Europe through literature discussion

The fourth title of contemporary literature that we are going to read in 2023 is Red Crosses by Sasha Filipenko from Belarus.

Apart from Carolien and me, who voted for this title, everybody else is of course invited to also share their thoughts!

@Carolien: I have this title for August on my agenda. How about you?

This book and the other book for this month just arrived so I'm not sure which to start first!

Dianne wrote: "This book and the other book for this month just arrived so I'm not sure which to start first!"

I read Red Crosses first and will continue with Chernobyl Prayer: A Chronicle of the Future at some time soon :))

Ok thanks Orgeluse!

I have the book, but probably a September read as I am away for some of August.

I'm about a quarter of the way into the book and the structure is working well for me. The introductory note by the translators was also quite useful as well as the way they have typeset Tatyana's flashbacks into italics in the text.

I am now reading this book and looking forward to it.

What a marvelous read! Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts!

I have finished the novel but must say that I have the following issues with it:
(view spoiler)[Tension was built up as to what had happened to Alexander and his wife before the actual story begins. I expected them to be in trouble with today's regime in Belarussia as a kind of corresponding or contrasting action to what happened in Tatyana's story, but instead it turned out Alexander's wife "only" had cancer - okay, that is indeed terrible, but I do not see in how far Alexander's wife having cancer and dying is of any relevance for the plot...

Next, I was disappointed by Tatyana simply telling her story to Alexander in several sittings - this did not work out for me at all. I also did not like to read these ficticious documents - if I want documents I read historical non-fiction (or interviews led by Svetlana Alexievich for that matter :))

I get it that Alexander is in a depressive state of mind due to his wife's death and that he is to some extend sick of life and that Tatyana serves as a role model for him to keep on living. To be honest, first I do not buy Tatyana's amazing will to live and there are a lot of real life examples of people having committed suicide after having experienced what Tatyana is depicted to have experienced. Second, I think it is weird (to say the least) to set these two characters against each other - the one being depressive due to the death of his spouse and the other still optimistic thought having had to suffer abominable treatment in a concentration camp...
(hide spoiler)]

To conclude on a more positive note: I think that books that cover the abominable deeds of people in the Soviet era and that point out the danger of today's people adoring Stalin and the likes again and denying these abominable deeds are really important!

I've just finished it and I agree that Alexander's story doesn't really work in the overall context - it's tragic, but not particularly relevant.

I did not know that the USSR considered their POWs as enemies of the state for being captured during WWII, that was a completely new piece of information to me. It's really tragic that some of these event seem to re-occur so often in Russia - this time around it is Ukrainian children being treated like the orphans.

I agree the documentation was a bit tedious after a while, but also that these books are really important, Orgeluse.

Orgeluse wrote: "I have finished the novel but must say that I have the following issues with it:
Tension was built up as to what had happened to Alexander and his wife before the actual story begins. I expected t..."

Absolutely agree with your last statement. I truly love what you said in your comments. I liked the book and Tatyana as a character, but after reading the Chernobyl, the scent of “fiction” was hard to ignore. Especially in with how the conversations were arranged. They felt imposed.

As a relatively new person to the group, at what point can we openly discuss books without concern of spilling the spoiler? In the meantime, I will respond to the rest as you did. (view spoiler)[ Alexander’s story is a powerful one, but it was treated mostly as a subplot to add flesh to his bones. Since this is youth/elderly, present/past, USSR/Belarus, your are absolutely correct, Orgeluse that we should have seen corresponding/contrasting action. Very good observation.

It is odd that both Tatyana and Alexey escaped hard labor. Small things like that jumped out. I was surprised at the ending, but it fit well for the theme of fatalism. When Alexey was captured and she became a target, she referenced the steel-jawed leg hold trap of fate. That echos statements from Chernobyl . (hide spoiler)]

Carolien wrote: "I've just finished it and I agree that Alexander's story doesn't really work in the overall context - it's tragic, but not particularly relevant.

Yes, Carolien—tragic.

Jax wrote: "Orgeluse wrote: "I have finished the novel but must say that I have the following issues with it:
Tension was built up as to what had happened to Alexander and his wife before the actual story beg..."

I think to hide the parts of the comments that really give away much of the books is perfectly okay ... I would like to refrain from setting up two seperate threads for each title for reasons of economy ;-))

Jax wrote: "Orgeluse wrote: "I have finished the novel but must say that I have the following issues with it:
Tension was built up as to what had happened to Alexander and his wife before the actual story beg..."

I agree with you: there is a mental state that could be taken for fatalism in people who have lived in such non-democratic states.
However, I think that there is a great gap between the "state" and those who serve it on the one hand and those who simply try to live their lives despite this "state" and its croneys on the other hand. Whereas I believe that the "state" is actually "us", i.e. the inhabitants of a country and no anonymous group of people "up there in power", and that the state has to act for the benefit for its people, I have often had the impression that people of the former Soviet Union do not, for quite comprehensible reasons, identify with the "state" and therefore display a total indifference towards the state that could be interpreted as fatalism.

Orgeluse wrote: "Jax wrote: "Orgeluse wrote: "I have finished the novel but must say that I have the following issues with it:
Tension was built up as to what had happened to Alexander and his wife before the actu..."

Very insightful, Orgeluse. I can see how there would be a different view of how state is perceived. Is this a current-era view? Did the world in which Tatyana lived, before the widespread availability of knowledge, lend itself to superstition to explain bad news. For example, when Alexey was captured, she referred to it as the steel-jaw leg hold trap beautifully designed by fate. Later, she says the list that held his name was made by fate and that by crossing out his name, fate sent the boomerang back when she was excluded from the list of women being released from the labor camp. Is this simply a way to explain things and not truly fatalism?