Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov was awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Literature "for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people."
孝懈褏懈泄 袛芯薪, part 1/2 = Tikhiy Don = And Quiet Flows the Don (Tikhiy Don #1-2), Mikhail Sholokhov
And Quiet Flows the Don or Quietly Flows the Don or Quiet Don, is an epic novel in four volumes by Russian writer Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov.
The first three volumes were written from 1925 to 1932 and published in the Soviet magazine Oktyabr in 1928鈥�1932, and the fourth volume was finished in 1940.
The English translation of the first three volumes appeared under this title in 1934.
The novel is considered one of the most significant works of Russian literature in the 20th century.
It depicts the lives and struggles of Don Cossacks during the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and Russian Civil War.
In 1965, Sholokhov was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for this novel.
Tiknii Don = Quiet Flows the Don: a novel in Four books, Mikhail Sholokhov
And Quiet Flows the Don or Quietly Flows the Don (Quiet Don) is an epic novel in four volumes by Russian writer Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov.
The first three volumes were written from 1925 to 1932 and published in the Soviet magazine Oktyabr in 1928鈥�1932, and the fourth volume was finished in 1940. The English translation of the first three volumes appeared under this title in 1934.
Observant goodreaders, of whom there are many, will have noticed the rather curious rendering of the title of this book, which literally would be "The Quiet Don", into British English. Well the story goes that because a Don in British English is a member of the Oxbridge teaching staff, the kind of person usually expected to be mostly quiet, that readers would imagine this to be a novel about a typical Oxbridge academic and so the publisher went for the current title to make clear they meant the river, although plainly they weren't troubled by the thought that readers might imagine that this would be a novel about the rural hinterland of industrial south Yorkshire.
Instead it is a rollicking saga of southern Russia in the years of war and civil war, I felt having finished the first part, it was the kind of thing that might have written if she had written a story about Cossack families, Civil War and communism in southern Russia as opposed to fictionalised versions of her conception and childhood set in Northumberland.
I first read it years and years ago, way back in the last century, the cover blurb mentions this book in comparison with , well it certainly has both war and peace in it, but rereading I have to conclude that it is also far, far, less memorable. Nobel Prize for literature in 1965, from which I conclude that it is nothing new to make that award to books which are rather unexceptional.
So I was leafing through The Sunday Times a couple of weeks back, miserable Murdochian right-wing rag that it is, and read an article that was full of praise for this old book and in particular the Stephen Garry translation of 1934, and I thought, like 'I'll read that' . Aside from the title choice the Garry translation also chops the original book in two and dropped apparently about 25% of the original, which was interesting to have in mind as I read, at points I'd wonder - why was this left in, and with so much cut, are the author's and the translator's conception of the novel the same?
This is an unusual Russian novel in that it touches upon WWI, which is a bit of a non-event in Russian consciousness, despite the million and more deaths it has been completely washed away by the impact of the second Great Patriotic war of '41 to '45 which was to be a cornerstone for the construction of Soviet patriotism by the postwar Communist regime. Anyway Sholokhov wrote this novel, his authorship was then disputed, a dispute which was I believe only within living memory resolved in his favour by computer analysis. Later Solzhenitsyn, like a stiff legged dog, approached his theme, sniffed at it and then urinated over it his own multi-volume screed tackling the same theme but from his own nationalist agenda.
So what's it all about, this rollicking saga? Well It is the grand rolling saga of Don cossacks from the years directly before the Sarajevo assassination, through the war, the two revolutions (March and November) and the beginnings of the Russian civil war at which point amidst mass executions of prisoners - with the promise of more to come - this volume ends, after botched hangings, a flogging, and the now traditional head shot .
In the beginning we have a picture of simple village life, the women are full figured, the men tough, the horses characterful. The way of life is barely literate, the telegraph and railway exist, but not in this village. There are a handful of rapes within the first hundred pages, all fairly casual. This isn't we feel a setting of much sophistication, nor is it sold to us as any kind of Eden. The particular fly in the ointment is sexual incompatibility which leads to both husbands and wives seeking out other lovers and to a certain amount of domestic violence.
The story follows a variety of characters and something of the ideological shift from a complacent monarchism to, well, a world of immense variety, if not exactly freedom of choice - authoritarian military dictatorship, authoritarian nationalist ( in several flavours), anarchist, foreign domination, Bolshevik, asocial banditry.
A recurrent theme is the conservatism of the Cossack world, the agents of change come from outside or from the fringes of that world, outsiders agitate for change and by the end of the novel are imposing their agendas in respect of the principles that nature hates a vacuum and that the absence of an ideology is a sign of inherent conservatism. Indeed the part Turkish ancestry of one of the main characters: Gregor Melekhov is frequently stressed as if to underline that the world of the cossacks is in stasis, change can only come about from the outside.
Another give away that this isn't the world of is that the characters here aren't on a quest to live meaningful lives, they don't have spiritual or intellectual aspirations as Tolstoy's do, some are concerned about the quality of the sex they are having, others about whether their horse will pass muster when they are summoned to Summer training camp, arguably because of that the politics in the book is all the more interesting and significant.
At times I felt that certain of Sholokhov/Garry's characters were only there to remind or tell the reader about the course of the political narrative, so we get characters in Petrograd, apparently only so we get to see a revolution or two and experience from a certain view point Kornilov's abortive putsch.
Politically the novel has a broader interest and significance in that it was published in 1929. And in keeping with the nationalist shift of the year with the increasing political dominance of Stalin, the tendency is here is by and large nationalist Communism is literally foreign and brought in by foreign agents and rendered only partially acceptable by the conviction that Lenin is a secret Cossack, equally of interest I felt given the upcoming political terrors was the depiction of one of the die hard Bolshevik agitators suffering psychologically to the point of experiencing sexual impotence as a result of his participation in a death squad, given his frequent references to the need to be hard through out the novel, irony I assume was intended. The novel, as I said ends with mass executions and the leaders of the anti-Bolsheviks while not literally braying monocle wearing nit -wits, tend slightly in that direction while the broad mass of the men who ride with them are broadly sympathetic in that they are in defence of their homeland and familiar pattern of life, the incoming Bolsheviks are not all paragons of virtue, the realities of civil war are in this book are scrappy, brutal, and clumsy. Reading I was comparing this to Isaac Babel's , Babel's story collection is the more exceptional work in my opinion, there's more of a unity of literary form and story telling, here the traditional cosy familiar novel allows the author to slip sex and violence peaceably under the reader's nose while Babel would have prefer to have it explode out of the page in your face. The casualness and also the 'black humour' involved (at least at times put me in mind of though the effect there is more sustained and intensified, both authors were looking in a similar direction I feel. Theirs are worlds which are intrinsically violent,which indeed give signs of being in cycles of intensifying violence. Yet here ultimately the reader knows there will be peace, the only question is how much violence and devastation will there need to be to reach it?
I thought perhaps there was something in the depiction of nature, particularly the titular Don that mirrored the political economy and rendered the book fit to weather the changing circumstances of the Soviet union during the 1930s. Nature here isn't harsh, nor beneficent, or particularly fecund, it rather flows on to its own rhythm. The seasons are as inevitable as the eventual Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As in too much knowledge of party dogma can be a fatal mistake, not one that our characters are likely to make, the important thing is to have been backing the right horse and to avoid taking part in the races yourself. So we can see the political illiteracy of the cossacks as a strength, blessed are the ignorant who follow Comrade Stalin, for they shall (mostly) avoid Siberian labour camps.
A wife isn't a bear, she won't run off into the forest
I initially thought reading this would take longer than a month, but somehow I managed to rock its Russian face. It's no secret that these Russian tomes can often be dense, filled with hundreds of characters (with a bunch of different names) doing things in highly detailed settings, where things like a blade of grass or a pebble in a river somehow manage to be a character themselves for fifty pages or so. Russian novels are dark and cold, just like the land from whence they came. Many of the authors had beards, even the women authors! (Or so I like to imagine.)
(Sholokhov, sadly, did not have a beard. At one point he had a mustache, but that hardly counts.)
Quiet Flows the Don is no exception in the land of Dark and Cold Russian Novels. This book has girth, baby. The Don of the title refers to the and it most certainly is a character in the book. It has attitude, and apparently emotions. (Okay, so in reality? The attitude and emotions of the human characters are reflected in the motion of the river. It's all very literary, yo. Symbolic and shit.)
The story starts in the early 20th century, before WWI and all, and it revolves around a family. Did I mention there were a lot of characters? There were. According to the List of Characters at the beginning of the book (to which I referred regularly) there are 32 main characters, 53 Historical Persons including some actual familiar names like Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky. I suck at math, but I do know that the grand total then comes out to 85 characters. (And maybe more that the List of Characters didn't think necessary to mention?)
(That's a Cossack. Burly, right?)
So this Sholokhov guy. He was a fanboy of Tolstoy, which I think is pretty evident in Quiet Flows the Don. I would say Sholokhov wrote this book with in mind. Like War and Peace, Quiet Flows the Don is about war - though instead of focusing on the French invasion of Russia as in the Tolstoy, Soholokhov's story revolved around the start of WWI and Russian Civil War. There are periods of "peace" in both books as well, moments of downtime in which we see a flash of home life - the women, the children, the farms - though the politics never seems to leave these pages. This is a politically charged novel, and Sholokhov's personal politics are on every single page. (Yes, that can get tedious, thank you for asking.)
But I'm happy I read this. As far as the Russkies go, Sholokhov is one I haven't heard that much about. Apparently he and had a few issues which I think is interesting. I mean, Solzhenitsyn looked like he could kick a few asses. (Or at least smother people to death in his .) I can't say that Sholokhov was as good as his forefathers like Tolstoy, or even some who came slightly later, like Solzhenitsyn. But a fine contribution to Russian literature, and a solid good read nonetheless.
How does one go about writing a review of one鈥檚 favourite book of all? One runs the risk of making one of two errors: one might either ignore flaws, and praise too much, to the point of gushing; or, one might try and be too critical in an attempt to be even-handed, and thus sell the work short.
Mikhail Sholokhov鈥檚 Quiet Flows the Don (that鈥檚 the complete and unabridged English edition of Tikhii Don, 鈥淭he Quiet Don鈥� in the original Russian) is not an easy book to read. It鈥檚 not something for those who have limited attention spans and/or no knowledge of history. And, though it鈥檚 a novel of war, it鈥檚 emphatically not for those who are looking for action.
The Russian Civil War was one of the most defining events of history. This is not the place for discussing its effects, but two things should be remembered: first, if it had not happened, the twentieth century would have been almost in every way completely different; and, secondly, the victory of the Bolsheviks in the war was far from assured. As the war progressed, the Red Army had not only to fight against the Whites, but against anarchists, assorted bandit formations, and rebellious Cossacks, who switched sides several times as the tide of events washed over them.
The book is the story of one such Cossack, and of the women whom he loves, and the struggles he has to go through.
Grigorii Melekhov is a young Cossack in the Don valley just prior to the start of the First World War. He loves Aksinia, the wife of another Cossack, and this results in so much fighting and turmoil that his father forcibly marries him off to another woman, Natalya, who is as sweet and gentle as Aksinia is fiery and determined. Finally, Aksinia and Grigorii run off together, and find employment in the mansion of a wealthy landowner, where they might find a modicum of happiness.
But the war comes, the First World War, and the Tsar orders the Cossacks to the front. Grigorii is sent to the Austro-Hungarian front, and for the first time kills men in combat. Meanwhile, as the war drags on, the Tsarist autocracy begins to collapse under the weight of its own corruption, and the masses begin to rise up in protest.
The Don Cossacks were not directly involved in the overthrow of the monarchy, and the news only filtered through to them later, causing anxiety more than anything. After all, though they had been routinely used as cannon fodder by the Tsars, they were historically and almost organically part of the Tsarist apparatus, and could not imagine life under any other system. However, they weren鈥檛 exactly given a choice in the matter, and soon enough the tides of the Civil War washed over them.
Quite apart from not being a book for the attention-span-challenged, this book is not for the squeamish; the Russian Civil War was one of the most brutal in history, with both sides (or, to be exact, all sides) routinely massacring prisoners and carrying out what today would be considered war crimes. In this war, there were two kinds of combatant; one who was ideologically driven, and fought on one or the other side, through victory or defeat; and, on the other, the kind of soldier who fought not for ideology but in defence of his own ethnic group and its perceived interests. Grigorii Melekhov was emphatically of the latter, and switched back and forth from the Red to the White sides as the fortunes of war dictated.
Meanwhile, the two women in his life, Natalya and Aksinia, live through their own private torment 鈥� Natalya, scarred in a suicide attempt, her attempt to make a life again with Grigorii sabotaged by the war; and Aksinia, torn between her husband, whom she does not love and who does not love her, and Grigorii, whose child she has borne and who she knows is torn between her and Natalya. It鈥檚 a love story as well as a war story, and in these circumstances the outcome can鈥檛 be anything but tragic.
The writing, even in translation, is superb, the minor characters brilliantly etched. It鈥檚 not a book which one can read and say to oneself, 鈥淣ow so-and-so is quite superfluous; one could just delete him and nothing would be lost鈥�. Even the insignificant valet of the landowner has his own place in the narrative, serving to fill out the canvas. And there鈥檚 the odd moment where one sees the hope of the future, like the German whom Grigorii takes prisoner early in the novel and then lets go, who shakes his hand and tells him: 鈥淚n the coming class wars we鈥檒l be on the same side of the barricades, won鈥檛 we, comrade?鈥�
One of the most important things about the novel is its sympathetic treatment of the Whites; though written in Stalin鈥檚 USSR by a very much establishment author, it鈥檚 as far from a Communist polemic as it鈥檚 possible to get. That it won the Stalin Prize in 1941 is another proof of something I鈥檝e said before and will say again: the alleged persecution of dissent by Stalin is at least partly exaggerated, not least by his successors like Khrushchev for their own political purposes.
What are the flaws of the book? Apart from the fact that one needs at least some background knowledge of the First World War and the Russian Civil War, including an idea of Russian civil society of the time, at two thick volumes it鈥檚 certainly not something to be gone through in one session. Spanning almost a decade, the ebb and flow of characters can sometimes be confusing, especially if one is a newcomer to Russian literature and can鈥檛 remember Russian names.
Also, the only conclusion one can draw from this book is, when brothers fight, nobody wins. Even the victor has lost whatever it was that was worth fighting for.
Completely and absolutely recommended, for those who care.
In 1965 was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for . It is a lengthy novel about the Cossack people covering a time period starting from the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 through the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
The English language Audible version of is 13 hours long, unabridged, read by Stefan Rudnicki but is only the first of the book's four volumes. The following three volumes, here given in order, are entitled The Don Flows Down to the Sea, Virgin Soil Upturned and Harvest on the Don. The first volume, which is as far as I have come and review here, ends during the First World War.
Three things stand out and have made the novel special for me.
I like the author鈥檚 prose style, a lot. I will provide one quote:
鈥淎nd over the village slipped the days, passing into the nights; the weeks flowed by, the months crept on, the wind howled, and, glassified with an autumnal, translucent, greenish-azure, the Don flowed tranquilly down to the sea.鈥�
I like the words the author chooses. The language is not florid, it is simple and strong. It encompasses an undercurrent of feeling. The author speaks of the land, of the river, the wind, and the Cossack people. He pays attention to the basics鈥攈ow the dirt sucks up the dew, the howling of the wind, the colors, the majesty and the elemental beauty of the steppes and the river.
Just as he magnificently draws the landscape, he captures the essence of the Cossack people--their passion, their hot-blooded nature and turbulent spirit. Their sense of being one of a group. I have read of the Cossacks in many books, but know I know them. This is the second reason I so very much like this book.
My appreciation of the prose must in part be due to the book鈥檚 translator, Stephen Garry.
Thirdly, how the author constructs the novel is well done. Being essentially about a group of people, rather than particular individuals, he ties the many to a few central characters, with the Melekhov family of Tatarsk at the center. Tatarsk is a village of the Don River valley. The family consists of the father, mother, two sons and a daughter, who is the youngest. The elder son is married. The younger son, Grigori Melekhov*, is the primary protagonist of the story. He loves the wife of the son in a neighboring family. This is a scandal in the village. It is not to be accepted. He is alternately guffawed and scorned and then pushed into marriage. His wife does love him, but he doesn鈥檛 love her. One cannot negate that which one feels. Above all else, the Cossacks are an emotional people.
I will give only example of how the many, many characters and diverse stories connect back to Grigore. He is off at war, the First World War, and he is in the cavalry. Horses are galloping, sabers and lances fly. We are introduced to a new character, a young, newly enlisted Cossack recruit, a student of mathematics. He is writing a diary. He is in love鈥�.he is disappointed in love and then he dies. His notebook comes into the hands of Grigori. By throwing in this new character, readers are given another figure, another Cossack, another soldier of the war. With this little story, humor and sadness come together. It had me first smiling and then sighing. The multitude of individuals tied to the few central characters allows readers to grasp the Cossacks as a group, as a people, as a whole, made up of different personality types, people of different ages and experiences. The author does this very well; he knows what to put in and what to leave out.
Stefan Rudnicki narrates the audiobook. I like very much how he reads it, so four stars for the narration. He speaks clearly and with strength. He keeps a good pace. His pronunciation of Russian names allows one to easily distinguished one from the other.
I hope the remaining three volumes will soon be available at Audible, and I hope they too will be read by Stefan Rudnicki.
* Grigori Melekhov is said to be based on two real people, two anti-Bolshevik leaders of the Upper Don.
Un roman uria艧, (uria艧 at芒t la propriu c芒t 艧i la figurat, cu peste 1800 de pagini 卯n 4 volume, listat pe 欧宝娱乐 ca volum unic), cea mai masiv膬 oper膬 literar膬 pe care mi-a fost dat s膬 o duc p芒n膬 la cap膬t p芒n膬 acum. O lectur膬 cople艧itoare 艧i tulbur膬toare, o poveste ampl膬 艧i foarte detaliat膬 despre apusul unei lumi, despre c芒teva destine simple de cazaci, ce 卯艧i vor fi pierdut pentru totdeauna lini艧tea 卯n confruntarea nemiloas膬 cu plaga ro艧ie a sovietelor ruse艧ti, care aveau s膬 schimbe pentru totdeauna soarta 卯ntregii omeniri. Sub acest aspect, 卯n ceea ce m膬 prive艧te, nu pot sa trec cu vederea similitudinea atmosferei descrise de Margaret Mitchell in Pe aripile v芒ntului cu cea descrisa de 艦olohov in Donul lini艧tit, despre destine fr芒nte, familii risipite de r膬zboi, moarte sau boal膬, iubiri adulterine convulsive, ezit膬ri, 艧ov膬ieli existen牛iale 卯ntr o epoc膬 istoric膬 ce face ca nimic s膬 nu mai fie ca 卯nainte. Lectura poate fi u艧or disconfortant膬 pentru cititoarele de sex feminin, scenele de r膬zboi sunt masive 艧i foarte minu牛ios descrise. Pe de alt膬 parte, afl膬m numele si ob芒r艧ia tuturor personajelor principale, secundare sau colaterale, de natur膬 s膬 sugereze o meticuloas膬 informare din partea autorului (numarul numelor proprii folosite in roman este de ordinul c芒torva sute de mii), dar care, la un moment dat devin n膬ucitoare 艧i ap膬s膬toare. Pe scurt, Donul lini艧tit este o m膬rturie a imensului poten牛ial literar al autorului, care scrie primele doua volume la v芒rsta de 23 de ani. 脦n fa牛a acestui neobi艧nuit talent literar 卯nsu艧i Sartre s-a plecat, spun芒nd ca nu se cuvine a primi el 卯nsu艧i premiul Nobel 卯naintea lui Mihail 艦olohov, care 卯l va primi, la r芒ndul, s膬u 卯n anul urm膬tor (1965). Dac膬 cele 1800 de pagini vi se vor p膬rea o 卯ncercare prea temerar膬, pute牛i opta pentru ecranizarea din 1957, extrem de fidel膬 艧i cu interven牛ii regizorale 艧i de scenariu minime. Dup膬 p膬rerea mea, acest roman trebuie inclus 卯n lista c膬r牛ilor care chiar merit膬 a fi citite o dat膬 卯n via牛膬. Nu 卯l ocoli牛i.
Good writing yet not. It鈥檚 obvious he鈥檚 writing with the Communist censors in mind. Like Shostakovich the composer, he had no choice but to pay lip service to the new czars that ran the Soviet state. Such a good author as he pens this story of the Russian people. It鈥檚 too bad he couldn鈥檛 have been completely free to write exactly as he wished. I don鈥檛 believe he had that freedom.
There are so many versions of this book on 欧宝娱乐 because this book has been reprinted so many times. It's one of those classics, like War and Peace, that endures. It is a multi-volume epic, and aside from its intimidating size, how is an American reader supposed to choose an edition? Many of the editions I've come across claim to be abridged, and the unabridged novel series goes under varying titles. It's all rather confusing. Giving up after a while of browsing, I finally read the Signet Classics edition, at just over 500 pages. I'm not worried about how "abridged" it is, because the content of those 500 pages was brimming, bursting at the seams with human endeavor, war set-pieces, nature meditations, tragic and poetic elegance, intense action and a narrative which flowed like a river.
The author was in love with the Don river, one would assume from its presence in all of his titles, but people take center stage in his epic. In fact, the author was concerned with portraying the mountains, fields, farms, and battlegrounds with equal facility - but these reflections are nothing without their inhabitants. The Cossacks who people this landscape are as well-rounded, flawed and "human" as many of the characters from Tolstoy. If I had to pinpoint another author who could compare to Sholokhov, it would have to be Tolstoy. Except there are some fundamental differences. Sholokhov had to stop his education in high school, and worked many years on his 4-volume novel of the Don, which he eventually serialized in a major publication after much hemming and hawing on the part of publishers. After the novel's merit was recognized universally, it became a bestseller, was condemned by the Soviet authorities, who wanted to cut it down to safer proportions, until it finally won the author a Nobel Prize.
Like Tolstoy's novels, you will find too many characters to count here. It takes place during the Bolshevik Revolution, mainly out in the fray, against the breathtaking backdrop of the goose-sprinkled countrysides, the cow-studded farms, the poor and downtrodden villages, and always, like a subdued meta-protagonist, the Don river flows through it all, connecting the people to the land and the history to the land. There are many memorable deaths, cinematic triumphs, and intimate familial spats. It possesses a balanced pace and a jam-packed cast of everyday men and women, lost in the harrying tempest of war, and swept up in the history unfolding before their eyes.
The only issue may be that the complexity of the political climate and many historical details may be lost on some contemporary readers. I won't pretend I remember every last tripartite Russian name and the intricate conflicts of their idiosyncratic domestic and professional bonds. But digging a little deeper will likely reward you, if you're astute. This is not War and Peace Lite. This is another beast of equal scope and length, equally challenging, fun, and a fundamentally important work of world literature.
You know this one has 2444 pages, right? Okay I'm not complaining or anything, but the Penguin edition or all other current editions are 576-600 pages; and I don't want you to read that to form a wrong opinion on the masterpiece. As for me, I hardly remember anything of the novel right now, except the brutal and heartwrenching delineation(not even the year when I read it first)...but I just started rereading it, because...if not now? Then when?? I will try to keep up reviewing in small parts along with my progress. (Best of luck to me)
In Russian, the most beautifully written and original prose I've ever read, by a mile. The language is simply stunning and makes even inanimate objects appear as alive as most human characters in average novels. It would be a monumental task to translate it into other languages, I suspect..
Aside from the language, it's an epic read about a very interesting people in a crucial time in Russian history -- Cossacks during the Russian Revolution. It depicts the life of ordinary but fierce and colorful characters trying to make it through a merciless historical tsunami. Passion, need for freedom, all-consuming civil war, people of great earthly spirit who are willing to endure suffering but not submission.
And Quiet Flows the Don is a wonderfully authentic and moving portrait of the Cossack people set against the backdrop of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Sholokhov masterfully explores the full gamut of human experience in this novel, leaving no stone unturned. From love and friendship, to marital infidelity and death he traces the fortunes of a Cossack family as they confront the vicissitudes of life. What I enjoyed most about And Quiet Flows the Don was Sholokhov's natural infusion of Cossack cultural traditions, customs and cuisine into the story as well as the meticulous, rich development of each character, no matter their significance. This latter aspect, indeed draws one into the story more and more, as the characters and settings are described in vivid detail. Equally enthralling were the gruesome battle and execution scenes, in which Sholokhov does not spare the reader's imagination. My only very minor critique of And Quiet Flows the Don relates to the infrequent parts of the novel which I found too philosophical. In particular I am referring to the chapters dealing with Bolshevism and Marxism, which seemed at times dry and overly noetic. Nevertheless, And Quiet Flows the Don is without a doubt a literary masterpiece, which deservedly earns five stars.
I am glad to see Quiet Flows the Don is back in print in English. Sholokhov won the Nobel Prize for this novel of war and revolution among the Don Cossack host. Although painted across a backdrop of history, it is primarily the love story of Gregor and Aksinya. As much of great 20th century Russian literature, the style harks back to Tolstoy, but the subject matter is undeniably Soviet. Published in 1929, Quiet Flows the Don was the pinnacle of Sholokhov's career. He never again produced a work to compare, although to be fair to him, his career coincided with the height of Stalinist conformity in the arts. This was an era when simply being a famous writer was dangerous - think of the careers of Pasternak, Babel, and Pilnyak. If Sholokhov descended into the role of a party hack churning out the obligatory Socialist Realist pap, at least he lived to a ripe old age.
I have never understood the conventional English translation of the book's title as Quiet Flows the Don. In Russian it is 孝懈褏懈泄 袛芯薪, literally The Quiet Don. Did the original translator, Stephen Garry, believe it would be confused with a story of a taciturn British academic?
I read this book under strange circumstances, as part of a group reading in a group, lasted a long time and I was unable to follow its timetable, so I read it occasionally and I was unable to into it. This, of course, is bad on the one hand but on the other hand the lack of emotional involvement in most of this book can make me make a more calm and objective review. Of course, at the beginning, when I read almost normal, this engagement existed as the author made a truly majestic account of life in a Cossack village in a beautiful but difficult environment with rules that have not changed for centuries. There the proud Cossacks distribute their time between agricultural work and preparation for the next war in which they will have a major role. When they do not, they are being dragged by their characteristic passion in any other area of 鈥嬧€媡heir lives, including love. So we come to the story of erotic passion that threatens to destroy the two lovers by exhaling them from the village life. In this particular point I dare say that we are going through some pages of literary grandeur, which is not limited to telling the erotic story but also to creating the special characters somehow influenced by it.
Somewhere there, however, things are getting serious as the First World War begins. There, through the look of the writer, we watch the heroes involved in the battles and those who are staying back, having a humane narrative of the suffering on the sidelines of the great historical events. Then follows the revolution and the tragic civil war that changed the whole of Russia and of course the protagonists of our history. From this part to the end is where I lost the thread somewhere and I'm not sure that this is only because of the unusual way of reading. Of course, the book is extremely interesting at this point, but it was quite difficult to watch the plot. More seemed to me as the separate narration of individual episodes rather than the narration of an integrated story. These episodes were from breathtaking to relatively uninteresting and within them a multitude of characters are passing, representing each side of this situation, which certainly helps to have an image but it certainly makes reading even harder. Finally, the different threads come together as we observe the most horrible dimension of the civil war, where the writer's message about the value of peaceful life becomes clear.
So, to be honest, I must admit that I did not enjoy this book, that I did not experience moments of owe through its pages, but from the few moments that I managed to get into the book - and even be moved - from his quality, the beautiful writing, and the message that goes on in the end I understand that I have read something really important that rightfully has a place among the masterpieces of Russian literature. In a next reading that will be done in better conditions, I believe I will be able to enjoy it as well.
A book about life of Cossacks approaching the times of First World War and Russian Revolution. It is more realistic account of rural.life I have come across. Characters are complex with a roughness on the visible behaviour and the author writes so beautifully about Don and areas surrounding it.