Nobel Prize winning John Steinbeck and his photographer friend visit Moscow, the Ukraine, (what was then) Stalingrad, and Georgia in 1947. They stick to their mission which is to find out about everyday people: “What do people wear there? What do they serve for dinner? Do they have parties? ….” They did not find out about how they make love or how they die (also in the mission). They are not interested in important people, politics or 5 year plans. Destruction and the remnants of war are all around. In Moscow, there is an event where people congregate to inspect the military equipment the Germans left behind. In Stalingrad people are living in the rubble. They see German POWs at work rebuilding cities. Steinbeck notes the differences in cities that have been bombed or sieged in battle. At a Ukraine collective farm, they eat a hearty breakfast and observe the team work in the fields. With so many men lost or wounded in war, the women shoulder this burden. It is hard to believe their cheerfulness as described by Steinbeck. There is simple entertainment in the evening and beautiful places to swim. Georgia has been relatively unscathed by the war and Georgians have adopted Ukrainian orphans.They are feted as important guests everywhere. The meetings of writers’ groups sound deadly as 20 page manuscripts are read aloud ...and then the translation is read! There is a so much food and drinking, the authors are frequently sick/hung over. Steinbeck gets so he can’t handle vodka. Airports are frustrating. The episode in leaving Georgia is only funny when the story is told... must have been awful to live through.While Stalin’s portraits abound this seems to be an extreme bureaucracy and more than a police state. People speak to them freely and no one takes them aside to complain about the government. Outside of Moscow, besides being with their translator/guide/minder, there is no hint of their being watched. All the photos show well fed people, often well dressed and usually happy, but these were probably self-censored since Capa got all his photos back.On the minus side, the prose, like most of the 1950’s travel literature, is stilted. For a short book, too much space is devoted to the strained relations between the writer and the photographer, and the two of them with their Russian minder. While the pictures are not labeled, they are placed appropriately. Sometimes it is hard to know what you are looking at. For instance the photo on p. 34 must be of Lenin Hills, but the vista hardly looks like Moscow which the Hills are said to overlook; the photo on p. 43 appears to be a fashion show or maybe a quality control examination of clothing. Other photos, such as the 4 portraits on 78-79 would be better in an art gallery than a travel book.This book fills an important niche because so little exists on daily life in Russia just after the devastation of WW2. Like many plans, the idea originated in a bar by two artists with nothing to do, but unlike most bar-hatched ideas, this one was followed up on.
In my journey to read all things Steinbeck (I'm well over half way now) I have a brief layover in Russia. Steinbeck visited Soviet Russia in 1947 accompanied by photographer Robert Capa. The fact one of America's most prized writers at the time was allowed into the Soviet Union with an acclaimed photojournalist astonishes me. This was the beginning of the so-called cold war; the United States' challenges toward Russia were growing, Russia's distrust of America was strong. So Steinbeck makes it into Russia and he does what he knows best, he gets amongst the people. He journeys from Moscow to war-torn Stalingrad; he visits the farmers and townsfolk of Ukraine and Georgia. His intention is to get to know the people and report honestly, without making conclusions, without editorial comment. He succeeds. The Russians aren't war-crazy peasants who live in constant fear of Stalin. They're simple, warmhearted, hard-working people who live in fear of another world war brought on by the divide between capitalist nations and communist nations. Of course Steinbeck's efforts only fueled the suspicion that Steinbeck himself was a socialist, a belief that had been running strong since The Grapes of Wrath was first published.What I found most interesting about A Russian Journal was not so much what Steinbeck said, as what he didn't say. He spends considerable time talking about the food and the work-ethic of Russian people, as well as their pleasant demeanor. But he also spends a lot of time complaining about flights, talking about the beauty of the women, drinking, and seeming uncharacteristically crabby. He never addresses any personal issues in the book, rarely even mentions himself. Having gotten to know the author as well as one can an author from an earlier time, I couldn't help but feel like something was amiss. I suspected problems at home, and I ventured to guess they had something to do with Gwyn, Steinbeck's second wife and the model for Cathy Ames (East of Eden). After finishing A Russian Journal I did a little research and learned that Steinbeck was indeed in his final year of marriage with Gwyn. While I can't say for sure that marital issues may have fueled his temperament—nor can I say for sure Steinbeck was out of character—it seems the logical factor to deduce.What does any of this have to do with the book? I think it affects the quality greatly. I could be wrong, but I got the feeling that Steinbeck didn't utilize his time in Russia very well. I get the feeling he spent more time brooding about Gwyn and partying with fellow American dignitaries that he didn't have much time in the field. This is a work that could have been immensely eye-opening, but it's rather light in the end. And perhaps none of this has to do with Steinbeck's personal life. Maybe he really was a communist sympathizer, and the lack of material has more to do with his covert training sessions and debriefing meetings. But I could be wrong.
Do You like book A Russian Journal (2011)?
This is a wonderful liitle book, and quite an eye-opener. Written a scant three years after the end of the Second World war, when the world was coming to terms with the advent of the Iron Curtain, John Steinbeck and his photographerRobert Capa set out to see for themselves what Russia* was like. Not surprisingly, they met some obstacles in the form of Soviet bureaucracy and prohibitions, and since they had to rely on government-approved translators, everywhere they went they were at their mercy and had no alternative but to assume the translator had integrity. Still, much of what is written has the ring of truth because Steinbeck insisted on meeting ordinary people wherever he could.There’s a droll slyness to the reportage. Steinbeck affects a simplicity that belies his reputation as one of America’s foremost writers. To see the rest of my review, please visit http://anzlitlovers.wordpress.com/201...
—Lisa
Прочетох с интерес. "Руски дневник" на Стайнбек е необикновена документална книга поради времето, в което е писана и отсъствието на авторски коментари и анализи към видяното. В една друга епоха, различна от тази на студената война, книгата вероятно щеше да е три пъти по-обемна, още по-богата и изпълнена с хумор. "Руски дневник" е искрен и обективен пътепис. Усеща се не толкова трагедията на една нация, минала през кървава изтощителна война,а радостта от това, че е свършила, както и ентусиазмът и надеждата да се построи наново един по-добър и уреден свят.Очевидна е симпатията на автора към хората, с които се среща по време на престоя си, но си личи и недоумението от изключително усложнената бюрокрация и съсредоточаването на властта в ръцете на един човек. Като цяло- интригуващо четиво,което препоръчвам. Единствената ми забележка е към издателството заради изключително лошото отпечатване на снимките на Робърт Капа.
—Bookmaniac70
This book is remarkably unbiased, considering Steinbeck & Capa were entering the USSR at the beginning of the Cold War. Steinbeck's narrative is amazingly relatable - it feels like you're reading the travel journal of an old friend. Normally, I wouldn't choose a book like this. A friend recommended it, and I'm glad he did! It gave me an entirely new perspective on foreign countries and their citizens. The problem with history education (in the US anyways) is that we don't emphasize the little people - we focus on politicians, heroes, and other famous figures. This book showed the little people of Russia - rebuilding their country after WWII. They were not the enemy solely because they lived in a communist nation. I don't think I would have ever known so much about the culture of the USSR after WWII if it hadn't been for Steinbeck's account.Robert Capa's photographs add some variety to the book, but they were not nearly as revealing or impressive as Steinbeck's narrative. It may have been the low-quality appearance of the photographs, but they did not show too much. A few were "eye-opening," but on the whole, this is Steinbeck's work.Overall, I'd recommend this book for anyone looking to expand their knowledge of the USSR post-WWII.
—Shauna
