Lehman book club discussion

I just finished reading the foreword by Applebaum. I have to say, it made very clear how woefully ignorant I am of almost every element of Russian history. I highly recommend reading the brief foreword, if you haven't already.

My prediction is that while this book is going to shine a light on some of the worst aspects of human nature, there will also be interesting and uplifting moments where the better aspects of our natures will be discussed. The foreword mentions a prolific underground publishing ring in Russia, as well as Radio Liberty, it talks about the secret copies of the Gulag Archipelago carefully passed around from person to person. There is something romantically wonderful about the ultimately uncrushable spirit of mankind, of the individual. Maybe our better natures will ultimately elevate the species. One can only hope. For the contradictory idea I'll mention this quote: " 'The Gulag Archipelago' helped create the world that we live in today--a world in which Soviet communism is no longer held up as anybody's political ideal."

Thoughtful into to the book.

Unlike Sarah's erudite introduction, my own initial comments about Solzhenitson's book come in the form of a confession. For all of my adult life, and I am 62, I have labored under the impression that the Gulag Archipelago, in addition to being the title of a seminal literary work, is a physical geographical site. I believed it to be a string of islands at the top Russia in the Arctic Ocean upon which prison camps were located; consulting a map, these penal islands would have been located, in the Laptev or East Siberian seas. Imagine my surprise - and embarrassment - upon picking up a copy of the Gulag Archipelago for the second time (the first being when I carried a copy around for several week in college, hoping to impress a certain young man), and discovering the four page map of Russia marked throughout with nearly two hundred watch towers, each representing a gulag. My slow mind went to work, and discomfited understanding dawned: Russia herself is the sea and the gulags are the islands. Shhh.... don't tell.

Great minds think alike! I also thought this was a geographical location...

Shouldn’t you say ignorant or naive minds think alike?

No... Just geographically challenged. BTW, just started the chapter "First Cell, First Love." I find it compelling and interesting how the book vacillates between a philosophical analysis of human nature and a very intimate first hand experience. A logical person may say that the first hand (and second hand) experiences are not valid arguments for a philosophical discussion because it's impossible to tell if they're representative of a wider experience, but when documentation has been limited and destroyed, the personal experience is all that is left. Also, no matter the argument, a personal experience is more compelling. There is something more memorable and certainly more moving about a first hand telling. Just some of the thoughts that have been going through my mind while reading. Philip said he's reading the book as more of a plot driven type story than as a history, primarily because it's a first hand experience. I understand the point, though I'm not sure I agree.

I have to say, chapter 5 was not as thoughtful as the rest of the book has been, so far. It actually made me like Solzhenitsyn a little less, because he seemed to be putting himself into the story too much, talking about how his life had been a calling to do this, as though he was chosen, etc. Maybe he's right, but he doesn't need to toot his own horn so much. I can see that the story would be intensely personal, and that is part of the charm, but I get the feeling that if you met Solzhenitsyn in a bar, he would talk a lot about himself and kind of forget what, or if you had anything to say. Maybe I'm wrong; let me know.

He did mention something in Chapter 5 that I thought I'd bring up: He talks about a "secret sensor relay":

"I recklessly revealed myself to dozens of people--and didn't make a misstep even once... It seems to me that such spiritual sensors exist in many of us, but because we live in too technological and rational an age, we neglect this miracle and don't allow it to develop."

I wonder, do you agree with Solzhenistsyn, or is there a more mundane explanation?

Philip wrote: "I have to say, chapter 5 was not as thoughtful as the rest of the book has been, so far. It actually made me like Solzhenitsyn a little less, because he seemed to be putting himself into the story ..."

Oops. I (Sarah) posted the previous comment!

The further I read, (middle of Chapter 7 thus far), the more chilling this becomes; I see a system we are creeping toward - an authoritarian world of code violations, eliminating the chance of appeal (like red light cameras), all for the good of the citizenry. I'm truly enjoying this book, which surprises me no end! I almost exclusively read fiction because it engages me so much more. I would like to be more educated about history, but I can't seem to stay awake long enough to learn much.

Regarding Solzhenitsyn's personal perspective, it doesn't bother me at this point, although I found Chapter 5 to be the least compelling so far. After all, he also tells the experiences of dozens (hundreds?) of others. Interestingly, Chapter 6 is completely different. I believe Solzhenitsyn had awareness of the risks he was taking in injecting himself and his own experiences to such an extent, and the little bits and pieces of so many others, perhaps risking the credibility of the historical detail, but he is obviously striving for emotional impact. This is "An Experiment in Literary Investigation," and so far, I think the experiment successful. As Solzhenitsyn says in the 1983 introduction, "Yet I have not given up all hope that human beings and nations may be able, in spite of all, to learn from the experience of other people without having to live through it personally." Could Solzhenitsyn have achieved his goal of altering human action without the emotional impact of personal narrative?

I agree that Solzhenitsyn wouldn't be much fun to have a beer with, but I suspect Faulkner was a jackass who would have talked about himself, or his mythological self, until last call. It's a trickier situation when a work is so autobiographical though, as the Gulag is, because if the reader doesn't like the subject, the work loses impact. Solzhenitsyn hasn't crossed that line for me (yet). I also don't feel that his insertion of himself discredits the historical aspect of the book.

Onward!

As Mom and I discussed on the phone, I think the personal perspective could be really powerful, but Solzhenitsyn actually shies away from using it fully. As much as he talks about personal experiences, he hasn't revealed much about his own mental state or feelings during this period of his life. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the book. I'm learning a lot, and I find it very disturbing, but I can see the potential for more.