|
|
5.0étoiles sur 5
As much about D. M. Thomas as Solzhenitsyn, Fév 27 2004
I first picked up the this book because of the respect I have for its author, British novelist and poet D. M. Thomas. Thomas, in addition to showing so much talent in his own work, has begun to establish himself as a well-respected expert on Russian literature. His novels also reveal him to be very much a student of Russian literature as well. Thomas is a great lover of Akhmatova as well, and has translated many of her poems. She also figures prominently into this biography, perhaps more so than she really did in Solzhenitsyn's life. This is important because the book is much more than a biography of one writer, but a history of the literary ideal Thomas subscribes to. Compassion. The role of the literal -- the stark, raving, brutal, literal -- to bring truth to people. Thomas includes many references to his own literary philosophy throughout the work. Perhaps if you were here only for Solzhenitsyn, these passages would seem superfluous. He also injects snippets of the Freudian analysis that dominate his own fiction. If you were unfamiliar with his work, you might think that these sections were completely ridiculous. Even though I knew why they were there, I still thought they were out of place and that Thomas was trying to interject too much of his own personality.
The details of Solzhenitsyn's life are carefully researched. It helps that Thomas is also a novelist and is often of the same mind as his subject. Many times, his insights are fabulous. However, Thomas is a bit too subjective in his description of how Solzhenitsyn managed his personal life (and Solzhenitsyn felt he was too rough on him -- ha!). In many places, he spends far too much time finding ways to excuse the author's behavior. True, he does give a voice to to many Solzhenitsyn tampled on over the years, but it rarely extends beyond sympathy -- oh, his poor wife, oh, his poor friend -- into genuine criticism of the author. Not that criticism would have been warranted either. In these, he-said, she-said, situations, cold objectivity would have probably been best. It would led the biographer down fewer blind alleys. This particular biography is special in that it also closely ties Solzhenitsyn to the history of 20th century Russia. Historical events have obviously influenced the author's work, but Thomas also carves out Solzhenitsyn's role in history, even before he was a literary giant. That interplay is quite important, Solzhenitsyn was not safely observing history unfold, he was living right in the horrible center of it. I thought it was a little strange that the biography really began to speed up after the Solzhenitsyn's moved to Vermont. The author had a low personal profile during this period, but was still more accessible by the Western press. The author's work was largely fruitless in the 1980's, but Thomas detaches him from history -- as if the Vermont exile had dropped him off the planet -- and lets the 80's go by in a blur. Solzhenitsyn's return to Russia is also treated superficially, and it seemed like Thomas, without any influencial new works from the author to talk about in this period, was just trying to get it over with. But in a way, it was quite consistent with Solzhenitsyn's stature in the 1990's: his work was so literal and so tied to specific events, that the generations in ascendency at the end of 20th century could no longer relate to it personally. Why talk up the author if no one else was doing so? I came away with a much greater appreciation for D. M. Thomas's fiction and poetry. Maybe that makes this biography, I don't know, less professional? But to me, that was an unexpected bonus.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
