The Experience of Exile

Homer got it wrong in the Odyssey, at least for modern folk. The real suffering and trauma of exile occurs not in the time away from one’s homeland but upon return. Living with fixed memories, no matter how accurate, means disappointment in proportion to the time away, for both the traveller and the keepers of the hearth. Stay away long enough, say thirty years or so, and whatever commonality that existed is dissipated by the winds of unshared experience. No energy remains in old relationships. What does remain is a designation empty of any real meaning - countryman, neighbour, friend, relative have no pragmatic import.

Thus whatever it was that ‘kept one going’ in the trials of exile, voluntary or not, is a self-preserving fiction. It may be necessary for psychic survival but it becomes more false by the day. The quantum of change is too small to be noticed on a trip away from home to the shops or the daily commute to work; but the effect emerges into the macro-world when things seem different at home upon returning from holiday or visiting from university. The rooms seem smaller, the conversations less interesting, the family squabbles more annoying. These are not inaccurate sensations. They are the result of becoming incrementally more objective about life. The rooms are small, the conversations banal, and the family insufferable, just as the returning prodigal appears alien and incomprehensible.

The trauma of return is therefore not just experiential, it is existential. Exile may threaten one’s life; return compromises one’s identity. Survival is ly to be a matter of physical endurance; psychic integrity is more ly to depend on entirely unrecognised and unused aspects of character. The home-comer is a threat to those he returns to because they imagine how they appear to him; they thereby become marginally more objective about themselves. This is never flattering. Weaknesses ignored, guilt denied, knowledge of betrayals suppressed, all bubble into consciousness.

The returning exile can also see what others can’t, the lost potential of not just the people he knows but of an entire society. Unknown even to him, he has been creating expectations, extrapolating improvements. None of these have materialised. His insight about lost opportunities causes everyone pain. He therefore must be kept in exile even at home. This is something Odysseus apparently never was forced to endure. Grossman’s Ivan, that is to say Grossman himself, is the truly tragic modern figure of those for whom home has disappeared entirely.slavic158 s Anastasia Fitzgerald-Beaumont113 688

Vasily Grossman was a writer of unique genius, a great war correspondent and an even greater novelist. Earlier this year I read Life and Fate, a panoramic novel set in the Second World War. I don’t think I’ve ever been as overwhelmed by a work of fiction, at least not since I read Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. It’s an astonishing tour de force, a description of people and places and events delivered with freshness and stunning insight. Even before I finished I offered the following comment;

As a novel it is also intensely honest, making no allowances for the ideological shibboleths of his day, so honest that the book was ‘arrested’, yes, arrested by the KGB in the early 1960s. Grossman was subsequently summoned to the office of Mikhail Suslov, the chief ideologue of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev years, who told him that the book could not be published for another two or three hundred years, an act of extreme censorship coupled with a paradoxical recognition of its lasting importance. Fortunately, a copy of the manuscript was smuggled out to the West, where it was published and hailed as a work of genius.

Sadly Grossman was unable to enjoy his literary triumph: he died of stomach cancer in Moscow in 1964. At the point of his death he had no reason to suppose that Suslov’s prediction was not true, that it would take two centuries for his great work to emerge from the ideological shadows. But he was already working on another novel, a novel that could not have been published in the old Soviet Union in two millennia, never mind two centuries. This is Everything Flows, which I finished today in one feverish sitting, stopping only to top up my tea from the samovar.

Yes, Everything Flows is a novel, unfinished at the time of the author’s death, but it’s also a kind of testament, a political and philosophical indictment not just of the moral corruption of communism but of Russia itself, of that dark place in the Russian soul that forever eschews freedom in favour of slavery.

The criticism is trenchant. Life and Fate could be taken in large part as a demolition of Stalinism, an altogether more honest testament that Khrushchev’s Secret Speech. But Everything Flows goes deeper; it goes so far as Lenin, still sleeping away in Red Square, the supreme icon of national servitude. For a moment, for the briefest of seasons in the spring of 1917, Russia scented freedom. The path lay open. Russia chose Lenin, who came not to liberate the country but to refine and amplify the most regressive features of its history;

And so it was that Lenin’s obsession with revolution, his fanatical faith in the truth of Marxism and the absolute intolerance of any dissent, all led him to advance hugely the development of the Russia he hated with all of his fanatical soul…Did Lenin ever imagine the true consequences of his revolution? Did he ever imagine that it would not simply be a matter of Russia now leading the way – rather than, as had been predicted, following behind a socialist Europe? Did he ever imagine that what his revolution would liberate was Russian slavery itself – that his revolution would enable Russian slavery to spread beyond the confines of Russia, to become a torch lighting a new path for humanity?

Russian history, paradoxically, went into reverse. Stalin quickened the process, taking it as far as it would go, substituting freedom with the most abject forms of state worship, something that had not been seen since the days of Ivan the Terrible. By the 1930s, the time of collectivisation, the time of the Terror Famine, the time when the state deliberately starved millions of its own citizens to death, the Russian peasantry was more completely enslaved than it ever had been under the Tsars. It’s almost as if Alexander II, the Liberator, the man who ended serfdom, had never lived. That was the legacy of the Revolution.

There is a witness here, a man who filters these thoughts through his head. He is Ivan Grigoryevich. His freedom died earlier than most. Sent to the camps as a young man, he returns thirty years later, a ghost from the past, a husk of a ruined life. Stalin is dead but there has been no proper reckoning; there never will be a reckoning. Such reckoning as there is comes only as an act of moral and historical reflection.

There are those that Grigorivich left behind, his cousin Nikolay, a mediocrity who prospered in a time of mediocrity and bad faith. This ghost is not entirely welcome, neither by Nikolay nor by his wife, both of whom remained ‘free’ insofar as freedom involved all sorts of shabby compromises. This is a theme, this guilt come resentment, that Solzhenitsyn was to take up in Cancer Ward. These are the little people, the beetle people, who prospered at the expense of those far more talented, who died or disappeared.

The novel ranges over some of the tragedy, looked at in simple human as well as grand historical terms. There is the tragedy of the Terror Famine, told by Anna Sergeyevna, Grigorivich’s lover, full of guilt for the part she played;

How the kulaks suffered. In order to kill them, it was necessary to declare that the kulaks are not human beings. Just as the Germans said that the Yids are not human beings. That’s what Lenin and Stalin said too: The kulaks are not human beings. But that’s a lie. They are people. I can see now that we are all human beings.

There is the tragedy of Vasily Timofeyvich, Ganna, his beloved wife, and Grishenka, their infant son, explored in a brief and incredibly poignant chapter, killed by starvation, lying in their hut over the winter, not separated even by death.

There is the tragedy of Masha, arrested in 1937 at the height of the Great Terror, madness within madness, simply for being married to a man that the state had declared guilty. Separated from her husband and her child, she was sent to the gulags, convinced that it was all a mistake, that her sentence would be revoked, that they would all meet again never to be separated. In the end hope died;

A year later Masha left the camp. Before returning to freedom, she lay for a while on some pine planks in a freezing hut. No one tried to hurry her out to work, and no one abused her. The medical orderlies placed Masha Lyubimova in a rectangular box made from boards that the timber inspectors had rejected for any other use. This was the last time anyone looked on her face. On it was a sweet, childish expression of delight and confusion, the same look as when she had stood by the timber store and listened to the merry music, first with joy then with the realisation that all hope had vanished.

This could have been an angry book, a bitter one; the anger caused by so much betrayal, the anger of history, the anger of an author whose life’s work had been frustrated. But it’s not; it’s a bold, moving and scrupulously honest book, a story told on a number of narrative levels, a story told with simplicity, insight and tremendous clarity. It stands as a noble testament. If you love Russia, if you love the past, if you love the truth, if you love freedom I urge you to read this. If you can do so without descending at points into tears then you have far greater powers of emotional control than I have, than I will ever have. Everything Flows is a great work of literature. It is an even greater tribute to the human spirit. 82 s [P]145 560

It was with trepidation that I picked this up. Vasily Grossman’s Life & Fate is the only book I have ever snapped shut, not out of boredom or irritation or a desire to read something else, but out of fear, a fear of what I would be exposed to and how it would affect me. More than once – as I carried it around with me during the day, fitting in a few pages here and there – I made a fool of myself in public, especially at work, during breaks, sitting there damp about the eyes, with a pained expression on my face, and a lower lip starting to tremble. I had visions, as I came to read Everything Flows, of being solemnly escorted out of the building, a broken man, my head resting on the ample bosom of a stout motherly woman…’what’s wrong with him?’ my colleagues will ask her. ‘I have no idea! He was just reading a book.’

As one would expect of a book that only just breaches 200 pages, Everything Flows is much narrower in focus [in terms of its basic storyline], and less epic and panoramic, than Grossman’s masterpiece; it was, moreover, unfinished at the time of the author’s death, which perhaps accounts for how episodic it is. The man tying these episodes together is Ivan Grigoryevich, who has just been released from prison [after a total of 29 years] following the death of Joseph Stalin. The passing of Uncle Joe is significant, because it led to the overturning of many unsound convictions – including, in this instance, Ivan’s – and this, this acceptance by the State that people had been locked up, and murdered, on trumped up charges, meant that ordinary Russians had some uncomfortable truths to confront, not only about how their government had behaved but in terms of their own guilt or culpability also.

“The sea was not freedom; it was a ness of freedom, a symbol of freedom…How splendid freedom must be if a mere ness of it, a mere reminder of it, is enough to fill a man with happiness.”

What is most striking about Ivan is that, although he is so central to the plot, he is, as a character, almost non-existent. He is described as a once sensitive, timid and shy child, and, despite his experiences in labour camps, he has maintained a reserved bearing, calmness and politeness, so much so that other characters think him odd, or naïve, or simply stupid. Much Prince Myshkin, in Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, it is through this meek man, through their interactions with him, that others reveal their baser tendencies, or weaknesses or flaws. Take his cousin, Nikolay, a scientist who Ivan first visits upon his release. Nikolay has a guilty conscience, for he had not been denounced or arrested; he had, in fact, prospered under Stalin. He could not be said to have been entirely in favour of what went down, in fact he was much troubled by what happened to Jews and other prominent intellectuals, but he didn’t openly oppose it either; he didn’t speak out when they were relieved of their posts, when they were ostracised, etc.


[Workers in a Soviet Gulag]

Throughout the opening stages of the book Grossman explores complicity in its different forms. He suggests that Nikolay was complicit in his inaction, in his reluctance to question the Party line, but most of all in his attempts to justify himself, or lie to himself, in order to have some peace of mind. It is a familiar story that those caught up in such large-scale abuses of power find it difficult to believe, or accept, what is actually happening; they doubt what they see or make excuses for it, because the truth is so awful, and, if accepted, the truth of things – that entirely innocent people are being systematically brutalised and murdered – necessitates action – because only a bad person could do nothing in the face of such horror – which is the last thing that most people want; they do not want to have to fight or oppose.

If challenged, those guilty of the complicity of inaction are ly to argue that they are but one man, so what can or could they do or have done? They also abdicate responsibility to the State or to authority. ‘It was not I, it was them; I trusted them to do the right thing…and so when they told me that such-and-such was guilty of a crime I believed them.’ I see this kind of passivity, this passing on of responsibility in the face of disgraceful authoritarian action, this moral weakness, all the time. How many times have you heard the phrase ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ applied to criminal cases? The idea is that if someone is accused of something there must be a reason for it, even if we cannot see it ourselves. It isn’t that people really believe the State is infallible, it is simply that it is easier to think so, to tell yourself so.

‘The criminals had, after all, confessed during the trials[…]they had been questioned in public by a man with a university degree[…]there had been no doubt about their guilt, not a shadow of a doubt.’

After leaving Nikolay’s house, Ivan crosses paths with Pinegin, who is the man responsible for denouncing him. Pinegin worries that Ivan knows that it was him, but assures himself that he is imagining it. Here the emphasis is not on what people will allow to happen, what they passively sanction, but what ordinary human beings are actually capable of. I wrote in my review of Tadeusz Borowski’s This Way for the Gas, Ladies & Gentlemen that we comfort ourselves with the thought that we would never actively participate in mass oppression but normal people did and do. Grossman explores in detail why that is the case. Why do ordinary people condemn or murder for their governments? Are they evil? No, unfortunately not. Evil as a concept is, I’m afraid, simply another comfort blanket.

Some participate in order to get ahead, in order to prosper. If you help to oppress another group, not only can you take what is theirs, but there is less competition for what is not, for jobs, etc. There is also the pleasant feeling of being useful to the State, of being valued by the State. People to be praised, they to think that they are important or necessary. In Russia at the time, people wanted to serve Stalin, they admired him, loved him even. In terms of Pinegin, he denounced Ivan not because he hated him, but because that is what the State asked of him; he was, Grossman suggests, simply following orders or doing his duty. It isn’t, one could argue, for the common man to make these kinds of decisions, about what is right and wrong and fair or unfair, that is the responsibility of the State. For me, there is an interesting subtext to all this, which is that morality is changeable, is malleable, and so if a State or an authority decide that someone is guilty, then they become guilty. It does not matter if another authority would declare them innocent. Therefore, those who participated in the functioning and application of that authority were also innocent, were in fact in the right, because they were behaving in accordance with the laws, rules and culture of their society.

Most of what I have discussed so far is found in the first fifty or so pages. For me, this was the strongest section of the book. Beyond those first fifty pages the storyline disappears somewhat, and Ivan gets lost among a series of [admittedly, very engaging] essays, ranging from the nature of freedom and hope, to collectivisation and a number of chapters dedicated to understanding Lenin and his role in what followed him. Therefore, as a novel, as a work of fiction, Everything Flows is a bit of a mess, is, in all honesty, not successful at all. Life & Fate also includes philosophical essays but they ride alongside a well-crafted narrative, are fully integrated into the text. This is not, however, too serious a criticism, especially when one remembers that the book was unfinished at the time of Grossman’s death; one assumes that, if he had had more time, he might have developed Ivan’s story so that it would not simply trail-off.

More of an issue is that Grossman’s treatment of the Russian peasantry and the oppressed is romanticised, so that it has almost a propagandistic flavour; indeed, I felt as though I, as the reader, was being manipulated somewhat. For example, during the chapter on collectivisation – which is, I might add, possibly the most harrowing and upsetting thing I have ever read – Grossman writes about one mother reading fairy-tales to her starving, dying children in an effort to distract them from their pain. All the oppressed people throughout the book are so lovingly described, they are all so gentle, so noble, so kind and patient and forbearing in their suffering that it just does not ring true. They are, Ivan, Prince Myshkin, Christ-, they are representations of The Russian Soul. For the record, I want to point out that my sympathy is entirely with them, with the ill-treated, with the genuine, real victims of Stalinism; in fact, there is a certain level of guilt accompanying my words here, but I am trying to approach the book as literature; and, as such, Everything Flows is a failure. But, then, I guess that a believable, successful novel was never really Grossman’s aim; what he wanted to do was try to understand what had happened to his beautiful country, his beautiful people, and so one can overlook, even admire, a touch of sentimentality.

???

For a book that had such a powerful emotional and intellectual hold on me, I do not want to end on a criticism. I said to someone the other day that Vasily Grossman had a simple, direct way of getting to the heart of everything, that I find very moving. And on that note I’ll finish up with something from the text, something simple and direct, and pretty fucking devastating…

52 s Emilio Gonzalez185 99

Un libro durísimo pero crucial para comprender una etapa que marcó un punto de inflexión no solo para Rusia sino para el mundo entero como lo fue la Revolución rusa y lo que vino aparejado con la llegada al poder de hombres como Lenin y Stalin.
A pesar de tener la estructura general de una novela, el libro en realidad es mas ensayo que novela, sobre todo en la segunda mitad, donde el trabajo de Grossman es mas analítico que descriptivo.

La novela cuenta la historia de Ivan, quien -con la muerte de Stalin en 1953 y como sucedió con muchos otros presos políticos- logra recuperar su libertad luego de estar 30 años en prisión por un delito que no cometió, y tiene que reinsertarse en una sociedad arrasada por el totalitarismo.
Grossman utiliza entonces la historia de Ivan para hacer una crónica de lo que era la vida del hombre común en Rusia durante la época Estalinista: delaciones, persecuciones, presos políticos, torturas, expropiación de tierras, hambrunas, y principalmente, la pérdida de la libertad. La pérdida de la libertad es claramente el alma del libro, y Grossman aborda este tema desde distintos ángulos; por un lado hace un minucioso análisis de las personalidades de Lenin y Stalin y su forma de detentar el poder, y por otro analiza en profundidad a la sociedad rusa en su historia, marcando lo que pare él ya es un inquebrantable carácter de exclavitud que vive en el alma rusa.

Es un libro que expone clara y visceralmente las miserias que conllevan los totalitarismos. Muy recomendable.


“Le daré una respuesta -dijo Iván Grigórievich-. Antes creía que la libertad era libertad de palabra, de prensa, de conciencia. Pero la libertad se extiende a la vida de todos los hombres. La libertad es el derecho a sembrar lo que uno quiera, a confeccionar zapatos y abrigos, a hacer pan con el grano que uno ha sembrado, y a venderlo o no venderlo, lo que uno quiera. Y tanto si uno es cerrajero como fundidor de acero o artista, la libertad es el derecho a vivir y trabajar como uno prefiera y no como le ordenen.” 39 s Katia N622 846

This is a different beast compared to Life and Fate. It is even more polemical, angry and sad. It goes deeper into the roots of totalitarism in Russia with its thousand years of subjugating to slavery its own population. In a shorter term, Grossman sees Lenin, not Stalin and the cause of all ruthless evil that happened in 50 years after the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia. It is the only novel I've read from that period which describes Holodomor in Ukraine in shocking details. I believe the novel was unfinished when Grossman died. It potentially could be tighter than it is, but it does not spare the reader in its raw power.

Unexpectedly, I was thinking of Rachel Cusk with her so called "Annihilation trilogy". The main role of her protagonist was to listen to her interlocutors and to project their views through herself. It is very similar here. The novel is centred on a man newly released after spending almost all his adult life in the gulag. But he hardly speaks, at least until the last episode of the novel. He listens to different people he meets in the society he was excluded from. It is a great way to convey the destiny of that society and the powerful ideas such as freedom and individual responsibility.40 s William2789 3,411

Superb. A note to page 99 by Robert Chandler, the translator, emphasizes the novelty of this text, which the author last revised in 1964.

"Grossman wrote Everything Flows at a time when there was almost no reliable published information on such topics as the Gulag, Collectivization, and the Terror Famine [Holodomor]. Given his dependence [solely] on oral sources, it is remarkable how little he has got wrong."

So the book is a feat of reportage as much as it is one of fictional narrative. It's part harrowing novel and part shattering exposé. The argument about how Lenin had to preserve the old system of slavery in Russia in order to advance the Revolution is fascinating.

"It is, indeed, tragic that a man who so sincerely loved Tolstoy and Beethoven should have furthered a new enslavement of the peasants and workers, that he should have played a central role in reducing to the status of lackeys — State lackeys — such outstanding figures of Russian culture as the writer Aleksey Tolstoy, the physical chemist Nikolay Semyonov, and the composer Dmitry Shostakovich. ¶ The debate begun by the supporters of Russian freedom was finally resolved. Once again, Russian slavery proved invincible." (p. 182)

And later:
"Stalin united within him all the most ruthless traits of slave Russia." (p. 191)

Be sure to read Life and Fate, too, Grossman's Tolstoyan masterpiece.20-ce fiction russia ...more33 s E. G.1,112 778

Introduction

--Everything Flows

Notes
Chronology
A Note on Collectivisation and the Terror Famine
People, Places and Organisations
Biographical Note
Further Reading
Acknowledgements
An Afterword by Yekaterina Korotkova-Grossman5-star fiction own ...more28 s R.f.k148 172

?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ,
?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ? ??????
?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? , ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? !!
????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? , ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ,???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? , ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ??? ?????? ????, ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????.
?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? , ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????.
???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????????? ? ?????? ??? .

???? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? .
????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? , ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????: ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ....????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ???????
2015 novels russian-literature ...more27 s Virginia Cornelia185 114

"Rusia nu a fost niciodata o tara libera"
Profitand de un personaj principal denuntat-intemnitat 25 de ani in lagar Grossman zugraveste imaginea sinistra a sovietelor in timpul si post Stalin.
Mi au placut in mod deosebit reflectiile si observatiile scriitorului atat in ceea ce priveste natura umana, cat si ideologia comunismului.
Este foarte interesanta psihologia denuntatorului si motivatia lui.

O carte buna, dar in care m am simtit permanent ca merg, cu o pereche de bocanci scalciati , prin nesfarsit noroi.

"26 s Veeral367 133

This is not a novel but as another reviewer has quite rightly pointed out, a verdict. Nor is it complete, Vasily Grossman began it in 1955 and was still revising it during his last days in the hospital in September 1964. Grossman was also one of the first witnesses of the consequences of the Holocaust. He published 'The Hell of Treblinka' in Russia, the first journalistic account of a German death-camp in any language.

He even published a non-fictional account of World War II called A Writer at War: Vasily Grossman with the Red Army from the Russian point of view.

But his masterpiece, undeniably, is Life and Fate which was completed in 1960. “Life and Fate” (eventually, after its publication) was termed as “War and Peace” of this century, the most complete portrait of Stalinist Russia we are ever ly to have. The manuscript of “Life And Fate” was confiscated by the KGB in 1961. Not even one scrap of paper was spared during confiscation. But as luck would have it, Vladimir Voinovich, a well known Russian satirist, obtained a copy of the manuscript somehow, copied it on a microfilm and smuggled it out of Russia to the West.

*********************************************************

“Everything Flows” loosely follows a character named Ivan Grigoryevich who was sent to the Gulags at the height of Stalinist purges. 30 years later, after the death of Stalin, most of the prisoners were released citing the detached reason that they were all wrongfully imprisoned. Ivan’s journey to rediscover his lost years in the “free” state is very disturbing. Grossman dwells more on submission to state terror by its people than on Ivan’s journey though. The reasons put forth are very disconcerting and actually makes one think about the possibility of something this happening again in any corner of the modern world.

I am not much into making people read what I feel is great, but in this case, I would urge every book lover to read the much under-appreciated works of Vasily Grossman. These are truly life changing books. Please read them.classics favorites-of-2013 gulag-medley ...more25 s Dobre Cosmin76 16

Un roman ca o sentin??.

Panta rhei e o sintagm? atribuit? lui Heraclit, având sensul "totul curge".
"Pe cei care coboar? în acelea?i râuri îi scald? mereu alte ?i alte unde".

Ivan Grigorievici, eliberat recent din Gulag, dup? o isp??ire care a acumulat trei decenii, g?se?te Moscova transformat? fa?? de cum o cuno?tea. Îl izbe?te realitatea timpului trecut. Nu mai poate în?elege ora?ul, a?a c? simte nevoia s? ias? cât mai repede din el. Îl împresoar? ?i sugrum? siajul amintirilor. În cei 30 de ani cât a stat în lag?r timpul nu l-a iertat nici pe el sau, a? putea spune, mai ales pe el.

"?i omul, care timp de trei lungi decenii nu se gândise nici o singur? dat? c? mai existau pe lumea asta ?i tufe de liliac, ?i panselu?e, ?i c?r?ri pres?rate cu nisip prin gr?dini, ?i tonete cu ap? gazoas?, oft?, convingându-se înc? o dat?, dar într-un alt fel, c? via?a a mers înainte, c? ea ?i-a continuat drumul ?i în lipsa lui"

În tinere?e lui Ivan i se prefigura o carier? str?lucit? de savant ?i tr?ia o iubire împ?rt??it?. Cum s-ar spune în societate, p?rea c? o s? fie un om împlinit. Dar discursurile sale în cercurile literare, declamate în sprijinul libert??ii, împotriva materialismului dialectic, i-au adus nenorocirea. A trecut mult de atunci. Acum e gârbovit de atâ?ia ani de munc? grea, are riduri adânci, e p?truns de b?trâne?e, cu visurile sf?râmate de povara anilor ?i neatinse poate doar în nucleul amintirii timpurilor când o iubea pe Ania. Acum se gânde?te la v?rul s?u, Nikolai Andreievici, la întâlnirea dintre ei, dar mai ales la întrebarea pe care o are de pus: ?i tu ai isc?lit scrisoarea care-i condamna pe medicii evrei?


Ce via?? diferit?, îns?, i-a separat. Diferen?ele de caracter, dar ?i decizile luate, l-au f?cut pe Ivan s? cad?, iar pe Nikolai s? se ridice pe muntele de denun?uri pân? în fruntea Consiliului ?tiin?ific Superior, cu referin?e laudative tocmai de la cunoscutul impostor Lîsenko.
O via?? bun?, am putea spune; artificial?, c?znit?, cu adev?ruri nerecunoscute ?i multe justific?ri pentru a-?i calma con?tiin?a ce tinde uneori s? nu mai accepte pârghiile minciunii, dar totu?i o via?? bun?, încununat? cu mese din care nu lipse?te caviarul, dar mai ales respectul celor din jur. Asemenea lui sunt mul?i care au contribuit cu dela?iuni, constrân?i de ideologia pe care o slujeau sau chiar din dorin?a de a parveni au devenit p?rta?i la suferin?? ?i moarte.

Con?tiin?a lui Nikolai Andreievici ne e prezentat? în prima parte prin vorbele adresate de c?tre so?ia lui, Maria Pavlovna, care-i spune ceea ce el gândea deja.
?i anume c? de?i ?tie c? îl iube?te pe Ivan, Nikolai va trebui s? îi ob?in? viz? pentru Moscova, ceea ce îl va face s? piard? aniversarea de 50 de ani a unui coleg de Academie, iar ve?tile c? Ivan s-a întors i-ar putea periclita avansarea. Are totu?i luciditatea acestui gând ?i se ru?ineaz? de el. Anii l-au dus pe Nikolai, prin deriva lor ideologic?, la consecin?ele alegerilor f?cute în tinere?e ?i pe care a continuat s? le fac? de-a lungul vie?ii, compensând lipsa de valoare cu cea a fidelit??ii fa?? de partid ?i de stat.

Ce anume face ca acest om prezentat ca "cinstit, principial ?i str?in de f???rnicia celor care se aga?? de posturi " s? devin? totu?i fiin?a plin? de contradic?ii ciocnite de o stânc? ce-i acoper? propria sa con?tiin???
În glum?, la dineuri, r?spunde par?ial chiar so?ia lui, Maria Pavlovna, o spune îns? cu condescenden??:

- Dac? a?i sta voi cu el sub acela?i acoperi?, l-a?i cunoa?te mai bine pe minunatul Kolenka: un despot, un psihopat, un egoist cum nu-i altul pe lume.


În studen?ie îl rodea în interior lipsa de validare a celorlal?i. Era stimat, pre?uit pentru caracterul s?u, dar departe de a fi recunoscut ca savant. Avea invidii, nesiguran?e profesionale, îns? nu dorea r?ul altora. Ba chiar, în ultimii ani ai lui Stalin, în cea de-a treia perioad? de teroare, când s-au pornit "demasc?rile" medicilor evrei, în foiletoanele vremii, presupu?i criminali în ochii statului, a privit totul cu neîncredere ?i cu mirare faptul c? ele sunt conving?toare, mai ales pentru min?ile educate.

Când primii academicieni, medici ?i profesori evrei fuseser? acuza?i de otr?vire con?tiin?a lui Nikolai se disociaz? între dou? tipare de gândire. Cunoa?te pe mul?i dintre acei oameni eminen?i ?i crede c? nu ar fi capabili de a?a crime.
Dar latura infectat? cu dezinformare ?i ur? îi spune c? ?i-au recunoscut crimele, iar dac? ei au recunoscut f?r? s? fie vinova?i, atunci ar însemna s? recuno?ti ce era de nerecunoscut, anume c? vinova?ii sunt conduc?torii, c? însu?i Stalin e criminalul.
Isteria creat? e general?, paranoia se instaleaz? în societate. Pacien?ii refuz? de frica otr?virii s? mai fie consulta?i de medici evrei. Munca lor devine imposibil? ?i chiar pasibil? cu condamnarea la primul denun?. Nikolai prive?te toate evenimentele cu dispre?, le consider? reprobabile ?i, de?i îl dezaprob? pe Rî?kov când îi condamn? pe evrei, nu-i displac laudele aduse acum lui, când, prin eliminarea unor savan?i renumi?i, devine în ochii societ??ii un mare savant rus. Dar nu e îndeajuns, statul îi cere fidelitate total?. Nikolai Andreievici va trebui s? cuvânteze împotriva medicilor "asasini", va trebui s? îi înfiereze ?i s? fie unul din semnatarii acelei scrisori infame, într-o diluare colectiv? a con?tiin?ei unor fapte criminale. "To?i pe lume sunt vinova?i, pe lume nu-i nici unul vinovat".



Cel mai adânc punct în care ?inte?te Vasili Grossman e latura subiacent? a min?ii umane, ?i anume subcon?tientul. Cât de complicat e s? fii om, s? ai gânduri ?i s? le analizezi lucid, ra?ional, dar mai ales s? î?i reglezi comportamentul ?i faptele în concordan?? cu principiile ?i procesele coordonatoare ale gândirii con?tiente.
Ce anume e analizabil aici? Câte c?r?i nu s-au scris despre seduc?ia maselor într-un sistem totalitar. Recunoa?tem iluzia care acoper? orice alveol? moral? ?i care suprim? abaterea de la norm? prin ochii vigilen?i ai celorla?i. Cele câteva decenii de "menticid", acest mecanism de suprimare a gândirii ra?ionale ?i de infantilizare a marii p?turi sociale, au dus la un sistem de diluare al acestor procese mentale complexe. Hannah Arendt numea totalitarismul ca pe o transformare a îns??i naturii umane. Statul a preluat frâiele gândirii fiec?rui om, le-a d?ruit mântuirea fa?? de faptele lor ?i i-a u?urat de procesele con?tiin?ei. Printre cei pe care sistemul nu a reu?it s?-i mancurtizeze, a reu?it s?-i supun? prin subtila lor cameleonizare, iar pe indezirabili i-a extirpat din societate.
Avem isteria maselor care accept? condamnarea la moarte a medicilor evrei acuza?i de otr?virea pacien?ilor. Se vor aduce acuza?ii tot mai ridicole, iar ele vor fi crezute. Dorin?a de a crede tot ce le debiteaz? Partidul ?i liderul s?u cu musta?? stufoas? e la fel de mare precum sunt minciunile. Acel lider pe care Grossman îl construie?te imaginativ mai credibil decât tablourile în care pozeaz? în semizeu: "St?pânul zeificat î?i dezvaluia pe nea?teptate trupul b?trân ?i neputincios ".


Îns? totul curge ?i în navala timpului nimic nu poate r?zbate ve?nic.
Când stalinismul a pierit, Hru?ciov, el însu?i un cameleon în tirania stalinist?, a criticat ?i devoalat crimele odiosului must?cios, iar atunci pelicula orbirii a fost îndep?rtat? ?i fiecare om în parte a fost nevoit s? î?i vad? faptele ?i consecin?ele lor. Mântuirea era de fapt o butaforie, o potemkinad? ridicat? în locul unei împ?r??ii utopice. Când delatorul î?i întâlne?te victima infamiei sale, el nu se mai poate min?i pe sine, numai el e vinovatul. Statul doar i-a garantat vremelnic fapta, dar mâr??via sa ?i traumele provocate sunt permanente ?i las? urme prin timp. Dup? moartea lui Stalin s-au deschis ?i ochii lui Nikolai Andreievici. Atunci când a aflat c? medicii evrei erau nevinova?i, tortura?i în timpul anchetelor, un sentiment nou se deschidea în mintea lui, ?i anume, toate amintirile vechi ale denun?urilor ?i condamn?rilor peste care anii se a?ezaser? pr?fui?i, memorii tenebroase ca ni?te pivni?e în care îi fusese team? s? mai intre. Se nasc acum întreb?ri noi.

"Tr?ise el oare a?a cum se cuvine? Era el într-adev?r a?a cum îl considerau cei din jur, un om cinstit?"

Aici Grossman are un pasaj demn de un cunosc?tor fin al min?ii umane, care îmi aduce aminte de minciuna ontologic?, pe care Alain Besançon a descris-o în Sfânta Rusie: "El, care se obi?nuise atât de bine, cu atâta abilitate, s? se prefac? fa?? de sine însu?i, încât nimeni, dar absolut nimeni, ?i nici chiar el însu?i, s? nu remarce pref?c?toria. ?i era sincer mândru de credin?a ?i puritatea lui".

Se pref?cuse atâta timp c? toate ac?iunile sale fuseser? justificate încât ?i-a alterat îns??i realitatea în care tr?ia.
Abia acum avea confirmarea statului c? oamenii la a c?ror condamnare la moarte contribuise ?i votul s?u erau nevinova?i. Statul rus îi arat? acum omului sufletul în oglind?. Nu-l condamn?, îns? oglinda îi arat? c? el, mujicul, nacealnicul, comsomolistul, omul sovietic nu e mai bun decât statul care l-a creat, nu se pot condamna unul pe altul, a?a c? trebuie s? convie?uieasc? în complicitate.

În acest tumult sufletesc se mai pot g?si noi justific?ri? Pot unele ra?ionaliz?ri s? împart? vina în altele mai mici, tolerabile ?i mai pu?in ap?s?toare? Aproape întotdeauna mintea uman? are resurse justificatoare, iar atunci când sunt epuizate ?i adev?rul love?te direct în fa?? survin suferin?a ?i ap?s?rile interioare, remu?c?rile sincere ale unei traume colective la care însu?i colectivul a fost for?at s? participe.


Dar ce se mai poate spune acum despre Ivan, care atunci când se treze?te în noua via?? î?i simte singur?tatea atât de ap?s?toare încât crede c? "nici o fiin?? p?mântean? nu-i poate supravie?ui".
P?r?sind Moscova ?i p??ind în Leningrad, ora?ul studen?iei sale, dar ?i al marii lui iubiri, al Aniei Zamkovskaia, e p?truns de de senza?ia c? nu doar ora?ul s-a schimbat, ci c? el însu?i nu mai e acela?i. În chiar acest ora? ?i-a tr?it fericirile ?i nefericirile. ?i atunci îi revin amintirile din lag?r, discu?iile cu b?trânii generali din vechea lume a ?arilor, apus?, dec?zu?i pân? la nivelul de jos, care î?i evocau acolo, pe prici, memoriile str?lucirii unor vremuri pierdute ?i întâlnirile lor cu marile personalit??i. Da, ei nici nu au mai vrut s? plece din lag?r, nu îi mai a?teapt? nimic afar?. ?i ar fi vrut s? le spun? b?trânilor aceia, de lâng? godinul cald, c? e groaznic ?i frig în libertate, c? nu ?tie pe unde s-o apuce ?i, c? asemeni multora, ar vrea uneori s? se întoarc? la r?m??i?ele vie?ii familiare. Dar ?tie în sinea lui c? e mai bine s? mori în libertate, "m?car la zece metri de blestemata sârm? ghimpat?".
Ivan va trebui s? r?zbat? în aceast? lume nou?, creatoare a omului nou, o lume în care victimele eliberate se întâlnesc uneori cu complicii f?r? a avea habar de infamia celor din urm?. Dar cititorul va afla din roman desf??urarea vie?ii sale, cu amintirile care îl urmeaz? ca ni?te cle?ti ce rup buc??i din carnea ?i sufletul s?u, pove?ti atât de brutale, care frustreaz? ?i duc la indignare tocmai pentru c? e un roman al suferin?ei unei fiin?e umane într-un regim profund inuman.
Pe schi?a vie?ii acestui nefericit Vasili Grossman construie?te un rechizitoriu cumplit ?i disec? regimul ?i istoria din care î?i trage seva identitar?.24 s Emiliya Bozhilova1,559 282

19.02.2022:
???? ?? ? ?????. ???? ? ???????. ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????.

???????????? ????:
„?????? ?? ??????? ? ? ???? ??."
?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ? ??????? ??? ??????? ? ???????? ? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ?????? „?????? ????“. ???????? ? ?????? ???? „?? ??????????“, ? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? (1955 – 1963 ?.), ???? ???? ? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????????? ? ???? ? ????????? „???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?????? ??????“.

“?????? ????“ ? ???, ????????, ??????? ? ????????.

???, ????? ???? ? ????????, ?????????, ??????????? ????????. ???????? ???? ???? ???? ? ??????????? ??????.

???????? ?? ????????, ??????????? ?? ????????? ???????????? ?? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ???????, ?? ?? ????? ???? ??-????? ????.

??????? ??? ????? ????? ? ?????????, ?????????? ????? ???????. ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? - ??? ????? ?? ?????????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? 58.

???????? ?? ????? ???????. ????????????, ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????, ?? ? ? ????????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????????, ????? ?????? ? ??? ? ???????????? ?? ??????. ???????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???????? ???? - ????????? ? ?????????, ?????????????? (??? ?? ? ??????? ?? “??? ?? ???????? ?????????” ? “???? ?? ???????”, ?? ???? ? ?? “17 ???? ?? ????????”), ?????????????, ?????, ?????? ? ?????????? ???????, ???? ? ????, ????? ? ????, ???????? ?????????? ? ??????. ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? - ?????, ????, ????, ?????????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? - ???????? ?? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ? ??????. ???????? ?? ????????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ???????????, ? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?? ????.

? ?? ????? ???????, ???????, ???????...

1. ????? ? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????
„...??????? ???? ? ??????????? ??????. ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????????? ??????, ???? ?? ? ?????????“
K???? ? ?????? ??? ? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? "???????? ?????". ?????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ?????. ?????? ? ???????? ? ??????? 1955 – 1963 ?. ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????????.
“???????? ???? ? ????, ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????????, ? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????.”
„??????? ? ????????? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ? ????? ?? ?????? ? ????? ?? ?????????! ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????????, ??????? ? ???????, ???????????? ? ??????.“
2. ???? ??????????? ????? ?????? ?? ? ?? ??????? ????? ? ?????????, ????? ????? ?? ? ??????? ????, ?????? ????????, ?? ????? ?? ??????????????????????, ????????, ??????????????? ????
„?? ?????? ??????? ?? ? ???????? ????? ????????, ?????????? ?????????, ??????? ?????????????. ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? - ???? ?? ???????. ? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ????, ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ? ???????? ?????.“
? ??? ???, ????????? ? ????????, ?????? ?????? ?? ? ??????????:
“???? ?????, ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????? - ??????? ?????? ???? - ?? ?????????????.”
???? ?? ???-??????????? ???????? ?? ????? ? ???? ?? ?????????? ? ?????????? ?? ???? ???????????/ ??????? ???????. ????? – ????????? ?? „??????????“. ????? – ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ????????, ?? ?? ? ????????. ????? – ?????????. ????? – ?????????????, ????? ? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????.

3. ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????
“????????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????????. ... ??????? ???? ??????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ???.”
„?? ?????? ?? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ????????.“
??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? - ? ???? ? ??????????.

??? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???, ??? ???? ??? ? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ? ??-????? ?? ?? ?????.favorites historical-fiction memoir-and-biography ...more24 s Jorge268 372

Después de la majestuosa literatura zarista de la Rusia del siglo XIX, surge una pléyade de escritores soviéticos cuyo talento no le va mucho a la saga al de aquellos escritores que produjo el siglo XIX. Uno de ellos es Vasili Grossman (1905-1964), cuya obra “Vida y Destino” es un logro literario asombroso y que ahora nos regala con esta novela sobre la Rusia estalinista.

Este texto es una de tantas obras que relatan y a la vez tratan de revelar todas las atrocidades del régimen de Stalin (1878-1953); el diseño, construcción y desarrollo de ese régimen; sus motivos y todas las barbaridades que encerró esta construcción del estado soviético. Cada vez me convenzo más de que ese Stalin fue un ente de difícil definición y más difícil aún aceptar su existencia.

El libro es una especie de lo que en música sería una Suite (serie de danzas unidas por un rasgo o motivo común) que, trasladando el concepto a la Literatura, diríamos que esta obra es una especie de relatos cohesionados por un tema principal: la ausencia de libertad y la destrucción de la dignidad humana.

El autor crea un personaje llamado Iván Grigórievich quien tras pasar casi 30 años confinado en campos de concentración estalinistas, regresa a Moscú para encontrar un nuevo mundo. La obra mezcla un tanto el relato, a través de las vivencias de este personaje, con elementos de lo que podría ser un ensayo, ya que Grossman expone sus ideas sobre cómo se pudo construir esa barbarie llamada estado soviético, el cual se edificó sobre el sufrimiento milenario del pueblo ruso, mismo que ha visto y experimentado todo, excepto la libertad.

También nos habla de cómo el sistema de vida bajo Stalin privilegió una sola cosa: el Estado en detrimento de las personas, causando con esto aún más sufrimiento a los ciudadanos rusos, ausencia de libertad, la arbitrariedad como ley, miedo crónico, depravación espiritual, destino trágico. Un infierno sobre la Tierra.

Una obra que confirma la gran altura literaria de este escritor ruso.
22 s Gary949 219

A very moving account of the horrors of Bolshevism and Stalinism in Russia.The chapter that touched me the most was the story of a young mother who was taken away from her mother and child to Siberia where she eventually dies of disease and despair No decent human being could fail to be moved by this account of a nightmare that really happened It is told in the rich literary style that can only come from a Russian writer-bringing to life the horrors of Communist tyranny and the beauty of Russian life that survived it21 s Fionnuala815 Read

This is a brave and thoughtful account of the Stalin years. Admittedly, Grossman wrote this documentary style fiction well after Stalin's death when it had become more possible to acknowledge that mistakes had been made. However, he knew from his experience of trying to get his previous book past the censor that the freedom to write the truth was still far from possible in tightly controlled, KGB run, soviet Russia. This book, unpublished in his lifetime, provides an insight into the psychology of the soviet citizen, seemingly willing to obey the most illogical of orders without question and to take punishment even when not guilty, all in the name of the greater good. Grossman analyses the culture of denunciation of neighbours, colleagues and even friends who were then shipped off to the camps for decades. He highlights the ease with which people find justifications for their actions and examines with huge sensitivity such diverse themes as man's propensity for violence as well as his unremitting quest for freedom. translated-from-russian18 s Paula Fialho Silva200 115

Foi o meu primeiro contacto com este autor e fiquei cheia de vontade de ler "Vida e Destino".
Este livro é sobre a era pós-stalinista e conta a história de um ex-preso político que foi libertado depois de 30 anos de trabalhos forçados na Sibéria.
A alma russa está bem presente, e há muitas referências a personalidades russas.
Fiquei, também, com imensa vontade de ler "Almas Mortas" de Gógol porque há algumas citações do livro.classic-books ??????-????20 s Massimiliano316 73

Benché lo faccia tramite un romanzo che ben presto finisce per essere un saggio storico e politico, Vasilij Grossman riesce nell’impresa di descrivere le fondamenta dell’animo russo nell’arco di sole duecento pagine.

Mai come in questo periodo - la guerra in Ucraina - questo libro si rivela utile per comprendere cosa vi sia dietro la mentalità del popolo russo (senza assolutamente giustificarli comunque).

La - poca - trama dedicata al protagonista, Ivan Grigorevic, di recente liberato dai gulag e “tornato alla vita”, si alterna a capitoli al limite con la saggistica che parlano della storia russa, della rivoluzione, dell’Holodomor (un breve capitolo risulterà ai più agghiacciante) e per finire della non-libertà dei russi.

Un piccolo libro estremamente denso.



adelphi biblioteca novecento ...more18 s merixien607 459

Elimdeki -ve san?r?m dilimize çevrilmi?- Vasili Grossman’?n son kitab?n? da bitirdim.

Ben normalde bir yazar?n seri olmayan kitaplar?n? belli bir s?rayla okumaya dikkat etmem, pek önemli oldu?unu da dü?ünmem aç?kcas?. Ancak Vasili Grossman bu konuda bir istisna oldu benim için. Ya?am ve Yazg?’y? okuduktan sonra Ta?lar Ülkesine Yolculuk ve son olarak da - ki kendisinin de yazd??? hatta tamamlanmam?? olarak yay?nlanmak zorunda kal?nan son kitab?- Her ?ey Geçip Gider’i okumak yazar? ve ya?ad?klar?n? tam olarak kavrayabilmek ad?na çok do?ru bir yol.

Zira Ya?am ve Yazg?’da ?kinci Dünya Sava??, Stalin’in yaratt??? totaliter rejim ve antisemitizmin yükseli?ine odaklan?yor ve bu sürecin ele?tirisini veriyor. Hatta Stalin’in ölümünün ard?ndan bu kitab?n da SSCB’de yay?nlanabilece?ine duydu?u inanc?n sebebi de budur belki de. Ancak Ya?am ve Yazg?’ya gizli servisin el koymas?, hatta bir ?ekilde SSCB d???nda yay?nlanmas? durumunda bunun bedelini ödeyecek olmas? ve yazd?klar?na uygulanan sansür -bask? ile yava? yava? sistemin d???na at?lmas? Vasili Grossman’da hem çok büyük bir çökü?e hem de inand??? Sovyet ideali ve tarihine dair pek çok ?eyi sorgulamaya ba?lamas?na sebep oluyor. Ta?lar Ülkesine Yolculuk’ta Ermenistan’da gördü?ü farkl?l?klarla ba?layan soru i?aretleri Her ?ey Geçip Gider’de muazzam bir yüzle?meye dönü?üyor. Aç?kcas? ben bu kitap için bir kurgu eser demekte zorlan?yorum. Kitap ö?rencili?inde bir ihbar sonucu kamplara gönderilen yine de sosyalizme inanc?n? hiç kaybetmeyen ve yirmi dokuz y?l?n ard?ndan yeniden özgürlü?üne kavu?tu?unda kar??la?t??? sosyalizmi tan?yamay?p yabanc? kalan Ivan Grigoryeviç’in hikayesini anlat?yor. Parlak bir bilim adam? olan ancak bu alanda ilerleyebilmek için nice tavizler veren kuzeniyle kar??la?mas?yla ba?layan hikaye, a??k oldu?u kad?n?n ihaneti ve sonras?nda ihbarc?s?yla kar??la?mas?n?n ard?ndan yazar?n okuruna Stalin dönemi Yahuda’lar?n?n jürili?ini yapt?rmaya ba?lad??? noktada kurgudan git gide s?yr?lmaya ba?l?yor. Hatta ilerledikçe öyle bir noktaya geliyorsunuz ki yazar ile karakter git gide bütünle?iyor. Ki burada bahsetti?im durum Ya?am ve Yazg?’daki ?trum ile gördü?ümüz yans?tman?n çok ötesinde. Zira art?k yazar ile Ivan’? birbirinden ay?ram?yorsunuz. Robert Chandler’?n önsözünde “Eser yap? olarak dengeli de?ildir ve ta??d??? tarih yükü o kadar büyüktür ki, a??rl???yla birçok roman? ezer.” ibaresi bu durumu çok güzel özetliyor asl?nda. Zira 250 sayfal?k bu kitapta, Grossman’?n 1200 sayfal?k Ya?am ve Yazg?’da dile getirdi?inden çok daha yo?un ve karanl?k bir Sovyet Rusya tarihi bulunuyor. Toplum ve yönetim ele?tirisi Stalin çemberinden ç?k?p Lenin’e kadar uzan?yor ve Ukrayna’da açl?kla uygulanan ve maalesef -özellikle de edebiyatta- çok az de?inilen Ukrayna’daki soyk?r?ma, Grossman’?n da imza att??? ve sonras?nda en büyük pi?manl?klar?ndan birisi olan Yahudi tasviyelerine öncülük eden “Katil Doktorlar” mektubuna kadar üzeri kapat?lm?? pek çok toplumsal konuyu ortaya döküyor. Asl?nda özetle; amaç ve ideoloji ne olursa olsun toplum mühendisli?inin ve tek elde toplanan gücün toplumu özgürle?tirme ba?l??? alt?nda nas?l ulusal kölelikler yaratt???n?, bir yandan da devletin her insan?n bilincinin iplerini ele geçirerek yurtta?lar?n? nas?l vicdan yükünden kurtar?p yapt?klar? muhbirliklerin ve verdikleri desteklerin alt?ndan nas?l kalkt?klar?n? muazzam ve çok sert bir dille anlat?yor.

Bu arada Sovyet tarihinin kara lekesi olarak görülen ve SSCB’nin da??lma sürecine girmesine sebep oldu?u dü?ünülen di?er yandan ise Stalin tiranl???nda boyun e?enlerden olup pek çok idam karar?nda da imzas? bulunan Nikita Kru?çev’in SSCB tarihindeki en hay?rl? hareketi muhtemelen Stalin’in yaratmak için y?llar?n? ve halk?n? harcad??? “yar? tanr?” imaj?n?n üzerindeki perdeyi kald?r?p, suçlar?n? if?a etmesi, bunu yaparken de herkesi kendi yapt?klar?yla yüzle?meye zorlamas?d?r san?r?m. Tabii ki kendisini bu yüzle?menin büyük bir bölümünün d???nda tutmu?tur. Ancak bu kitapla ilgili olan k?sm? Sovyet tarihiyle ilgili bu güçlü yüzle?menin; muhbirin kurban?yla kar??lamas?n?n zeminini haz?rlamas? say?labilir belki. Ayr?ca bu kitab? yaln?zca bir kendi yak?n tarihiyle ve ve Sovyet sistemiyle yüzle?me seviyesinde görmek büyük bir hata olur elbette. Zira di?er kitaplar?nda oldu?u gibi yine gerek çevreyi- do?ay? gerekse insanl?k durumlar?n? size anlatmaktan öte ya?atan bir kitap bu da. Ukrayna’daki Açl?k Terörü’nü anlatt??? bölümleri midenizde bir yumru hissetmeden, fiziksel bir rahats?zl?k olmadan okuman?z mümkün de?il. ?imdiye kadar açl??? en iyi Knut Hamsun’un anlatt???n? dü?ünüyordum ama bu kitaptan sonra bu konuda hiçbir ?ey bilmiyormu?um dedim aç?kcas?.


Vasili Grossman benim bu kadar geç tan??t???ma pi?man oldu?um ancak bir yandan da iyi ki baz? ?eyleri okuyup anlad?ktan ya da baz? önyarg?lar? a?t?ktan sonra gerçek anlam?yla kendisiyle tan??abildi?ime memnun oldu?um; k?r?lganl?klar?n?, pi?manl?klar?n? ve hatalar?n? asla çekinmeden ortaya koyabilen ancak bunun yan?nda bu dünyan?n gördü?ü en ac? dönemler hakk?nda da asla geri durmadan yazabilen çok güçlü bir yazar. Sovyet rejiminin açl??a, korkuya, karanl??a ve özgür topluma yönelik derin nefretine dayanan korkunç yüzünü gösteren, bask?c? siyasi sistemlerin zalimli?ini anlatan ve bu sistemlerin alt?nda ezilen halk?n yas?n? tutturan oldukça zor bir okuma. Ama kölele?tirilmi? bir toplumun deh?etini son derece çarp?c? ve edebi aç?dan büyüleyici bir ?ekilde görmek ad?na; ke?ke di?er metinlerini de türkçe de görebilsek ve bütün zorlu?una ra?men ke?ke herkes okusa.


Bu arada Vasili Grossman hem bu kitapta hem de Ya?am ve Yazg?’da birkaç kez Çehov’un Piskopos öyküsüne at?fta bulunuyor. E?er öyküyü okursan?z neden kendisini a?latt???n? ve sat?r aralar?nda yazar?n annesiyle olan ili?kisine ve pi?manl?klar?na dair daha fazla ?ey bulabilirsiniz.

-----

“Devlet patron olmu?tu, ulusal olan ?ekil olmaktan ç?km?? içerik ve öz olmu?, sosyalist olan? d??ar? atm??, süslü bir söz, bir kabuk, bir d?? biçim haline sokmu?tu. Ya?am?n kutsal yasas? trajik bir aç?kl?kla belirlenmi?tir: ?nsan?n özgürlü?ü her ?eyin üstündedir; dünyada u?runa insan özgürlü?ünün feda edilebilece?i tek bir amaç yoktur.”


“Açl??? ilaçla iyile?tiremezsiniz. Köy yapayaln?z kalm??t?, etraf bo?tu ve evlerde aç insanlar vard?r. Kentten türlü türlü temsilciler de gelmekten vazgeçmi?lerdi art?k, ne için geleceklerdi zaten. Aç insanlar?n elinden alacak bir ?ey yoktu, dolay?s?yla gelmelerine gerek de yoktu. Devlet bir insandan hiçbir ?ey alamad??? zaman o insan yarars?z biri olur. Onu ne diye okutsun, tedavi etsin ki?”

“Evet her ?ey geçip gider, her ?ey de?i?ir, ayn? katara iki kez binmek olanaks?zd?r.”

“Rus topra?? kendi Platonlar?n? da, keskin zekal? Newtonlar?n? da cömertçe do?urur, ama kendi çocuklar?n? korkunç bir ?ekilde, büyük bir basitlikle yer.”

favorites read-in-2023 russian-literature26 s Siti340 134

Ivan Grigor’evi?, quasi trent’anni in un lager sovietico, alla morte di Stalin viene liberato e torna al cospetto dei vivi, di coloro che erano rimasti nelle loro città, nelle loro case. Senza accusare nessuno, fa vacillare le loro coscienze, sigillate nell’idea di essere stati giusti, opportuni, bravi uomini insomma, invece le coscienze tremano, riprendono le loro tortuose vie nei meandri dell’abisso, quelli della verità corrosiva, spaventevole, orrida. Ivan non recrimina niente, basta la sua presenza a generare l’orrore del loro operato, mentre anch’egli si stupisce, perso nel paradosso della libertà: “effettivamente si sta proprio male nella libertà!”.
Com’è la sua patria dopo tutto? Dopo Pietro il Grande, dopo Caterina, dopo la rivoluzione, dopo Lenin, dopo Stalin? Non resta che considerare che la Russia ha raggiunto il progresso a discapito della libertà del suo popolo, rinnovandone e alimentandone la schiavitù; perseguendo l’utopia di rinnegare lo sviluppo capitalistico ha mantenuto schiavi i suoi cittadini, cambiando solo il padrone: lo Stato che perdendo di vista l’obiettivo, ha sacrificato la libertà individuale. L’analisi del protagonista è lucida, una condanna sicura dell’utopia comunista con l’individuazione di precisi errori storici più nella persona di Lenin che in quella di Stalin.
Il romanzo è strutturato in modo tale da permettere, attraverso il susseguirsi degli incontri che porteranno lentamente Ivan a reintegrarsi nella società, la conoscenza delle diverse prospettive che furono coinvolte nell’annientamento dell’uomo. Si può percepire la debolezza del delatore, la paura dell’accusatore, la rettitudine della moglie che non può accusare il marito di una colpa inesistente, la quotidianità macchiata di codardia di chi ha scampato ogni pericolo facendolo subire ad un suo prossimo, il timore dell’ebreo, la fame dell’ Ucraina…Ci sono pagine talmente vivide nel loro realismo da provocare inquietudine e malessere, la fame in particolare è descritta così pungente che si arriva a un vero e proprio processo di immedesimazione , tale da far percepire sensazioni al limite del reale. Oltremodo sono pungenti le considerazioni politiche e storiche, portano ad un’ennesima riflessione sulla piccolezza dell’essere umano che dimentica la sua natura umana, doveroso allora non accettare l’irrazionale perché, a dispetto di Hegel, “…non tutto ciò che è reale è razionale. Tutto ciò che è disumano è assurdo e inutile.”
Intanto Ivan, terminate le sue peregrinazioni, giace sconfitto in una landa desolata, eppure egli è immutabile e immutato perché è riuscito, nonostante tutto, a rimanere un uomo.
Che ne sarà della Russia?
“Dov’è il tempo dell’anima russa libera e umana? Quando mai verrà quel giorno?”
Per Ivan- Grossman la risposta non può che essere questa: “Chissà, forse non verrà mai, mai spunterà.”
Ricordiamolo: anche il manoscritto di “Tutto scorre” fu sequestrato insieme a quello di “Vita e destino”, per fortuna l’autore ne scrisse un’altra copia che fu poi pubblicata alla sua morte.
Comprensibile l’amarezza della sua risposta.
letto16 s Pavel216 121

This is very powerfull and frightfull text. It's actually more a verdict then a novel. A verdict to the Stalin's regime.
Stalin dies, old broken bald man is freed from one of the Stalin's labour camps and "Forever flowing" is his thoughts while he stumbles across this Moscow and Leningrad world of not-imprisoned people, which he did not see for 20 years. He meets the man who sold him, he meets his old love who forgot him, he meets his brother who found a way to succeed inside Stalin regime, he learns the way they live and he remembers all turtures he and other people at the camp had to go through and he tries to understand how all this happened, how it became possible to kill and torture mililons of people and he sees in front of him all thousand year history of slavery and lack of freedom in Russia,he sees Lenin and Stalin's role in it and he predicts that Soviet regime will collapse very soon and freedom will win.
The book was written shortly after Stalin's death when Grossman himself was released from a labour camp. Soviets confiscated manuscript of "Forever flowing", Grossman tried to get it back but failed. Soviet prime-minister Suslov gave him an audiende and told him about another his book ("Life and fate") that it can be published only in 200-300 years, not earlier. Grossman wrote "Forever flowing" for a second time and it was distrubuted through underground press, it became an impulse for Andrey Tarkovsky to film his main masterpiece "Mirror" and in the end, Grossman as we know now was right - regime collapsed much faster then 200 years.russian16 s Margarita Garova483 206

„…???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????…“
„…?????????? ??????????????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????.“
„????????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????.“
„???????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????????. ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????????, ?? ????? ????????.“
„? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? – ???? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ? ????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ? ? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?????????.“
„???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????: ???????.“

???????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ?????????, ??????? ? ??????, ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??, (????)???????? ?? ?????????? ????????. ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ? ?????, ?? ???? ??????? ?????, ???????? ? ??????, ??? ?? ???????? ??????…? ???? ?? ? ?????????, ?? ????? ?????????? ???????????.

??????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?? ? ? ???? ??-?????????, ? ???? ??-???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????, ????? ????? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ???????. ????????? ?? ??????????????, ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ????????, ???? ?? ??????? ?????????. ?????????? ????????? ? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ? ????????; ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ? ???????????. ???? ???? ?? ? ????? ?????, ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ????? ?????. ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ????, ? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?? ???? ????? ??????.

??? ?????? ?? ?????????, ?? ????????? ?? ????? ? ???????. ??? ?????? ????? ? ?? ????. ? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ?????, ???????? ?????????? ????????, ????? ???????????? ??????? ??????? – ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? 1917 ?., ?? ? ???? ??????????, ?????????, ???????? ??????????. ?????? ????, ?????? ?? ?????, ???? ? ?????????, ???? ??????? ????? ??-???????. ????????? ? ? ?????? ?? ????????, ????? ????????? ??????????. ??????????? ????????? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????, ? ??????, ???? ???? ??????, ??? ????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???.

„?????? ????“ ? ???? ?? ???-??????? ??????? ??? ????, ????? ?? ?????? ? ????? ? ????, ???????? ????? ?????, ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ? ??????.


14 s Ray622 143

A man returns home after thirty years in the gulag. He is prematurely aged and unfamiliar with the modern world. How will he fit in after such a long time away, time spent in a dehumanizing hell hole. He meets up with his cousin and bumps into an old friend in the street. Both have built succesful lives for themselves whilst Ivan has been in the camps, and they feel embarassed and guilty at their relative good fortune, the "friend" doubly so as, unbeknownst to Ivan, it was he who had denounced him.

Ivan looks for his sweetheart from the time before his arrest but finds out that she had married and moved away.

Ivan finds a job which gives his life some focus and purpose, and he finds love with his landlady. Even that is snafches away from him.

Grossman uses the book to show us other lives affected by Stalin's repression, the callous arbitrary nature of the clampdown and the layers of complicity and betrayal inherent in an often random quota system based on the whims of the dictator.

We also get forays into essays on the nature of the Soviet system. A bit strange to see in a novel but somehow it works.

In the end Ivan finds peace and acceptance.

An excellent portrayal of the human cost of the Georgian monstrr.fiction13 s Giovanna52 159

Ideale prosecuzione di Vita e destino, questo romanzo ne è anche la logica conseguenza. Se Vita e destino, infatti, era ambientato in pieno stalinismo, Tutto scorre... prende avvio dopo la morte di Stalin, e fa i conti con tutto quello che lo stalinismo è stato, dai gulag alla collettivizzazione forzata, dal Terrore del '37 all'attacco postbellico contro il cosmopolitismo. Il ritorno dal gulag di Ivan Grigor'evi?, infatti, costringe lui stesso e i personaggi che gli si muovono attorno a riflettere su quello che è stato.

Grandioso Grossman, che fugge la tentazione di semplificare, mostrando invece quanto i fenomeni postrivoluzionari debbano essere guardati con gli occhiali della complessità: lo si vede soprattutto nella parte finale del romanzo, che tende a diventare quasi un trattato di storia sovietica in cui Grossman spiega con incredibile lucidità (scrive tra il 1955 e il 1963!) le dinamiche del leninismo prima e dello stalinismo poi. È una spiegazione che si trasforma in un inno alla libertà, parola ripetuta innumerevoli volte nei capitoli finali:

«La storia dell'umanità è la storia della sua libertà. La crescita della potenza dell'uomo si esprime innanzitutto nella crescita della libertà. La libertà non è la necessità diventata coscienza, come pensava Engels. La libertà è diametralmente opposta alla necessità, la libertà è la necessità superata. Il progresso è essenzialmente progresso della libertà umana. Giacché la vita stessa è libertà, l'evoluzione della vita è evoluzione della libertà.» o ancora «La non-libertà trionfava incontrastata dall'Oceano Pacifico al Mar Nero. Essa era ovunque e in ogni cosa. E ovunque e in ogni cosa la libertà è stata uccisa. Fu un'offensiva vittoriosa che fu possibile attuare solo versando molto sangue: ché la libertà è vita, e sconfiggendo la libertà Stalin uccideva la vita.», tanto per fare un paio di esempi.

Strazianti le pagine sulla collettivizzazione in Ucraina. L'ho già detto parlando di Vita e destino, ma mi ripeto: Grossman è un uomo che non teme la verità, anche quando è complessa o difficile da affrontare. Dopo anni di arresti arbitrari e timore di essere denunciati, in questo libro si considerano con grande cautela perfino le azioni dei delatori, dei “quattro Giuda” così facili da condannare. È una lucidità, quella di , che non porta né al cinismo né all'esasperazione della razionalità. Porta, invece, a una certezza: “tutto ciò che è disumano è assurdo e inutile”. E porta anche a una speranza, che va nutrita ancora oggi: un giorno “la libertà sarà tutt'uno con la Russia”.

Sono ancora una volta grata a Vasilij Grossman, uomo e scrittore di grande coraggio, che in tempi difficili ha predicato la libertà, condizione essenziale perché l'esistenza umana sia davvero vita.14 s Justo Martiañez452 172

Obra maestra. Imprescindible para entender desde dentro la URSS en la época estalinista.12 s Argos1,129 369

Vasili Grossman’?n bu iç yak?c? kitab? hakk?nda iki kitap kurdu sevgili “merixien” ve sevgili “evdiyebiryer” o kadar güzel yorumlar yazm??lar ki onlardan sonra bir ?eyler yazmak anlams?z olur. Bu iki yorumun linkini a?a??ya koyuyorum.

Önerim bu kitab? 1000 sayfal?k “Ya?am ve Yazg?” isimli kült eserden sonra okuyun ki, Vasili’nin hakl? öfkesini öyle de?erlendirin.

Bu kitaba dü?ük puan verenlerin ideolojik olarak puanlama yapt?klar?n? dü?ünüyorum. Ben de sosyalist dünya görü?üne sahibim ama “büyük tasfiyeyi”, “holodomor”u, antisemitizm ve “doktorlar olay?”n? nas?l yok sayabilirim ? ?nsan?n özgürlü?ü ve onuru en yüce de?erdir !

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...15 s L Fleisig27 11

"Not under foreign skies, Nor under foreign wings protected
I shared all this with my own people
There, where misfortune had abandoned us."
Anna Akhmatova's Requiem

If Life and Fate (New York Review Books Classics) may rightfully be seen as Vasily Grossman's masterpiece, his Everything Flows may rightfully be seen as his testament, a requiem if you will not only for his own life but for the lives of those who lived in his time and place.

"Everything Flows" tells a simple, yet emotionally deep and politically nuanced tale. The story begins with the 1957 return to Moscow of Ivan Grigoryevich after 30 years of forced labor in the Gulag. 1957 marked the year, following Khrushchev's denunciation of the excesses of Stalin, in which the tide of prisoners returning from the Gulag reached its peak. He arrives at the Moscow flat of his cousin Nikolay. Nikolay, a scientist with less than stellar skills, has reached some measure of success at the laboratory through dint of being a survivor. The meeting in the flat is entirely unsatisfactory for both parties. Grossman paints a vivid picture of Nikolay, more than a bit jealous that Ivan's light had always shone brighter than his own prior to Ivan's arrest. Nikolay suffers from the guilt of one who was not arrested and who is painfully aware of the choices he made to keep from being arrested. It seems clear that Ivan represents a mirror into which Nikolay can see only his own hollow reflection.

Ivan leaves Moscow for his old city of Leningrad, the place where he was first arrested in 1927. By chance, he runs into the person, Pinegin, whose denunciation placed him in jail in the first place. Once again, Ivan is a mirror and Pinegin is horrified at what he is faced with, what he has buried for thirty years. Ironically, and to great effect, we see Pinegin's horror recede once he settles down to a sumptuous lunch at a restaurant reserved for foreigners and party officials. Ivan does not know about the denunciation and Grossman here embarks on a discourse on the different types and forms of denunciation available to the Soviet citizen. It is a remarkable discourse that shows how many different ways there are to participate in a purge and how many ways there are to legitimize ones participation and/or acquiescence.

From Leningrad Ivan travels to a southern industrial city where he finds work and eventually finds a deep and satisfying love in the person of his landlady Anna. The centerpiece of that relationship is the brutal honesty involved; Anna spends a night detailing her role in the pointless, needless famine that swept the Ukraine in 1932-1933. It is an account made even more chilling by the straightforward, confessional nature of its telling. But it is also redemptive and shines a light on what might be called Grossman's vision that love and freedom are two goals, not mutually exclusive, that an honest accounting of our lives forms the essence of our shared humanity.

The above summary does not do justice to the power of Grossman's prose or to the literary and political importance of the work. Since the death of Stalin, the Soviet line had remained relatively firm - Stalin's excesses were the product of a disturbed mind that represented a horrible deviation from the theory and principles of Leninism. The USSR's best path was the one that returned it to the path created by Lenin. Khrushchev first enunciated this line. Even Gorbachev's perestroika was based on the theory that a return to first-principles, i.e. Leninism, would save the USSR from destruction.

Grossman, prophetically, did not buy into this line and Everything Flows'last chapters are notable for a remarkable attack not only on Stalin but on Lenin and Lenin's anti-democratic tendencies that had more in common with Ivan the Terrible than the principles of revolutionary democracy. "All the triumphs of Party and State were bound up with the name of Lenin. But all the cruelty inflicted on the nation also lay - tragically - on Lenin's shoulders." Grossman may have been the first to make this leap and he paid the price for making that leap. (This involves the suppression of his Life & Fate and Everything Flows.) Grossman's explicit claim that Stalin was not a deviationist from Leninism but its natural-born progeny was profoundly subversive and there is no doubt in my mind that it was this difference that explains why, under Khruschev's 'thaw', that One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was publishe while Life and Fate and Everything Flows was banned.

Despite the horrors set out, quietly and without excess rhetoric, Grossman returns to a somewhat optimistic vision of mans search for freedom: "No matter how mighty the empire, all this is only mist and fog and, as such, will be blown away. Only one true force remains; only one true force continues to evolve and live; and this force is liberty. To a man, to live means to be free."

Robert Chandler's translation of Everything Flows is exquisite. He brings the same clarity and emotional investment in Grossman's work that he brought to his prize-winning translations of Platonov and Hamid Ismailov's The Railway. In short, Everything Flows is a treasure and I cannot recommend this book highly enough. 12 s Ajeje Brazov787

La libertà... questa sconosciuta!

La libertà e la repressione sono i due argomenti principali di questo libro, che si è rivelato di una intensità, di una passione, di una emozionalità tale da commuovermi, da rendermi fiducioso nel futuro, ma anche di avermi disgustato in modo indescrivibile.
Libertà e repressione: due parole che più distanti non possono essere, eppure la storia dell'umanità ci ha raccontato che reprimendo si dava libertà (vedi qui la repressione dei kulaki o dei dissidenti del partito, per fini di "libertà", spacciata per vera libertà), assurdo!! Un po' come dire che l'acqua non sia fonte di vita...
Il protagonista (una sorta di alter-ego dello scrittore) reduce dei lager sovietici, da sempre sostenitore della libertà, vera e pura (senza se e senza ma), dopo decine di anni passate in prigionia, torna nella sua città natale e tra flashback, sogni e storie di vita vissuta, ci racconta cos'è stato e cosa ancora è il "sogno" rivoluzionario socialista sovietico, iniziato con Lenin, proseguito con Stalin, con ampi spunti di riflessione sociale-politica-filosofica.
Un capolavoro!

"Allora Ivan prese la parola nell'auditorio contro la dittatura: dichiarò che la libertà è un bene equivalente alla vita, che una sua limitazione mutila l'uomo come un colpo d'ascia che faccia saltar via dita e orecchie; abolire poi la libertà, equivaleva a un assassinio."
"Ivan Grigor'evic immaginò se stesso seduto in una poltrona della dacia mentre, sorseggiando del buon vinello, avrebbe cominciato a raccontare della gente scomparsa nel buio eterno. La sorte di alcuni di loro era d'una tristezza così lancinante che persino la più tenera, la più leggera ed affettuosa parola su di loro sarebbe stata come il ruvido contatto di rozze mani su un lacero cuore messo a nudo."
"Stupidello mio, che vita difficile avrai, con un cuore così sensibile, così vulnerabile."
"Quante cose aveva visto la Russia nei mille anni della sua storia. Negli anni sovietici poi, aveva veduto formidabili vittorie militari, grandiosi cantieri, nuove città, dighe che sbarravano il corso del Dnepr e della Volga, un canale che univa i mari, e possenti trattori, e grattacieli... Una cosa sola la Russia non aveva visto in mille anni: la libertà."indimenticabili russia storia12 s Simone Invernizzi176 17

Grossman scrisse questo libro fra il 1955 e il 1963. Come nella grandiosa dilogia composta da “Stalingrado” e "Vita e destino", non cambiò molto dello stile scabro e aspro che lo aveva reso celebre fra gli scrittori del realismo socialista, ma vi infuse l'inconfondibile tono della verità. Con lucidità e fermezza, prima di ogni altro parlò qui di argomenti intoccabili: la perenne tortura della vita nei campi di lavoro sotto Stalin, ma anche l'altra tortura, più sottile, di chi ne ritorna e riconosce la bassezza e il terrore negli occhi imbarazzati di parenti e conoscenti; lo sterminio sistematico dei kulaki; la delazione come fondamento della società; il vero ruolo di Lenin e Stalin con il loro "spregio della libertà" nella costruzione del mondo sovietico. Esattamente come le sue altre opere, anche “Tutto scorre…” fu proibito e requisito dalla polizia politica sovietica.

Un’altra straordinaria opera. Più leggo Grossman, più mi rendo conto di quanto egli sia, senza alcun dubbio, uno tra i più grandi scrittori della storia.

Vasilij Grossman nacque nel 1905 a Berdicev, una cittadina ucraina a maggioranza ebrea. Allineato al regime, durante la seconda guerra mondiale divenne corrispondente sul campo di guerra per il giornale dell'Armata rossa, “Stella Rossa”. In un lungo viaggio durato 3 anni, Grossman fu testimone dell’assedio di Mosca, di Staligrado e di Berlino, e al seguito dell'esercito sovietico scoprì gli orrori perpetrati dai nazisti a danni degli ebrei, vedendo in prima persona il campo di Treblinka al momento della sua liberazione (di cui racconta nel libro “L’inferno di Treblinka”).

La durissima repressione che Stalin perpetrò per brama di potere ai danni di ebrei e di tantissimi cittadini che avevano fedelmente servito l’Unione Sovietica, fu una svolta profonda nella vita di Grossman. Da fedele servitore del regime, ideologicamente allineato, Vasilij Grossman divenne un profondo critico del sistema sovietico e delle purghe staliniane. Gli anni che vennero furono cupi per gli ebrei sovietici, ma come un fulmine a ciel sereno, nel 1953 Stalin morì, e con lui i suoi piani per un'ennesima grande purga della società sovietica.Per gli intellettuali si apriva ora un periodo nuovo, quello che Erenburg definì come Disgelo. E fu proprio in questo contesto che venne scritto “Tutto scorre...”, un capolavoro letterario, storico e sociologico.

Si tratta di un libro crudo, che lascia pochi spazi a descrizioni leggere, romantiche. Così come è la realtà viene riscritta nel libro. Grossman analizza col suo modo, frutto di anni di giornalismo, la storia russa degli anni ‘30 e ‘40, dalla collettivizzazione fino alla morte di Stalin. I commenti sono caustici, non lascia speranze al regime: "Lo Stato si fece padrone" scrive.

Si inizia col la liberazione di molti prigionieri dei lager voluta nel 1953. Ecco quindi che il nostro protagonista, Ivan Grigor'evi?, incarcerato per aver chiesto la libertà, ritorna dai lager alla vita di tutti i giorni. Ma son passati ben tre decenni e tutto è cambiato. Ci son state le purghe del '36-'38, c'è stata la seconda guerra mondiale. Le persone, le strade, le case che conosceva un tempo non ci sono più. E anche quelle che son rimaste, fanno ormai finta di nulla: lo scopo del lager è far dimenticare il condannato, e il suo scopo lo ottiene sempre. E qui vien fuori l'angosciante realtà: chi si è salvato non vuole affrontare chi invece è stato condannato. Due Russie si incontrano, quella condannata e quella che ha continuato a vivere "libera". La società è definitivamente fratturata, e la frattura non si può più ricomporre. "Non resta che parlare a frasi fatte" commenta Grossman, un commento che dice più di interi libri.

Ma l'autore affronta anche un altro tema. Quello della collettivizzazione e della grande carestia in Ucraina, l'Holodomor. Una questione che aiuta noi contemporanei a comprendere le profonde origini storiche del conflitto attualmente in corso tra la Russia di Putin e l’Ucraina. Anche in questi capitoli lo stile di Grossman colpisce nel profondo. Sono forse le pagine più toccanti della sua opera, quelle che fai davvero tanta fatica a leggere, e che descrivono in maniera atroce quella terribile catastrofe:

"Le donne si dimostravano più forti degli uomini, si attaccavano alla vita con più rabbia. Eppure toccava loro il peggio: è alle madri che i bambini domandano da mangiare."

"Hai mai visto sui giornali i bambini nei lager tedeschi? Identici: teste pesanti come palle di cannone, colli sottili come quelli delle cicogne, nelle mani e nei piedi potevi vedere il movimento di ogni ossicino, sotto la pelle, come son congiunti quelli doppi; lo scheletro era tutto fasciato dalla palle, tesa come una garza gialla. [...] Non erano più visi umani."

Infine, l'ultimo argomento toccato da Grossman è il tentativo di capire perché in Russia ebbe modo di svilupparsi una simile dittatura, e anche qui, come nel resto del libro, non c'è speranza; anche qui il suo commento è disarmante: "lo sviluppo russo ha mostrato una sua strana essenza: si trasforma in sviluppo della non-libertà".dittatura gulag narrativa-russa ...more11 s João Carlos646 304


Gulag

A minha estreia literária com o escritor Vassili Grossman, nascido em 1905 na Ucrânia, foi precisamente com o seu último livro “Tudo Passa”, romance iniciado em 1955 e no qual ainda trabalhava durante os seus últimos dias de vida, acabando por falecer num hospital de Moscovo em 1964.
Ivan Grigórievitch regressa à “vida” depois de ter passado trinta anos num gulag/campo de concentração na Sibéria. Vítima, tal como milhões de russos, da arbitrariedade, das falsas denúncias, das fraquezas humanas, assentes na inveja social e política, na perseguição desenfreada efectuada por delatores e “bufos”, por informadores subjugados ao terror estadal e às indicações políticas de uma cúpula de governantes, que prejudicavam homens e mulheres, os seus familiares directos e indirectos, num dos períodos mais negros da história da União Soviética.
Essas denúncias “anónimas” precediam as ordens de detenção e eram utilizadas conforme a conveniência na instrução do processo político e, consequentemente, na sentença, quase sempre implacável e sem recurso.
Neste regresso Ivan sente-se perdido e incapaz, “os meus conhecimentos são livros com páginas arrancadas, sem princípio e sem fim.” E mesmo em liberdade, Ivan e todos os outros “ex-presos”, estão amarrados e submissos a um medo e um terror que os continua a perseguir, não pelas grades e pelo arame farpado do gulag, mas pelas ligações sociais e emocionais que foram quebradas, de uma forma violenta e atroz, e que não se conseguem reestabelecer no imediato.
Depois dos anos de névoa e poeira, do caos e da loucura, individual e colectiva, da autoexterminação, a vida de Ivan começa pouco a pouco a regressar à normalidade, mesmo apesar das perdas – da namorada, da família, dos amigos – a sua bondade e o seu desejo da liberdade genuína permanecem inalteradas.
Um excelente romance que conjuga a verdadeira história política e social da União Soviética, no final do período estalinista e pós-estalinista, com relacionamentos humanos e sociais, de homens e mulheres, em busca da dignidade e da liberdade.
A tradução e as notas de rodapé de Nina Guerra e Filipe Guerra são excelentes e representam um precioso auxiliar na compreensão da história e das figuras e dos factos políticos a ela associados.
Comecei pelo último livro de Vassili Grossman, as 855 páginas de “Vida e Destino” são um dos próximos desafios literários.


Vassili Grossman (1905 - 1964)
l201410 s Erika35 8

Autor del comentario:
=================================