Russian/Soviet literature to the beat of socialist satire

[simon]

Works from Russia or the Soviet Union have recently been passing under my eyes. A book called Moscow 2042, which I recently indulged in, brings out a biting wit in regard to socialist and communist operations and total lack of organization. The narrator travels to the future in Russia and basically learns that communism has been created by an anti-communist in order to overthrow communism. Such things can only be pulled off by a truly traditional satirist.

Coinciding with this work though I have indulged in The Gulag Archipelago (by Solzhenitsyn), which is a book of little humour. The author who was sentenced to Soviet work camps discusses the history of punishment in the soviet union and Russia.

I am simply wondering who has read these books, or any other Russian literature and if people are apt to beleive all the dates and names provided by Solzhenitsyn when he was writing in hiding. I beleive his story but I don't know if the details are accurate.

[johann cruyff]

Well,I have read some of Solzhenitsyn,but I must admit,I don't know much about the first book you mentioned(Moscow).Anyway,I like Solzhenitsyn,it's good literature.

[Stuartius]

I too have recently indulged in Voinovich's 'Moscow 2042' paired with Bulgakov's 'Heart of a Dog.' I found the two works similar in that they satirized Soviet Society through ridiculous circumstances (which is, after all, satire). However, as each was written at a different period they both approach the issue differently.

Voinovich projects the downfall of Soviet communism based on events that were transpiring in the early 1980's. In his afterword he identifies his inspiration as the senility of the communist 'oligarchy' and the disillusionment of the masses. In his Moscow of 2042 the people are indeed disillusioned although communism has been achieved. while people with 'higher needs' display an outward zelotry toward the system their inward cynicism is frequenly revealed. The overall picture is that of a society where there is an outward display of contentment to mask the inward disillusionment - simply a portrayal of what Voinovich saw in the 80s.

I don't think I had a great understanding of Bulgakov's 'Heart of a Dog' however. The work was much more subtle, or maybe I just didn't get it. A preeminant doctor who seems to harbour monarchist sentiments and disdain for the revolution aims to resurrect a man by placing part of his brain and reproductive organs in a dog's body. The operation is successful and the dog transforms from a dog into a poorly built man, just as the test subject was. His behavior is uncouth to the refined doctor and is more at home among his bolshevik neighbours, who soon find him employment ridding the Moscow streets of stray cats. In the end the operation is reversed as the Doctor can not live with the man he has created (and neither can any other member of the household).

I found the meaning of the book obscure. Certainly the Doctor is a decadent snob in comparison to his bolshevik neighbours who are trying to have him downsize his apartment. He also charges for his medical practice, perhaps a not entirely communist course of action. He dines well every night and attends the theatre. He is disdainful of Sharik (the dog's) rough manners and unrefined tastes. Sharik, however, displays atrocious behavior. He chases cats inside and outside of the house and frequently attempts to ravish women. He is a drunkard and has a propensity towards violent behavior. Yet he finds a rather useless line of work ridding the city streets of cats and is missed by his bolshevik partners when he goes missing.

Are bolsheviks like dogs? Is the communist principle of equality made ridiculous when such a menace to society is protected? Is this the logical product of a system where the amount of work you do has no bearing on your standard of living? Or is the work about the nature of man? Is the message that you can't change a man through training and indoctrination, that a scoundrel is a scoundrel and a dog is a dog. I guess I have more questions than answers when it comes to 'Heart of a Dog.'

[Stuartius]

Excellent, it sounds as though you have much more to say about 'Heart of a Dog' than I. So... What is it REALLY all about?

[simon]

Unfortunately I have not yet read Heart of a Dog, but it does grace my bookshelf, so perhaps soon I can comment upon the work. But I shall dain to say this, it seems that the Doctor, who you said was a Monarchist, would naturally charge for his practice. The dog could represent the people, the masses, their normalacy and contemtable living style, the fact that they are easily led down the wrong path. In Moscow 2042 the people of Russia are portrayed as being easily swayed by whatever government surrounds them. The same is true in The Gulag Archipelago. In this Solizhenitsyn is declaring that, "the Gulag was not an incidental phenomenon, something which the Soviet Union could eventually eliminate or outgrow. Rather, the prison system had been an essential part of the Soviet economic and political system from the very beginning." He also thought that the people were very submissive, not protesting when they were arrested for ridiculous accusations (the author was arrested for having a colourful cigarette case). All three books perhaps depict the masses as a bit vulgar and shifty, wether they do so through satire, historical facts, or fiction.

[simon]

"Bitter" seems to be an apt descriptive word for many books of Soviet or Russian authorship. Although I didn't find Moscow 2042 to be bitter in any sense, he seemed to keep his hilarity as well as he kept his vodka. The narrator was an adaptable man, whose main downfall with the communist system was his compassion. Now that I am reminded it seems to be the main missing component in many of these books, a lack of compassion told with bitterness.

[Stuartius]

It's interesting that you bring up compassion as that is exactly what the Doctor uses in 'Heart of a Dog' to compell Sharik, the Dog, to enter his home. He gives him food and a warm house where he can recover from his wounds. He is also patient with Sharik's destructive habits when he is a dog.

When he is a man however the habits that were tolerated when he was a dog are no longer acceptable. He becomes angry with Sharik at every turn and attempts to change his habits through discipline and verbal coercion. He is no longer the benign father but the domineering patriarch. This quite naturally breeds a great deal of bitterness in Sharik's demeanor until Sharik's existence as a man must be ended... Perhaps a little compassion would have resulted in more compliance?

[Stuartius]

Also Simon, in regards to your earlier comment,

It's interesting that Voinovich and Solzhenitzen both have something to say about the masses being a bit too compliant with their lot in life. It's also interesting how Voinovich has the masses eventually rise up against their oppressors... In favour of another one... Like they did in real life... Sort of. Back to the point, that is to say, where Solzhenitzen in 'Gulag Archipelago' suggests that the masses and individuals of Russia should have taken action against their oppressors Voinovich illustrates the results of finally taking action.