3 ms·

The problem with* Gulag* is that (in Russian) it is quite badly written, unlike Shalamov's stories which real literature even before editors got to them. Histor

by Fins 8y ago

The problem with* Gulag* is that (in Russian) it is quite badly written, unlike Shalamov's stories which real literature even before editors got to them. History-wise, there are better sources, too.

archagon 8y ago
Strongly disagree. Reading for the first time in Russian and finding that it flows wonderfully. Solzhenitsyn has a unique tone of voice: at once conversational, ironic, sadly humorous, and full of pathos. His imagery can be breathtaking, e.g. when he's talking about the different rivers of prisoners flowing in and out of the gulag system. When referencing his own life, his sense of narrative pacing is superb. And when it comes to matters of the soul, he has a way with words that few others can touch. Indeed, there's a number of what I would consider "best of all time" quotes in the first few chapters alone. If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil. (I wrote down: "names are leaky abstractions.") It's true that there's some dry and boring material, but I can hardly blame the author for that: he's the last living source for so many of these stories. I can picture him sitting at his typewriter, trying in vain to resurrect the final, fading memories of the countless missing people who touched his life—nameless and nearly faceless, probably buried in some unmarked grave—while waiting for the KGB to burst in any minute and destroy his decade of work. How much more painful must the process of editing be when the things you cut are fragments of human lives that might as well have never existed once they leave the page? Unfortunately, there's now a contingent of the Russian population that denounces Solzhenitsyn for reasons of pure nationalism. It makes me so sad when I see Solzhenitsyn mentioned in the Runet, because it's almost always extremely vitriolic...
- pvg 8y ago
  This is the one that I often think of - he wrote it about the response to the publication of Ivan Denisovich. "если первая крохотная капля правды разорвалась как психологическая бомба - что же будет в нашей стране, когда Правда обрушится водопадами? А -- обрушится, ведь не миновать."
- Fins 8y ago
  If Russian is not you native language I can see how it can seem to flow nicely. Unfortunately, if it is, Solzhenitsyn reads like a foreign language. Even words, let alone sentence structures, are very much not Russian. Words, really, he was just inventing on the fly and you have to guess what they could possibly mean. Obviously, this is to a large degree a matter of taste, but I am far from the only Russian speaker finding Solzhenitsyn's language highly stilted and artificial. The English translation you're quoting is much better. Interestingly, same is very often said about Vonnegut's translations into Russian.
  - archagon 8y ago
    Well, it is my first language, so I disagree. I am, however, listening to an audiobook version, so maybe it's different on the page.
    - pvg 8y ago
      I also don't think he's a bad writer or that his Russian is quite that strange (in Archipelago, specifically) but I'd be remiss not to mention his literary style has been had its share of critics, with Vladimir Voinovich putting in what is perhaps the top effort in the genre. On the off chance either of you have not run across it before (in which case, read the whole book) [Симыч here is the parody stand-in for Solzhenitsyn]: https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/11816/25/Voiinovich_-_Moskva_2042.html https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/11816/25/Voiinovich_-...
      - Fins 8y ago
        For sure. Voynovich may not be quite as profound as Solzhenitsyn but his writings are actually pleasurable (IMO) to read. I've heard ерфе the real Karnavalov was not amused.

by Fins 8y ago

The problem with* Gulag* is that (in Russian) it is quite badly written, unlike Shalamov's stories which real literature even before editors got to them. History-wise, there are better sources, too.

archagon 8y ago

Strongly disagree. Reading for the first time in Russian and finding that it flows wonderfully. Solzhenitsyn has a unique tone of voice: at once conversational, ironic, sadly humorous, and full of pathos. His imagery can be breathtaking, e.g. when he's talking about the different rivers of prisoners flowing in and out of the gulag system. When referencing his own life, his sense of narrative pacing is superb. And when it comes to matters of the soul, he has a way with words that few others can touch. Indeed, there's a number of what I would consider "best of all time" quotes in the first few chapters alone. If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil. (I wrote down: "names are leaky abstractions.") It's true that there's some dry and boring material, but I can hardly blame the author for that: he's the last living source for so many of these stories. I can picture him sitting at his typewriter, trying in vain to resurrect the final, fading memories of the countless missing people who touched his life—nameless and nearly faceless, probably buried in some unmarked grave—while waiting for the KGB to burst in any minute and destroy his decade of work. How much more painful must the process of editing be when the things you cut are fragments of human lives that might as well have never existed once they leave the page? Unfortunately, there's now a contingent of the Russian population that denounces Solzhenitsyn for reasons of pure nationalism. It makes me so sad when I see Solzhenitsyn mentioned in the Runet, because it's almost always extremely vitriolic...

pvg 8y ago
This is the one that I often think of - he wrote it about the response to the publication of Ivan Denisovich. "если первая крохотная капля правды разорвалась как психологическая бомба - что же будет в нашей стране, когда Правда обрушится водопадами? А -- обрушится, ведь не миновать."
Fins 8y ago
If Russian is not you native language I can see how it can seem to flow nicely. Unfortunately, if it is, Solzhenitsyn reads like a foreign language. Even words, let alone sentence structures, are very much not Russian. Words, really, he was just inventing on the fly and you have to guess what they could possibly mean. Obviously, this is to a large degree a matter of taste, but I am far from the only Russian speaker finding Solzhenitsyn's language highly stilted and artificial. The English translation you're quoting is much better. Interestingly, same is very often said about Vonnegut's translations into Russian.
- archagon 8y ago
  Well, it is my first language, so I disagree. I am, however, listening to an audiobook version, so maybe it's different on the page.
  - pvg 8y ago
    I also don't think he's a bad writer or that his Russian is quite that strange (in Archipelago, specifically) but I'd be remiss not to mention his literary style has been had its share of critics, with Vladimir Voinovich putting in what is perhaps the top effort in the genre. On the off chance either of you have not run across it before (in which case, read the whole book) [Симыч here is the parody stand-in for Solzhenitsyn]: https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/11816/25/Voiinovich_-_Moskva_2042.html https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/11816/25/Voiinovich_-...
    - Fins 8y ago
      For sure. Voynovich may not be quite as profound as Solzhenitsyn but his writings are actually pleasurable (IMO) to read. I've heard ерфе the real Karnavalov was not amused.