Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Chekhov's Three Sisters

We went to see the BU production at the Calderwood Pavilion this weekend. It is an excellent student production. We recommend that you go see it. Not expensive, not interminably long and a lovely venue.

Having spent one semester reading Russian Lit and six reading Yiddish Lit with Susanne, seeing Chekhov performed now is much more engaging. I admit to having forced myself to sit through many productions of the Cherry Orchard and Uncle Vanya in the past. His views of late 19thC Russian town life feel so authentic now. I have a much better grasp of the ennui and depression in the face of rapidly encroaching enlightenment and socio-politico upheavals.

We'll discuss Chekhov next year with Susanne, so this is a really good introduction. Alix

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The New York Times Article on Tolstoy Jan 2011

I am posting the whole article now for those who discover this blog after the article is no longer on the first page. Alix Ginsburg

January 3, 2011

For Tolstoy and Russia, Still No Happy Ending

MOSCOW — A couple of months ago one of Russia’s elder statesmen set out on a paradoxical mission: to rehabilitate one of the most beloved figures in Russian history, Tolstoy.

This would have seemed unnecessary in 2010, a century after the author’s death. But last year Russians wrestled over Tolstoy much as they did when he was alive. Intellectuals accused the Russian Orthodox Church of blacklisting a national hero. The church accused Tolstoy of helping speed the rise of the Bolsheviks. The melodrama of his last days, when he fled his family estate to take up the life of an ascetic, was revived in all its pulpy detail, like some kind of early-stage reality television.

And in a country that rarely passes up a public celebration, the anniversary of his death, on Nov. 20, 1910, was not commemorated by noisy galas or government-financed cinematic blockbusters. Officially speaking, it was barely noted at all.

With this in mind Sergei V. Stepashin, a former prime minister here, sat down to write to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has become an arbiter of politics and culture. In painstakingly diplomatic language, acknowledging “the particular sensitivity” of “this delicate theme,” Mr. Stepashin asked forgiveness on behalf of Tolstoy, who was excommunicated 110 years ago.

The impulse had swelled up during a lonely visit to an unmarked mound of earth where Tolstoy is buried. Mr. Stepashin described the visit — made while he was director of the Federal Security Service, successor to the K.G.B. — as an emotional experience that he has never been able to shake off.

“You look at the house where he lived and worked, where he created his works, and then you come to a place where there is nothing but this small hill,” said Mr. Stepashin, who has close ties to the church. “It was puzzling, on a human and a moral plane. And then I decided to write this letter.”

Ambivalence toward Tolstoy is new in Russia.

The Soviets planted him at the top of their literary pantheon, largely because of the radical philosophy he preached amid the early rumblings of the October Revolution. The publication of “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” made Tolstoy so famous that one contemporary described him as Russia’s second czar. He used that position to rail against the church, as well as the police, the army, meat eating, private property and all forms of violence.

Lenin loved Tolstoy’s “pent-up hatred.” He anointed him “the mirror of the Russian Revolution,” ignoring his pacifism and belief in God. As the 50th anniversary of his death approached, the Central Committee of the Communist Party began preparing two years in advance, so a monument would be ready for unveiling.

For the centennial, in a Russia wary of utopian thought, there was nothing of the kind. By contrast, Chekhov received lavish official tributes in 2010 for his 150th birthday, including a birthplace visit from President Dmitri A. Medvedev.

Though a star-studded Tolstoy biopic, “The Last Station,” opened in Moscow just ahead of the anniversary, it was filmed in Germany, acted by Britons and directed by an American. The Russian filmmaker Andrei S. Konchalovsky, a producer of the film, said he petitioned “every ministry” in the Russian government for support. In the end, he said, he was forced to invest his own money.

“I represent Russia,” he said, with a wry smile, while promoting the film.

None of this came as a surprise to Vladimir I. Tolstoy, Tolstoy’s great-great-grandson, who oversees the museum at Yasnaya Polyana, the author’s estate.

Mr. Tolstoy, 48, has the slender, avid look of a professional intellectual, but his last name has called on him to wade into politics. He worked on one of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s presidential campaigns and does favors for area officials when they need “the authority or prestige of Tolstoy,” as he put it.

Ten years ago he asked the church to revisit the 1901 ruling that excommunicated his great-great-grandfather. He received no answer. Though his efforts have not ended — a visitor to Yasnaya Polyana recalled a banquet table laid out in the orchard for the local bishop — Mr. Tolstoy said he was not hopeful.

Aside from a reception held by the minister of culture, the anniversary transpired with “a conscious ignoring of Tolstoy,” he said.

“Any power tries to adapt great people to its needs,” he added. “The current authorities don’t adapt him, or they are not clever enough. Maybe they are so self-confident they don’t think they need to.”

It was a relief when Mr. Stepashin joined the effort. The men met about 15 years ago, when Mr. Stepashin, then director of the Federal Security Service, presented Mr. Tolstoy with sheaves of family letters pulled out of Soviet intelligence files. Mr. Stepashin, who recalls staying up two nights as a 10-year-old so that he could finish Tolstoy’s novel “Resurrection,” shared the sense that the writer was getting short shrift.

“I understood that there would not likely be a decision to return him to the church,” said Mr. Stepashin, now president of the Russian Book Union. “But as for the attitude to him as a person, as a person who did a lot for Russian culture and for the Russian language, I just counted on that, on a change of attitude toward him.”

The church’s letter of response, published in a state-run newspaper, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, suggested not. It acknowledged Tolstoy’s “unforgettable, beautiful works,” and said Russian Orthodox readers were allowed to say solitary prayers for him on the anniversary of his death.

But its tone was mournful, calling Tolstoy the most “tragic personality” in the history of Russian literature. It said that Tolstoy “purposely used his great talent to destroy Russia’s traditional spiritual and social order” and that it was “no accident that the leader of the Bolsheviks extremely valued the aim of Leo Tolstoy’s activity.” So there could be no candles burned for Tolstoy inside Orthodox churches and no commemorations read, according to the letter, signed by the cultural council secretary to Patriarch Kirill I, the church’s leader.

Mr. Stepashin said he expected this response and was glad the letter included some praise.

But intellectuals did not hide their astonishment.

“It’s as if in the 20th century the church did not survive persecution that made Tolstoy’s criticisms look like childish prattle,” wrote the literary critic Pavel V. Basinsky, whose new book examines Tolstoy’s final days. “It’s as if we have found ourselves in the situation that we were in at the beginning of the last century.”

And, as in the last century, much of the discussion surrounding the Tolstoy centennial was akin to gossip. Mr. Basinsky’s book is part of a wave of new works that, like the film “The Last Station,” plunge into Tolstoy’s flight from the family estate — the moment when he seemed finally to choose his radical ideas over the aristocratic comforts of home. He died a few days later at a train station, surrounded by throngs of reporters.

At the time of Tolstoy’s death, Russian pundits cast his decision as a spiritual triumph, but the new works retell it as a family tragedy, said William Nickell, author of “The Death of Tolstoy.” From this perspective, Tolstoy’s wife is a sympathetic figure, his followers are manipulative parasites and his ideas are hopelessly utopian.

“It is as if he is lumped now with communism,” Mr. Nickell said. “Good idea in principle, but a disaster in practice.”



Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Tolstoy and the NY Times

Jan. 4th edition of the NY Times has a story on page one about Tolstoy and his lack of official recognition in Russia and an elder statesman who is trying to rehabilitate Tolstoy's image. Interesting reading. The intellectuals in Russia have accused the Russian Orthodox Church of blacklisting Tolstoy and the 100 anniversary of his death (Nov.20 2010) was hardly recognized.

Check it out.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Dead Souls are still assets in 2010: Life is stranger than fiction.

Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector

Deceased Woman's Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits


Martha Kunkle has come back to life.

She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted by one of the nation's largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits filed against borrowers.

Back From the Dead

Details about Martha Kunkle, whose name appeared on thousands of affidavits used to collect credit-card debts

  • Died in 1995
  • Name was used by employees who worked with her daughter
  • Minnesota's attorney general is investigating numerous buyers and collectors of consumer debt for falsifying affidavits

Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name reflects an epidemic of mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate documentation in the debt-collection industry. Lawsuits have surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and collection firms turn to courts to get what they are owed.

After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates decided in early 2008 that any documents bearing Ms. Kunkle's name had "defects" and shouldn't be used when trying to collect debts, a company spokeswoman said.

Last July, though, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought a court judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for $2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly owed. It was a cookie-cutter case, except for one thing: To vouch for the debt's validity, the Norfolk, Va., company included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle.

The spokeswoman said the document was "inadvertently used by our outside counsel" because of "human error," adding that the suit was dropped later "upon review of the case."

The company said Ms. Kunkle's name isn't on any other affidavits submitted to judges since early 2008 by Portfolio Recovery Associates or outside lawyers who handle most of its debt-collection cases.

"When you see corner-cutting like this, it's alarming," Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said about the Kunkle case. Ms. Swanson is investigating numerous buyers and collectors of consumer debt for falsifying affidavits. A spokeswoman for the company, the second-largest debt buyer in the U.S. by revenue, said the company is unaware of the investigation and declined further comment.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he wants to investigate whether Martha Kunkle's name appears on any affidavits used to collect debt in the state of Missouri.

Some judges say robo-signing, in which affidavits are signed without fully reviewing underlying documentation, is more common in debt-collection cases than foreclosures. In July, the Federal Trade Commission recommended that state regulators require the disclosure of "more information" by debt collectors and buyers, concluding that they might be relying on erroneous or incomplete paperwork when suing to recover money.

"I've watched and wanted to tell defendants in these suits to demand proof of the underlying debt because that proof is so often flimsy," said Jeffrey Lipman, a magistrate judge in Polk County, Iowa, which includes Des Moines, the state's capital. Court rules give him little leeway to instruct borrowers in court.

[KUNKLE]

Large debt collectors such as Portfolio Recovery Associates and publicly traded rivals Encore Capital Group Inc. and Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. frequently buy delinquent accounts in bulk. Information about each debt sometimes is little more than a line in a spreadsheet with the borrower's name and amount owed, according to lawyers who represent borrowers. As of Sept. 30, Portfolio Recovery Associates had $91.5 million in revenue from lawsuits it won, or 34% of its overall revenue.

In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates, testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that its "legal specialists" sign as many as 200 affidavits a day. The company's spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of 100 affidavits a day and are guided by "a very rigorous set of policies and procedures." Ms. Montoya couldn't be reached to comment.

Questions about Martha Kunkle first popped up in 2008 after her name appeared in thousands of affidavits generated by a unit of Providian National Corp. The credit-card issuer sold an undisclosed number of delinquent account balances to Portfolio Recovery Associates and other debt collectors, which then sued the borrowers to collect the debt.

Most of the debt was racked up before 2004. Providian was acquired in 2005 by Washington Mutual Inc. The Seattle company's banking operations failed in 2008 and were sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which declined to comment.

Concerns about Ms. Kunkle's affidavits were raised in 2008 by lawyers for Jeanie Cole, one of thousands of Montana residents sued by Portfolio Recovery Associates to collect debts. After failing to locate Ms. Kunkle, lawyers for Ms. Cole interviewed her daughter, who worked at Providian in a document-processing division.

The daughter testified in a deposition that other Providian employees used the name Martha Kunkle when signing affidavits. Along with other employees, the daughter was responsible for signing affidavits. After countersuing Portfolio Recovery Associates for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ms. Cole was the lead plaintiff in a 2008 federal-court suit in Montana alleging the company targeted 16,000 borrowers using "false and misleading" affidavits.

Last year, Portfolio Recovery Associates agreed to settle the Montana suit. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but the company's spokeswoman said it admitted no wrongdoing. She wouldn't say how many borrowers were sued using documents signed by Martha Kunkle. Ms. Cole is prohibited from commenting under terms of the settlement.

"I would like to reinforce that these were not Portfolio Recovery Associates affidavits," the spokeswoman said. The company said it moved quickly to alert its outside lawyers that Kunkle documents shouldn't be relied on when trying to collect debts.

The lawsuit against the Seattle woman included an October 2006 affidavit in which "Martha Kunkle, Designated Agent" for Providian, swore "to the best of my knowledge" that the amount owed "reflects a true and correct accounting of the cardholder's credit card account."

Robert Scanlon, the lawyer who filed the suit for Portfolio Recovery Associates, wouldn't comment on the case or how long he has sued borrowers on behalf of the company. The borrower also declined to comment.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Tolstoy's Calendar


 I would like to tell you about Tolstoy's calendar. If you already know about it, I would be curious how you came across it. Tolstoy said that his calendar was his most important work!  He wrote that he loved to think daily of words  by great writers of all times.  Each day,  there is at least one selection he wrote and there are several by others.  
   On the 17th, I decided to post something; but I put in the wrong place. Here you go. 
17 December, from Blaise Pascal
God created heaven and earth, but they lacked ability to understand the happiness of their existence. Then God made creatures who would understand the happiness of their existence, and who could create a single body from all of its thinking parts. All people are members of this one body; in order to be happy, they should live in harmony with the will that governs its life. We should live in harmony with this great soul and love it more than we love ourselves. 

His final and highlighted quote ends as follows:
The more we love, the wider, larger, and more joyful our life becomes.

I wish you an evening  full of love, Jeanie

Friday, December 17, 2010

was the question.

Marxists call Gogol the founder of realism and thus, put him as a beacon of socialist realism.

Literary critics compared "live souls" of dead serfs with "dead souls" of live noble men. Dead serfs look alive. They achieved, produced, left a trace on earth, etc. They are the hope of Russia etc.
It is a spin, but there is some truth to it. Descriptions of dead serfs in Gogol are very poetic.

The second point was "The Tale of captain Kopeikin" -- real winners of the Napoleon war -- are Russian people. From that point you can start talking about Russian renaissance/resurrection of dead souls etc. and go straight to revolution ...

More Thoughts on Dead Souls

More Thoughts on Dead Souls
More thoughts on the Gogol, Susanne and Chevre, I am sorry we did not have more time for the discussion. Clearly, the class has lots of complementary and conflicting views on this fascinating work.


In my view, Dead Souls fits into the "quest/trial" genre of literature. Gogol apes the structure of the Iliad with the serial trials. The difference in Gogol is that the goal of the quest is always in doubt, whereas, in literature generally, it is known in advance - whether it is love, G-d, the Holy Grail, etc.

In fact, the goal of this work is unclear. What are Gogol's social and political observations? He is opaque. He proffers conflicting clues. he obfuscates. He eludes the censors, in effect. What does hold true here, however, is that Chichikov is saved by many dei ex machina at the end of Volume One, falling clearly into the classical tradition.


Furthermore, I perceive that the issue of social satire and criticism in his writing is really intriguing and contradictory. Gogol himself could not have been surprised reasonably that his readers saw him as a Russian Chaucer. He just pulverizes character types. I think he played a trick on the censors, and to some but not all readers, by protesting too much. He wears a mask at all times. It is a double question of the unreliable narrator and the unreliable author.


He compounds this "artful play" by introducing "unreliable, ironic" characters. (I see from the comments of some of our colleagues that many of you share this view, i.e. the living souls are actualized dead souls and vice versa, etc.) Gogol often addresses the reader, as if the reader is a character, and co-opts (or at least attempts to) the direction of the reader's thinking as he leads the reader/character through the work. In my view, he clearly wanted to distract the censors from his pointed and biting social and political satire.


Moreover, I found the third part of the first book interesting in terms of the literary perspective. Gogol is, maybe, an early progenitor of psychological pre-Freud) literary criticism leading up to Russian Social Realism. His psychological perspective is a broad sweep, not refined as it later becomes in literature and science. We don't achieve much depth on Chichikov himself (who is a Russian type), but we do arrive at a rich and fulsome portrayal of the Russian character as a whole.


Gogol himself, as a complex narrator, is an early "Angry Man" who focuses on the truly harshest aspects of life under the tsarist regime, points to the injustice and suffering, emphasizes the burdens of boredom and intellectual stagnation, loneliness and isolation that the sheer size and emptiness of the country impose on the individual (rather than the American tendency to praise the vastness, opportunity and openness of America). He thrashes about taking on all adversities and opinions.


Of course, Gogol presents a mutated capitalist view of the world, not Marxist or socialist, as we see evolving in European art and literature 50 years later. Gogol may be, in his own mind, attempting to strengthen love of country and nationalist ideals, but the effect of his art on the contemporary (and probably contemporaneous) reader is a robust struggle and caustic combat against tsarist/aristocratic/oligarchic ideology and ideals of Russia.


In addition, my view is that he is taking on the literary criticism establishment that existed in his day. He is opting to overturn the rules of classical criticism and writing, while using/usurping some of the morphology of classical writing. He upends it. A quest without a goal, a character without a soul cannot portray real classical tragedy, etc.


It's thirty years since I have read Lukacz. I have to go back to see what he wrote about Gogol and even Pushkin, if anything. How did the Marxist literary critics get their arms around Gogol? However, Gogol does enter into debates with anonymous critics within the body of the work. He anticipates rejection and debasement. Where and when does it appear in Russian literary criticism? Gogol is an interesting puzzle.


His personal views may be inherently conservative, but his life-style is not and his writing is complex and ambivalent. He is not someone who is himself a conformist to literary style, standards, use of language, and so forth. So which mask is he wearing when we encounter him? How many masks can he wear in one piece? How did he get anything past the censors? I am delighted that we are enjoying this opportunity to delve into the work further. I welcome everyone's take on this. Alix Ginsburg

P. S. I would love to know if anyone ever wrote a dissertation analyzing Tevye der Milchiker in relationship to Chichikov. Does anyone know of such a thing? Do we have any evidence that Shalom Aleichem read Dead Souls?