What do you think?
Rate this book
Оправдание Острова
Действие нового романа Евгения Водолазкина разворачивается на Острове, которого нет на карте, но существование его не вызывает сомнений. Его не найти в учебниках по истории, а события — узнаваемы до боли. Средневековье переплетается с современностью, всеобщее – с личным, а трагизм – с гротеском. Здесь легко соседствуют светлейшие князья и председатели Острова, хронисты и пророки, повелитель пчел и говорящий кот. Согласно древнему предсказанию, Остров ждут большие испытания. Сможет ли он пройти их, когда земля начинает уходить из-под ног?..
«Работая над романом “Лавр”, я был лекарем, юродивым, паломником и монахом. Сейчас, десятилетие спустя, отважился стать хронистом — и ощутил, как велик груз ответственности того, кто запечатлевает минувшее. История — это одно из имен опыта. В конце концов, от жизни остается только история. Роман “Оправдание Острова” посвящен, понятно, лишь части суши, но, подобно капле воды, отражает гораздо большее...»
Евгений Водолазкин
– Беседа с Ним – это ведь попытка оправдания Острова? – Леклерк встает. – Если не возражаете, сделаю беседу финальной сценой.
Парфений внимательно смотрит на режиссера.
– Да, эта сцена вполне может стать финальной.
«Работая над романом “Лавр”, я был лекарем, юродивым, паломником и монахом. Сейчас, десятилетие спустя, отважился стать хронистом — и ощутил, как велик груз ответственности того, кто запечатлевает минувшее. История — это одно из имен опыта. В конце концов, от жизни остается только история. Роман “Оправдание Острова” посвящен, понятно, лишь части суши, но, подобно капле воды, отражает гораздо большее...»
Евгений Водолазкин
– Беседа с Ним – это ведь попытка оправдания Острова? – Леклерк встает. – Если не возражаете, сделаю беседу финальной сценой.
Парфений внимательно смотрит на режиссера.
– Да, эта сцена вполне может стать финальной.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2020
About the author
Eugene Vodolazkin
22 books420 followersAlternate spellings: Evgenij Vodolazkin, Evgheni Vodolazkin, Jevgenij Vodolazkin
Eugene Vodolazkin is a Russian scholar and author. He has worked at Russian Academy of Sciences and been awarded fellowships from the Toepfer Foundation and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. He has written for First Things. He lives with his family in St. Petersburg.
Eugene Vodolazkin is a Russian scholar and author. He has worked at Russian Academy of Sciences and been awarded fellowships from the Toepfer Foundation and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. He has written for First Things. He lives with his family in St. Petersburg.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
April 28, 2023
Romanul lui Vodolazkin are forma unui letopiseț întins pe sute de ani. Este completat de cronicari (pisari) succesivi, trăitori în mănăstire: Nikon, Prokopi Gîngavul, Meleti, Galaktion, Nektari, Ilari etc.
Letopisețul consemnează istoria Insulei și, îndeosebi, istoria domniilor. Întîmplările povestite de pioșii cronicari sînt comentate minuțios, din perspectiva prezentului, de Ksenia și Parfeni, Părinții și Binefăcătorii Insulei. Cei doi tocmai au împlinit frumoasa și, firește, venerabila vîrstă de 347 de ani. Sînt aproape de-o vîrstă cu istoria și cu primele pagini ale cronicii.
Alături de Ksenia și Parfeni, în istoria acestui stat, un rol esențial îl joacă episcopii. Înalții clerici dau sfaturi prețioase mulțimii, sînt gata de orice sacrificiu, sînt pacifiști, păstrează Tradiția și bunele maniere. Din Tradiție face parte, desigur, și prorocirea lui Agafon Înaintevăzătorul. Despre prorocire vorbesc toți, dar nimeni nu știe în ce constă și la ce se referă mai precis. Doar cititorul află de la bun început, dintr-un epigraf, că Agafon a prezis venirea unui mare cutremur, însoțit de torente de foc și cenușă. Sfîrșitul cărții adeverește prorocirea.
Să numim și cîțiva episcopi pentru harul și jertfa lor: Elefterie, Afanasi, Feofan, Filaret, Feopempt, Evsevi, Ilari, Gheronti etc.
Istoria Insulei seamănă leit cu istoria Rusiei. Insula are parte de lupte intestine (între prinți), de invazii, de revoluții și dictaturi. Într-una din zile, o Măgăriță citează din „Manifestul Comunist”. Vestește în acest chip era „omului nou”.
Vodolazkin a folosit această poveste pentru a sugera o serie de păreri personale cu privire la proges, om și desfășurarea istoriei. Considerațiile sînt, de regulă, conservatoare. Nu există progres. Oamenii nu devin mai buni. Ei sînt niște făpturi pasive, fără inițiativă. Istoria e un permanent declin, de la Bine la Rău, de la Rău la Mai Rău. A existat o vîrstă de aur, dar prezentul se vădește a fi o vîrstă de fier. Demonstrațiile, protestele, revolta sînt inutile, nu schimbă nimic. Participanții nu au nici un scop și, dacă au unul, l-au împrumutat de la un „revoluționar” ipocrit. Poporul este o massa damnata și are nevoie de Luminători (Agafon Înaintevăzătorul, Parfeni, Ksenia și, să nu uit, cuvioșii episcopi). Fără ei, locuitorii insulei ar rătăci în bezna cea mai deasă. Din cînd în cînd, în afacerile lumești intervin îngerii etc.
Nici părerile lui Vodolazkin și nici cartea nu sînt pe gustul meu. Sorry...
P. S. Ideea că poporul e o gloată de idioți și abrutizați, care nu știe pentru ce face o demonstrație și simte nevoia unor conducători luminați (miruiți de Dumnezeu), mi se pare perfect retrogradă. În fond, Vodolazkin pledează pentru o teocrație soft, un stat guvernat de duhovnici. Și încă o observație, dacă mi se permite: Istoria insulei ilustrează una dintre ideile favorite ale clicii de la Kremlin: Rusia nu a atacat pe nimeni niciodată, locuitorii ei sînt blînzi și răbdători, prinții - înțelepți. Doar ceilalți (invidioșii, dușmanii) au îndrăznit s-o invadeze. Am adăugat această notă, fiindcă împrejurările s-au schimbat dramatic de cînd am scris recenzia...
Letopisețul consemnează istoria Insulei și, îndeosebi, istoria domniilor. Întîmplările povestite de pioșii cronicari sînt comentate minuțios, din perspectiva prezentului, de Ksenia și Parfeni, Părinții și Binefăcătorii Insulei. Cei doi tocmai au împlinit frumoasa și, firește, venerabila vîrstă de 347 de ani. Sînt aproape de-o vîrstă cu istoria și cu primele pagini ale cronicii.
Alături de Ksenia și Parfeni, în istoria acestui stat, un rol esențial îl joacă episcopii. Înalții clerici dau sfaturi prețioase mulțimii, sînt gata de orice sacrificiu, sînt pacifiști, păstrează Tradiția și bunele maniere. Din Tradiție face parte, desigur, și prorocirea lui Agafon Înaintevăzătorul. Despre prorocire vorbesc toți, dar nimeni nu știe în ce constă și la ce se referă mai precis. Doar cititorul află de la bun început, dintr-un epigraf, că Agafon a prezis venirea unui mare cutremur, însoțit de torente de foc și cenușă. Sfîrșitul cărții adeverește prorocirea.
Să numim și cîțiva episcopi pentru harul și jertfa lor: Elefterie, Afanasi, Feofan, Filaret, Feopempt, Evsevi, Ilari, Gheronti etc.
Istoria Insulei seamănă leit cu istoria Rusiei. Insula are parte de lupte intestine (între prinți), de invazii, de revoluții și dictaturi. Într-una din zile, o Măgăriță citează din „Manifestul Comunist”. Vestește în acest chip era „omului nou”.
Vodolazkin a folosit această poveste pentru a sugera o serie de păreri personale cu privire la proges, om și desfășurarea istoriei. Considerațiile sînt, de regulă, conservatoare. Nu există progres. Oamenii nu devin mai buni. Ei sînt niște făpturi pasive, fără inițiativă. Istoria e un permanent declin, de la Bine la Rău, de la Rău la Mai Rău. A existat o vîrstă de aur, dar prezentul se vădește a fi o vîrstă de fier. Demonstrațiile, protestele, revolta sînt inutile, nu schimbă nimic. Participanții nu au nici un scop și, dacă au unul, l-au împrumutat de la un „revoluționar” ipocrit. Poporul este o massa damnata și are nevoie de Luminători (Agafon Înaintevăzătorul, Parfeni, Ksenia și, să nu uit, cuvioșii episcopi). Fără ei, locuitorii insulei ar rătăci în bezna cea mai deasă. Din cînd în cînd, în afacerile lumești intervin îngerii etc.
Nici părerile lui Vodolazkin și nici cartea nu sînt pe gustul meu. Sorry...
P. S. Ideea că poporul e o gloată de idioți și abrutizați, care nu știe pentru ce face o demonstrație și simte nevoia unor conducători luminați (miruiți de Dumnezeu), mi se pare perfect retrogradă. În fond, Vodolazkin pledează pentru o teocrație soft, un stat guvernat de duhovnici. Și încă o observație, dacă mi se permite: Istoria insulei ilustrează una dintre ideile favorite ale clicii de la Kremlin: Rusia nu a atacat pe nimeni niciodată, locuitorii ei sînt blînzi și răbdători, prinții - înțelepți. Doar ceilalți (invidioșii, dușmanii) au îndrăznit s-o invadeze. Am adăugat această notă, fiindcă împrejurările s-au schimbat dramatic de cînd am scris recenzia...
Read
August 10, 2023
A History of the Island - Monastic chroniclers painstakingly record events on the Island where the royal couple of Parfeny and Ksenia, both age 347, offer a running commentary on the text which spans the years stretching from the medieval to our modern day. Since there are a number of fine reviews of this well-crafted, eloquent novel here on Goodreads and elsewhere, I'll make an immediate shift to philosophic observations relating to several direct quotes.
“With Christianization, we heard the word of the Holy Scripture, though previously we heard only one another's shabby old words. Those words crumbled to dust, for only that which is written is preserved and we have no written language before Christianization.”
Eugene Vodolazkin frames his tale thusly: Christianity is the only religion on this island. There are no Jews nor are there any Muslims. And, perhaps predictably, the pre-Christian island gods are judged mere wooden idols served by a few misguided sorcerers. Even extending into the modern day, there isn't a word relating to the enlightenment and wisdom traditions of Buddhism, Taoism or yoga. I was wondering as I read the novel: Is this the Christian dream, an entire world where Christianity is the one and only religion?
“People suppose that the chronicles' first chapter are the work of Father Nifont the Historian. In the entire history of its existence the manuscript never once left the walls of Island Monastery of the Savior. That was most strictly forbidden. In the chroniclers' opinion, when a history was located within a sacred space, it was protected from forgery. People handle a history more freely now; anyone at all, in any place, writes history. Might the reasons for numerous falsifications lie there?”
We can appreciate the Island's medieval monks only wanting the history of the Island to be their history, but would you prefer to live in a world where what's recorded as history is under strict control? Perhaps I'm betraying a modern perspective, but I gasp at such a prospect which has an eerie echo of the iron fist of the Soviet Union. I wonder if at any time, even modern times, those on the island had access to Herodotus or Livy - or Josephus.
“Saint Agafon dictated his principal prophecy in the literal sense, into the ear of chronicler Prokopy the Nasal. Agafon, who by then had reached the age of one hundred and twenty, had very strictly forbidden the one writing to loosen his tongue. For Agafon's part, that of a person who was (if it be expressed this way) of mature age, this was a joke to some degree (after all, nobody prohibited saints from joking) since Prokopy's tongue was cut off for using foul language back in the years of his youth. One did not need to worry about asking him to hold his tongue.”
Ouch! Cutting out the tongue of a young boy – cruelty and barbarity reminding me of many episodes in the author's Laurus. And considering all the violations of humanity documented in the chronicle of the Island, one thing is certain: I'm glad I never was born an Island resident.
“Those who exited their homes in order to understand the nature of those sounds were struck by flaming arrows. And the arrows continued to rain down during the day too, sent by heavenly horsemen who remained unseen. Only their horses' white-hot hooves were visible.”
Many are the instances of the fabulous in Eugene Vodolazkin's novel (in addition to Parfeny & Ksenia being 347 years old!). How would a modern historian handle such happenings? Does this speak to each age having its own ways of including and excluding what constitutes history? Actually, how we write about and judge history and historical events is an abiding theme manifest on nearly every page.
“Morals on the Island improved so much that some began to fear that childbearing would cease here when all was said and done. Or that it would be fulfilled in a less sinful manner, such a budding.”
Budding? How exactly would that take place? Unfortunately, no further words are offered on the subject. One thing that has always perplexed me: Why is sex judged a sin? Is this idea of sin (and subsequent guilt) connected to the difficulties women and men experience when approaching intimacy?
Parfeny reflects: “History in that distant epoch (the medieval period) was, to a great extent, history because it looked at things with less bias. Contemporary historical thought, though is formulated by circumstances that are distant from the events described. It depends on political expediency, which turns historical writing into a tool for a fight. This is why, to some extent, the modern-day historian participates in events with a sideways view. A medieval historian though, looked from above.”
Is this accurate? Any historians in the crowd? Did Tacitus or Edward Gibbon write history with a sideways view? If so, how is this limiting? When Marx observed workers are alienated from the end of production (simply performing a job for a paycheck – the plight of millions in today's work world), in what way is this limited or incomplete?
“Well then, uttered His Brightest Futurity, then we shall portray our friend Markel sitting on a pony because in art we value realism above all.
Does this have a familiar ring, comrades? When the chronicle covers the twentieth century, many Soviet Union-like aspects on the Island are portrayed in their grotesque detail, a reality for the poor islanders so ridiculous and twisted, it almost becomes comical.
Again, I have only touched on a few highlights. To gain a much more complete insight into Eugene Vodolazkin's thought-provoking and entertaining A History of the Island, I highly recommend you give the novel a good, careful read.
Russian author Eugene Vodolazkin, born 1964
July 10, 2023
Fictionalized history of an unnamed island written as if initially composed by a monk of the medieval age and moving forward in time up to somewhere near present day. The two original rulers of the island, Princess Ksenia and Prince Parfeny, live for 347 years. A prophesy ties the island’s welfare to these two leaders. Other rulers come and go, some by election, a few by force, others by birthright. Later, we find Parfeny and Ksenia in Paris where they are consultants to a French producer who is creating a film based on their lives.
The manuscript documenting the island’s history is modified over time by various scribes based on instructions from the leader du jour. This history includes wars, revolutions, and social changes. Religion plays a role, as does immigration and giant companies that want to harvest the island’s natural resources, generally with the assistance of the country’s current leader (who stands to gain riches).
It occasionally feels repetitious (probably intentionally), but the social commentary on world politics, corruption, greed, abuse of power, and ignoring lessons from history is unmistakable. It is filled with irony and subtle humor. The author employs touches of magical realism, which work well here, adding to the feeling of reading a fable or myth. The author is a wonderful storyteller and this is an unusual and creative work. This is the second book by Vodolozkin that I have read. I can also recommend Laurus.
Many thanks to Plough Publishing and NetGalley for an advance reader’s copy.
The manuscript documenting the island’s history is modified over time by various scribes based on instructions from the leader du jour. This history includes wars, revolutions, and social changes. Religion plays a role, as does immigration and giant companies that want to harvest the island’s natural resources, generally with the assistance of the country’s current leader (who stands to gain riches).
It occasionally feels repetitious (probably intentionally), but the social commentary on world politics, corruption, greed, abuse of power, and ignoring lessons from history is unmistakable. It is filled with irony and subtle humor. The author employs touches of magical realism, which work well here, adding to the feeling of reading a fable or myth. The author is a wonderful storyteller and this is an unusual and creative work. This is the second book by Vodolozkin that I have read. I can also recommend Laurus.
Many thanks to Plough Publishing and NetGalley for an advance reader’s copy.
October 12, 2021
Прекрасно, смешно и немного грустно. Приятно удивило присутствие черного юмора. Напомнило моих любимых «Наших предков» Итало Кальвино.
Beautiful, funny and a little sad. I was pleasantly surprised by the presence of black humor. It reminded me of Our Ancestors: The Cloven Viscount, The Baron in the Trees, The Non-Existent Knight by Italo Calvino, one of my favourite books.
Beautiful, funny and a little sad. I was pleasantly surprised by the presence of black humor. It reminded me of Our Ancestors: The Cloven Viscount, The Baron in the Trees, The Non-Existent Knight by Italo Calvino, one of my favourite books.
April 5, 2021
Much as I was in awe of "Laurus", this one has left me... "somewhat disappointed" is probably the accurate way to describe it. There are two reasons for it: first of all, what Vodolazkin attempts here is nothing short of the philosophical analysis of the Russian history. Now this is a grand and ultra-ambitious aim worthy of Leo Tolstoy or Fyodor Dostoyevsky (or rather, it takes Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky to deliver on such a mission). Vodolazkin, with all due respect, is neither one nor the other. Fortunately, being an exceptionally gifted writer, he knows that, so he handles the task he has set for himself in an elegant and light form of a parable and not in a larger-than-life War-and-Peace styled saga. This parable is particularly good in its early stages where he draws upon his medieval Russia expertise, and the story of war between two princes ruling over the North and the South of the Island is mesmerizing, especially the final siege and surrender of the South. However, as someone who majored in history, I felt that, at the end of the day, parable as a genre doesn't do justice to the "cursed questions" of the Russian history (in fact, any country's history, I think). It oversimplifies, papers over quite a few cracks which are in fact precipices, glides over processes that take hundreds of years in reality and sometimes jumps to conclusions that may be pet theories of the author, but do not feel sufficiently justified to the reader.
The second reason why I didn't find the book entirely convincing is the seemingly limited role Vodolazkin attributes to the personal freedom and responsibility of an individual (at least this is how I interpret the book). Many sweeping changes happen to the Island just because they happen, because the time has come for them to happen, not because certain people made certain decisions and other people chose to follow them and then suffered (or enjoyed) the consequences. For me personally, this is not at all satisfying, as I hold dear the idea that each man's thoughts, actions, beliefs and, last but not least, free will count and have an impact and that the man is not just a twig tossed about by life or elements. In the Island, however, there seem to be numberless people, generation after generation, century after century, who were just carried by different currents.
The finale of the novel is beautiful, I would say the author hits all the right notes there, and within his design of the book it works perfectly, at the same time being an allusion to one of the Old Testament's key stories.
On a side note, I think that trying to tackle some dilemmas, issues on a nationwide scale (as opposed to doing so within a personal drama) is always a special challenge for any author, as it is too easy to begin to sound like a history/sociology textbook, not like a work of literature. For example, Kazuo Ishiguro's novel "The Buried Giant", in my opinion, also was impeded in that section of it that referred to society/country as a whole, while it excelled at the individual story of the protagonists.
The second reason why I didn't find the book entirely convincing is the seemingly limited role Vodolazkin attributes to the personal freedom and responsibility of an individual (at least this is how I interpret the book). Many sweeping changes happen to the Island just because they happen, because the time has come for them to happen, not because certain people made certain decisions and other people chose to follow them and then suffered (or enjoyed) the consequences. For me personally, this is not at all satisfying, as I hold dear the idea that each man's thoughts, actions, beliefs and, last but not least, free will count and have an impact and that the man is not just a twig tossed about by life or elements. In the Island, however, there seem to be numberless people, generation after generation, century after century, who were just carried by different currents.
The finale of the novel is beautiful, I would say the author hits all the right notes there, and within his design of the book it works perfectly, at the same time being an allusion to one of the Old Testament's key stories.
On a side note, I think that trying to tackle some dilemmas, issues on a nationwide scale (as opposed to doing so within a personal drama) is always a special challenge for any author, as it is too easy to begin to sound like a history/sociology textbook, not like a work of literature. For example, Kazuo Ishiguro's novel "The Buried Giant", in my opinion, also was impeded in that section of it that referred to society/country as a whole, while it excelled at the individual story of the protagonists.
June 3, 2023
This is an interesting and original 'novel', that sets out to describe the entire history of a fictional island, probably located somewhere in the Black Sea.
Inevitably, by covering all centuries in one volume the big risk is that it becomes an insufferable sequence of monarchs coming and going. Vodolazkin attempts to address this by making characters live for many centuries, which is perfectly possible because in its essence time is purely individual. And so we have a royal couple, Parfeny and Ksenia, who are also co-narrators and direct witnesses of the history of the island, that brings personality and life to the story.
There are interesting thoughts on warfare, progress and the subjectivity of written history, but overall I was left with the question what the author had in mind with this book (unlike Orhan Pamuk who also invents an island in this geographical area but created a more lively and detailed story around it by focus on just 20 years or so).
What I also missed was a sense of humour sparkling the narrative...there are attempts, but I found myself repeatedly wishing to put the script in the hands of Daniel Kehlmann or Laurent Binet and sprinkle over some of their magic.
Part of not enjoying this too much may also have been the fact that I didn't read Laurus (on my tbr since forever), as the description says this can be seen as a coda to that book.
Many thanks to Plough Publishing House for the ARC.
Inevitably, by covering all centuries in one volume the big risk is that it becomes an insufferable sequence of monarchs coming and going. Vodolazkin attempts to address this by making characters live for many centuries, which is perfectly possible because in its essence time is purely individual. And so we have a royal couple, Parfeny and Ksenia, who are also co-narrators and direct witnesses of the history of the island, that brings personality and life to the story.
There are interesting thoughts on warfare, progress and the subjectivity of written history, but overall I was left with the question what the author had in mind with this book (unlike Orhan Pamuk who also invents an island in this geographical area but created a more lively and detailed story around it by focus on just 20 years or so).
What I also missed was a sense of humour sparkling the narrative...there are attempts, but I found myself repeatedly wishing to put the script in the hands of Daniel Kehlmann or Laurent Binet and sprinkle over some of their magic.
Part of not enjoying this too much may also have been the fact that I didn't read Laurus (on my tbr since forever), as the description says this can be seen as a coda to that book.
Many thanks to Plough Publishing House for the ARC.
January 18, 2023
Din recenzia care va apărea pe Bookblog:
În povestea imaginată de Evgheni Vodolazkin, istoria nu este fixă, dată, de la sine înțeleasă și acceptată, așa cum am putea crede, întrucât avem arheologi, cronici, cronicari și istorici, ci fluidă, maleabilă, capabilă să se adapteze și să fie adaptată așa cum o cer vremurile sau oamenii. Ea poate fi modificată ca să se muleze conform dorințelor și normelor în vigoare la momentul respectiv sau după cum îi taie capul pe cei care decid destinele oamenilor din prezent și din viitor, încercând însă, prin alterarea istoriei, să le modifice sorțile și celor din trecut.
.
.
.
„Ce doriți voi”, sunt întrebați revoltații când vin la palat.
„Să fie schimbați conducători”, răspund revoltații, eroii.
„Și ce vreți în loc?”
„Ceva nou. Noul. Știm noi mai bine ce e bine pentru noi. Să vină Strâmbul, că el știe tot ce-i drept.”
„Bine, atunci noi plecăm în exil și vă lăsăm să vă descurcați singuri.”
Și s-au descurcat, Rus… am vrut să zic Insula (care ajunge să se confunde de la un anumit punct încolo cu o mare țară de la răsărit) o duce mai bine ca oricând și trăiește în pace și armonie cu toate popoarele, mai ales cu vecinii, peste care nu s-a băgat și nici nu se bagă pentru a-și impune voința cu tancurile și rachetele.
Autorul celebrului Laur așterne o parabolă despre timp și curgerea lui, despre istorie și despre cum se repetă aceasta ciclic, astfel încât ai putea crede că oamenii învață ceva din ea și, prin urmare, nu-i vor repeta greșelile, despre cuvinte și despre forța lor, despre cenzură și pumni băgați cu forța în gură, dar mai ales despre oameni și metehnele lor prin intermediul cronicarilor care doar observă și consemnează, prin intermediul Prea Luminatelor Lor Înălțimi Parfeni și Ksenia, care comentează textele și, printr-o lentilă modernă, dar afectată de modernitate și de conformismul acestei modernități, a unui regizor francez și a scenariștilor care vor să facă un film despre viața cuplului regal aflat în exil la Paris. Unde ai crede că trăiesc liniștiți și netulburați de evenimentele tumultuoase care se petrec pe Insula de pe care au fost goniți. Nimic mai departe de adevăr.
În povestea imaginată de Evgheni Vodolazkin, istoria nu este fixă, dată, de la sine înțeleasă și acceptată, așa cum am putea crede, întrucât avem arheologi, cronici, cronicari și istorici, ci fluidă, maleabilă, capabilă să se adapteze și să fie adaptată așa cum o cer vremurile sau oamenii. Ea poate fi modificată ca să se muleze conform dorințelor și normelor în vigoare la momentul respectiv sau după cum îi taie capul pe cei care decid destinele oamenilor din prezent și din viitor, încercând însă, prin alterarea istoriei, să le modifice sorțile și celor din trecut.
.
.
.
„Ce doriți voi”, sunt întrebați revoltații când vin la palat.
„Să fie schimbați conducători”, răspund revoltații, eroii.
„Și ce vreți în loc?”
„Ceva nou. Noul. Știm noi mai bine ce e bine pentru noi. Să vină Strâmbul, că el știe tot ce-i drept.”
„Bine, atunci noi plecăm în exil și vă lăsăm să vă descurcați singuri.”
Și s-au descurcat, Rus… am vrut să zic Insula (care ajunge să se confunde de la un anumit punct încolo cu o mare țară de la răsărit) o duce mai bine ca oricând și trăiește în pace și armonie cu toate popoarele, mai ales cu vecinii, peste care nu s-a băgat și nici nu se bagă pentru a-și impune voința cu tancurile și rachetele.
Autorul celebrului Laur așterne o parabolă despre timp și curgerea lui, despre istorie și despre cum se repetă aceasta ciclic, astfel încât ai putea crede că oamenii învață ceva din ea și, prin urmare, nu-i vor repeta greșelile, despre cuvinte și despre forța lor, despre cenzură și pumni băgați cu forța în gură, dar mai ales despre oameni și metehnele lor prin intermediul cronicarilor care doar observă și consemnează, prin intermediul Prea Luminatelor Lor Înălțimi Parfeni și Ksenia, care comentează textele și, printr-o lentilă modernă, dar afectată de modernitate și de conformismul acestei modernități, a unui regizor francez și a scenariștilor care vor să facă un film despre viața cuplului regal aflat în exil la Paris. Unde ai crede că trăiesc liniștiți și netulburați de evenimentele tumultuoase care se petrec pe Insula de pe care au fost goniți. Nimic mai departe de adevăr.
February 15, 2022
Cum am văzut că este descrisă ca o continuare a romanului „Laur”, cum mi-am și înfipt colții lecturii în ea, doar că prada nu a mai avut același gust nobil, și, probabil, orice va mai scrie Vodolazkin nu se va mai ridica la nivelul lui „Laur”. Cel mult, se vor mai găsi doar urme, ca și în acest caz.
•„Deschideți-vă lumii, și o să fie spre binele vostru. Dar stă deja spus că e o vreme pentru îmbrățișare și e o vreme pentru a te feri de îmbrățișare. O să vină zile când o să vă copleșească suferințele și binele se va întoarce în pagubă, căci de suferințele voastre n-aveți să vă izbăviți, dar aveți să căpătați și unele străine. Dar nu în străini are să vă fie nenorocirea, ci în voi înșivă. Căci va spori dezmățul, și o să vă înrăiți și o să începeți să vă striviți unul pe altul. Și o să se aprindă între voi o mare vrajbă, și va ridica mâna frate la frate și fiu la părinte.
Și pământul, care simte înrăirea oamenilor, o să se înrăiască și el.”
•„Părul ei – grâu nestrâns...”
•Uneori mi se pare că fiecare secol nou dă naștere acelorași oameni. Sau unora foarte asemănători.”
•„Deschideți-vă lumii, și o să fie spre binele vostru. Dar stă deja spus că e o vreme pentru îmbrățișare și e o vreme pentru a te feri de îmbrățișare. O să vină zile când o să vă copleșească suferințele și binele se va întoarce în pagubă, căci de suferințele voastre n-aveți să vă izbăviți, dar aveți să căpătați și unele străine. Dar nu în străini are să vă fie nenorocirea, ci în voi înșivă. Căci va spori dezmățul, și o să vă înrăiți și o să începeți să vă striviți unul pe altul. Și o să se aprindă între voi o mare vrajbă, și va ridica mâna frate la frate și fiu la părinte.
Și pământul, care simte înrăirea oamenilor, o să se înrăiască și el.”
•„Părul ei – grâu nestrâns...”
•Uneori mi se pare că fiecare secol nou dă naștere acelorași oameni. Sau unora foarte asemănători.”
May 5, 2023
This is a book I will likely read again, perhaps on audio. it's a little bit confusing in the beginning because of the multiple narrators, some (maybe all?) unreliable, until the reader gets accustomed to its rhythm. Like his famous book Laurus, time is perhaps Eugene Vodolazkin's favorite character. Plenty of readers will get the book's sardonic take on political upheavals and governance of various kinds, but don't just read it for that. The story itself is at once a unique love story not just between a prince and princess but also between them and their country, even when they are no longer in power. Something in that love redeems everything. There's a bit of mythology and fantasy, and the book becomes hard to put down once you are halfway through.
This is also the kind of book that would generate so many discussions in a book club or in an academic setting too. What exactly is history? Who gets to write it and what is its purpose? What happens when we erase the least savory aspects of it from our memories? Where does God and good and evil fit into all of this?
Some readers are calling this a coda on Vodolazkin's bestseller Laurus, but I'm not convinced. If you were to choose which book to read first by this author I would still read Laurus, though.
I received an advance copy of this book from the publisher for my honest review.
This is also the kind of book that would generate so many discussions in a book club or in an academic setting too. What exactly is history? Who gets to write it and what is its purpose? What happens when we erase the least savory aspects of it from our memories? Where does God and good and evil fit into all of this?
Some readers are calling this a coda on Vodolazkin's bestseller Laurus, but I'm not convinced. If you were to choose which book to read first by this author I would still read Laurus, though.
I received an advance copy of this book from the publisher for my honest review.
December 30, 2020
Уууууух. Водолазкин Евгений. Сильный человек в слове. Вот берёшь иногда кусок халвы, поотщипываешь от него мелкие кусочки, запиваешь всё чаем и от этого союза внутри теплеет, рот наполняется сладостью, а ум мудростью. Так и Водолазкин, который свои изучения славянского слова ловко вкручивает в современность. В "ОО" где-то переплюнул и "Лавра", поэтому да, лучшая его книга.
Главные герои от своих первых шагов до последнего явления народу святы и чисты, поэтому и вечны. Но мы же тоже "будем жить вечно, у нас есть всё, хватит на всех". И как автор мимикрирует под обитателя тех эпох, которые есть тут. Шик, восторг и литература мирового уровня!
Главные герои от своих первых шагов до последнего явления народу святы и чисты, поэтому и вечны. Но мы же тоже "будем жить вечно, у нас есть всё, хватит на всех". И как автор мимикрирует под обитателя тех эпох, которые есть тут. Шик, восторг и литература мирового уровня!
October 16, 2021
„Prezentul pierde în fața viitorului, ca și realitatea în fața imaginației. Și în această privință sunt lipsite de noimă înțelegerile: viitorul are resurse nelimitate. Numai după aceea poate fi comparat cu prezentul, numai că asta nu mai are sens. E tardiv.
September 23, 2023
A recent Currently Reading podcast episode discussed the difference between Best Books and Favorite Books. This is a Best Book - you can tell as you are reading that Vodolazkin is playing with form, history, language, time, and other threads. It's an *important* book and will be on the Best of Lists this year. However, reading it made me feel like a bear of little brain as I was never quite fully engaged and knew things were flying over my head. Four stars for his effort.
January 8, 2021
И летопись окончена моя
В конце концов, от жизни остается только история.
Автор, впечатления от очередной книги которого не стоит и пытаться предсказать, покуда не прочтешь - таков мой Евгений Водолазкин. Признанный шедевр "Лавр" не только оставил равнодушной, но до сих пор потряхивает при воспоминании о разлагающемся трупе возлюбленной, с которым герой два месяца делил комнату. В "Авиатора" влюбилась с первых строк, а на сцене пресс-конференции разрыдалась прямо на улице (слушала аудиокнигой). "Брисбен" возненавидела, поспешив исправить впечатление "Соловьевым и Ларионовым", а с "Сестрами четырех" полюбила снова.
И опять "да". Не щенячья восторженность "Авиатором", но сдержанно-уважительное признание: "Таки да, он Мастер". Писатель Водолазкин в первую очередь историк, и всякий его текст - роман с историей (даже когда речь идет о пьесе). "Оправдание острова" в этом смысле превосходит все, читаное прежде. Концентрированная история в количествах, почти несовместимых с жизнью: древнего мира, средних веков, новая, новейшая. Всякая часть изящно стилизована лексическими конструкциями, которые ассоциируются у читателя с описываемым временем: от "Хроники временных лет" до новояза новостной ленты интернет-агентств.
Еще несколько слов о языке и стиле книги, прежде, чем начать говорить о содержании. Он роскошен и словно бы специал��но создан для разбора на цитаты. И освещен сдержанным умным юмором, который у нас зовут английским, на самом деле, более интернациональным, чем одноименный гимн, хотя сильно не для всех. Так смешно все время, что с определенного момента просто перестаешь реагировать, принимая как должное потоковый режим того, крохам чего при других обстоятельствах радовалась бы.
"Оправдание острова"- это история части суши (да-да, со всех сторон окруженной водой), по которой можно составить представление об истории человечества, как по капле воды об океане. Разумеется, наиболее четкая привязка к родине, да ведь и у других все это не сильно отличалось. Что касается литературных источников, кто-то отметит несомненную связь с "Историей одного города" Салтыкова-Щедрина , кто-то с "Историей мира в 10 1/2 главах" Барнса, "Островом пингвинов" Франса еще кто-то из особо продвинутых - с "Возможностью острова" Уэльбека (даром ли такое название?) И всякий будет прав, мир стоит на плечах гигантов. И всякий неправ, потому что такого еще не было.
Смотрите, в чем дело: здесь исторические хроники в изложении череды летописцев перемежаются комментариями светлейшей княжеской четы Парфения и Ксении, которым триста сорок восемь лет, а потому были они непосредственными свидетелями значительной части описываемы событий. То есть, как треть тысячелетия? Столько не живут. То есть, так. А в Библии такой возраст для патриархов и праведников вполне себе норма. Они и есть праведники, для которых время течет иначе, чем для остальных.
Одна из основных мыслей романа, его красная нить - предание о Содоме и Гоморре, в которых не сыскалось ни одного праведника, чтобы уберечь от огненного дождя. Так вот, у Острова их двое, светлых святых стариков, несущих на хрупких плечах груз мировых грехов. Фрагменты романа от лица Парфения и Ксении - чистое читательское наслаждение и то, за что обожаю Водолазкина стилиста. Понимаю, будь таким языком написан весь роман, это вскоре пресытило бы, но боже, как хорошо!
И да, это о людях, в которых при любых обстоятельствах остается что-то человеческое. Надо читать, это хорошо. Или слушать, потому что есть аудиокнига в исполнении Ивана Литвинова и Геннадия Смирнова: первый в представлении не нуждается, второй составляет ему достойную партию. Завершая, не могу удержаться от цитаты об одном из хронистов, совершенно меня очаровавшей:
В ту часть потустороннего мира (здесь возможны варианты), где он сейчас находится, посылаю ему мой искренний привет.
В конце концов, от жизни остается только история.
Автор, впечатления от очередной книги которого не стоит и пытаться предсказать, покуда не прочтешь - таков мой Евгений Водолазкин. Признанный шедевр "Лавр" не только оставил равнодушной, но до сих пор потряхивает при воспоминании о разлагающемся трупе возлюбленной, с которым герой два месяца делил комнату. В "Авиатора" влюбилась с первых строк, а на сцене пресс-конференции разрыдалась прямо на улице (слушала аудиокнигой). "Брисбен" возненавидела, поспешив исправить впечатление "Соловьевым и Ларионовым", а с "Сестрами четырех" полюбила снова.
И опять "да". Не щенячья восторженность "Авиатором", но сдержанно-уважительное признание: "Таки да, он Мастер". Писатель Водолазкин в первую очередь историк, и всякий его текст - роман с историей (даже когда речь идет о пьесе). "Оправдание острова" в этом смысле превосходит все, читаное прежде. Концентрированная история в количествах, почти несовместимых с жизнью: древнего мира, средних веков, новая, новейшая. Всякая часть изящно стилизована лексическими конструкциями, которые ассоциируются у читателя с описываемым временем: от "Хроники временных лет" до новояза новостной ленты интернет-агентств.
Еще несколько слов о языке и стиле книги, прежде, чем начать говорить о содержании. Он роскошен и словно бы специал��но создан для разбора на цитаты. И освещен сдержанным умным юмором, который у нас зовут английским, на самом деле, более интернациональным, чем одноименный гимн, хотя сильно не для всех. Так смешно все время, что с определенного момента просто перестаешь реагировать, принимая как должное потоковый режим того, крохам чего при других обстоятельствах радовалась бы.
"Оправдание острова"- это история части суши (да-да, со всех сторон окруженной водой), по которой можно составить представление об истории человечества, как по капле воды об океане. Разумеется, наиболее четкая привязка к родине, да ведь и у других все это не сильно отличалось. Что касается литературных источников, кто-то отметит несомненную связь с "Историей одного города" Салтыкова-Щедрина , кто-то с "Историей мира в 10 1/2 главах" Барнса, "Островом пингвинов" Франса еще кто-то из особо продвинутых - с "Возможностью острова" Уэльбека (даром ли такое название?) И всякий будет прав, мир стоит на плечах гигантов. И всякий неправ, потому что такого еще не было.
Смотрите, в чем дело: здесь исторические хроники в изложении череды летописцев перемежаются комментариями светлейшей княжеской четы Парфения и Ксении, которым триста сорок восемь лет, а потому были они непосредственными свидетелями значительной части описываемы событий. То есть, как треть тысячелетия? Столько не живут. То есть, так. А в Библии такой возраст для патриархов и праведников вполне себе норма. Они и есть праведники, для которых время течет иначе, чем для остальных.
Одна из основных мыслей романа, его красная нить - предание о Содоме и Гоморре, в которых не сыскалось ни одного праведника, чтобы уберечь от огненного дождя. Так вот, у Острова их двое, светлых святых стариков, несущих на хрупких плечах груз мировых грехов. Фрагменты романа от лица Парфения и Ксении - чистое читательское наслаждение и то, за что обожаю Водолазкина стилиста. Понимаю, будь таким языком написан весь роман, это вскоре пресытило бы, но боже, как хорошо!
И да, это о людях, в которых при любых обстоятельствах остается что-то человеческое. Надо читать, это хорошо. Или слушать, потому что есть аудиокнига в исполнении Ивана Литвинова и Геннадия Смирнова: первый в представлении не нуждается, второй составляет ему достойную партию. Завершая, не могу удержаться от цитаты об одном из хронистов, совершенно меня очаровавшей:
В ту часть потустороннего мира (здесь возможны варианты), где он сейчас находится, посылаю ему мой искренний привет.
May 16, 2021
Timpul și memoria sunt refrene în jurul cărora Vodolazkin croiește istorii stranii și spirituale în același timp. Aici reușește să îmbine fantezia cu realitatea și rezultă o nouă dimensiune spațiu timp unde realitatea capătă o nouă formă. Istoria insulei este o istorie a unei lumi fantastice care se intersectează din când în când cu timpul nostru istoric. În îngemânarea acestor istorii găsim influența primului împărat roman, Augustus drept fondator al celor două dinastii concurente. Găsim totodată referiri la creștinarea acestui loc, dar regăsim în descrierea unui personaj feminin excesul carnal care nu lipsea femeilor din ierarhia puterii Romei antice — celebra Valeria Messalina, apoi, mai târziu, a Teodorei, soața împăratului bizantin din secolul al VI-lea, Iustinian I, dar și referire la perioada anarhismului rus de la sfârșitul secolului al XIX-lea premergător revoluției ruse din secolul următor. Întrezărim în paginile acestui roman o luptă dialectică între două moduri de a vedea istoria, luptă care subliniază contrastul dintre trecut și modernitate, dintre păstrarea tradițiilor și progres, între omul trecutului și omul prezentului. Dacă unul dintre păstrătorii tradițiilor medievale istorice se referă la istorie ca la un demers al omului într-o perpetuă zbatere morală (forța motrice a istoriei este lupta dintre Bine și Rău, spune un personaj la un moment dat) și de impunere a puterii în fața unei alte puteri, opoziția modernistă reformează într-un mod determinist în dauna elementului uman ghidat pe-o direcție axiologică; istoria este doar un rezultat impersonal al înlănțuirii cauzelor și efectelor impersonale. În primul caz, istoria determină starea de spirit a poporului, în ultimul caz, istoria rămâne rece la aspectul uman ce-și ascunde esența vădind doar o suprafață lipsită de profunzimi.
Cronicile acestei lumi, prezentate din trei perspective, devin o meditație spirituală asupra istoriei noastre, asupra timpului și al omului circumscris inexorabil trecerii lui. Autorul vorbește prin vocile acestor cronicari ca să completeze diverse părți ale puzzelului care compun narațiunea, pentru că fiecare are perspectiva lui asupra desfășurării timpului, fiecare are chiar timpul său propriu, diferit de al celorlalți. Rezultatul este o alegorie a schimbării paradigmelor istorice. Totodată îmbinând această alegorie cu satira, Vodolazkin atinge în numeroase puncte repere ale istoriei Rusiei, dar face și-un portret al societății omenești compuse din masele populare pe de-o parte și reperele fluide ale organizării statale stabilite de personaje mai mult sau mai puțin charismatice pe de alta — "o metaforă a istoriei statului în general. Poate chiar a istoriei universale."
În cele din urmă, romanul Istoria insulei arată fluiditatea istoriei, fragilitatea faptelor petrecute între oamenii trecutului, transpuse de oamenii prezentului, care, la rândul lor, nu conștientizează pe deplin că devin trecut și ei.
Cronicile acestei lumi, prezentate din trei perspective, devin o meditație spirituală asupra istoriei noastre, asupra timpului și al omului circumscris inexorabil trecerii lui. Autorul vorbește prin vocile acestor cronicari ca să completeze diverse părți ale puzzelului care compun narațiunea, pentru că fiecare are perspectiva lui asupra desfășurării timpului, fiecare are chiar timpul său propriu, diferit de al celorlalți. Rezultatul este o alegorie a schimbării paradigmelor istorice. Totodată îmbinând această alegorie cu satira, Vodolazkin atinge în numeroase puncte repere ale istoriei Rusiei, dar face și-un portret al societății omenești compuse din masele populare pe de-o parte și reperele fluide ale organizării statale stabilite de personaje mai mult sau mai puțin charismatice pe de alta — "o metaforă a istoriei statului în general. Poate chiar a istoriei universale."
În cele din urmă, romanul Istoria insulei arată fluiditatea istoriei, fragilitatea faptelor petrecute între oamenii trecutului, transpuse de oamenii prezentului, care, la rândul lor, nu conștientizează pe deplin că devin trecut și ei.
January 13, 2023
I had the honor to read the upcoming English translation of A History of the Island. I'd never heard of Eugene Vodolazkin prior to this. It's brilliant and charming and odd and unexpected. I'm always grasping for something new. In the abundance of books I read, stories take a circular pattern and I find myself bogged down and disappointed. This wasn't like that at all. Vodolazkin's cleverness and originality are on full display. I enjoyed it so much that I picked up his previous works.
As far as the content goes, what is described is exactly what you get. The book is primarily made up of the writings of Monks through the ages telling the History of the Island. There are also sections of commentary on these events plus the current happenings of two royals. The chapters are separated based on whoever is ruling the Island at the time. As a history lover, I can't give enough credit to Vodolazkin for what he has accomplished. While a work of fiction, this feels so alive.
As far as the content goes, what is described is exactly what you get. The book is primarily made up of the writings of Monks through the ages telling the History of the Island. There are also sections of commentary on these events plus the current happenings of two royals. The chapters are separated based on whoever is ruling the Island at the time. As a history lover, I can't give enough credit to Vodolazkin for what he has accomplished. While a work of fiction, this feels so alive.
January 9, 2021
О том, как ведом народ, насколько случайные люди приходят к власти, о силе истории и ее неумолимости.
January 18, 2023
Eugene Vodolazkin’s A History of the Island reads as an ongoing historical chronicle regarding an unnamed, nondescript Island, interspersed with an ongoing commentary written by a royal couple who has lived for over three and half centuries. Like Vodolazkin’s previous works, the experience of time remains one of the novel’s overriding themes, where the format as much as the plot, propels the reader through various periods or epochs in time, from the Middle Ages up until the (relative) present. The book opens with a quote from a “prophecy” that will become a major part of the plot later in the narrative, followed by a “prologue” or sorts, written by a fictional publisher – that is, the one, within the world of the story, who is in the process of publishing the chronicle. The ensuing chapters are all written by historians or chroniclers from the Island who write the Island’s history from an explicitly Christian (and Orthodox) perspective. Each chapter begins and ends with the rise and fall of a new ruler. Likewise, as time flows from one generation to another, the “narrator” of the text frequently changes hands, as each “chronicler” dies and another takes his place. In stark contrast with most of the Island’s rulers, the chroniclers are self-described pious and humble men (often monks), while the rulers are largely corrupt and dominated by the passions and vices of power, money, vainglory, and the like.
Meanwhile, an ongoing commentary and subplot written by Prince Parfeny and Princess Ksenia, former rulers on the Island who are (at present) 347 years old, frequently interrupts the chronicle itself. Like the chroniclers, Parfeny and Ksenia live pious, righteous lives and feature prominently in the prophecy mentioned in the beginning of the book. They are the sole exemplars of good, pious political rulership on the Island, but like the ancient Israelites at the base of Mt. Sinai, the people of the Island often reject them in favor of the myth of “progress.” Meanwhile, Parfeny and Ksenia, writing in the present, are working as consultants with a French film director, who is making a film about the Island and its royal couple.
Collectively, the various “times,” “narrators,” plots and subplots challenge modern notions of time, progress, history, politics, faith, and spirituality. To a certain extent, the novel functions as “a metaphor for European history,” as Vodolazkin has said elsewhere (in an article for First Things). As the fictional publisher says in the opening prologue, “The whole world has looked at what has taken place on the Island and reflected on the essence of history. Not only about our history but about history in general.” The format is innovative and seemingly “postmodern” for a novel, but as a Medieval historian, Vodolazkin is actually mimicking ancient Byzantine and early Russian chronicles or annals, such as the sixth century The Chronographia of John Malalas or the early twelfth-century Tale of Bygone Years, which detail the history of Roman and Byzantine emperors or Russian rulers through the prism of biblical history. Vodolazkin effectively utilizes ancient historical genre in order to undermine Hegelian, Marxist, and capitalist conceptions of history and politics as “progressive.”
Reflecting on the observations of one of the chroniclers, Parfeny notes that,
One of the most striking features of the book is the way in which Vodolazkin contrasts fictional characters, places, and events with real names and places. For example, there are numerous references to names and places that correspond to “reality” outside the novel’s fictional landscape – France, Russia, Joseph Stalin, the Irish, Charles Darwin, Bishop Kirill, etc., whereas almost everything (except for the personal names of the rulers, bishops, etc.) pertaining to or relating to the “Island” remains unnamed and nondescript – the Island, the Mainland, the City, the Main Square, the Mountain, Mr. Brand (the chairman of Mainland Oil Company), etc. In this sense, just as the novel disrupts modern notions of time (as that which flows “progressively” from past to present to future), so too does it question the metaphysics of reality. What counts as “real,” as opposed to fiction? Likewise, as the plot transitions from the Middle Ages into the modern and contemporary age, the chroniclers continue to interpret history through a biblical and supernatural lens, while various “modern” voices cast doubt on the notion of divine providence as a mediating or driving force within human history. At one point, the fictional publisher Phillip expresses “his amazement at the naivete of the Middle Ages” (81). In the Middle Ages, Phillip observes, comets were thought to be dragons, whereas in the modern era, as Parfeny notes, “a dragon is taken for a comet” (82). In the same exchange, Parfeny argues that there is one basic question that divides the Medieval world from the modern: “the circumstances of the world’s creation.” Science, he says, will never provide an adequate answer to that question because it “studies only the physical world but in order to explain that world as a whole, one must leave its confines. And there’s nowhere for science to go” (81).
At one point, Parfeny comments on a legend recounted in the chronicle about the creation of cats. According to the chronicler (who is repeating a Hebrew folk story), the devil once transformed into a mouse and began gnawing at the bottom of Noah’s Ark. “Noah then prayed to God and a lion sneezed, releasing from his nostrils a tomcat and a she-cat, and they strangled the mouse. That is how cats, who are still a rarity in our land, came about” (10). Parfeny then notes that “the modern reader will regard [this story] as steeped in legend,” contrasing ancient legend and myth with modern notions of Darwinian evolution. For Parfeny, storytelling, regardless of scientific observation, is “wonderful,” and “all that is wonderful is true in some way” (10). Parfeny then goes on to claim that Darwin “was not contradicting a biblical text,” but he was insensitive to poetry and was unable “to hear metaphor” (10-11) (cf. Paul Riceour’s notion of the “second naiveté”). Because Parfeny and Ksenia’s lives span three and half centuries, they are able to hold modern science
Part of Volodazkin’s genius is his ability to encase an explicitly biblical and Medieval worldview within a decidedly postmodern plot structure (or anti-structure), both of which are marked by fragmentation, allegory, metaphor, pastiche, deferral, and difference. While postmodernism – in both literature and philosophy – tends to eschew transcendence (as in Deleuze) or metaphysics (as in Derrida), Volodazkin has constructed a complex narrative that undermines the pretenses of modern literature and philosophy without supplanting transcendence, while at the same time subverting modern political ideologies (communism, capitalism, etc.) and abuses of power writ large. While the Medieval naiveté strikes modern characters like Phillip as outlandish, Volodazkin cleverly characterizes the modern and secular rulers (who variously represent the excesses of communism and globalization) as becoming increasingly more absurd as the Island embraces the waves of secularism, communism, capitalism, and globalization. The real naiveté, for Volodazkin, is to believe that history or politics is progressing toward a brighter future. According to one of the chroniclers (Brother Ilary), history pivots on the Incarnation of Christ, and it is foolish to believe that history could possibly “progress” beyond the moment when divinity itself dwelled in human flesh. Again, Parfeny’s commentary is illuminating:
Perhaps another way to put it, following the work of Hartmut Rosa, is to say that history is not progressing toward a brighter future; rather, it is accelerating, moving at ever faster and faster speeds (i.e., industrialization, globalization, technological innovations, etc.) toward its own self-destruction. Yet, because of the Incarnation, history is not without hope, a theme which Volodazkin utilizes to great effect as the novel reaches its climactic conclusion (which I will not spoil).
Another important theme is peace. Parfeny and Ksenia are ideal rulers, even though the people ultimately reject them. Throughout the narrative, they broker peace between warring factions and embody a Christ-like kenosis in almost everything they say and do. Despite the Island’s proclivity toward war, the royal couple, in conjunction with the bishops (who function as both priests and prophets), are persistent witnesses to the possibility of peace.
In sum, A History of the Island is as brilliant as it is enjoyable. It challenges much of modern and contemporary culture, especially its understanding of history and politics. It sits comfortably within the genres of postmodernism and magical realism, utilizing Medieval history and theology as a creative literary device that pushes beyond the limitations of (post)modern literature and invites the reader to enter into a different world than the one we have presently constructed.
(I requested and received an advanced copy from NetGallery in exchange for an honest review.)
Merged review:
Eugene Vodolazkin’s A History of the Island reads as an ongoing historical chronicle regarding an unnamed, nondescript Island, interspersed with an ongoing commentary written by a royal couple who has lived for over three and half centuries. Like Vodolazkin’s previous works, the experience of time remains one of the novel’s overriding themes, where the format as much as the plot, propels the reader through various periods or epochs in time, from the Middle Ages up until the (relative) present. The book opens with a quote from a “prophecy” that will become a major part of the plot later in the narrative, followed by a “prologue” or sorts, written by a fictional publisher – that is, the one, within the world of the story, who is in the process of publishing the chronicle. The ensuing chapters are all written by historians or chroniclers from the Island who write the Island’s history from an explicitly Christian (and Orthodox) perspective. Each chapter begins and ends with the rise and fall of a new ruler. Likewise, as time flows from one generation to another, the “narrator” of the text frequently changes hands, as each “chronicler” dies and another takes his place. In stark contrast with most of the Island’s rulers, the chroniclers are self-described pious and humble men (often monks), while the rulers are largely corrupt and dominated by the passions and vices of power, money, vainglory, and the like.
Meanwhile, an ongoing commentary and subplot written by Prince Parfeny and Princess Ksenia, former rulers on the Island who are (at present) 347 years old, frequently interrupts the chronicle itself. Like the chroniclers, Parfeny and Ksenia live pious, righteous lives and feature prominently in the prophecy mentioned in the beginning of the book. They are the sole exemplars of good, pious political rulership on the Island, but like the ancient Israelites at the base of Mt. Sinai, the people of the Island often reject them in favor of the myth of “progress.” Meanwhile, Parfeny and Ksenia, writing in the present, are working as consultants with a French film director, who is making a film about the Island and its royal couple.
Collectively, the various “times,” “narrators,” plots and subplots challenge modern notions of time, progress, history, politics, faith, and spirituality. To a certain extent, the novel functions as “a metaphor for European history,” as Vodolazkin has said elsewhere (in an article for First Things). As the fictional publisher says in the opening prologue, “The whole world has looked at what has taken place on the Island and reflected on the essence of history. Not only about our history but about history in general.” The format is innovative and seemingly “postmodern” for a novel, but as a medieval historian, Vodolazkin is actually mimicking ancient Byzantine and early Russian chronicles or annals, such as the sixth century Chronographia of John Malalas or the early twelfth-century Tale of Bygone Years, which detail the history of Roman and Byzantine emperors or Russian rulers through the prism of biblical history. Vodolazkin effectively utilizes ancient historical genre in order to undermine Hegelian, Marxist, and capitalist conceptions of history and politics as “progressive.”
Reflecting on the observations of one of the chroniclers, Parfeny notes that,
One of the most striking features of the book is the way in which Vodolazkin contrasts fictional characters, places, and events with real names and places. For example, there are numerous references to names and places that correspond to “reality” outside the novel’s fictional landscape – France, Russia, Joseph Stalin, the Irish, Charles Darwin, Bishop Kirill, etc., whereas almost everything (except for the personal names of the rulers, bishops, etc.) pertaining to or relating to the “Island” remains unnamed and nondescript – the Island, the Mainland, the City, the Main Square, the Mountain, Mr. Brand (the chairman of Mainland Oil Company), etc. In this sense, just as the novel disrupts modern notions of time (as that which flows “progressively” from past to present to future), so too does it question the metaphysics of reality. What counts as “real,” as opposed to fiction? Likewise, as the plot transitions from the Middle Ages into the modern and contemporary age, the chroniclers continue to interpret history through a biblical and supernatural lens, while various “modern” voices cast doubt on the notion of divine providence as a mediating or driving force within human history. At one point, the fictional publisher Phillip expresses “his amazement at the naivete of the Middle Ages” (81). In the Middle Ages, Phillip observes, comets were thought to be dragons, whereas in the modern era, as Parfeny notes, “a dragon is taken for a comet” (82). In the same exchange, Parfeny argues that there is one basic question that divides the medieval world from the modern: “the circumstances of the world’s creation.” Science, he says, will never provide an adequate answer to that question because it “studies only the physical world but in order to explain that world as a whole, one must leave its confines. And there’s nowhere for science to go” (81).
At one point, Parfeny comments on a legend recounted in the chronicle about the creation of cats. According to the chronicler (who is repeating a Hebrew folk story), the devil once transformed into a mouse and began gnawing at the bottom of Noah’s Ark. “Noah then prayed to God and a lion sneezed, releasing from his nostrils a tomcat and a she-cat, and they strangled the mouse. That is how cats, who are still a rarity in our land, came about” (10). Parfeny then notes that “the modern reader will regard [this story] as steeped in legend,” contrasting ancient legend and myth with modern notions of Darwinian evolution. For Parfeny, storytelling, regardless of scientific observation, is “wonderful,” and “all that is wonderful is true in some way” (10). Parfeny then goes on to claim that Darwin “was not contradicting a biblical text,” but he was insensitive to poetry and was unable “to hear metaphor” (10-11) (cf. Paul Riceour’s notion of the “second naiveté”). Because Parfeny and Ksenia’s lives span three and half centuries, they are able to accept the validity of modern science without denying the larger, metaphysical insights of the medieval world and the biblical narrative.
Part of Volodazkin’s genius is his ability to encase an explicitly biblical and medieval worldview within a decidedly postmodern plot structure (or anti-structure), both of which are marked by fragmentation, allegory, metaphor, pastiche, deferral, and difference. While postmodernism – in both literature and philosophy – tends to eschew transcendence (as in Deleuze) or metaphysics (as in Derrida), Volodazkin has constructed a complex narrative that undermines the pretenses of modern literature and philosophy without supplanting transcendence, while at the same time subverting modern political ideologies (communism, capitalism, etc.) and abuses of power writ large. While the medieval naiveté strikes modern characters like Phillip as outlandish, Volodazkin cleverly characterizes the modern and secular rulers (who variously represent the excesses of communism and globalization) as becoming increasingly more absurd as the Island embraces the waves of secularism, communism, capitalism, and glob
Meanwhile, an ongoing commentary and subplot written by Prince Parfeny and Princess Ksenia, former rulers on the Island who are (at present) 347 years old, frequently interrupts the chronicle itself. Like the chroniclers, Parfeny and Ksenia live pious, righteous lives and feature prominently in the prophecy mentioned in the beginning of the book. They are the sole exemplars of good, pious political rulership on the Island, but like the ancient Israelites at the base of Mt. Sinai, the people of the Island often reject them in favor of the myth of “progress.” Meanwhile, Parfeny and Ksenia, writing in the present, are working as consultants with a French film director, who is making a film about the Island and its royal couple.
Collectively, the various “times,” “narrators,” plots and subplots challenge modern notions of time, progress, history, politics, faith, and spirituality. To a certain extent, the novel functions as “a metaphor for European history,” as Vodolazkin has said elsewhere (in an article for First Things). As the fictional publisher says in the opening prologue, “The whole world has looked at what has taken place on the Island and reflected on the essence of history. Not only about our history but about history in general.” The format is innovative and seemingly “postmodern” for a novel, but as a Medieval historian, Vodolazkin is actually mimicking ancient Byzantine and early Russian chronicles or annals, such as the sixth century The Chronographia of John Malalas or the early twelfth-century Tale of Bygone Years, which detail the history of Roman and Byzantine emperors or Russian rulers through the prism of biblical history. Vodolazkin effectively utilizes ancient historical genre in order to undermine Hegelian, Marxist, and capitalist conceptions of history and politics as “progressive.”
Reflecting on the observations of one of the chroniclers, Parfeny notes that,
It is interesting how Brother Ilary writes about progress. The
word had just come into fashion at the time and the chronicler avoids it when possible. He obviously does not like the
word: it appeared on the Island with the first bombs.
I recall our conversation with Ilary. He said then that
history’s primary event was the incarnation of Christ. That
had already occurred and so history generally had no more
serious tasks.
“It is now the universal history of moving away from
Christ,” said Ilary.
“Moving away in all senses?” I asked, to clarify.
He nodded:
“Perhaps it is even like this: it is the history of universally
moving away from Christ. Hope is now placed on personal
history.”
When Ilary said at another time that history had set off
on a false course, Ksenia asked why he wrote.
“I am writing the history of an error,” responded Brother
Ilary.
Ksenia and I were recalling him today. He departed
from our life forever. Small, redheaded, with a beard that did
not grow well. That is what the enemies of progress looked
like. (115-116)
One of the most striking features of the book is the way in which Vodolazkin contrasts fictional characters, places, and events with real names and places. For example, there are numerous references to names and places that correspond to “reality” outside the novel’s fictional landscape – France, Russia, Joseph Stalin, the Irish, Charles Darwin, Bishop Kirill, etc., whereas almost everything (except for the personal names of the rulers, bishops, etc.) pertaining to or relating to the “Island” remains unnamed and nondescript – the Island, the Mainland, the City, the Main Square, the Mountain, Mr. Brand (the chairman of Mainland Oil Company), etc. In this sense, just as the novel disrupts modern notions of time (as that which flows “progressively” from past to present to future), so too does it question the metaphysics of reality. What counts as “real,” as opposed to fiction? Likewise, as the plot transitions from the Middle Ages into the modern and contemporary age, the chroniclers continue to interpret history through a biblical and supernatural lens, while various “modern” voices cast doubt on the notion of divine providence as a mediating or driving force within human history. At one point, the fictional publisher Phillip expresses “his amazement at the naivete of the Middle Ages” (81). In the Middle Ages, Phillip observes, comets were thought to be dragons, whereas in the modern era, as Parfeny notes, “a dragon is taken for a comet” (82). In the same exchange, Parfeny argues that there is one basic question that divides the Medieval world from the modern: “the circumstances of the world’s creation.” Science, he says, will never provide an adequate answer to that question because it “studies only the physical world but in order to explain that world as a whole, one must leave its confines. And there’s nowhere for science to go” (81).
At one point, Parfeny comments on a legend recounted in the chronicle about the creation of cats. According to the chronicler (who is repeating a Hebrew folk story), the devil once transformed into a mouse and began gnawing at the bottom of Noah’s Ark. “Noah then prayed to God and a lion sneezed, releasing from his nostrils a tomcat and a she-cat, and they strangled the mouse. That is how cats, who are still a rarity in our land, came about” (10). Parfeny then notes that “the modern reader will regard [this story] as steeped in legend,” contrasing ancient legend and myth with modern notions of Darwinian evolution. For Parfeny, storytelling, regardless of scientific observation, is “wonderful,” and “all that is wonderful is true in some way” (10). Parfeny then goes on to claim that Darwin “was not contradicting a biblical text,” but he was insensitive to poetry and was unable “to hear metaphor” (10-11) (cf. Paul Riceour’s notion of the “second naiveté”). Because Parfeny and Ksenia’s lives span three and half centuries, they are able to hold modern science
Part of Volodazkin’s genius is his ability to encase an explicitly biblical and Medieval worldview within a decidedly postmodern plot structure (or anti-structure), both of which are marked by fragmentation, allegory, metaphor, pastiche, deferral, and difference. While postmodernism – in both literature and philosophy – tends to eschew transcendence (as in Deleuze) or metaphysics (as in Derrida), Volodazkin has constructed a complex narrative that undermines the pretenses of modern literature and philosophy without supplanting transcendence, while at the same time subverting modern political ideologies (communism, capitalism, etc.) and abuses of power writ large. While the Medieval naiveté strikes modern characters like Phillip as outlandish, Volodazkin cleverly characterizes the modern and secular rulers (who variously represent the excesses of communism and globalization) as becoming increasingly more absurd as the Island embraces the waves of secularism, communism, capitalism, and globalization. The real naiveté, for Volodazkin, is to believe that history or politics is progressing toward a brighter future. According to one of the chroniclers (Brother Ilary), history pivots on the Incarnation of Christ, and it is foolish to believe that history could possibly “progress” beyond the moment when divinity itself dwelled in human flesh. Again, Parfeny’s commentary is illuminating:
It is interesting how Brother Ilary writes about progress. The
word had just come into fashion at the time and the chronicler avoids it when possible. He obviously does not like the
word: it appeared on the Island with the first bombs.
I recall our conversation with Ilary. He said then that
history’s primary event was the incarnation of Christ. That
had already occurred and so history generally had no more
serious tasks.
“It is now the universal history of moving away from
Christ,” said Ilary.
“Moving away in all senses?” I asked, to clarify.
He nodded:
“Perhaps it is even like this: it is the history of universally
moving away from Christ. Hope is now placed on personal
history.”
When Ilary said at another time that history had set off
on a false course, Ksenia asked why he wrote.
“I am writing the history of an error,” responded Brother
Ilary.
Ksenia and I were recalling him today. He departed
from our life forever. Small, redheaded, with a beard that did
not grow well. That is what the enemies of progress looked
like. (115-116)
Perhaps another way to put it, following the work of Hartmut Rosa, is to say that history is not progressing toward a brighter future; rather, it is accelerating, moving at ever faster and faster speeds (i.e., industrialization, globalization, technological innovations, etc.) toward its own self-destruction. Yet, because of the Incarnation, history is not without hope, a theme which Volodazkin utilizes to great effect as the novel reaches its climactic conclusion (which I will not spoil).
Another important theme is peace. Parfeny and Ksenia are ideal rulers, even though the people ultimately reject them. Throughout the narrative, they broker peace between warring factions and embody a Christ-like kenosis in almost everything they say and do. Despite the Island’s proclivity toward war, the royal couple, in conjunction with the bishops (who function as both priests and prophets), are persistent witnesses to the possibility of peace.
In sum, A History of the Island is as brilliant as it is enjoyable. It challenges much of modern and contemporary culture, especially its understanding of history and politics. It sits comfortably within the genres of postmodernism and magical realism, utilizing Medieval history and theology as a creative literary device that pushes beyond the limitations of (post)modern literature and invites the reader to enter into a different world than the one we have presently constructed.
(I requested and received an advanced copy from NetGallery in exchange for an honest review.)
Merged review:
Eugene Vodolazkin’s A History of the Island reads as an ongoing historical chronicle regarding an unnamed, nondescript Island, interspersed with an ongoing commentary written by a royal couple who has lived for over three and half centuries. Like Vodolazkin’s previous works, the experience of time remains one of the novel’s overriding themes, where the format as much as the plot, propels the reader through various periods or epochs in time, from the Middle Ages up until the (relative) present. The book opens with a quote from a “prophecy” that will become a major part of the plot later in the narrative, followed by a “prologue” or sorts, written by a fictional publisher – that is, the one, within the world of the story, who is in the process of publishing the chronicle. The ensuing chapters are all written by historians or chroniclers from the Island who write the Island’s history from an explicitly Christian (and Orthodox) perspective. Each chapter begins and ends with the rise and fall of a new ruler. Likewise, as time flows from one generation to another, the “narrator” of the text frequently changes hands, as each “chronicler” dies and another takes his place. In stark contrast with most of the Island’s rulers, the chroniclers are self-described pious and humble men (often monks), while the rulers are largely corrupt and dominated by the passions and vices of power, money, vainglory, and the like.
Meanwhile, an ongoing commentary and subplot written by Prince Parfeny and Princess Ksenia, former rulers on the Island who are (at present) 347 years old, frequently interrupts the chronicle itself. Like the chroniclers, Parfeny and Ksenia live pious, righteous lives and feature prominently in the prophecy mentioned in the beginning of the book. They are the sole exemplars of good, pious political rulership on the Island, but like the ancient Israelites at the base of Mt. Sinai, the people of the Island often reject them in favor of the myth of “progress.” Meanwhile, Parfeny and Ksenia, writing in the present, are working as consultants with a French film director, who is making a film about the Island and its royal couple.
Collectively, the various “times,” “narrators,” plots and subplots challenge modern notions of time, progress, history, politics, faith, and spirituality. To a certain extent, the novel functions as “a metaphor for European history,” as Vodolazkin has said elsewhere (in an article for First Things). As the fictional publisher says in the opening prologue, “The whole world has looked at what has taken place on the Island and reflected on the essence of history. Not only about our history but about history in general.” The format is innovative and seemingly “postmodern” for a novel, but as a medieval historian, Vodolazkin is actually mimicking ancient Byzantine and early Russian chronicles or annals, such as the sixth century Chronographia of John Malalas or the early twelfth-century Tale of Bygone Years, which detail the history of Roman and Byzantine emperors or Russian rulers through the prism of biblical history. Vodolazkin effectively utilizes ancient historical genre in order to undermine Hegelian, Marxist, and capitalist conceptions of history and politics as “progressive.”
Reflecting on the observations of one of the chroniclers, Parfeny notes that,
It is interesting how Brother Ilary writes about progress. The
word had just come into fashion at the time and the chronicler avoids it when possible. He obviously does not like the
word: it appeared on the Island with the first bombs.
I recall our conversation with Ilary. He said then that
history’s primary event was the incarnation of Christ. That
had already occurred and so history generally had no more
serious tasks.
“It is now the universal history of moving away from
Christ,” said Ilary.
“Moving away in all senses?” I asked, to clarify.
He nodded:
“Perhaps it is even like this: it is the history of universally
moving away from Christ. Hope is now placed on personal
history.”
When Ilary said at another time that history had set off
on a false course, Ksenia asked why he wrote.
“I am writing the history of an error,” responded Brother
Ilary.
Ksenia and I were recalling him today. He departed
from our life forever. Small, redheaded, with a beard that did
not grow well. That is what the enemies of progress looked
like. (115-116)
One of the most striking features of the book is the way in which Vodolazkin contrasts fictional characters, places, and events with real names and places. For example, there are numerous references to names and places that correspond to “reality” outside the novel’s fictional landscape – France, Russia, Joseph Stalin, the Irish, Charles Darwin, Bishop Kirill, etc., whereas almost everything (except for the personal names of the rulers, bishops, etc.) pertaining to or relating to the “Island” remains unnamed and nondescript – the Island, the Mainland, the City, the Main Square, the Mountain, Mr. Brand (the chairman of Mainland Oil Company), etc. In this sense, just as the novel disrupts modern notions of time (as that which flows “progressively” from past to present to future), so too does it question the metaphysics of reality. What counts as “real,” as opposed to fiction? Likewise, as the plot transitions from the Middle Ages into the modern and contemporary age, the chroniclers continue to interpret history through a biblical and supernatural lens, while various “modern” voices cast doubt on the notion of divine providence as a mediating or driving force within human history. At one point, the fictional publisher Phillip expresses “his amazement at the naivete of the Middle Ages” (81). In the Middle Ages, Phillip observes, comets were thought to be dragons, whereas in the modern era, as Parfeny notes, “a dragon is taken for a comet” (82). In the same exchange, Parfeny argues that there is one basic question that divides the medieval world from the modern: “the circumstances of the world’s creation.” Science, he says, will never provide an adequate answer to that question because it “studies only the physical world but in order to explain that world as a whole, one must leave its confines. And there’s nowhere for science to go” (81).
At one point, Parfeny comments on a legend recounted in the chronicle about the creation of cats. According to the chronicler (who is repeating a Hebrew folk story), the devil once transformed into a mouse and began gnawing at the bottom of Noah’s Ark. “Noah then prayed to God and a lion sneezed, releasing from his nostrils a tomcat and a she-cat, and they strangled the mouse. That is how cats, who are still a rarity in our land, came about” (10). Parfeny then notes that “the modern reader will regard [this story] as steeped in legend,” contrasting ancient legend and myth with modern notions of Darwinian evolution. For Parfeny, storytelling, regardless of scientific observation, is “wonderful,” and “all that is wonderful is true in some way” (10). Parfeny then goes on to claim that Darwin “was not contradicting a biblical text,” but he was insensitive to poetry and was unable “to hear metaphor” (10-11) (cf. Paul Riceour’s notion of the “second naiveté”). Because Parfeny and Ksenia’s lives span three and half centuries, they are able to accept the validity of modern science without denying the larger, metaphysical insights of the medieval world and the biblical narrative.
Part of Volodazkin’s genius is his ability to encase an explicitly biblical and medieval worldview within a decidedly postmodern plot structure (or anti-structure), both of which are marked by fragmentation, allegory, metaphor, pastiche, deferral, and difference. While postmodernism – in both literature and philosophy – tends to eschew transcendence (as in Deleuze) or metaphysics (as in Derrida), Volodazkin has constructed a complex narrative that undermines the pretenses of modern literature and philosophy without supplanting transcendence, while at the same time subverting modern political ideologies (communism, capitalism, etc.) and abuses of power writ large. While the medieval naiveté strikes modern characters like Phillip as outlandish, Volodazkin cleverly characterizes the modern and secular rulers (who variously represent the excesses of communism and globalization) as becoming increasingly more absurd as the Island embraces the waves of secularism, communism, capitalism, and glob
September 2, 2023
Книгата е много увлекателна алегория на историята като цяло и забавна сатира на историографията и политическата история на източноевропейските страни. Автор��т е писал дисертация върху византийски историографски труд, та е в свои води. Освен това е умел писател и има някои проницателни наблюдения. Средновековната част на хрониката особено звучи много автентично, ведно със специфичния светоглед на хората от онази епоха, но без това да ги отдалечава от читателя - напротив, героите са убедителни и пълнокръвни. В цялото повествование, от Средновековието до наши дни, ясно звънтят съвременни проблеми, а не специфични за една и друга епоха. Всъщност може да се каже, че авторът дестилира именно техния вечен компонент въпреки историческото им разположение - напрежението между религия (или култ, или идеология) и наука, естеството на властта, психологията на тълпите, закономерността на събитията, борбата между доброто и злото. Сред всички изпъква обаче най-ярко въпросът за историята и нейната роля - какво представлява? Каква е задачата ѝ? С какво се занимава - само с миналото или и с настоящето и дори бъдещето? Основната нишка, която свързва събитията от хилядолетната история на Острова, е едно изгубено пророчество. Струва ми се, че един от лайтмотивите на романа е, че историята е потенциално опасен инструмент за манипулиране на настоящето а дори и на бъдещето - както откриват и героите; както летописците, така и властниците на Острова. Историческите и философските прозрения са добре дозирани и разпределени, сложени в устите и на едните, и на другите, а понякога и на обикновени хора, тъй че е избегнато впечатлението за наставление или философстване, което лесно би могло да с епроизведе при по-тънка художествена подплата.
Тази балансирана многопластовост обаче пропада съвсем, когато хрониката стига до Великата островна революция (очевидно събирателен образ на разните социалистически, работнически, комунистически и др. подобни революции и преврати във Втория свят след 1917 г.). Тук нюансите изведнъж изчезват, както и внушенията, подтекстът, елегантно-шеговитият начин да покаже кой какъв е всъщност, и отстъпват на директна жлъч. Героите стават абсурдно плоски и всичко започва да прилича на гротеска, просто стилът чувствително се променя. Явно г-н Водолазкин дълбоко презира соца, което е разбираемо, но не би трябвало толкова да влияе на качеството на писането му. Докато злодеите от Средновековието са хуманизирани и будят съчувствие или поне разбиране, или най-малкото са трогателни в своето донякъде романтизирано злодейство, тези от Революцията са кат�� злодеи на Дисни - не просто зли и алчни, но и прости, и страхливи, че и грозни. Голяма писателска слабост е за мен пълното пренебрегване на корените и историческите причини за подобни трусове в историята на редица страни през първата половина на XX в. - тук просто хората са твърде тъпи да знаят какво искат и вземат властта просто зашото са безмозъчна тълпа и някой им е казал да и��ли��ат на митинги. Няма недоволство, няма икономическа несигурност, няма никакви реални причини хората да дават ухо на революционни приказки - което, разбира се, е абсурдно и това важи с двойна сила за подобна книга, която се занимава с логиката на историята. Даже ми се струва оскърбително за хилядите хора, които с живота си са платили за "светлото бъдеще", в което искрено са вярвали (и добре, че не са доживели да видят реализирано на дело). Изобщо такова презрение към масите е несериозно за един писател и е неприятно петно върху иначе чудесната история.
Другото, което ме подразни, беше княжеската двойка, която властва, а после наблюдава развитието на Острова със съвършена мъдрост, милостивост и добрина. Така и не разбрах каква е тяхната функция - алегория на най-доброто в човешката природа или пример за идеалната власт? Ако е второто, не мога да го приема сериозно, монархията, с цялото ѝ уповаване в някакво божествено провидение, е смехотворно предложение за съвременния свят. И като цяло Ксения и Парфений са досадно идеални, без нито един недостатък и човешка слабост, но пък натежали от мъдрост още от деца.
Въпреки тези слаби места давам 4, а не 3 звезди, защото ми беше много приятно и интересно да прочета тази необичайна измислена хроника на един измислен Остров, който може да бъде всяка една източноевропейска или балканска държавица; както и заради силния стил и страхотния превод.
Тази балансирана многопластовост обаче пропада съвсем, когато хрониката стига до Великата островна революция (очевидно събирателен образ на разните социалистически, работнически, комунистически и др. подобни революции и преврати във Втория свят след 1917 г.). Тук нюансите изведнъж изчезват, както и внушенията, подтекстът, елегантно-шеговитият начин да покаже кой какъв е всъщност, и отстъпват на директна жлъч. Героите стават абсурдно плоски и всичко започва да прилича на гротеска, просто стилът чувствително се променя. Явно г-н Водолазкин дълбоко презира соца, което е разбираемо, но не би трябвало толкова да влияе на качеството на писането му. Докато злодеите от Средновековието са хуманизирани и будят съчувствие или поне разбиране, или най-малкото са трогателни в своето донякъде романтизирано злодейство, тези от Революцията са кат�� злодеи на Дисни - не просто зли и алчни, но и прости, и страхливи, че и грозни. Голяма писателска слабост е за мен пълното пренебрегване на корените и историческите причини за подобни трусове в историята на редица страни през първата половина на XX в. - тук просто хората са твърде тъпи да знаят какво искат и вземат властта просто зашото са безмозъчна тълпа и някой им е казал да и��ли��ат на митинги. Няма недоволство, няма икономическа несигурност, няма никакви реални причини хората да дават ухо на революционни приказки - което, разбира се, е абсурдно и това важи с двойна сила за подобна книга, която се занимава с логиката на историята. Даже ми се струва оскърбително за хилядите хора, които с живота си са платили за "светлото бъдеще", в което искрено са вярвали (и добре, че не са доживели да видят реализирано на дело). Изобщо такова презрение към масите е несериозно за един писател и е неприятно петно върху иначе чудесната история.
Другото, което ме подразни, беше княжеската двойка, която властва, а после наблюдава развитието на Острова със съвършена мъдрост, милостивост и добрина. Така и не разбрах каква е тяхната функция - алегория на най-доброто в човешката природа или пример за идеалната власт? Ако е второто, не мога да го приема сериозно, монархията, с цялото ѝ уповаване в някакво божествено провидение, е смехотворно предложение за съвременния свят. И като цяло Ксения и Парфений са досадно идеални, без нито един недостатък и човешка слабост, но пък натежали от мъдрост още от деца.
Въпреки тези слаби места давам 4, а не 3 звезди, защото ми беше много приятно и интересно да прочета тази необичайна измислена хроника на един измислен Остров, който може да бъде всяка една източноевропейска или балканска държавица; както и заради силния стил и страхотния превод.
March 2, 2021
По шкале Водолазкина после пятизвёздочного Лавра это четвёрка с минусом. Книга отличная, но не на мой вкус — слишком в начале много всего старого и войск каких-то, у меня всё это путается в голове без разбору. Современные куски очень понравились.
September 28, 2024
An idiosyncratic and thought provoking book that completely obliterates the usual boundaries of time. It did occasionally make me feel a bit "American," which given my proclivities is probably not a bad thing.
February 3, 2022
Insula, care nu există pe vreo hartă, seamănă foarte bine cu Europa, prezentată cu sarcasm, cu umor negru de la geneză până la apocalipsă. E istoria lumii care merge spre progres și care se golește de spirit și se autodistruge.
Sunt trei perspective: a cronicarilor, perspectivele personajelor și filmul în curs de ecranizare care îi are ca protagoniști pe Ksenia și pe Prokopi. Ei sunt arhetipul omului cu bună credință, imaginea iubirii pure, a intențiilor nematerialiste, sunt cei care gândesc pentru binele țării și care trăiesc secole și nu mor, dar pe care, cumva, nimeni nu îi apreciază, cărora nu le observă cu adevărat altruismul și autenticitatea.
Poate ai fi tentat să crezi că Vodolazkin e antiprogresist, dar eu nu văd așa. Eu cred că el încearcă să ilustreze cum se pierde spiritul, empatia, din oameni, cum ele ar trebui să rămână conectate cu partea progresistă, în simbioză.
Sunt trei perspective: a cronicarilor, perspectivele personajelor și filmul în curs de ecranizare care îi are ca protagoniști pe Ksenia și pe Prokopi. Ei sunt arhetipul omului cu bună credință, imaginea iubirii pure, a intențiilor nematerialiste, sunt cei care gândesc pentru binele țării și care trăiesc secole și nu mor, dar pe care, cumva, nimeni nu îi apreciază, cărora nu le observă cu adevărat altruismul și autenticitatea.
Poate ai fi tentat să crezi că Vodolazkin e antiprogresist, dar eu nu văd așa. Eu cred că el încearcă să ilustreze cum se pierde spiritul, empatia, din oameni, cum ele ar trebui să rămână conectate cu partea progresistă, în simbioză.
October 15, 2021
Stirea ca vestita Istorie a Insulei, cea dintai cronica nationala, are, de fapt, o continuare, a starnit freamat in opinia publica locala. Acest lucru a facut necesara o noua editie, completa. In forma sa precedenta, Istoria Insulei a fost publicata nu o data. Ea este inclusa in programele scolare si in cele universitare, si a reusit de mult sa se raspandeasca prin citate. „O sa mai vedem cu ce se vor sfarsi toate acestea", „El a inteles ca razboiul poate sa reinceapa, pentru ca era unul dintre cei care doreau sa reinceapa", „Fericite sunt vremurile care nu intra in anale", „El, timpul, nu are unde sa se grabeasca" — aceste fraze au intrat atat de temeinic in viata noastra de zi cu zi, incat nu toata lumea isi mai aminteste ca ele isi au originea in cronica.
June 2, 2023
I am still processing this one and expect to be for a while. The Island is of course fictitious, but you keep trying to pin it on something familiar. Of course it doesn't fit because this is bigger, and smaller, than any one nation's history. The translator has done wonderfully with maintaining the cadence, tone, and style of premodern chroniclers throughout, which adds to the almost dream-like quality. Yet it perfectly parallels the trends and issues in the broad swath of history it covers.
If you need concrete "realism," then this book is not for you. If you can untether and float among the symbols while examining the real, then you should pick this up and enjoy the ride! It helps if you know your history
If you need concrete "realism," then this book is not for you. If you can untether and float among the symbols while examining the real, then you should pick this up and enjoy the ride! It helps if you know your history
December 14, 2023
Universal and timeless. A superb read!
#Vodolazkin23 #AHistoryOfTheIsland on X, Bluesky and Instagram.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0WUR7...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0cCC5...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0hW-Q...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0nFyi...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C01gVl...
#Vodolazkin23 #AHistoryOfTheIsland on X, Bluesky and Instagram.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0WUR7...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0cCC5...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0hW-Q...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0nFyi...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C01gVl...
July 21, 2022
„Ceasul încercării a venit și a apărut piatra adamant, pe care n-o înmoaie nimic în afară de sângele de țap. Și pământul s-a cutremurat, și s-a aprins apa neagră din Nord, și a curs apă cu flăcări în Sud, și s-a lăsat cenușă din ceruri. Și inimile noastre sunt gata să se facă cenușă.”
ipotetica/potențiala insulă inspectează cu rigoare șchiopătatul fin al umanității, șovăielile ei inerente
ipotetica/potențiala insulă inspectează cu rigoare șchiopătatul fin al umanității, șovăielile ei inerente
July 12, 2024
Как же я всё-таки люблю псевдоисторию от Водолазкина! Миллион отсылок, переплетение прошлого и настоящего, намеки и референсы - и вот уже вы за пару-тройку дней незаметно для самого себя проглотили книжку (и с удовольствием повторили бы этот опыт).
Read
June 4, 2023This was a wonderful departure for me - a translated work from Russian - that was a delight to read. Its structure is a record of events documented by monks of a seemingly small island country. The volumes are grouped by the rulers/leaders of the time and the reader meets some wonderfully imagined characters who have centuries-long life spans akin to Old Testament Biblical figures. The highlights for me was the clever retelling of the events, politics, and the machinations which mimic the history of Russia from the Middle Ages into the modern era. I’m not a scholar and there’s no doubt that I missed a lot; however, I learned a great deal – taking notes and googling additional information as I read along when I noticed familiar dates and references. (Yes, I can be a bit nerdy).
The characters are true to the times in which they lived and the roles they assumed – many are not particularly likable; which (loosely) mimics their real-world counterparts’ presumed personalities, actions, and points of view; allowing the reader to understand their method of ruling, witness the morphing of governments (dictatorships/authoritarianism, communism, etc.), observe the role/influence of religion, and gasp their missteps and misuse of power that spawn corruption, scandal, and unforgettable revolutions and downfalls.
For me, I loved the originality and freshness applied to deliver such an informative look at a part of history in which I was vaguely familiar. I’ll definitely pick up his earlier works and look forward to upcoming releases.
Thanks to Plough Publishing and NetGalley for an opportunity to review.
The characters are true to the times in which they lived and the roles they assumed – many are not particularly likable; which (loosely) mimics their real-world counterparts’ presumed personalities, actions, and points of view; allowing the reader to understand their method of ruling, witness the morphing of governments (dictatorships/authoritarianism, communism, etc.), observe the role/influence of religion, and gasp their missteps and misuse of power that spawn corruption, scandal, and unforgettable revolutions and downfalls.
For me, I loved the originality and freshness applied to deliver such an informative look at a part of history in which I was vaguely familiar. I’ll definitely pick up his earlier works and look forward to upcoming releases.
Thanks to Plough Publishing and NetGalley for an opportunity to review.
June 8, 2023
A History of the Island by Eugene Vodolazkin, translated from the Russian by Lisa C. Hayden
There is a plethora of reviews of Eugene Vodolazkin’s A History of the Island. It is challenging to add anything more, except that reader-reviewers of course find the threads that relate not only to their own history but to their own perceptions. All agree that the novel is fantastic and satirical, but while the tone is neither overly gentle nor bitter, it gives the reader a mirror that reflects painful aspects of the world. I think that Vodolazkin might well agree with Addison’s use of satire, “to pass over a single foe to charge whole armies.”
Time is the constant in the novel, but the importance and meaning of past, present, and future are unstable as different personalities through time employ lies that twist meanings to take power and change the culture. Parfeny and Kzenia are endowed with a fantastic time span unlike others. Born in medieval times, their 347 years of memories provide a narrative that links multiple centuries of the Island chronicled by successive official recorders. One early keeper of its annals secretly writes and hides a true history of Prince-Regent Yustin and wife Glikeria. In the public record they appear to be loving caregivers for the children Prince Parfeny and Kzenia who will one day rule, but they are secretly perfidious killers. This suggests a private authorial nod to Procopius, the Byzantine court official and writer of The Secret History that vilifies Emperor Justinian and wife Theodora. This subtle allusion to an actual 6th century royal couple of purported unbridled evil connects to the murderous Yustin and Glikeria on the Island. It seems to underscore the reality that evil is a constant that moves through all time in various guises. Yet, the choice between good and evil is open to all. Parfeny and Kzenia, despite personal regrets, continue to choose the good in their changing circumstances.
Together, the adult Prince Parfeny and Kzenia rule their Island kingdom righteously until a revolution espousing “the bright future” crushes belief in the value of both past and present, as well as obscuring belief in God as central over all time. The couple survives but witnesses the destruction of links from the past that once preserved traditional life on the Island. Displaced by a series of dictators after their own rule is overthrown, Parfeny and Ksenia live in reduced circumstances with the general population and observe a continuing cycle of violence and betrayal that does not deliver the promised bright future, except for those in power.
It is tempting to identify specific leaders of the Soviet Union with the fictional rulers who preach the religion of the bright future that never arrives while destroying traditional values and wellbeing of the ruled. We can recognize parallels in the food scarcities and hunger of the Island’s population with the starvation of millions of Russians in famines of the 20s and 30s under Soviet rule. But more than pointing simply to past history of his homeland, Vodolazkin speaks also to the West that has equated history with progress and its message that anything new is superior to what it replaces. When global consumerism finally presents another new thing on the island, it also engages the population for the exciting bright present that replaces the old promise of the bright future. But this also does not provide the benefit expected.
This novel is not just about history but about junctures where persons and nations must choose the path for good or evil. In his piece “At Lenin’s Tomb,” Vodolazkin points out that “extensive swaths of liberalism can be observed in Russian traditionalism, and some observers are inclined to see elements of totalitarianism in the way the West enforces its catalogue of liberal values.” When asked if his novel was a metaphor for Russia, he replied that it is also a metaphor for the West of which Russia is a part.
The scope of the book defies simple interpretation. The apocalyptic events at the end usher in more disquiet and questions. Like any parable (which has been suggested by some), the novel engages our search for meaning and hope in our own time of deep disquiet. Parfeny and Kzenia’s narratives suggest many things, but one that seems especially timely now is how each individual chooses to respond in the face of personal displacement and large-scale chaos.
There is a plethora of reviews of Eugene Vodolazkin’s A History of the Island. It is challenging to add anything more, except that reader-reviewers of course find the threads that relate not only to their own history but to their own perceptions. All agree that the novel is fantastic and satirical, but while the tone is neither overly gentle nor bitter, it gives the reader a mirror that reflects painful aspects of the world. I think that Vodolazkin might well agree with Addison’s use of satire, “to pass over a single foe to charge whole armies.”
Time is the constant in the novel, but the importance and meaning of past, present, and future are unstable as different personalities through time employ lies that twist meanings to take power and change the culture. Parfeny and Kzenia are endowed with a fantastic time span unlike others. Born in medieval times, their 347 years of memories provide a narrative that links multiple centuries of the Island chronicled by successive official recorders. One early keeper of its annals secretly writes and hides a true history of Prince-Regent Yustin and wife Glikeria. In the public record they appear to be loving caregivers for the children Prince Parfeny and Kzenia who will one day rule, but they are secretly perfidious killers. This suggests a private authorial nod to Procopius, the Byzantine court official and writer of The Secret History that vilifies Emperor Justinian and wife Theodora. This subtle allusion to an actual 6th century royal couple of purported unbridled evil connects to the murderous Yustin and Glikeria on the Island. It seems to underscore the reality that evil is a constant that moves through all time in various guises. Yet, the choice between good and evil is open to all. Parfeny and Kzenia, despite personal regrets, continue to choose the good in their changing circumstances.
Together, the adult Prince Parfeny and Kzenia rule their Island kingdom righteously until a revolution espousing “the bright future” crushes belief in the value of both past and present, as well as obscuring belief in God as central over all time. The couple survives but witnesses the destruction of links from the past that once preserved traditional life on the Island. Displaced by a series of dictators after their own rule is overthrown, Parfeny and Ksenia live in reduced circumstances with the general population and observe a continuing cycle of violence and betrayal that does not deliver the promised bright future, except for those in power.
It is tempting to identify specific leaders of the Soviet Union with the fictional rulers who preach the religion of the bright future that never arrives while destroying traditional values and wellbeing of the ruled. We can recognize parallels in the food scarcities and hunger of the Island’s population with the starvation of millions of Russians in famines of the 20s and 30s under Soviet rule. But more than pointing simply to past history of his homeland, Vodolazkin speaks also to the West that has equated history with progress and its message that anything new is superior to what it replaces. When global consumerism finally presents another new thing on the island, it also engages the population for the exciting bright present that replaces the old promise of the bright future. But this also does not provide the benefit expected.
This novel is not just about history but about junctures where persons and nations must choose the path for good or evil. In his piece “At Lenin’s Tomb,” Vodolazkin points out that “extensive swaths of liberalism can be observed in Russian traditionalism, and some observers are inclined to see elements of totalitarianism in the way the West enforces its catalogue of liberal values.” When asked if his novel was a metaphor for Russia, he replied that it is also a metaphor for the West of which Russia is a part.
The scope of the book defies simple interpretation. The apocalyptic events at the end usher in more disquiet and questions. Like any parable (which has been suggested by some), the novel engages our search for meaning and hope in our own time of deep disquiet. Parfeny and Kzenia’s narratives suggest many things, but one that seems especially timely now is how each individual chooses to respond in the face of personal displacement and large-scale chaos.
May 6, 2023
Written by various monks, this fictional history is the several-century chronicle, minus the entries for the 150-year foreign occupation subsequently burned once foreign forces left, of an island nation. The chronicle is being published for the first time and annotated by the long-time deposed monarchs, Parfeny and Ksenia, who happen to be exceptionally long-lived (347 years as of publication). Contemporaneously, a famous filmmaker is making a movie about their lives. The history is a droll account of the succession of rulers who, particularly subsequent to the revolutionary overthrow of Parfeny and Ksenia, become more and more absurd in their so-called leadership. This political satire is an entertaining and thoughtful critique of political and social change. There are religious undertones, but one can take them however one desires.
I received an ARC from Plough Publishing House in exchange for an honest review.
I received an ARC from Plough Publishing House in exchange for an honest review.
July 5, 2021
"Se spune că lăcusta, ca făptură de roi, nu are voință de sine stătătoare, ci doar voința comună a roiului, care e comandat de o căpetenie.Lăsându-se pe pământ, aceste vietăți devorează tot ce creşte pe el. Se întâmplă totuşi ca uneori căpetenia să greşească, şi atunci tot roiul, ca un ghem strâns lipit, piere în mare, şi nici una nu se salvează, fiindcă nu poate părăsi roiul. Nu seamănă oare lăcustele cu oamenii care îşi topesc voința în voința mulțimii şi pier fără veste în valurile mării vieții?"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews