Reading 1001 discussion

Oleksandr (Oles) Terentiyovych Honchar born April 3, 1918 in near Katerynoslav and died December 12, 1995 in Kiev, was a Ukrainian and Soviet writer and public figure fighting for the reinstatement of the Ukrainian culture in the Soviet society after its abolition by the establishment. He also was a veteran of World War II and member of the Ukrainian parliament.

A sad fate was destined for the next Honchar's novel Sobor (Cathedral, 1968). In comparison with "Tronka" the novel is much more closer to the traditional realism with broadly distinct positive and negative characters. The struggle for the revival of spirituality, for the historical memory of people as the foundation of decency in relationships between people is situated in the epicenter of story. The prototype of the cathedral in the novel served the Novomoskovsk Holy-Trinity Cathedral (Dnipropetrovsk Region). The Dnipropetrovsk Region Communist Party leader Oleksiy Vatchenko recognized himself in the image of a negative character the soulless party member opportunist who deposited his father in a retirement home. Being a friend of Leonid Brezhnev, Vatchenko requested a ban on the novel. The novel was published only in magazines, while the already printed copies of the book were confiscated and the translation to the Russian language was suspended. Despite the attempts to protect the piece (articles of Mykola Bazhan and others) it was prohibited and the mentioning about it has ceased. The only thing that saved Honchar from further prosecutions was his position in the Writer's Union.[citation needed]

In works of his later period, Honchar continued to raise the contemporary morale-ethical subject (novel "Your dawn", 1980), a subject of young searches romance (story "Brigantina", 1973). In 1980, he released the book "Writer's reflections" where he has summarized his artistic work. From 1962 to 1990 Honchar was a People's Deputy in the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union.[3] In 1978 he was awarded the title of Academician and the membership at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Honchar was one of the creators of the Society of Ukrainian Language and the People's Movement of Ukraine. In 1990 he quit the Communist Party of Soviet Union. In 1991, Honchar released a new book "By that we live. On the path of Ukrainian revival". In 1992, the University of Alberta recognized him as the honorary doctor.

He also to be known as one who urged the president of Ukraine to rebuild the St Michael’s Golden-Domed Cathedral in Kiev, which was destroyed by the Soviet authorities.

From Wikipedia.

1. The Cathedral
is considered Honchar's best but also most controversial book. What made this book controversial?

2. The author used the Cathedral as a universal symbol. What does the cathedral symbolize?

3. The book was translated by Trans. by Yuri Tkach and Leonid Rudnytzky but many puns and word play and allusions are unavailable to us, unless we can read it in the original. Did anyone read it in the original? Do you feel that the translation was good even through we may have missed the fullness of the work?

4. What does the fictional setting the Cathedral and Zachiplianka depict about the
people?

5. what concerns does Mykola Bahlay, the protagonist of the novel, voices about the area?

6. What is the main theme of the book?

7. What is the central plot of the book?

8. Quotes?

9. So what did you think? Give us your review and does this book belong on the 1001 Books you Must Read Before You die list?

I hope to start this book as soon as I've finished the other BOTM. Maybe next week. Will come back and answer the questions then.

3. The book was translated by Trans. by Yuri Tkach and Leonid Rudnytzky but many puns and word play and allusions are unavailable to us, unless we can read it in the original. Did anyone read it in the original? Do you feel that the translation was good even through we may have missed the fullness of the work?

I'm about 20% into the book so will try answering these questions as I read on further.

I am not reading it in the original language. I can only read in Spanish and French. It's hard to make any comparisons or comments on the translation. I'm liking it so far but I think there may be lots that is lost in translation since I'm not seeing much in the way of wordplay.

1. The novel is controversial because it is critical of the ruling regime and communism. It argues that the Cathedral is a universal building that should be appreciated as a work of art instead of being something practical that can be used by the population.

2. The Cathedral symbolises religion, art and the idea that things that have no practical use can still have value.

3. I read in English and didn't find much word play.

4. They are depicting life as part of a communist regime, the regime works when it deals with a farming community but not so much when it comes to industrialisation.

5. He is concerned with the loss of beauty. The Cathedral is a beautiful building but it is condemned for destruction because it doesn't serve the community.

6. I think it is a critical look at communism and a commentary on how not everything from the previous regime is bad or evil and still has value.

7. The value of art and beauty in their own rights.

8. "Oh, it is going to be hard for it to survive. And our descendants will come one day and ask: Well, what kind of people were you? What did you build? What did you destroy? What made your spirit move?"

"At night the cathedral becomes younger. The wrinkles of time cannot be seen upon it, and it seems to return to its Cossack youth, when it rose from the rushes in a youthful blossoming of beauty and shone for the first time in these steppes with the heavenly hemispheres of its domes,"

"But there's such a thing as the drug of ambition, the heroin of careerism."

"The young kept asking: where is happiness? What is happiness! They demanded it like a scholarship: give us happiness! If only it could be caught in these trammels and handed to them."


9. This was a 3 star book for me. I feel there is a lot I have missed because I am reading a translation and because the actual setting and history of the Ukraine is unfamiliar to me. I enjoyed the book as a story but I didn't fully understand the political message.

This was my review from February 2016:
The Cathedral pits the utilitarian and filthy ore smelting plant against the dilapidated, but inspiring cathedral, ignored during the Soviet era and used as a grain store. "The plants covered the whole horizon with smoke. They had no days off. Day and night they smoked with epic calm. The cathedral exuded its soft silhouette from the sky. It stood on the distant horizon, protruding through in the transparent blue haze of distance. From a different perspective the cathedral domes and the plant chimney seemed to come together, to unite into one ensemble the edifices of the old and the new age".
The story is set in a village with traditional small town concerns and customs, but where the major employer is the factory where workers, despite the atrocious conditions are proud to contribute to the progress of the Soviet Union by forging steel. That the Cathedral has survived is a miracle of luck rather than design. It is mostly ignored, until a iron plaque, stating that the Cathedral had been erected by Cossack monks in memory of historical circumstances, is mysteriously removed by an ambitious Party official, who believes that demolishing the Cathedral in favour of a marketplace, will further his Party career. That the Cathedral may be threatened becomes a concern for the village, despite the day to day neglect it has suffered. In a discussion between two students, who have been commandeered for the grain harvest, one says," A cathedral like this doesn't belong to you or me; more correctly stated, it does not belong to us alone. It belongs not only to the nation which created it, but to all the people of the planet". Which reminds me of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. I haven't been anywhere near the Ukraine, although I travelled one summer across Russia by train, and feel that Honchar's descriptions of the countryside were vividly expressed. His love of the acacias and the oaks, the marshes and the Lakes, and the Dnieper river in particular were all beautifully described. How bitter is the contrast to the television images we have of a stark, barren and destroyed region now. And I am vividly reminded of noting a beautiful old church in Moscow being used to store coal on my visit there in 1990.
Honchar describes how life is circumscribed by the need to have a passport in order to obtain a job, how petty officials dictate public life, how workers depend on state support for recreational activities and for holidays, the conditions of the factory workers, and how people survive by employing traditional farming and gardening skills, all in passing while introducing the characters who live in the village. It is a wonderfully evocative plea for art and beauty instead of utilitarianism.

The Cathedral is considered Honchar's best but also most controversial book. What made this book controversial?

It's interesting reading this book as a modern US reader b/c it didn't feel controversial at all. I agree that given the time and context in which it was written it was likely controversial for its criticism of the regime and the importance of preserving pre-soviet era culture/art.

1. The Cathedral by Oles Honchar is considered Honchar's best but also most controversial book. What made this book controversial?

I can clearly see why this book would be so controversial in the time and place in which it was written because it speaks directly against a controlling government regime and argues for the protection of art, architecture, and beauty (whether natural or man made). It also mentions the quite and hidden continuation of religious practices.

3. The book was translated by Trans. by Yuri Tkach and Leonid Rudnytzky but many puns and word play and allusions are unavailable to us, unless we can read it in the original. Did anyone read it in the original? Do you feel that the translation was good even through we may have missed the fullness of the work?

I definitely feel like I missed important aspects of this book because of my own lack of knowledge about the times, places, and people mentioned. I'm sure there are also things I missed specifically due to the translation, and a few times even wondered about the way something was phrased, thinking it was trying to explain something that I was not fully understanding.

6. What is the main theme of the book?
I think the main theme is the importance of art and acknowledgement of natural beauty.

8. Quotes?

"The need for the cathedral, the need for beauty, as much as the repugnance for destruction, had apparently always smoldered inside these people, builders by calling, only until now it had smoldered unnoticed, existing restrained somewhere deep in the recesses of the soul, they probably hadn't even noticed in in themselves." (pg. 73)

9. So what did you think? Give us your review and does this book belong on the 1001 Books you Must Read Before You die list?

I really enjoyed some chapters of the book, generally the ones more focused on Yelka's story and the other personal relationships between the characters. I'm just starting my journey of reading books specifically because of their inclusion on this list, so it's hard for me say whether I feel it belongs. However, the reason I really appreciated reading this book is because it forced me to consider another view of the world, to think about the things that I would fight to protect, and to appreciate my own opportunities in the world in which I live. In that respect, it is a worthwhile book to read.

I just finished this today, and unfortunately am on mobile.

I think this book was controversial because it compares the polluting and dangerous smelters to the beautiful cathedral, the natural lake/marsh area everyone goes to to relax, and also addresses the issue of having papers as Yelka is unable to go to school or work in the factories as she has run away from her assigned place.

I think the Cathedral represents the town’s Cossack past. So many are proud to be descended from the Cossacks, and their town has the beautiful cathedral to show that past. The man who wants to knock it down—the younger Loboda—is proud of his own success in moving up the job ladder. He does not want to be reminded of his Cossack past, or of his father’s importance to the industry and to his own (the son’s) rise. Knocking down the cathedral to build something new is his way of erasing his common past and making himself seem important.