The Coast of Utopia gave me the impression of being a smooth fluent novel. It kept me interested as each scene shown was cut on an intriguing part or I was left in doubt regarding what would happen next. Something that called my attention throughout the first act was the way Michael changed his philosophical views on life. At the beginning of the play Michael claimed to believe in a philosophy that appeared to be Hegel's Philosophy which talked about an Absolute and a Universal Idea, at that moment Michael speaks of love and of the happiness of the spirit as the only important happiness. "To give oneself without love is a sin against our inner life which is our only real life."(pg14) Then only two years after Michael says: “I renounce to all love except pure philosophical love. The so-called love of human animals removes people two by two from the only possibility of happiness, which is the communion of beautiful souls."(pg19) Michael's inconsistency of ideals not only shows in what he says but also in his friends. For instance he was at first friend of Belinsky and agreed with the philosophy he defended. Afterwards, Michael claims "Belinsky is not one of us, I agree. In fact, I have broken off relations with him. He's turned out to be a complete egoist. But my estate is the self and the future of philosophy in Russia."(Pg 52) Other part of this play that clearly shows the inconsistency of thought of Michael is in page 51 where he claims:” I was on the wrong track with Fitche, I admit it --Fitche was trying to get rid of objective reality, but Hegel shows that reality can't be ignored, you see, Father. Now I know where I was going wrong." The problem with Michael is that he constantly changes his views upon life and his thoughts and points of view affect the whole family. Michael is a very stubborn character and personally I think he is also very spoiled man who has not accepted his obligations and his responsibilities in life and has always returned home when he finds he really doesn't like where he is going. I think he resembles much Serebryakov from Uncle Vania since they both claim to know a lot and to have lots of education and knowledge but it all pretension and they don't really believe what the preach or else they wouldn't change ideologies so quickly. Other characteristic that lets the reader see Michael's immaturity is the constant arguing he has with his dad throughout the play. Michael always thinks the opposite of what his father thinks. They’re always arguing on what's best. However, when Michael is in trouble he goes to his dad just like a little boy and asks him to give him money or to help him out.
I didn't agree neither with Michael's view on life,(since it was rather inconstant), nor with Alexander's perspective since it was too radical. For example regarding the age in marriage, I thought that he was too strict with his idea of the groom being twice as old as the bride. He resembled old men and women who are very stubborn themselves and think that everyone should do as they say since they are older and they "know more". As the novel kept on going I longed for Liubov marrying Stankevich and I was very surprised when I got to know that they had both died by 1941. It was sad but what impressed me the most was Varenka was with Stankevich when he died and that she was living with him. How could she betray her sister and leaver her husband? I really didn't like the outcome of that story, especially because what would be of her poor boy? Apart from that I was sad to hear from Pushkin's death. I had hopes from him being able to marry Tatiana one day. However I thought maybe Tatiana could marry Turgenev. He seemed to be a good man for her.
No comments:
Post a Comment