Nature of Sympathy in Anna Karenina

Authors Avatar

The nature of sympathy dictates that for any close understanding of another’s feelings to prevail it must stem from an empathic concern for the individual in question; that is to say: sympathy isn’t universally applied. To be able to enjoy an emotional understanding of another person you must first find them to be somehow worthy of your sympathy, and this principle applies also to the act of sympathizing with a character in a book – especially in a work of realistic fiction such as Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. The novel’s co-protagonist Constantine Levin and his close friend, the urban aristocrat Stepan “Stiva” Oblonsky are pivotal characters in Tolstoy’s epic, but whether both are worthy of sympathy and furthermore just how Tolstoy formulated them to be so is open to debate. I would suggest that through deliberate conception of the characters’ motivations, experiences and ultimate character progression (or lack thereof), Levin is established as someone the reader can easily sympathize with while Stiva is unrelatable and worthy instead of the reader’s disdain.

Through the adversities the two characters face and the inclusion of details of their reactions, there is evidence to suggest that Tolstoy very deliberately established Levin as deserving more respect than Oblonsky. This idea can be clearly illustrated through the comparison of two minor events in the novel, those of the aftermath of Oblonksy’s infidelity and Levin’s jealousy over Veslovsky’s flirtation with Kitty.  With the incidence of Levin’s suspicions about Veslovsky’s intentions with his wife, we see Levin divulge in irrationality, fancying himself a deceived husband after witnessing a handsome stranger act in an overtly affectionate way toward his wife. It is significant, however, that in the passage immediately following the dinner-table scene we see Levin conversing with Kitty and calmly elucidating his concerns over her behavior – a practice that is very rarely repeated by any other character in the novel. The comparison between Levin and Karenin as suspicious husbands is striking: while Karenin is shown to be aloof and distant, Levin is presented as equitable and emotionally coherent, and this relationship further establishes Levin as a reasonable, and therefore relatable, character. Conversely in the case of Oblonsky’s extra-marital affairs, Tolstoy is less kind toward Oblonsky in his allotment of scorn – he is presented as only showing emotion in reaction to his wife’s tears, and only feeling remorse insofar as he felt it was unfortunate that Dolly found him out. Oblonsky even goes as far as to attempt to justify his infidelity by detailing his wife’s age (“worn out, already growing elderly…[she] ought to be lenient”) and the beauty of his lover (“but then, what a governess!”). It is apparent that Tolstoy has attempted to establish Oblonsky as a character that for all his charms and apparent likeability, reacts to situations in such a way that is morally reprehensible and as a result, not deserving of reader sympathy.

Join now!

If we consider that to sympathize with a character we would need to determine them to be worthy of our sympathy first, then it is significant that of the two Levin appears to be in possession of far more moral integrity than Oblonksy and as a result readers are more likely to direct their concern toward him. Between the two characters there is a clear disparity between Levin’s belief in living life in the pursuit of goals larger than his own private desires, and Oblonsky’s unrepentantly indulgent lifestyle – this can be taken as representative of Tolstoy’s reflection on the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay