Author: Anastasia Giampa

Throughout Ginzburg’s narrative, we have seen the importance of family to the prisoners: especially in imagining their family is safe outside of the prison walls. In Chapters 21 and 22, we can see just how important Genia and Zina’s families are to them and how their safety is a comfort. Genia, until this chapter, was comforted by the fact that her children were safe with their father and being taken care of. Once she heard that her husband had been imprisoned, this comfort was taken away from her. Genia says, ” Up to now I had kept such memories at bay by telling myself: “The children are with their father.” Foolishly, I had thought our family would be spared”. After the news of her husband’s arrest, Genia is distraught, but she is comforted by a new family of hers – unconventional as it may be. Her cellmates become quite a family. When Genia gets the news, it is her cellmates, particularly Lydia, who comfort her while she mourns the loss of her family’s imagined security.

When Zina is added to the group, the cell family protects each other from the threat of a newcomer. Gaining entrance into their family isn’t easy, but once Zina suffers severely at the hands of the guards, the ranks open to comfort her. Genia tries to comfort Zina by reciting the names of her children, hoping it will bring comfort to her while Zina tries to sleep.

Family can come in different shapes, but the comfort it provides remains the same. Would you agree that the cellmates Genia has had become a family and, if so, do you believe they bring her comfort?

Jahon Obidova is the definition of a Communist success story. Communism saved her from a life of abuse and poverty and allowed her to become an influential political figure. Kamp says, “The Communist Party Created the conditions for her to emerge as an activist and a leader. In the process, she broke every one of her own society’s gender conventions” (315). However, while we have such an exemplary example of equality within Communism, we also see how their actions didn’t always promote equality. With the Hujum, the Soviets ran into the fallacy that saying women could unveil meant that it was safe and that society was willing to accept this. As we see within the readings, not all women were comfortable unveiling and those who did were not free from societal persecution. While the Communist influence did intend to protect the unveiled women, they couldn’t reasonably combat decades of societal traditions.

While Soviet influence created powerhouses such as Jahon Obidova, we cannot ignore the damage and pain that many women faced by their influence, especially during the Hujum.

In O’Mahoney’s The Moscow Metro, I found it interesting how metro stations were modeled after existing popular architecture but with an added Soviet twist. To me, this was another example of Socialist realism just in a more artistic aspect. One station, in particular, was modeled after the Parthenon but the traditional column carvings and frizes were related with Soviet iconography and depictions of Soviet athletics. After studying Greek architecture and it’s meanings in another class, it is clear to me that the Soviet’s adoption of the style is a clear attempt to show Soviet domination of Western civilization. O’Mahoney quotes in his piece that co-opting the Greek architectural style “establishes a link between the power and authority of ancient Athens and modern Moscow” (186). Much like the movies and novels we’ve read in the past, this choice of architecture promotes a highly idealized version of the strength and power of the Soviet Union, thus making it a perfect example of Soviet Realism

Do you think that co-opting the Greek architectural style is due to Socialist Realism?

When I think of jazz, the first thing that comes to mind is it’s connections to the working class and African American populations within the US. Jazz also has a reputation for being distinctly American, which is why I was surprised to see how influential it was in the Soviet Union due to their detest of the West.

A lot of the criticism around jazz and the New Soviet Person was that it was uncultured and decadent which is similar to the discourse in the West about jazz. American jazz was incredibly decadent and even could be called bourgeois with it’s connections to parties and clubs (literally just think of a party a la the Great Gatsby). Critics in the Soviet Union called the dancing ‘tasteless’ and others said it was a “roadblock on the path to socialist utopia” (3). Similar criticisms were echoed within the US when jazz gained popularity. The Soviet Union wanted the New Soviet Person to be cultured, much how like the West wanted American citizens to be cultured as well.

It is interesting to see how a lot of the same trends transcend political ideologies and country lines at the same time and face the same types of criticism. While the Soviet Union tried endlessly to create their brand of entertainment, they can’t change what interests the human mind, and for some that’s jazz.

There were two cultural revolutions taking place at the same time: sound film and Socialist Realism. The introduction of sound film lead people to believe movies would become bourgeois again, and that they needed to work hard to ensure it remained in the realm of the everyday person. There was an argument made that Soviet film needed to surpass the purely aesthetic films made by the West. This created the idea of ‘cinema for the millions’, or making the films “useful, intelligible, and familiar to the millions”. In response, the All-Union Creative Conference on Cinema Affairs laid out a set of rules for films to hold on to Socialist Realism ideals, much like the Congress of Soviet Writers did for literature.

Soviet cinema became a crucial aspect in creating and spreading the idea of a mass utopia as well as other Socialist Realism ideals. The enjoyable and relatable scenes in movies became an effective propaganda tool, much like novels such as How The Steel Was Tempered. The invention of sound film lead to the ability to create more accessible, relatable cinema that was able to spread propaganda more effectively than ever before.

Do you think that movies would have been an effective propaganda tool if they did not have sound film technology in the Soviet Union?

I think it is interesting how Ostrovsky portrays the passing of time and how quickly it can happen. Within chapters 2-4, we see how quickly life can change with the Tzar being overthrown and then the Germans invading. We also see the Germans impose martial law and ban the guns which were just given out moments prior. It seems as if life does a 180 turn almost immediately, which is likely how it felt being in the Soviet Union during this time.

It is also interesting to see how Pavel’s life experiences mirror Ostrovsky’s. Both of them are poorer citizens from Ukraine, lived through the German invasion, and worked on railroads. Ostrovsky chose to use his life experiences to create the quintessential Socialist Realism novel, and to much success this was.