The Case of Comrade Tulayev - Victor Serge

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

Drive Your Plow Over The Bones Of The Dead, by Olga Tokarczuk (2009)

[November 5th 2020 - Zoom]

A compelling and elegantly subversive novel.  That this novel caused such a stir in Poland is no surprise. The main character, Janina Duszejko, is an ageing woman who lives in a remote rural Polish village. She was a successful bridge engineer, but now spends most of her time studying astrology as well as translating the poetry of William Blake. Janina is deeply troubled about the world, her place in it and the hierarchy of humans among their fellow animals.

As JH pointed out this novel is almost impossible to categorise.  On the surface it appears a murder mystery, but can also be read as an eco-narrative, a dark feminist comedy, an existentialist fable, a paeon to William Blake, or a psychological commentary.  It is a provocative exploration of the murky borderland between sanity and madness, justice and tradition, autonomy and fate.  

Positive perspectives

The majority of BBBC members enjoyed this novel.  For example, CW enjoyed it so much he reread some of it again and wanted to read more by the author. It was well expressed with  loads of atmosphere and very good descriptions. He thought it was a fascinating and weird book that allowed the reader to see things from a very different angle. Janina’s approach to nature really made you think about how we all do and should see nature. WM also enjoyed the story and her writing style, specifically the innocent, childlike way in which Janina experiences the world - “The sun had only just risen and, still red from the effort, was casting long sleepy shadows.”

SC thought it was an absorbing read and certainly not what he expected.  Started off as a who-done-it, but then developed layer by layer of different themes and issues as the story progressed – but which she managed to successfully connect together as the narrative developed.

SC also commented that the novel raised some interesting issues about astrology – particularly for those who believe in it. Did it mean Janina could foretell her own future and even death, and so allow her to commit these murders in the knowledge /hope that she wouldn’t be caught?  Similarly, WM noted that underpinning the story was the belief that all events and behaviours are predestined by the configuration of stars and planets at the hour of birth, which also pre-sets the time and cause of death. Thus, in this system of understanding, Janine is not really culpable for her actions. Though, of course she can still be punished for them, and hence her fear of being arrested and imprisoned.  

MW found the book interesting and enjoyable with some great descriptive writing – for example her description of the near-blind dentist who could only work in the summer when it was light enough to see into patients’ mouth.  While easy to see Janina as a batty old lady, certainly didn’t expect her to be the murderer. Shift from her being a harmless biddy to serial killer. She got away with it – all the people she murdered seemed to deserve it.

RV thought that it was a very good book - full of very many lovely and interesting observations. It was beautifully written and translated. The book was not a Whodunit, it was a tour-de-force of writing of about both character and ideas, in a rather exceptional style.  RV loved the way that the ideas came think and fast, throughout the book – “We have this body of ours, a troublesome piece of luggage…..Fancy being given a body and not knowing anything about it. There’s no instruction manual.”  Or “Perhaps that’s the whole point of prayer – to think to yourself in peace, to want nothing, to ask for nothing, but simply to sort out your own mind.”

AA also enjoyed the book - felt it was refreshing, wacky and written with great imagination.  A book about the place on earth of humans and animals, with its dreamy, mythical feel and much oddness.  He liked its clarity and succinctness and the author’s turn of phrase, and particularly liked the offhand narrator with her thinking-aloud, matter-of-fact style and lots of humour, mainly in the delivery – for example: "And the flowers in his garden are neat and tidy, standing straight and slender, as if they’d been to the gym."  AA noted the casual way she drops in revelations, big and small, including about herself – such as having the tv on all day – on the weather channel.  Or the way she rails against how older women are invisible, and Janina seemed a little harsh on herself when she says how people see her as a mad old woman - until it becomes increasingly clear that she is.

MT thought it was a different sort of book, quite quirky, quite funny in parts. He liked it and kept him absorbed to the end. He liked I liked the description of the small community, and her strange life. Some of the terms were lovely, such as “testosterone autism”, or "I was a weak as a potato sprout grown in the darkness in the cellar". I laughed at the concept of the dentist with powerful glasses, with one of the lenses taped into place. I thought the church scene was good, and the huge hypocrisy of the vicar, in promoting animal sports. I liked her anger, but I was surprised that she cleverly murdered all the animal 'murderers' .

Most members commented on the quality of the translation by Antonia Lloyd-Jones. For example, SC thought it was a terrific translation, and felt it was one of the best translated books we had read. Specifically members commented on the translators skill when Janina and her companion repeatedly attempt to translate a passage of Blake: several versions of a particular verse are rendered in English, which has been translated from the Polish, which in turn has been translated from English. It is difficult to imagine a trickier task for a translator, or one undertaken with more skill.

More questioning perspectives

Not all members were as effusive in their praise.  CB saw it as a curious book which he did not get into, though it was easy enough to read. Only the big reveal at the end helped me understand what was happening in the rest of the book. Maybe others saw it coming. None of the characters are appealing which perhaps fits the harsh and limited life they mainly led. It was hard to remember that the protagonist was a woman and in her sixties. CB started to reread it and came to appreciate the language and descriptions more, for example: “with age, many men come down with testosterone autism, the symptoms of which are a gradual decline in social intelligence and capacity for interpersonal communication, as well as a reduced ability to formulate thoughts”. He also like the descriptions of life on the Plateau, her reactions to her neighbours, the use of nicknames, her appreciation of the animals and forest around her, and her affectionate relationship with her Ailments.

AA noted he didn’t care strongly about any of the characters – less so as the book went on, and felt the story rather petered out until the end part – and lost interest and although he enjoyed reading it wasn’t desperate to keep picking it up.  This novel didn’t engage him deeply or teach me anything. He felt it was deceptive in many ways – more complex than it appears, leaving much to the reader, and understating its themes of destructive people and forces going unchallenged.  

Janina & William Blake

WM appreciated the construction of the writing, and the way it expressed the complementarity between Janina and Blake with deeply held beliefs and morality expressed in simple words and childlike concepts of right and wrong, as well as retribution. JH noted that the book is imbued with the Blakean conviction of the cleansing power of rage: the vengeance of the weak when justice is denied. “What a good thing death can be,” Janina reflects, contemplating Big Foot’s dead, once so cruel and destructive, now harmless. “How just and fair, like a disinfectant or a vacuum cleaner.”

There is lots anger in this book – some called it righteous anger or that it even reflected a divine wrath.  It captures some of Blake’s ideas of retribution and the need to strike back, because if something is wrong you need to do something about it.  In this case Janina felt very strongly about what happened to her dogs and to other animals, and that she was treated as either deranged old women, and as such invisible and ignored.  Her sense of justice empowered her to get her own back on those who had status and power.

Queenie by Candice Carty-Williams

The meeting was held on Thursday September 10th  at MT’s home, with six members present (MT, CW, WM, RV, SC, AA). It was held in an extremely large kitchen, around a very big table, to make social distancing easy and possible all times. Three members sent their apologies, but they all sent long reviews (JH, MW, CB). The meeting started at 8:30 and ended late.

One of the published reviews described Queenie, the debut novel by the author, as an important political tome of black womanhood and black British life, a rare perspective from the margins. It is often a very moving story about one young woman’s life as affected – in fact, almost destroyed – by her love life, with the politics of blackness permeating the pages. It is set in South London where a millennial and budding journalist Queenie is, as she herself admits, a “catastrophist”: someone who worries about worst-case scenarios, unbearable outcomes, general humiliations and the perpetual lead weight of anxiety.  Predictably enough, the novel has been hailed as the black Bridget Jones, and it does bear loose similarities in its portrayal of the conventional female quest for the love of a good man and the realisation that self-acceptance and self-sufficiency are more important. But it goes much deeper than that, casting a full glare on the damaging reductive stereotypes, born of slavery and colonialism, that surround black women’s bodies, sexuality and psychology. The sexual frankness throughout is refreshing, smartly and accurately rendered by a voice fully in command of its own narrative and intent on setting the record straight. 

The book was chosen by MT because it was one of the “in the week” recommendations. His son went on the BM march in Bristol and was impressed by this book, and the book had mostly very good reviews, apart from one single bad review on Amazon.  The majority the group said it was their first choice of the three books offered by MT.

The book promoted lengthy, heated discussions, and this occurred even before the main meeting started, as half the group arrived early, egger to start the conversations.  RV commented it was one of the most interesting discussions and debates of any book club evening. The book generated passionate discussions on race issues, discrimination, women, young people’s sexuality, pollical correctness, being a minority in society, to name just a few of the  themes that came up. There were lively conversations and one example was about the “black sheep” of a family, and how this can be seen as racist when using the term black not as a colour.

The book was an excellent example of a marmite book, but unusually the like/dislike was completely discriminated by age. The younger set, mean age 63, liked the book, or really liked the book with a mean score of 70%. The older set, mean age 69, did not like the book, or hated it, with a mean score of 34%. It was interesting that the two populations had a complete separation between the top and bottom of the groups of 2 years.  The younger set were 64 and under, whilst the older men were 66 and over. This is unusual in statistical comparisons for the two groups to be so completely separated, with a p value of 0.000000000000000000000000000

CB did not enjoy the book. He found that even though the book dealt  with some important issues, it read like stories from a magazine. He found the writing fairly unsubtle and predictable, facile at times. He did like the description of the therapy process, and liked some of the comments made such as ‘The road to recovery is not linear. It’s not straight. It’s a bumpy path, with lots of twists and turns. But you’re on the right track.’ But he found that most of the characters were not memorable, except Tom and the three women friends. He liked the portrayal of British Jamaican women (grandmother and aunt) and the complicated dynamics for them of dealing with generational differences and the failings of children and grandchildren. He did feel the book dealt with important issues of race, gender and mental health in the workplace and family relationships. So some good reminders of micro-aggression, racism, and sexism from Asian as well as white men plus sense of not fitting in with white friends.

JH did not enjoy the book, even though it was a provocative and at times funny, but rather a relentless read. He commented that Queenie as a novel seems to be part of that long line of boisterous romps that include Henry Fielding’s, Tom Jones, and Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones Diaries, that seem to be a particular niche of British literature.  But he found that as he got older he finds these books less appealing – maybe a product of wisdom and hindsight or maybe he has lost what little sense of humour he had.  It has a fluent, evocative narrative style that draws on a range of contemporary themes – race, gender, sex, mental health, tribulations of urban life and assorted vulnerabilities.  Queenie, herself, comes over as fragile and damaged (the apparent consequence of an erratic childhood and a very vulnerable mum), yet she is also clearly very bright and capable (getting to university and a good job despite everything).  He felt that the story described the mid-20’s London woman well, with all the trials and tribulations of that ilk - transient relationships, on-line dating, sexual health hassles, psycho-therapy, miscarriages, et al. In particular Queenie suffered from a rotten choice in blokes – Ted, Guy, and that literary tour de force, Addie, with his “destroyer” in the back of his Beemer.  It was a useful reminder, as a father of daughters, that JH really don’t want to know too much about the detail of their lives.  The novel also reminded him of the important role of grandparents as a final safety net – they maybe a pain and a bore at times but provide solace and support to all generations.  He felt it was a novel to reflect on, and maybe to refer to burnish his cool credentials to his children, but not one he will treasure.  

MW did not like the book and felt he did not have a lot to say about it, but he was very interested in hearing if anyone found any redeeming features in it. His main feeling reading the book was one of detachment from what was going on, with the main problem being Queenie. He found her exasperating, annoying, frustrating, superficial and just stupid. And he found the other male  characters bastards or wimps. The female mates were more supportive, understanding apart from Cassandra. He didn’t find the book in any way sexy, thought provoking, insightful or funny. But he actually, strangely didn’t mind picking it up to read it and had no problem finishing it. His only favourite quote from the book was “They’re Jamaican Darcy. Doctors are the only people they trust. If he’d told them the alcohol was going to kill them they’d have jumped in a cab to the cemetery”. MW had insight into this, and felt it to be very true. 

RV really disliked the book and declared it one of the worst he had read in the club, and found very little to commend it. In fact he found it so bad he could not actually write a review of his own but had to quote from the only poor review on Amazon, as most of those other review were very positive. He was extremely passionate about it being such as terrible book, but he did admit that the author had touched on some really important topics, but he felt it was so badly written. He thought all the characters were unlikeable, and the book was actually quite racist. He did comment though that the book did bring out lots of memories for him, when he was at school, being the only Jewish person in the class and the racism and isolation he experienced then. RV initially gave the book zero, but admitted that the discussion was so fruitful, that he did increase it a bit. He did finish the book though.

WM really hated the book, but agreed that the issues raised were very important. He really did not like the writing style, and felt it was a very bad first novel, as produced by a teenager. He found the text boxes irritating all the way through. He could not empathise with Queenie or even find symphony for her. He did finish the book though. 

MT found the book hard to like at the beginning as certain things really annoyed him, such as the jumping in time, and context, and the mobile phone text in boxes. Initially he found this ‘young’ and unnecessary. But once he got involved in the story, he got used to these things and started liking it, and then really liked the rest of the story. He liked her extended family, especially her grandparents. He felt the book gave a good sense what being a young black women must be like, as sometimes a unique person in a predominately white society. It reminded him of his experience in Zimbabwe in the 80s, being the only white person in a township. He felt the therapy part was well done, and through that he felt he got to know Queenie, and what she must be experiencing. But he felt all her choosing really awful nasty men was the result of her break up with Tom (who seemed OK) coupled with the worthlessness she felt in her childhood.  He liked her group of women friends, and the fact their group was called the Corgis, named after one of his young person favourite local bands. But he felt her sadness. He found some of the book very funny, such as the water rates OCD from the Grandfather, and the Welsh junior doctor, and Cassandra and her prudish boyfriend which turned out the same. He liked the church on Sunday bit where her aunt commented she can go, even though she has a coil fitted! He found the dating stuff very interesting and how different it was now compared to his younger days when he lived in South London near many of the places mentioned in the book, when mobile phones, or dating apps, did not exist. 

CW enjoyed the book, and found it easy to read. He thought it was so up to date, with all the Text boxes, and the BLM movement being involved. He thought it described the disrespect for black women well, but thought that overweight white women might equally suffer Queenie’s fate. He really liked her, and felt sorry for her. He thought the relationship with Tom was not well described. He initially found the text boxes irritating, but then liked them. He enjoyed the discussion the book promoted, before and during the meeting. 

AA liked the book, and was pleased to read it. He commented that Queenie was the same age as his daughter, which was thought-provoking. He liked that the themes of lack of self esteem and female friendship which ran through the book. He thought that child neglect and abuse was well set out, and the healing that also went on later. He liked the start and laughed out loud. He found the middle section a bit boring, and found bits of it ‘clunky’. But after that he found it really took off, and discussed some really serious themes. He really liked some sections, such as her prayers to God, and the therapy parts. He thought the writing about the mother was excellent, and found the section on naming Queenie very moving. He found the abuse of Queenie by the various men upsetting, and her mum’s relationship with Roy and the abuse well-written and moving. He said the intersectional feminism raised by the author was hard for privileged white professional middle-class men to understand. For example, men constantly touched Queenie, but not her white peers, and it was Ted who was believed at work, not her. In AA style, he ended by quoting some of his favourite phrases:  “ignore her, she is just being old”, and “I guess I don’t matter. Nobody has ever wanted me, not properly”

SC agreed with AA comments, and enjoyed the book very much, although this surprised him, as he did not expect to like it, or enjoy it. He did not like the first chapter, which he felt was overplayed, especially the gynaecological bits. But after that, he really got into it, and thought it was very much a modern novel, and unusual for the club. He thought the book got much better after half way. He liked the kitchen sink dramas, and how the book developed. He thought it was a good first novel. He thought the dialogue was good. He liked Queenie, and the description of her being black, her disadvantaged life, but also the fact that she was very intelligent. He enjoyed the pace of the book, but admitted it was not the greatest work of fiction, but a brave book.