# data[].attributes.body
In Viktor Pelevin's "Omon Ra," the story follows a man named Omon and his experience being a Soviet astronaut. Later on in the story, Omon is sent on a mission to the moon, but he discovers that it was fake and was actually staged. Pelevin's use of portraying a fake Soviet moon landing helps to show how the Soviet Union was willing to do anything to appear as a super power.

The main event that set off the fake moon landing was that the American moon landing was televised, and so the Russians didn't want the world to think that Russia was lagging behind in terms of technological advancement. Later on in the story once Omon discovers that things aren't as they may seem, Pelevin writes "Landratov's hand trolley was a lot lighter than my moon walker and it moved a lot faster. The powerful searchlight lit up the round gallery and the cables running along its walls, all with a sticky covering of some kind of tacky fibres. As far as I could tell, the gallery was an abandoned metro tunnel" (94). What this shows is that the Russian government was willing to go as far as to set up a fake moon landing just to lie to the world so that they could save face and not be embarrassed.

Another work that is similar to that of "Omon Ra" is the 2024 movie "Fly Me to the Moon." In this movie, it takes place around the time of the Apollo 11 moon landing, so the main plot point is that in the event that the mission fails, the people on Earth need to stage a backup moon landing to lie to public and say that Apollo 11 was successful. The effect that this has on the reader is that it should make them more critical and question information that is provided to them, especially if it is from a source that they are supposed to trust such as their government.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Soviet cartoon "Nu Pogodi," the cartoon focuses on a Wolf and a Hare as the main characters. The main focus of the cartoon is that the Wolf is trying to capture the Hare in an attempt to eat them. In Episode 14, "High-Tech Center," there is a robot that is a look-a-like to the Hare that goes rogue and tries to detain the Wolf, but the Hare steps in to save him. Afterwards, the Hare summons a robot police officer to stop the Wolf from trying to eat them. The cartoon depicts how good behavior will always prevail whereas bad behavior will always fail.

In "Nu Pogodi," the Hare is depicted as well-behaved, whereas the Wolf is depicted as a type of hooligan. At the end of the episode "High-Tech Center," the Wolf's license plate reads "Nu Pogodi," which translates to "Well, just you wait," which is what the Wolf says at the end of every episode after his plan fails. The Hare always being able to avoid capture by the Wolf shows how because the Hare is morally good, good things will happen to them.

Another work that draws similarities to "Nu Pogodi" is the American cartoon "Tom & Jerry," where in it Tom the Cat is always trying to capture and eat Jerry the Mouse. Tom is portrayed as the villain as his actions are morally bad since he is trying to capture and eat Jerry, who is portrayed as morally good. The effect that this has on the viewer is that it is supposed to make them think about what kind of person do they want to be in society. Do they want to be the morally wrong hooligan who will always lose, or do they want to be the well-behaved citizen who will always prevail?

# data[].attributes.body
"Farewell, Gyulsary!" is a story written by Chingiz Aitmatov that focuses on an aging man named Tanabai, as well as his aging horse Gyulsary. The story flops back and forth between the past and present, where in the present we see Gyulsary slowly dying and in the past we see the events that led up to this moment. In "Farewell, Gyulsary," shows how over time, Tanabai comes to terms with the passing of Gyulsary.

In the beginning of "Farewell, Gyulsary," we are introduced to Gyulsary as a very old horse. At the end of the story, Gyulsary has officially passed away with Aitmatov writing "Tanabai looked at the dead horse and could not believe it was his Gyulsary" (114). Everything that happened between the start of the story and the end was a flashback, with Tanabai looking back onto the events that happened that slowly led up to the death of his horse. This shows how Tanabai was not yet willing to accept Gyulsary's fate, but by the end of the story, he comes to terms with it.

Another piece of literature that relates to this topic is Todd Parr's "The Goodbye Book," where the the main message of the book is that loss happens no matter what, and it's ok to come to terms with it, no matter how you come to it. The effect that this has on the reader is that it makes them feel sympathetic towards both Gyulsary and Tanabai, as one has passed away and the other must now grieve.

# data[].attributes.body
Point: In ASSA!, Solovyov uses rock music and surreal scenes to challenge Soviet authority and celebrate personal expression. Evidence: Bananan sings “We Want Change” in public places, disrupting ordinary settings. The film ends with Viktor Tsoi performing directly to the camera, in black and white, outside the story’s timeline. Analysis: These musical breaks reject realism and state-sanctioned storytelling. Rock music becomes a voice of rebellion, and Tsoi’s direct gaze turns the performance into a political statement. The surreal style mirrors the feeling of life under repression—strange, performative, unstable. Effect: The film leaves viewers with a sense of urgency and resistance. It uses art to crack open the illusion of control and invite change—not through violence, but through expression and energy.

# data[].attributes.body
In Omon Ra, Pelevin satirizes the way institutions such as the military define masculinity using obedience, suffering, and sacrifice over individuality or heroism.

Omon states, “I wanted to go to the Moon… because it was a destination for real men only." His legs are later amputated during training, justified by claims of spaceflight and manhood. His entire mission is a hoax, yet he is still regarded as a hero.

The author mocks the concept of the 'hero’s quest.' Training does not create strength, it wrecks bodies. Manliness is silence and stamina, not autonomy. The deadpan prose is an expression of emotional repression placed on 'real men.'

As with The Things They Carried, which characterizes masculinity by fear and trauma within war, Omon Ra illustrates institutions making boys into 'men' by dehumanizing them. Both works unveil the deception of idealized male roles.

Readers are left questioning what masculinity is. The tale evokes discomfort and irony—demonstrating how institutions glorify sacrifice, even if it is senseless or vicious.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1977 movie "The Ascent," the character Sotnikov acts as symbolism for religion. Towards the end of the movie during the scene where the characters are hung, Sotnikov is hung at gallows and thus executed by the Nazis. Sotnikov choosing to die for his principles is akin to Jesus Chirst, especially with his hanging symbolizing a crucifixion.

Another piece that involves religious symbolism in the 1959 film "Fate of a Man." In this movie, the main protagonist Andrei Sokolov endures many hardships, such as being separated from his family, being captured and put into a Nazi concentration camp, as well as being tortured in said concentration camps. Despite all this, he proceeded to carry on. In this way, Sokolov acted as a symbol for Jesus Christ in that the hardships that he had to face were his crosses to bear.

The effect that this has on the viewer is that it causes them to feel sympathetic towards the protagonists on account of what they had to endure.

# data[].attributes.body
In Svetlana Alexievich's "The Unwomanly Face of War," the book recounts the experiences of Soviet woman who served in World War II. In her book, Alexievich explains the physical tolls that World War II had on those who had to experience it, specifically how women lost their femininity by participating in the war.

While talking to a pilot, Alexievich writes "'The war's over. We're still alive. We're lucky. Let's get married.' I wanted to cry. To shout. To hit him! What do you mean, married? Now? In the midst of all this--married? In the midst of black soot and black bricks...Look at me...Look how I am! Begin by making me a woman: give me flowers, court me, say beautiful words. I want it so much" (18). The effect of this scene is that this particular woman, on account of everything that had just happened on account of the war, doesn't feel like a woman. In a way, the war changed her for the worse.

Another work that has to do with World War II is Elena Kochina's "Blockade Diary," which recounts the Nazi siege in Leningrad. In it, Kochina continuously mentions "hunger," which was a result of food shortages on account of the Nazis. The main effect of these texts is to appeal to the readers emotions in showing how horrible these times were, ranging from endless hunger to women not feeling like themselves anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky is a highly-regarded Soviet science fiction novel exploring deep subjects like greed, sacrifice, and human nature. Red, the "stalker" who goes at great personal risk to visit an odd extraterrestrial Zone in search of useful artifacts, is torn throughout the novel with both moral and personal dilemmas. Roadside Picnic raises issues of human nature, selflessness, and desire.

The novel also affected Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 film Stalker, a more philosophical and introspective film. The film is about three men who travel through the Zone, noting their inner conflict and existential struggle.

Roadside Picnic is a thought provoking piece that I found to be quite interesting. I enjoy a lot of sci-fi work that we’ve read in this class(Ie. Pkhentz), and Roadside Picnic will go as one of my favorite reads. This reading sparked some interest in another famous person to come out of the soviet union, and that person is Tarkovsky. I want to take some time to see what Tarkovsky’s Stalker is about and how it compares to Roadside Picnic.

# data[].attributes.body
Nu, Pogodi! is a 1969 Soviet animated cartoon that covers the wacky antics between a Wolf and a Hare. Nu, Pogodi! establishes undertones that encourage Soviet collective ideals. The use of humor in the cartoon is a subtle insert of soft propaganda. It puts some social conventions and behaviors as being against real military might. But beneath all these subtextual meanings is just an entertaining cartoon that many people can enjoy. Nu Pogodi, resembles a lot of western cartoons. It bears resemblance to shows like “Tom & Jerry” and “Looney Tunes”. The show is light-hearted and fun, and like “Tom & Jerry” lacks dialogue and employs a well executed use of  action and visual comedy. I’ve watched a couple of Soviet cartoons before, but Nu, Pogodi is one that I enjoy a lot. A lot of soviet cartoons that I’ve seen are quite strange, and artsy. They are using animation as a medium to critique or make a point against something happening within the world. While Nu, Pogodi does have some subtle meanings that lie within it, It has a familiar and nostalgic feeling that comes with it. That familiarity and nostalgia feeling may be due to the resemblance it bears to some of my favorite childhood cartoons, but nonetheless it still is a well made cartoon.

# data[].attributes.body
This passage is about a hoax that was televised on Soviet TV about Lenin being a mushroom. This hoax was a clever way to illustrate the dangers of unchecked state control over the media. It illustrates how even absurd ideas would be accepted if they are coming from the state, owing to widespread censorship and lack of critical media. People are more likely to believe what is being shown to them if they think it is coming from a source that holds itself to the highest position of authority and thinks of itself as just and lawful. If people can believe that Lenin was a mushroom then what else can they believe: propaganda, misinformation, etc.  This was from the working class to elites. This parallels a lot of what is happening today in America. There are a lot of people who trust information being spread online or by the news, because they view the sources as reliable because they hold themselves to a “reliable” standard. . The suggestion is a warning against accepting authorities--government or religion--at face value and challenge "official" stories. Lenin was a mushroom is one of the more interesting things that I’ve read about soviet history. It is a genius way to subtly hint at the faults of the Soviet union.

# data[].attributes.body
In ‘Heart of a Dog’ Bulgakov points out that the Soviet Union government’s efforts to abruptly change society are ineffective. This attempt to rapidly solve a significant problem not only presents itself as ineffective but damaging to the Soviet Union as it only creates problems and chaos.

This begins when Professor Preobrazhensky operates on the nearly dead street dog Sharik. He turns him into a human named Sharikov. For this operation he uses a criminal’s human remains, as a symbol of the Soviet Union trying to change society on a flawed foundation. Sharikov, now human, absorbs Soviet behavior from his environment. Nonetheless, this operation doesn’t make Sharikov more understanding of the ideals of communism, as he remains rude, messy, and violent. Sharikov doesn’t change who he is.

The professor mentions: “You cannot turn a dog into a man by simply altering his glands.” This shows that the operation, and also the Soviet efforts of changing people by force will result in failure. Sharikov’s habits such as drinking, swearing, and smoking showcase that even though he changed on the outside he didn't change who he really was.

Bulgakov uses Sharikov as a satire of the idea that you can ‘fix’ people by just changing their external lives. Sharikov does become human, but he remains the selfish, violent, and messy character he was before. Just like in the Soviet Union, the government changing didn't mean that the people were going to change.

This idea is directly linked with what Lenin highlights in ‘What Is To Be Done?’. Lenin mentions that if workers were to be left alone with no proper guidance they wouldn't naturally become true revolutionaries. In ‘Heart of a Dog’ Sharikov acts like a good Communist by saying slogans and joining committees, but he doesn't really mean what he’s doing, resulting in no significant impact on who he truly is.

This story makes the reader reflect on the idea of forced change. Bulgakov makes you think about the constraints that come with real change, not from external activity but from within oneself.

# data[].attributes.body
Mayakovsky shows his Soviet passport as more than just a document; during this time having a Soviet passport would be a symbol of revolutionary identity. It would transform a simple document into a political weapon that defies the capitalist world, or at least that's how he perceived  it.

This point is reinforced when Mayakovsky uses vivid imagery to describe his passport in ‘My Soviet Passport’.

“Those very official gentlemen

take

that red-skinned passport

of mine.

Take-

like a bomb

take - like a hedgehog,

like a razor

double-edge stropped,

take -

like a rattlesnake huge and long

with at least

20 fangs

poison-tipped.”

Later in the poem he describes his document as a symbol of pride, saying:

“You now:

read this

and envy,

I'm a citizen

of the Soviet Socialist Union!”.

In the poem, Mayakovsky portrays how foreigners react to him once they see his ‘red-skinned passport’. Although they might try to intimidate him, he shows that he has pride in owning his passport.

Mayakovsky transcends a simple thing, such as showing your passport, into an act of emotional and political audacity. He shows a document that for some is a sign of danger and shame, as a badge of honor and pride. He also compares his passport to ‘priceless cargo’ with the rebellious characteristic of “read it and envy me”, showing this Soviet citizenship as a great revolutionary pride.

This can also be seen in Mayakovsky’s “Left March”, where he uses simple ideas to project revolutionary pride. He mentions that the Left march, Soviet Union, won’t tolerate them right anymore. They, the political left, won’t be suppressed or silenced. As seen in the following segment of the poem:

“May them gang up against us,
To all their threats we'll be deaf,
The Entente shall never suppress us.
Left!
Left!
Left!
Can the eagle ever get blind?
Can they make us swing off the road?
Hold
your proletarian hand
tight on the world's throat!
Deck out the sky with drape!
March boldly ahead , don't be late!
Who's marching out of step?
Left!
Left!
Left!”

The poem creates a powerful national pride in the Soviet Union. This feeling is relatable to those countries who have challenged and overthrown the system they were governed by, such as previously colonized countries. For this reason, I can relate to Mayakovsky’s emotion of political pride.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nicolas Rufino - Lenin and Spontaneity of the masses

# data[].attributes.subject
Nicolas Rufino - Lenin and Spontaneity of the masses

# data[].attributes.body
Lenin strongly believes that the working class and the left won’t achieve a revolutionary political consciousness (their goal), but simply a ‘trade union consciousness’ (a minimal impact) if they continue to act spontaneously. He believes that the only way to achieve their goal is to bring consciousness from outside the working class, through a revolutionary vanguard.

This can be seen in the text, “The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness”. He presents that this issue has persisted throughout history and that acting the same way would be a mistake.

Lenin emphasizes that without proper guidance from revolutionary leaders, workers would only struggle for better wages rather than actually challenge the capitalist system. However, he sees this as a dangerous limitation because workers might settle for small improvements in the system rather than fundamentally change the system. Lenin argues that just spontaneous action will not be enough to change the system and that it might even hold the movement back.

This tension between limited reform and a complete revolution can also be seen in Marx and Engels’ attack on “Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism” in the Communist Manifesto. In it, they criticize the many forms of socialism that only seek small improvements over the damaging features of capitalism rather than actually overthrow the whole system.

The effect of the text is important. In an era where many people had the urgency to change the system for a better life, this text provides the tools to make it happen. The text creates a sense of urgency in readers to pursue organization, education, and conscious leadership to fully change the system.

# data[].attributes.body
For week 12, I will be talking about Assa! I was absolutely hyped when I saw this movie on the course schedule. Assa is one of my favorite goofy soviet movies of all time. My friends and I have like a little cult following of it. We’ll be at reenactments all dressed in our Soviet uniforms absolutely blitzed, and somebody will play the bananaman song. Suddenly, the whole soviet camp will start dancing, maybe somebody will fire a PPSh burst in the air, we just all go wild for references to this movie. Anyway, this movie is excellent. The musical choices are fantastic, the jokes are funny and weird, and Viktor Tsoi is in it at the end. What more could a Soviet adolescent slice of life movie need?

First off, the music. The first song of the movie, Malchik bananan, is an absolute banger. I couldn’t love this nonsensical song more. I have been at many a function where this song came on and it was an absolute vibe everytime. Even people who have absolutely no context for the song love it. I was at a friend's wedding, and the DJ just had it in his playlist. The majority of the rest of the soundtrack is, of course, Aquarium. They are another fantastic band. My favorite songs from them in the movie would be Kozlodoyev and City of Gold. Both go with amazing scenes in the movie. First, Bananan and his band play for Alika and Krymov on the ferry. The presentation of the band singing the song is hilarious and especially that they are making fun of Krymov with the song. City of Gold goes with a much more serious and beautiful scene. The lift ride above the city is accompanied by the song and it makes it feel so surreal. It couldn’t have been a better choice. Finally, the end of the movie and Хочу перемен by Viktor Tsoi. What an amazing song and the scenes he did were great too. The version of the song recorded for the movie is my favorite version to listen to. The lyrics are so raw and the instrumental just goes together so well. This is my all time favorite Kino song. When I saw Viktor Tsoi at the end of the movie I about fell off my chair. He is an absolute hero and a badass. It is very fitting that they ended a movie with so many themes about musical liberation in it with this song.

# data[].attributes.body
Weeks 10 and 11 had two very long and very interesting texts. Out of the two, I feel I can talk more about Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky. Luckily, not only I but also “the critics” have a lot to say about Roadside Picnic (they are indeed raving). Roadside Picnic and the Strugatsky brothers have received much attention and acclaim globally for Roadside Picnic. It is arguably one of the most preeminent pieces of science fiction literature to come out of the Soviet Union. In 1977, Andrei Tarkovsky made an amazing movie based on the novel under the name Stalker, and, much later, video game adaptations of this were made featuring the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. I would like to explore these adaptations and the content of the novel.

Roadside Picnic and the Stalker movie are both deep dive explorations of the human condition. The actual book has a lot of other facets and is very gritty, while the movie focuses almost entirely on the exploration of the human condition through introspection. In the book, we see lots of greed, Red dealing with the consequences of his actions/choices, and trying to provide for his family, above all else, violence, and greed. There is also this exploration of humanity vs. the other. The extraterrestrial beings that visited and created the zones are pondered over; what did they think of humanity? Did they know we were here? Did they even care? They stopped by a left quickly, like an interplanetary roadside picnic (boom, title card). Finally, we get to the end of the book and this obsession over an object deep in the Zone. This “Golden Sphere”. Supposedly, it can grant any wish but it is only the true wish that one has deep inside. First, the problem is getting to the sphere. It is a highly dangerous journey. Red takes with him the son of another famous stalker. Along the way they talk a bit about wishes. The kid says he would wish for the happiness of all mankind. Red scoffs at this, can one really be so selfless, is this a true wish? Red ends up sacrificing the kid to get to the sphere and he says the most remembered line of the book: Look into my soul, I know - everything you need is in there. It has to be. Because I've never sold my soul to anyone! It's mine, it's human! Figure out yourself what I want - because I know it can't be bad! The hell with it all, I just can't think of a thing other than those words of his - HAPPINESS, FREE, FOR EVERYONE, AND LET NO ONE BE FORGOTTEN!”

In the Stalker movie, Tarkovsky focuses much more on the exploration of the soul/human condition. The characters are all complex. They all have some kind of deep longing or sadness. Some goal. The Stalker taking the two other characters through the zone is a troubled individual with a daughter who seems to have supernatural powers. As the characters move further through the zone, the appear to unravel more and more. They talk and debate, the Stalker’s thoughts are explored in VO. Finally, the reach the room that can grant wishes and one of the characters tries to blow it up, he is convinced not to do so and they end up leaving the zone. Tarkovsky’s Stalker is very much an artistic piece. One of the most interesting choices is that the movie begins in black and white, the outside world seems to be an industrial hellscape. Once inside the zone, the film is shot in color. They are still in some industrial settings but it is very beautiful. Upon leaving the zone, the world is still shot in color. Perhaps the stalker made a realization in the zone.

Finally, briefly onto the videogame adaptations. The Stalker video games lean heavily into the industrial depictions scene in the Tarkovsky movie. However, that is more or less where the similarities end. These games focus on the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, scientists were conducting radiation based experiments in the zone which caused a “blowout”. Basically, a rift in the fabric of reality was made that allowed physics-defying anomalies to appear, much like the traps in Roadside Picnic.

# data[].attributes.body
In Omon Ra (1992), Viktor Pelevin satirizes Soviet ideology by exposing the absurdity and cruelty underlying state myths of heroism and progress. The central point is that the Soviet system demanded personal sacrifice not for genuine advancement, but to uphold a fabricated image of greatness. The protagonist, Omon, dreams of becoming a cosmonaut—an ultimate Soviet hero—but discovers that the space program is a sham. Instead of piloting high-tech spacecraft, he is sent on a suicidal mission inside a mock rocket, meant only to maintain the illusion of cosmic achievement. Pelevin writes, “I was supposed to die for an idea that didn’t exist,” revealing how blind faith in state narratives led to meaningless suffering.

Pelevin’s dark humor and surrealism highlight the dissonance between state propaganda and lived reality. Omon’s journey becomes a metaphor for a generation manipulated into sacrificing individuality and life for symbols that hold no real substance.

This critique parallels Yurchak’s analysis in Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More, where citizens performed ideological loyalty while internally detaching from it. Just as Yurchak’s subjects maintained Soviet rituals without belief, Omon outwardly embraces his mission while inwardly questioning its purpose. Both texts reveal a system sustained by appearances and hollow ideals.

The effect is unsettling: Pelevin confronts the reader with the psychological and physical costs of ideological absurdity. Through satire and horror, Omon Ra strips away the romanticism of Soviet heroism, showing how oppressive systems turn even dreams into tools of control.

# data[].attributes.body
Review: Lenin Was a Mushroom
By Sergey Kuryokhin (TV performance, 1991)

Lenin Was a Mushroom is one of the most unusual and famous hoaxes in Russian television history. In 1991, musician and performer Sergey Kuryokhin appeared on Leningrad TV and, in a serious tone, claimed that Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin was… a mushroom. Yes, a real mushroom.

Kuryokhin presented his argument like a real historian, using fake "scientific" evidence, quotes, and logic. He even connected Lenin to psychedelic mushrooms and said that Lenin’s mind was changed by fungi. The style of the show made it look very believable, even though the idea was completely absurd. Some people at the time believed it!

This performance was actually a clever piece of satire. It showed how media can be used to manipulate people and how even crazy ideas can sound true if presented in a formal, serious way. It was a funny, yet smart, way to criticize propaganda and the blind trust many people had in Soviet media.

In short, Lenin Was a Mushroom is not really about Lenin or mushrooms. It’s a creative way to make people think more critically. It’s weird, funny, and clever—and still talked about today.

# data[].attributes.body
Russian 116

Lenin Was a Mushroom

Point- The mere fact that the Lenin was a Mushroom broadcast was even allowed to be aired is indicative of a monumental cultural shift happening and the inevitable fall of communism later that year.

Evidence- Sergei Kuryokhin, an experimental artist, was a guest being interviewed by a respected journalist Sergey Sholokhov and conducted almost the entire satirical interview without breaking character. Depending on the listener’s education level, dedication, perspective and outright gullibility, Kuryokhin set out to make his argument of Lenin being a mushroom misusing scientific terms and citing sources. The argument could be made that his hypothesis about Lenin using “smart sounding words” and “credible sources” was exactly the same recipe governments and political movements such as communism used to convince people of their ideas.

Analysis- Kuryokhin could have chosen just about any item, plant, or animal and applied the same methodology to make his point. The point wasn’t actually about mushrooms. In fact, the point was the message, the delivery, and its reception. It was meant to show how easily a message or theory could be manipulated. It was to show how communism was failing the Soviet people, while the devout party members still insisted on promoting the parties’ fallacies. Once again, depending on one’s education, dedication, perspective and outright gullibility, determined if you felt communism was failing.

Cross-Reference- At this point in history, the fall of communism was all but inevitable. The iron grip the Soviet Union once had on its people was slipping and Western culture was advancing fast. Satire and rock ‘n roll, once seen as forms of rebellion and dissidence that would never have been permitted, were permeating Soviet society. As we saw in the finale of Assa and its rebellious themes of rock and art; even though the movie’s hero Bananan was murdered, the new movement of Western culture was appealing to the Soviet masses.

Effect- In short, this was a form of rebellion and revolution. Even with communism and the Soviet Union facing imminent failure, lampooning Lenin in that fashion still came with some form of possible danger. This interview only highlights the audacity and bold beliefs at the time and the willingness of those to expose the falsehoods of their government.

# data[].attributes.body
An interesting point from this segment of U.S.S.R. TV is that many people believed that Lenin was actually a mushroom. This belief highlights a censorship issue, as many believed what was put on TV was the absolute truth. This issue occurred not only in the regular working class but also in the elite. Although the incident was likely intended to crack a joke about Lenin, it also displayed the negatives of large state involvement in media. The state often suppresses alternative sides to a position, and the state media is likely unable to be criticized. The media reaches a point where perfectly rational people believe Lenin physically turned into a mushroom. Authority is also the only justification for the belief. This situation connects well with the media that surrounded the Vietnam War in the United States. A popular narrative was pushed, which was heavily influenced by the information the government released. There was no strong reason to believe the government lies, as TV had not captured footage from previous wars. People were ignorant of what the U.S. had done, but Vietnam led to far more skepticism due to TV footage from the war. Lenin was a mushroom had a similar effect, although on a much smaller scale than Vietnam. Not everything that the government puts out is true, which seems obvious today. However, this view is not commonly held in many places today. It also has not been commonly held in history (i.e., the clergy and the Catholic Church). Events like Lenin was a mushroom and Vietnam both awakened people to skepticism of authority. It also reminded me to increase my skepticism of absolute authority (like the government).

# data[].attributes.body
Point:

Alexei Yurchak’s 2011 work called “A Parasite from Outer Space: How Sergei Kurekhin Proved That Lenin Was a Mushroom” describes how Sergei Kurekhin was able to trick the public and experts into believing the claim that Lenin was a mushroom.

Evidence:

“In addition to the documentary photographs and footage of Lenin, Kurekhin aired prerecorded interviews with real scientists, who, unaware of the claims that he would make in the program, had provided serious expert commentary” (Yurchak 318) and “The fake canvases themselves were actually quite mediocre. The artist who painted them for Drewe worked quickly, sloppily, and using cheap vinyl paints instead of genuine expensive oils. This alone could have been easily detected, if the art experts had only bothered to check” (Yurchak 321).

Analysis:

We will be examining the two quotes' meanings together, as they are quite similar and are connected to each other. The way Kurekhin was able to deceive the world was due to how he portrayed his argument. He consulted experts on the topic and warped their words, making it sound reasonable for a mere moment, and that was able to trick people. He also planted evidence in various archives, making it appear it has some background and precedent.

Cross-reference:

When reading this work, it really reminded me of the content from “Onion News.” I think the claim that Lenin was a mushroom would be some ridiculous claim they would come up with along with whatever pictures or evidence they want. Honestly, I think Kurekhin would have loved to work as an Onion News scriptwriter or a newspaper plot writer.

Effect:

Overall, I think it shows a rather interesting issue that was there at the time, and that event really reminded people of Lenin's importance to the movement. And it also shows how big of an issue misinformation is and how it affects people in different ways.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jelisaveta - Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More

# data[].attributes.subject
Jelisaveta - Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More

# data[].attributes.body
In Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More, Alexei Yurchak explores the paradox of late Soviet life, where citizens outwardly conformed to the system while privately detaching from its meaning. His main point is that people maintained Soviet rituals—attending meetings, repeating slogans—not out of belief, but as part of a normalized routine. This “performative shift” allowed the system to continue functioning even as belief in its ideals faded. Yurchak provides examples of individuals who complied publicly but built private spheres of meaning through art, friendships, and informal networks. This behavior reflects a deeper disillusionment masked by the appearance of order.

This idea is echoed in Solovyov’s film Assa (1987), where the tension between official Soviet structures and emerging underground culture is vividly portrayed. The character Bananan, a musician and outsider, embodies the alternative values Yurchak describes—freedom, creativity, and quiet rebellion. While the film’s setting remains within the bounds of Soviet life, the characters carve out personal autonomy through music, style, and coded language. The stark contrast between the gray, bureaucratic world and the vibrant underground mirrors the split between public performance and private authenticity.

The effect of this cross-reference reinforces the sense that the Soviet system’s collapse was not sudden, but rooted in a long-standing internal erosion. Both the text and film reveal how cultural expression became a subtle yet powerful form of resistance, making space for identity and meaning in a society where official ideology had lost its grip.

# data[].attributes.body
Shooting Range serves as a strong critique of capitalism and the labor system that plagued much of the Western world at the time, America especially, as the Cold War was still going on at the time. This is a classic Soviet message that is for the workers and against the bourgeoise.

The capitalist system is described via a metaphor of workers being literal shooting targets for corporate heads, risking their well-being and lives for the pleasure of those who have money. It is also demonstrated through the cartoon that workers essentially have no choice in the matter, as it is the only job available, and if they don't take it there is a long line of unemployed men and women who will take it despite the risks. Workers are trapped in this situation out of pure desperation.

Furthermore, the cartoon depicts the struggles of building a family in such a system. The main worker in the cartoon finds a woman to marry, and she too is dragged into the shooing range, risking her life as well for the benefit of the capitalists. the same is done for the children they have, and it only gives the capitalist reason to up the prices at the range, suggesting that a bigger the reliance, the stronger the hold that capitalists have.

# data[].attributes.body
Nu, Pogodi! is a soviet cartoon that began airing in 1969. The animated cartoon portrays the rivalry between two animals, a Wolf and a Hare, in which the Wolf always tries to catch the Hare. This cartoon series can be compared to Tom and Jerry since they both have the same setup, with one animal always trying to catch the other, but in the end, they fail. They are both dialogue-free cartoons in which you rely on the visuals, action, and vibrant setting structure to be entertained. However, the difference between the cartoons is that one reflects the values of American individualism (Tom and Jerry), while the other reflects the Soviet collectivist moral frameworks (Nu, Pogodi!). One point to be made is that within the cartoon, the way it is edited throughout the episodes can be seen as a way of propaganda editing style, only that instead of trying to use it to the advantage of portraying military power, it is used to portray behavioral norms through the usage of comedy. Overall, Nu, Pogodi! is a humorous and fun cartoon series to watch, both for kids and adults.

# data[].attributes.body
Nu, Pogodi! is a classic Soviet cartoon that first aired in 1969 and quickly became one of the most loved animated shows in Russia and other post-Soviet countries. The name translates to “Just You Wait!” in English.

The cartoon follows the comedic chase between a mischievous wolf (Volk) and a clever hare (Zayats). Each episode is full of funny situations where the wolf tries to catch the hare, but always fails in the end. The show is very similar in style to Tom and Jerry, but with a unique Russian flavor and cultural references.

One of the best parts of Nu, Pogodi! is the music and animation. Even without much dialogue, the humor and expressions are easy to understand and enjoyable for all ages. The wolf is a funny character with a rough voice and silly behavior, while the hare is smart, calm, and always finds a way to escape.

The cartoon also shows life in the Soviet Union through its backgrounds—such as beaches, streets, theaters, and parks—which adds a nostalgic touch for many viewers.

Overall, Nu, Pogodi! is a fun, creative, and timeless cartoon. It teaches that being clever and kind wins over being mean and sneaky. Even today, it remains a favorite among many generations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ну, Погоди! & Земляне

# data[].attributes.subject
Ну, Погоди! & Земляне

# data[].attributes.body
While interpreted by the Soviet space community & government as a song representing the homesickness experienced by cosmonauts, the song Трава у Дома by Земляне can also be interpreted as an ode to the public dissatisfaction with and disapproval of the Soviet space program. The lyrics, that can be assumed as representing the public at large, express that the people dream not of космодрома or ледяная синева, but of the зелёная трава that could be endangered by the environmental harm emissions associated with rocket launches and production can cause.

# data[].attributes.body
"Ну, погоди!" is more than just an animated series; it holds a place in the cultural heritage of the time. For many, it was a significant part of childhood during the Soviet era. The endless chases of the wolf after the hare, the familiar melodies, and the iconic phrase "Ну, заяц, погоди!" have all woven themselves into the cultural fabric of the nation.

By that period, Soviet animation had already developed considerable experience in crafting anthropomorphic animal characters. However, director Vyacheslav Kotenochkin succeeded in creating truly memorable serial characters that captivated the audience.

Every episode features a different location, creating a vast and rich world for the characters that paint a portrait of daily life in the country. The public spaces are revealed in a new light, serving as backdrops for exciting stunts and thrilling chases.

I would like also to point out the music, we can find through the cartoon songs of iconic Soviet-russian singers such as Vladimir Vysotsky, Muslim Magomaev, or Alla Pugachova. Those singers' songs are worshiped in the USSR and are often used or written for movies or cartoons.  This is even more giving to "Ну, погоди!"  this important place in the soviet culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Assa

I think its undeniable how important the arts, particularly music and song, play in just about every culture. The importance of music and song stretch further than just simple entertainment. Music consoles. It transports us. It speaks to us. It connects us. But arguably the most important quality is its ability to inspire. Soviet culture is no exemption.

In Assa, we saw how a young couple made an instant connection during the emerging underground Soviet rock genre in the opening scene. That connection was furthered strengthened over time through various expressions of Bananan’s other art, with music being the catalyst. Alika eventually became enamored by not only Bananan the person, but the creativity offered capturing Alika’s attention.  Whether it was sampling on a synthesizer or Bananan’s book of people, Alika felt her bond grow with Bananan while simultaneously seeing the bond with Krymov deteriorate. Perhaps the most exemplary, scene of art’s power of connection was the scene with the red listening tube. The tube itself was nothing special, but it was the exercise of listening and experiencing another person. Alika understood this message of Bananan’s art and gesture. Unfortunately for Krynmov, that message wasn’t received. This scene is perhaps indicative of the overall social shift happening in the Soviet Union where the old ways of the communism were about to collide with western influences.

I feel Assa’s music separates itself from other Soviet films and literature we have studied by the what the music represents. For the most part, songs have had a nationalist theme celebrating the past and extolling those to live with similar virtues. In films such as Chapaev, Circus and Earth; song was meant to embrace the communist spirit and inspire one to become a contributing party member. However, in Assa there seems to be an undercurrent in Soviet society moving away from traditional communist tenets. This is evident in Bananan and his art.

The music and art in Assa are incredibly representative of the social and political shifts at that time. Western influences were infiltrating what was once seemingly an impermeable curtain with music leading the charge. Although I didn’t know who was singing in the final scene nor the words he was singing, you could see there was a clear torch being passed to the next person. Change was coming and as I stated earlier, music was connecting and inspiring. As I later found out, the singer in the final scene was an actual star of the underground soviet rock scene. The message in this closing scene was clear, there was no stopping this revolution of sound and art because the youth was connected and inspired.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Shooting Range's strong point is a criticism of life in the West. The cartoon depicts a man and woman attempting to build a family but at the same time being shot at. This event likely symbolizes the difficulty of building a family in the West. Capitalism drives inequality, which the West is full of, so trying to build a family is more difficult than it needs to be. A further point relating to capitalism is the "for hire" signs all the citizens have on their backs, which are also written in the Latin alphabet. This language further suggests the cartoon is in the West as the U.S.S.R. used Cyrillic. The architecture and clothing are also Western. The capitalist can easily replace his human targets, who also have been underpaid, with new human targets. These new targets will also be underpaid or even killed while working. The workers are nothing more than workers for the capitalist. The cartoon tries to show how these capitalist qualities create terrible work-life in the West. This cartoon also has a similar idea to the movie Circus as it also criticizes life in the West. Circus makes a point about the difficult life black people have in the West, but not in the U.S.S.R. Shooting Range, making the Western viewer reconsider their preconceived notions about what life in the West was like compared to the U.S.S.R. It is possible that the quality of life was not as good as it was often stated. Overall, the cartoon tries to say that Western ideas, like capitalism and culture, are no good.

# data[].attributes.body
Point:
In the 1979 cartoon called “Тир / Shooting Range,” which was directed by V. Tarasov, illustrates how the Soviet Union viewed the morally corrupt and egotistical United States businessmen.

Evidence:
The scene is depicted between the movie time: 00:06:09 - 00:08:08.

Analysis:
In the scene, it shows how the United States capitalist businessman is taking advantage of the system, unemployment, the environment, and man's innate greed. More precisely, the scene depicts how a local businessman hired a guy off the street to work at his gun store; he later made the new employee the target and increased the price due to the live target. Here it shows how morally corrupt the United States system is; the only reason the businessmen made a human target is that he knew the people would pay for it. In this scene, it can also be integrated that the United States capitalist system is against the people, as it makes their people the targets of the rich.

Cross-reference:
When I was watching this cartoon, it reminded me of the 2021 film “Apex.” I felt the film is very similar to the cartoon's deeper meaning; more accurately, they are offering the same experience. In Apex, they are offering the rich an opportunity to hunt a human target. The human target is a criminal with a life sentence, and what entices the criminal to play this sick game is if they survive a certain amount of time, they can get their freedom.

Effect:
Overall, I really enjoyed this cartoon. Does a very good job at showing the different relationships of the different social classes and how they conflict with each other. It also does a very good job of displaying the United States obsession with consumerism and thrill-seeking mentality. It also does a very good job of displaying the hopeless situation the United States citizens face through their expressions.

# data[].attributes.body
While appearing as a sequence of nonsensically compiled clips of film, the Soviet film Man With a Movie Camera exhibits what a day is like in the life of idealistic Soviet society. Vertov creates a compelling film that shows charming, high-quality working-class life across the soviet union; however, working-class people in the late 1920s likely were not experiencing this perceived quality and charm. There was a housing shortage and wages were issued on the basis of an unfair system. While Vertov includes fleeting moments of discomfort to suggest balance, the overall absence of genuine hardship creates a misleading depiction that masks the prevailing struggles of the era.

# data[].attributes.body
Farewell, Gulsary! is a touching and emotional story about an old man named Tanabai and his horse, Gulsary. The story takes place in Kyrgyzstan and shows the deep bond between the man and the horse. As Tanabai travels with the dying Gulsary, he remembers his life, his struggles, and how the world has changed.

The book talks about friendship, aging, loyalty, and how politics and society affect people's lives. It is written in a poetic and thoughtful way, making the reader feel the pain and beauty of life.

This story is not just about a horse—it’s about love, loss, and memories. It is a powerful and moving book that makes you think about what really matters in life.

# data[].attributes.body
In Farewell, Gulsary! by Chinghiz Aitmatov, the bond between man and animal becomes a powerful metaphor for loss, aging, and the erosion of idealism. The central character, Tanabai, reflects on his life through his journey with his dying horse, Gulsary. Aitmatov’s point is clear: time wears down not only the body but also revolutionary ideals. Tanabai once believed in the promises of the Soviet system, yet he ends his life disillusioned, much like his worn-out horse. Aitmatov writes, “There was a time when you and I galloped ahead of everyone… And now look at us,” showing how Gulsary mirrors Tanabai’s decline. The horse becomes a symbol of the past—loyal, spirited, but ultimately discarded.

This idea connects to Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, which similarly critiques the human condition through the motif of decay and disillusionment. In Roadside Picnic, Redrick’s journey through the alien Zone reveals not progress, but moral compromise and existential dread. Both stories portray a world where former ideals—whether revolutionary or scientific—fail to uplift humanity. Redrick, like Tanabai, continues moving forward not with hope, but because there is no other choice.

The cross-reference deepens the emotional effect: both narratives remind the reader that progress often comes with casualties, and that individuals are left grappling with meaning in a world that seems indifferent. Aitmatov and the Strugatskys challenge us to confront the costs of change—both personal and societal—while questioning what, if anything, endures.

# data[].attributes.body
"Farewell, Gulsary!" by Chingiz Aitmatov which was published in 1966. Within this Soviet novel, there is an aging Kyrgyz horseman, Tanabai, and a horse, Gyulsary, who journey together during the horse's last hours. Within the novel included some themes such as aging and leadership. Within the theme of aging, some things associated with it are the regrets that are felt and the memory and nostalgia that is depicted throughout the flashbacks in the story. The idea of memory shows how it helps shape ones identity and how people reminisce a lot on past events as time passes. The theme leadership expands on the good and bad types of leaders such as when Tanabai realizes that the system becomes corrupt and oppressive over time. It reveals how people do not use their power to help people, but rather for their own interests. One good side of leadership portrayed in the novel is when Tanabai was a party activist in his village and a foreman on a collective farm. He associated himself with the Communist ideals of equality and he tried to be a hardworking and caring person for the people who he took leadership over. Overall, the novel touches on the ideas that we should hold onto what we value the most and what we believe in, as well as mourn what is lost as time passes, but never forget what events or people played a role into shaping who we become later on in life as we grow.

# data[].attributes.body
"Farewell, Gulsary!" is a narrative by Tchinghiz Aitmatov that first appeared in excerpts in 1965 and was fully published in 1966. This marked Aitmatov's debut in Russian literature, as his previous works were only available in Kyrgyz.

The story follows Tanabay Bakasov, whose life is shaped by themes of struggle, faith, love, and disillusionment, set against the historical backdrop of collectivization, the Great Patriotic War, and post-war reconstruction. Aitmatov's exploration of Tanabay's character reflects the challenges faced by rural communities, drawing comparisons to Sholokhov's characters while delving deeper into existential themes.

A significant aspect of the narrative is the relationship between Tanabay and Choro Sayakov, the collective farm chairman, whose conflicting views highlight the cynicism and indifference of the powers that be. Additionally, Aitmatov incorporates existential reflections through animal symbolism, with Gulsara, a pacer, serving as a metaphor for life itself. I would like here to cross-reference it with a movie that was made a little later, MAMA, where we can see the same link with the animals. Feelings there are artistically amplified with animal use, and I find it as a Russian signature. The climax features the horse's castration, depicting the struggle for dignity amid violence against the authenticity of existence, emphasizing humanity's connection to nature in Aitmatov's unique style.

# data[].attributes.body
Near the end of the story, an old Kyrgyz folktale about the Grey Goat is told. In this story, all the Grey Goat's children are killed by a hunter, as well as her mate, leaving her as the last of her kind. The Goat loses all hope and dares the hunter to chase and kill her, but she says she knows he won't be able to catch her. Lo and behold, the hunter fails to catch her and is cursed by the Goat. Later, the hunter is found by his father, dangling from a cliff, unable to be helped, and must be killed by his father to end his suffering.

While this is an interesting tale to bolster the overall Kyrgyz vibe of the story, it may also be used to serve as a metaphor. In this case, the Goat could be used to represent the Kyrgyz people and the hunters the Soviets with their relentless persecution of the Soviet states.

The fate of the hunter in the story represents the fate of the Soviet nation if it does not cease its cruelty: undoing, total collapse. And as it turned out, that is exactly what happened to the Soviet Union, in part because it could not keep the people in its states happy.

# data[].attributes.body
William Piegari

Weekly writing assignment Week 11/12

Farewell to Gyulsary

Throughout Farewell to Gyulsary, we witnessed Tanabai’s enduring struggle to be a good party member. The importance of being a proper party member is a reoccurring theme, not only for Tanabai, but for all those connected, including Gyulsary. Highlighted by Tanabai’s personal struggles to fulfill his duties, there is an underlying theme that Communism is essentially flawed. On paper, it seems most people find the idea of sharing wealth a noble gesture and worth attempting. In practice, Communism proved to be far too inefficient and ineffective to satisfy all members. It seems all must consider their personal commitment and how much they truly believe in the communist concept.

Communism had major problems and stifled the potential of just about everything. Even the animals would agree with that! Gyulsary was perhaps the biggest example. Whether it was being transferred to the Party Chairman in his prime, being constantly hobbled and constrained in a stable, or being castrated; Gyulsary’s full potential and prime as a legendary pacer was needlessly limited in the name of communism. Ironically, his wasted fate intertwined with that of Tanabai’s wasted potential. For all purposes, Tanabai wanted to be the perfect party member.  He fought and served in the army. He excelled at raising horses, all for the benefit of the party. His reward? They transferred him to sheep, where he faced continuous problems. Problems were abundant such as insufficient help, help quitting, lack of resources, lack of leadership, and lack of true accountability. In communism, accountability only operated in one direction, from the top down in the form of blame. Choro and Ibrahim exemplify this point. Although they played their prescribed role in Communism, we saw each break down in a manner that suggested they were no different than Tanabai. All were witnesses to communism’s failures. Both Choro and Ibrahim had to answer to someone above, hwoever, they’re only recourse was to urge those underneath their supervision to continue to produce no matter the cost. The common excuse, everyone was dealing with these issues, so what gave you the right to complain. In the end, it didn’t matter. Tanabai was kicked out of the party. He had sacrificed so much personally with little paid back to him.

If you consider the shortcomings, effort, and lack of results for a good communist, probably need to consider the plight of Kochina in Blockade Diary. The never-ending suffering of yet another good party member, Kochina did arguably everything asked of her. Her rewards were disappointment and suffering. Wasn’t like that for everyone in Blockade Diary.  Kochina would later meet a couple during the train ride to salvation, who were well fed and unaware of the personal sacrifice of countless people.

I can’t help but feel the overall effect of these literary works has a dual message. It amplifies the spirit of those caught in communism while it anguishes over the true cost of communism. The idea that common people were suffering under the old ways, under the kulaks, and that any alternative would be better just simply does prove to be the truth. The two truths seemed to be; that no matter what social-economic structure the common people would suffer, but the people as a whole would endure it.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexandra Kollontai’s text, “Working Woman and Mother”, highlights the differences between the proletariat and the bourgeois class through a series of stories describing pregnancy and motherhood. She does this with the use of many “Mashenkas”, each one being a different person in a different societal class.

Kollontai describes the bourgeois life of Mashenka, a factory director’s wife, saying, “Don’t let her get tired, don’t let her lift anything heavy. Let her eat just what she fancies. Fruit? Give her some fruit. Caviare? Give her caviare.” Whereas, the proletariat Mashenka, like the laundress, has to live through exhaustion, swollen legs, and overwhelming burdens, as seen in the text “The baskets of wet linen are often so heavy that Masha has to lean against the wall to prevent herself from falling.”

With vivid imagery and depiction, the author contrasts the ostentatiousness of the bourgeois class with the physical and emotional suffering that is characteristic of the proletariat class. The care given to the factory director’s wife heavily opposes the suffering that the working women have to face on a daily basis, emphasizing the societal indifference to the struggles of the poor. This division criticizes the capitalist system that prioritizes wealth over humanity and health.

Another example of this is seen on the Netflix series (set in the 19th century) “Bolívar”, in episode 8, “Una lucha admirable” (An admirable fight). In this episode, Dominga (proletariat), a former slave and now worker of Simon Bolívar’s estate, is the only person capable of assisting with delivery and both Maria Teresa (Bolívar’s wife) and Matea (Dominga’s daughter) are in labor. Dominga starts assisting Matea until a worker tells her that Bolívar is demanding her assistance in delivering his baby, so she leaves her daughter (proletariat) to help Maria Teresa (bourgeois). After several hours Bolívar’s baby finally arrives, but Dominga is asked to stay more time and stabilize the baby. Finally, she leaves to take care of her daughter and grandchild.  When she arrived her daughter was exhausted and still in labor. As soon as Dominga begins to help she notices that her grandchild had died not so long ago because Matea took too long to deliver and as a result asphyxiated the baby.

Matea, Dominga, and Maria Teresa are clear examples of what Kollantai depicts in her work  “Working Woman and Mother”. In this series, Matea and Dominga, former slave workers and now ‘free’ workers, belong to the proletariat working class, while Maria Teresa, wife of the owner of the estate, Simon Bolivar, belongs to the bourgeois class. Matea faces the physical and emotional suffering characteristically of the proletariat class as the care she needs, her mother assisting in her birth, is demanded and given to Maria Teresa instead.  Dominga is forced to help the bourgeois, even though it ends up costing her a grandchild. Birth is different for the bourgeois and for the proletariat.

Kollontai’s depiction creates empathy and a sense of indignation into the reader, perceiving the system as inhumane.  In the same way it makes them recognize the injustices that working class mothers face, and promotes a movement for equality and better treatment for all women in the most basic level, health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mark Walczak: Week 10-11 -Strugatsky bros. (Stalker)

# data[].attributes.subject
Mark Walczak: Week 10-11 -Strugatsky bros. (Stalker)

# data[].attributes.body
The pivotal moment in Stalker, for me, comes after the group realizes that the Room doesn’t grant what you want, plan, or need—but what your heart truly desires. The Writer never enters because his lack of inspiration is rooted in a deeper lack of self-knowledge. He doesn’t know what he wants, so the Room can offer him nothing. The Professor also refrains and dismantles the bomb he brought. If the Room truly reveals your deepest desire, then using a bomb to destroy it is pointless—if that’s what he truly wanted, the Room would have done it for him. None of them enter the Room because each is afraid of what might be revealed as their true desire.

And yet, through this confrontation with the unknown, each man arguably leaves with exactly what he needed. The Writer gains insight into his own creative emptiness and finds both inspiration and self-awareness. The Professor, who feared the Room might be misused, learns that its power lies beyond human control and thus beyond corruption. The Stalker laments that no one believes anymore, but by guiding these two through the Zone and watching them return changed, his own belief is reaffirmed. In their own ways, all three find what they sought—not through the Room, but through the journey to it.

The Professor and his unused bomb make this idea literal: the Room’s power lies not in being used, but in being understood. To step into it is redundant. Like the bomb, the Room remains untouched, and ultimately unseen.

What Stalker suggests is that self-understanding is the greatest power we have. So much of the world—film, politics, media—relies on building or reclaiming narratives about ourselves. Even stories about losing control often end with the protagonist reclaiming it. We’re trained to fight on narrative terms, always seeking to reshape the story, never stepping outside of it.

Stalker feels rare because it proposes an alternative: you can exist beyond the narrative, if you're willing to let go of your narrative of self. When you understand yourself, you no longer need stories to make sense of who you are. And suddenly, the distance between you and the narratives trying to contain you becomes visible—so clear that you wonder how you ever missed it.

# data[].attributes.body
The mountains that Tanabai and Gulsary travel through at the beginning of the story symbolize adversity and responsibility. "The road winding up to the plateau was tediously long... For Tanabai, this climb had always been an ordeal." The mountains are something that everyone living in the region must experience and traverse through. This requirement creates physical adversity, which leads the mountains to symbolize adversity. The idea that everyone living in the area must use the mountains to travel is similar to the snow in "Through the Snow." The snow acts as an adversity that all traveling must conquer daily. The mountains symbolize responsibility (like Zdancewicz mentioned Tuesday, 4/1), as many responsibilities exist there. Sheep herding is done in the mountains, so the mountains must be crossed consistently. Tanabai's responsibilities in the mountains cannot be neglected, so the responsibility in the mountains can also symbolize necessary suffering. Completing many tasks in the mountains generates suffering, but not for an arbitrary reason. Tasks that need to be done can be done only through the adversity of the mountains. Reading about the terrain that represents adversity makes the reader see Tanabai and Gulsary in a better light. They see them as more hard-working because of the consistent suffering they experience. The mountains can also give the reader a sense of appreciation for not being required to cross large amounts of adversity to complete daily responsibilities. Sympathy for Tanabai and Gulsary could be created if the reader faces large amounts of adversity in completing daily responsibilities. The reader's ability to understand the situation due to experience would generate this sympathy. Ultimately, the mountains represent adversity and responsibility.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bar-Zvi - Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic (1972)

# data[].attributes.subject
Bar-Zvi - Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic (1972)

# data[].attributes.body
Point:
Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's 1916 work called “Roadside Picnic” describes how things just happen without any need to know why, and humans are merely just victims of circumstance.

Evidence:

“A picnic. Imagine: a forest, a country road, a meadow. A car pulls off the road into the meadow and unloads young men, bottles, picnic baskets, girls, transistor radios, cameras . . . A re is lit, tents are pitched, music is played. And in the morning they leave. e animals, birds, and insects that were watching the whole night in horror crawl out of their shelters. And what do they see? An oil spill, a gasoline puddle, old spark plugs and oil lters strewn about . . . Scattered rags, burntout bulbs, someone has dropped a monkey wrench. e wheels have tracked mud from some godforsaken swamp . . . and, of course, there are the remains of the campre, apple cores, candy wrappers, tins, bottles, someone’s handkerchief, someone’s penknife, old ragged newspapers, coins, wilted owers from another meadow” (Strugatsky 112).

Analysis:
This quote describes an interesting theory about the nature of the zone. Which is basically, aliens came to the zone for a picnic, and all the artifacts are the trash they left behind. This theory enhances the mystery surrounding the zone, as we don’t know their exact purpose for visiting the zone's location. It also brings the question: how advanced is their technology?

Cross-reference:

When reading this work, it reminded me of the animated show called “Darker than Black.” I find it similar, as they both had zone-like areas filled with paranormal activity, and it is both beyond human comprehension. Both zones also draw morally gray people to them, often for their own greed.

Effect:

Overall, I very much enjoyed this novel, as it did a very good job of illustrating the mystery and terror that everyone was facing. I like the appearance of the aliens that have a Lovecraft feel to them and the beyond-human comprehension feel with them. But I think this story can represent a different era of literature in the Soviet Union.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrei Sinyavsky’s "Pkhentz" (1966) is a profound meditation on alienation and identity, told through the perspective of an extraterrestrial being forced to live disguised as a deformed human in Soviet society. The story’s central theme is the struggle for belonging in a world that rejects difference. The protagonist, trapped in an unfamiliar and rigid society, mirrors the experience of individuals marginalized by the Soviet system—whether due to physical deformity, ideological dissent, or internal displacement. His alienation is exacerbated by his inability to communicate his true identity, a metaphor for the suppression of individuality under authoritarian rule.

This theme of existential entrapment resonates with Varlam Shalamov’s "On the Slate" from Kolyma Tales, which depicts the brutal survival mechanisms within the Soviet labor camps. Like the protagonist of "Pkhentz", prisoners in Shalamov’s story are reduced to a state of powerlessness, their identities erased by a system that values only their utility. The protagonist Naumov, a camp gambler, desperately stakes everything he owns, including his dignity, mirroring Pkhentz’s struggle to maintain a sense of self in a world that does not recognize him. Both texts critique Soviet society’s dehumanization—whether in the forced conformity of urban life or the extreme oppression of the Gulag.

The effect of both works is striking—they challenge the reader to reconsider identity, humanity, and resilience in oppressive conditions. "Pkhentz" and "On the Slate" together expose the devastating psychological toll of a system that erases individuality, forcing its subjects into roles they neither choose nor understand.

# data[].attributes.body
The “Unwomanly Face of War" follows Alexievich interviewing different women on their accounts of war. It is raw and shows us the reader a different side of war that isn’t typically discussed in history. Often war can be portrayed as glorious and the negative effects of it are sometimes looked past. Alexievich takes these accounts of women and really puts into perspective all of the horrors that come with war.

When reading Alexievich, I’m reminded of how women and their stories are often never shared, not just with war, but with many historical events. The people affected by war are often seen as a statistic and Alexievich gives life and meaning to the women affected by this tragedy. Alexievich believes that the portrayal of war comes from that of the mouth of a man. “Everything we know about war we know with a ‘man’s voice.’ We are all captives of ‘men’s’ notions and ‘men’s’ sense of war. ‘Men’s’ words. Women are silent.” (pg. 15) She once again highlights how women’s stories are forgotten or never asked for.

I liked the reading a lot. It makes me want to look for similar authors like Alexievich. Women’s stories play an important role in history, and I think author’s who highlight those stories are worth turning my attention towards.

# data[].attributes.body
The story Pkhentz, is about an alien named Sushinsky who lives in Russia, hiding his true identity. It is strange, slightly grotesque, and at some moments humorous. Throughout the story Sushinsky talks about him being an alien/ extraterrestrial being and how is different from those that are around him, however I don’t think that he’s actually an alien. I think that the whole story is an allegory for those who live within the soviet union.

There’s a paragraph in the short story, where Sushinsky talks about not recognizing his home. “I can’t recognize my native skies from your books and maps and things. Even now, I go out into the street at night, look up and there it is again—all wrong. I don’t even know in which direction to yearn.” (pg.233) To me this paragraph symbolizes how people in the soviet union may be far removed from what Russia has become or used to be. I also think that the last sentence could symbolize not knowing which state of Russia you want. Not knowing if you want to return to Russia before the revolution or to be content with its current state with hope for the better.

I like the strangeness of this story. It can be quite dark, but I enjoy that. I find it to be beautiful in a twisted way. It reminds of the darkness of some of the stories that we read by Shalamov. Whenever alienation or being different was being mentioned in this story, I always thought that it was a metaphor for the people of the Soviet Union. I think that this story overall is really good and I would go back and read it again.

# data[].attributes.headline
Optional - Through the Snow: Varlam Shalamov

# data[].attributes.subject
Optional - Through the Snow: Varlam Shalamov

# data[].attributes.body
An important aspect of this story is the symbol of snow. The snow represents an obstacle of struggle, which needs to be overcome consistently. "He steers his body through the snow like a helmsman steering a boat along a river, from one bend to the next" (Shalamov 18). Traversing through the snow is similar to traversing through water. It plays the role of a natural deterant that makes survival more difficult. The snow beats the person down and makes them tired. The snow plays a some what similar role to the snow in "The Ascent." The soldiers have to traverse through the snow, which makes life more difficult. This difficulty is similar as the people in "Through the Snow" also have difficulty traversing through the snow. "One man walks ahead,

sweating and cursing, barely able to put one foot in front of the other,

getting stuck every minute in the deep, porous snow" (Shalamov 18). The snows play similar roles in these instances as they both harm quality of life. The snow creates an effect of sadness for the reader as it is difficult seeing the adversity snow creates. It also creates a similar effect for the people as adversity can break the persons energy, which is what it does in "Through the Snow." " He gets tired, lies down in the snow" (Shalamov 18). Ultimately, the snow symbolizes a natural adverse object that makes life more difficult.

# data[].attributes.body
The film Fate of a Man (1959), directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, captures the harrowing experience of Andrei Sokolov, a Soviet soldier during World War II, who endures the brutality of a German prisoner-of-war camp, the loss of his family, and the devastation of war. The central point of the film is the exploration of human resilience amidst unimaginable suffering. Sokolov’s stoic endurance in the face of physical and emotional torment exemplifies the psychological cost of war, as his only solace becomes caring for an orphaned boy after the war. This paternal bond symbolizes a fragile restoration of humanity after its near destruction.

A cross-reference can be drawn to The Ascent (1977) by Larisa Shepitko, which similarly explores the psychological and moral toll of war but emphasizes the internal conflict of choosing between self-preservation and sacrifice. In The Ascent, the protagonist, Sotnikov, faces a moral dilemma under Nazi capture, ultimately choosing to maintain his principles at the cost of his life. In contrast, Sokolov in Fate of a Man must carry the physical and emotional burden of survival after losing everything, embodying the resilience of the human spirit in post-war trauma.

The effect of both films is profound; they challenge viewers to reflect on the cost of war not in terms of military victories but through the personal losses and transformations individuals endure. Bondarchuk and Shepitko shift the focus from collective heroism to intimate human suffering, ensuring that the inner scars of war remain central to historical memory. Both films, in their portrayal of suffering, emphasize the resilience required to reclaim one’s humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
Fate of a Man by Carolina Ramirez is a powerful and emotional story about overcoming hardships. The novel follows the journey of a man who faces many struggles but never gives up. It shows how fate can be both cruel and unpredictable, yet human strength and determination can change the course of life.

The author does a great job of making the characters feel real and relatable. The descriptions are vivid, making it easy to imagine the scenes and emotions. The story is sometimes sad, but it also gives hope and inspiration.

Overall, Fate of a Man is an engaging and thought-provoking book. It teaches important lessons about resilience and destiny. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys deep and meaningful stories.

# data[].attributes.headline
William Piegari - The Ascent & Fate of a Man

# data[].attributes.subject
William Piegari - The Ascent & Fate of a Man

# data[].attributes.body
William Piegari

Last week’s movie, The Ascent, seemed to focus on the individual means of survival and in some cases, an individual choice on whether to die with dignity. Although it would seem obvious which side of the war people were on, everyone had their own path. Sometimes that path would wind into unexpected territories.

Although each character was a Soviet, the roles they played, and their corresponding fates were completely dissimilar. For instance, Demchikha, a mother of three and a wife of a Soviet fighter, suffered a cruel fate due to her unwilling involvement in protecting the Soviet partisans. The town elder, who was a collaborationist headman with the Nazis, would suffer similar fate. Although some would say this was the risk of playing both sides in the war. It's ironic that the two Soviets who did manage to survive, Rybak and Portnov, did so by agreeing to collaborate with the Germans. But at what cost? Both characters seem to realize the enormity of actions. Both seem to realize that the consequences of working with the Nazis, will eventually be far worse than ending at the end of a rope with their fellow Soviets.

Ultimately, each character knew their fate. Whether their lives would be taken immediately, or they would end up suffering in regret and torment. In class we spoke about the significance of light equating to freedom, and darkness equating to imprisonment. This distinction would come crashing together in the climax with Rybak’s rage on display. Rybak seems to realize that in the end, it doesn’t matter if he’s in a dark basement dungeon or walking freely in the sunshine; he was going to be a prisoner to his own his emotional and psychological torment. I believe Portnov is aware his future is one of uncertainty. During the final scene featuring the hangings, he exchanges a long and painful stare. It seems he’s fully aware his role in this war may incur a debt that will one day be collected.

Much like Fate of a Man, in The Ascent we see survivors of the war contemplating what their futures would hold and how their past decisions impact their future. In Fate of a Man, we saw Sokolov, a man who served his country admirably, staring, unsure what lies ahead. In contrast, Rybak’s realization seems come much quicker, but the uncertainty is far worse.

The overall effect could once again be answered with a question…” At what cost”? Portnov, Rybak, and Sokolov all survived. But at what cost? All three men will have to live with their choices. Some of the choices were made with obvious evil intentions and some were made from necessity. Either way their survival choices were theirs to own.

# data[].attributes.body
Point: Fate of a Man is a film directed by Sergei Bondarchuk and was released in 1959. It focuses on the main character, Andrei Sokolov who suffers a lot during World War 2. He had to battle the loss of his family once returning home from surviving the German camp. This film portrays the hardships that people faced during the war and the resilience that some people had during a tragic time like this.

Evidence: At some point during the film, Sokolov meets an orphaned boy, named Vanya, who also lost his family during the war. As time progresses, they travel together and Sololov realizes that he cannot leave the little boy alone. At one point, Sokolov is asked about the little boy and says that is his son.

Analysis: This part of the film can be viewed as an emotionally symbolic one. Although, Sokolov was suffering with his own grief, after having lost his own family, he was able to persevere and progress through life while helping care for a little boy. He presents himself in a fatherly way towards the boy, feeding him and making sure he is okay which portrays the way in which Sokolov would have cared for his own children. In fact, although it was not specifically shown, with Sokolov giving Vanya a new life and putting portraying himself as a fatherly figure, it was as if he adopted the little boy. It reveals a relationship between them which emphasizes on resilience and love since they were able to encounter each other during a hard time and help each other move forward in life and through the grief they felt.

Cross-reference: This film can connect with Kochina and her diary. They both portray experiences of dealing with World War 2 and how they progressed in life. They also both share a "scene" with the bread and how it was the only thing that provided for all who were suffering. Both the film and diary are symbolic in terms of enhancing how the war was a tragic and difficult time for all, but some people were able to get through it.

Effect: The film overall depicts the image of what life was life for those that were sent to camps and had to find ways to survive, as well as showing the grief that some people had to go through because of the war. We as the audience may feel sympathy for Sokolov because of the loss of his family, but we may also feel proud of him for progressing forward and allowing himself to play a fatherly figure role to a child who could relate to him.

# data[].attributes.body
In  The Ascent (Shepitko, 1977) the story revolves around two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak. When the two of them get captured by the Germans, we are faced with a moral dilemma. Should one resist and die resisting or try to save your own life by cooperating.

When both Sotnikov and Rybak get captured by Germans, Sotnikov is taken into questioning. Sotnikov immediately refuses to answer any questions, which resulted in him being tortured. But even after the torture, Sotnikov does not break and refuses to betray his fellow soldiers. In contrast, when Rybak gets interrogated, he immediately starts speaking and cooperating, desperately trying to save his life. In the end, Rybak gets offered to work for the German police.

When Rybak and Sotnikov get reunited in the basement, Rybak tries to convince Sotnikov that they can still save themselves, they just need to be smart and say the correct things. At 1:05:10 Rybak says that they need to pretend to be obedient. But Sotnikov responds, “We are soldiers! Don’t crawl in shit. You’ll never wash it off”. To Sotnikov, staying true to himself is the most important thing. While Rybak believes that these ideals are useless and just lead to death.

In the end, Sotnikov sacrifices himself trying to save others and gets executed by hanging. But Rybak, desperate to save himself, agrees to join German police. But after witnessing Sotnikov's execution, Rybak realizes what he has done. He tries to kill himself, but fails and is forced to live with guilt of betraying his comrades.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main points of Fate of a Man is how the human spirit can stay strong even when faced with incredible suffering. Sokolov goes through so much pain but never gives up and continues to demonstrate strength in moments that others may falter at.

For example, in the concentration camp, when the Nazi officer says he will execute him, Sokolov doesn’t back down. Instead, he stands tall and drinks to his own life instead of toasting the Nazis’ victory like the officer wanted. This scene demonstrates that even in the worst situations, Sokolov refuses to let his enemies debase him or get him to act in a way that contradicts his morals. He keeps his dignity and strength, which is really powerful and yeah.

After the war, Sokolov’s resilience is tested again when he loses his entire family. His wife and daughters are killed in a bombing, and his son dies in battle. This is devastating, and you can see how much it hurts him because he like goes crazy for a second there. But instead of giving up on life entirely which he could be forgiven for doing, Sokolov finds a way to move forward. When he meets an orphaned boy whose name I can't remember, he adopts him. Instead of totally collapsing on himself, Soklov decides to try to make something of the ashes of his life and give a chance/help to someone who is in an even worse situation that he is.

Sokolov's suffering and continued resilience shows that strength isn’t about avoiding pain—it’s about finding the courage to keep living, even when things seem impossible. Through Sokolov, the film shows us how unbreakable the human spirit can be, even in darkest of times (aliens don't stand a chance).

# data[].attributes.headline
The GPW in Film: The Ascent and Fate of a Man

# data[].attributes.subject
The GPW in Film: The Ascent and Fate of a Man

# data[].attributes.body
Fate of a Man by Sergei Bondarchuk and The Ascent by Larisa Shepitko both deal with similar themes regarding the Great Patriotic War and captivity. However, they approach the war through different lenses. Fate of a Man focuses on the suffering Andrei Sokolov endured in his life and during the war. It shows a man being slowly ground down and broken by the experiences he has lived through. This is a move away from wartime, feel-good propaganda movies and instead highlights the brutality of the Germans and the effect this had on people, especially somebody who was a POW. Capturing a POW experience on film and showcasing it as a man fighting for his life and honor is a departure from Stalinist suspicion and humiliation of POWs.

On the other hand, The Ascent also showcases the brutality of the Germans and the POW experience but focuses on partisans and themes of loyalty, morality, etc. Sotnikov and Rybak have encounters with civilians before they end up captured. They judge the village elder they meet for collaborating with the Germans. They then receive aid from a woman after Sotnikov is wounded. They are captured at this woman’s house. This lands all of them in trouble. Suddenly, we see the character's actual traits. Sotnikov refuses to collaborate and is tortured, while Rybak gives information on the partisans and is given an offer to join the collaboration police force. Rybak placed judgment constantly, but as soon as he was given the chance, he informed. In the cellar, Sotnikov judges Rybak, but Rybak thinks his actions are just. He wants to survive and escape. Rybak blames Sotnikov for getting them captured. There is a lot more exposition. Sotnikov plans to put the blame for everything on himself to absolve the others (the village elder, the woman who helped them, and a little Jewish girl are also now in the cellar). This doesn’t work. Rybak takes the interrogator's offer to join the auxiliary police, and the woman attempts to sell out the people who hid the Jewish girl. In the end, the only one to survive is Rybak, who realizes that it would have been better to die with his comrade. I believe this film attempts to explore the characteristics and choices of people when put into desperate life-or-death situations. It shows that some have strong morals, while others seem strong and buckle to save their own skin.

Another great film that explores war, brutality, etc., is the 1985 film Come and See by Elem Klimov. It is an art piece that follows a teen joining the partisans and the horrors he experiences while fighting in Belorussia. Like the previous two films, it destroys the idea that war is some grand adventure full of heroes. By the film's end, the main character is shown to have aged almost 20+ years.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Fate of a Man" was released in April 1959

"The Fate of a Man" is representative of the thaw period in cinema, which lasted from 1954 to 1968. The film premiered 14 years after the conclusion of the war. While this time frame may seem brief in historical context, significant changes took place; following Stalin's death, the era of scarcity came to an end, allowing for the creation of films focused on topics such as the experiences of prisoners of war.

We can in a sense say that the film has been a statement for Soviet “propaganda”. The USSR has often been criticized for restricting its citizens from expressing their religious beliefs. During that time (a couple of precedent decades) the mention of "God" was prohibited, and it was perilous to make the sign of the cross or pray. However, in 1959, the film challenges this notion entirely. The narrative places a crucial and enduring focus on the Christian church. It is within this context that the Nazis take the prisoners, and the film depicts a devout Christian who willingly faces death at the hands of the Germans for his faith.

The film has a runtime of just over an hour and a half, yet it leaves the impression of a full-length novel. Sergei Bondarchuk creates this effect through a dense array of dramatic events, voice-over narration, and a rondo structure, framing the story with scenes by the Don River where the protagonist shares his life with a passing driver.

Personally, I find the film extremely sad, even depressing, but also strong and touching, in particular the scene when Sokolov decides to be Vania’s father. I think this is a particularity of Russian cinematography; even within almost every war film, we have this big accent on strong values and family.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mark Walczak: Week 8- The Ascent Response

# data[].attributes.subject
Mark Walczak: Week 8- The Ascent Response

# data[].attributes.body
Point
Larisa Shepitko compares Sotnikov and Rybak in The Ascent to address the moral dilemmas of war and to state that heroism lies not in surviving but in being morally intact.

Evidence
Sotnikov withstands torture without betraying his fellow comrades and accepts death quietly, while Rybak, in a bid to survive, betrays and collaborates with the enemy. Sotnikov's execution underscores his spiritual victory, while Rybak's survival makes him a broken and guilty man.

Analysis
Shepitko contrasts their inner struggle in body language and dialogue. Sotnikov is calm and speaks in measured tones even when he is in pain and with moral conviction. Rybak stammers and begs and veers erratically, with physical tension indicating a disintegrated sense of self.

Cross-reference
Unlike The Ascent, in Fate of a Man, survival is a heroic task. Andrei Sokolov survives unimaginable torment and is redeemed by taking care of an orphan and by exhibiting resilience through responsibility and love. Rybak survives but is spiritually broken, suggesting that survival without moral purpose is not a source of rebirth but of emptiness.

Effect
Shepitko leads one to question whether it is worth surviving without dignity. While Fate of a Man leaves hope in determination, The Ascent gives a more cynical message that there are types of surviving that are worse than dying.

# data[].attributes.body
A key point I think the film makes is that dying honorably is not as bad as suffering through guilt (like the phrase death before dishonor). The film also has a lot connections to Christianity. After the hangings Rybak (if thats how you spell his name) is imagining himself being gunned down. When he arrives at the German outpost he again attempts to commit suicide by hanging. Rybak is now suffering immensely through guilt, whereas Sotnikov has accepted death. This acceptance has afforded him some sort of peace, but Rybak will now be suffering through the guilt of treason. The film is essentially presenting a dialectic between helping oneself or dying for a cause. At what point should one choose to help themselves over ending a bad consequence. An interesting connection is the similarity to Judas' story from the New Testament. After betraying Jesus, Judas hangs himself from the immense guilt. Jesus, however, is the divine figure who has transcended death and still exists post death. Rybak attempts to hang himself from guilt of treason and is also referred to as Judas. The point of the movie makes the reader / observer really dislike treason and accept the phrase "death before dishonor." However, it can also lead to a questioning of ones own actions. If one was in Rybak's situation, then how would they act? How should they act? These are all questions that the point of the movie makes the reader think about.

# data[].attributes.body
Point:

The 1959 film that was directed by Mikhail Sholokhov, called “Fate of a Man,” describes the suffering of those who fought in WWII.

Evidence:
The scene is depicted between the movie time: 0:01:33 -  0:05:31.

Analysis:

I find that scene to be important because it sets the stage for the entire film and sets the theme of the film. What this scene depicts is a man who was broken by WWII; no one seems to care about his story or about helping him. That mindset would have been prevalent during that time, where soldiers just bottle up their experience and suppress it. It also seems that he did not receive any support from the government and was merely discarded and forgotten. Overall, I felt this scene was extremely important, and it foreshadowed the hardship he was forced to endure.

Cross-reference:

When watching this film, I was reminded of the post-WWII documentaries we watched during middle school through high school history classes. It specifically reminded me how the United States treated their soldiers; for the most part, they were injured, forgotten, and in poverty on the streets.

Effect:

Overall, I very much enjoyed the film. It helps the viewer understand some of the hardships the Russians had to endure in WWII. We have to remember that during this war, the Soviet Union suffered one of the most casualties, and this film helped understand their experience. This film really helped me better understand the Russian circumstance.

# data[].attributes.body
Svetlana Alexievich’s Unwomanly Face of War is one of my all-time favorite history books. The way she writes the recordings of her interviews is so powerful and profound. One of the quotes that sticks out to me the most in the required section is, “Before my eyes history “humanizes” itself, becomes like ordinary life” (16). In my opinion, this quote summarizes the point of Alexievich’s book. She wants to bring the war directly to the reader's attention in the most human way possible. Instead of focusing on statistics, equipment, historical context, etc., she focuses on the direct feelings and experiences of the people interviewed. I believe that bringing war from a top-down point of view to a bottom-up point of view is one of the best ways to depict war accurately and bluntly. Glorification of war is a disservice to everyone, most of all the people who lived through it. War is not glorious; it is pain, death, misery, squalor. Depicting war this way is the most effective way to take an anti-war stance. Many books are written about war, especially the Great Patriotic War. One of the only other books I have read that is somewhat similar is Arkady Babchenko’s One Soldier’s War. His book is from his perspective only and, although written about two different wars much later, uses a similar tactic to portray war and takes a firm stance against it. Babchenko writes about his experiences during the First and Second Chechen wars. He details the tortures he endured from “dedovshchina” and the horrors he experienced overall. Similar to Alexeivich, his book is very emotionally raw and vivid. In my opinion, such portrayals of war are the only accurate and significant works.

# data[].attributes.body
Kochina describes how food became so rare that people ate whatever they could find. Many died from starvation, and the city was full of suffering. She also talks about how people tried to survive, helping each other and holding on to hope even in the worst conditions. Her writing is honest and emotional, making the reader feel as if they are there with her.

This book is an important record of history. It helps us understand how people lived during war and how strong they were despite everything

# data[].attributes.headline
Mark Walczak: Week 7- Diary of Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942

# data[].attributes.subject
Mark Walczak: Week 7- Diary of Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942

# data[].attributes.body
Kochina in her writing, Diary of Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942 offers a different perspective and arguably a more compelling one, from that of other war texts of the 900 day siege of Leningrad launched by the Germans in the early summer of 1941. Firstly, war in literature and how it is traditionally depicted have these characteristics: they are typically written from the winner’s point of view and they tend to be supportive of war and its makings. In this capsule of time, Kochina’s diary—written during the 900-day siege—captures the harsh realities of the 900 day siege. On this account, we see a contrasting perspective from that of stereotypical war texts. “Another kind of diary records the thoughts and activities of ordinary people. All diaries of this sort are potentially useful to the historian, but none more so than those written during times of crisis, when the story of one individual’s daily life can illuminate the more general dilemmas that people living through that crisis faced. The diary which Elena Kochina kept during the Leningrad blockade is a work of this kind. Covering the period from the German invasion in June 1941, to Kochina’s evacuation from Leningrad in April 1942…” (Kochina 9). In addition to her main work, Kochina adds an excerpt titled, “ From the Author” where she emphasizes that her diary is not an exhaustive historical account of the Siege of Leningrad but a deeply personal record of her direct experiences during the blockade. She writes that, “If I have managed to portray even to a small degree what the war brought with it—the despair, the fear, the hunger, the deprivations, the isolation, and the moral decline caused by unbearable suffering—then I will consider that I've done my part.” (Kochina 28). And then she goes on to say, “Terrible things are happening on the earth we inhabit. Lichtenberg²” (Kochina 29).

# data[].attributes.body
Point: Elena Kochina wrote a diary called "Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942." Within the diary, she writes about her experiences during the early time of the Siege of Leningrad and includes details that capture the struggles of her and many others trying to survive.

Evidence: "They’ve reduced the bread ration. They now hand out eight and three-quarters ounces on a worker’s card and four and three-eighths ounces on cards of clerks, dependents or children. This is a very small piece. It’s heavy, sticky, and damp. The bread contains all kinds of junk and only a little flour" (Kochina 45).

Analysis: With Kochina including the bread portion change, it displays how people were treated during this time. Minimizing the bread portions shows how people were not cared for and instead were put out there to suffer and fend for themselves. Relying on bread itself for food is already not enough to satisfy hunger, but changing the ration even lower negatively impacts those who starve because now they are left to starve for longer periods of time. It shows how cruel the government was and how they did not provide for people and instead make them seek out their own ways to survive during this war time.

Effect: I think that the way Kochina wrote out her diary was an effective way to portray how her, her family, and other civilians went through a horrific time during the Siege of Leningrad. It highlights the ways in which the government failed and helped the audience understand that this was a devastating time period. Many people starved horribly and everyone had to rely on their own ways to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
Svetlana Alexievich’s “The Unwomanly Face Of War” provides us with an entirely new perspective on how war should be written and remembered. It goes against the traditional portrayal of war, which is told from the perspective of men. When men tell war stories, these stories are about victories, battles, generals, strategies, and heroic sacrifices. But women’s war stories focus on a different part of war - suffering. Women's war stories are focused on the emotions and suffering of people living during the war. But this perspective often gets ignored and silenced, as it destroys the notion that war is something glorious. When reading this book, official censors showcase this thinking: “Yes, we paid heavily for the Victory, but you should look for heroic examples. There are hundreds of them. And you show the filth of the war. The underwear. You make our Victory terrible”.

A great example of showcasing the war from a woman's perspective is the diary of Elena Kochina, who was in a Leningrad blockade. The diary does not show heroes or victories, instead, it reveals the suffering during the blockade. The diary showcases the fast degradation of society, morality, and humanity during the famine. These stories reveal some of the darkest and most horrific aspects of war, but they are incredibly important as they showcase the true cost of war. A cost that is often hidden behind the glory and victory.

# data[].attributes.body
Svetlana Alexievich has written “the unwomanly face of war” differently from usual authors on this theme. She wrote this telling the bitter truth of the war from women's eyes. She talks about women at the front, who saw with their own eyes all the horrors of war, seeing their allies dying or even killing Germans themselves.  The women in this book are described as strong, courageous, honest, but first of all, they need peace. This point is very important because, in my sense in this book, victory is perceived not as a military goal or territory or even political but as a Human goal, a day when we can just live simply, in peace. How much they had to overcome, how difficult it is to continue their life path with these memories is the line of conduct of this book.

It is important to have books like this one to understand the reality of the war, all the more so from the eyes of simple womens.

The novel by S. Alexievich is a page of history presented to readers after many years of forced silence. It is a terrible truth about the war.

# data[].attributes.body
Elena Kochina’s Blockade Diary provides a harrowing first-person account of the Leningrad siege, capturing the daily struggle for survival amidst starvation, isolation, and moral dilemmas. Kochina’s narrative highlights how hunger reduced human existence to its most basic instincts—stealing food became an act of necessity rather than crime. Her husband, Dima, initially resisted theft but eventually resorted to it, revealing the moral compromises that extreme suffering imposed. The diary emphasizes both resilience and the breakdown of relationships under duress, showing how shared suffering did not always foster solidarity but often led to emotional detachment.

This theme of moral and emotional survival under extreme circumstances resonates strongly with Svetlana Alexievich’s The Unwomanly Face of War. Alexievich’s work, composed of oral histories from Soviet women in WWII, presents similar psychological and ethical struggles. Women soldiers, like Kochina, were often left alone with their trauma, forced to suppress emotions in the face of dehumanizing violence. One parallel is the accounts of female snipers who, despite being celebrated, felt emotionally alienated from civilian life post-war. Like Kochina, their experiences challenge the glorified narrative of endurance and heroism, revealing the silent suffering that official histories often ignore.

The effect of both works is profound—they dismantle sanitized versions of war, replacing them with raw, deeply personal accounts that reveal how war reshapes human nature. Kochina’s diary, like Alexievich’s testimonies, forces readers to confront the inescapable reality of suffering, ensuring that personal narratives are not lost within grand historical narratives.

# data[].attributes.headline
William Piegari- Elena Kochina & Svetlana Alexievich

# data[].attributes.subject
William Piegari- Elena Kochina & Svetlana Alexievich

# data[].attributes.body
William Piegari

Week #7 Assignment

So far, up until this moment most of the Russian literature and films we have experienced have treated the war and the struggle to establish a new communist era, as almost a clean and mostly linear path. Works such as Chapaev, have provided this noble unblemished positive picture of what it's like to be in war. Sacrifice. Conflict. Death. Valor. End of story. This is an uncomplicated equation as it was intended to be. Even when death is present, it's usually quick and then celebrated. Completely negating everything in between. In Earth, the death of Vasyl is seen more as a jubilant occurrence. But war, death, the feelings and emotions experienced present a much more complicated equation. There are variables, both accounted and unaccounted for. War is hell, and this week’s readings brought that reality home.

Blockade Diary and the Unwomanly Face of War, show the nonlinear, ebb and flow of living through a war. In Blockade Diary, we experienced the first-hand account of a woman struggling to deal with the war on a personal level, struggling to deal with the war in terms of her marriage, struggling to raise a child through the war and struggling to comprehend how humanity has broken down in her hometown of Leningrad. The struggles are primarily concerning the most fundamental aspect of life… food. What so many have taken for granted for so long, has now become the sole identity of these people. Life centers around one’s next meal.  The instances are numerous and constant throughout the diary. Elena’s daily fight to feed her family and herself involve fighting up bread thieves on the street, in the bakery and even in her own home. As mentioned, her husband Dimas becomes an antagonist in the story regarding food by constantly eating the family’s rations. No one is to be trusted when it comes to the daily ration. Humanity and morality take a back seat to sustenance.  Dimas pillaging from local storage facilities or Dimas pillaging daily rations that were meant for his family are evidence of that. Such transgressions are tolerated, because it’s viewed as stealing from an entity not a person. There are no rules because it’s about survival. Even when salvation is attainable, Elena and her family must further endure a train ride of filth, sickness and human excrement. All these occurrences test the human spirit and the need to survive.

Unwomanly Face of War, further reinforces the horrors of war with excerpts recounting the sheer desperation, the inhumanity, and the callousness when war is upon people. Stories of people surviving by eating horse manure, a mother drowning her infant child so as not to give their positions away to the enemy, a woman recounting a story of how they murdered people as if it was a daily chore; these stories are all thematic when it comes to the fog of war. People will do what is necessary to survive including the unthinkable. Unwomanly Face of War even highlights the day-to-day problems that people face that aren't discussed during the war, such is the case with a woman menstruating.

Both Blockade Diary and Unwomanly Face of War, seek to bring the reader into the gray areas of war. These are the unglamorous, often glossed over rarely retold aspects of war. Ironically these are the experiences that are probably the most common of those who were caught in the middle of this war. These are the stories that the “powers that be” don't want retold. These are the stories that may affect the simple equation of sacrifice, conflict, death and valor. These are the stories that could affect the narrative arc of communism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bar-Zvi - Elena Kochina - Diary of Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942

# data[].attributes.subject
Bar-Zvi - Elena Kochina - Diary of Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942

# data[].attributes.body
Point:

The diary by Elena Kochina called "Under Siege in Leningrad, 1941-1942" talks about the inherent change that impacted people in dangerous situations.

Evidence:

“He’s cherished this idea for a long time already. But somehow he never managed to get the cat into our room. Sometimes we could hear it meowing on the other side of the wall. Each time Dima quivered and cast a meaningful look in my direction. Today the cat suddenly came to us on its own. Dima rushed to the door and silently turned the key. “Here Kuzenka, here Kuzenka,” he whispered, stroking the cat with shaking hands. The cat was thin, shabby, and sad. Dima put him on the bed. “Make sure he doesn’t meow. I’ll bring the knife,” he whispered in my ear and, putting on an indifferent expression, went into the kitchen” (Kochina 73).

Analysis:

The quote illustrates to what extent hunger can change a person's priority and perception. At this time in the story and in her life, she was extremely hungry, and now they see almost anything as food. Now that they got the cat in her room, they were going to kill the cat and eat it since they were hungry. This was 100% due to hunger; I feel like they would have seen a cat as food without being in a food-deprived state.

Cross-reference:

When reading this work, it reminded me of the show “ 'M*A*S*H.' ” I find this show displays a very similar dynamic to Elena Kochina's diary, as they show the absurdity of war and the impact of people who live in it. I feel that the characters in the show ‘M*A*S*H' had a very similar experience to Elena Kochina, and many of the locals in the show were living in similar circumstances.

Effect:

Overall, I think her work was very insightful and helped understand the impact on an individual level. It also helped me understand how fragile the social order is and how quickly people can change when in a hard situation. It also showed me the terror of starvation and how people deal with it.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Unwomanly Face of War - Svetlana Alexievich

# data[].attributes.subject
The Unwomanly Face of War - Svetlana Alexievich

# data[].attributes.body
A main point of the story is Alexievich questioning what a rightful / just / good war is. Alexievich said, "In short, not the right kind of war … What is the right kind? With generals and a wise generalissimo? Without blood and lice? With heroes and great deeds?" (Alexievich 25). It is difficult to say that there is a good kind of war when the destruction that war brings is considered. The human lives taken are worth so much more than war, so there can be no good war. Lives are lost in exchange for imaginary lines on a map. The Blockade Diary by Elena Kochina has a similar theme that expresses the suffering that takes place during a war. "If I have managed to portray even to a small degree what the war brought with it—the despair, the fear, the hunger, the deprivations, the isolation, and the moral decline caused

by unbearable suffering—then I will consider that I have done my part" (Kochina 25). The description of the suffering helps showcase how terrible life is made through war. The ultimate idea is that war brings so much suffering and depression that no war can be considered good. Alexievich and Kochina make the reader feel hate for war because of the clear descriptions and accounts of suffering in war.

# data[].attributes.body
I recently watched "Circus," a 1936 Soviet musical comedy directed by Grigori Aleksandrov, and I was truly impressed. The film follows a traveling circus that becomes a welcoming refuge for performers from various backgrounds, and I loved how it mixed lighthearted humor with a strong message of unity. Lyubov Orlova's performance really stood out to me—her charm and energy brought the story to life, while Isaak Dunayevsky’s lively music added an enchanting atmosphere throughout. The colorful circus acts and engaging songs made the movie both entertaining and thought-provoking, as it tackled important themes like acceptance and diversity in a gentle, yet effective way. Overall, "Circus" is a timeless classic that I enjoyed for its unique blend of fun and meaningful social commentary.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrey Platonov's "The Cow" is a 1938 short story that focuses on a struggling family, specifically the son Vasya, and their cow. The cow helps to provide for the family, even when her calf dies, despite her being depressed afterwards. The cow helps to provide for the family in this state up until her eventual death towards the end of the story. With that being said, one of the main themes of the story is that of suffering.

In "The Cow," the titular cow has a calf for which it cares for. Later on in the story, the father of the family sells the calf to a slaughterhouse in order to help provide for his family, since it was worth more due to it being younger. This effect of this on the cow is that it leaves her feeling depressed. Platonov writes "She could not sleep, she was waiting for her son," as well as "The cow was not eating anything now; she was breathing slowly and silently, and a heavy, difficult grief languished inside her." What this shows is that the absence of the cows calf affects how the cow feels and functions, with her worrying to if her child will return to her not even wanting to eat due to her depressed state.

Another work that focuses on suffering is another of Platonov's works, "Among Animals and Plants." In it, the story revolves around Ivan Fyodorov, a man who works as a locomotive switch operator, and it depicts his work life and how he longs for a family to call his own. As a result of him not having a family, he is isolated and he suffers due to his loneliness. The main effect that these texts have on the reader is that they appeal to the readers emotions, specifically their empathy as the reader might imagine themselves as one of the characters in these stories, whether that being suffering from a loss of a loved one or never really having loved ones to begin with.

# data[].attributes.body
In The Cow, the Russian working class is represented through the cow. The way the cow is overworked and has everything taken from it on a regular basis, as if it were good for nothing else, is similar to how the working class is constantly working and sacrificing for a life that is unattainable. I see this as the antithesis of Man With a Movie Camera. The cow is sickly and miserable, while almost everything in the movie is lively. Although not literally sick, the cow is clearly suffering, yet no one cares. This is like the lowest classes in Russia who were ignored and left to struggle alone.

# data[].attributes.body
The movie circus tries to depict a soviet union free of racism, but in a more theatrical way. The way this movie depicts the USSR is almost like a fantasy or a fairytale. Near the end of the movie when the villain (Who comically looks like hitler) tries to expose our main character Marion, he is met with a “So What”. When they were singing about how great the soviet union was at the end of the film, I didn’t even really pick up on it at first. I was really just vibing to the music. However after looking at the lyrics of the song I really was able to see the direction that film was trying to take when it came to how they wanted the USSR to be depicted. “At our table no one is excluded, Everyone is rewarded on merit, In golden letters we write The National Stalin Law.” The song is basically saying how great the soviet union is, and how there isn’t any racism or prejudice within the country I’ve noticed about soviet films is that they have a tendency to really sell the idea of the soviet project. Which makes sense given the fact that film was controlled completely by the government. The thing that circus does differently than most films in the soviet union, is that it is way more stylized in its production compared to every other soviet film around the time. This movie had a well driven story, good cinematography, and aesthetics that definitely highlighted the wow factor they were going for. This movie felt very campy to me. It is personally not my cup of tea, I don’t typically like musicals of this nature, but I can appreciate an over the top film when it is put in front of me.

# data[].attributes.body
Soviet propaganda was crucial to the movement. Movies were the newest and perhaps the most effective means of relaying these messages. Town halls, print, and radio would pail in comparison. So far, we have viewed Chapaev, which promopted the communist message of duty, honor and sacrifice for the revolution. In Earth and Circus, the new message of communist propaganda was acceptance.

Both films attempted to appeal to the humane aspect of society, inclusion, and community. In Earth humanity is on full display when the Vasyl and his fellow revolutionists ride in town with the tractor destroying the old greedy ways of the past, notably the kulaks ways. Peasants who had very little would finally receive equal shares for equal work thanks to Communism. The community, including Opanas, would you use the murder of Vasyl as catalyst to follow the new modern ways. The message of humanity and inclusion was also evident in the climactic scene of Circus while the baby was being passed around and serenaded with a lullaby as opposed to the racist United States. The message, the new communism revolution accepts all.

Both movies would end with scenes of people marching and singing triumphantly together as one. This was particularly moving, because it wasn’t lines of soldiers and tanks rolling through. It wasn’t a call for an armed revolution. It was call for a revolution that ordinary people needed to embrace. Ironically, both films would fully convert characters to the movement; Opanas who represented skepticism of the new revolution in Earth and Marion Dixon the American in Circus.

I believe both these movies had the same demographic in mind and used the same message to convert. I feel both movies were meant to appeal and win over those who were ‘middle of the road’ in terms of embracing the communist revolution. The symbology of putting Opanas and Marion Dixon front and center in these marches of the people was purposeful. This could also be a message to those who would be enemies, our numbers are growing.

# data[].attributes.body
Grigori Aleksandrov’s Circus (1936) serves as a striking example of Soviet propaganda cinema, using spectacle and humor to reinforce ideals of inclusivity and unity under socialism. The film follows Marion Dixon, an American performer who, after facing racial discrimination in the West, finds acceptance in the Soviet Union. This narrative aligns with the Soviet ideological goal of portraying the USSR as a utopian alternative to capitalist societies.

A key scene demonstrating this is the film’s climactic moment when the Soviet citizens collectively embrace Marion’s mixed-race child, countering Western racism. The use of montage and music underscores the emotional impact, positioning the USSR as a land of equality. This idealization, however, contrasts with historical realities, as racial discrimination still existed within the Soviet system.

Comparing Circus to Earth (Dovzhenko, 1930) reveals a shift in Soviet cinema from poetic realism to overt propaganda. Earth presents collectivization as an almost spiritual transformation, using lyrical imagery to depict the harmony between humans and nature. In contrast, Circus employs lighthearted comedy and song to promote its message. Both films serve ideological purposes but differ in their approach—Earth as an evocative, symbolic meditation on socialist progress and Circus as an accessible, emotionally charged endorsement of Soviet inclusivity.

Ultimately, the effect of Circus is to reinforce the idea of the Soviet Union as a progressive, egalitarian society, though its utopian vision is undercut by historical contradictions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Soviet musical comedy "Circus" was directed by Grigory Aleksandrov in 1936. The main actress was his wife, Lyubov Orlova. The film displayed propaganda which helped to portray the USSR superior than the West. It was based on an American circus performer, Marion Dixon, who faced racism in the West because of that fact that she had a mixed child.

In the film, there is a scene where the child is passed around to different people as a way of protecting him from the antagonist who shamed Marion for having a mixed child.

This scene represents how instead of the Soviets agreeing with the idea of the USSR's racial ideas, they instead accept the child and Marion and protect them both. It portrays how they were accepted and all united as one, as well as how equality was established since the Soviets were not trying to shame her and her child just because the child was different in color. It shows the progression of society and how they were slowly moving forward to a more accepting and welcoming era.

This film can be cross-referenced to the idea of spontaneity and consciousness from our previous topics and readings. It also relates to the other film, Chapeav, because both films acquired the Soviet mindset and they both portrayed the ideas of Soviet propaganda and tried to express that to their viewers.

Overall, the film "Circus" was a good film that allowed propaganda to be portrayed and explored and it was nicely set up on how society was more accepting at the end creating a nice happy ending. It also allowed viewers to have sympathy for Marion since she just wanted to feel like she belonged which is what the Soviets did for her and it allowed us as the viewers to feel content for her.

# data[].attributes.body
The film “Circus” is a propaganda movie that is meant to showcase the West in a negative light while also showcasing USSR superiority. The movie revolves around circus performers from the US and Germany. The main actress, Mary Dixon, falls in love and wants to stay in the USSR. As a response, the German antagonist tries to destroy her career by revealing Mary Dixon’s secret black child. He says that she committed a racial crime and that there is no place for her in civilized society. But Soviet people reject this idea and work together to protect the kid. At 1:28:30 circus director says: “It means that in our country we love all the kids. Black, white,red, even blue. Even pink with stripes, even gray with apples”. Showing that Soviet people are progressive and are ready to accept any people, regardless of their race.

I also think this film tries to showcase that the USSR is not only capable of catching up to the US, but can also overtake them. When watching Mary Dixon's performance, the director and Martynov discuss replicating the same show, to which Martynov replies: “If we’re doing it, we need to make it better”. Later in the movie, when the director presents a newly developed gun, the German performer says, “I think you call it here ‘To catch with America’”, to which the director replies, “And overtake”. Overall, I think the grandiose scale and narrative of the film are meant to showcase that the Soviet Union is not only catching up to the US, but it’s already overtaken it both morally and technologically.

# data[].attributes.body
Aleksandrov’s characters in his film Circus (1936), span a range of personalities and their depictions elevate the film’s emotional depth and satirical commentary. One of the main protagonists, Marion Dixon, as played by Lyubov Orlova, is transformed from her role as an American circus performer evading racial prejudice to being accepted in the Soviet Union. Her journey is contrasted with the antagonist, von Kneischitz, who is a thinly veiled depiction of Hitler, standing for fascist ideals as much as racial intolerance in his character.

The supporting cast includes a vibrant collection of Soviet nationals who illustrate the ideals of inclusiveness and harmony. There is comic relief as well as warmth from the circus director, Ivan Petrovich, as the cast of circus workers embodies the imagined harmony of the Soviet nation working together for a greater cause than themselves. The lullaby at the end of the film, when a cross-section of Soviet nationals all hug Marion's child at the same time, powerfully underscores  the racial harmony message.

Aleksandrov’s characters are deliberately created to serve both narrative and ideological functions. This cohesion enable the film to not only tell a compelling story, but also reinforces its propagandistic message of socialism, internationalism, and racial harmony.

# data[].attributes.body
« Circus » is a USSR musical comedy published in 1936.

Set in the 1930s Soviet Union, the American circus "Flight to the Moon" features star Marion Dixon, who is manipulated by her creator, German Franz von Kneischitz, through blackmail regarding her illegitimate black son. To combat von Kneischitz’s efforts, Soviet officials develop a competing act. When his plans fail, he tries to shame Marion publicly but ends up disgraced. Ultimately, Marion and her son find acceptance in the USSR, conveying a message of tolerance and belonging within the Soviet Union. This makes a call from the USSR to the entire world that they are an open-minded and progressive country that accepts everyone.

Secondly, I also found that the rivalry and competition between the USA and the USSR defined a sort of early pre-cold war. In the movie, this famous slogan, "Catch up and overtake", by the way, is present. Having seen the installation of the Soviet gun, von Kneischitz tells the director of the circus, Ludwig Osipovich - "You seem to call it "Catch up with America"," - "And overtake it," the circus director answers. In general, the slogan "We will catch up and will overtake," calling for reducing the economic lag of the USSR from capitalist countries, appeared not under N.S. Khrushchev, but even in the speeches of V.I. Lenin (1917) and I.V. Stalin (1927, 1931). That's what the country's leaders thought, that's what art said.

# data[].attributes.body
The significance of music to Circus cannot be emphasized enough. It profoundly alters the way the film is experienced by the audience. Without its songs—even if the soundtrack had retained instrumental music—the movie would have fallen short of achieving the impact it delivers in its complete form.

While Soviet cinema often took itself very seriously and was heavily focused on delivering ideological messages, Circus uses its musical format to make its themes more engaging and easier to connect with. Don’t get me wrong—the film is still full of propaganda (the ending is pretty much the perfect example of this), but the music helps make it feel less heavy-handed.

By including catchy songs and lively performances, Circus keeps the audience entertained while still getting its message across. The music adds a layer of fun and emotion that makes the propaganda elements more digestible. Instead of feeling like you’re being lectured, the film feels like a celebration, which helps its ideas land more effectively. In this way, Circus shows how propaganda can be entertaining, and therefore more successful.

Furthermore, music is instrumental in how subtly plants messages into the audience. For example, in the scene when Marion and Dixon are looking at each other all loving and stuff, and then look at the audience, a song playing in the background is about how amazing the Soviet Union is. This subtly suggests that the audience ought to fall in love with the Soviet Union, or that being a Soviet citizen is as great as being in love.

Circus is a great example of how Soviet cinema used entertainment to insert their ideology throughout society in a way that has the people actually asking for more.

# data[].attributes.body
Point:
In the 1936 film called “Circus,” which was directed by Grigori Aleksandrov, it is implied that Russian people think that people from Germany and the United States don’t understand the USSR.

Evidence:
The scene is depicted between the movie time: 1:18:25 - 1:26:02.

Analysis:
In the scene, I decided to look at it where Franz von Kneishitz revealed that Marion Dixon's son was mixed race. And the Russians in the room weren't fazed by it; they actually got the child away and protected him from Franz. For this scene I got the impression that it was indicating that Germany and the United States didn’t try to understand the USSR, their people, identity, and their sense of morality. It also seemed that Franz assumed that the USSR had similar ideals due to their close proximity and similar political structure. Another thing we learned from that scene, at least what is depicted from that scene, is that the Russian people have a strong sense of unity and understanding of their national self.

Cross-reference:
When I was watching this film, it reminded me of the film “Annie Get Your Gun.” I felt the film's progression was extremely similar. It has a logical plot and similar romanticism elements, and it has some tension and some intrigue between the two.

Effect:
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was extremely shocking to me how different I thought it was going to be. I, organically, thought it was going to be way more militaristic and ten times more patriotic (to some extent it was patriotic). I also was shocked how well-developed, structured, and compelling the storylines plot was.

# data[].attributes.headline
Platonov - The motherland of electricity 

# data[].attributes.subject
Platonov - The motherland of electricity 

# data[].attributes.body
I think a key point Platonov made was that the attempt to rapidly industrialize the U.S.S.R through the 5-year plan had devastating effects on the Soviet communities. A key point of the 5-year plan is that the Soviet people were driven by socialism and happy to work hard, but this attitude also led to starvation. For example, the narrator (pretty sure he is unnamed) expresses surprise at the community's choice to use the previous grain supply for the engine. "I expressed surprise: how was it the peasants were so willing to feed last year’s harvest to a machine when this summer there would be no grain because of the drought?" (Platonov, 11). Platonov may be criticizing the damage that the 5-year plan attitude is doing. People are willing to starve in the name of industrial/electrical progress. The lack of grain this year's harvest will likely produce is not an issue for any of the people in the comminity. Such rapid industrialization requires suffering and cutting corners, which is demonstrated by the starvation the citizens experience. The narrator even expresses how if the community did not use the grain to power the engine, then they could have food and power. “If you didn’t fuel the machine with grain, things would be better still,” I

said. “Then you’d have bread, light and reading” (Platonov, 11). Although development from rural to industrial may be slower by preserving the grain, the people would now have food and power. Both can be attained as they are not mutually exclusive. Maximizing resources into one source reminds me of Babel's "Salt," as the soldiers confiscated the salt the woman was carrying. The idea is that the resources are needed for a greater cause, leading to the woman's suffering. The same applies to Platonov, as the citizens suffer in exchange for progress for a greater cause. The story creates a sad effect for the reader. It depicts unnecessary suffering endured, which leads the reader feel a kind of sorrow for people living through the time.

# data[].attributes.body
In the movie "Chapaev," the film tells the story of the Red Army commander Vasily Chapaev set during the Russian Civil War. The film depicts his life during the war up until his death on the battlefield. During the film, Chapaev represents the Proletariat with his simplistic explanations.

During the scene where Chapaev has to explain military strategies to a fellow soldier, he uses potatoes to help illustrate his point. The use of potatoes in this scene is because he uses something that he is both comfortable and familiar with to explain his point, which helps to show a connection to the working class and thus his his position as a member of the Proletariat,

In Alexandra Kollontai's pamphlet "Working Woman and Mother," the main focus of it is to appeal to the working class, otherwise known as the Proletariat, as it illustrates several instances of working class citizens living difficult lives. This appeal was used to try and persuade the citizens to join the Communist party. The effect of both of these works is to try and inspire the members of the Proletariat to take action, as in "Chapaev" it shows that even the common working class citizen can do great things like lead an army into battle, and in "Working Woman and Mother" it alludes to the idea that the working class can help make a change in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Chapaev is probably my favorite Russian Civil War movie, but at the same time, it is blatant propaganda. The movie minimizes any depiction of loss or the human cost of war and instead focuses on Чараев Герой! The movie raised Chapayev to god-like status in the Soviet Union. I believe one of the significant points of this film was to set an example for what Soviet Citizens and men in the Red Army should strive to emulate. Although the film is concerned with Chapayev, Furmanov also plays an important role. He is the “reformer” of Chapayev. He molds Chapayev into a more respectable communist and commander. In many shots, Furmanov is shown to be bigger or taller than Chapayev, thus cementing his position over the commander. This shows that The Party knows what is truly best. This film is one of many that begins to prepare the Soviet Union for a possible war with Nazi Germany. It builds up this myth about the wit of Red Army commanders, the strength of The Red Army, as well as that of the Party. It also depicts war as a grand adventure with many chances for displays of heroism and courage. This would also help the image of the Party and the Army following the purges and many more instances of the Soviets flexxing their muscles would be propagandized before 1941.

# data[].attributes.headline
Victoria Huerta - Man with a Movie Camera

# data[].attributes.subject
Victoria Huerta - Man with a Movie Camera

# data[].attributes.body
I actually had to watch Man with a Movie Camera in my Eurasian Cinema class so I was able to hear about it from the perspective of a Soviet filmmaker at the time. What I'm about to write is totally not copying the things we talked about in that class. From what I've gathered, the filmmaker was dedicated to the concept of showing life as more real than humans can perceive it. For example, the scene where the train is filmed from underneath gives the audience a real perspective that they can otherwise never see.

This is also an era in which Russian films are obsessed with showing the process by which things are created. That's why Man with a Movie Camera shows the hole being dug under the train tracks which were then used to film the aforementioned closeup scene. This ties into the Soviet concept that the means by which things are created by the workers are incredibly important, arguably more important than the actual product because without the work behind the product it doesn't exist. This gives immense value to the worker and their labor underscoring the Soviet Union's entire existence.

# data[].attributes.body
Conversation with a tax collector aims to critique economic systems that lead to things like exploitation of workers. Mayakovsky uses language about the construction of poetry or how hard being a poet is, as a way of conveying working class struggles. Mayakovsky sees himself as being on the line as a proletariat. He talks about the way he makes poetry in a way that shows how intricate and complex it is. “Poetry is like mining radium. For every gram, you work a year. For the sake of a single word, you waste a thousand tons of verbal ore.” This quote shows what Mayakovsky is getting at when it comes to his mentioning of poetry. Poetry takes up so much work, just like the jobs that the proletarians have to endure. Mayakovsky also talks about (of course) the unfairness of taxation. There are many lines in which the person who is conversing with the tax collector expresses upset with being taxed.

The feeling that this reading left me with is perplexion. I appreciated the way that Kollontai showed issues within the working class systems. It really tapped into my emotions by taking me on the journey of motherhood between classes. Mayakovsky comes off as a bragger. I get what is trying to be conveyed in “Conversation with a Tax Collector”, however it doesn’t really pull me into the injustices that are happening in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Heart of a Dog, a story by Michael Bulgakov, was written in 1925 during the start of the USSR after the Russian revolution. Tells the story of a street dog, Sharik, and his journey of becoming a man in the newly formed USSR. How does he become a man? He is found badly scalded outside in the cold after searching for food and nearly ends up dead. A mysterious figure picks him up, brings him home, tends to his ailments, and feeds him. The man who does this is then revealed to be one by the name of Philip Preobrazhensky, a doctor since before the revolution. Sharik is then given an experimental operation by Professor Philip Preobrazhensky(PPP)  that gives Sharik a man's pituitary gland in the brain and a new set of seminal glands. After many biblical comparisons in the operation scene, such as the long robes and black gloves, Sharik wakes up with a big scar across his forehead and a new sense of self, he is a man now. The bourgeois attitude that PPP exudes clashes with the newly named Sharikov and his proletariat attitude after the initial honeymoon period that he experiences when first becoming that man. Because of this contrast, PPP begins to correct Sharikov’s characteristics and behaviors by nagging, this builds up as time passes. Some examples of this would be when Sharikov starts swearing, drinking, smoking, and not knowing where/how to pee correctly in the big house of PPP. The problems add up more and more as Sharikov turns into his own man looking for documentation and supporting the communist party’s objectives within the house and shelter he was given. He is a contradiction of what made him and this displeases his creator so much that at the end of the story, he is reverted back into a dog. After the reversion operation and back to his dog mind, he starts to see the professor experiment with brains again. The difference between PPP and Sharik seems to be the main point of criticism that Bulgakov intended when telling this story. Bulgakov in real life was a doctor turned writer at the turn of the revolution. He is criticizing the newly formed communist system in Russia and how the sudden change of society doesn’t address the real problems that come to light only after it’s established. Too many poor and uneducated people were thrown into leadership positions. This lack of education and culture left a hole within governance as expecting people who know no different than eat/drink, sleep, and multiply (dog-minded). At the time of initial publishing, Soviet superiors in the country saw this mockery of them fairly quickly, leading to the censorship of the work up until 1987 in Russia, other countries got it around 1960’s.

# data[].attributes.body
Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog satirizes Soviet attempts at forced social transformation through the transformation of Sharik into Sharikov. The failure of the experiment serves to represent the failure of ideological communist reprogramming. The novel critiques the Bolshevik vision of reshaping individuals through external intervention, showing that their sad efforts lead to nowhere near progress. Sharik’s transplant of organs from a criminal, I think, symbolises the criminalistic view of people like Professor Preobrazhensky. Sharikov becomes extremely vulgar, aggressive, and crude, mocking the failures of Soviet social engineering. As he tries to integrate into the Soviet bureaucracy, he simply repeats what he’s being told and remains incompetent which is giving socialists telling people socialism is great without truly understanding it. Bulgakov sort of forces his audience to consider the potential dangers of misinformed social change, suggesting that true transformation cannot be imposed but must happen naturally.

# data[].attributes.body
Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Heart of a Dog is a satirical novel that criticizes Soviet efforts to change human nature using science and ideology. The story is about a stray dog, Sharik, who turns into a human after an experiment by Professor Preobrazhensky. The novel explores identity, class struggle, and the risks of forced social change.

Bulgakov criticizes the Soviet government’s attempt to change people and society by force, showing that it causes chaos instead of progress. After turning into the rude and aggressive Sharikov, Sharik represents the failure of Soviet social experiments. Preobrazhensky says, “You cannot turn a dog into a man by simply altering his glands,” stressing that character and morality cannot be forced.

Bulgakov uses satire to show the absurdity of Soviet beliefs, especially the idea that politics can control social and biological change. Sharikov quickly adopts Soviet speech but remains rude and violent, representing the failure of forced proletarianization and reckless scientific ambition. This theme is similar to Animal Farm by George Orwell, where revolution leads to corruption and oppression. It also connects to Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, which criticizes utopian ideas and human irrationality.

The Heart of a Dog warns about the dangers of extreme ideology and excessive state control over individuals. By showing the risks of forced change, Bulgakov highlights the complexity of human nature and the limits of politics in reshaping society.

# data[].attributes.body
"Heart of a Dog," written in 1925 by Mikhail Bulgakov, tells the story of a dog named Sharik who undergoes a surgery, conducted by Professor Philip Preobrazhensky (PPP), which transforms Sharik into a person. In this story, PPP exhibits characteristics of the bourgeoisie, whereas Sharik exhibits characteristics of the proletariats. In "Heart of a Dog," Bulgakov illustrates the difference between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats.

In "Heart of a Dog," Bulgakov writes, "Don't throw cigarette ends on to the floor. And I don't want to hear any more swearing in this flat! And don't spit everywhere! The spittoon's over there. Kindly take better aim when you pee" (pg. 51-52). Here, Sharik is in his human form and his behavior is a stark contrast to that of PPP. He lives very messily and has become rather crude, similar to that of someone of the proletarat class, which clashes with PPP's way of bourgeois life, which is very neat, clean, and proper. This quote shows how PPP does not care for how Sharik is currently living, as it does not align with his ideal way of living.

In Alexandra Kollontai's pamphlet, "Working Woman and Mother," she depicts the lives of several women by the name of Masha. She illustrates how the bourgeois Masha, who is the factory owners wife, lives in what is essentially luxury, very neat, tidy, and she is always cared for. This is in constrast to the other Mashas, who are depicted as proletariats, who live rather rough lives in squalor. The factory owner in this pamplet doesn't even care enough about his proletariat workers to accomadate their materity leave.

These two texts tie in together as they depict the difference between he bourgeoisie and the proletariats. In "Working Woman and Mother," the reader is given a few examples of the lives that people in the different classes have to live on a daily basis. In "Heart of a Dog," there is a direct exchange between two members of society who depict the different classes, and this illustrates for the reader how differently these people view each other.

# data[].attributes.body
As I mentioned in class, I felt Heart of a Dog paralleled parts of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and portions of the movie. Numerous instances include: doctors who seeking to create/manipulate life, both doctors lamenting the brain of chosen for their experiment, both doctors would attempt to destroy their creation, both worked with trusted aids/assistants that seem to antagonize and receive the ire of their experiment, and both had their creations adapting to society.

As in Frankenstein, PPP sought to create not only life, but an ideal version. At least what PPP deemed ideal. You could say his attempt was highly flawed by science in general, but his own vanity. Throughout Sharikov’s evolution, PPP is frustrated when Sharikov’s evolution is delayed. Such instances include, Sharikov’s hatred for cats, animalistic instincts, manners, and lack of decency regarding women. On the opposite side of that coin, PPP experiences a different nuisance when Sharikov not only adapts to the society, but attemps to use the new communism against him.

Much like Viktor Frankenstein, Philip Philipovich lost control of his creation. Rather than recognize that their attempt to play god was flawed, they both sought to blame a portion of the process. Both neglected the process of evolution. The only solution for both doctors, termination.

I think it’s natural for readers to dislike Sharik and what has become of him, considering the character flaws Mikhail Bulgakov gave him. However, a great point was raised in class. Sharik did manage to take huge evolutionary steps in such a short time. One has to question what would have become of Sharik had he been given more time and an education.

# data[].attributes.body
Bulgakov's “Heart of A Dog” is meant to be a satirical text representing the years following the revolution. After years of wars, the Russian economy was destroyed, to address this, the politburo introduced NEP (New Economic Policy) to boost the economy. This was a stopgap solution that included both capitalism and socialism while also bringing massive transformations to society. Bulgakov uses different characters to showcase and sometimes make fun of the chaos that NEP brought to society.

PPP(Professor Philip Preobrazhensky) is meant to represent the old-school bourgeoisie. He is wealthy, intellectual and still holds political power which he wields. PPP is intended to represent the last pocket of capitalism in this changing society. PPP hates the changes that are happening around him and tries to resist them as much as possible. “I have been living in this house since 1903…until March 1917 there was not one case… of a single pair of galoshes disappearing from that rack. One fine day in March 1917 all the galoshes disappeared”.

On the other hand, there is Sharik, who begins as a stray dog, just trying to survive the winter. After undergoing a transformation, Sharik becomes Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharikov. Still having dog tendencies, lacking manners, and often ignorant, Sharikov immediately adapts ideas of socialism, “Take everything away from the bosses, then divide it up”. Sharik is meant to represent the proletariat that suffered through years of war and is now trying to settle down in the fast-changing Soviet society. And I think Bulgakov is trying to showcase that this transformation was a failure and Sharik is meant to represent this failed experiment. While Sharik looked like a human and even had glimpses of humanity, he was still a dog in his heart, and there was nothing you could do to change that.

# data[].attributes.body
"Heart of a Dog," is a science fiction novel written by Mikhail Bulgakov in 1925. It highlights the Soviets attempt to force change into society through the transformation of a dog into a human. One piece of evidence to support this is when Sharik goes off and says, "''Oh, why can't you lay off? Don't spit . . . don't smoke . . . don't go there, don't do this, don't do that...Why don't you leave me alone, for God's sake?...I didn't ask you to do the operation, did I?' - the man barked indignantly" (Bulgakov 52). The retaliation of Sharik shows how forcing change onto someone isn't always the better option. Seeing as Sharik portrayed more negative than positive attributes such as the way he would swear, be aggressive, steal and drink can be portrayed as a way of how society would also retaliate if change was forced upon them by the Soviet. With Sharik saying "I didn't ask you to the operation," it shows how forced the change was put onto him and he would have rather preferred to be left as a dog. This can then be seen in a societal way since people may not appreciate Soviets trying to reshape them based on a political or ideological blueprint. This novel relates back to the Soviet as a whole since it is like a critique of the way Soviets function and apply their ideological ways with no care as to what the outcome may be. With the experiment turning out to be a failure, the concept of forced change should be something that people should take away from this story. People should keep in mind the consequences that may occur if change is to happen and that it should be done slowly, not all at once.

# data[].attributes.body
Heart of a Dog by Mikhail Bulgakov is one of the most interesting pieces of Russian literature I have read at UIC to date. The setting and exploration of such science fiction themes is a really intriguing and fun combination to me. The evolution of the relationship between PPP and Sharik continued to hold my attention throughout the reading. One of the most important quotes, in my opinion, is: 'I'm very grateful to you ... No ... I've come, h'm, on another matter, Philip Philipovich ... in view of the great respect I feel . . . I've come to ... er, warn you. It's obviously nonsense, of course. He's simply a scoundrel.' The patient searched in his briefcase and took out a piece of paper. 'It's a good thing I was told about this right away . . .' Philip Philipovich slipped a pince-nez over his spectacles and began to read. For a long time he mumbled half-aloud, his expression changing every moment. '. . . also threatening to murder the chairman of the house committee, comrade Shvonder, which shows that he must be keeping a firearm. And he makes counter-revolutionary speeches, and even ordered his domestic worker, Zinaida Prokofievna Bunina, to burn Engels in the stove. He is an obvious Menshevik and so is his assistant Ivan Arnoldovich Bormenthal who is living secretly in his flat without being registered. Signed: P. P. Sharikov Sub-Dept. Controller City Cleansing Dept. Countersigned: Shvonder Chairman, House Committee. Pestrukhin Secretary, House Committee.

This quote is important because it is the final nail in the coffin of Sharikov’s humanity. On top of the rest of Sharikov’s generally villainous behavior, this finally convinces PPP that something needs to be done about Sharikov. Ultimately, this leads to another operation, where Sharikov turns back into the hound he truly is. This quote also reveals a lot about both characters. It clearly shows the power and esteem that PPP still yields even under the new communist system. To have, I’d assume, an intelligence officer intercept and warn him of these developments is incredible. The things he is charged with are very dangerous and, for any other person, would end with a bullet to the base of the skull. Instead, PPP uses his power to weather the storm and survive. On the other hand, it shows how genuinely despicable Sharikov is. Only the lowest form of human waste would inform on a family member in such a way. But is Sharikov truly human? Is he a sentimental creature? Maybe not, but it shows how self-centered and ruthless he can be. Ultimately, he pays the price for his hubris and other actions but nobody learned their lesson.

# data[].attributes.body
"Heart of a Dog" by Mikhail Bulgakov is a profound novel written in 1925, during a significant period in the Soviet Union marked by the revolutionary rise of communism. This context plays a major role in the book, particularly with the portrayal of the Bolsheviks and the societal changes occurring at that time. We can observe some significant details, such as the doctor's apartment, his position in society, or, in opposition, the red ideologies held by certain other characters.

The whole story, in effect, presents an experiment by Doctor Priobrogensky, who tries to transform a homeless dog, Sharik, into a human, Sharikov. This is a big personification. In my opinion, we cannot say that the experiment was successful, but we cannot say the opposite either. Sharik became a human, but perhaps not the one Priobrogensky wanted. We can link it to the entire Soviet project—an experience that may not have achieved the expected success but surely left a mark for eternity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mark Walczak: Week 4 - Bulgakov Response

# data[].attributes.subject
Mark Walczak: Week 4 - Bulgakov Response

# data[].attributes.body
Bulgakov argues that true change cannot be forced upon someone through reckless abandon. The allegory of Sharik in Heart of a Dog illustrates this perfectly, as his forced transformation from a dog to a human ends ultimately, in failure. To begin, the scene is set in a post-revolution, now USSR where class disparity persists though fading. One of the protagonists, Sharik—a dog left near death due to a cook's mishap and a scalded side—is found by the other protagonist, Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky (PPP), a successful surgeon. PPP is a well-mannered and elegant gentleman, in search of a candidate for his next experiment, an operation to, “study both the functional viability in a host-organism and its role in cellular etc. rejuvenation” (Bulgakov 42), takes Sharik in and heals his hurt side.

Having grown accustomed to his new life, Sharik becomes fat and lazy; all too soon however. The operation takes place. Sharik turns into a human, the experiment appears to be a success– at first. However, as Sharikov, the newly transformed human, recovers and begins to navigate his new life, he soon finds that it is best to behave “naturally”. Sharikov finds it best to curse in front of women, dress in ragged clothes and to have no manners whatsoever. PPP cannot stand this new Sharik and quickly reverts him to his doggy self, a supposedly better self.

The story of Heart of a Dog, moreover, the tale of Sharik, serves as a powerful indictment of the forceful change in someone without regard to the inherent nature. Bulgakov shows that when such attempts are made recklessly, they often fail to produce the desired results. Ultimately, Bulgakov suggests that true change must arise naturally and cannot be achieved through brute force, highlighting the deeper philosophical concerns about identity, societal transformation, and the limits of human intervention.

# data[].attributes.body
Bulgakov makes a point about questioning why we want to keep progressing toward a standard that society may deem as "better." Bulgakov says, "I,Philip Preobrazhensky would perform the most difficult feat of my whole career by transplanting Spinoza's, or anyone else's pituitary and turning a

dog into a highly intelligent being." Spinoza is seen as the high end of what society would consider good, and I would answer Bulgakov by saying that evolution and progression are good. If a society was in a state of segregation, then by valuing progression, the society could improve living conditions. The Soviet project was somewhat built on this idea, which fundamentally is a good idea. Bulgakov questions this idea of progression by asking, "But what in heaven's name for? That's the point. Will you kindly tell me why one has to manufacture artificial

Spinoza's, when some peasant woman may produce a real one any day of the

week?" This quote reminded me of Lenin and consciousness as well. The idea of organization and a manufactured party. This system would be better than spontaneity, which fails to get off of its feet. Bulgakov is questioning why we wish this standard of progression, but we wish it because it can lead to better well-being for the masses. Going from slavery to capitalism was a step in the right direction for improving well-being. However, this progression occurred linearly, which Bulgakov is questioning. The linear scale can be good as it can lead to progress for humanity. Ultimately, I disagree with the idea that a linear progression may be bad. The economic linear system is one system that grows and is replaced by better systems. Feudalism and slavery were ended and led to capitalism, which too will one day end and be replaced with a better system. This point shows how linear progression can be good, and in this situation, it was good. The Soviet Union was able to return to a pre-war economy and recover from the devastation of WWI and the Civil Wars of the 20's.

# data[].attributes.body
There are so many messages that this story seems to be sending. The one I found particularly interesting is that something "good" cannot be inserted into someone and it instantly turns them "good". In the story, this manifests as scientists trying to make a dog more human. To me, this seems to be a metaphor of the Soviets trying to insert communism into Russian culture. It just doesn't work because it is against its nature--Russian culture, or human disposition. We all want to believe that society can be improved, that people can be “fixed,” but the story reminds us that it is much more complicated than that. You can’t just force progress or equality into existence without understanding the flaws and complexities of the people you’re trying to change.

I also found its message about classes interesting. To me, it seemed that some characters, like Professor Preobrazhensky, are meant to symbolize the educated Bolsheviks who feel they are elite to the uneducated masses, even if they don't say it out loud. Lenin in particular felt like an intellectual superior. They forced their experiments (in the story, physical scientific experimentations, and in real life, the experiment of Communism) upon the people, and they didn't really have a say in it.

Overall, the story was interesting, the messages were potent, and it felt very unsettling in a cool way.

# data[].attributes.body
Point:
In the story called “The Heart of a Dog," Michail Bulgakov shows the reader the unforeseen consequences of experimentation.

Evidence:
“The man flared up impudently: 'Oh, why can't you lay off? Don't spit . . . don't smoke . . . don't go there, don't do this, don't do that . . . sounds like the rules in a tram. Why don't you leave me alone, for God's sake? And why shouldn't I call you "Dad", anyway? I didn't ask you to do the operation, did I?' - the man barked indignantly - 'A nice business -you get an animal, slice his head open and now you're sick of him. Perhaps I wouldn't have given permission for the operation. Nor would . . . (the man stared up at the ceiling as though trying to remember a phrase he had been taught) . . . nor would my relatives. I bet I could sue you if I wanted to.'” (Bulgakov 52).

Analysis:
What this quote is basically saying is that now that you created a new person, you need to let them grow, and they effectively became their own person. Now that he has the ability to think like a human, talk as one, and look as one, he now has their rights as well.

Cross-reference:
When reading this work, it reminded me of the film “Young Frankenstein.” I find this film to be very similar to this work, as it faces a similar problem. The monster has a brain and the ability to think. Which all he wants is to fit in the world, so it is a story of finding a place for him to belong in society.

Effect:
Overall, I think his work was very interesting to read for multiple reasons. It does a good job of describing what the powers that be expect you to do: fall in line and fight for the homeland. At the same time, it talks about the dangers of experimentation and the unforeseen results that stem from it.

# data[].attributes.body
“'We know that,' replied Shvonder, 'but when the general meeting had examined this question it came to the conclusion that taken all round you are occupying too much space. Far too much. You are living, alone, in seven rooms.” (pp. 19)

This section makes me interested in the transforming state of home "ownership" under the early Soviet period and how people reacted. Clearly those used to having more were frustrated and losing their privileges, and clearly as shown the society would often accommodate certain people from the previous economic system if it were beneficial to keep them around. We see here the attempt at forcible redistribution, not of wealth, but of possession. How did this work on a more minute scale? Was individual possession even like owning a book considered "evil"?

# data[].attributes.body
This poem was published in 1926, 5 years after the Ukrainian-Soviet War the ended in 1921.

There are so many visuals within this short text, but all of theme hold the theme that the Russians/Soviets only know so much about those who they forcefully integrated into the USSR. Their knowledge is described to be only the foam of a drink, they only know the stereotypes of the Ukrainians. It also seems that towards the end when the example where you can only squeeze so many man together before they get beet red shows the integration of culture that they actively resisted. They acknowledge they lost after a bloody fight and are now a part of a larger governance, but they will not be quiet about it. This isn’t a whimper into silence, it’s a message that tells those that defeated them that they will not be easy with them. They are their own group, they are not Russian, and they are proud of that. A giveaway to all this I see is that the five-pointed star is sharpened, the entire stretch of time was filled with struggle from booths sides and blood was spilled from both as well after the October Revolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Mayakovsky’s Call to Account alludes to how war destroys the very things it claims to be fighting for, making it pointless in the end. He uses sort of apocolyptic imagery like, “Mankind is vapourised in a blood bath” and “soon the world won’t have a rib intact,” to show that war doesn’t ever lead to a real victory, just devastation. Land, freedom, or power become meaningless when everything is left in ruins. At the end he certainly call the reader to consider why people are always fighting and whether at the end anything 'worth winning' will be left. The work itself is sort of broken up into weird disordered and broken lines that mean little on their own. It did make me think that if it were intentional it could be a comment on how people fighting over something may be what intrinsically gives it value which make war sort of necessary to make something beautiful. Assuming that's nonsense, the broken nature of the format does nail in the idea of devastation and devaluation of broken things.

# data[].attributes.body
In Vladimir Mayakovsky's poem "Left March," the initial target audience are the members of the navy. However, for the general public, the message of this poem is to persuade the readers to aid in the socialist movements, which were the politically left party at the time.

In the poem it reads "Chests out! Shoulders straight! Stick to the sky red flags adrift! Whose marching there with the right?!! LEFT! LEFT! LEFT!" This quote helps persuade the reader through the repetition of "left," which is used to help show that the reader must push their minds and viewpoints more "left," or in this case more socialist. By providing orders for the reader to obey, it is used to get them into the mentality of someone in the military, which helps in preparing them in aiding in the revolution.

The general message of the poem for the general public was to get them to try and join the socialist movement, and another work that is provides in example of that is Alexandra Kollontai's pamphlet "Working Woman and Mother." In it, Kollontai illustrates the injustice faced by mothers in current Russia, and tries to encourage readers to join the socialist movement, which is the left party.

The effect that Mayakovsky's poem has on the reader is that it makes them want to take action. It does this through its use of repetition of "left," which has a double meaning in the context of this poem.

# data[].attributes.headline
William Piegari-Vladamir Mayakovsky- Debt to Ukraine

# data[].attributes.subject
William Piegari-Vladamir Mayakovsky- Debt to Ukraine

# data[].attributes.body
Vladimir Mayakovsky- “Debt to Ukraine”

The title of this poem, in my opinion, lands somewhere between a request and a warning to Russia. Written in 1926, Ukraine has already been absorbed by the Soviet Union. Commonalities are used as justifications for this expansionist position by Russia.  What Mayakovsky could be saying is…okay Russia, you control Ukraine, you call them comrades, but what do you really know about their culture other than the most well-known aspects. You owe it to the people to understand who they are if you wish to rule them.

Mayakovsky, in a sense, mocks this very point by stating how Russians will point out how they know a little about some of their cuisine, their vodka and their poets. Exposing their limited knowledge. But if their knowledge of Ukraine is questioned further, they will change the subject to hide their ignorance.

I think Mayakovsky offers a mild warning or perhaps a strong suggestion to Russia to alter their current “modus operandi” of expansion and how they assimilate cultures. This is summed up in the final lines… “It is hard to crush people into one, don’t be too proud of yourself. Do we know the Ukrainian night? No, we don’t know the Ukrainian night”. This poem ending could probably apply to just about every country that Russia brought under their Soviet umbrella at that time.

Debt to Ukraine is very topical these days as Russia seeks to once again reacquire Ukraine with the same inaccurate justifications it used 100 years ago. Ukraine and Russia do share culture, but they are not the same. Years of war, resisting the current invasion only further cements the fact that Russia still doesn’t know the Ukrainian night.

I would like to point out that in the last few lines, Mayakovsky states, “Do we know” and “no, we don’t”. I think Mayakovsky believes it’s up to all Soviets, including himself, to preserve the cultures of these new comrades, to learn about these cultures. This would further help the development as a more cohesive Soviet Union.