Kollontai's 1916 work called “Working Woman and Mother” describes a claim that only with political change, work environment reforms, and state financial support can the lives of the common working women in the country be made better.

Evidence:

“Men and women workers everywhere are demanding a complete ban on night work for women and young people, an eight-hour day for all workers, and a ban on the employment of children under sixteen years of age” (Kollontai 1916), “A law to the effect that women should sit wherever possible is very important… It is also important that substantial and not merely nominal fines are levied against factory owners who infringe the law” (Kollontai 1916), “It is essential that society guarantees the material well-being of the woman during pregnancy. It would not be much of a “rest” for the woman if she were simply prevented from earning her daily bread for sixteen weeks. That would be dooming the woman to certain death. The law must therefore not only protect the woman at work but must also initiate, at state expense, a scheme of maternity benefits” (Kollontai 1916).

Analysis:

The first quote describes the importance of limiting work for both women and children in the factory. Not only will it help them stay healthy, it can also help allow them to manage their workload at home without fear of losing their work and without added stress. The second quote is a workplace reform. What she wants to implement is a guaranteed designated break time for working women. So they can have time to rest and not have to overwork themselves. She is adamant about making a mandatory requirement for all factories by implementing a fine if they fail to allow them this right, as it will encourage factory workers to allow this without much complaint. The third and final quote is perhaps the most important. She wants to give pregnant women guaranteed maternity leave with government financial support. This will allow women to stay safe and be in a good environment without fear of financial ruin. 

Cross-reference:

When reading this work, it reminded me of the film “Norma Rae.” I find this film to be very similar to how Kollontai emphasizes the importance of immediate action and the necessity of political reforms. I also feel like the film embodies the type of person who Kollontai is trying to talk to and enlist their support on this endeavor.

Effect:

Overall, I think her work was very insightful and helped me better understand the circumstances under the old regime. And oddly enough, I found it extremely fascinating how reasonable all her solutions were and how realistic it sounded.

The titles of the first four paragraphs reveal significant differences in the lives of the characters. For example, “Mashenka the factory director's wife” is likely to have a more comfortable pregnancy than “Mashenka the laundress” or “Mashenka the maid.” Dame Masha, the factory director's wife, is instructed not to tire herself or lift heavy objects, while Masha the laundress struggles with swollen legs from long hours at work, walking slowly and with difficulty. The difference in vocabulary and adjectives used is striking; motherhood is described as “joyful” for the dame Masha and “a cross” for all the other Mashas. In addition to these literary suggestions, we can better understand the problem. At the end of the text, Kollontai proposes a “solution”; she trusts in a “community,” “a family,” a sort of union with everybody without social distinctions. I would like to cross-reference this work with the “Communist Manifesto” by Marx and Engels because, even if it is more focused on political ideas, the main concept of “bourgeoisie and proletariat” is abundantly present in both texts. Kollontai openly exposes the ideology of pooling and a united community. Doesn’t this remind you of anything?

This work evokes feelings of pity and a strong desire to support all those who embody the spirit of workings Mashas. It touches our emotions; no one remains indifferent to the plight of dying children, for example. Additionally, it can genuinely help readers align with the political ideology that it ultimately exposes.

By using microfiction, Kollontai is able to create immediate empathy to her cause in a way that beginning with policy would not have been able to. When I myself have attempted to read political theory, I am always thrown off by how dry and unpleasant it is to read--which Kollontai avoids by injecting pathos where needed. By starting with this emotional response, Kollontai is able to get her audience onto her side long before she starts spouting rhetoric at them, and the sources she cites as examples of good policy for working women are immanently achievable and aspirational, versus something like a total overthrow of the ruling class being abstract and far-away.

M&E make the argument that capitalism is forever designed to constantly disrupt society with new modes of production (pg. 5) and that this creates an unstable society obsessed with exhausting the world's people and resources in the forever search for new markets. Dudes basically predict climate change if you think about it.

This point is specifically elevated at the end of page 5, where they compare cheap commodities to heavy artillery in the spreading of capitalism, which I find to be extremely potent imagery.

This week, I found Viktor Shklovsky’s work Art as a Device incredibly interesting to read. Specifically, the passage that says, “This is how life becomes nothing and disappears. Automatization eats things, clothes, furniture, your wife and the fear of war. “If the whole complex life of many people is lived unconsciously, it is as if this life had never been” (80). This passage makes an important point that has continued to prove relevant and rings true for the entire time following the Industrial Revolution to the current day. The point being that people have become desensitized and numb to the world around them. 

The post-Industrial Revolution, and to an extent, the modern Global world, have an effect on people that sucks them into a monotonous life. Sure, the workplace has been revolutionized. Now, there are white-collar jobs and a substantial middle class, but the work world still finds a way to squeeze every ounce of effort and energy out of a human being. At the end of the day, a worker is a worker. What is left is the shell of a person, numb to the world around them. Workers in all types of jobs/careers experience this phenomenon. People graduate college, get a job, then blink, and suddenly, they are in their 40s, wondering where the time went. They fell prey to the automatization of life and lived unconsciously as a cog in a machine. This reminds me of lyrics from the song “The Ballad of Buck Rogers” by Samurai:

Lost another day to pointless drudgery

The slow chipping away of my autonomy

A rodent in a race unsung and underpaid

My colleagues seem to me like slaves in sheep-array

The escape from this is art and thought, creativity is key. This is the point that Shklovsky makes throughout the work. I felt the part about automatization and unconsciousness was worth further analysis.

Kollontai portrays the way in which working women were put off to the side and "how much bourgeois society esteems motherhood." While the bourgeois women got every special and well deserved treatment while pregnant, the proletariat women got none of that and had to manage the pregnancy on their own as best as they could. For example, in the cross of motherhood section, Kollontai writes how "For Masha the lady, motherhood is a joyful occasion... Motherhood is amusing. It is an entertainment for Masha the lady" but "For the other Mashas, the working women...motherhood is a cross." The descriptive wording differentiates the experience between the two classes of women. A rich woman will get every need wanted and have an easy pregnancy, as they also are expected to not lift a finger. However, the working women are still expected to do their duties and manage their own pregnancy, as well as look out for their own well-being with no real help.

I would cross-reference this to a reading from high school in which the writer spoke about how women's rights in the Soviet Union were being fought for and new approaches were being taken. It also relates to present day society and how women are still not granted the same rights as men, in which men are seen are more superior just like the rich woman in the reading.

The reading has a strong effect towards women because it makes us realize how unfair society can be and the hardships of life that are presented within a woman's life just because of the kind of class they are in. It also evokes sympathy to the women who cannot get proper care or treatment while pregnant, even though they work hard and follow anything that they are told to do. It may urge readers to want to take action to fight for the rights of women who are being left in the dark just because they are not higher in class than other women.

Kollontai critiques the capitalist system for failing to provide adequate support for working mothers, which results in both economic and emotional strain. She highlights that under capitalism, the responsibility for child-rearing is placed solely on the mother, without state or communal assistance. This is evident when she describes how working mothers must work long hours of labor with the demanding role of childcare, often without the help of their partners or society.

Kollontai’s argument reveals a critical flaw in the capitalist structure, where the lack of support mechanisms for mothers not only preserve gender inequality but also undermines the well-being of future generations. Her advocacy for state-sponsored childcare and maternity leave underscores the importance of systemic change to reduce these burdens. This perspective aligns with contemporary feminist critiques, such as those by Betty Friedan in "The Feminine Mystique," which also address the societal expectation that women bear the brunt of domestic responsibilities. Both thinkers call for a reimagining of societal structures to achieve gender equality.

Kollontai’s work had a profound influence on socialist feminist thought, advocating for policies that many modern welfare states have since adopted, such as parental leave and public childcare. Her insights remain relevant, prompting ongoing discussions about the balance between work and family life.

Now depending on which class ranking, each Mashenka is expected to bear the cross of motherhood in unique circumstances. Unless you’re Mashenka the Lady, the weight of that cross will vary in difficulty. I felt this point was highlighted when Kollontai wrote about Mashenka the Maid, perhaps the most tragic of all the Mashas. As Kollontai points out, her downfall is her that she is “inexperienced, unsophisticated” suggesting that Masha is naïve, innocent, young, and perhaps without enough social status to deny the factory director’s advances and eventual pregnancy. Feeling as if her life is ruined, suicide appears to be the least painful option to Masha once she is castigated. This point is highlighted by describing the river in which she intends to drown as the “dark river, terrifying and yet fascinating”.

The option of suicide is complicated and unique. I do not attempt to speak from a position of deep knowledge on the subject, but I would speculate that the act could range from one’s only option to their best option. In Shakespeare “Romeo & Juliet”, each person considered death the better option than living without each other. For Mashenka the Maid, a lifetime of remorse, scorn and shame wasn’t an option for her or her child and seemed like her least painful of all options.

For Mashenka the Maid, suicide was perhaps the only choice that was actually hers in her lifetime. Born into a lower class. Born into a life without options. Born into a life without a sense of personal freedom. Alexandra Kollontai portrays this vividly for Mashenka the Maid and every other Mashenka who is the wife of a factory director. For Mashenka the Maid, the pain of suicide wouldn’t compare to that which any future held and at least it would be her choice.

The text starts with a small introduction to each Masha, explaining their social status and experience with pregnancy. For "Masha the lady", the factory director's wife, pregnancy is described as "...motherhood is a joyful occasion. It is entertainment for Masha the lady". This is understandable, as everyone around her tries to make her life as easy as possible, showcased by phrases like: "Mashenka should not feel worried or distressed in any way" and "Do not tire yourself, Mashenka, do not try and move the armchair".

But then we reach the story of Mashenka the laundress, a worker in the same house as the factory director's wife, and we can immediately see a huge contrast. For working-class women, the joy and entertainment of motherhood transitioned to despair and tears: "The hundreds and thousands of working mothers do not try to explain themselves. They stand with bent heads, furtively wiping away the tears". And the special care that was given to Masha, the lady suddenly disappears: "Where have you seen a woman of the working class given special treatment because she is pregnant?". In total, Kollontai talks about three working-class Mashas: laundress, maid and dye-worker. In each story, we notice the same pattern: nobody is worried about these Mashas, nobody is trying to make their lives easier, and there is nobody who can support them in their hardships. 

But Kollontai informs the readers that there is an alternative to this reality. A future where a poor mother and a wealthy mother are equal, a future without separation of mothers by class. She urges women to unite and fight for this future: "Every working-class woman, every woman who reads this pamphlet, must throw off her indifference and begin to support the working-class movement...the more of us working women join the working-class movement, the greater will be our strength and the quicker we will get what we want."

In the first section of her pamphlet titled "Mashenka the factory director's wife," Kollontai depicts just how lavishly this Masha lives. It states in this section, "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." In the subsequent sections on the other Mashas, Kollontai illustrates how overworked these pregnant women are through sentences such as "bags under her eyes," "arms are puffed up," and "legs are numb and refuse to obey her." Kollontai uses imagery here to show the reader that for the other Mashas, the ones who are in a lower class, they have to endure excruciating physical hardships all while pregnant in order to simply help provide for heir family. Meanwhile, the lady Masha is allowed to simply lay in bed and is treated like a queen.

In Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle," Sinclair shines a light on the cruel realities of the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century. Here Sinclair depicts the cruel working environments that laborers had to endure, as well as the class disparity at the time, since one would not find a high-class factory owner working in such enviroments.

The effect that Kollontais pamphlet has on the reader is that it appeals to their emotions, as for the common individal, it would be considered cruel to allow a pregnant woman to work in such physically demanding environments. However, for the factory owners at the time, such actions would not have been considered cruel to them, it would simply have been buisness. This ties into how Kollontais pamphlet calls upon the reader to take action against such behavior, as the working mothers are not being treated as equally as the mothers in positions of power thus prompting that a change in society would need to be made.

In the "story" portion, it tells of four different mothers in four different circumstances, ranging from wealthy to impoverished, all pregnant. This format only lasts for approximately half of the text, though, as the latter half aims to dissect the contents of the story and essentially explain what it aims to show. Perhaps Kollontai wasn't confident enough in the intelligence of Russia's literate population to gauge the obvious message.

That being said, Kollontai argues that the present circumstances—of motherhood only being a cherished thing for the wealthy—should not stand. She goes on to state specific policies and laws that must be passed. It is all dull (in my opinion), which is why I believe she started with the story. It sucks people in, and by the time they realize what they are reading is a political doctrine, it's too late and they might as well finish it.

Of course, I do not know the context in which this was written. Maybe it was a political newspaper or pamphlet, in which the format would be considered less devious. Regardless, literature has always been a way for people to promote their political views, although it is often done more obscurely and slyly than in here.

I understand Marx believes that oppressor and oppressed naturally leads to a revolution because of the inequality. However, how does Marx envision the overthrowing of the bourgeois actually happening? Does he believe it needs to have violence? Will it be similar to the French Revolution? Is violent revolution actually effective, and is it more effective than gradual change? Let me know as I was wondering about how Marx envisioned the revolution actually taking place.

I'm struggling with the context of this quote. Is the author saying that the discovery of America led to the Industrial Revolution or vice versa? I'm not exactly seeing the connection.

reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,

into its paid wage labourers" (Marx & Engels 16).

How did both Lenin and Stalin view the "physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science" in Russia? And did Marx & Engels writing shape their thought on the wage slaves?

I wonder as to how exactly the bourgeoisie draws all into civilization? What tactics do they have for doing such a thing?

Marx wants a change where capitalism and the bourgeoisie no longer exist. Despite this, he says that the bourgeoisie were important. Was there was a part of Marx that appreciated what the bourgeoisie had done for his country, especially at the time of writing this?

I am unsure if I understand, but does M&E suggest that the proletariat has nothing to gain from Modern industry? Does

How do the authors envision the transition from capitalism to communism, and what role does the proletariat play in this process?

and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

My question is in reference to this quote. Would Marx and Engels think that the fall of the bourgeoisie has happened in our time already, and if not when is that inevitable outcome going to happen?

The 1848 work by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels called “Manifesto of the Communist Party” illustrates and warns of the menace that the Bourgeois class represents in public societies as a whole. 

Evidence:

“The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie” (Marx & Engels 29) and “Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods”  (Marx & Engels 47).

Analysis:
The first quote is referring to how much damage the new Bourgeois class affected other classes in a single society. The first thing the Bourgeois did was to steal the authority and power from the ancient noble families. Using their newfound power to target their former peers and making sure others could not gain the same fortune they achieved. As for the second quote, it is perhaps even more important to analyze. It is perhaps the biggest miscalculation that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels didn’t fully take into account. The quote itself describes what comes after they complete the reforms and consolidate the assets to the state. The failure from these two men stems from the failure to consider how and who will be controlling the distribution of goods. This failure leads to the corruption of the moment and to the rise of one ruler controlling the sole power of the state. As he is controlling the distribution and likely other political offices. 

Cross-reference:
When reading through the Communist Manifesto, the film “Animal Farm” by George Orwell comes to mind. As it quite simply illustrates how the different social classes interact with each other and how the Bourgeois corrupts the system for personal gain. It displays the unintended effects and causes of Communism.  

Effect:
Overall, I think this work is quite fascinating. Partly it’s due to the fact that this is my first time reading through this work and looking at how much thought they put into this work. When trying to read it without the modern-day perspective and insight, the works make Communism look very thoughtful and appealing to the eye. 

Which primordial role played this text in the new Russian project and until the late twentieth century in URSS ?

Working men of all countries unite!”

How did they think that their word and cause would get out? And how did they reckon that the world wide, or atleast local, forces of workers would unite under a common cause when other problems may’ve embedded themselves just as deep? (Like ethnicity in the Balkans)

"Since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy."

This seems a little silly, perhaps, fantastical?

This was made during the industrial revolution, which was marked with massive, fast-paced industrialization in the most advanced parts of Europe and the Americas. This means factories. Marx and Engles pay these factories special care in their manifesto and the necessity to dismantle the structure to ensure the means/fruits of production belong to the workers and not an owner, as well as the need to restore the work of the individual. If the manifesto were written today, I wonder if factories would remain as central an issue. Many factory jobs have become automated, and the work left to humans is often less physically strenuous. In contrast, service and knowledge-based jobs have become more prevalent in Europe and the Americas. Given this, the manifesto might shift its focus to the exploitation of workers in these sectors, particularly within the tech industry

Another major concern of Marx and Engles was what is to be done about private property ownership—land, factories, machines—by a small capitalist class. How this manifested is indicative of its time. In modern times, private property often tied to financial markets and real estate rather than traditional industrial production. Marx and Engels' critique of private property would likely focus on the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a financial elite and the monopolistic control of resources, including housing, if it were written today.

As a final note, I'd like to ask if all the people who died of boredom while reading the manifesto were ever included in the already-staggering communist death count.

I'm doing Russian culture as a Minor as a byproduct of a language substitution as my mind struggles immensely with layers of abstraction such as language and math.

In "A Slap in the Face of Public Taste," the poem(?) directly calls out Pushkin as a representation of stuffy old literary politics. "The past is too tight. The Academy and Pushkin are less intelligible than hieroglyphics," with this quote I feel the need to inquire as to why these people dislike Pushkin specifically? What do his works say that the Futurists are so adamantly rejecting?

The political aim of the text is obvious even from its title: “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Marx and Engels tried to convince all “proletarians” to join the Communist Party, which they depicted as the supreme democracy and miracle solution. For this, they wrote promises and utopian declarations.   

Of course, we can cross-reference the Communist Manifesto with any work, speech, or text by Lenine. He truly tried to apply Marxist-Communist theory to Russia when creating the Vanguard Party or the Soviet Union. He clearly supported their ideas, which is why we can notice many similarities.

The effect of this text can differ depending on the reader. In our modern world and with hindsight, we don’t share the same position as a poor worker in Russia at the beginning of the last century. However, I would argue that, for its time, this text contains strong emotional and rhetorical appeals designed to have the desired effect on its target audience.

Marx and Engels argue that the history of all societies is defined by class struggles, culminating in the inevitable conflict between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class). They state, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (p. 15). This highlights the recurring antagonism between oppressors and oppressed, evident in different forms across historical eras.

The text portrays capitalism as inherently unstable, with the bourgeoisie creating its own "grave-diggers" in the proletariat. The expansion of industry centralizes power and wealth among capitalists, while simultaneously worsening conditions for workers. This contradiction underscores the unsustainability of capitalism, paving the way for proletarian revolution and a communist society. This theme is echoed in Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, where he emphasizes the necessity of class consciousness and organized revolution to dismantle bourgeois dominance. It also aligns with Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which critiques private property as a tool for class exploitation.

The Manifesto challenges readers to critically evaluate modern capitalist systems and their social implications. By framing history as a dynamic struggle, Marx and Engels provide a framework to analyze societal transformations, inspiring revolutionary movements worldwide. Their ideas remain relevant in debates about inequality and systemic change, urging contemporary readers to question the structures sustaining economic disparity.

They state, "The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians" (18). This itself goes to show how the proletarians were sort of dragged around by the bourgeoisie. They are to be a working class that has less power than others and cannot speak for themselves because they will not acquire any change.

I can cross-reference this text to the previous reading of Kollontai, "Working Woman and Mother," since both texts go to show the hardships that proletariats face and how the bourgeoisie gets to make all the decisions, have more power, and get the better life for themselves since they are considered to be the higher class.

Overall, I think that from this reading others can reflect on the ways in which Communism is portrayed and how all of this plays a role in which society is shaped.

Alexandra Kollontai’s text “Working Woman and Mother” is a good example of developing this consciousness. In that text, Kollontai recognizes the struggles that working mothers encounter every day. Kollontai does exactly what Lenin is arguing for, instead of trying to improve the life of a single mother or working conditions in a single factory, she focuses on fixing the system. In her text, she lists solutions that will fix the problems of every working mother in the country. By calling for working people to unite and fight together, Kollontai takes the energy of a spontaneous mass and directs it to a single, organized movement that fights for the same cause. Lenin believes that this approach will lead to a truly revolutionary movement.

Lenin goes on to criticize previous social movements and their leaders. The following excerpt criticizes Marx, “The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.”

In my opinion, Lenin is saying the Marxist movement was never a true movement of the proletariat and was pre-determined to fail. Lenin contends that Marx never was a part of the proletariat due to his education, which he deemed a product of the bourgeois; therefore, his philosophy was a bourgeois disguise to placate the masses.

You can cross-reference Lenin’s statements to any present-day populist political movement trying to gain control. Take, for instance, politics in the United States. Numerous candidates will run on the slogan of being a “political outsider” and “not part of the bureaucracy” to solidify their status as a common working-class person. They will point to current or past problems facing the middle and working classes and offer themselves as the solution because of their similar personal issues and origins.

The desired effect on the reader is possible salvation through hope. That hope is created because the reader feels Lenin has had the same experiences. It’s assumed Lenin has had the same problems, can emphasize, and will be able to produce real, meaningful, and lasting change benefitting the working class.

In the section "A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Upsurge," Lenin writes "But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied by the "spontaneous" destruction of machinery, etc." This alludes to the idea that Lenin did not agree with the rioters destroying the machines, as it more than likely was not the best course of action. This leads back to the idea of spontaneity and Lenin not agreeing with it, since had the rioters had taken the time to think their actions through, a better course of action could have been established.

In Alexandra Kollontai's pamphlet "Working Woman and Mother," Kollontai tries to appeal to the readers sense of initiative in order to get them to join a movement in order to help change the inequality in Russia, specifically when it comes to working mothers. The effect of this text is to try and get the reader to be spontaneous and join this movement and tapo take action, something which Lenins text would disagree with as he would claim that the actions that should be taken should be well thought out first.

Though I do find Lenin's work to be a difficult read due to his pretentious choice of vocabulary, I think the general idea is that socialism is a good idea founded by the intellectual people of Russia. In his words, “The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness… The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.” He seems of the opinion that the masses are silly capitalists because they are uneducated and that capitalism creates the “poverty and misery of the workers.” No good, no good.

In the chapter “The Proletarians and the Communists” they describe how the goals of the communist party align with the proletarian interests. “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” The structure of capitalism has grown in a way where the system exploits its working class. This quote highlights the main goal of what the communist party wants, and that is to stop the system that gives power to the bourgeois and put into the hands of those who really need it, the proletariat. When we read Kollontai, she talked about how capitalism was detrimental to motherhood and working moms in Russian society. Kollontai had made similar points to Marx and Engels about how the overthrowing of the bourgeois is inevitable. With Kollontai she mentions how the people will take action for what they need, essentially getting rid of those in power.

This is not my first time reading the communist manifesto. With each read I do find myself agreeing with its authors more and more. It makes me wonder about how Marx and Engels would view the state of modern society. Would their points change? Though this still is a confusing reading for me, it has points that they never fail to resonate with me.

The poet expresses disdain for the bureaucracy at the outset and little respect for mandates, essentially the previous regime's control and authority. But the SOVIET passport is a powerful thing according to the poem. There are frequent references to hostility in the poem, such as to a bomb, hedgehog, and rattlesnake. To me, the poem overall seems to be a critique of national borders and pride in individual nationality--that the greater nationality of Soviet Citizen is far greater.

I know that one struggle of the Soviet Union was just how much land it encompassed. This meant it inherited many different groups of people with vastly different cultures and ways of life. Poetry like this must have been crucial in keeping the USSR together for as long as it did, for a nation that errupts in violence over nationality cannot last very long.

The reading by Velimir Khlebnikov called “Letters and Theoretical Writing“ illustrates a worry, a dread of fear and skepticism towards what is to come in the near future. 

Evidence:

“I thought about fairy-tale flying horses, about magic carpets; what were fairy tales really, I wondered: merely an old man's memory? Or were they visions of a future only children can foresee? I thought, in other words, about the flood and the destruction of Atlantis: had it already happened, or was it yet in the future? I was rather inclined to think it was yet in the future. yet in the future? I was rather inclined to think it was yet in the future. I stood on the bridge; I was full of thought.” (Khlebnikov 355-356)

Analysis:

From what I gathered from the quote, they understand things are getting better, but they are worried about the future, more precisely worried about how long this will last. I get the impression that he thinks that everything will come crashing down by the end and they won’t be able to recover. 

Cross-reference:

I am honestly not sure here; the only thing that is similar to this that comes to mind is the Netflix series The 100. Just how they first got to space, by preparing before the end world got destroyed. 

Effect:

Overall, this work was pretty insightful and it was interesting to read what he was thinking and how he analyzed the story. But for me, the most interesting thing about it was the end and how it foreshadowed some disaster that was yet to come.

 The soviet passport is defined here by several metaphors,; « My own vermilion booklet », “like a bomb”, “like a hedgehog”. It shows us at the same time the pride of the author to be Soviet, as he exactly announces at the end: “You now:
read this and envy, I'm a citizen
of the Soviet Socialist Union”. We observe the varying reactions to different nationalities, ranging from indifference to a smile. However, the response to a Soviet passport is markedly different. This clearly illustrates the significance and position of this country in the world during that time.

Unlike many others, Mayakovsky was a writer who was not censored in the Soviet Union. One reason for this was his form of “patriotism,” as demonstrated in this poem.

 In my view, this poem reinforces the belief in the fear of the Soviet Union due to the terror and authority it provokes in so many people.

The first one to be introduced was a bourgeois woman, Masha the factory director's wife or just Mashe the lady, who experienced joy during pregnancy as she was expecting a kid and everyone around her treated her as a woman who carries someone else's life in her. The other 3 Mashas were servants of factory director's family: a laundress, a maid and a dye-worker. It is to show the audience the contrast of either the amount of servants and people who ordered them around or the amount of pregnancies in poor and wealthy households she gave us such an example of 3 women as servants. They, however, experienced a terrible time during pregnancy as they still had to work as much while also raising another organism in them, having emotional and physical breakdowns. One of theirs' baby even died due to harsh conditions they were given as bad quality air.

In the end Kollontai encourages all women to speak up for women rights and join the working-class movement, because such inequal conditions are still being met by pregnant women all over the world.

Evidence: "The earth shivers hungry and stripped," "Mankind is vapourized in a blood bath," "Soon the world won't have a rib intact. And its soul will be pulled out."

Analysis: Mayakovsky provides the readers with descriptive imagery which can be seen as gruesome. This is a way of him trying to get his message out to readers in a powerful way. The exaggeration of the world not having a rib intact shows how bad everything is becoming and it's a way of urging people to take action.

Cross-reference: I would relate this poem back to our first reading, "Working Woman and Mother" because both the readings portray an image of how unfair things are in the world and both urge a necessity for change. They are different in topics that they speak about, but similar in trying to explain that people should try to do things as a means of changing things in the world so everything doesn't completely fall apart.

Effect: I believe that this poem creates the effect of urging readers to take the action of change. As said before, the use of imagery and exaggeration are a means of persuading individuals to seek a different way of approaching things. It appears that Mayakovsky cares deeply about what is going on in the world and he wants others to care as well and help make a change.

The story illustrates the struggle between totalitarian oppression and individual faith, suggesting that spiritual resilience can outlast political persecution. Lipetsky tells the Reds, “You have no faith, no God. And without God, you’ll turn into beasts – you’ll tear at each other’s throats and that’ll be the end of you.” This statement highlights the moral decay Aipin attributes to the Soviet regime, contrasting it with the faith-driven endurance of Lipetsky and the Khanty people.

The story frames the Soviet authorities as hollow and ruthless, emphasizing their reliance on violence rather than justice. Lipetsky’s defiance, even in the face of certain death, symbolizes resistance not just against political oppression but against the erasure of belief and culture. His ability to evade capture for years underscores the failure of brute force to extinguish personal conviction. This theme resonates with One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which also critiques Soviet oppression and explores the resilience of the human spirit under authoritarian rule.

Aipin’s work serves as both historical testimony and moral critique, urging readers to reflect on the consequences of ideological extremism. It reinforces the importance of faith and cultural identity as sources of resistance against oppressive regimes.

The main goal of defamiliarization is to make familiar things feel unfamiliar or strange, forcing the reader to analyze and imagine every little detail, and this technique can be seen throughout the “Red Cavalry”. For example, here is how Babel describes the scenery in the very first story: “The orange sun is rolling across the sky like a severed head…stench of yesterday’s blood and slaughtered horses drips into the evening chill”. Such a chilling and dark description of the surroundings immediately throws the reader into the chaos and brutality of war from the very first lines.

In many of his stories, Babel highlights the often-forgotten victims of war - civilians. He tells stories about a girl whose father was brutally killed by Polish soldiers and of women that were raped and killed for breaking the law out of despair. These stories are incredibly short, but the unfiltered and graphic way in which Babel narrates these stories to readers, makes you stop and truly feel the chaos and violence of war.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

"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.

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.

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).

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.