• New Post Alerts By Email

  • Syndication

    RSS
    Atom
  • Tags

  • Archives

Shalamov’s connections illustrated

And so, back to Shalamov. What I’m going to do is just take one story and show how the connections move out through the collections from there. My intention is more to show just what the connections are than to interpret them. You can start this process at pretty much any point, but I thought I might as well start at the beginning, with the opening story of the first collection, ‘Through the Snow.’

For those of you who don’t know the story (if you haven’t read Shalamov, I would very strongly recommend him), it’s a very brief (less than 250 words), lyrical  piece about roads being trampled down through deep snow by five or six men shoulder to shoulder, moving alongside a path cut ahead of them by a single man. There are no references to convicts, or labour camps, or any of the horrors we read about in some of Shalamov’s other stories. It ends with this curious and evocative phrase about who will use the new road, drawing us into the collection: ‘And the tractors and horses will carry not writers, but readers’ (А на тракторах и лошадях ездят не писатели, а читатели).

The image of the temporary road and the final sentence are the two most prominent features of the story, and I’ll trace how they link to other stories. I’ll take the writers and readers with which the story ends first, because there is an immediate connection when you turn to the next story, ‘On Tick.’ The opening line of this story, ‘They were playing cards at the horse-driver Naumov’s’  (Играли в карты у коногона Наумова), as has been noted many times, strongly echoes the opening line of Pushkin’s story ‘The Queen of Spades’: ‘Once they were playing cards at the horseguardsman Narumov’s’ (Однажды играли в карты у конногвардейца Нарумова) — I’ve used as literal a translation as possible to show the similarity in English, as in Russian it really jumps off the page at you.

To go straight from the reference to writers and readers in ‘Through the Snow’ to such a blatant pastiche of possibly the most famous Russian short story, by Russia’s national poet, fixes the literary theme in the reader’s mind, and this is then developed in various ways in subsequent stories throughout the collections, forming threads which connects back to the final sentence of the first story. The use of writers’ names for characters in certain stories — Zamiatin appears in ‘A Day Off,’ and the main character in ‘Snake Charmer’ is called Platonov — emphasize the suggestion of writing as a theme and creates one such thread. This is particularly the case in ‘Snake Charmer,’ a story about story-telling in the camps, which is also linked to a similar tale, ‘Pain,’ in which an intellectual who becomes a ‘novelist’ (story-teller) for the criminals  ends up being viciously deceived by them. (The idea of a story-teller being a snake charmer is also referred to in ‘How Novels are Spun.’) Another thread is formed via the image of Osip Mandelshtam, directly so in ‘Cherry Brandy,’ which imagines his death from starvation in a transit camp in Vladivostok, and indirectly, with references to his widow Nadezhda in the dedication of ‘Sententious,’ and as the ‘poet’s widow’ to whom the narrator sends a larch twig from Kolyma in the powerful, moving story ‘Resurrection of the Larch’ (a personal favourite). Then there are stories in which poetry is the central activity and theme. In ‘Athenian Nights’ the narrator and a couple of fellow prisoners in a camp hospital hold poetry recitals, and poetry is seen as a basic human activity. ‘The Path’ describes a temporary path through the forest that opens up in the summer months, which Shalamov/the narrator uses as his ‘study’ (rabochii kabinet) where he writes poetry, until he discovers someone else has been there.

This brings us to the second feature of ‘Through the Snow,’ temporary paths. ‘The Path’ acts as a seasonal mirror to ‘Through the Snow’ (and like that first story, it also opens a collection, this time Resurrection of the Larch), and emphasizes the connection between the image of temporary paths to the theme of writing. Temporary paths appear all over the place in Shalamov, from the farcical story retold in both ‘Glove’ and ‘The Raid’ of attempts to build a road through a swamp to a hospital, which involves everyone, patients and hospital staff, prisoners and free workers alike, throwing rocks into the swamp, to the the path disappearing in the flood in ‘A Taming Fire,’ to references to cartographers mapping Kolyma in ‘Graphite.’ There are echoes of that cartographic work as part of the development of the camp system in Kolyma in ‘Alexander Gogoberidze,’ in the mention of the execution camp ‘Serpantinka’: ‘What a name! The road snakes through the hills like a ribbon. So cartographers gave it that name.’ And we’re back to snakes, and my paper on Shalamov’s symbolism gives an interpretation of that cluster of imagery in Shalamov’s stories.

So, from from the very briefest of his stories, and one that has no plot or characters, we have more or less direct connections to a minimum of 15 other stories, and one could no doubt find other links as well. Each of the stories I’ve mentioned then has its own network of connections. ‘Glove,’ for instance, makes great use of the image of fingerprints, which connects it to ‘Dominoes’ and ‘The Green Procurator.’ The figure of the priest in ‘A Day Off’ is very much related to the German pastor Adam Frisorger in ‘The Apostle Paul’ — both stories are very much about the difficulties of maintaining faith in the face of the harsh conditions of the camps and human cruelty. Frisorger then also appears in a number of other stories… The point is that this is potentially an endless task. Most of the tales have large numbers of connections of different types, spreading out across the selections, and even ‘Through the Snow’ can demonstrate how complex this process is. Finding a way of mapping these connections is currently top of my digital wish-list.

Blogging from BASEES (2)

Yesterday’s highlight was indeed the panel on visualizations of imprisonment, in which Judith Pallot and Sonia Gavrilova presented the Mapping the Gulag project, and Josephine von Zitzewitz talked about the new version of Memorial’s Virtual Gulag Museum. I’ve already written about the museum, and the new version (due to go live in the middle of April) is looking good. It has a new searchable database, a great deal more information on a lot of the exhibits, and some interesting, and very moving, new sections such as the Gulag necropolis, which has pictures and maps of sites of executions and mass graves. An English version is in preparation, and I’ll write more about the new site when I’ve had a chance to look at it properly.

The maps website is an offshoot of a larger project on women’s imprisonment in Russia, and is still under development.  There are maps of the Gulag 1930-1960, and of present day penal institutions. Obviously, it’s the former I’m most interested in. The maps show administrative centres for camps at two-year intervals, showing how the system grew and changed. The idea of the Gulag as mobile in time and space is important and the site does a pretty good job of presenting that. It doesn’t show individual camps — each administrative centre could have dozens — as these were often extremely transient. The camp population maps work on average numbers of prisoners in different regions over a spread of years, which is a partial solution to the intractable problem of lack of data, but I’m not sure the result is particularly useful. Apart from a star indicating Moscow, no cities or other geographical features are currently marked, which makes orientation rather difficult even if you’re quite familiar with Russia’s geography. I’ll be interested to see how the site develops. One of the ideas mooted is to link camps on the maps to memoirs from the Memorial archive. That would be amazing, but is obviously a huge project, and there’s no funding for it (yet).

One of the discussants on the panel, Arseny Roginsky, from Memorial, spoke very movingly about the need for projects like this and the difficulty of recording this information and indeed even of locating the actual camps. He ended by saying that people believe maps, people trust maps. Maybe this is why, in the often too nebulous world of literary criticism, I’m becoming more interested in them.

Blogging from BASEES

The end of term has arrived and with it the BASEES annual conference, so here I am in Cambridge in the slightly unlovely environs and overheated rooms of Fitzwilliam College. To be fair, they have made a lot of improvements to the college since I first visited BASEES as a tender postgrad, and it is looking more attractive than usual, with lots of daffodils in bloom near the new library. And the college cat, who looks remarkably like my cat Chicken, has been very friendly. But the bedrooms are still way too hot.

Today I gave a paper on a Chekhov panel, in which all three speakers in different ways addressed questions about knowledge, meaning and insight, and, curiously, the same topics arose later in Robert Chandler’s reading from his new translation of Vassily Grossman’s Everything Flows. This seems to happen quite often — different people end of thinking about similar themes in different texts and contexts at the same time. It makes me wonder whether our readings are only products of the moment.

But most interesting of all was the discussion at the end of Robert’s reading, when we turned to the question of the ubiquity of dismissive and rather patronizing circumstantial explanations for curious aspects of Russian literary texts — ‘such-and-such wrote like x because of the censorship’, etc, or in this case, Everything Flows gradually turns from a novel to a historical essay because Grossman was dying and wanted to fit in as much as he could. One member of the audience suggested this tendency was mainly a non-specialist viewpoint, but I’m not so sure. For instance, the censorship argument is regularly wheeled out by specialists to account for the discrepancy between Gorianchikov in the introductory frame narrative of Dostoevsky’s Notes from the House of the Dead, where he is described as having murdered his wife, and in much of the rest of the novel, where there are suggestions that he is (as Dostoevsky was) a political prisoner.

Such explanations assume both that these writers are simply slap-dash, and that the only thing of any importance in their texts is the ‘message’, which must be entirely on the surface. The problem with this way of thinking is not that it’s facile (although it is), but that it doesn’t get you anywhere. Perhaps Dostoevsky did introduce Gorianchikov as a wife-murderer as a ruse to get round the censorship, but so what? Those sorts of circumstances are entirely coincidental to our interpretations, and in fact close down interpretation. Going back to Grossman, Everything Flows may be unfinished, but it seems to me that he created a really unusual form of narrative by incorporating historical analysis alongside the personal story. We should be looking at how the text as we have it works, not suggesting that it is in some way a reflection of the author’s incompetence.

Tomorrow I’m very much looking forward to a panel on visualizations of imprisonment in Russia, and hopefully I will have time to write about that at some point.

Ephemerality and versionality

I know I said my next post would explore some aspects of the connections in Shalamov, and that will be coming up soon, but for now…

At the inaugural UCL Centre for Digital Humanities Decoding Digital Humanities event, a wide-ranging discussion initiated by our reading of Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction at one point turned to the question of the ephemerality of digital media. Comparisons were made with the development of a written literary culture out of an originally oral culture, which meant that for a very long time nobody really worried about preserving texts, canonical version, etc — hence the lost plays of Shakespeare, and such like. The assumption that such things are important is relatively recent. So the question is, does the multiplicity of voices on the internet more closely resemble an oral culture than a written one, and to what extent is it therefore necessary or desirable to preserve everything that appears on the net? On the one hand, there are plenty of sites out there whose disappearance would be no great loss to humanity. On the other hand, as it is possible to preserve these things, if we’re not going to do so, we need to have a serious debate about why, and about the value, or otherwise, of preservation. What, in any case, does preserving a website mean, given that they change so rapidly? Is it such a huge task already that it can only ever be selective, as in the British Library’s Web Archiving Programme? If that’s the case, who gets to choose, and on what basis?

This is an interesting topic in itself, but it set me thinking about related questions in twentieth-century Russian literature, where much more recent circumstances have resulted in the existence of multiple versions of literary texts, uncertainty about which one is the canonical version and about whether such a thing as a canonical version can even be defined. This happened for two main reasons. First, published works of socialist realism were frequently subject to demands for changes to correct ideological errors or reflect changes in policy. Herman Ermolaev, Censorship in Soviet Literature, 1917-1991 (Lanham, MY, and London: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997) gives a good account of this process. For example (p. 103) he describes how Alexander Fadeev’s The Young Guard, despite having won the Stalin Prize in 1946, was criticized in Pravda in 1947 for failing to show the significance of the party in organizing resistance during the war, among other things, so the author had to produce a new version, which was published in 1951. Which, then, is the ‘real’ Young Guard, and how do you interpret a book that exists in more than one version?

You might say that in the case of a hack like Fadeev it hardly matters, but the second source of multiple versions tends to involve much more significant writers. This is, of course, the practice of writing ‘for the drawer’ and the distribution of works in samizdat and sending things out of the USSR for publication (tamizdat), which inevitably resulted in the existence of different versions. You see this sort of thing all the time — there are differences in some of the versions of Shalamov’s stories that first appeared outside the Soviet Union and the ones that are now considered canonical and included in both the printed editions of his collected works, and the on-line versions. At times one can say for sure, because of things Shalamov says in letters, which is the correct version, but often not. Have the versions we now usually accept as correct become so purely because they were the ones that were most readily available? Is that any basis for canonicity, and where does it leave the other versions? Possibly the role of accident in establishing such things is far greater than we like to think, but normally we don’t at least have other versions on the sidelines posing the question of whether we have chosen the ‘right’ one. Then there’s the case of Solzhenitsyn’s In the First Circle, where the author changed the original 96-chapter version to produce the 87-chapter ‘lighter’ version which he felt would be more likely to be published in the USSR. It wasn’t, of course, but it was the shorter version that was initially published abroad, and certainly this one became the accepted text in English (the 96-chapter version was only published in translation last year). Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, maintained that the longer version was the correct one. Again, what are you supposed to do? Personally I find the revisions to the plot in the shorter text make it a more compelling story, but that doesn’t seem like a particularly good reason for choosing it over the other.

It seems to me that the first thing you have to do in a situation like this is compare the different versions properly, and as that is a difficult thing to do accurately with the human eye — not so bad with poems, perhaps, but pretty much impossible with something like In the First Circle — it’s an ideal job for a computer. Using diff, a file comparison utility such as this one, you can have a full record of all the differences between texts in an instant (diff3 does the same for three texts), and usually with some fairly strong graphic representation of the differences, as with Kompare). I know this is all a bit vague, because I’ve only just started thinking about it, and haven’t actually done any tests yet (I’ll let you know when I have, but in the mean time thanks yet again to John for putting me on the right track), but I think it could provide some very interesting data that would be an excellent starting point for analysis. I just wonder why nobody seems to be doing this, because it strikes me as pretty obvious. There are loads of excellent digital resources in my field, but most of the digital projects you come across are basically about gathering/digitizing materials and putting them on the internet. That’s important and useful, but is anyone actually using these resources to try anything new?

Shalamov: connections

One of the most intriguing aspects of Shalamov’s Kolyma Tales is connections between the stories. These take a large variety of forms. Within the six collections, there are clusters of stories that are linked in different ways: by chronology (‘The Lawyers’ Plot’ and ‘Typhoid Quarantine’; ‘June’ and ‘May; ‘Chasing Engine Steam’ and ‘The Train’), location (such as the group of stories in Resurrection of the Larch set in Vishera, and relate to Shalamov’s first period of imprisonment), or name (‘Wheelbarrow I’ and ‘Wheelbarrow II’). At times clusters of stories are linked by the development of a theme. Close to ‘The Green Procurator’, which details several tales of escape from the camps, there are a number of other stories in which escape also appears in some form, such as ‘Diamond Spring’, ‘An Echo in the Hills’ and ‘Berdy Onzhe’, leading towards the final two stories of the collection, ‘Chasing Engine Steam’ and ‘The Train’, which relate to permanent escape through release, although the connection posited between legitimate and illegal escape suggests that the former may easily prove to be just another instance of the latter. The first four stories in the same collection, Artist of the Spade, develop from the initial theme of memory: ‘The Seizure’ ends with the words ‘I wasn’t afraid of memories’; the next story, ‘Epitaph’ memorializes the dead; ‘How it all began’ gives a wide-angle background to those events; and ‘Handwriting’ brings us close up to one set of procedures leading to death. Adjacent stories also at times develop a set of recurring imagery, as in the symbolism of fire, water, snakes, and stone that I discuss in my paper Rebirth from Kolyma.

Connections are also apparent between stories that are separated across different collections, whether due to the appearance of recurring characters (especially the author’s alter-egos Andreev, Krist and Golubev), locations (the cell in Butyrka in 1937, various hospitals, Moscow after release), incidents (the same medical assistants’ course is covered in ‘Courses’, ‘The Exam’; events described in ‘Glove’ also feature in ‘The Raid’), objects (a scarf, photographs), themes (immortality, reification, story-telling) and images (temporary paths, motifs derived from creation myths) and even phrases (‘If you don’t believe it, take it as a fairytale’). At times, as I suggested in a previous post, the use of similar titles for very different stories (‘The Procurator of Judea’ and ‘The Green Procurator’; ‘First Death’,  ‘The First Chekist‘, and ‘First Tooth’) suggests connections which may be illusory, but the repetition draws us into comparing the stories and trying to discover the hidden links.

What is interesting about this is that there are so many suggestions of connections between the stories, from the overt and concrete to the feint and elusive, that you develop a mindset that in seeking these links, questions linear reading and instead favours multiple orderings and re-readings in different, potentially endless, combinations, with all the shifts of meaning and changes of ending they entail. This is remarkable, I think, because Shalamov’s stories do not at first glance does not appear to be doing anything particularly innovative in their narrative form, a few unusual frame narratives aside. Compared to, say,  Julio Cortazar’s Hopscotch (a very different type of work, I know, but bear with me), which wears its narrational originality on its sleeve, Kolyma Tales looks pretty ordinary. Yet though there are many (linear and non-linear) ways of reading Hopscotch, the primary hopscotching variant and its ultimate indeterminacy of meaning/ending is absolutely under the author’s control, which to my mind, at least, makes it a rather determined indeterminacy. The fact that the hopscotching order is given in a table leads me to question it even more; what type of chaos is it that can be tabulated in this way? A very fixed, specific, and ordered one. Again, indeterminacy appears to be at a minimum. (Disclaimer to any Latin American specialists out there: it’s a long time since I read it. But if you think I’m barking completely up the wrong tree, I’d be very interested to hear why.)

This is not to say that Shalamov’s stories in some way represent ‘true’ disorder. The author was very concerned about the ordering of the stories, and it is clearly significant in a number of ways, including the presence of mini-collections within the larger ones, and the role of the stories which begin and end the collections. But the indeterminacy, whilst not overt, proliferates not because of the author’s guidance — this does not stretch beyond the hints provided by repetitions in the texts — but depends entirely on the reader; you only discover the potential re-readings and different combinations upon reading, and the more you re-read, the more aware you become of the possibilities the stories present. Although some connections are suggested, there is no fixed plan at work, less still an order in which connected stories should be read, so the factors governing the indeterminacy tend to multiply, along with the possible variations and overturnings of meaning.

This is significant because Shalamov is clearly not interested in narrative games and is not constructing his text in this way in order to indulge either himself or the reader in some sort of intellectual exercise. He does it rather to draw the reader further into the world of the stories so that you can contemplate and feel their meaning on a deeper level. He is often considered — not unreasonably — to be a writer whose primary objective was to have a particular emotional effect on the reader, and pretty much everything in the stories can be viewed in that light. This is one of the things that makes him so difficult to read — it’s a shocking, emotional experience. The implication of this is that there is little room for the reader’s interpretation, and that all meaning is on the surface, yet our experience of reading Shalamov suggests that he is more complex than that. It is the connections between the stories which extend them beyond their immediate confines and in doing so, change the dynamic in order to privilege the reader in constructing the meanings of the interaction between the individual units and the larger whole.

In my next post I’ll explore what this means in practice and give some illustrations of how the connections between the stories work.

Four short links: the Stalin era

1. Stalinka: Digital Archive of Staliniana. Lots of images (593 to be precise), including photos, posters, paintings, cartoons, and even a few pictures from the Blue Noses Group’s 2007 Naked Truth series (if you’ve never seen them, and aren’t easily offended, do take a look). Those works notwithstanding, I’m somewhat dubious about the concept of Staliniana, which implies we all want to have a bit of a laugh about Stalinist kitsch, but the library itself is more sensible than the title suggests, and there is some useful and interesting stuff here.

2. The Stalin Project. Aimed at high school students, including lesson plans and handouts, the aims of this site are probably quite laudable, but I’m afraid it’s here so I can have a go at it. The main problem is that it could have been written 40-odd years ago –there’s no attempt whatsoever to incorporate recent developments in historiography etc. Stalinist subjectivity, anyone? It gives a strong impression that the Cold War’s still going on, and one suspects it’s actually aimed at teaching our children about the evils of communism, not about Russian history. Plus it’s not very well maintained — broken links here and there, and it’s only two years old.

3. 65 years after the Leningrad Blockade. In contrast, this is an extraordinary, thoughtful project, and even though the site’s in Russian, you really do not need to be able to speak any Russian to be moved by these pictures of contemporary St Petersburg overlaid with photos taken in the same spots during the Siege of Leningrad. A really amazing way of visualizing the historical process and the combination of continuity and change. There’s also a blockade diary written by a young boy.

4. Excursion to Gulag. Elena Filatova is a biker with a camera and an interesting line in photoreportage. Her work includes a number of projects on Soviet ruins, most notably some remarkable pictures of Chernobyl (see her homepage for links to these and others). ‘Excursion to Gulag’ contains an evocative set of photos of abandoned labour camps.

Dostoevsky, the biography

I’m currently reading Joseph Frank’s Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time (Princeton University Press, 2010), the abridged version of his five-volume biography. So far so good; it preserves a lot of the best features of the original work, in particular the focus on Dostoevsky’s intellectual development and role of the intelligentsia in nineteenth-century Russian life. At times it feels like a bit of a whistle-stop tour, which may seem like a surprise given the size of the book (over 950 pp.), but this is a reflection of the remarkably full life Dostoevsky led. Probably the best thing I can say about the book is that it makes me want to go back and re-read the original series (or at least the first four — I’ve written elsewhere about the problems of the final volume).

It isn’t, however, without faults, and the main concern I have is that this is very much an abridgement without any real attempt to update the text, and the early volumes are really rather old. I’m slightly uncomfortable with a book which looks new (and will be taken as such by many readers) but which, in part 1, aside from one reference to Frank’s own first volume, contains no references to material published after 1974. In relation to the biography, it’s maybe not such a big deal — I’m certainly not suggesting Frank’s meticulous research has been superseded — but one can’t help feeling certain works published in the last 35 years merited a response. Most recently, I’m thinking of Linda Ivanits, Dostoevsky and the Russian People (Cambridge University Press, 2008) which contains some interesting stuff, but also recycles the old rumours about the death of Dostoevsky’s father that I thought had been laid to rest a long time ago, and justifies it with some rather elderly (and Soviet — therefore, in relation to Dostoevsky, not entirely reliable) sources. Frank’s comments on Dostoevsky’s conversion in the labour camp and role of his story ‘The Peasant Marey’ from Diary of a Writer would have benefited from reference to both Robin Feuer Miller’s Dostoevsky’s Unifinished Journey (Yale University Press, 2007) and Nancy Ruttenburg’s Dostoevsky’s Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2008).

In relation to Frank’s interpretations of Dostoevsky’s works, the absence of reference to recent critical developments is more problematic. Frank has fine analytic skills, and the chapters he devotes to the novels and short stories are always solid and worth reading — they’re frequently the first place I tell my students to look. But they are dated, and in some cases would have benefited from a bit more attention. I have to admit to feeling slightly miffed about the updating he has done in the chapter on The Idiot. I haven’t got that far yet, but in the Acknowledgements, he states that his wife was unhappy with his original treatment of Nastasya Filippovna, and that she is responsible for the new material on that character. But there’s no reference to any critical works more recent than Robin Feuer Miller’s Dostoevsky and The Idiot: Author, Narrator, and Reader (Harvard University Press, 1981), and given that nearly a third of my book Dostoevsky’s The Idiot and the Ethical Foundations of Narrative (Anthem Press, 2004) is devoted to Nastasya Filippovna, is it wrong of me to think it should have been discussed?

Anyway, these gripes aside, it’s a good read. It’s also a very good reminder of how important Dostoevsky’s life was for his literary work. I’m not a fan of biographical criticism, but you can’t deny the transformative significance of his death sentence, imprisonment in a labour camp, his epilepsy, his gambling…  And when you start thinking about these factors and the role they played in his fiction — not as fixed features but as constantly evolving elements which inform all sorts of different aspects of Dostoevsky’s world and his texts — you can’t help wondering about the mark other events must also have left. Going back to The Idiot, one of the questions that has preoccupied me for years is why the tone of the novel changes so dramatically. It starts on a very optimistic note, and Dostoevsky’s comments about the ‘perfectly beautiful man’, and comparisons of Prince Myshkin with Christ, Don Quixote, Jean Valjean, and Mr Pickwick, suggest that he was attempting to create an image of absolute goodness. However, as the novel progresses (in my book, I argue that this process begins at the beginning of part 2) this conception falls apart, and by the end there is nothing left of that, there’s no hope, and no redemption. It’s a remarkable turn-around, and one which I explained in narrative terms in my book. But I suspect in fact that the change happened at least in part because of the death of his new-born daughter in May 1868, and the rapid disintegration of what must have been one of the most hopeful periods of his personal life.

Can you say anything more about it than that, though? Because if you can’t, then it’s just a factoid, not a means of advancing an argument, in which case it’s hardly worth mentioning. It only becomes useful if it’s transformed in some way so as to occur in different contexts, in the way that, say, epilepsy is related to the idea of the death sentence, so that the two interact and develop different layers of meaning. (I like the idea of transformations in Robin Feuer Miller’s Dostoevsky’s Unfinished Journey, and can see lots of ways the idea can be taken beyond the questions that book addresses.)  We certainly see plenty of suffering children in Dostoevsky, but are they related specifically to questions of hope and redemption, or their absence? Do they play a role in changing the tone of his narratives elsewhere? Do we see something different happening in The Brothers Karamazov, also written when Dostoevsky was grieving for one of his children? It seems to me that in Dostoevsky’s final novel, from the moment the Elder Zosima talks to the peasant woman about her child’s death, there is a note of optimism and redemption which is specifically associated with the suffering of children and which survives even the horrific tales of cruelty Ivan tells. This is one way in which The Brothers Karamazov is very different from The Idiot — the more consistent and successful presentation of positive characters is another, and the two may well be related. What has changed, then? To what extent is that a product of Dostoevsky’s faith, and what precisely is the role of that faith in creating the narrative form? The latter question, despite the ink that has been spilt on the subject of Dostoevsky’s Orthodoxy, especially in Russia in recent years, still needs further exploration.

But for now, back to my reading…

Four short links: resources on pre-revolutionary Russia

1. Russian Visual Arts: Art Criticism in Context, 1814-1909. Nice research archive of images and texts from the period, with lots of search options. Good for finding interesting and unexpected things, though occasionally difficult to find the images you’re actually looking for. A lot of the images are in black and white, which seems odd as they’re out of copyright. I find the essays on art criticism very useful, and a lot of them haven’t been translated into English anywhere else.

2. Saint Petersburg 1900: a photographic travelogue of the capital of imperial Russia. Based on Burton Holmes’ travelogue for Russia, this is just a really good source of interesting photos from the late imperial era, plus descriptions and other, generally more recent images. Some of the pictures take a long time to load, but they’re worth the wait.

3. Nevsky Prospekt. Something of a favourite. I particularly like the Photos of Nevsky section, which has pictures and information for each building on both sides of the street — occasionally very handy in my line of work, and good for a bit of nostalgia now and again as well. There is also a nice selection of old postcards, information on other major landmarks in the city, including graves in the Alexander Nevsky cemetery, and if you’re a trainspotter, the Former Warsaw Station page (Varshavsky vokzal) is probably your dream site.

4. A Look Through the Judas Hole: The Imperial Russian Prison System and Censorship. Part of the Exponet Virtual International Philatelic Exposition, this site has some really interesting documents and letter relating to the prison system from 1845 onwards, including correspondence by both officials and prisoners. There’s some extremely detailed information for the philatelist, but also lots of useful stuff for Russian specialists and people working on the prison/exile system.

Making and using concordances

I’ve been using digital concordances to analyse word frequency in literary texts for quite some time. While I was working on my PhD thesis, on Dostoevsky’s The Idiot in the late nineties, I regularly used the Petrozavodsk State University on-line Dostoevsky concordance, as mentioned in a previous post. The site was pretty new at the time, and although it provided me with some very useful material, the process could best be described as arduous. They’ve made huge improvements since then, but as I’ve been researching other authors recently, I’ve started building my own concordances to do this sort of work.

I’ve been using TextSTAT, a nice, free, open source application (thanks to John for helping me get started with all this). It’s easy to use and doesn’t have a problem with Cyrillic. The first concordances I built were of Shalamov’s works — nine corpora, containing his six collections of short stories about his seventeen years in the Stalinist Gulag (Kolyma Tales, The Left Bank, Artist of the Spade, Sketches on the Criminal World, Resurrection of the Larch, and Glove, or KT-2), and three memoir-type works (The Fourth Vologda, Vishera: an anti-novel, and Memoirs). I didn’t really have a clear set of questions I wanted to ask when I started, which was a useful lesson as I very quickly realized that such tools have little intrinsic value and what really matters is your reason for using them. Nevertheless, even doing some quick comparisons of the different collections and general sweeps of word-forms in the corpora threw up some interesting facts and provided a couple of potential answers to questions that had been on my mind.

I discovered how little dramatic and sensationalist vocabulary Shalamov uses, which is perhaps surprising in the context of the violence, brutality and misery his stories depict.  For example, words denoting ‘horror’ (ужас, ужасный, etc.) appear very rarely — seven times in the first collection, four in the second. ‘Suffering’ words (страдание, страдать, etc.) are also remarkably absent (two occurrences in the second collection; eight in the third). What is particularly telling here is the fact that when they are used, they generally refer not to people but to inanimate objects; in the story ‘The Weismannist’, in which Shalamov’s alter-ego Andreev is studying on a medical assistants’ course — a classic route out of general hard labour in the camps — his anatomy notebook is described as ‘suffering more than the others’. Given that Shalamov’s stories are about the most appalling suffering, this seems curious, to say the least.

Which brings me to the second lesson of using concordances: they can provide you with evidence, but you still have to interpret it. In relation to the question of suffering, and in particular the ‘suffering’ notebook, one could view this as a process of transference, the author and his characters avoiding thinking about their own situation, particularly at at point when the worst aspects of the Gulag seem to be behind them, and instead projecting that suffering onto things that cannot suffer in the way that human beings can and do. On the wider question of the unsensational vocabulary Shalamov employs, I think this relates to the question of readability. Shalamov’s stories are profoundly shocking, not only because of their brutality but also because, unlike many Gulag writers, there is so little sense of the triumph of the human spirit — on the contrary, he repeatedly insists that moral life cannot survive under such conditions. It often makes for very bleak reading, and I’ve wondered on many occasions what saves them from absolute unreadability. There are undoubtedly many answers to this, but I’ve started to think that the ordinariness of the language may be part of it. This definitely needs further thought and investigation, but I now have specific questions to direct the next stage of my analysis.

For the moment, however, I’ve moved on to another (related) topic and different texts, as I’m currently working on a paper on narratives about pre-revolutionary exile and hard labour. I’m focusing on forms of knowledge (or rather, lack of knowledge) of the convicts, how these relate to the position of the author/narrator as an outsider, and what they suggest about prison/exile as a form of colonization. I’m comparing three texts, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the House of the Dead (1861), George Kennan’s Siberia and the Exile System (1891), and Chekhov’s Sakhalin Island (1895). Unfortunately, no usable digital version of Kennan’s book is available (a limited preview of vol. 1 is available on Google books, but that’s it), but the Russian texts are both easily accessible on lib.ru, a wonderful (if slightly badly organized and presented) resource for Russian literature. As there was a problem with the Cyrillic when I tried to make corpora straight from the website, which I had done for Shalamov, I copied and pasted the works into text documents, and created concordance corpora of both (my initial plan was to use the Petrozavodsk Dostoevsky concordance, but given how easy it now is to make one’s own, I thought I might as well, to make doing comparisons as simple as possible — I also discovered other good reasons for creating my own Dostoevsky concordance, of which more below).

My initial investigations focused on the verb ‘to know’ (знать), and discovered that the authors’ usage of the verb, and in particular of its negation, is very different. Dostoevsky’s novel, based on his experiences in a Siberian labour camp after his arrest for political crimes, has a very strong predominance of negated first-person forms and positive third-person forms (thus: I do not know, but they know). In Chekhov’s travelogue/sociological treatise on prisoner conditions, in contrast, the verb ‘to know’ is very rarely used at all, and when it is, it is overwhelmingly negated. I also checked the verb ‘to understand’ (понимать/понять) and found comparable results: in Dostoevsky, the narrator generally does not understand, or indeed is misunderstood, but ‘they’ (the other prisoners, from the peasantry) do understand; in Chekhov again there is little or no understanding by anyone. Finally I searched terms relating to the ‘known’ (известно), and was largely unsurprised by this stage to find that in Dostoevsky things are known but in Chekhov, they are almost always unknown (неизвестно).

I’m not going to write about my interpretation of these features here, as I’m saving that for a forthcoming conference. For the moment I’m more interested in the process, and the advantages I’ve found of using TextSTAT. The on-line Dostoevsky concordance only allows you to search by initial letter or by whole word. This creates several problems. First, Russian is very rich in prefixes, and there is no way of combining all the possible prefixes in a single search. Secondly, Russian is inflected, and the search function does not recognize different endings as the same word, so if, say, you search for ‘author’ (автор) you get one hit, but you have to type in the dative (автору — to the author) and instrumental (автором — by or with the author), etc., to get results for those. TextSTAT, on the other hand, will produce a list of all words including a particular string or root, no matter where it occurs in the word, so you can see all the variations of both prefix and ending at a glance. Lemmatized concordances are problematic, but at least having a frequency list of all the forms used gives you an immediate overview, even if you then have to check them separately.

By clicking on a word form, TextSTAT’s concordance gives you a context of roughly ten words, with the search term in the middle (you can then click on each occurrence to see a larger chunk of text, and go from that to your original corpus). This is probably not quite enough, but it does allow you to see immediate collocations — I discovered that in Dostoevsky’s novel, use of ‘they know’ or ‘they knew’ very frequently emphasizes the collective, inclusive nature of the knowledge with the addition of ‘all’ (все). I probably wouldn’t have seen this in the much larger extracts provided in the on-line concordance. I also rather like the export function on TextSTAT, which allows you to create text documents with the immediate context of all the forms — very useful for doing comparisons.

The final problem with the on-line concordance is that the process of typing in your own words to search the on-line concordance is complicated considerably by the use of old orthography (using the pre-revolutionary alphabet). I’ve always been dubious about the decision to use old orthography for other reasons, but in relation to the search function, it creates a real difficulty — I know what the spelling changes were, and can read old orthography, but my ability to type it accurately is pretty limited. It’s a new feature but other decisions made long ago mean its usefulness is questionable.

This sounds like an attack on the on-line Dostoevsky concordance, which I don’t mean it to be. When I first used it I was amazed at what it could do and it was a very helpful tool in conducting my research. It’s just a question of how quickly digital technology has developed. Fifteen or so years ago, the project to digitize Dostoevsky’s works and create a concordance was a huge undertaking for a large group of scholars. Now, with digital texts readily available for so many works, I can build a concordance with greater functionality in a couple of minutes.

Shalamov.ru

I’ve been meaning for a while to write something about this site, to which I’m a pretty frequent visitor.

Shalamov.ru was launched in December 2008 and has grown amazingly quickly over the last year and a bit. It’s become one of the best resources on an individual writer that I’ve come across. It contains electronic texts of his works, including one particularly handy tool: a list of names of people who appear in the stories, with links — it’s not yet complete, but it’s a big help. It’s also rapidly developing a strong contextual and critical framework which is both useful for scholars and makes a significant contribution to the site’s aim of bringing Varlam Shalamov’s extraordinary works to a wider public.

In addition to the news and events pages, there  is a biographical section that contains a descriptive timeline and an  interesting archive of documents from various periods in Shalamov’s life, such as official documents, interrogation protocols and surveillance reports. The section ‘About Shalamov’ (О Шаламове) contains others’ memoirs about the author and a growing library of literary-critical works. There is also a quite extensive photo archive, including not only pictures of Shalamov, but also his associates, including some of the people he wrote about in Kolyma Tales, and some pictures of, for example, the hospital on the Left Bank about which he wrote so much.

The audio archive contains recordings of the author reading various works. I found listening to one of my favourite stories, Resurrection of the Larch, very moving. The site’s owners are planning to include interviews with people who knew Shalamov and scholars who work on him in this section. There’s also a film archive which contains a number of downloadable documentaries and interviews.

The ‘Criticism’ (Критика) section contains a variety of materials, some of them quite old, such as essays by Andrei Siniavskii and Vera Inber. I have to say it’s not entirely clear to me what the difference is between this section and the one titled ‘Research’ (Исследования) in the ‘About Shalamov’ section, but between the two, there’s quite a lot of useful stuff there, and the inclusion of a thematic links page (as well as an author links page) makes it fairly easily searchable. There’s a bibliography both of publications of Shalamov’s works, and of works about Shalamov, as well as a section on historical and literary context, and a page about the Shalamov museum in Vologda.

The English language version of the site is very new (it’s only been up since December 2009), and clearly still under development. However, the museum page, the biography and some literary criticism in English have already been added (including, I’m pleased to see, my essay on Shalamov’s symbolism). There is a smaller bibliography of English-language materials, and the photo archive is available, albeit with shorter explanatory texts.

Hopefully the English side of the website will continue to grow and will gain Shalamov some new readers. He deserves to be far better known and far more widely read than he currently is. Shalamov’s not an easy writer, but he has been unjustly neglected, and I think people are really only just waking up to how important he is. He needs promoting and the site’s owners are doing a great job. I always look forward to visiting shalamov.ru to see what new additions there are.