Olga Gradinaru

Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

olgagradinaru@gmail.com

 

 

The Child Character and the Positive Hero

in the Soviet Prose of the Second World War

 

 

Abstract: This work points out the ideological limits and intrusions imposed by social realism in the war prose of Soviet literature. The two texts that form the object of analysis, V. Kataev’s Son of the Regiment and V. Bogomolov’s Ivan, are from different decades and illustrate the loosening of the ideological restrictions in the literary field, also mirrored in the different manner of constructing literary characters, faithful, to a greater or a lesser degree, to the established ideal of the Soviet character in Chernyshevsky’s tradition of the “positive hero”.

Keywords: USSR; Communist Regime; Social Realism; Communist Ideology; Vladimir Kataev; Positive Hero; Typical Characters.

 

 

Social realism, the official communist doctrine[1], exerted its influence upon the obsessive motif of the Second World War, influencing the writers’ style and the type of protagonists they wrote about. The hero was reduced to his social function, being depicted in harsh war conditions, fighting or being involved in the war (this also held true for women and children). Social realism was the result of historical, political and cultural aspects, being, at its beginnings, the echo of “the society’s tendency towards order, its tendency of having models and clarity in explaining the mechanisms of society’s evolution”[2], a fact that imposed a schematic character on literary works and reduced world representation to social values. These facets, together with the political dictatorship and its involvement in literature, had as a result the characters’ depersonalization; the overlap between these characters and archetypal heroes from popular fairy tales highlighted the common and humanistic values from the perspective of communist morality. These aspects had their repercussions on the level of character construction; the protagonists of such fiction came to bear ridiculous social masks, so different from the realistic typification of the literary characters from the nineteenth century.

Together with the change of perspective upon war events, we witness a change in the types of literary characters, of the heroic problems, morals and a preoccupation for the plausible aspect of writing. The great deed and the heroism in Lev Tolstoy’s tradition are developed in the Soviet literature as national traits for other people of the Soviet Union. The tendency of creating a typology of positive schematic characters brings much disequilibrium to the main heroes, as the reader witnesses the superficial evolution of an already good character to a perfect one, who is dedicated to the party, the motherland and subdued to them in the smallest details and thoughts. Many writers use this tendency only outwardly or using some aspects of constructing positive characters in Chernyshevsky’s tradition, giving amplitude and profundity to the hero’s character through psychological introspection (in the case of V Bykov, I. Bondarev), through the epical tone, the mythological level (in the case of C. Aitmatov) or the ironical tone of the narrator (see the case of V. Astafiev).

Many aspects of the glorious Soviet fighter are to be found in the case of feminine characters or even in the case of children, being combined with feminine or childish gestures and features so that the result is a merely grotesque picture of a schematic, improbable character, reduced to an incredible love for homeland, indifference to thirst or hunger, or inhuman conditions. We shall analyze the way two writers built their child characters in their war prose, choosing two different works from different periods, each being tributary to the characteristic elements of the decade they belonged to from a cultural, literary point of view. In each case, a different vision of war is depicted, together with changes in the hero’s character.

The chosen works are Son of the Regiment by V. Kataev, published in 1944 (winning the Stalin Prize in 1945) and Ivan by V. Bogomolov, published in 1957 (screened by Andrei Tarkovski in 1962). The gap of more than a decade between the two works highlights their specific political and cultural climates and the obviousness of the ideological dictums they subscribe to, revealing their different perspective upon war events and post-war events. The life experience of the two writers is similar, both taking part in the war – Kataev as a war correspondent and Bogomolov as a soldier and then a captain with a military career after the war. The ideological restrictions are striking in Kataev’s work, being part of M. Gorky’s literary direction, while in Bogomolov’s case we could talk about a real obsession for plausibility and a sort of cult for details, ignoring the ideological aspects.

V. Kataev seems to be truthful to the positive hero model, similar to Chernyshevsky’s debut portrayal of the positive hero. Vanya Solntsev’s hero is built from an omniscient narrator’s perspective, with access to the characters’ thoughts, especially concerning the child hero in important moments of the plot. Son of the Regiment became one of the most promoted war writings, having an important place in the school curriculum (due to the accessible tone and specific methodology tributary to the Marxist doctrine) and being similar to Gorky’s writings for children, encouraging the latter to become “knights of the spirit”. The story combines humanist ideas (promoting socialist humanism and the humaneness of the simple man), but Marxist as well, a fact that positions it easily in the category of works with an instructive character for children and teenagers, as “a decisive place in the contemporary Soviet literature is that of the process of educating the new man with a new attitude towards the world”[3].

The beginning atmosphere of the story has the aura of a Russian popular fairy tale, reminding of Ivan Tsarevich, an atmosphere interrupted by a “but” that brings us close to the war reality: we find Vanya asleep in a gully tortured by nightmares. The choice of the main character’s name is not at random, being a common name and thus pointing out the possibility of an identification with the hero. The family name resonance is also suggestive, Solntsev being derived from “solntse”, meaning “sun”, an aspect that is also underlined by one of the Soviet soldiers that reported to the captain about the child’s state. The end of the story has Vanya at its centre: he is asleep, being watched over by an educator from the children’s home. In Vanya’s dream, Stalin himself, on a throne, praises Vanya. It is obvious that the glide from the mythological nocturnal atmosphere in the beginning to the dreaming scene, where he receives acceptance from “father” Stalin, is one of the aspects of literary vassalage, underlining thus the idea of love for the motherland through love for its supreme leader. This is one of the specific factors of the epoch, ensuring ideological enforcement for literary works, while other aspects of the plot may astonish the reader by analepsis and the manner the narrator reveals Vanya’s character traits.

The narrator facilitates the reader’s access to other characters’ life stories and experiences, explaining thus the attraction and love for the brave Vanya, who manages to escape twice from an experienced scout in order to convince the captain (who has decided his fate by sending him away to one of the children’s home with no food, heat and love) that he is suitable for becoming the “son of the regiment”. The story structure introduces facets that contribute to the child’s characterization through various figures (captain Enakiev, Kovalyov and the scouts who found Vanya); due to circumstances, some character traits, attitudes and gestures are revealed, all being necessary to emphasize the character of the positive hero.

A pathetic scene is one in which Vanya, captured by Germans, faces the pressure of divulging the Soviet position; being beaten up, he cries on the pages of his abecedarium which he has carried along in the shepherd’s purse: “We are not slaves. Slaves we are not.”[4] Frau Muller, who has lived for ten years in the middle of the Russian people, speaks about the specificity of the Russian child’s soul and about the best strategy to get the necessary information – to enter his heart, win his trust and find out anything he needs. This strategy fails, Vanya resisting the three days of hunger and beating, aspects that emphasize the cruel character of the enemy, but also the strength of the child-soldier’s character, who is incapable of betraying his comrades. The child is convinced of the truth of the sentence in the abecedarium and of his national and military membership, presented by the communist ideology as “moral necessities, while the education of such qualities is the fundamental mission of the Soviet literature, an active participant in the construction of the communist community”[5].

Different characters talk about the exceptional character of this child and his capacities of being a “good Soviet soldier”, reiterating the tradition of building a “positive character”, tributary to Gorky’s vision about the strong national character, “annealed by the withstander life, capable of participating in the history of his nation”[6]. Those who were part of the scout division say that Vanya is a “natural born scout”, having a good sense of orientation, a formed eye for details and a talent for acting (for instance, the fragment in which he meets two German soldiers in the restricted area and his interior reaction of pride as a “soldier of the Red Army facing a meaningless fascist” is overshadowed by the strong will he exhibits when acting as a whimpered shepherd in order to save his comrades). When he is taken under the protection of captain Enakiev and taught about guns and weapons, soldiers say that he is a “natural born sniper”, while Enakiev’s conclusion is that they are dealing with a “natural born fighter”.

We are indeed dealing with an exceptional child who takes note of the enemy’s position, being eager to get praise and recognition as a remarkable soldier. This is a child who understands quickly the secrets of weapons and who doesn’t want to leave the fight when things are getting worse. He is sent away from the midst of a dangerous fight by captain Enakiev with the help of a shift, giving him the mission of sending a very important note to the Soviet camp. Vanya’s portrait as a model citizen and obedient soldier, who behaves according to his status, seems to be credible after the endured hardships and his need for adult attention, love and acceptance, all being reactions to the major change in the way he is regarded, appreciated and integrated among the courageous soldiers of the Red Army – a dream coming true for each boy during the war period, a fantasy meant to offer refuge against the harsh exterior reality. Seen from this perspective, Vanya Solntsev’s destiny is the accomplishment of the fantasy of being involved in the middle of fighting so that peace, harmony and wealth may prevail; it also evinces a desire that regaining the status of beloved children in the Soviet country would become a reality as soon as possible. Or, to put it simply, by protecting Russia, the motherland (Matushka Rus) from the destructive fascist force, the boy hinders the malefic intrusion of the Germans, perceived ideologically as direct opponents of the utopian evolution of the communist society – the pure community, uncontaminated by the negative influences of class struggle, race superiority or other Western elements, unestranged from the Russian national character and by extension, the Soviet one.[7]

The narrator depicts the evolution of a wandering orphan to a model soldier in miniature. On one hand, the seduction exerted by the soldiers’ heroism – which decided the fate of the nation – upon a child with no place in the harsh war world is justified, but on the other hand, many aspects are exaggerated, and we witness a pastiche of a little soldier, who is eager to defend his country. Pretending that a child is a “merely formed man”, as captain Enakiev thinks, is an exaggeration, this being the result of the author aligning himself to the party’s demands regarding the fundamental role of literature, which is meant to serve the accomplishment of a political goal – presenting a model worthy of being followed by all the children of the country.

Some fragments present this excessive aging of the child-soldier, which is especially visible in his bathing five times after three years of filth, having his hair cut and dressing up in a soldier’s uniform. The dialogue between Enakiev and Vanya as a child-soldier, the exercise of behaving like a soldier-captain organized by Enakiev are suggestive examples in this respect. The discussion between the two brings Vanya’s interior change as a reaction to Enakiev’s paternal feeling and special care in his voice. This interior change contributes to an entire exterior one, making the child almost unrecognizable – the wrinkles on his forehead, the maximum seriousness, and the depth of his look. Enakiev’s involvement in the child’s life and the beginning of his educational process have an amazing impact, making him a “real soldier”.

Vanya Solntsev’s evolution from a shepherd to a “natural born fighter” betrays many strategies of applying the characteristics of the “positive hero”, who is reduced to his ideological function: relevant here are some humorous sequences from the beginning of the story, which question the plausibility of childish specificity. We witness the transformation of child’s fate due to the sympathy he gains easily, due to his need for love and protection and due to that great love for his motherland, as the preface to one of the book editions emphasizes. Children are thus invited to pay attention to the ideal character and his qualities[8]. This character construction is a direction to be followed due to the simplicity of the communist character – “a complicated and lofty simplicity, in which are bound together the finest and most diverse of human traits, qualities and characteristic, which are, at the same time, of utter social importance”[9]. This simplicity gives birth to schematic, simplistic characters, driven by the coveted communist ideal, with no profundity or psychological introspections.

Another, secondary direction in relation to the official dominant literary course, which aims at promoting the positive hero, becomes obvious: a result of the literary and economic thaw after 1953, this direction mirrors the questioning (launched during the second congress of Soviet writers in 1954) of the “positive hero” and the aspects of literary theory and practice that might ensure the ideational unity and diversity of Soviet literature. Ozerov is just one voice worth mentioning here, as a literary critic who analyzes in his study the “necessity of portraying a contemporary hero, in the fullness of his spiritual potential”, a desire impossible to be reached without “entirely giving up to the schematic approach”[10], which is characteristic of Bogomolov’s child character, Ivan Bondarev.

Bogomolov’s story does not have the same success and career in the educational field as Kataev’s Son of the Regiment, being placed in the peripheral line of war representation. Moreover, the building of a hero with psychological specificity is a method more and more popular in the prose of the ‘50s, which is characterized by memoirs and writings inspired from war experience. A special place in Bogomolov’s work is held by attention for details, depicting the atmosphere, the dialogues, and the events in a most plausible way. One example in this respect is the fragment when the child is reading stories about scouts during the war; even if he is delighted, he notices that “In reality the scouts would be, of course, captured and killed immediately and they wouldn’t make it too far.”[11] Some other realist aspects are introduced with the help of another character, Holin, who is almost the opposite of the scouts’ perfection or the desirable portrait from the party’s perspective; see, for instance, the episode when he is trying to convince the young and inexperienced sergeant that the other side of the river is well guarded by the enemy and the scout’s mission is just as dangerous as it is for the enemy to get into the Soviet territory. These realistic notes are the result of the narrator’s war experience and they contradict the heroic vision of Soviet supremacy that is obvious sometimes from Kataev’s lines. On the other hand, publishing such a story, even of reduced dimensions, wouldn’t have been possible before 1953 and before the double thaw marked in the literary area by Ehrenburg’s Thaw in 1954 (the novel gave the name to the relative liberation from ideological rigours and standards) and in 1956 by Dudintsev’s Not by Bread Alone.

The preoccupation for truth and plausibility, clarity and preciseness, the concise style are essential traits of Bogomolov’s prose. From the debut story, the laconic style and the predilection for depicting exactly the circumstances and the concreteness of the represented events astonish the reader, especially in the climate of a literature that is overwhelmed by heroism and extreme humanity. Bogomolov’s prose is compact and exact in a merely military manner, with details that maintain the plausible aspects of war happenings (suggestive in this respect is the scene of crossing the river), with no sliding into dreaming states inspired from fairy tales or into the political reality of the times. The events are depicted from the narrator-character’s perspective – officer Galtsev, who experiences extraordinary events after meeting a child-scout, Ivan Bondarev.

The first of Galtsev’s meetings with Ivan takes place after catching the child on the river bank, all wet, dirty and with a wolfish glance, giving orders to the sergeant in a tone that won’t tolerate any contradiction. What amazes Galtsev from the beginning are the child’s big eyes, a distinctive aspect for such a strange scout. The sergeant is even more surprised when this scared child with an untamed look forbids him to ask questions and tells him to call the captain, neglecting any internal military orders from the war period. All of this boy’s reactions – Bondarev, as he presents himself in a mature and professional way – are specific for a scared child, whose behaviour is nonetheless independent, whose special voice tone is uncharacteristic for a boy of his age. The boy’s description and the dialogue between Galtsev and Ivan abound in personal reactions and comments, especially about the unlikely way of reacting to candies, as if he were an adult preoccupied by much more serious problems.

The reader finds out other details regarding the secret scout from the dialogue between Galtsev and Holin, the child’s hero and mentor, and two other superiors who supported Ivan’s missions. They characterize the boy as being “independent, conceited and stubborn”, justifying this dangerous involvement by his independent spirit, driven as it is by a great hatred for fascists. One of the superiors, Katanosov, mentions that Bondarev didn’t consummate his hatred and even if they didn’t let him continue his explorations on the other side of the river, he would do it anyway, with no one’s support, exposing himself to the imminent danger of being discovered and killed. Ivan’s terrible hatred is due to the fact that he was imprisoned in one of the fascist camps and it also stems from his relatives’ death. In this way, Bogomolov builds a character on the basis of a great hatred for the enemy, this being probably the only hatred permitted by the communist morals, as well as the constant motivation of the child’s being exposed to danger, contributing thus to enemy’s destruction. Obedience is not one of the young scout’s traits, as we’ve witnessed developing and growing in the case of Vanya Solntsev. Moreover, it is not his love for the motherland that determines Ivan to act, which was the motivation in Vanya’s case, a sign of ideological intrusion.

On the other hand, we may speak about character schematization because of this reduction to hatred, this incentive and motivational coordinate seeming unnatural for a child. Although the avoidance of the common traits of the heroic Soviet warrior, of that simple character so thoroughly portrayed by writers of the epoch, situates the hero in the gallery of tragic characters, this component of the character construction is overdemanded. The unchildish hatred is counterbalanced by some aspects that are common to Ivan’s age – independence and the sense of responsibility are reduced by the affection felt for Holin and Katanosov and by the obedience shown to them. In this way, the construction of the child character is more credible than through the attainment (even if gradual) of the specific qualities of a model soldier, as in Vanya’s case.

Some other childish traits are revealed two weeks later, when Ivan comes back with Holin to Galtsev’s division for crossing the river. Galtsin notices changes of behaviour, gestures and facila expression, as well as some changes concerning the relationship between the child and the superiors. The child becomes more and more like he was the night he first met him, with the concentrated glance and wrinkles on his forehead when they talked about his mission, about the extreme attention he needed and the solutions in the case of capture. The closer they get to the mission time, the harsher the hatred in his eyes, diminishing the sincere joy of being close to Holin. More and more of Ivan’s behaviour traits seem to be like the child’s mentor – Holin – the one who was strongly convinced about his status, importance and supremacy, being always cold and discreet, even self-conceited when it comes to relating to other soldiers from other divisions.

The preoccupation for registering the events, dialogues and character descriptions as truthfully as possible from the narrator-character’s perspective since meeting Ivan and guiding him to the other side of the river is abandoned and an indifferent tone of the narrator mentions the following events as a simple record of the next year and of the last days of the war, as well as the victory day. All these aspects are noticed with no special interest until discovering some German secret files and, among them, Ivan’s picture, with the same wolfish glance and the same eyes. Galtsin quotes the text above the picture that announced the boy’s death after four days of interrogation and no clear proof that he was examining the enemy’s territory. The simple mentioning of the glorious day of victory and the exact presentation of the end of a destiny among so many others (with no ideological depth that claimed the glorification of the great deed and of the extraordinary heroism of the common Soviet soldier that contributed to the Victory Day) makes Bogomolov’s vision so different compared to the artistic ardour subdued to the high communist aim in Kataev’s case. The writer’s emotional disengagement (also given by the temporal detachment regarding the war events), as well as the different war experience may be considered facets that contribute to the uniqueness of the writing and creation of a child character built on contrasts. Ivan’s portrait is different enough from the promoted direction of the times and the imposed ideological boundaries, but it is accepted due to the necessity of enriching the image of the main hero through new characteristics that would eliminate the one-sidedness and platitude of the positive hero – the object of irony and satire, the proof of a literature with no artistic value.

Although it brings together the traits of the little hero, the desirable portrait by the communist propaganda, the character ofIvan Bondarev also brings into the foreground a tragic component, completing thus the impressive number of child heroes of the Soviet war prose. Dominated by a great hatred and driven by this hatred during the entire war period, this child character tends to be reduced to this tragic aspect, which the critics of the time emphasized. The independent spirit, as well as the taciturn look of the young scout determined the literary critics to emphasize this dark side of the character: “Where others needed special training, Ivan had the hatred that led him flawlessly and helped him to endure the humiliation of playing the role of a poor lost beggar.”[12] The simple informative tone, with no comments regarding Ivan’s death contributes to validating this direction of interpretation, emphasizing the boy’s interior feelings and not his adventures and heroic deeds, no matter how useful and glorious they might be from the educational or ideological point of view. The great Soviet deed that was so valued in the 40’s (and gratified in the dreaming case of Vanya Solntsev) is silenced in the 50’s and the Soviet professionalism and exclusive courage is, if not questioned, then pictured in a balanced way, with no lyrical and heroic fragments, with no romantic effusions and no access to the main characters’ heroic and patriotic thoughts. The tendency of making history and picturing the historic detail retrieved from the artistic point of view is characteristic for the 50’s and also for Bogomolov’s prose, contributing, from the literary critics’ point of view, to “creating new literary characters through exploring the social and psychological dimension by avoiding the false representation of the human character through an incorrect interpretation of what is defining for revealing and constructing characters, presenting reality in a twisted mirror, so that what is big becomes small, and what is insignificant becomes important.”[13]

Although the two analyzed literary works are part of different literary trends, they remain tributary to the Russian tradition of literary realism in Lev Tolstoy’s, rather than in Gogol’s or Dostoevsky’s manner. In both cases, literature matters as social value, being impregnated by the persuasive search for a positive hero, of the new man of the future, a direction opened by Maxim Gorky and diversified later on, in the 50’s and 60’s through what literary critics call the “search of human individual experience and finding thoughts, feelings and special personal experiences”[14]. The two stories illustrate different facets of the cultural and political atmosphere and its consequences in the literary field, via the presence or absence of elements of ideological vassalage and via different conceptions of the main character. In the first analyzed case we deal with the false evolution of the hero from a good character to a perfect one, personified by the ideal child soldier, while in the second story we witness a psychological construction based on strong contrasts – hatred, the desire of revenge and the desire of being useful in war, all presented with no propaganda touch and apparently with no imposed ideological boundaries.

 

 

Bibliography

Abrudan, Elena, Mit şi semnificaţie în proza rusă, Cluj-Napoca, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, 2004

Bociarov, A. G., Belaia, G., A., Sovremennaja russkaja sovetskaja literatura, v dvukh chastakh, kniga dlia uchitelia, Moskva, Prosvescenie, 1987

Bogomolov, V., Ivan, Cartea rusă, 1960

Bogomolov, V. O., Ivan, Moskva, Molodaja gvardija, 1976

Brown, Edward J., Russian Literature Since the Revolution, London, Collier – Macmillan Ltd., 1969

Chernyshevsky, N., Shto delat`?, Moskva, Hudozhestvennaja literatura, 1969

Ihanus, Juhani, Shame, Revenge and Glory: On Russian Childrearing and Politics, The Journal of Psychohistory, Volume 23, No. 3, Winter 1996

Kataev, V., Fiul regimentului, Bucureşti, Cartea Tineretului, 1960

Kataev, V., Syn polka, Moskva, Detskaja literatura, 1981

Kovaliov, M., Ivan, Ruskaja sovetskaja literatura 50-h 70-h godov, pod redactsiei V. A. Kovaliova, Moskva, Prosvescenie, 1981

Ozerov, V., Polveka sovetskoj literatury, Moskva, Sovetskij pisatel`, 1967

Problema kharactera v sovremennoj sovetskoj literature, Moskva-Leningrad, Izdatel`stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1962

Problemy sotsialisticeskogo realizma, Sovetskij pisatel`, Moskva, 1961

 

 

Notes