approach to life. Referring to St Matthew's Gospel, the Sermon on the Mount in particular, he formulates five rules for living in peace and harmony with God, his fellow beings, other creatures, the earth, and himself.

Nekhlyudov's position is mirrored by that of Katerina Maslova, though the commencement of her new life does not follow a religious awakening. For both Nekhlyudov and Katerina, the new beginning is the culmination of a long and hard journey. Katerina is of peasant stock; hence her ability, in Tolstoy's view, to work out her own, albeit imperfect, salvation. Being of aristocratic birth and family, Nekhlyudov could never do that, despite sincere efforts to disperse his inheritance, relate to the common people at a level with which they feel comfortable, and his outrage at the ways in which organized society exploits and ultimately destroys them.

Tolstoy completed Resurrection in a hurry to raise money to help a group of religious dissenters migrate to Canada. The hurry may explain why the scale of the book is not closer to that of Anna Karenina, with more fully worked-out personal relationships and the transmission of ideas through dialogue rather than narrative. Failure on the latter is noticeable many times; such as when we are told Nekhlyudov's thoughts on a matter under discussion at a high society dinner, and then simply, "Nekhlyudov said what he had been thinking". A great disappointment given that verbal debate is such a strong feature of Tolstoy's earlier novels.

But there are many touching vignettes, such as that of the peasant, Taras Birukov. Immediately following her arranged marriage, his young wife was so unhappy she attempted to poison him and his parents. She has now grown to love him, and he remains at her side as she is transported to Siberia.

The book relates a great many injustices done to both criminal and political prisoners, to the lower classes in general, and to women. It's a document of its time, yet for as long as exploitation and injustice abound, it will remain of contemporary relevance. Resurrection is in any case a must for those who have already read and loved Tolstoy's earlier works.

Louise Maude's translation was first published in 1916, but it has been updated and is adequate. The introduction by Richard Gustafson is helpful, as are his notes and list of characters. Tony Briggs' introduction to the 2009 Penguin edition is also worth reading. The two introductions and that of Rosemary Edmonds to the 2004 Penguin edition can be compared using Amazon's Look Inside feature, but all are best read after the novel, not before.

I kept waiting for Tolstoy to get off the soapbox, but it never happened. The writing is classic, and the characterization very easy to follow. But the payoff was lacking -- it seemed to me that the book was more interested in making a point (which I think was Tolstoy's object anyway) than actually having a book that provides a true novel experience. I suppose my review expresses my disappointment, as Tolstoy is one of my all-time favorite writers.