Reading the Chunksters discussion

This is pretty dense reading but so good!

Chapter 4 - ok, forgive me for asking, but what is 'The Real Day' in reference to? I found many portions of this chapter to be fascinating, the description of turbid water, with leaders bobbing like floating chips in a flood, was especially noteworthy to me. Yet still, people were terribly desperate for a leader, and the fervor with which they followed those that emerged was astounding. When Trotstky noted that 'no human exhaustion' could overcome the excitement of the masses, when Lenin stood there as an emblem of calm decisiveness amid chaos, you can see how such leadership could be compelling. Yet the brutality of it all, the long lists of people subject to "concentrated violence" at the end of the chapter - well, it seemed to include virtually everybody! And the horrific way that they killed the family of the tsar, even carrying the dead lapdog out on a bayonet - eegs.

This section covered a lot of ground! I thought I knew quite a lot about the Russian revolution, but I knew very little about Sverdlov and his importance in the early days after the revolution - the sections on his influence were very interesting. There are clearly parallels with many other times and places where idealistic new regimes have come to power and are forced to compromise to survive.

Chapter 5 - Slezkine switches gears here again, describing the success of the Bolsheviks due to the fact that their "sociology was all-encompassing, their apocalypse inescapable, their leader infallible, their "address" unquestioned, their "record-keeping" unmatched and their commitment to violence by numbers, absolute." In particular he describes the ruthless machinations of Sverdlov and Mironov, Sverdlov, who had surrendered absolutely everything for his mission, and Mironov, who seemed to be flung back and forth from exile to leadership to death sentence to leadership to death in prison, while continuing a turbid love affair with a woman about 30 years his junior. It is interesting what Slezkine chooses to include in his text, for example the love poems from Mironov's young love... "I love you like the sun.. Looking down brightly... Through an open window..." Why do you think he includes this text? MIronov as a leader seemed rather limited in his thinking and was described as a "political runt," what role did he ultimately serve?

Hugh wrote: "This section covered a lot of ground! I thought I knew quite a lot about the Russian revolution, but I knew very little about Sverdlov and his importance in the early days after the revolution - th..."

I had never heard of Sverdlov before, and it was fascinating how he came to power. He was the man behind the scenes, it would appear. Ruthless, dedicated, obsessive.

I took The Real Day as a sort of a Judgement Day.

This book is getting incredibly complicated! I'm listening to some discussions about the 'April Thesis' to learn what this is.

This one sounds pretty good, mainly sticking to facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTH5...

I'm feelling a bit waay over my head O.O with this book! Hopefully by the time I reach page 900, I ought to know more about the Revolution, right?

Having finished this (no spoilers!), I'm still bemused by why so many reviewers have talked about it as merging fiction and non-fiction: to me, it's academic history - any ideas?

I also think that the wealth of detail is both the book's strength and weakness. It ends up being monotone as everything is treated with the same attention to minutiae. Then again, that's precisely why this will remain invaluable, I'd guess, to researchers for some time to come. Exhausting, though, for this reader!

I agree RC - I didn't see any fiction other than that described in the works of the writers. Maybe the epigraph "This is a work of history. Any resemblance to fictional characters, dead or alive, is entirely coincidental" and Slezkine mentioning his admiration of Tolstoy were responsible!

Biblio wrote: "This book is getting incredibly complicated! I'm listening to some discussions about the 'April Thesis' to learn what this is.

This one sounds pretty good, mainly sticking to facts:
https://www.y..."

I agree! I don't see the fiction aspect (though to be fair, maybe Slezkine incorporates it later, and I'm just not far enough into the book since I'm only 170 pages in) I am so glad I am reading this with a group because though I feel like I am learning A LOT there are definitely parts I am missing :/ I am enjoying it, but boy, is it dense.

That epigraph is what sparked my interest. Perhaps it's a tongue in cheek joke about inaccuracies in history. Or that history is often told from the 'winner's point of view and often leaves out the opinions of minorities or lower income folks.

Biblio wrote: "That epigraph is what sparked my interest. Perhaps it's a tongue in cheek joke about inaccuracies in history. Or that history is often told from the 'winner's point of view and often leaves out the..."
It is undoubtedly true that the official version of history in Soviet Russia was always very distorted, which makes establishing an authoritative historical truth rather difficult. Much of the book is derived from individual memoirs, and these are not always 100% reliable either.

Is there ever such a thing as 'an authoritative historical truth'? According to who? Accepted by who?

In any case, my favourite aspect of this book is the extracts from private letters, diaries, memoirs. They are subjective, of course, and give us multiple personal perspectives. Slezkine has done a tremendous job in transcribing and translating primary sources otherwise inaccessible to non Russian speakers.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Is there ever such a thing as 'an authoritative historical truth'? According to who? Accepted by who?"
Fair point, but this is what historians like to aspire to...

Yuri Skezkine is a professor of History at University of California, Berkeley. I would say—without knowing the man—that he "aspires to historical truth."

I reread the New York Times Book review which first made me aware of this book. There is no mention of fiction. The book was (highly) reviewed as straight history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/bo...

Russia is a country where it is especially hard to know "the truth."
Whether because of the propaganda, the violence or the "re-writing" of the history, it has been hidden or obscured on purpose.

I think Slezkine may have used the term saga to both excuse his (wonderful but non-objective) phrases scattered throughout: A person's class was determined ". . . in the eye of the beheader" comes to mind. "Saga" also covers his focus on the buildings people and families of the Bolsheviks—as opposed to a focus on events.

The review is fabulous! It certainly highlights the book to sound like a lively account of an incredibly complex, tragic time.

Russia's propaganda .... I can't even imagine how much of their works were used as propaganda or even created for that purpose. I've only read their works as novels and often out of their historical context. The context adds a whole other layer that's certainly worth exploring.

I'm so happy Slezkine is relying on the more personal letters & diaries. Everyone has a point of view and these are a more private one. But then, how private were letters when the 'censors' were in full swing?

Slezkine set a mammoth sized task in front of him to write this book, that's for sure!! His task of translating letters, I can't imagine!! I know Russian can be interpreted in a variety of ways or the structure of it's language naturally leads it to be creative. So the various writers with their own unique Russian use, context of the letter and then of course actual penmanship O.O

A good little book on the study of history is Re-thinking History. I'm certain there are better ones out there that go into greater detail. As a brief introduction for how history is recorded and crafted, it's a good starting place. It's certainly filled with some of Kenny's bias and he's arguing from his own point of view. But he does bring up some interesting points like, historians also finish work at 4:00 pm and often work on deadlines.

Dan wrote: "I took The Real Day as a sort of a Judgement Day."

Thanks Dan! That makes sense

Roman Clodia wrote: "Having finished this (no spoilers!), I'm still bemused by why so many reviewers have talked about it as merging fiction and non-fiction: to me, it's academic history - any ideas?

I also think tha..."

I don't see how it is fictional at all. Slezkine's style is interesting because there are SO many tangents. They are all interesting, but it can be difficult to follow exactly where he is going at times. Still, I think the many anecdotes are very helpful to place the reader in the actual time being written about - it is amazing how he makes the setting real. I imagine most 'history' books don't come close to approximating the reality that Slezkine conveys - but if you are aware of any similar books, I would love to hear what their names are so I can check them out!

Cara wrote: "Biblio wrote: "This book is getting incredibly complicated! I'm listening to some discussions about the 'April Thesis' to learn what this is.

This one sounds pretty good, mainly sticking to facts..."

I'm with you Cara, I think the insights of others is so helpful because it is hard to pick up on everything here! Definitely worth owning though, I am sure I could read through it again and pick up many new tidbits.

Hugh wrote: "Biblio wrote: "That epigraph is what sparked my interest. Perhaps it's a tongue in cheek joke about inaccuracies in history. Or that history is often told from the 'winner's point of view and often..."

This is an excellent point Hugh. Perhaps because Russian history was so often distorted the author makes the point that this is a work, in fact, of history.

Hugh wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Is there ever such a thing as 'an authoritative historical truth'? According to who? Accepted by who?"
Fair point, but this is what historians like to aspire to..."

Agree - humans can only do so much! But 'history' is presented based on 'facts' to the best that we are able to ascertain them. Or at least that is the goal!

Dan wrote: "Yuri Skezkine is a professor of History at University of California, Berkeley. I would say—without knowing the man—that he "aspires to historical truth."

I reread the New York Times Book review wh..."

in the eye of the beheader... very true! Astounding how brutal this period was, dachas aside!

I think a 'saga' implies a long narrative account that could be fictional or non-fictional - this definitely qualifies with its length and detail!

Chapter 6 - The New City

This chapter meanders quite a bit, continuing on with the relationship between states and various religions, a dissection of the components of the Soviet state, the composition of the Houses of Soviets and details of the daily lives of their residents, a review of Bolshevik writing during the period, and a peek at Lenin's death and examination of his significance.

Various items I noted...

I was wondering what the objective was of containing so many state officials in large residences that were self-sufficient - was that a means of control or surveillance?

I was a bit alarmed by the accounts of the 'electrical treatments' of the residents - they did not sound 'delightful' to me!

The Iron Flood as required reading... sounded incredibly brutal for schoolchildren - complete with accounts of blood soaking into dung and brains scattered about like mounds of jelly!

The preservation of Lenin was also fascinating to me - so he was much beloved by the people it would seem? It was so strange to me that Slezkine just jumped right to his death and the preservation of his likeness and memory - rather than dive into details of life under his control.

Chapter 7 - What happened to these Houses - they turned into insane asylums or brothels! Was this a result of Lenin's death and the change in their monitoring and oversight?

I found the comments on the potential inconsistency between communism and marriage or the traditional family to be interesting - I would have thought that commitment to the 'brotherhood' could be achieved just as much from a member with a stable family unit as from one who prefers carousing! (by the way, did anyone notice the author's constant references to men marrying women half their age? bizarre.)

What did you think of the digressions on famous Bolshevik romances - did they add value to the narrative?

I also found the complicated position of marriage and the family very interesting: on one hand the family is the basic unit of the communist state; on the other, loyalty to family can be seen as having the potential to over-ride the state. Does the House try to smooth out the contradictions: putting families in the individual apartments but trying to also keep them conscious of their role in the party by co-locating them with other officials?

Ideally, the Party would raise all the kids—to make them better committed to the Party/ This didn't happen because it couldn't happen. Husbands should be equal to wifes—also not real for the time.

More than a few of these guys (and gals) had multiple relations/families. The first loyalty is to COuntry/Party. Everything else is supposed to be second if you are a true communist.

Fascinating that this idea of the state raising children outside of a family is also in Plato's Republic where they would be raised by Guardians - especially as Plato is probably closer to what we would term right-wing.

He also excludes poetry (and music?) from his ideal Republic because of its power to move or sway people - somewhat akin to the Sovietisation of art.

I've never considered these parallels before.

I read somewhere that Russia was believed to become the next Rome. So this eventual Soviet state (or communist revolutionary plan) and it's family relationships being so parallel to the Republic is an interesting connection.

I could follow Slezkine's explanations for their plans to eventually dissolve the traditional family unit to strengthen their communist ideals. From that communist point of view, if a man has a family to care for, his loyalties will always teeter towards them before any state's demands. (Pillow talk, 'honey remember to bring home junior's medicine, and a sense of responsibility or duty as a family man.) I just believe the relationship between folks who are in love would always win out over what a government wants. So, I can see why the traditional family unit would seem a threat to the Bolsheviks.

I wonder if the open relationships/affairs was a way to break down the traditional family? The shifting attitudes could make the new Bolshevik way seem more fun, or to have more freedom. (No more 'ball & chain' for either gender) It's surprising that both men and women were almost allowed to have multiple partners back then and divorce seemed far more common than I expected. Most shocking was women asked for the divorce. I never expected that! With this new insight, I can see why What Is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky was propaganda. Without the historical context, I took it as a book with some slightly odd feminist themes. (Feminist meaning the woman was free to manage her own company & able to get a divorce when she wanted one.)

It's pretty tough to read Slezkine's summaries of marriage and everything else. There's a lot going on, the ideology is constantly so disagreeable fused with the high hopes of these smart folks. It's a very draining book with a lot to mull over.

Roman Clodia wrote: "I also found the complicated position of marriage and the family very interesting: on one hand the family is the basic unit of the communist state; on the other, loyalty to family can be seen as ha..."

this was so strange to me - how can you control love, sex and family? and expect that communist 'brotherhood' would trump these things? were the most successful communists those that shunned family and relationships?

Dan wrote: "Ideally, the Party would raise all the kids—to make them better committed to the Party/ This didn't happen because it couldn't happen. Husbands should be equal to wifes—also not real for the time.
..."

was there any attempt to make this happen beyond schooling and other community organizations? Were children forced to join certain organizations that complied with the Party's views?

Dan wrote: "Ideally, the Party would raise all the kids—to make them better committed to the Party/ This didn't happen because it couldn't happen. Husbands should be equal to wifes—also not real for the time.
..."

the multiple spouses was so bizarre. Perhaps the Party fostered these situations because it diluted focus on each one?

Roman Clodia wrote: "Fascinating that this idea of the state raising children outside of a family is also in Plato's Republic where they would be raised by Guardians - especially as Plato is probably closer to what we ..."

interesting - yet it seems here (certain) music and art were heavily pushed by the government.

Biblio wrote: "I read somewhere that Russia was believed to become the next Rome. So this eventual Soviet state (or communist revolutionary plan) and it's family relationships being so parallel to the Republic is..."

I agree with this Biblio - watered down family units probably enabled strengthened ties to the Party - but also had the downside of breakdown into chaos.

(Message 32) Dianne, I so agree with you!! A family unit caters to our more personal human side & needs. Coming home to love or chaos is enough for each member to sort out each day. Without this little, very private community, our ability to foster human relationships would surely break down. (Single folks are still cool though because they still have a sense of family with their friends or childhood home). But then, what would a country look like if everyone was single & required to be so?

"were the most successful communists those that shunned family and relationships? "
I think so. I'm pretty sure Stalin isn't well remembered for his family relationships. Did he ever marry? I think so, but it's secondary to his ties to running the country. If that guy could have just relaxed with his wife, a novel or Netflix and good dinner conversations with loved ones, he wouldn't have been such a jerk (to put it kindly)

Biblio wrote: "(Message 32) Dianne, I so agree with you!! A family unit caters to our more personal human side & needs. Coming home to love or chaos is enough for each member to sort out each day. Without this li..."

as a single lady I am just fine with that arrangement ha! but I think in this context the greater the allegiance to the state the better, even if that meant the breakdown of familial relationships.

So true about the context. The word used is disrupters, it's a interesting way to phrase the methods of this time.

For the single ladies in this building ... shopping for what to wear may not be in the cards, but other options are just a few doors a way ^.^

For folks that read a lot of good literature and wanted to learn and improve, the Bolshevik novels in Chapter 7 all sounded pretty terrible.

I checked out The Iron Flood ... it sure sounds like terrible reading. I think these books would clearly fall into propaganda more than anything.

Well read folks, subject to filtered works that follow suit for certain ideas, they also wanted a certain dream/way of life/new system of governing ... did they achieve any of their goals or were they only alive long enough to see a brief transition period for some of their ideals come to fruition? Or were the majority of them shuffled into the mix & were fairly complacent as their political party became usurped by Stalin? I mean, for the majority of them, would they say, I'm a Bolshevik and just leave it at that. They reported to work each day, business as usual with evening chatter about how things could be. I think that's how this book portrays the majority of them. It seems to remove any legendary/anti-hero imagery we've developed over the years when thinking of the Revolution. Their memory has become a mixture of folks who dared to rise up and make change to folks who tried to force others down & take over. For the most part, history doesn't remember them as mere folks who ate dinner in the evening like the rest of us.

It's a bit rambly, I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this.

As a group, in their minds, did they want to make Russia better or just secure their own comfort levels & lifestyles now that the Czar is gone? What did they really want? As a group & as individuals, were their wants/ideals different?

Dan wrote: "For folks that read a lot of good literature and wanted to learn and improve, the Bolshevik novels in Chapter 7 all sounded pretty terrible."

laughing. thanks Dan! Lucky for us we have many other choices. I always love flagging books that are mentioned in other books though, as if somehow that means that they are of particular merit.

Biblio wrote: "I checked out The Iron Flood ... it sure sounds like terrible reading. I think these books would clearly fall into propaganda more than anything.

Well read folks, subject to filtered works that f..."

Biblio wrote: "I checked out The Iron Flood ... it sure sounds like terrible reading. I think these books would clearly fall into propaganda more than anything.

Well read folks, subject to filtered works that f..."

I can't believe that children were reading Iron Flood, that would be banned from all school libraries in the U.S.!

Good points Biblio, I think that at this point the 'people' were really at the mercy of the government, and you either ascribed or faced a dire fate.