WM (who selected this book):
Victor Serge was a lifelong revolutionary - moving through every proletarian battle of the first half of the 20th Century, as he saw the failures of each bellief. Not staying with any particular orthodoxy saw him imprisoned, ostracised, lionised, and eventually dying in poverty but not despair.
This is his final book and it illustrates the nature of terror in a totalitarian state (a term he coined for the USSR). All this is demonstrated without a lot of overt violence or descriptions of physical torture. The recognition in everyone’s mind is that they could be arrested at any minute, tried, and executed. Whether they be old revolutionaries, bureaucrats, workers, or anyone in any way associated with them. And the vast majority of these people were true believers in the socialist state and the glorious future to come - why they could be convinced to confess to crimes impossible for them to have committed.
However, many chapters include lyrical, beautiful, poetic descriptions of the natural world, the night sky, the sparkling snow, in contrast with the closed, physical, mental, emotional poverty of the people.
The novel itself is almost a succession of essays all linked by the perceived ‘plot’ to murder Tulayev. The last chapter, for me, has a qualitative different feel, almost romantic, as Kostia re-emerges, but reverts to fear as the truth is revealed to Fleischman, and the final paragraphs where all the functionaries are simply faceless men as the army marches by.
JH:
Not an easy read – dense – hard to follow with the different characters and why they are there. Sontag’s Introduction says 'a polyphonic novel with many trajectories' – in other words, hard to follow. I gave up after 120 pages and speed read the rest.
However it captured the absurdist nature of Stalin’s Russia – the depth of paranoia and acceptance that individuals had little control over what was going on, as well as a bizarre faith in the cause, the party and Russia. As Rublev says 'it is better to die dishonoured, murdered by the Chief than to denounce him to the international bourgeoisie…' (p.71)
The book also provoked me to think more about the awfulness of such a regime (Stalin’s 1930s purges: c.700,000 executed, c.1m+ dead in gulags). Compared to Comrade Tulayev, Koestler’s Darkness at Noon is a much easier read as it does not suffer from poor editing, dodgy translation and is focused on one individual’s experience, whereas Serge’s novel is more about the convoluted contradictions and the wider context in which these purges took place – which may explain its complexity and why it is far less known.
SC:
A very challenging book and certain aspects of the prose pushed me to the point of giving up, but it seemed too important to dismiss lightly.
It was a sporadically fascinating historical document. The insights into the bleakness of life in the USSR in the 1930s were often powerful. The early passage told by the prostitute about the poverty her family experienced, and Makeyev’s rise and fall from minor rural official,
‘He felt himself, like them, possessed of a legitimate authority, integrated into the dictatorship of the proletariat like a good steel screw set in its proper place in some admirable, supple and complex machine’
Interesting that the vast majority of characters are male bullies and most of the females are compliant partners playing the traditional and often quite sexually descriptive role - but there are exceptions, Zvyeryeva for example
However, I found the structure of the book confusing, and as with every Russian novel I have ever read, the names were an impediment to fluent reading and absorption of the plot. After a while I gave up worrying about who was who and just ‘enjoyed the scenery’.
There were undercurrents of Kafka, and George Orwell. I was also strongly reminded of Armando Iannucci’s film, ‘The Death of Stalin’, which covered similar ground though not so much from the perspective of the ordinary person.
I think, overall, we’ve moved on as a society. It’s an interesting book as a historic document and perhaps a dire warning. It didn’t feel particularly relevant to 21st century global society.
AA:
Published in 1947 in the aftermath of WW2 so perhaps not surprising it appeared to lack careful editing. Written at the same time as 1984 and 15 years before One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovic. Sontag’s intro was quite interesting but far too long.
Great start with Kostia going shopping and description of his and Romachkin's rooms and Romachkin with the destitute prostitute. Each new chapter introduced a new official who I never felt I really got to know
Really enjoyed the scene of Erchov being sent a private train to collect him and his wife and the unscheduled stop in the middle of nowhere where he was divested of his post, his power, and his uniform in a room with his portrait on the wall. The whole toxic terrifying mess of the Party comes through strongly, with similarities to The Sympathiser, but too repetitively: 'To hell with my and me, to hell with self, to hell with truth, if the Party can be strong!'
So despite some beautiful descriptions I began to find it dull and just under half decided to stop.
CW:
I can’t say I enjoyed this book, but it’s very well written and the individual chapters describe vividly the reach and control of the Party and the all pervading fear and worry of Russians who cannot trust even their closest relatives. Some descriptions such as a freezing Moscow street at night with snow blowing around the street lamps were beautifully described and I liked that there were many different scenes with different characters all living under this terrifying political system. As the book progresses and more and more characters are removed and liquidated one becomes almost blasé that only half of the characters remain by the end of each chapter.
Particularly liked the chapter about Makeyev who was born a peasant and who rose to the very highest ranks through chance and his ignorance .
Whilst clearly a magnificent novel in 1947 I feel that it has lost something today because so many of the names referred to were unknown to me and had no historical connection. Coming just after the end of the Second World War it must’ve been compelling reading to hear in detail what had been going on in the Soviet union while America and Europe were enjoying the roaring 20s followed by the Nazi build up to the Second World war.
How much better is the Russia of today with Putin? And China, North Korea, Belarus. State control seems to be getting stricter and stricter. The only difference being that they are capitalist Communists.
CB:
I really enjoyed so much of the language, with fantastic use of metaphor and ideas. Great insights into the human condition and especially life in urban and rural Russia at the time. It also conjured up the terrible pressures and fear during this period of Soviet history. The sense that anyone in power could easily find themselves in a reverse position overnight.
However, it was a difficult book to follow with characters departing the stage and then re-emerging later, though the beginning and end with Kostia and Romachkin did bracket the book well.
It felt like the book needed a good edit. some stories just went on too long with too much verbiage. And many sentences did not make sense (probably poor translation). So it was a soporific book to read at times.
I did like the distinctness of some of the characters, especially Makeyev, and the presentation of Stalin himself was realistic and cogent. And some lyrical sections: “The slumber of the moon-drenched forest finally impregnated the old man and the grown-up children with such vast quiet that it seemed to cure all ill
Whilst the book refers to a particular point in history in a particular place, it resonated with many other totalitarian regimes that we have heard of. And some of the creeping assault on civil liberties within our own country, though so far much less radical, are signs of a society moving in the wrong direction as far as freedom of the individual and democracy are concerned.
MT:
Struggled with the book, the introduction really long and tedious. I found the start ok, with the story of the room (!) mates but after that it became very confusing to me and I mostly had little idea what was going on and what the various connections were I am at an early stage so of course it may get better so I will try and read a lot more over my travels in the next couple of days. I could not relate to any of the people, situations or women in the book so far.
RV:
The main problem was that I felt that this was a polemic pretending to be a novel. The author told us a lot about the brutality, injustice, paranoia, servile attitudes (but not surprising else one ended up dead oneself), and downright awfulness of both the regime and of life in Russia in the 1930s, but there were few characters I liked or found sympathetic, and no relationships between anyone.
The only character I really liked was Kondratiev, who I imagine was meant to be the author, Serge, so I especially liked the ‘Road to Gold’ chapter, and also the Spain chapter, although Kondratiev’s character did not come across so well there.
So, lots more to say, and some good quotes, but overall, a bit of a turgid book, and one that I am pleased to have finally finished.
Scores: WM 8.5; JH 5.5; SC 5.5; AA 5; CW 6.5; CB 6; MT 3 ; RV 5.5; MW 6.5
