Category: Uncategorized

Throughout the entire story, Pavel has to endure numerous injuries, but of course, in the end he always survives the injuries as a common theme. Nothing can slow him down. Throughout the story, we have quotes like “with a heavy heart, Pavel had left the railway workshops. Leaning on a stick, he could only move slowly, for every step caused him excruciating pain” (Ostrovsky 439). He overcomes illness every few pages and from today’s viewpoint, it is kind of exhausting to read. However, this is an excellent push for the people of Russia at the time to keep pushing their limits when it came to labor. If any impressionable people read this, they will simply strive to become Pavel and everything he represents.

On the other hand, what does this show of the Soviet Union? Where a person, hardly in his 20s is crippled by labor? Russia is known for the size of their population, especially when it comes to war. They do not have to worry about sending troops in not optimal conditions because there will always be another troop ready to do.

Is this kind of propaganda still applicable to Russia today? Is it maybe even a hero’s tale that we share here today?

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.

Nikolai lived a very brief life dealing with illnesses and suffering. He was fighting sicknesses his whole life and the persistent illness was taking its toll on him. When he turned 18 he was officially declared invalid. In 1932 Ostrovsky was accepted as a member by the Moscow branch of the Association of Proletarian Writers. That was his first major writing role and he did this completely blind. Nikolai Ostrovsky life relates to the idea of Socialist Realism. He grew up in a poor family and was always dealing with illnesses and was suffering his whole life. Social Realism is critical of the social, economic, and racial conditions that made life challenging for the working classes and poor. Do you think Nikolai life is a great example of Social Realism?

The first scene we encounter is of young Pavel being expelled from school by the Priest. Then we are given a description of the everyday works that Pavel does to provide for himself. Slowly we are given more and more commentary on class struggles, especially after his friend Fyodor arrives. For obvious reasons it makes sense to have a growing discussion of class systems arrive as the Russian Civil War comes into frame, but what are moments you noticed class disparities prior to the war? I think the moment with the Priest and the three other boys to be the most notable: “I haven’t got any pockets,” and ran his hands down the sides of the trousers to prove it. “Ah-hah! So you say you’ve got no pockets, eh?” (388). I think this is an important moment for two reasons: it demonstrates that Pavel is poorer than the other children and it positions the reader to have a dislike of the Priest, a group later targeted by the Bolsheviks. What are your thoughts on this scene? Do you think it is pivotal in the discussion of classism?

How the Steel was Tempered is a classic Socialist Realist novel that chronicles the journey of Pavel. Socialist Realist novels are often thought of to be “how things are and how things ought to be.” This novel seems to so far include the past and what could be the present.

The novel in part 1 starts with a timeline much earlier than when the novel was published, and continues to what could be considered the present or near present. I see the early parts of the novel as a reminder of what had occurred and how bad things were in the previous way of life. This is shown through the interactions between Pavel and the waiters, who Pavel calls “swine” and complains that they are paid too much. The waiters then literally attack him when he floods the station, when the station was only flooded because Pavel was being exploited by the restaurant. He and the common man are victims of the system.

The novel begins part 2 (the part included in this reading) with the story of the fallen trees and the building of the railway. This is how things are now and it is clear in the writing how much better things are now. The work is hard, but the young and strong men are able to complete this work thought impossible. This is for the community and supported by the community – they are working together to save the community. The town gave “all the food [it] could provide” and Pavel was even given a shoe when he couldn’t use his other. The work is hard but everyone is in it together.

The old way of life is an interesting contrast to the new way of life. It seems as if instead of what is and what ought to be it is what was and what is. Was the set up of the two parts of the novel done to display the changes in Soviet life? Almost a reminder of how far society has come? Do you see the altercation with the waiters as a condemnation on capitalism and a figurative beating of the common man? Do you see the story of the train line as collective propaganda?

The Soviet Union had what one could call a Rennaissance of literature in the 1930’s . A newly formed literary style called Socialist Realism which glorified the concepts of communist values and emphasized the Proletariat. This style would implement many different policies in the Soviet Union such as the creation of only one society called The Union of Soviet Writers compared to before when there were multiple societies. The most dominant was The Rapp (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers). Due to this newly found style, there began two trains of thought. Katrina Clark in the book The Soviet Novel describes these trains of thought as “If Soviet historians have suggested that their Socialist Realist tradition developed “naturally,” most Western commentators by contrast, have contended that its dominance in literature has been an unnatural state of affairs” (Pg. 30-31). Explain why this renaissance was a natural occurrence as the historians suggested or if it was an unnatural situation as the Western commentators indicated. 

When reading of socialist realism you come to realize that this way of art and literature is not realism at all. It shows what everyone thinks the goal of communism is a beautiful utopia. But when the pieces were made it was hiding the true deprivation the typical soviet was dealing with at the time. As the reader we are shown this when Katerina Clark states this on the literature of the time ” In these novels the author’s own life was deindividualized as he patterned it to recapitulate the great legends of revolutionary hero”. Comparing Socialist Realism to Social Realism you see a contrasting meaning behind the two. While socialist realism more encompasses the falsehoods under the Stalin’s rule instead glorifying there cause. Social realism more shows the truths of the working class in the world and what they go through.

Socialist realism is essentially the glorified depiction of communist values, however, one must find it ironic when Zhdanov says:

“Never before has there been a literature which has organized the toilers and oppressed for the struggle to abolish once and for all every kind of exploitation and the yoke of wage slavery. Never before has there been a literature which has based the subject matter of its works on the life of the working class and peasantry and their fight for socialism. Nowhere, in no country in the world, has there been a literature which has defended and upheld the principle of equal rights for the toilers of all nations, the principle of equal rights for women“

He is calling for a push against the decaying “bourgeois literature”. The citizens of Russia must know “life so as to be able to depict it truthfully in works of art, not to depict it in a dead, scholastic way, not simply as “objective reality,” but to depict reality in its revolutionary development”.

This speech is meant to move the people to better help Stalin push his second wave of development, but who is the speech really for? Sure, as Russia leans more toward a fascist regime behind the socialist facade, people will need encouragement, but as we look back into history and see just how many lies the Soviet Union told, it makes one wonder if this speech was there to keep foreign powers away. If they think Russia is fine, then no one will care to look deeper. The citizens have no power to really rebel against the system ever. All they can do, is listen to this brain washing speech of new regulations on their forms of expression.

Zhdanov pushes positive vocabulary in this speech when it comes to Russia and calls the rest “capitalist slaves”. Do you think this speech had a significant impact of the movement of socialist realism? What could have been the true intent behind this speech? Is there any sincerity behind it?

In studying Soviet history, I often find that primary sources are my favorite way to really understand what is happening. Andrei Zhdanov’s speech to the first Congress of Soviet Writers contains a few points that I think would be worth discussing. The overall tone of the speech closely follows the format often employed by Stalin: make claims about some major “achievements,” and follow it up with some “minor” adjustments to make things even better. One claim that “Only Soviet literature, which is of one flesh and blood with socialist construction, could become, and has indeed become, such a literature-so rich in ideas, so advanced and revolutionary” stands out to me. This is something that Zhdanov really leans on as a core objective. He recognizes how powerful literature can be in a propagandist’s tool box. What does it mean for the “flesh and blood” of literature (and other arts) to be constructed in a socialist way? Is it ok to include portions of the Soviet Union’s not so socialist past during the Imperial era?

On Tuesdays, on campus students will meet in the classroom (Old Main 209), while remote students will join us via Zoom. On Thursdays, we will all meet together on Zoom. Any time you are joining via Zoom, this is the link:

https://washjeff-edu.zoom.us/j/98668422251?pwd=U2cwRWFPQzc0YWZRUWRzNFFsOEFWdz09

If you are coming to my Office Hours, click here.