I don't like the tone of his writing, never have. I like Jewish tones, especially from Jewish authors. The old man wanted too much to give an answer, and took too much thought to give an answer, and too much time to give an answer. He always wanted to practice his ideas, his understandings, his visions. Even though he always appears as an observer in his works. He was so passionate, so innocent, so idealistic that we could say he was petty-bourgeois madness.
Crazy writers then created (maybe there really was such a person) a character, but not the only character. The character must be crazy enough, twisted enough, and real enough. It's just that the level of performance of this character varies in each work. The reason for having such an image is actually very simple. It is to highlight another image, that is, the image of the village girl in the countryside, or the image of the working women of the peasants. A simple, unadorned person who eats and runs and sleeps, works when she gets enough sleep, sings happily, and splashes when she's not happy. The image of a simple rural girl. This seems to the author to be a kind of truth, a kind of truth that directly expresses himself. And the author believes that only this kind of truth can save the society at that time, and private property will hinder this kind of truth of the individual.
Of course I would say that the author is very successful as a writer. Because writing so many major works today is a matter of personal labor, not to mention that the standard of each one is not bad. But I also have to say that the author is a pure 2B, since he was young, and he has never changed until death. Of course, many people in the West have this kind of Christian plot, and feel that they should save society, save all peoples from fire and water, and lead people to self-redemption and resurrection.
Of course you can think of this personality as great, but I say in the end it's just a great 2B.
View more about Anna Karenina reviews
