Never too Late to Read Classics discussion

Life and Fate written in the Soviet Union in 1959 and published in 1980. Technically, it is the second half of the author's conceived two-part book under the same title. Although the first half, the novel Stalingrad, written during the rule of Joseph Stalin and first published in 1952, expresses loyalty to the regime.

The winter of 1942-43, it was the time of Operation Blue and Operation Fischreiher, the continuation into a second year of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union that had started with Operation Barbarossa; it was the time of the Battle of Stalingrad. But, just as much as it takes place as a part of the Second World War, it takes place as part of the history of Stalinist Russia.

Do we need to read Stalingard first? Or this is a stand alone book?

I am reliably informed that, although 'Stalingrad' comes first chronologically, 'Life and Fate' can be read as a standalone book. I hope so, because I would quite like to read this one.

I will definitely be joining for this one. It can be read on its own, but I have been reading Stalingrad as I had a copy of it so will start Life and Fate once I’ve finished.

Thanks Helen!
I wasnt sure about that question.

I just started Life and Fate today on the train. So far I've only read the introduction, but I've already shed a couple of tears. Looks like it's going to be a pretty powerful read!

I have finished part one and there are such sad stories all interwoven, it is brilliantly written, although I do find myself getting some characters confused and having to go back and check!
Brian referenced in a previous months thread that this was released without censorship by the state and it is markedly different from Stalingrad (which was censored) in that sense. This seems a truer picture of Russia during the war.

I finished this last week. I had to take a break in the middle as it is very heavy subject matter, and incredibly haunting. The parts on the gas chambers had me sobbing.
I would recommend it to everyone though, a hard, but amazing read.

When a book makes you have feelings like that Georgina I think it is one to add to my wish list for sure! Thank you!

I'm just over halfway and really enjoying it, too, although I do agree it is a heavy read. It's what I call a 'daytime' book, meaning I have to read it during the day when my brain is awake - it's not one for reading in bed before I fall asleep.
Coincidentally, while I was reading about House no. 6/1, my husband (a fan of board games) was reading an article about 'Pavlov's House', because he had just come across a board game of the same name. Presumably House no. 6/1 and Pavlov's House are one and the same.

I have finished this one at last!
It has been an amazing ride, and as well as enjoying it I also learned a lot. The last few weeks were an interesting time to be reading this novel set in Stalin's Russia, and sometimes the parallels with the current situation were a little too close for comfort.
I'm curious to read 'Stalingrad' at some point, although I think I'll have a little break to read a few shorter and lighter things first!

Here's my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Thank you for sharing your review, Helen. I'm glad you found the book a worthwhile read.
In these times, I can't helping thinking about Stalin-he did horrible things in the Ukraine in his time.

Rosemarie wrote: "Thank you for sharing your review, Helen. I'm glad you found the book a worthwhile read.
In these times, I can't helping thinking about Stalin-he did horrible things in the Ukraine in his time."

Unspeakably horrible.

I will always hold the Pulitzer Prize (especially for "journalism") and its committee in absolute contempt and scorn because, in 1932, they gave it to that odious little toad, the New York Times' Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, who knowingly regurgitated Stalinist propaganda as fact. Because, to quote Duranty himself when talking about Soviet mass murder, "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette".

His editors at the Times had known what he was doing, making that newspaper actively complicit in the denial of a holocaust that may have more victims than the Holocaust: an estimation of between 7-12 million people were starved to death with all deliberate malice during the Holodomor. That newspaper can choke on the Pentagon Papers; it's insulting to the intelligence that they keep their byline "all the news that's fit to print", especially when they see fit to print the lies of one of the most murderous dictators of the 20th century. Nothing makes up for this injury, made all the more insulting because the Times won't return the award and the committee won't rescind it. They claim that there's no actual proof that Duranty acted with intentional mendacity.

It seams that only a recorded deathbed confession by Duranty, that he was nothing but a degenerate, a pernicious and compulsive liar all his life, would qualify as "actual proof" for either 'The Paper of Record' or the Pulitzer committee. While we don't have Duranty's word (and how could anybody believe anything he said, anyway?), we do have the testimony of many others, most importantly Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, that Duranty knew exactly what was being published. He did it because he believed in Comrade Stalin, enjoyed being a duplicitous little myrmidon, the lifestyle it bought him in the Soviet Union, and simply didn't care how many "eggs" were "broken".

This seems to be closer to the truth of things, which even the Times partially conceded in 2003. Their laughably lame excuse then became that they didn't know where the actual award was, like they had accidentally misplaced it and now it just couldn't be found. As if somebody couldn't investigate where it might be, like, perhaps, one of those investigative reporters (so-called) that they keep on the payroll.

And while it may just be nothing but a symbolic gesture, maybe now, right now, would be a very good, very apt time for the New York Times to "find" Duranty's Pulitzer Prize and voluntarily give it back. It doesn't "change" anything, but it would be a small way to pay a large debt to the truth. Because that's what this is finally about: the truth. The truth about Stalin's Soviet Union as it was then, and consequently, the truth about Vladimir Putin's Russia as it is now.

/tangent

Okay, I feel better now...

EDIT: And I'm really sad I missed this one. Life and Fate was/is the War and Peace of the Soviet Union (the parallels in the title are intentional).

Perhaps then it is fitting for this historical moment, that Vasily Grossman, the greatest correspondent of the Second World War, in any language or on any front (bar none), was an ethnic Ukrainian Jew.

I've often wondered how or even why authors or journalists win literary prizes, since I find the winning books mediocre or worse at times-no matter which award is involved.

Rosemarie wrote: "I've often wondered how or even why authors or journalists win literary prizes, since I find the winning books mediocre or worse at times-no matter which award is involved."

I'd agree with you in some cases, Rosemarie, but there are many exceptions - one that immediately springs to mind for the Pulitzer for example is Norman Mailer - for both The Armies of the Night: History as a Novel, the Novel as History and The Executioner's Song. Each of them was worthy of winning any prize - from a man who was brilliant as an author, and even more brilliant as a journalist.

I guess awards are like any other human endeavors-they don't always hit the bull's eye but sometimes they come up with winners that stand the test of time.
And tastes in reading do change over time, both individually and at a wider level.