I almost started this with "Good morning, it's..." Now that I've written a few posts attempting to imitate A Box of Matches, it feels a bit like habit. Once Nicholson Baker got the inspiration, I suspect it was an easy book to write. Slipping into "Emmett Mode" and jotting down every thought that comes into your head is an awful lot like blogging. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion, which will remain open for as long as the posts remain on the home page. Even if you haven't read the book, please feel free to add your own thoughts since discussing it is actually a jumping off point for discussing our own lives.

Going back to last month's discussion, here's an article from Times Online: "How the CIA won Zhivago a Nobel" (via aydin.net). According to Ivan Tolstoy, author of soon-to-be-released The Laundered Novel, the CIA helped publish Doctor Zhivago in Russian in 1958 as a means of securing the Nobel Prize for Pasternak. In my mind, there's no doubt the prize is, in part, political, so CIA intervention in promoting propaganda against the evil Soviet Empire doesn't surprise me at all. Although I hated both the novel and movie versions of Doctor Zhivago, Tolstoy's book might be one to add to the TBR list. The Washington Post also reports on this in "The Plot Thickens" (may require registration).

I'm well into February's selection, What is the What, and I've been enjoying it immensely so far. It's a timely read considering all the "Save Darfur" commercials on television. In a Conversational Reading post about David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest Barrett Hathcock wondered, "What would it be like to read Eggers’s What is the What without any memory of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and all of the hype and back-lash hype (and on and on) that exists?" I have no idea since I read and was annoyed by Eggers's memoir, but I can say that this book (so far) is written from a first-person perspective in which the narrator isn't completely full of himself. It's tragic and sad, but I'm liking it.

In the comments to the Doctor Zhivago discussion, Eddie mentioned the movie:

i finally watched the movie (my companion slept through most of it, if that is any indication of its merit). the story unfolds as zhivago's brother interviews zhivago's daughter. not only is this not part of the book, but also the rhetorical import of doing so appears null (it might have been more interesting if the daughter actually had something to say). the movie depicts the love story more than any tale of social commentary. unfortunately, despite being a high budget film (for its time), the love story is just mediocre. maybe it has something to do with the stoic manner of zhivago's character, or the lack of insight into the inner workings of zhivago's heart and mind (no poetic verse here), or maybe i came to it looking for more consistency with the book... it did seem to have pretty good cinematography (good camera angles, for example), but in all, i give it a "thumbs down." the book was better. i wonder how i would have felt if i had seen the movie first...

Yes, I slept. However, I did begin the video session with enthusiasm:

Me: So, this movie has a pretty famous piece of music from it.
Eddie: [splashing water while washing dishes]

But, then. The overture went on and on and on. The opening credits went on and on and on. Finally, something happened.

Me: Eddie! Something's happening!

After a few sentences discussing the first scene, which technically takes place at the end of the book but which also doesn't actually happen in the book, I was asleep.

The next three attempts to watch the movie resulted in more napping. I fell asleep when Pavel marches with the workers. I fell asleep when Komarovsky takes advantage of Lara for the last time. And I fell asleep after Zhivago deserts the unit that conscripted him. Finally, tonight, I made it to the end without snoring and was pleased as punch when the final credits rolled.

Like Eddie, I give it a thumbs down. The love story stunk, and I still have no idea why they got together. Omar Sharif was an even more boring Zhivago than the one Pasternak created. I also would have gone mad if I had to hear "Lara's Theme" again. Eddie didn't mind the cinematography, but all the emphasis on eyes got on my nerves. There had to be at least a dozen scenes where everything is in shadow except for Omar Sharif's eyeballs or Julie Christie's eyeballs or their eyeballs staring at each other's eyeballs. And what was with that white halo around Zhivago's head when he flashes back to thinking he sees Tonia in the snow? Gah!

welcome to our discussion on dr. zhivago.

despite winning the nobel prize in literature, the book was not published in russia until 1988. in addition, boris pasternak feared reprisals from the russian government (who had incarcerated his mistress and threatened to forbid his return if he ever collected his nobel prize). was it banned just because of a perhaps unflattering picture of the russian revolution?

aside from the collection of poetry at the end of the book, the prose itself is rife with poetic language.

p. 137 zhivago's visit to the commissar is described as occurring on a "stage" with "stars." this reflects a metaphorical system (life is a stage) that is also found in shakespeare: "all the world's a stage." here, however, there is a sense of absurdity since the stage does not reflect real life at all. what is to be concluded about the setting from the author's use of this metaphor?

pasternak also has a propensity to impregnate sentences with added dimensions of meaning by using similes as well as "as if" and "seems" comparisons.

"...their resinous needles were as waterproof as oilcloth" (p. 360)
the "houses flash by like the pages of a book, not as when you turn them over one by one with your forefinger but as when you hold your thumb on the edge of the book and let them all swish past at once." (p. 304)
"...the gusts of wind seemed to carry on their singing" (p. 3)
"she carries water...as lightly and effortlessly as if she were reading." (p. 295)

i find this to be rather delightful as a reader, with each comparison giving me a better understanding of the depth and complexity of characters and events. this, in turn, makes the story more believable. others, however, may point out that flowery language can actually serve as an obstacle to clarity of meaning. did anyone else notice or react to this? i also wonder if this is just a function of russian pragmatics...

on p. 359, the narrator celebrates women for chopping trees and building roads and "achieving prodigies of resourcefulness." yet as an individual, lara points out to zhivago, "you were given wings to fly above the clouds, but i'm a woman, mine are given me to...shelter the young" (p. 435). what can be inferred about the individual and communal roles of women in the novel... is mary right that russian literature tends to have female characters that swoon and die young? at least in this case, she outlives zhivago...

on p. 280 zhivago specifically recounts readings of tolstoy's _war and peace_, pushkin's _evengii onegin_, and russian translations of stendahl, dickens, and kleist. a few pages later, he relates to the creative exploits of faust. how have these authors influenced the life of zhivago, and assumedly, the author?

i have read tolstoy, and while i am not an expert on russian history, i noticed that both books portray a rather bleak picture of day-to-day wartime affairs. this makes me wonder how they relate to current conflicts that are ongoing in the world. i also noticed in both a sense that characters and their actions were in some way causally connected to things beyond their control. so lastly, is dr. zhivago a product of circumstance?

cheers

Eddie will be here this evening to start December's discussion of Doctor Zhivago. In the meantime, I've gathered some background information on Boris Pasternak as an introduction.

Wikipedia: "Doctor Zhivago (novel)"

Although Wikipedia is notoriously bad at qualitative content, it's generally the first place you're led when doing an Internet search for information. The article contains very little regarding Pasternak and the novel itself, but it makes up for it in coverage of film, television, and theatrical adaptations.

Regarding article info about the novel, I zeroed in on the following sentence: "Yuri must witness cannibalism, dismemberment, and other horrors suffered by the innocent civilian population during the turmoil." There were horrors, yes, but I'm pretty sure cannibalism was mentioned in only one sentence and the dismemberment took place in one scene of one chapter. And Dr. Z didn't actually witness either; he saw the aftermath.

Coincidentally, Doctor Zhivago was Wikipedia's novel project for November-December 2006. It received only five edits, mainly improving punctuation and sentence construction. If you're a Wikipedia contributor and have read this book, you might want to help the article out.

TIME magazine: "Blood Relatives"

From 1982, this is a review of The Correspondence of Boris Pasternak and Olga Freidenberg 1910-1954. Although not wholly about Doctor Zhivago, the review mentions some revealing quotes from Pasternak about the novel. "It is my first real work. In it I want to convey the historical image of Russia over the past 45 years, and at the same time I want to express in every aspect of the story—a sad, dismal story, worked out in fine detail, ideally, as in a Dickens or Dostoyevsky novel—my own views on art, the Gospels, the life of man in history, and much more."

NPR: "Pasternak's Funeral: A Poetic Protest"

Weekend Edition aired this story about Pasternak on November 5, 2006. Hundreds of mourners attended his funeral in 1960 despite objections of the Soviet government. The broadcast includes reactions from Russians to Pasternak's work and a recording of his voice from a poetry reading. "He became a symbol of one man's defense of freedom of expression."

Academy of American Poets: "Boris Pasternak"

Although the Academy's mission is to support American poets, their web presence, poets.org, contains excellent biographical information on poets from everywhere. This concise but comprehensive retelling of Pasternak's life story reveals many of the autobiographical events that inspired Doctor Zhivago. If you're interested in reading some of Pasternak's poems, a bilingual collection can be found at Friends & Partners.

Posting has been light since the holidays have been keeping me busy. The family is coming to my house for Christmas Day, so I've been decorating and trying to figure out how to rearrange the living room for arrival of the tree. I hope your holiday plans are also progressing.

Doctor Zhivago continues and I'm starting to get into it. I finally have a grip on all the characters and am having some "aha" moments as I get drawn into the events of the October Revolution. It took a while before I figured out that Bolsheviks are communists and that Cossacks are fighting on both sides. Now that I know where the lines are drawn, it's much easier to understand some of the action. I still need to do some searching for more background on the Russian Revolution and Civil War, and maybe I'll post some links for everyone when I've done it.

I think it's hilarious how my list of preconceptions about Russian lit has been expanded, especially since everyone has been so dead on. The list now includes:

1. The aristocracy speaks French.
2. Male characters are stubborn and ruin the lives of everyone around them.
3. Female characters swoon and die young.
4. No one ever speaks their true feelings aloud, so misunderstandings and missed opportunities abound.
5. First and second names are usually the same.
6. Many streets, cities, or precincts are often mentioned using only a first letter; "He was from X_." [from Cynthia]
7. There is always something swirling: snow, dust, radiation, or blood (atomized by cannon fire). [from Jamie]
8. Vodka. [from Isabella]
9. Parties go on all night and are rich with music, drink, and drunks. [from Isabella and me]

I haven't encountered any evidence of #6 in Doctor Zhivago, but I totally buy it as a feature of older Russian novels. I've seen it from many classic British authors and have always assumed it was either incredible laziness or a kind way to not name real places. In any case, I'm having some fun searching for stereotypes.

This month's discussion of Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago begins on December 18th. I finally started it yesterday and am already confused because I'm only on page 20 and more than 15 characters have had some part in the beginning of the story. Thankfully, the front of my edition has a helpful list of principal characters, so I have some idea of who to forget and who to follow. I also haven't yet looked up "anathematize" (p.9) in the dictionary and am having some concerns about the size of my vocabulary. In any case, this all can probably wait until the discussion.

Two posts ago, I mentioned not being a fan of Russian literature and speculating that Eddie's choice was made to exploit this. He assures me I am wrong. Russian lit and I have an adversarial history going back to high school, which ruined Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, further exacerbated with The Brothers Karamazov in college. Sad, really, since I love the French existentialists. However, I'm willing to give it a fair chance. A main reason for creating BookBlog was to force myself out of my reading comfort zone.

Before starting to read, I made a list of everything I know about Russian lit:

1. The aristocracy speaks French.
2. Male characters are stubborn and ruin the lives of everyone around them.
3. Female characters swoon and die young.
4. No one ever speaks their true feelings aloud, so misunderstandings and missed opportunities abound.
5. First and last names are usually the same.

I'm curious to find out if Doctor Zhivago will confirm or disprove my preconceptions. I've already seen evidence of #5, having met Nikolai Nikolaievich and Ivan Ivanovich in the first few pages.