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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, David.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked your focus on this idea of control, and if man truly has the ability to forge his own destiny. There are many examples throughout this novel that deny this idea of control, that suggest that our lives our in the hands of some other power, be it a deity, or, in this case, the State. Free will has been deemed a necessary sacrifice, and it therefore replaced by this idea of bread, peace, and land. In other words, security and stability become more important. This, in my opinion, is the most dangerous trade off to accept. Submitting yourself to the will of a governing body, sacrificing what you truly believe in and support for the utopic visions of ideologues, this is where it all goes wrong. When we let our own lives slip out of our control, we, in essence, lose our humanity, lose the ability to be happy, lose the ability to be conscious of our own actions and decisions. Undaunted faith in the idea of fate can only lead to pessimism and hopelessness, as there is nothing let to keep you going, to strive for more. Nothing left to help you continue your quest towards ultimate happiness. Control is essential, and without it, we are all hopeless, desperate, dependent slaves to those who possess it.
What most people want most of all, I believe, is for the next day to be pretty much like the last. In this way, stability is more important than freedom. However, in a totalitarian system such as the Soviet Union this stability is actually more uncommon than it is in democratic nations today. Moreover, it must be remembered that even in a democratic nation today, as an individual, you have very little power over your life. You cannot, for instance, choose the world you want to be born in. In a way, you just have to play the cards you're given. As a wise man (?) once said, "All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." We do not have absolute, reality-bending free will, but that, more than free will, is the essence of what it means to be human. We do not lose our humanity in any way.
ReplyDeleteDavid, David, David: delectably delicious discernments
ReplyDeleteAs the novel ends, there still a great deal of question swirling around about humanity and what exactly human nature entails. Although we were not expecting Grossman to have these answers, his book opens the door to simply more questions as we examine what Soviet life was like. We question whether there is truly any difference in a nation that existed a world away. At its roots, is human nature really that different?
In this final section, as we witness Viktor’s difficult decision in signing the letter, we are forced to ask the same question of ourselves; us or them? This situation leaves us with the bitter taste of truth as we realize that self-preservation is one of the strongest powers. In this sense, we can easily relate to Viktor’s position. Yet, whereas in America the political system has been failing us, Viktor is in the position of failing the political system. (And a thanks to Andy for his magic quotation from a salt and peppery man (white and gray).)
I think viktor's ultimate decision of self-preservation is quite telling. Even this, an action supposedly made for the benefit of the socialist state, an action supposedly made for the benefit of the collective people of russia, is merely a distortion of an act sprung from individualistic tendancies. To tie this in with the thoughts of vladimirovna, namely that “no matter what life holds in store, they will live and die as human beings,” it would apear that, in this case, to be a human being is to be self-centered. This would appear to be, and i think grossman would agree, a fundamental human charachteristic. Also, in wraping up the book i think it necesary to comment on the idea of "happiness". It would appear that happiness has nothing to do with stability nor freedom. What it concerns is merely ones ability to look back at their lives and be content with the net impact of their actions. By this understanding, it is reasonable to assume that the idea that our souroundings do not dictate our hapiness is true.
ReplyDeletemy last comment!!!
ReplyDeleteSo, I want to focus on this last chapter. It is extremely powerful and one of the best decisions Grossman has made in the entire novel. In a book with zillions of characters, Grossman could have easily selected one of them to end the novel with. Instead, he introduces us to these new, nameless characters. This suggests the idea of complete dominance of a Totalitarian regime. In life, we often hear about the worst case scenarios. But, even the people who weren't being tortured or persecuted by this regime. Even the people we didn't read about. Even a nameless old woman.
Connor is leaving the building!
Determinedly delightful dictation, David.
ReplyDeleteI think you uproot the true evils of totalitarianism in this post. As significant as the last chapter of the book is, I think you do a wonderful job of mirroring such significance in your post. Before, we’ve seen the destruction the individual, and now we are witness to the destruction of mankind. The Stalinist state has plotted its subjects against themselves for the sheer annihilation of any sense of optimism. The pressures put on Viktor are immense and thus lead him to fight for a system that takes away individual liberties. Additionally, I think the last chapter of the book does an explicit job of outlining the ever-present tendencies of mankind, such tendencies we discussed early in the first semester. Man is inherently driven to protect himself, do whatever is need to keep himself alive and out of harm’s way. Viktor has been cornered to the extent where his instinct to survive has outweighed his capacity to do good, to protect Doctor Levin and Professor Pletnyov. Man is feeble; his will is subject to the power and corruption around him. Grossman finally concludes that our lives and fates are at the whims our very basic necessities, the limits of our power as mortals and the limitless power of ideologies such as Stalinism.
Awesome post, David.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked your comment on Grossman’s depiction of basic human nature. A quote that especially resounds with me is: “Viktor felt overwhelmed by disgust at his own submissiveness. The great State was breathing on him tenderly; he didn’t have the strength to cast himself out into the freezing darkness…He had no strength today, no strength at all. He was paralyzed, not by fear, but by something quite different – a strange, agonizing sense of his own passivity” (835). Viktor’s passivity in these final pages galvanizes him to take control of his own fate. He eventually realizes that it isn’t too late to save himself and that he must have the strength to “lift up his head, to remain his mother’s son…to be a man, [to] struggle for his right to be pure and kind” (841). Although Viktor betrays his friends and collapses under the pressure of Stalin’s Party, we should not hastily condemn his actions as we may have done the same exact thing in a similar situation. It is unimaginable for us to live in the same society that Viktor lives in. Thus, if presented with a similar situation, many of us perhaps would have done the exact same thing.
I believe you hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of the last chapter. Indeed, Life and Fate is not necessarily about Viktor, Lyudmila, Krymov, Stalin, Abarchuk, Novikov, Nyeudobnob, Seryozha, or even Pivovarov (a battalion commissar in Byerozkin’s troop). Life and Fate serves as an indelible testimony to the cruel, dehumanizing nature of Stalin’s regime. Grossman’s genius is contained within the novel itself as he was able to criticize Stalin’s rule, while Stalin was still alive. Life and Fate is a significant work because it unites the “lives” and the “fates” of many people under one notion—that totalitarian regimes are diabolical entities that viciously evaporate joy and emotion out of humans. The novel reminds us fifty years later of the horrible ideological subjugation of both the Russians and the Germans to two powerful, misguided men. As you said, the novel also serves as a tribute to the people that had to suffer during the Battle of Stalingrad and World War II as a whole.
I admire Grossman’s courage for writing Life and Fate during the Stalinist era. It truly is an edifying masterpiece!
In Viktor, we see the triumph of the totalitarian State. We see a man who clearly does not belief in the party ideals, succumb to the party and become a pawn because of the rewards that the state offers. This is the tragic loss of consciousness we see throughout this age, which symbolized by Viktor's decision. Although not commiting crimes as heinous, he too is of the same breed. I think it is important to realize that humans make their own happiness. It is not necessary to fall victim to the society you live in, even if to rebel against it is difficult. Even though a large aspect of this book is fate in the live we live, Grossman offers us this one consolation that perhaps we can shape our own happiness.
ReplyDeleteViktors betrayal of Dr. Levin and Professor Pletnyov shows that Viktor has fully turned into a scared, self-serving Soviet automaton. It seems that Viktor's decision seals his own fate, in addition to those of Levin and Pletnyov. In deciding to betray his friends, Viktor chooses to live the rest of his life (and die) as a selfish, unthinking Soviet. Viktor decides to suppress his concious and human emotion in order to save his own hiney. Viktor ends up a sell-out.
ReplyDeleteDavid, your post presents the perfect argument to support what Evan said about the lives of the soldiers, and the difficulty of being a free man. Victors struggle with wether or not to turn his friends in or risk the anger of the state perfectly demonstrates the difficulties of being a citizen under the regiem. Similarly, the end of the war which brought on the poor peace that was hardly better than the war shows how the soldiers had an easier life when they were engaged in battle because it made everything more simple. In addition, the end of the war brings light to the fact that the regiem is suffering because when the war was going on there was something that the government could use to distract the citizens and focus their efforts on, but with the end of the war, there is nothing that the propaganda can promote or bring down, nothing for the citizens to rally against, nothing for the state to blame for the horrible conditions. This along with the clever ending of the book that you mentioned truly serve to end the book with the anticlimacticism that it needed to emphasize the banality yet horrible nature of the regiem.
ReplyDeleteViktor's decision to betray his comrades is indeed essential. Filled with discontent about the soviet system as he may be, the cold reality is that he still must abide by its unwritten law- every man for himself. Before, he viewed himself as an individual with an attitude towards Socialism that was unacceptable in Russia, luckily spared by a twist in fate - his mind was invaluable to the State. Now his feeble grip to his unearned egoism is shattered by the undeniable fact that he is just like everybody else, not an individual but a Russian.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way David makes some sense out of the end of the book. I have to admit that I didn’t like the end at all. I thought he never tied things together, and that the new characters introduced at the end didn’t make any sense. But I think David’s interpretation is good. I guess it also highlights one of the universal themes that runs through the whole book, and that is the confusing fact that individual human goodness can somehow exist even when human beings themselves create these horrible totalitarian systems that constantly crush individuals. In the end, I think Grossman believes that all of human existence comes down to a constant struggle between our good and evil qualities, and that this struggle will continue forever. Maybe that’s why the whole new group of characters in the end makes sense.
ReplyDeleteBut under totalitarian regime isn’t the utmost goal to survive? Since the pursuit of any other self motivated goal has been essentially squashed, the only thing left is to do what is logical. The commodities of compassion and relationships built on loyalty and honor are all but null and void in the world of totalitarianism. It’s futile to pursue anything irrational, especially in a world controlled by what you don’t have: power, privacy, self-will. Really, Viktor chose the only rational way out he say of the situation, but what he doesn’t realize is that he perpetuates the power of the State by adhering the principle of self-survival it promotes. I completely agree that “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)” Selflessness is not affordable in an environment survival is the motive rather than good living.
ReplyDelete