P. 411-470
In this section of the book (chapters 16 to chapter 27 p.411-470), Grossman vividly depicts the utter trepidation felt by the Soviet soldiers in House 6/1 in the first part of the section. Grossman writes: “Maybe the Germans would appear any moment out of the far corners of the cellar. Maybe they were about to appear through the hole in the ceiling” (413). The Soviet soldiers were full of stark apprehension for the Germans. During this period of apprehension and terror, struggles of love and power start to form in House 6/1.
It is interesting to note the way Grossman portrays the role of Katya Vengrova, a female Soviet radio-operator in House 6/1. In World War II, the role of women is often overlooked as the majority of soldiers were men. In the Soviet Army, however, more than 800,000 women were found on the front lines. In House 6/1, all the men become obsessed with Katya as they start joking about who will be the first one to sleep with her. Grossman describes Grekov’s feelings towards Katya: “I’ve never met a girl like you before. If I’d met you before the war, I’d have made you my wife” (414). In times of war, is there time for feelings such as love and compassion? All too often, World War II is characterized by vast destruction and bloodshed. Grossman, however, aptly alludes to feelings of affection in this section that characterize the soldiers’ nostalgia for love and relationships. Despite having to put on manly façades for the war, the Soviet soldiers still are attracted to Katya. What does this illustrate about the human psyche in terms of love and war?
In this section, a power struggle also starts to form between Grekov, the house manager of House 6/1 and Krymov, the commissar. Krymov declares: “Grekov, you’re going too far. You’ve lost all sense of proportion….My orders were that, if necessary, I should demote you and take command myself. Why force me along that path” (425)? Thus, Krymov accuses Grekov of losing his cool and threatens to strip him of his power. Grekov, however, is a stubborn-minded character who wields a great amount of control over the other soldiers in the House. Grossman describes Grekov: “He was very different....He never threatened people or shouted at them, but they obeyed him. He just sat there, smoking and chatting away like one of the soldiers. And yet his authority was immense” (414). Why do you think the soldiers in House 6/1 respect Grekov so much despite his stubborn temperament? Does he exhibit the qualities of a Machiavellian leader? Who do you think is a better leader Krymov or Grekov and why?
After the account of the events associated with House 6/1, Grossman turns to the arrival of Viktor, Lyudmila and Nadya in Moscow. As Viktor’s life in Moscow progresses, his thoughts revolve around trivial things such as rations and “petty bourgeois concerns” (467). Grossman writes: “He was ashamed at being so preoccupied with things like rations. He had grown dull....Why had these trivialities, these petty-bourgeois concerns suddenly become so important? Why had his spiritual life in Kazan been so much purer, so much more significant? Why was it that even his scientific work—and his joy in it – was now contaminated with vanity and pettiness?....Why, now he was back in Moscow, were the things he recalled so trivial and insignificant? Why did he think so often of people he had no respect for? And why were the most talented people, the most trustworthy people, unable to help him” (467, 470)? Thus, Grossman marks Viktor’s arrival in Moscow with a sudden turn to the commonplace and the mundane. Viktor begins to question his living conditions and his spiritual faith. Indeed, he now associates his scientific work with a sense of frivolity. Why do you think this transition in Viktor’s life has occurred? Do you believe that the people Viktor admires the most share the same ideology as Viktor? And what about the relationship between Sokolov (the mathematician in Viktor’s lab) and Viktor? Do Viktor’s Anti-Stalinist feelings have an effect on the relationship between the two academics?
Well, that’s all I have for this post. Thanks for an awesome year guys. The discussions we had were insightful, passionate, and edifying. Thanks for putting up with all of us and our sometimes tangential discussions, Mr. Heubeck. (Also, thanks for the myriad of extensions. They saved us all.) I will certainly miss Lockwood’s “Death is Dead” mantra and Tino’s ardent admiration of Rush Limbaugh :) Good luck to you all next year!
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
David
At the beginning of this section, Viktor is very conflicted about whether or not he should sign a letter incriminating two men, Doctor Levin and Professor Pletnyov, in the murder of the great writer Aleksey Maximovich Gorky. Nothing could have made him believe that either had killed the great writer (834) but under the pressure and threat of the State looming over him, he decides to betray his friends. Thinking logically or idealistically about what he “should” do would only prolong the torture of making the inevitable decision to save himself, rather than two innocent men (in a sort of better them than me attitude). It seems like this is a statement on basic human nature – that even the best of men (Viktor) will ultimately choose to save themselves rather than stand up for what they know is right – especially when “an omnipotent hand (the State) strokes your hair and pats you on the back (gives you benefits).” (835) Obviously this echoes The Lives of Others. Truly, “both good men and bad men alike are capable of weakness.” And now, Viktor, who had been so proud of his courage and uprightness, has now too betrayed people. (840) Resultantly, “his human happiness, his work, his beloved science, his love for his mother, his grief for her – everything has vanished.” (840) I think we all agree that this is a distinguishing quality of any totalitarian state.
After the Russian forces route the Germans at Stalingrad however, things begin to change. “The war had given way to peace – a poor, miserable peace that was hardly any easier than the war. “ (858) This statement reminds me of the Tony Judt piece about recognizing evils in all of its forms, and not just in obvious ones such as Stalinism, or war. Perhaps this inability to return to normalcy is one of those evils. The book focuses on the post-war experience of Alexandra Vladimirovna, Spiridonov and company. Vladimirovna wonders about what the future holds in store for her, for she has “no idea” and wonders why the destinies of her loved ones were so confused, so obscure. (861) After all, the only thing that all of them had hoped for, the only thing that they all had wanted was happiness, but now that the war is over, happiness certainly is not promised. Ultimately she concludes that men can forge their own happiness, and that “fate, nor history, nor the State…can affect those who call themselves human beings” by the rationale that “no matter what life holds in store, they will live and die as human beings.” (862) Clearly this indicates a triumph of human will over the abstract concept of fate and destiny. “Life has to go on” and indeed it will, in spite of everything. The same idea is reflected again when she states to Stephan that “it” (up for interpretation, but probably a reference to all the lives lost in battle, and the oppression/terrorism of the state) doesn’t matter. It’s life.” (867)
Finally, the final chapter serves as something of a capstone to the book. We move away from any of the characters we have previously met, and simply follow a short anecdote of an old woman as she reflects on her difficult life, and a tenant and her husband walking into a village. By focusing the last chapter on new, nameless and faceless characters, he seems to be reminding us that this (Life and Fate) is a story about all those people stuck under Stalinist rule – that the experiences of the Shaposhnikov family were not particularly unique or isolated events. Instead, this is a story about those millions forced to live under totalitarian regimes. This book simply serves as a poignant reminder and tribute to all of their lives.
After the Russian forces route the Germans at Stalingrad however, things begin to change. “The war had given way to peace – a poor, miserable peace that was hardly any easier than the war. “ (858) This statement reminds me of the Tony Judt piece about recognizing evils in all of its forms, and not just in obvious ones such as Stalinism, or war. Perhaps this inability to return to normalcy is one of those evils. The book focuses on the post-war experience of Alexandra Vladimirovna, Spiridonov and company. Vladimirovna wonders about what the future holds in store for her, for she has “no idea” and wonders why the destinies of her loved ones were so confused, so obscure. (861) After all, the only thing that all of them had hoped for, the only thing that they all had wanted was happiness, but now that the war is over, happiness certainly is not promised. Ultimately she concludes that men can forge their own happiness, and that “fate, nor history, nor the State…can affect those who call themselves human beings” by the rationale that “no matter what life holds in store, they will live and die as human beings.” (862) Clearly this indicates a triumph of human will over the abstract concept of fate and destiny. “Life has to go on” and indeed it will, in spite of everything. The same idea is reflected again when she states to Stephan that “it” (up for interpretation, but probably a reference to all the lives lost in battle, and the oppression/terrorism of the state) doesn’t matter. It’s life.” (867)
Finally, the final chapter serves as something of a capstone to the book. We move away from any of the characters we have previously met, and simply follow a short anecdote of an old woman as she reflects on her difficult life, and a tenant and her husband walking into a village. By focusing the last chapter on new, nameless and faceless characters, he seems to be reminding us that this (Life and Fate) is a story about all those people stuck under Stalinist rule – that the experiences of the Shaposhnikov family were not particularly unique or isolated events. Instead, this is a story about those millions forced to live under totalitarian regimes. This book simply serves as a poignant reminder and tribute to all of their lives.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Adam B.
Fear.
In a society where there are no rules, no laws, no restraints on the power of the state, all is left up to fate. Everything that the characters in Grossman’s novel hold dear, everything that they posses can be suddenly taken away, leaving the citizens in constant fear. When Viktor learns that the house manager wants to talk to him, he goes into his a panic as thoughts race through his mind and his head begins to spin; “was it about their excess living space? Viktor’s out-of-date passport? Or was it a check-up by the Military Commissariat? Or perhaps some informer had told them that Yevgenia had been living there without being registered” (759). All of us would go mad, I bet, living in such world filled by constant threat.
Yet, one thing in Viktor’s unpredictable life is certain beyond a doubt. As Viktor remarks, “they already know everything” to which Lyudmila responds “of course they do. They’re all spying on us… What’s there to be surprised about?” (760). He remembers Krymov, “as pure and dedicated a Communist as anyone,” who had been arrested and no one seemed shocked. This brings Viktor “back to his student days. How he had talked!”It raises the question of whether there is any justice in the Communist system. With all the injustice seen in this novel alone, there is no need to list them.
After a few weeks of living in this constant fear , Viktor’s nerves are tested. Everywhere he went, “his feeling of terror grew more and more oppressive” (760). He must live his life with so many daily fears. At times, “Viktor looked at his wife, wondering what the two of them would be like in ten of fifteen years” (761). In such madness as this, how long could you last? Compared to life in the U.S., it would certainly be quite a contrast.
However, things turn around quickly for Viktor Shtrum. One day the phone rings while he is sitting in his living room. His wife picks up the phone, unable to recognize who is calling. But as it turns out, it is just your friendly neighborhood comrade Stalin. This alleviates Viktor’s fear temporarily. At least, until he remembers that he has to visit the house manager, then he no longer goes about his life merrily.
The section also includes a window into Viktor’s imprisoned life. Set in the prisons, it portrays his terrible strife. This section ends with a wonderful quotation about life and fate. Thinking of his dead friend he realizes “that’s my fate too… I’ve got nowhere to go… it’s too late” (788).
In a society where there are no rules, no laws, no restraints on the power of the state, all is left up to fate. Everything that the characters in Grossman’s novel hold dear, everything that they posses can be suddenly taken away, leaving the citizens in constant fear. When Viktor learns that the house manager wants to talk to him, he goes into his a panic as thoughts race through his mind and his head begins to spin; “was it about their excess living space? Viktor’s out-of-date passport? Or was it a check-up by the Military Commissariat? Or perhaps some informer had told them that Yevgenia had been living there without being registered” (759). All of us would go mad, I bet, living in such world filled by constant threat.
Yet, one thing in Viktor’s unpredictable life is certain beyond a doubt. As Viktor remarks, “they already know everything” to which Lyudmila responds “of course they do. They’re all spying on us… What’s there to be surprised about?” (760). He remembers Krymov, “as pure and dedicated a Communist as anyone,” who had been arrested and no one seemed shocked. This brings Viktor “back to his student days. How he had talked!”It raises the question of whether there is any justice in the Communist system. With all the injustice seen in this novel alone, there is no need to list them.
After a few weeks of living in this constant fear , Viktor’s nerves are tested. Everywhere he went, “his feeling of terror grew more and more oppressive” (760). He must live his life with so many daily fears. At times, “Viktor looked at his wife, wondering what the two of them would be like in ten of fifteen years” (761). In such madness as this, how long could you last? Compared to life in the U.S., it would certainly be quite a contrast.
However, things turn around quickly for Viktor Shtrum. One day the phone rings while he is sitting in his living room. His wife picks up the phone, unable to recognize who is calling. But as it turns out, it is just your friendly neighborhood comrade Stalin. This alleviates Viktor’s fear temporarily. At least, until he remembers that he has to visit the house manager, then he no longer goes about his life merrily.
The section also includes a window into Viktor’s imprisoned life. Set in the prisons, it portrays his terrible strife. This section ends with a wonderful quotation about life and fate. Thinking of his dead friend he realizes “that’s my fate too… I’ve got nowhere to go… it’s too late” (788).
Ian's Post
Ian T; pages 471 to 508
The most important sections of the reading from page 471 to 508 are Liss's inspections of the concentration camp facilities beginning on page 471, his meeting with Obersturmbannfuhrer Eichmann on pages 476 to 484, and Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism on pages 484 to 487.
The cold efficiency of the camp programs and facilities that Liss inspects at the beginning of the reading mirrors the Nazi officials' callousness and inhumanity. Liss is first impressed by the efficiency of Voss engineering works, but he is dissapointed by the chemical firm in charge of producing drugs for the concentration camp. The comparison of the two firms demonstrates the German's proficiency in mechanics, and their incompetence in matters of health. This comparison hints that the Germans' mechanic, ultra-rational outlook overpowers their ability to appreciate life and human emotion.
The Nazi inhumanity is made clear in Liss's inspection of one of the gas chambers being constructed at the camp. Liss praises the efficiency of the chamber and says, "It was capable of transforming life itself, and all forms of energy pertaining to it, into inorganic matter" (474). The gas chamber is representative of the Nazi's ability to destroy life and humanity and turn it into "inorganic matter."
The meeting between Liss and Eichmann is also worth noting. Liss first believes Eichmann to be a blindly devoted idealist, but he realizes that Eichmann is much smarter than that after Eichmann forgets to make a toast to the success of the Nazi party. Liss then describes the four types of Nazi officials. He says the first type of Nazi is unintelligent, dogmatic, and blind devotionalist. The second category is made up of "intelligent cynics" (482), who see the faults of the party but follow blindly to maintain their positions. The third category is comprised of top officials who are free from the party idealism, and able to think objectively about Nazism. The fourth group is the industrialist who profit from Nazism. It is interesting that Liss believes Nazis become less attached and emphatic about the party as they ascend in ranks. Liss is afraid of Hitler because he believes Hitler combines the rationality of members of the third party with the dangerous dogmatism of the first.
Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism is the last important section of this reading. In chapter 31, Grossman argues that anti-Semitism is a result of the failures of various governments that seek to blame their problems on another group. Grossman writes, "It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of - I'll tell you what you're guilty of" (484). He then writes, "And in accusing the jews of racism, a desire for world domination and a cosmopolitan indifference towards the German fatherland, National Socialism was merely describing its own features" (484-485). Grossman believes that many countries, but specifically Germany, used anti-Semitism as a tool to transfer its peoples frustrations towards their government onto another group of people. The strategy clearly worked in Germany, as ignorant masses blamed Jews for the problems that Nazism caused.
The most important sections of the reading from page 471 to 508 are Liss's inspections of the concentration camp facilities beginning on page 471, his meeting with Obersturmbannfuhrer Eichmann on pages 476 to 484, and Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism on pages 484 to 487.
The cold efficiency of the camp programs and facilities that Liss inspects at the beginning of the reading mirrors the Nazi officials' callousness and inhumanity. Liss is first impressed by the efficiency of Voss engineering works, but he is dissapointed by the chemical firm in charge of producing drugs for the concentration camp. The comparison of the two firms demonstrates the German's proficiency in mechanics, and their incompetence in matters of health. This comparison hints that the Germans' mechanic, ultra-rational outlook overpowers their ability to appreciate life and human emotion.
The Nazi inhumanity is made clear in Liss's inspection of one of the gas chambers being constructed at the camp. Liss praises the efficiency of the chamber and says, "It was capable of transforming life itself, and all forms of energy pertaining to it, into inorganic matter" (474). The gas chamber is representative of the Nazi's ability to destroy life and humanity and turn it into "inorganic matter."
The meeting between Liss and Eichmann is also worth noting. Liss first believes Eichmann to be a blindly devoted idealist, but he realizes that Eichmann is much smarter than that after Eichmann forgets to make a toast to the success of the Nazi party. Liss then describes the four types of Nazi officials. He says the first type of Nazi is unintelligent, dogmatic, and blind devotionalist. The second category is made up of "intelligent cynics" (482), who see the faults of the party but follow blindly to maintain their positions. The third category is comprised of top officials who are free from the party idealism, and able to think objectively about Nazism. The fourth group is the industrialist who profit from Nazism. It is interesting that Liss believes Nazis become less attached and emphatic about the party as they ascend in ranks. Liss is afraid of Hitler because he believes Hitler combines the rationality of members of the third party with the dangerous dogmatism of the first.
Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism is the last important section of this reading. In chapter 31, Grossman argues that anti-Semitism is a result of the failures of various governments that seek to blame their problems on another group. Grossman writes, "It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of - I'll tell you what you're guilty of" (484). He then writes, "And in accusing the jews of racism, a desire for world domination and a cosmopolitan indifference towards the German fatherland, National Socialism was merely describing its own features" (484-485). Grossman believes that many countries, but specifically Germany, used anti-Semitism as a tool to transfer its peoples frustrations towards their government onto another group of people. The strategy clearly worked in Germany, as ignorant masses blamed Jews for the problems that Nazism caused.
Andrew K.
In this section of the novel (Part III: Chapters 25-40) the tides of war have turned at Stalingrad and the Russian army is now driving the Germans back. However, the Russians are not glorialized over the Germans – Russia is described by Grossman as “terrible and somber” and “steel-clad” (712). There is little pity towards defeated German prisoners, and nationalism seems to have surged among the Russians. Nationalism is a profoundly un-Marxist idea, and yet very few question its importance. “Russian” is often used as a compliment (as “true American” is sometimes used today). “You can’t overestimate the importance of nationality,” Getmanov says (716), and he goes on to describe the inferiority of the Kalmyks to the Russians. Darensky agrees despite having never felt any antipathy towards the Kalmyks.
The only one seemingly immune to this surge of nationalism is Viktor, who once said “There was no German physics, American physics or Soviet physics.” (754) Viktor refuses to attend a meeting to discuss his failures as a Soviet and his daughter observes sarcastically that he hasn’t “gone off to repent”, to which Yevgenia says to her, “Well, there isn’t a single drop of Slav blood in you. You’re a true Hebrew maiden.” (704) In doing so, Yevgenia mocks the notion of a ‘true Russia’ as opposed to the rest of Russia, with its Jews and its Kalmyks and its Tartars, all inferior to the true Russia. I still find it absurd that Viktor is labeled as a Jew when he doesn’t believe in God (697). But in his refusal to accept nationalism, Viktor is being a true Socialist more than the Stalinists. Viktor says on page 699 that “The greatest tragedy of our age is that we don’t listen to our consciences. We don’t say what we think. We feel one thing and do another… Socialism, first of all, is the right to a conscience. To deprive a man of his conscience is a terrible crime.” It is clear that Viktor believes himself to be a true Socialist more than those who support the current regime. However, Viktor is far from invulnerable: when he hears the results of the meeting “It was as though the State, in its fury, was able to take away not only his freedom and peace of mind, but even his intelligence, his talent and his belief in himself. It had transformed him into a grey, stupid, miserable bourgeois.” (757)
Interestingly enough, Grossman shifts focus to the Germans for several chapters. Grossman sees Nazism as profoundly inhuman, however, in defeat, the German people are beginning to recover their humanity. He describes this time as “the first hours, after ten years of complete inhumanity, of a slow return to human life” for millions of Germans. (732) Only of a few, such as Lenard, is it suggested that “There was too much of him… that was dedicated only to the State; now it was too late for that to be made human.” (741) In portraying the Germans as sympathetic characters, Grossman is taking another shot at nationalism – Germans are no worse than Russians, even if Nazism is far worse than Communism.
On a final note, I will admit that I read the scene where the German soldiers receive little fake Christmas trees and sing O Tannenbaum through tears. World War Two is still close enough to home to have the same Christmas carols, so it still hurts.
The only one seemingly immune to this surge of nationalism is Viktor, who once said “There was no German physics, American physics or Soviet physics.” (754) Viktor refuses to attend a meeting to discuss his failures as a Soviet and his daughter observes sarcastically that he hasn’t “gone off to repent”, to which Yevgenia says to her, “Well, there isn’t a single drop of Slav blood in you. You’re a true Hebrew maiden.” (704) In doing so, Yevgenia mocks the notion of a ‘true Russia’ as opposed to the rest of Russia, with its Jews and its Kalmyks and its Tartars, all inferior to the true Russia. I still find it absurd that Viktor is labeled as a Jew when he doesn’t believe in God (697). But in his refusal to accept nationalism, Viktor is being a true Socialist more than the Stalinists. Viktor says on page 699 that “The greatest tragedy of our age is that we don’t listen to our consciences. We don’t say what we think. We feel one thing and do another… Socialism, first of all, is the right to a conscience. To deprive a man of his conscience is a terrible crime.” It is clear that Viktor believes himself to be a true Socialist more than those who support the current regime. However, Viktor is far from invulnerable: when he hears the results of the meeting “It was as though the State, in its fury, was able to take away not only his freedom and peace of mind, but even his intelligence, his talent and his belief in himself. It had transformed him into a grey, stupid, miserable bourgeois.” (757)
Interestingly enough, Grossman shifts focus to the Germans for several chapters. Grossman sees Nazism as profoundly inhuman, however, in defeat, the German people are beginning to recover their humanity. He describes this time as “the first hours, after ten years of complete inhumanity, of a slow return to human life” for millions of Germans. (732) Only of a few, such as Lenard, is it suggested that “There was too much of him… that was dedicated only to the State; now it was too late for that to be made human.” (741) In portraying the Germans as sympathetic characters, Grossman is taking another shot at nationalism – Germans are no worse than Russians, even if Nazism is far worse than Communism.
On a final note, I will admit that I read the scene where the German soldiers receive little fake Christmas trees and sing O Tannenbaum through tears. World War Two is still close enough to home to have the same Christmas carols, so it still hurts.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Evan's Post
The beginning of Part Three opens with Krymov’s decommission as an officer on the Stalingrad front. As he is led into the bunker and is promptly asked to turn in his weapon and papers, a hopeless confusion and a feeling of personal injustice match his distinct surprise. In a sense, he is now free from the collective brutality of the Red Army, free from witnessing horrific, despicable, inhuman acts of war, free from fighting for a cause that he does not wholeheartedly believe in.
So why, then, does Grossman included the ominous ending line, “These words were no longer those of a free man.” (616)? What is he trying to say about how the totalitarian system operates, and how the freedom is valued and understood?
The following torture scene and breakdown in the Special Section at the Front HQ effectively illuminates the power and truth behind Grossman’s brooding, frightening statement on 616. The burdens of fear, uncertainty, paranoia, and mistrust have become agents of oppression and psychologically destruction. Krymov’s individualistic spirit has been utterly crushed, and has left him in a state of almost psychotic desperation. “He had become another being. Everything in him had to change. He had lost his freedom.” (617) In other words, Krymov’s identity has been erased. The things that made him who he was–thoughts, opinions, ideas, and attitudes– have all been stripped away. Because of his devotional hesitance concerning the ideals of Bolshevism, he is now to be conditioned to receive Leninist and Stalinist ideological understandings openly, and to adapt to them with absolute faith.
So why is this idea of changing the nature of man, of altering his personal sense of individuality and opinion, so essential to the success of totalitarianism as a utopian system? More importantly, how are the other major characters in the novel affected by this relentless political strictness, this oppressive inflexibility, as well as the attempts of the men in power to convert an entire nation into a universally accepted, sincere, unadulterated, idyllic Communist state?
Finally, I want to propose a question concerning Grossman’s repetition of the line “He had lost his freedom” (617, 618, etc) Why do you think he chose to repeat this line several times throughout this section of the novel? What is the significance of this repetition in the context of the central themes of the novel, and how does it apply to the lives of characters like Viktor, Lyudmila, Novikov, etc. as they continue to struggle with retrieving and reinventing their identity and individualistic spirit?
I look forward to your thoughts and insights.
So why, then, does Grossman included the ominous ending line, “These words were no longer those of a free man.” (616)? What is he trying to say about how the totalitarian system operates, and how the freedom is valued and understood?
The following torture scene and breakdown in the Special Section at the Front HQ effectively illuminates the power and truth behind Grossman’s brooding, frightening statement on 616. The burdens of fear, uncertainty, paranoia, and mistrust have become agents of oppression and psychologically destruction. Krymov’s individualistic spirit has been utterly crushed, and has left him in a state of almost psychotic desperation. “He had become another being. Everything in him had to change. He had lost his freedom.” (617) In other words, Krymov’s identity has been erased. The things that made him who he was–thoughts, opinions, ideas, and attitudes– have all been stripped away. Because of his devotional hesitance concerning the ideals of Bolshevism, he is now to be conditioned to receive Leninist and Stalinist ideological understandings openly, and to adapt to them with absolute faith.
So why is this idea of changing the nature of man, of altering his personal sense of individuality and opinion, so essential to the success of totalitarianism as a utopian system? More importantly, how are the other major characters in the novel affected by this relentless political strictness, this oppressive inflexibility, as well as the attempts of the men in power to convert an entire nation into a universally accepted, sincere, unadulterated, idyllic Communist state?
Finally, I want to propose a question concerning Grossman’s repetition of the line “He had lost his freedom” (617, 618, etc) Why do you think he chose to repeat this line several times throughout this section of the novel? What is the significance of this repetition in the context of the central themes of the novel, and how does it apply to the lives of characters like Viktor, Lyudmila, Novikov, etc. as they continue to struggle with retrieving and reinventing their identity and individualistic spirit?
I look forward to your thoughts and insights.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Ned's Post
Hello my fellow comrades,
Recently in class, we have been discussing the destruction of the individual: the effects a totalitarian government has on society, one that creates a uniform societal model, an ideal view of the world, which controls the fate of one’s life. In the book “Life and Fate,” Grossman leads us through a sequence of stories, like the fate of the Shtrum/Shapashnikov family and the life in the camps of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, which both shed light on this very idea. This theme directly relates to what we first were discussing earlier this fall. Berlin, along with ideas of Vico, warns us of the ideal path, the claim that there is only one means to an ultimate utopia.
“They fell into an uncomfortable silence. Viktor felt a shiver of fear, the fear that was always lurking in his heart – fear of the State’s anger, fear of being a victim of this anger that could crush a man and grind him to dust” (Grossman 569).
Here, Viktor feels an explicit unease between himself, his peace of mind, and this man, Pyotr Lavrentyevich. As we know by now, Grossman loves to insert many minor characters, adding deliberate tensions between them and the various protagonists. Similarly, on page 572, we learn of Anna Stepanovna’s dilemma at the Institute. Without much explanation, she was ordered to resign from the laboratory. She “saved the Institute. She looked after everything during the bombing. And now she’s being dismissed purely on administrative grounds” (573). Only separated by a few pages, we see two distinct examples of the Soviet State devalue the merits and worth of the individual.
Although this theme has been present in some of our previous discussions and readings prior to mine, I thought I would bring this specific dialogue to the fore. Near the end of chapter 53, I was caught by a particularly striking description of Kovchenko: “He bowed his head. He was no longer a professor, a doctor of science, a famous scientist who had made a remarkable discovery, a man who could be forthright and independent, arrogant and condescending. He was just a man with curly hair and a hooked nose, with a stooped back and narrow shoulders, screwing up his eyes as though he was expecting a blow on the cheek.” (575) According the Soviet State, Kovchenko is not a man of value, a man whose accomplishments should speak to his deserved status in society. In their minds, Kovchenko is no different from any other “stooped back[ed and] narrow shoulder[ed]” member of society. Kovchenko should not necessarily have all the ‘bells and whistles’ attached to his profession, but it becomes terribly apparent that he is not seen as an individual and a productive member of society.
My question to you all: where have we seen a similar destruction in the book so far, whether in this section of the book or in one preceding mine? How does Grossman use specific events and characters to develop this idea? I look forward to hearing what you all have to say!
Nedwin out.
Recently in class, we have been discussing the destruction of the individual: the effects a totalitarian government has on society, one that creates a uniform societal model, an ideal view of the world, which controls the fate of one’s life. In the book “Life and Fate,” Grossman leads us through a sequence of stories, like the fate of the Shtrum/Shapashnikov family and the life in the camps of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, which both shed light on this very idea. This theme directly relates to what we first were discussing earlier this fall. Berlin, along with ideas of Vico, warns us of the ideal path, the claim that there is only one means to an ultimate utopia.
“They fell into an uncomfortable silence. Viktor felt a shiver of fear, the fear that was always lurking in his heart – fear of the State’s anger, fear of being a victim of this anger that could crush a man and grind him to dust” (Grossman 569).
Here, Viktor feels an explicit unease between himself, his peace of mind, and this man, Pyotr Lavrentyevich. As we know by now, Grossman loves to insert many minor characters, adding deliberate tensions between them and the various protagonists. Similarly, on page 572, we learn of Anna Stepanovna’s dilemma at the Institute. Without much explanation, she was ordered to resign from the laboratory. She “saved the Institute. She looked after everything during the bombing. And now she’s being dismissed purely on administrative grounds” (573). Only separated by a few pages, we see two distinct examples of the Soviet State devalue the merits and worth of the individual.
Although this theme has been present in some of our previous discussions and readings prior to mine, I thought I would bring this specific dialogue to the fore. Near the end of chapter 53, I was caught by a particularly striking description of Kovchenko: “He bowed his head. He was no longer a professor, a doctor of science, a famous scientist who had made a remarkable discovery, a man who could be forthright and independent, arrogant and condescending. He was just a man with curly hair and a hooked nose, with a stooped back and narrow shoulders, screwing up his eyes as though he was expecting a blow on the cheek.” (575) According the Soviet State, Kovchenko is not a man of value, a man whose accomplishments should speak to his deserved status in society. In their minds, Kovchenko is no different from any other “stooped back[ed and] narrow shoulder[ed]” member of society. Kovchenko should not necessarily have all the ‘bells and whistles’ attached to his profession, but it becomes terribly apparent that he is not seen as an individual and a productive member of society.
My question to you all: where have we seen a similar destruction in the book so far, whether in this section of the book or in one preceding mine? How does Grossman use specific events and characters to develop this idea? I look forward to hearing what you all have to say!
Nedwin out.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Killian's Post
In this section of the book (chapters 10 through 15) Grossman seems to be illustrating one main point: “The state is not an effect but a cause.” The reading starts out with an overly optimistic statement about the war as Lieutenant Peter Bach says, “It’s more than likely that this is the most important concentration of forces we’ve assembled since the beginning of the war. Believe me!” The reason this quote is so important is because it shows the power the state has over its people as Bach says this even though it goes directly against what he truly believes. In fact, x-rays serve to show “all the poisonous dissidence that had collected inside his rib-cage over the years.” Though there is dissidence and disagreement at the core of Bach’s character, he remains fighting for the idealized cause of the state. Though everything appears okay on the outside, it is rotting away on the inside. This overly optimistic view of the war that is portrayed by people can be seen yet again as an assistant told Bach that he would be back on the battle field shortly. Clearly there is a disconnect between the actual war and the portrayed war as the assistant severely misjudges Bach’s feeling towards battle.
Grossman continues to criticize the German government as Bach notes that “here he was, a front-line officer and they still didn’t consider him a true German!” The old German intelligentsia will never be fully accepted regardless of what they do. This leads one to believe that it really became an atmosphere based not on ideology, as Bach had completely dedicated himself to that ideology, but rather, one of blind revolt and contempt for all who were not peasants or the heads of the party.
Grossman writes that though Marx and his fellow thinkers may have had the firmest grip on human history to that point, they “had not so much as glimpsed the powerful forces that hold a nation together in spite of class differences; his social physics, based on contempt for the universal law of national attraction, was simply absurd.” If either of the two regimes were based on Marxist principals, it was in name alone.
As a result of the true power wielded by the administration that functioned under the assumed identity of Marxism, the Germans gained almost complete control of their people as the same man, Paulus, that says, “There’s something quite senseless and unnecessary about the whole struggle for this city,” will continue to fight saying, “it’s not for us to impose our will on a great strategist.” This is truly a sickening occurrence as one man as successfully blinded and taken control over millions of people.
Then Darensky and Bova enter into a conversation in which they ultimately conclude that though, “you say the Germans are responsible, maybe we did our bit too.” This becomes more important in a conversation between Mikhail Mostovoskoy and Liss as its true meaning becomes clear: Germany and Russia are not so different. In an attempt to discuss the issue with Mostovoskoy, Liss says, “When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate, no, we’re gazing into a mirror. That’s the tragedy of our age.” Grossman is clearly conveying a sense that the war between Russia and Germany is, in essence, a war between two of the same ideologies. Liss furthers this idea saying, “There is no divide. It’s just been dreamed up. In essence we are the same, both one-party States. Our capitalists are not the masters. The State gives them their plan. The State takes their profit and all they produe. As their salary they keep six per cent of the profit. Your State also outlines a plan and takes what is produced for itself. And the people you call masters, the workers, also receive a salary from your one-party state.”
Grossman then ends the reading with a digression into the true virtue of both good and evil, suggesting that, perhaps, at time, they can be one and the same. He ultimately decides, however, that the ultimate good is random human kindness. It is this kindness that proves powerful, but when one attempts to direct this power, proves powerless. “Human history is… a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.” Though Mostovoskoy and Liss both harshly rejects this, it is interesting to note that they had “aroused the same contempt in his night-time interrogator as they did in himself.” Perhaps this points to some truth that Mostovoskoy and Liss realize deep down but are scared to admit.
Grossman continues to criticize the German government as Bach notes that “here he was, a front-line officer and they still didn’t consider him a true German!” The old German intelligentsia will never be fully accepted regardless of what they do. This leads one to believe that it really became an atmosphere based not on ideology, as Bach had completely dedicated himself to that ideology, but rather, one of blind revolt and contempt for all who were not peasants or the heads of the party.
Grossman writes that though Marx and his fellow thinkers may have had the firmest grip on human history to that point, they “had not so much as glimpsed the powerful forces that hold a nation together in spite of class differences; his social physics, based on contempt for the universal law of national attraction, was simply absurd.” If either of the two regimes were based on Marxist principals, it was in name alone.
As a result of the true power wielded by the administration that functioned under the assumed identity of Marxism, the Germans gained almost complete control of their people as the same man, Paulus, that says, “There’s something quite senseless and unnecessary about the whole struggle for this city,” will continue to fight saying, “it’s not for us to impose our will on a great strategist.” This is truly a sickening occurrence as one man as successfully blinded and taken control over millions of people.
Then Darensky and Bova enter into a conversation in which they ultimately conclude that though, “you say the Germans are responsible, maybe we did our bit too.” This becomes more important in a conversation between Mikhail Mostovoskoy and Liss as its true meaning becomes clear: Germany and Russia are not so different. In an attempt to discuss the issue with Mostovoskoy, Liss says, “When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate, no, we’re gazing into a mirror. That’s the tragedy of our age.” Grossman is clearly conveying a sense that the war between Russia and Germany is, in essence, a war between two of the same ideologies. Liss furthers this idea saying, “There is no divide. It’s just been dreamed up. In essence we are the same, both one-party States. Our capitalists are not the masters. The State gives them their plan. The State takes their profit and all they produe. As their salary they keep six per cent of the profit. Your State also outlines a plan and takes what is produced for itself. And the people you call masters, the workers, also receive a salary from your one-party state.”
Grossman then ends the reading with a digression into the true virtue of both good and evil, suggesting that, perhaps, at time, they can be one and the same. He ultimately decides, however, that the ultimate good is random human kindness. It is this kindness that proves powerful, but when one attempts to direct this power, proves powerless. “Human history is… a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.” Though Mostovoskoy and Liss both harshly rejects this, it is interesting to note that they had “aroused the same contempt in his night-time interrogator as they did in himself.” Perhaps this points to some truth that Mostovoskoy and Liss realize deep down but are scared to admit.
John's Post
321-368
Summary + Analysis
Act II starts out with Grossman describing the naivety of soldiers that were being sent to the front for the first time, and talks about how their general, Novikov, is being sent to the Front in Stalingrad. The narrative then focuses on the general's personal life and his meeting with his lover and future wife Zhenya (Yevgenia Nikolaevna) ((Shaposhnikova)). Both of these characters have regrets about the war and ultimately the communist regime, but like usual many things are left unsaid. Zhenya is confused whether she loves Krymov, the man she pushed away who is in the Front lines, or Novikov the hot-shot general. Krymov was accused of being a bad communist due to his published works ( a fact that returns over and over again .) Anyway, Novikov leaves and gets on the train towards Stalingrad, where he meets up with Nyeudobnov, who has no problem killing men off at the very hint of an anti-Russian mindset.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"He was a strange man; Novikov sometimes found him quite frightening. Whenever anything had gone wrong on the journey - a delay because of a train coming in the opposite direction, a faulty axle on one of the carriages, a controller being slow to signal them on - Nyeudobnov had said with sudden excitement: 'Take down his name. That's deliberate sabotage. The swine should be arrested immediately.' (Page 334)
And also: "Nyeudobnov seemed to be constantly vigilant. It was as if, whenever he met someone, he wondered suspiciously: 'And how am I to know, dear comrade, that you're not an enemy of the people yourself?' Yesterday he had told Novikov and Getmanov about the saboteur architects who had tried to convert the main Moscow boulevards into landing strips for enemy planes." (334)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Nyeudobnov is a perfect example of a man who abuses his power and has an irrational paranoia towards his fellow man. He has a seemingly blind faith in communism, possibly due to the fact that he isn't on the wrong end of it.
Nyeudobnov on Mitka Yevsyev:
"If this man was arrested then he must have been an enemy of the people. People don't get arrested for nothing." (336)
Later on, a drunken soldier was being escorted past the window and was seen kissing the police officer's face- Nyeudobnov immediately says "Hes a saboteur. He deserves to be shot." Novikov seems to take all of this in, but doesn't have the will or the guts to say what he is thinking. Grossman specifically states that Novikov is unhappy or "tense" around the other generals, partially due to their endless gossip of enemies of the state. We see him explode in anger when Getmanov talks about his conversation with the other general questioning how he can be in a relationship with a woman (Zhenya) whose first husband (Krymov) was a supposed traitor to the communist movement.
Novikov: "To hell with all that! ... Let me tell you- I've had enough of all this! It makes me sick!"
Getmanov comments that he agrees with him and says hes a real man.
MEANWHILE... BACK AT THE LABORATORY...
Viktor has discovered an impressive new theory, which he shows to his colleagues (most notably Solokov) who are all very impressed, but many of whom reproach him (for being Jewish.) Also, some of the people he works with at the lab cannot go to Moscow with him because they are Jewish, even though he could use their help.
-Viktor meets up with Marya Ivanovna who is apparently, according to the back of the book, also his wife (?)
The section ends with another Jewish man, Karimov, paying a visit to Viktor's house. The two discuss the very real executions of Jews and their families, but dismiss them as mythology due to the horror of it. Karimov comments that Viktor is lucky he is a Russian scientist because at least now he is not helping Hitler with his discoveries (362)
Solokov's brother, Madyarov, tells Novikov that he thinks Karimov is an informer. He asks Novikov to examine the man's life- he meets with Novikov quite often, his entire circle has vanished, and he has been granted his doctorate. Thus, Karimov's fate for being an informer is success and protection, while the men who he betrays are sentenced to death.
So I suppose some issues to focus on would be Novikov's reaction to "Anti-Communist" actions and Nyeudobnov's comments, his relationship to Zhenya and their relationship to the war, and the life and fate of Jewish men that are trying to survive.
Summary + Analysis
Act II starts out with Grossman describing the naivety of soldiers that were being sent to the front for the first time, and talks about how their general, Novikov, is being sent to the Front in Stalingrad. The narrative then focuses on the general's personal life and his meeting with his lover and future wife Zhenya (Yevgenia Nikolaevna) ((Shaposhnikova)). Both of these characters have regrets about the war and ultimately the communist regime, but like usual many things are left unsaid. Zhenya is confused whether she loves Krymov, the man she pushed away who is in the Front lines, or Novikov the hot-shot general. Krymov was accused of being a bad communist due to his published works ( a fact that returns over and over again .) Anyway, Novikov leaves and gets on the train towards Stalingrad, where he meets up with Nyeudobnov, who has no problem killing men off at the very hint of an anti-Russian mindset.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"He was a strange man; Novikov sometimes found him quite frightening. Whenever anything had gone wrong on the journey - a delay because of a train coming in the opposite direction, a faulty axle on one of the carriages, a controller being slow to signal them on - Nyeudobnov had said with sudden excitement: 'Take down his name. That's deliberate sabotage. The swine should be arrested immediately.' (Page 334)
And also: "Nyeudobnov seemed to be constantly vigilant. It was as if, whenever he met someone, he wondered suspiciously: 'And how am I to know, dear comrade, that you're not an enemy of the people yourself?' Yesterday he had told Novikov and Getmanov about the saboteur architects who had tried to convert the main Moscow boulevards into landing strips for enemy planes." (334)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Nyeudobnov is a perfect example of a man who abuses his power and has an irrational paranoia towards his fellow man. He has a seemingly blind faith in communism, possibly due to the fact that he isn't on the wrong end of it.
Nyeudobnov on Mitka Yevsyev:
"If this man was arrested then he must have been an enemy of the people. People don't get arrested for nothing." (336)
Later on, a drunken soldier was being escorted past the window and was seen kissing the police officer's face- Nyeudobnov immediately says "Hes a saboteur. He deserves to be shot." Novikov seems to take all of this in, but doesn't have the will or the guts to say what he is thinking. Grossman specifically states that Novikov is unhappy or "tense" around the other generals, partially due to their endless gossip of enemies of the state. We see him explode in anger when Getmanov talks about his conversation with the other general questioning how he can be in a relationship with a woman (Zhenya) whose first husband (Krymov) was a supposed traitor to the communist movement.
Novikov: "To hell with all that! ... Let me tell you- I've had enough of all this! It makes me sick!"
Getmanov comments that he agrees with him and says hes a real man.
MEANWHILE... BACK AT THE LABORATORY...
Viktor has discovered an impressive new theory, which he shows to his colleagues (most notably Solokov) who are all very impressed, but many of whom reproach him (for being Jewish.) Also, some of the people he works with at the lab cannot go to Moscow with him because they are Jewish, even though he could use their help.
-Viktor meets up with Marya Ivanovna who is apparently, according to the back of the book, also his wife (?)
The section ends with another Jewish man, Karimov, paying a visit to Viktor's house. The two discuss the very real executions of Jews and their families, but dismiss them as mythology due to the horror of it. Karimov comments that Viktor is lucky he is a Russian scientist because at least now he is not helping Hitler with his discoveries (362)
Solokov's brother, Madyarov, tells Novikov that he thinks Karimov is an informer. He asks Novikov to examine the man's life- he meets with Novikov quite often, his entire circle has vanished, and he has been granted his doctorate. Thus, Karimov's fate for being an informer is success and protection, while the men who he betrays are sentenced to death.
So I suppose some issues to focus on would be Novikov's reaction to "Anti-Communist" actions and Nyeudobnov's comments, his relationship to Zhenya and their relationship to the war, and the life and fate of Jewish men that are trying to survive.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Ben Z. 135-174
The reading from pages 135 to 174 is divided into two distinct sections. The first, pages 135 to 157, describes Lyudmila’s trip to see Tolya and the ensuing changes to her mentality, and the second, pages 158 to 157, recounts the preparations that the soldiers in a Russian air battalion make for their journey to a new town. Each of these two sections discusses two main ideas that shine light on the Russian Condition as Grossman sees it. In the first section we about how Russians internalize their emotions by creating a façade that distances them from others and, when they are forced to come into contact with others, falls away to expose their fear of the regime that causes them to be overly dependent on receiving praise and acceptance to perpetuate their good reputation. The second section goes into detail about the cycle that the soldiers go through every time they enter a new town, bringing to light the monotony of their lives that pervades even the their romantic endeavors and begging the question: are the soldiers really acting through love and emotion or are they just guided by a ingrained idea of what types of social behaviors are expected and to some extent required of them? The second section also brings up the tension surrounding religion and how it affects one’s status as a true, trustworthy Russian.
As the preceding reading suggests, Lyudmila starts out as an assertive, opinionated, emotional Russian woman and Grossman reinforces this belief by describing all the strong opinions that she defends against Victor and his mother but which she would relent on ”if only Tolya were still alive”. Therefore, at the beginning of the reading it is no surprise that she finds the “calm eyes of” the other women on the steamer with her “unbearable” (138). She goes on to present a question that is at the heart of the Russian condition under Stalin. “Where did this inhuman behaviour come from?” This inhuman behavior pervades Russian culture and even touches Lyudmilla “filling her with the cold and darkness of thousands of miles of desolate Russian steppe, with a feeling of helplessness amid life’s frozen wastes” as she watches the other people. Up until the time when Ludmilla breaks down on Tolya’s grave, she describes everything with vivid and emotional language and continues to view others with distain showing us she has not changed. For example, the hospital “was so sticky and viscous that however chilled you were by the frost, you wanted to go back outside rather than stay and enjoy its warmth”(142). Then when she goes to visit Tolya’s grave and we get several pages of strange but understandable mourning (152-155) in which Lyudmila experiences; surprise at all the death surrounding her, then a growing silence that marks her isolation from the world and culminates in a massive nose bleed “the water of life” (153) symbolizing her rebirth into the deranged new world of internalized suffering in which she believes that Tolya is still alive. As this change takes place she has several thoughts that range from total despair to fake acceptance of Tolya’s death before she learns to internalize her sorrow like the other Russians. See “A soul can live in torment…before reality”(154), “she suddenly felt…eternity retreated before her love”(154), “her madness had passed…He was dead”(155), and “All that existed…against her temples”(154). Consequently, after Lyudmila goes through this transformation, Grossman ends the trip and the first chapter of Lyudmila’s life by showing us her new self through the eye’s of Viktor’s eyes “She had always been argumentative, but now she no longer argued with anyone” (157). The obvious question surrounding Lyudmila’s change is : Is detached, internalized mourning and the creation of a fake “world” inside oneself an inevitable part of Russian life during the war, and if not how can it be avoided, and if so who does it affect (everyone, the families of the soldiers, the mothers)?
The second theme contained in this first section concerns the “forgiveness” and praise that character including the commissar, the commandant, the nurse, and the cook on the boat need to justify their actions and in a sense their lives. This series of requests for praise that so disgust Lyudmila, begins innocently enough with the cook asks Lyudmila with “an openness and simplicity of heart in this demand for praise, addresses to someone the man had himself just fed” if it is a “fine soup” (139). Unfortunately, the requests for justification and congratulation get more and more pitiful and frustrating to Lyudmila over the course of this section. For example, Lyudmila says that “she could feel the commissar, the nurse and the commandant also wanted something from her, that they too wanted some word of consolation or forgiveness.” Grossman sums up this Russian condition at the end of chapter 31 “ Everyone feels guilty before a mother who has lost her son n a war; throughout human history men have tried in vain to justify themselves.” The logical question following this section is: Do these people seek forgiveness because they are afraid of getting a bad name under Stalin’s rule or do they truly feel guilty?
At this point I have already written too much and very few people are going to read farther therefore, I will include my outline and page numbers for the two paragraphs that would follow in hopes that you will think independently.
• Russian Soldier. Free versus in controlled/typical road (need women in the towns remake their relationships in every town)
o Initiate an elaborate “play” every time they enter a town with different actors and actresses, but the same script, in which the whole town participates.
o Is there any true emotion
o Pg (160-161) the beginning of the chapter and the story
• Prejudice.
o What is the true Russian?
Pg (165, 169)
Jew…is not (Korol)
As the preceding reading suggests, Lyudmila starts out as an assertive, opinionated, emotional Russian woman and Grossman reinforces this belief by describing all the strong opinions that she defends against Victor and his mother but which she would relent on ”if only Tolya were still alive”. Therefore, at the beginning of the reading it is no surprise that she finds the “calm eyes of” the other women on the steamer with her “unbearable” (138). She goes on to present a question that is at the heart of the Russian condition under Stalin. “Where did this inhuman behaviour come from?” This inhuman behavior pervades Russian culture and even touches Lyudmilla “filling her with the cold and darkness of thousands of miles of desolate Russian steppe, with a feeling of helplessness amid life’s frozen wastes” as she watches the other people. Up until the time when Ludmilla breaks down on Tolya’s grave, she describes everything with vivid and emotional language and continues to view others with distain showing us she has not changed. For example, the hospital “was so sticky and viscous that however chilled you were by the frost, you wanted to go back outside rather than stay and enjoy its warmth”(142). Then when she goes to visit Tolya’s grave and we get several pages of strange but understandable mourning (152-155) in which Lyudmila experiences; surprise at all the death surrounding her, then a growing silence that marks her isolation from the world and culminates in a massive nose bleed “the water of life” (153) symbolizing her rebirth into the deranged new world of internalized suffering in which she believes that Tolya is still alive. As this change takes place she has several thoughts that range from total despair to fake acceptance of Tolya’s death before she learns to internalize her sorrow like the other Russians. See “A soul can live in torment…before reality”(154), “she suddenly felt…eternity retreated before her love”(154), “her madness had passed…He was dead”(155), and “All that existed…against her temples”(154). Consequently, after Lyudmila goes through this transformation, Grossman ends the trip and the first chapter of Lyudmila’s life by showing us her new self through the eye’s of Viktor’s eyes “She had always been argumentative, but now she no longer argued with anyone” (157). The obvious question surrounding Lyudmila’s change is : Is detached, internalized mourning and the creation of a fake “world” inside oneself an inevitable part of Russian life during the war, and if not how can it be avoided, and if so who does it affect (everyone, the families of the soldiers, the mothers)?
The second theme contained in this first section concerns the “forgiveness” and praise that character including the commissar, the commandant, the nurse, and the cook on the boat need to justify their actions and in a sense their lives. This series of requests for praise that so disgust Lyudmila, begins innocently enough with the cook asks Lyudmila with “an openness and simplicity of heart in this demand for praise, addresses to someone the man had himself just fed” if it is a “fine soup” (139). Unfortunately, the requests for justification and congratulation get more and more pitiful and frustrating to Lyudmila over the course of this section. For example, Lyudmila says that “she could feel the commissar, the nurse and the commandant also wanted something from her, that they too wanted some word of consolation or forgiveness.” Grossman sums up this Russian condition at the end of chapter 31 “ Everyone feels guilty before a mother who has lost her son n a war; throughout human history men have tried in vain to justify themselves.” The logical question following this section is: Do these people seek forgiveness because they are afraid of getting a bad name under Stalin’s rule or do they truly feel guilty?
At this point I have already written too much and very few people are going to read farther therefore, I will include my outline and page numbers for the two paragraphs that would follow in hopes that you will think independently.
• Russian Soldier. Free versus in controlled/typical road (need women in the towns remake their relationships in every town)
o Initiate an elaborate “play” every time they enter a town with different actors and actresses, but the same script, in which the whole town participates.
o Is there any true emotion
o Pg (160-161) the beginning of the chapter and the story
• Prejudice.
o What is the true Russian?
Pg (165, 169)
Jew…is not (Korol)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Zac 174-226
In chapter 50, Grossman talks about the obedience of the people in the German death camps and how this obedience was a direct product of hopelessness. Grossman says that obedience is a result of totalitarianism’s ability to paralyze the human spirit and take away all hope. This hopelessness made Jews in the death camps so obedient that Grossman says, “Jews declared the slaughter of the Jews to be necessary for the happiness of mankind,” (215). Why does Grossman believe that with a lack of hope obedience is the one trait that becomes prominent within man? How does Grossman show this obedience within pages 174-226?
On page 200, Naum Rozenberg is counting the amount of bodies that he and the other brenners have burned. Naum keeps count of this because that is what he knows how to do and this is his new life so applies his old life skills to his new life. He says, “A pity he hadn’t kept separate totals for men, women and children,” (200). This quote just shows how primitive man can become when he is confronted with something that he can’t cope with. Why is Naum’s condition exactly like Lyudmila’s, after the death of Tolya?
On page 200, Naum Rozenberg is counting the amount of bodies that he and the other brenners have burned. Naum keeps count of this because that is what he knows how to do and this is his new life so applies his old life skills to his new life. He says, “A pity he hadn’t kept separate totals for men, women and children,” (200). This quote just shows how primitive man can become when he is confronted with something that he can’t cope with. Why is Naum’s condition exactly like Lyudmila’s, after the death of Tolya?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Connor
The horsemen too seemed identical” (291).
“The earth and the sky above have reflected one another for so long that they have finally become undistinguishable” (291).
“And in November and December-before the first snows-it’s impossible to tell whether the earth has been dried and hardened by the sun or by frost” (292).
In the beginning of the reading, these three quotations stuck out. The language and diction really lead the readers to question the state of the society. Ignoring the context for a minute, what should we make of these quotes? Is this some sort of message that Grossman is trying to send us about Russian culture and the era of Stalin? The idea of an identical, homogeneous population all supporting the Stalinist effort is quite frightening. Please, let me know what you think.
“Everything passes” (292).
Maybe I’m looking way too deep into this. Funny, it’s not often you hear something like that coming out of Connor’s mouth. But, what is Grossman saying here? What passes? Stalin’s regime?
“If someone has lost his freedom, the steppe will remind him of it…” (292).
“I’m losing my mind out here in the steppes” (296).
The final thing I’d like to discuss in this post with you is these two quotes. The steppe is clearly an important location in the novel and very symbolic. Here, we see the notion of liberty attached to this historic location. Clearly, Russia is not exactly in a state of liberty. Many characters live in fear of Stalin and his unyielding hand. Yet here, we see Grossman alluding to some form of hope…to liberty, a concept that seems foreign in this era. So, how do are we to understand this? For me, the steppe represents a step out of reality. Through Darensky’s eyes, we are seeing a part of Russia that has been forgotten…the idea of an ancient liberty has clearly been erased form these people’s minds. Yet, it lives here in the steppes.
I know this may not measure up to my comrades’ intelligent writing, but I really am interested in diction, and I am of the opinion that every word written is done purposefully. There are no coincidences! Let me know what you think.
“The earth and the sky above have reflected one another for so long that they have finally become undistinguishable” (291).
“And in November and December-before the first snows-it’s impossible to tell whether the earth has been dried and hardened by the sun or by frost” (292).
In the beginning of the reading, these three quotations stuck out. The language and diction really lead the readers to question the state of the society. Ignoring the context for a minute, what should we make of these quotes? Is this some sort of message that Grossman is trying to send us about Russian culture and the era of Stalin? The idea of an identical, homogeneous population all supporting the Stalinist effort is quite frightening. Please, let me know what you think.
“Everything passes” (292).
Maybe I’m looking way too deep into this. Funny, it’s not often you hear something like that coming out of Connor’s mouth. But, what is Grossman saying here? What passes? Stalin’s regime?
“If someone has lost his freedom, the steppe will remind him of it…” (292).
“I’m losing my mind out here in the steppes” (296).
The final thing I’d like to discuss in this post with you is these two quotes. The steppe is clearly an important location in the novel and very symbolic. Here, we see the notion of liberty attached to this historic location. Clearly, Russia is not exactly in a state of liberty. Many characters live in fear of Stalin and his unyielding hand. Yet here, we see Grossman alluding to some form of hope…to liberty, a concept that seems foreign in this era. So, how do are we to understand this? For me, the steppe represents a step out of reality. Through Darensky’s eyes, we are seeing a part of Russia that has been forgotten…the idea of an ancient liberty has clearly been erased form these people’s minds. Yet, it lives here in the steppes.
I know this may not measure up to my comrades’ intelligent writing, but I really am interested in diction, and I am of the opinion that every word written is done purposefully. There are no coincidences! Let me know what you think.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Nick's Post
The first part of the reading showed the differing psychological effects of the war on the characters of the story. In the beginning, we see Novikov reflect on the men he was commanding and see them not merely as a group but as widely differing individuals. This contrasts with the ideology he is fighting to support, the belief that individuals are only useful in the ways that they can help the State. Novikov saw his soldiers as they truly were: human beings with varying personalities, hopes, and desires bound together by the common fate of the war. He remarks that “that the only true meaning of the struggle for life lies in the individual”(230), which is the very thing the Soviet State hopes to destroy. From here Grossman transitions to the stories of the snipers who do the exact opposite. They dehumanize their opponents and view them merely as targets to be destroyed. Grossman juxtaposes Novikov’s compassion for his individual soldiers with the Russian snipers’ grouping of the Germans as hated enemies. Why on the bottom of pg 235 does Krymov say that he feels no pity for enemies of the Revolution, but feels sorry for the German workers?
It was interesting to see how Grossman describes the effects of the war on the soldiers in house 6/1, who are surrounded by the Germans. Despite their dire situation, they always appear to be confident and self-assured. They do not allow themselves to think about the danger they are in, and their confidence rubs off on the radio operator, Katya. The war transforms men who previously had rather ordinary lives into heroes, men who had “an extraordinary combination of strength , daring, authority and common sense” 255. Katya and the young boy, Seryozha, both talk about how they feel cut off from the past, how they can no longer imagine the life they had before the war. As Seryozha says, the men in house 6/1 are far from simple. Grekov says that “No one has the right to lead other people like sheep….the purpose of a revolution is to free people”(260). Why does Grekov feel as if he was free?
The reading ends with the continuation of the life of Viktor, whose frustration at work has carried over to his personal life. He feels estranged from his wife because he does not understand the effect the death of Tolya had on her. We also see the first instance of a discussion of dissatisfaction with the Soviet regime. Scott questioned why the soviets blindly follow their State leaders, and in this section we see their dissatisfaction with their society. Madyarov wants freedom of the press, and Karimov discusses the fact that how successful you are depends on how useful you are to the State. Yet behind all this is a lurking fear of saying too much, and an appreciation of the incredible power that words have. The section ends with Viktor suddenly having a scientific breakthrough, which he thinks resulted from the free discussion of ideas he had that night. What was Grossman’s purpose in writing a section where his characters discuss such counter-revolutionary ideas?
It was interesting to see how Grossman describes the effects of the war on the soldiers in house 6/1, who are surrounded by the Germans. Despite their dire situation, they always appear to be confident and self-assured. They do not allow themselves to think about the danger they are in, and their confidence rubs off on the radio operator, Katya. The war transforms men who previously had rather ordinary lives into heroes, men who had “an extraordinary combination of strength , daring, authority and common sense” 255. Katya and the young boy, Seryozha, both talk about how they feel cut off from the past, how they can no longer imagine the life they had before the war. As Seryozha says, the men in house 6/1 are far from simple. Grekov says that “No one has the right to lead other people like sheep….the purpose of a revolution is to free people”(260). Why does Grekov feel as if he was free?
The reading ends with the continuation of the life of Viktor, whose frustration at work has carried over to his personal life. He feels estranged from his wife because he does not understand the effect the death of Tolya had on her. We also see the first instance of a discussion of dissatisfaction with the Soviet regime. Scott questioned why the soviets blindly follow their State leaders, and in this section we see their dissatisfaction with their society. Madyarov wants freedom of the press, and Karimov discusses the fact that how successful you are depends on how useful you are to the State. Yet behind all this is a lurking fear of saying too much, and an appreciation of the incredible power that words have. The section ends with Viktor suddenly having a scientific breakthrough, which he thinks resulted from the free discussion of ideas he had that night. What was Grossman’s purpose in writing a section where his characters discuss such counter-revolutionary ideas?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Scott's Post 19-115
The other day in class we talked about how Grossman wrote Life and Fate while living as a product of Russian totalitarianism and how many of those used to promote, sustain, and implement Stalinism were actual acting out of a blind sense of devotion. Why was that? Was it because of fear or some type of obligation to commit to some false sense of hope Stalinism brought to Russia in its desperate time of need? I encourage you to look through the reading and find quotes, whether it be dialogue from the characters or Grossman's speech of mind through his prose, to find instances where this blind sense of devotion comes up. Sure there were the generals and people who were totally onboard with Stalinism who were in charge of different gulag sites and such. Surprisingly, the proprietors of the system were less involved in maintaining the system than those actually subject to it were(pg. 22) By creating classes within the gulags, giving prisoners privileged enslavement by allowing the power to govern and spy on other fellow gulag-mates. Clever, clever. However on pg. 23 ("The Kapos…own names on these lists."), Grossman shows how there were those in charge that were not exactly excited about doing their "jobs" either and didn’t necessarily agree with what they were doing anyway. So why did they comply?
How are Viktor Shtrum and other characters introduced in the story so far trapped into facilitating their on subjection to Stalinism or the things of society in general? Though none of them support the situation at hand, how to they tricked into helping maintain this brutal system?
Also in the beginning of the book, Grossman illustrates how diverse the gulags are in terms of history, guilt of crimes or lack thereof, originality, prior occupation, and classes, but still shows that they all had one thing in common that in essence made them equal to one another in a sense. "The very differences in the lives of these prisoners gave rise to a certain similarity…all these prisoners, without exception, had enjoyed a wonderful past" and despite "unable to understand one another in the confusion of tongues, were bound by a shared fate." How does this concept of equality because of the shared fates change throughout the course of the book? Specifically how does Viktor's mothers account of being made aware of her Jewishness speak to the truth about the plight of Jews in Russia (gulag) vs. Germany (concentration camp)?
Throughout life and fate we see how many live a life of survival because of their inborn fate of tragedy and despair. From the points of view of two of the characters, describe how the fact of being Jewish plays of this life of survival and fate of tragedy and despair?
How are Viktor Shtrum and other characters introduced in the story so far trapped into facilitating their on subjection to Stalinism or the things of society in general? Though none of them support the situation at hand, how to they tricked into helping maintain this brutal system?
Also in the beginning of the book, Grossman illustrates how diverse the gulags are in terms of history, guilt of crimes or lack thereof, originality, prior occupation, and classes, but still shows that they all had one thing in common that in essence made them equal to one another in a sense. "The very differences in the lives of these prisoners gave rise to a certain similarity…all these prisoners, without exception, had enjoyed a wonderful past" and despite "unable to understand one another in the confusion of tongues, were bound by a shared fate." How does this concept of equality because of the shared fates change throughout the course of the book? Specifically how does Viktor's mothers account of being made aware of her Jewishness speak to the truth about the plight of Jews in Russia (gulag) vs. Germany (concentration camp)?
Throughout life and fate we see how many live a life of survival because of their inborn fate of tragedy and despair. From the points of view of two of the characters, describe how the fact of being Jewish plays of this life of survival and fate of tragedy and despair?
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Great War
As we conclude our discussion of The Great War, it is important that we try to understand how its psychological effects on all of Europe (accompanied the ten million deaths) helped create the conditions that brought on WWII. Clearly, a study of WWII and the rise of the Fascist governments in Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan cannot begin until we understand why these events were the outcome of the First and most likely its continuation.
In his book, The First World War(1998) British historian John Keegan writes,
Your assignment is this:
Deconstruct Keegan's excerpt with specific arguments/discussions using the poems of Sassoon and Owen (see below), the video excerpts (bel0w), and the assigned readings (including the Gopnik piece). Please do this in a 4-5 page paper making sure that you use notes/citations where appropriate. Paper is due February 23 by 11:59 pm.
Sigfried Sassoon
"Counter-Attack"
Wilfred Owen
"Dolce et Decorum Est"
"Anthem for Doomed Youth"
From The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century
(KCET/BBC co-production in association with The Imperial WarMuseum. 1996-2004)
In his book, The First World War(1998) British historian John Keegan writes,
Above all, the war imposed on the civilian populations involved almost none of the deliberate disruptions and atrocity that was to be the feature of the Second. The First, unlike the Second World War, saw no systematic displacement of the populations, no deliberate starvation, no expropriation, little massacre or atrocity. It was, despite the efforts by state propaganda machines to prove otherwise, and the cruelties of battlefield apart, a curiously civilised war.
Yet it damaged civilisation, the rational and liberal civilisation of the European enlightenment, permanently for the worse and, through the damage was done, world civilisation also. Pre-War Europe, imperial though it was in its relations with most of the world beyond the continent, offered respect to the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law and representative government. Post-war Europe rapidly relinquished confidence in such principles. They were lost altogether in Russia after 1917, in Italy after 1922, in Germany in 1933, in Spain in 1936. Within fifteen years of the war's end, totalitarianism, a new word for a system that rejected liberalism and constitutionalism which had inspired European politics since the collapse of monarchy in 1789, was almost everywhere on the rise. Totalitarianism was the political continuation of war by other means....Less than twenty years after the end of the Great War... Europe was once again gripped by the fear of a new war, provoked by the actions and ambitions of war lords more aggressive than any known to the old world of the long nineteenth century peace.
Your assignment is this:
Deconstruct Keegan's excerpt with specific arguments/discussions using the poems of Sassoon and Owen (see below), the video excerpts (bel0w), and the assigned readings (including the Gopnik piece). Please do this in a 4-5 page paper making sure that you use notes/citations where appropriate. Paper is due February 23 by 11:59 pm.
Sigfried Sassoon
"Counter-Attack"
Wilfred Owen
"Dolce et Decorum Est"
"Anthem for Doomed Youth"
From The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century
(KCET/BBC co-production in association with The Imperial WarMuseum. 1996-2004)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
