Many have expressed concerns about Andrew and his outright cold treatment of his wife. I do not believe that it is right to hate your wife, however, I don't think that Tolstoy wants the reader to focus on this aspect of Andrew's characterization. I feel as though, especially given the time period, that this characteristic is included in the novel to humanize Andrew a bit. Tolstoy did not want to create amazing heroes who can do no wrong; he wanted depth and conflict for his characters, as many great novelists do. In 1805, marriage was a tool to bring wealth and status to a family, as well as continue on the family name, and rarely anything more. Theoretically, you could look at Lise as Andrew's business partner. It would make Andrew more likable in this era if his relationship with his wife was described in this way. No one would judge a man for acting cold or rather business like with a business partner that he had little choice in choosing. No one would criticize his actions if he disliked his cubicle mate. The understanding of marriage in the day is critical to promote to modern day readers, so that it is easily understood that Andrew's treatment of his wife is not to make him seem like a bad person, but almost to make him more relatable and likable for the readers of Tolstoy's era.
The idea of Andrew's treatment of his wife never bothered me, partially due to the history, and partially because it intrigued me into thinking that there must be a deeper characterization waiting below the depths of Andrew's 'public' face. I'm constantly looking for clues as to why else Tolstoy might have included this detail. I'm hoping as I read on that I will find a dynamic back story to explain Andrew's behavior. Even if I don't, I'm sure Tolstoy will tie up all the loose ends for me anyway. I'm looking forward to the moment where I see a more pressured, deeper side of Andrew.
I was one of those concerned about Andrew's treatment of his wife from the beginning, but I am starting to agree with Ashley. It's not Andrew's fault he's unhappy in his marriage, and while he may be very distant (there are several mentions of Andrew treating her just as he would anyone else instead of in a familiar, husbandly way), he is not necessarily "mean" to her. I agree that this is not an aspect of Andrew that Tolstoy wishes for us to focus on, and Andrew has many redeeming and interesting qualities that are far more deserving of our attention. I am interested to see how this character progresses.
ReplyDeleteYay! Andrew has a good side! I'm also very excited to see how his role progresses in the novel.
DeleteI agree that both Ashleigh and Liz bring up good points about Andrew, but I can't help feeling like the both of them are looking at Andrew's treatment of his wife and Andrew's military efforts as two different aspects of his personality. To me, these things are inextricably linked. When Andrew says he's going to "save the war", I got the sense that he sees himself as an almost god-like figure, who thinks he's the only person who can do good. This is the exact same attitude he takes with his wife. Lise is subordinate to him initially because she is a woman in the 19th century, but also because of Andrew's holier-than-thou attitude. In his mind, he's too good for her, the same way that he's better than all the other military generals. I think Andrew's treatment of Lise is something that demonstrates his personality right at the start, and that attitude continues through the novel. I don't think Tolstoy wants us to ignore it. If he did, he wouldn't have put it in the "get-to-know-the-characters" part of the novel.
ReplyDeleteStella, I love your input. That's a great insight that I did not see as I was looking at Andrew's characterization. I'm excited to see how his life plays out through the rest of the novel so that we can see Tolstoy's true intentions for Andrew.
DeleteStella, I would argue that what manifests itself as Lise's obsequy in her relationship with Andrew extends not from Andrew's arrogance, but rather from the social artifices which Andrew regards so coldly and to which his wife so wholeheartedly subscribes; his apathy towards the "drawing rooms, gossip, balls, vanity, and triviality... the enchanted circle [he] cannot escape" therefore inform more of the state of his marriage than what you characterize as an innate, arrogant attitude toward people in general (pg 24). His marital discord does not emerge due to an inborn compulsion to control--in fact I would argue that, because of Andrew's dismissal of his trite society, that responsibility comes from the exact opposite of any commitment to nineteenth century gender relations; he loathes his wife's compliance with this society and more specifically its influence over how she defines herself as a woman--he would share a much happier more successful marriage with a woman with the capacity to reject social norms and take ownership of the equal rights and equal empowerment both sexes deserve. Andrew's frustration with his wife's inability to take charge of her identity takes the form of apathy and verbal violence directed at her because he is human and, as a human, he communicates the effects of a deeply-seeded, internal conflict by addressing superficial annoyances rather than the underlying conflict of being trapped with the wrong person itself, which is much more difficult to see and talk about objectively. If Tolstoy wrote Andrew as a perfect character he'd be an unrealistic writer and our expectation of his perfection likewise would make for an unrealistic reading. The author intentionally includes these negative (but understandable) aspects of his character's identity not so that they should be equated to his ambition to achieve high military status, which I believe to be a function of an entirely separate part of his psyche, but rather to create a character who is believably human.
ReplyDelete