Natasha's Dance [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

I usually like to give my reviews catchy little titles. I was going to call this one "Fabulous Figes". I finally decided it was more important to just come right out and say this is the best book I read this year. Of course, if we were in January or February, that statement wouldn't mean too much! (Kind of like movie reviews that come out early in the year..."Best Darn Romantic Comedy I've Seen...So Far!) Since we're in December, and considering I've read about 70 books this year, that makes the statement a little more impressive. Okay, so now I've got to "put my money where my mouth is" and tell you what makes "Natasha's Dance" so good. First, the book is beautifully written. It is lyrical, poignant, funny, thoughtful, etc. Like all good popular historians, Mr. Figes has a novelist's flair. Second, the book is wonderfully structured. The author decided to give each chapter a particular theme. So, despite the daunting task Mr. Figes has assigned himself (a cultural history of Russia!), the book doesn't ramble. It has a tight focus. On the other hand, there are enough themes covered that you don't feel anything relevant has been left out. Some of the themes that are covered: how Russian culture was influenced by both Asia and Western Europe; peasant life- the reality vs. how the urban intellectuals imagined it to be; Moscow vs. St. Petersburg (i.e.- their competition with each other, and changing fortunes as cultural centers); the search for the Russian soul- the religious beliefs of some of the famous Russian authors (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, etc.); the distortion and manipulation of culture by the Bolsheviks; and, finally, the effect that emigration from "Mother Russia" had on various cultural figures- such as Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Gorky and Nabokov. Mr. Figes also makes sure not to neglect those who chose to stay- people such as the poet Anna Akhmatova, the film director Sergei Eisenstein and the composer Dmitry Shostakovich. Some of these people hated the Revolution and pined for the past. Others welcomed the Revolution and later on became disillusioned. All of them either suffered (materially and/or spiritually) or lived in fear during the nightmare years under Stalin. Third, besides each chapter having an interesting theme, within each chapter Mr. Figes gives details concerning what was going on in the lives of various artists within a particular creative field. So, you get lots of interesting biographical material concerning novelists, poets, composers, etc. The threads of their lives intersect in interesting ways: Tolstoy, who had a lifelong fear of his own death, going to visit Chekhov- Tolstoy thought Chekhov was on his deathbed and wanted to see how Chekhov would "handle" his own mortality! Tolstoy was amazed that Chekhov could still laugh and joke and put on "a brave face". (Chekhov was amused. He knew Tolstoy and suspected the reason for his visit.). Another interesting "artistic intersection" was when Prokofiev decided to leave America because he didn't want to play "second fiddle" (or maybe I should say "second piano!) to Rachmaninov. Prokofiev apparently had quite a large ego, and when he saw how popular Rachmaninov was in the United States (Rachmaninov had emigrated first) he decided to return to Europe (part of this was style- Prokofiev felt that he was too "modern"- that Americans preferred Rachmaninov's more "traditional" and "romantic" music). Regarding Prokofiev, there is the touching footnote that he had the misfortune to die on the same day that Stalin did, March 5, 1953. As Mr. Figes writes, "(Prokofiev's) funeral (was) a sad affair that was scarcely noticed by the Soviet public...There were no flowers left to buy, so a single pine branch was placed on the composer's grave." I hope I have been able to convey some idea of the richness of this book. It is a remarkable achievement by Mr. Figes. If you have any interest whatsoever in Russian cultural history, you will definitely love this book. And, as sort of a wonderful dessert after a gourmet meal, the author has provided a section called "A Guide To Further Reading". This section is almost 30 pages long. Mr. Figes lists many books in this section but also indicates his particular favorites. I've already found at least half-a-dozen titles I want to buy. We bibliophiles should have a "universal tattoo"- "So many books, so little time!"

I disagree with the reviewer who finds this not quite "heavyweight" enough. It is not an academic book - and thank God for that - but a superb introduction to the history and the culture of Russia.

Figes starts with a wonderful account of the building of St Petersburg in the 1700s, and goes on to discuss the meaning of Europe to Russian culture in the eighteenth century. Europe caused a split in the Russian national identity - and much of Russian culture in the nineteenth century was concerned with how to reconcile the two almost contradictory halves of the Russian character: the native Russian (or Muscovite) and the European (or Petrine).

The next chapter takes up the story of 1812, when Russia's writers and artist first began to think about the ways of developing a distinctively "Russian style" in contrast to the West. This is when the Slavophiles were born. There are lots of fascinating details here - on the Russian customs of child-rearing, on interior design and Russian fashions.

The next three chapters explore various facets of Russian culture in the nineteenth century: the Moscow tradition; the romantic fascination with the Russian peasants (which Figes explores as a search for nationhood); and the influence of the Orthodox tradition on Russian literature and art.

Then there is a speculative chapetr on the cultural influence of the Asiatic steppe/ For me, this was the most original and the most interesting chapter in the book (Rachel Polonsky, in her hatchet-job review in the TLS doesn;t even mention it). In this chapter Figes digs down deep into peasant culture and folklore, showing how the shamanic beliefs of the steppeland nomads (the "Decsendants of Genghiz Khan") left their trace on the Russians/

Finally there are two long chapterson the twentieth century when Russian culture was divided into two: the first on Soviet culture and the last on the emigration to the West. I didn't quite agree with Figes's argument - that in the end Soviet culture was peripheral and failed to change the underlying Russian cultural traditions (represented by Akhmatova). But I was moved by the tremendous emotional impact of these final chapters, which (more than anything I've ever read before) assert triumphantly the endurance of the Russian people and their culture over politics.

I am not surprised that Figes has his critics. He writes too well, too flamboyantly;he tackles bigger themes than most academics dare. But for the general reader Natasha's Dance is a rich delight. On every page there is something new and fascinating. There are sumptuous illustrations. And for those who want to read more "heavyweight" volumes there is a comprehensive guide to further reading at the end.

In sum- this is a wonderful, enriching book, for anybody with a psssing interest in Russia, its history and culture.

In light of other rave reviews I feel absolutely churlish submitting less than five stars for this book. However, I must review this book, in part, on whether it achieved its stated objective, which was to provide a comprehensive overview of all of Russian culture.

The answer is no. Let's not confuse "long" with "comprehensive."

In fairness to Figes, this book has a lot of strengths, particularly his discussion of the relationship between nineteenth century Russian operas and the texts from which their libretti were drawn, his emphasis on the Old Believer schism, and his treatment of Vassily Grossman, still relatively unknown in the West. However, it has some glaring omissions for a work which wants to be comprehensive.

First, Figes basically ignores all literature, architecture, and applied art prior to the period around the founding of St. Petersburg. This means that he fails to address, among other things, the _Tale of Igor_, the literary impact of Slavonic hagiography, icons and their influence on secular painting (other than a lick and a promise to Andrei Rublev's work), and any of Ivan IV a/k/a the Terrible's perorations. This omits a necessary context for the Westernizers (such as Peter I a/k/a "The Great") and the Slavophiles.

Second, I think his treatment of _Oblomov_ would not communicate the importance of this work in the public imagination to anyone who was not familiar with this work, and Figes doesn't even mention _The Precipice_, which Goncharov regarded as his true masterpiece. He also doesn't discuss the rift between Goncharov and Turgenev as a result of the similar themes in _The Precipice_ and _Fathers and Children_. This really was an unfortunate omission. This was big news in the nineteenth century.

Third, I thought that Figes did not devote sufficient attention to the nineteenth-century anarchists, particularly those of the upper-classes, and slighted Yurij Dombrosky, though I grant you that these might be quibbles.

Fourth, given his emphasis on Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and emigre and returnee literature, I was expecting to see more discussion of Solzhenitsyn, who rates only a cursory mention. Solzhenitsyn's work neatly demonstrates and extends virtually all the points that Figes is making, which is why his failure to discuss him at greater length is so odd.

Fifth, there were occasional odd minor lapses in scholarship. For example, at one point Figes notes that the word "robot" is "not coincidentally" similar to the Russian verb _rabotat'_, or "to work". However, a few minutes with the Oxford English dictionary told me that the first reported use of the word "robot" was by a Czech playwright, Karel Capek, in the play "R.U.R." released circa 1921, and that "rabota" means forced labor in Czech. In fact, In the days when Czechoslovakia was a feudal society, "robota" referred to the two or three days of the week that peasants were obliged to leave their own fields to work without remuneration on the lands of noblemen. However, that fact does not fit with Fige's theory. It makes me fret about what Figes did in the course of assembling his book with other facts (and artists, such as ones noted above) that do not fit his theory.

Finally, his offering of Natasha's dance at the end of _War and Peace_ as the central image of the authentic pure Russian soul revealing itself beneath the veneer of European culture really bothers me. It bothers me because an equally central image of Natasha Rostova and her reaction to Art is Natasha at the opera earlier in the book, suffering _ostranenie_, or a sense of estrangement, from the opera's artifice. Moreover, the final image of Natasha in _War and Peace_ that Tolstoy creates for us is to show her stout, jealous, with a faint mustache, which has always stuck me as cruel both to poor Natasha and to the patient reader. It begs the question to say, as Figes does, that Tolstoy's view is simply that Natasha is "estranged" from Western art, therefore it is bad, and that she responds "naturally" to Russian art, therefore it is good. As Figes admits elsewhere in this book, Tolstoy was far more complex in his personal beliefs than this, and his writing improved when he could abandon his didacticism. Natasha's dance and her reaction to the opera are both examples of a Tolstoyan rigidity into which Figes periodically slips.

Conclusion: read it together with _The Icon and the Axe._