Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

If any twentieth-century literary figure has been the victim of media typecasting, it is Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Whenever his name is mentioned, it is almost invariably accompanied by the same stereotypical characterization. He is, we are reliably informed, a prophet of doom, an arch-pessimist, a stern Jeremiah-like figure who is out of touch, out of date, and, worst of all in our novelty-crazed sub-culture, out of fashion. He is also, we are told, irrelevant to the modern world in general and modern Russia in particular.

Perhaps this attitude to the Russian Nobel Prize winner was epitomized by George Trefgarne in an article entitled “Solzhenitsyn Loses the Russian Plot” in the business section of the Daily Telegraph on June 6, 1998. “Alexander Solzhenitsyn proved again that he is never happier than when he is thoroughly miserable”, Trefgarne wrote. “His impassioned critique of the new Russia displays the sense of doom, disaster and history you would expect from a survivor of the Soviet Union and a Nobel prizewinner. Solzhenitsyn believes Russia has overthrown the evils of communism only to replace them with the evils of capitalism.”

Mr. Trefgarne’s article ended with the statement: “Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a better writer than he is an economist.” Yet why, one is tempted to ask, should this disqualify the writer from commenting on his country’s problems? Did Dickens have nothing of importance to say about the squalor of Victorian England? Did George Orwell have nothing to say about the dangers of totalitarianism? Compared with the literary light which these writers were able to throw on controversial issues, the weakness of much of the analysis in the business sections of newspapers is only too apparent. Indeed, Mr. Trefgarne’s own article was a case in point. He stated that “Solzhenitsyn and the doom-mongers could have exaggerated their case” because the new and dynamic Russian prime minister, Sergei Kiriyenko, was revitalizing the ailing Russian economy with a “decisive package of measures”. With an ingenious use of statistical data, Trefgarne painted a rose-tinted picture of Russia’s future, which reminded one of Solzhenitsyn’s complaints that his country’s troubles were forever being “covered up… by mendacious statistics”.

Only two months after Trefgarne’s article had predicted that Russia would soon live happily ever after, Sergei Kiriyenko was sacked, his “decisive package of measures” was abandoned, and the whole Russian economy collapsed cataclysmically, sending shockwaves around the world. George Trefgarne had become only the latest in a long line of critics who had discovered to their own cost that it was perilous to dismiss Solzhenitsyn so lightly.

Yet even if Solzhenitsyn is right, the critics insist, he is still irrelevant because nobody is listening to him. “It is little consolation that his prophecies of catastrophe are fulfilled”, wrote Daniel Johnson in the Daily Telegraph on December 12, 1998. “He is unheard.” These words, written the day after Solzhenitsyn’s eightieth birthday, were not completely true. To commemorate his birthday, two documentaries were shown on Russian television, one of which was broadcast in hourly installments on three consecutive nights. A third documentary was blocked at the last moment, after Solzhenitsyn complained that it included unauthorized footage of his private life. In the same week, the celebrated cellist and composer Mstislav Rostropovich conducted a concert in Solzhenitsyn’s honor at the Moscow Conservatory, and a dramatized version of Solzhenitsyn’s novel The First Circle was being staged at one of Russia’s leading theaters. Finally, when, as part of the birthday celebrations, President Yeltsin sought to award Solzhenitsyn the Order of St. Andrew for his cultural achievements, the writer controversially refused to accept the honor in protest of Yeltsin’s role in Russia’s collapse. “In today’s conditions,” he said, “when people are starving and striking just to get their wages, I cannot accept this reward.” He added that perhaps, in many years’ time when Russia had overcome its seemingly insurmountable difficulties, one of his sons would be able to collect it for him posthumously.¹ Clearly, Solzhenitsyn, even as an octogenarian, was still capable of causing a great deal of controversy. Furthermore, the intense interest which his eightieth birthday aroused both in his homeland and in the media around the world contradicts the claims that he is either forgotten or irrelevant. On the contrary, seldom has a writer attracted so much publicity, both good and bad, throughout his life. Vilified or vindicated, loved or hated, Solzhenitsyn remains a provocative figure. Now, as he approaches the twilight of his life, it would seem timely to look back over the past eighty years. With the added insight provided by a recent in-depth interview with the writer himself, it is hoped that this book will help unravel Solzhenitsyn in a way that gets beyond the facts to the underlying truths underpinning his life, his work, and his beliefs.

Exactly who is Alexander Solzhenitsyn? The following pages will not only address this beguiling question but will, I hope, provide the beginnings of the answer.