21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
The Life of an Unknown Man
2/21 Life of an Unknown Man
>
The Life of an Unknown Man - Parts 3 to 5 and Whole Book (Spoilers)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Hugh
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Feb 15, 2021 05:01AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
My Review
For me, Volsky's story is what makes this book worthwhile. The siege of Leningrad was perhaps the most impactful event of "The Great Patriotic War," as the Russians call WWII, for Russia. When I visited Russia in 2008, one of our guides in St. Petersburg told us about her mother's survival of the siege. Volsky's story as it related to the siege was consistent. And the internment in Siberian camps for such bogus reasons was consistent with what I've read about post WWII Russia. The story was well written; it drew me in. The juxtaposition of Volsky's story with the new Russia that Shutov was seeing was well done - quite a contrast.
Mod
"Shutov seemed a lot less pitiful and ludicrous on a second reading, perhaps because I could see why Makine set him up the way he did." I agree, Hugh. I didn’t initially care much for Shutov, but for me he was redeemed at the end of the novel when he realized that he had mis-remembered the Chekov scene. It reminded me of my father, who grew up in dire poverty. Although the residue of deprivation was obvious to us (he always insisted on buying 10 pairs of the same sock, because as a boy his clothes were cast-offs from neighbors who had died; even late in life he ate multiple times a day so that he never ever felt hungry) his spoken memories of his childhood were nostalgic and a source of comfort to him. I go into this because it helped me see Shutov as someone whose memories to sustained or stabilized him, much as memories of Mila did for Volsky.
Margaret, I agree with you about how nostalgia seems to be a defense that many people with traumatic backgrounds use to transform painful memories into livable situations, and I think Shutov does this at the beginning. But Volsky seems more complicated to me, because it isnt a general broad sweep of romantic narrative but one very specific love that keeps him going (I think his work with the orphans is an extension of that). And when he can no longer cope, he retreats into silence to try and preserve that tiny core of love where no one can trample it any more. I found this profoundly sad, and so personal. For me the book is only tangentially about the big picture events that destroy ordinary people so callously. He is an unknown ("unimportant") man, a cog in many machines, steamrollered by the world - everything was crushed including his voice and vitality, but Volsky's soul survives. His example of honesty prompts Shutov to take responsibility for his own emotional state, even if Makine does succumb to the temptation (mocking himself doing so) to a neat ending that undercuts the "unknown" nature of Volsky's life, upon which the truly awe-inspiring survival rests. He is alone, unknown to any who live and love him, and yet he remains not alone, he remains loved. He doesn't need Shutov giving him a grave marker to rescue him, he rescued himself looking up to the sky to meet eyes with Mila. Even in our cozy privileged lives we can lose everything; would I be able to continue with Volsky's grace?
Jenna, I think you are right about Volsky. He's at peace with himself. Perhaps Shutov learned something from his story, as is seems a better person after his encounter with Volsky.Why do you think the author useed Shutov rather than just telling Volsky's story?
That's a good question, but I didnt find Shutov as off-putting as maybe you did, he was the sympathetic fool to me, so a foil and a frame to highlight the transcendence of Volsky. But also a bit of self-mockery and also romantic impulse on the part of Makine to tie things up with a bow at the end. After all that's the part that should be cut according to Chekhov's advice.
Mod
For me, Volsky's story made reading the book worthwhile, with Shutov merely functioning as the means to set that story in motion. I saw that Shutov was changed but he was such a caricature at the beginning that his change wasn't particularly meaningful for me.
Also, taking a cue from the title, the Unknown Man is both of them - Volsky because others dont know him, although he knows himself, while Shutov has a small bit of fame etc but does not have much self-awareness.
Linda's question bothered me as well, so I looked for depth of interpretation in the novel. I thought perhaps Shutov and Volsky representented either two different protagonists of story telling, or perhaps the romanticized idea of contemporay versus classic Russian story telling. The Volsky story is a noble and heroic of sacrifice and endurance, but it is also romanticized and sentimentalized. I also wondered about the use of Chehov's, " A Joke," a story known for the ambiguity of its interpretation. This led me to question whether Makine might be trying to accomplish something similar, a novel that has multiple levels of interpretation with one being a contrast of what defined a hero and literature in the present compared to past, noting this was published as autofiction was really getting popular press. I am not satisfied with my thoughts, but I also don't see the story as simple as the base shortly presented us.
I think the way the story is told, i.e including Shutov, is genius. I also quite liked Shutov and the way he thinks, so I might be coming at it differently. I wonder about the significance of the older woman on the panel who Lea makes fun of. At the end, Shutov has recived her book in the post. I think he must have known that Lea wasn't right for him partly based on that encounter.
Mod
Perhaps the ludicrous details in Parts 1 & 2 were used to telegraph Shutov's situation, saving words and time for Volsky's story. I didn't notice such clowning in the rest of the book. Volsky's story seemed as desperately romantic as Cyrano de Bergerac.
