Resurrection

As the editor of Tolstoy’s Resurrection points out, Tolstoy published this novel late in life, and did so for the money. He had long given up writing, lived as a simple peasant like existence, and gave away the royalties to his books. Resurrection was written, or more correctly updated for publication from an older manuscript to support the emigration of a “heretic” Russian religious sect to Canada.Hence Resurrection, definitely a Tolstoy production, is a late work. The mastery of the form of the novel that we find in War and Peace and Anna Karenina is not present in this book. Yet despite this, Resurrection is a fascinating cluttered, confusing;novel; it is full of long ruminations on human nature, God, and government. So intense are these debates, that they are appealing. This dark vision of Russia this novel provides is unflinching. In its depictions of all social ills, corruption, crime, avarice, vice, economic injustice, indifference and inhumanity, the reader can see the roots of the Russian Revolution. The society of Resurrection could not continue as it was without a bloody upheaval. It was simply too hopeless and dark a place .So I imagine an older, shaggy Tolstoy, brimming with rage over the conditions in Russia, more than slightly misanthropic as a result, pouring out his social and religious theories and ideas while composing this novel. If this is kept in mind, then reading this novel becomes less of a chore and more of a delight. Here was an author with nothing more to prove; he used this novel for his social propaganda, with rich results.

The criticisms of this novel are largely misdirected. There are no more digressions or polemical passages than there are in War and Peace which, if one were to delete all of the pontification and historiography and theological interpretation, would probably be half as long as it is. The novel is inferior to War and Peace and Anna Karenina primarily because it lacks the laser precision those novels have of penetration into the souls of a variety of characters. Tolstoy is God in those novels, within and without all of the characters. In Resurrection, he has become enamored of his role as prophet and, therefore, feels he has the license and duty to present his, Tolstoy's, philosophy as the obvious rectification of the characters' moral and societal dilemmas. On the positive side, however, Resurrection, like its great predecessors, has a prose style that flows like a mountain stream. This quality remains apparent throughout various translations, like a composer's unerring gift for melody. The novel is worth reading if one has already read and admired War and Peace and Anna Karenina and some of the stories. The non-Tolstoy fan would probably wonder why this windbag of an author is being accorded the status of a titan. Henry James described War and Peace as a 'loose, baggy monster' and so it is according to his very precise criteria for crafted fiction. He would probably see Resurrection as a somewhat smaller, less baggy, less monstrous creature. The Tolstoyan stream flows where it will, however, disregarding the dictates of Henry James or any other literary theoretician. There is brilliance and beauty and one appreciates it most when one simply enjoys the journey.

Far from Alexei Konstantovich Tolstoi's best work. There is some conflict that has the reader at dual viewpoints,almost producing a dialectical thought, but much less than might be experienced in War and Peace or Anna Karenina.The hero here has a rather rapid conversion, perhaps a bit too dramatic by today's standards and subsequently turns his life upside down to the great frustration of those of his general current society. A strong point of Tolstoi is where he can have the reader sense the arguments of conflicting characters, such as Bolkonski and Bezukhov. Here few such points of Philosophical contest are seen or experienced with any equality. Perhaps the meeting of Prince Nekhyludov and his Brother-in-Law and Sister comes close and that of his former victim to a much lesser degree. The ability to have some give and take between points make the more famous works seem less preachy, this work having much more the inferiority of form for its general predictability. Some detours are a bit surprising, but even these are more of a detour of form than of some clear constructive purpose for plot progression. Many such episodes appear as digressions more than of clear purpose.

This is difficult to read quickly. It is densely written, tightly packed prose. But it is fantastic. Tolstoy weaves narrative with profound comment seamlessly

Not the greatest of Tolstoy's novels, and, indeed, it was written towards the end of his life when he was much older, but still retains that flavour of genius and narrative guile that make his books wonderful to read. It has divided the critics in fact but overall I enjoyed it with his deep moral residue of life's hardships and inequalities which makes one think so much of Dickens. If you're new to Tolstoy this would be a good place to start.

Tolstoy at his very best Tolstoy considered this was one of his best booksGood insite into the Russian penal system at the time

Enthralling ,but what else would one expect from the Master of Literature.There are quite a lot of typos and weird words , (ie set-tling to mention only one) Surely cannot have been in the original translation?

This is a real indictment of Russian society at the end of the nineteenth century - the aristocracy, the church, the legal system, prison conditions, the poverty of the peasants. It is not surprising that Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox church.