The Kreutzer Sonata in Never too Late to Read Classics

Apr 21, 2013 Sarah rated it it was ok

Very strange little book. Originally published in 1889, and banned in the US and Russia. Teddy Roosevelt described the author as a "sexual and moral pervert." Therefore I had to read it.
As far as perversion goes, it was quite the disappointment. It was only about 120 pages long, read it an afternoon. Sad story of man who goes crazy and kills his wife when he suspects her of having affair with violin teacher. A lot of it reads like something the Tea Party, or Focus on the Family could get behind. ...more

Like · see review

Dec 03, 2023 ForestGardenGal rated it really liked it

Shelves: classics-published-50-years-ago, genre-fiction, censored-banned-books, location-russia-and-ussr, censored-on-social-grounds, type-short-stories-essays, genre-philosophical-fiction, theme-feminism

It is interesting that, according to the notes in the back of my volume which was published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow, Tolstoy completed this story in 1889 but the state censor prevented its publication until 1891.

I am also very intrigued by the vast difference between the other reviews I have seen and my very different impressions about the The Kreutzer Sonata. In my version of the book Short Stories : Two Hussars, Yardstick, A Happy Married Life, The Death of Ivan Ily It is interesting that, according to the notes in the back of my volume which was published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow, Tolstoy completed this story in 1889 but the state censor prevented its publication until 1891.

I am also very intrigued by the vast difference between the other reviews I have seen and my very different impressions about the The Kreutzer Sonata. In my version of the book Short Stories : Two Hussars, Yardstick, A Happy Married Life, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, the Kreutzer Sonata, After the Ball, the translation of the Kreutzer Sonata I am reading is a story in which Tolstoy says many very thought provoking things about passion versus love, the nature of relationships, and the degradation of women through objectification by men as is deemed acceptable by society. He discusses the double standards society has in regard to women's vs. men's sexuality and sexual behavior. He discusses the burden of child-rearing, and how it is primarily a burden to and even a curse upon women. He points out that women were groomed to the ideal of being beautiful and pure and thereby catching a husband, whereas men were raised to condone debauchery and the lecherous objectification and use of all women until they were in possession of a beautiful, innocent, and virginal women they could take as their wife.

Yes, the story is told by a man who has killed his wife, but the story is more about shining a light on the semi-slavery women are subjected to, than any theme resembling "the adulterous woman must die" which is the theme I see in many reviews. I think the feeling of the story in the different translations must be wildly opposed.

Here's one very obvious example of a change in meaning from one translation to another. This passage was quoted from a different translation than the one I am reading:

In the city the wretched feel less sad. One can live there a hundred years without being noticed, and be dead a long time before anybody will notice it.

The translation I am reading differs substantially, as follows:

It is easier for unhappy people to live in town. In town a person can live a hundred years without realizing he has died and gone to dust long ago. There is no time to 'know thyself'. Everyone is too busy.

The passage in the first translation appears to be about being lost or forgotten in a crowd, even dying without anyone noticing. In the second translation the passage isn't about simple anonymity; it is a philosophical statement about the lack of self-awareness that is possible in the city due to distraction and the ability to stay forever busy; it is about walking around without noticing that you are not alive at all.

I am amazed by how much the translations change the meaning, but I suppose I am not all that surprised. I am wondering if the translation I am reading may be closer to Tolstoy's original intent, since his works generally have a strong philosophical tendency, such as what I am seeing- but I am no expert on Tolstoy or Russian literature. Please note that the translation I am reading appears to have been merely translated from Russian to English but not anglicized- even the author's name- written as Lev Tolstoi.

I would be glad to discuss in the comments any differing views about the translations or about the story itself. Also, please do chime in with your impressions if you have read this work in Tolstoy's words (untranslated, in Russian).

Overall, my impression is that this is a work of philosophical fiction that is not only worthwhile reading, but that asks us to consider the nature of relationships and the condition of women and their treatment by society (maybe even still) in ways that have yet not occurred to us.

PG13 for violence, sexual content, mild language, and complex themes of love vs passion, treatment of women, and the maturity needed to mentally separate bad actions from the important questions that may be raised by those bad actions, even if only in retrospect. Note, neither the violence nor the sexual content in this story is of a graphic nature. ...more

Like · see review