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.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
