Brodsky reflects a lot about the power of the Russian language in his work “Less Than One”. However he contrasts the intricacies of his native language with the reality around him. Interestingly, he argues both that the Russian reality is a pale imitation of the beauty of the Russian language but also that these same words do not fully express the human experience. One of my favorite quotes in this piece makes this first point:
“This country, with its magnificently inflected language capable of expressing the subtlest nuances of the human psyche, with an incredible ethical sensitivity (a good result of its otherwise tragic history), had all the makings of a cultural spiritual paradise, a real vessel of civilization. Instead, it became a drab hell, with a shabby materialist dogma and pathetic consumerist gropings” (26).
This quote struck me because, in my mind, the phrases “shabby materialist dogma” and “pathetic consumerist gropings” describe the US far more than they describe the Soviet Union. Either way, Brodsky seems to believe that even the “magnificent” Russian language could not prevent their society from being a “drab hell”. In this quote, Brodsky gives the reasons why Russia should have turned out differently, but does not explain why it did not reach this ideal. Perhaps he does not know. I would be interested in hearing other’s thoughts about Brodsky’s musings about the significance of language throughout this piece.
Eva, isn’t Brodsky wonderful?! I am glad that you foregrounded his interest–not just poetic and literary, but also ethical, moral, and psychological–in LANGUAGE per se. And in this regard, I wanted to just point out one thing that I think I may have already mentioned earlier in the semester (when we read his essay on Leningrad/St. Petersburg, “Guide to an Unnamed City”), but which is very salient to your post: namely, that he chose to write this essay–and, in fact, almost ALL of his essays–in ENGLISH, not in Russian. In other words, what you read is not a translation, but the original. Something additional to ponder!
I agree that Brodsky’s attention to words is so honest and compelling. His acknowledgment of the limitations of words in expressing the full human experience is juxtaposed by his impressive command in using words to think through his experiences. From reminiscing on his childhood, to his own thoughts, and overall journey in finding himself, he is honest in the shortcomings of memory and language. His ability to condense and expand his thoughts is most clear in emphasizing this point. In the end of his essay, he goes back to recounting his routine of going to school– just as his essay started.
The use of the english language is a very interesting choice for Brodksy as he notes early in the essay that: “the little [he remembers] becomes even more diminished by being written in English” (Brodsky 4). This description of the English language is posed in contrast with the Russian language which has the power to “express the subtlest nuances of human psyche”. While the Russian language is imbued with the power of expression and complexity, the English language is portrayed as lacking some of this nuance and detail. Brokdsky also states that a writer writes to get a “boost” from a language, implying that while English may lack some of the powerful elements of Russian language, the act of engaging with a language itself fuels the writer.
I think also what Brodsky is getting at is the comparison between the complex nature of the Russian language and culture compared to the monotony and standardization of Soviet Life. Soviet life was designed to be ubiquitous, determined, where one person could always be replaced by another, whereas the Russian language and Russian culture to the point of the Soviet Union was anything but predictable and monotonous! Brodsky is lamenting the lack of the “backwardness” and “absurdity” braided within every historical and culture moment of Russia within the Soviet Union!
Adding on to the points that Brennan makes regarding the juxtaposition between the complexities of the Russian language and the uniformity of the Soviet Union, it is possible that his choice to write his essays in English, as Professor pointed out, could also be thought of in a similar light. Despite the fact that the English language is not as expressive or nuanced as Russian, American culture and society is certainly more diverse and expressive than that of the Soviet Union. I think this could reveal an interesting relationship between languages and the societies in which they are spoken–what is the point of having such a rich, expressive, nuanced language if the society is oppressed and freedom of expression is banned? And, on the other hand, could a language, such as English, be redeemed if it is used in a free society?
I saw the outcome as sort of a “top down” control, with the authorities controlling what could be said and, to an extent, thought. Brodsky argues that the language has the capability of being beautiful, but the monotony and drabness he spoke about in design is being forced upon the language by that top down control in order to maintain their level of power. I think if the society was truly free, then there would be a “bottom up” control of the language, where arts and culture would be free to shine through and enlighten others in the intricacies of the language that they were missing out on.
Interesting points, Gabe and Eva. I definitely think that the shortcomings of the society, despite its “magnificent” languages have more to do with the “shabby materialist dogma” than the “pathetic consumerist groupings”. The “shabby materials dogma” detracts from the human interaction and relationships that the “magnificent” language is capable of mediating. It is interesting, that Brodsky is lamenting over what could have been with such a language, and that the reality is a great fault of the economic organization of the country. This is where the “materialist dogma”, I believe, comes into play; conforming with the soviet doctrine being of greater importance than free thought itself causes these status quo problems that people like Brodsky eventually call out.