Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:48:02 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Clarifications of the Revelation

>I would say, therefore, before we shall be able to truly
>judge Levin's call to God and whether and whither it be
>answerable, there must be among us at least one who has
>traversed that ground with great and goodly results.

  I suspect I have been unclear, since several people
have given a similar sort of answer to my remarks on
Levin - answers which lead me to believe I have been
misinterpreted.

  Thesis:  Levin is not an intellectual.
  Supporting arguments:  apart from the others detailed,
    I offered what *he* considered to be a reasoned approach
    to God.  It is not a well reasoned approach, an intellectual
    approach, but rather, as naomi pointed out, an intuitive
    approach.  Similarly, in all rhetorical confrontations,
    Levin relies on his intuition, and seems unable to approach
    his answer strictly through reason.  (Other arguments
    included the difficulty with which he grasped the procedure
    of politics and wedding ceremonies, the contrast between
    him and his fellows when engaged in a little rhetorical
    sparring, and the slow, quiet and excessively deliberate
    way he approached all interactions.  See also the struggle
    he has with the incident in which Oblonsky sells off the
    forest.  His intuition leads him straight, but he is unable
    to express this to Oblonsky, and he this puts him in a
    sour mood.  He blurts out his anger at Oblonsky after the
    fact, but could not approach Oblonsky in a simple and
    convincing manner to block the sale, or force a higher
    price.  Vronsky, in Levin's shoes, would have easily demon-
    strated to Oblonsky his ability to drive a harder bargain,
    and likely maneuvered the buyer into completing the sale
    more to Oblonsky's advantage.  If I need to add more to
    this parenthetic digression, one can contrast Levin with
    Prince Mishkin (or Alyosha).  These were more of the same
    temperament than Ivan was, certainly, but despite their
    thoughtful and considerate ways, they didn't seem to have
    the same difficulties that Levin did.  Levin certainly
    would never have handled the punks who came trying to
    bully Mishkin out of his rubles in the way Mishkin did.
    Though, in fairness, Levin would not likely have been
    bullied into acquiescence, either.)

  Thesis:  Dostoevsky is a deeper thinker than Tolstoy
  Supporting argument:  the contrast between the discussions
    about the nature and possible existence of God made by
    Levin and those made by Ivan; both of whom likely echo
    the author's thoughts on the matter.  Ivan goes beyond
    the recognition of some "intuitive" sense of a Deity,
    and goes on to the terrible and unanswerable question
    about how a God of goodness can allow for a creation
    such as we experience (in addition to the now stale
    condemnation of the abuses of organized religion).
    Levin, and by extension, Tolstoy, seems content to accept
    all the rest, the omnis and the benevolant, Christ and
    Kingdom Come, all on the basis of this intuitive sense
    of "goodness" without addressing the terrible paradoxes
    that arise from such a God in such a Universe.  (Additional
    supporting arguments included Dostoevsky's ability to
    get inside the head of characters in a way Tolstoy never
    managed.  While Tolstoy made his characters act convincingly,
    he couldn't, or, certainly, didn't provide the same insightful
    and profound dissections of character which are such a central
    part of Dostoevsky's fiction.)

  Not A Thesis:  Levin's sense of God is invalid.

  Does this make matters more clear?

                                    -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU