A few months ago my stepmother told my fiancée that Grace
Shouba, my mother, was a constant presence at her home. The statement struck me as odd at
first: Grace died twenty-five years ago,
and of course had never even visited my stepmother’s current home, let alone my
stepmother’s previous home. Her pictures
were not on any wall. Her things--what
few inherited objects that were left to us--were mostly relegated to the
basement. But of course my father’s
“new” wife had helped to raise my brothers and me, and so had lived for the
past two decades with hundreds of shared remembrances of our most cherished
memory.
When I thought about my
stepmother’s statement, I had to admit that Grace was everywhere in her
home. My father and two brothers talked
about Grace a lot; and when we weren’t talking about her, the omission was
sometimes glaringly obvious. After all,
Grace was the unifying theme of our shared past—a collective experience, a familiar
ghost, and a sometimes all-consuming memory.
In fact, after twenty-five years,
Grace had become something bigger than a dead loved one: in many ways, her name had become a
mythological symbol for childhood itself, with all its myriad joys, sorrows,
adventures, and tragedies.
For me at
least, the memory of Grace now represented the best and worst parts of life,
and her spiritual presence seemed to permeate my every interaction with my
parents and their home. The past is
always present, and this certainly is part of the message of Montefiore’s novel
about the Russian heroine, Sashenka.
Montefiore, who wrote a brilliantly researched book about Catherine the
Great’s favorite, Potemkin, as well as two of the best recent biographies of
Joseph Stalin—The Court of the Red Tsar, and Young Stalin, clearly believed
that any twentieth century Russian novel must inevitably lead to a dialogue
between Russia’s tragic past and uncertain present.
Sashenka, who grows up in a rich, Jewish St.
Petersburg family, throws herself into the revolutionary struggle against the
Tsar. Thus, in the first part of the
book, Montefiore takes us back and forth between tsarist excess (Sashenka’s
mother is one of Rasputin’s dissolute admirers) and puritanical revolutionary responses. We come to understand why Russians had
become exhausted by economic inequality, bourgeois decadence, autocratic
stupidity, military catastrophe, and capitalist exploitation. Yet we are also introduced to a
Marxist-Leninist conspiracy, and its dangerous moral and ideological assumptions
about class warfare. Although we know
why Sashenka is attracted to change, we also understand that this attraction is
darkened by the Bolsheviks’ antidemocratic and violent approach to politics.
Montefiore skips over the Civil War,
Collectivism, and the Great Terror proper, and introduces us to fully formed
Stalinism. As World War II approaches,
Sashenka and her bigwig NKVD husband
have become the model Soviet citizens.
Their attitude toward Stalin and Stalinism are no doubt typical of the
time. In awe of the Great Leader, they
somehow managed to both love and fear the man and his political regime. They understand that many of their close
friends and colleagues had disappeared during the past two years, but they
hoped against hope that these disappearances were justified according to some
greater Party imperative or logic of history.
When they themselves wind up in Stalin’s cross hairs, they perish,
victims of the same deadly and often arbitrary game that Sashenka’s NKVD
husband had been playing for so long to prop up the Bolshevik regime. Montefiore’s larger story, however, is about
historical memory.
In the final part of
the book, Montefiore shows that Sachenka’s torture and savage death did not
erase her memory, or the significance of the millions of other innocent
Russians who died at the hands of Stalin and his criminal colleagues. Indeed, Sashenka’s children and grandchildren
miraculously uncover the tragic story of their ancestor’s past. And somehow Sashenka emerges again,
irrepressible, insistent, and all-consuming.
History, and especially Russian history, always demonstrates the simple
fact that death doesn’t really end anything.
The living have an urgent need to make contact with the dead, and the
level of this urgency is related in some morbid way to the abruptness and
unjustness of the death. And perhaps the
dead—like Hamlet’s father who famously said:
oh, horrible tale!--also have an urgent need to make contact with the
living.
No comments:
Post a Comment