Bajo la mirada de Occidente (Literatura Rey Lear nº 21)… (2024)

Joseph Conrad was the one who stood at the fountainhead of all the twentieth century modernistic literature and he was one of the most sagacious writers of all times.
On the whole Under Western Eyes is a modern tale of Judas, ostensibly based on the traitor’s confessions.
There are two sides of barricade…
On one side there are those who assail…

You suppose that I am a terrorist, now – a destructor of what is, but consider that the true destroyers are they who destroy the spirit of progress and truth, not the avengers who merely kill the bodies of the persecutors of human dignity. Men like me are necessary to make room for self–contained, thinking men like you.

All that means disruption. Better that thousands should suffer than that a people should become a disintegrated mass, helpless like dust in the wind. Obscurantism is better than the light of incendiary torches. The seed germinates in the night. Out of the dark soil springs the perfect plant. But a volcanic eruption is sterile, the ruin of the fertile ground.

“I am quite willing to be the blind instrument of higher ends. To give one's life for the cause is nothing. But to have one's illusions destroyed - that is really almost more than one can bear.”

Joseph Conrad

Razumov is serious about his studies. He is quiet, and like most men who brood, there is attributed to him by the people he knows a depth of wisdom that isn’t due to his eloquent conversations or his grand standing on theories, but simply attributed to him because he doesn’t say enough to dispel the illusion. Razumov seems like a man who is stewing about the state of affairs, and might be hatching a scheme to do something seditious. He is, needless to say, lonely.

”Who knows what true loneliness is--not the conventional word but the naked terror? To the lonely themselves it wears a mask. The most miserable outcast hugs some memory or some illusion. Now and then a fatal conjunction of events may lift the veil for an instant. For an instant only. No human being could bear a steady view of moral solitude without going mad.”

Razumov returns to his rooms one day, from the turmoil of the streets inspired by the successful assassination of a politician, to find the assassin lying on his bed waiting for him to come home. Joseph Conrad based this incident off of the real life assassination of Vyacheslav von Plehve.

Vyacheslav von Plehve, Minister of the Interior

Yes, this mere acquaintance has decided out of all the people in St. Petersburg that he has to come to Razumov for sanctuary. Haldin asks for his assistance, and after debating the matter thoroughly with himself, Razumov agrees to help.

It all goes wrong. Razumov flips out. He realizes that he is on the verge of being completely compromised by his association with Haldin.

He goes to the police and reveals all.

All he wants to do is go back to being a student, but he soon learns that his friends, really more like acquaintances, are now looking to him for leadership. Haldin had told their circle of friends that Razumov was a man they could count on. A friend named Kostia insists that Razumov must use him in his next plans.

”What was his life worth? Insignificant, no good to anyone; a mere festivity. It would end some fine day in his getting his skull split with a champagne bottle in a drunken brawl. At such times, too, when men were sacrificing themselves to ideas. But he could never get any ideas into his head. His head wasn’t worth anything better than to be split by a champagne bottle.”

The police have further uses for Razumov. He suddenly finds himself trapped into being this person he never intended to be.

Mr. Razumov looked at it, I suppose, as a man looks at himself in a mirror, with wonder, perhaps with anguish, with anger or despair. Yes, as a threatened man may look fearfully at his own face in the glass, formulating to himself reassuring excuses for his appearance marked by the taint of some insidious hereditary disease.”

The narrator of this story is an Englishman (also the source of the title) teaching English to the Russians in “Little Russia” Geneva, Switzerland. He is telling this tale from notes in Razumov’s journal, and through second and third hand information from various people who had some association with events. He also happens to be the tutor of Haldin’s sister. He is, without any doubt, an unreliable narrator, and one can’t help but think that Razumov is still being corkscrewed into a bottle with the wrong label. Our narrator does meet Razumov when Razumov is dispatched to Little Russia to interact with the revolutionaries.

The Meeting of The Unreliable Narrator and Razumov

”He listened, without as much as moving his eyes the least little bit. He had to change his position when the beer came, and the instant draining of his glass revived him. He leaned back in his chair and, folded his arms across his chest, continued to stare at me squarely. It occurred to me that his clean-shaven, almost swarthy face was really of the very mobile sort, and that the absolute stillness of it was the acquired habit of a revolutionist, of a conspirator everlastingly on his guard against self-betrayal in a world of secret spies.”

It is impossible to read this book without thinking about Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. Both characters have completely gotten away with their moral dilemma; and yet, the burden of the guilt consumes their lives. Their crime is spread across their faces and everyone they meet, they feel, will be the one to finally reveal their guilt to the world. You could believe that this book was written as an ode to Crime and Punishment, but that would be a wrong assumption. Conrad did not think much of Dostoyevsky’s writing style and was, in my opinion, trying to write a better book.

This book almost didn’t see the light of day over a disagreement with his publisher.

”In the summer of 1909 J. B. Pinker, dissatisfied with Conrad’s failure to deliver the long-awaited manuscript, threatened to sever their business connection. In December they reached a crisis when Pinker refused to advance any more funds and the aristocratic Conrad, threatening to throw the manuscript into the fire, angrily exclaimed; ‘ in a manner which is nothing short of contemptuous you seem to holding out a bribe--next week forsooth!--as though it were a bone to a dog to make him get up on his hind legs.’”

The relationship did not improve, but the manuscript was finally delivered in 1910.

Andre Gide was a great admirer of this work. He supervised the translation of Conrad’s works into French.

”One does not know what deserves more admiration: the amazing subject, the fitting together, the boldness of so difficult an undertaking, the patience in the development of the story, the complete understanding and exhausting of the subject.”

Poor Razumov, a man content to read his books and puzzle out the keys to a myriad of philosophies. He is intelligent, and in some ways fits the profile of a revolutionary leader. Certainly the revolution that comes to Russia shortly after this book is published was lead by men similar to Razumov. The moment that Haldin decided to come to his rooms Razumov was faced with an impossible decision with two paths equally beset by guilt or damnation. Conrad uses the fickleness of fate to toy with the reader and show how little control we have of our own lives. It is nearly impossible to know what series of decisions needed to be made for Razumov to escape his self-condemnation. Highly recommended! Rating: 4.25

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten

Under Western eyes, is in many ways Conrad's Crime and Punishment, exploring the similar themes with that of Dostoevsky, Although this for me took longer to get into, the deep and personal aspects remain between the two. Taking place in St Petersburg and Geneva, Switzerland, the central character Razumov a student who aspires to become a member of the Russian civil service is roped into becoming a reluctant revolutionary by Haldin, who after completing the assassination of a minister, takes refuse with Razumov. But with having an association with the police he gives up Haldin for his good. Razumov is then recruited as a spy for the police and sent on a mission to Geneva to infiltrate the Russian community in exile there who are plotting against the system in Russia. He does so and but falls victim to love, with that of Haldin's sister. From here things would escalate into darker territory, where the actions of man's strengths and weaknesses are explored in great detail.

The overall plot allows several themes and ideas to be developed, where one's true self and that of an internal imposter brings this period in time vividly to life. The central character of Razumov is exceptionally drawn, put under the microscope and the great emotional strain of the situation he finds himself in, his misanthropy nature leaves him out in the cold with no one to turn to,
a lost sheep surrounded by hungry wolves and tormented to the core. It would be love that sees his world start to disintegrate, and a confession would lead to a course of action that would change his life forever.

Joseph Conrad exercises a remarkable prescience about the nature of revolution and revolutionaries, and the revolutionaries here are the most grotesque and evil I have come across, there is a heavy menace that takes hold the further we progress through the novel, in particular a fellow by the name of Nikita, who could quite easily be the son of Satan.
The metaphysical aspect of the novel is deepened and refined by Conrad's use of creepy Gothic resonance to the text, and even draws comparisons with writings of the Occult, bringing a depth to the narrative that works well. The fact there is actually a narrator who presides over events makes the whole reading far more multi-layered and is distinguished by the way Conrad handles the subject matter. With a masterly and commanding authority.

Conrad's gripping espionager influenced Graham Greene,
Maugham and LeCarre. An apolitical student accidentally
becomes a Czarist spy after he betrays a rebel friend ;
later as a secret agent in Geneva he falls in love with
the fellow's sister.* Psychological trauma amid deception,
manipulation and turmoil of the Russian soul.

"Visionaries work everlasting evil on earth," he fears.
"Their Uptopias inspire in the mass of mediocre minds a
disgust of reality." Conrad had little optimism for the
revolutionary urge : his Polish parents died as Russian
political prisoners and he was orphaned as a child. Pub
in 1911, his novel examines the blurry boundaries of East-
-West, language-culture. Fact-fiction add to the spider-web.
===
*Budd Schulberg, a Commie writer, stole Conrad's basic plot and used it for the movie, "On the Waterfront." - 7/4/2020

"The belief in a super natural sources of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."
-- Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes

I'm beginning to think there are absolutely no whimsical novels written about the period between Bloody Sunday and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Written in 1911, Conrad's 'Under Western Eyes' is a lot of things: It is his response to the revolutionary fervor in Russia and Eastern Europe. It was a response to Dostoevsky's novel 'Crime and Punishment', and if previous scholarly works are to be believed, it may have also been a response to his own father who was a famous Russian revolutionary. Lastly, it was a response to the way the West viewed all of these things; the way the West couldn't fully grasp the depth of Russian despair and the innate conflicts within Russian ideals and Russian movements.

It isn't my favorite Conrad, but it definitely belongs in the pantheon of Conrad's great novels. It is a novel without heroes but with amazing heroism. Conrad is able to tap into the emotional currents of several unique groups of Russians during one of its most fascinating times.

Anyone interested in the Russian Revolution and the period right near its inception should not skip this book.

Conrad's books always seem to start slow as he methodically creates a solid foundation and base of characterization.

This one very much so and yet stays minimalistic and obscure throughout. Under Western Eyes, first published in 1911, had moments of greatness and had many very observant quotes about the Russian character, and Conrad brilliantly creates a mood of introspection and almost surreal soul-searching, but I just could not stay with it.

One of the very few of his works that I just did not get. I may try it again down the road. I liked The Secret Agent so much more.

خب خب خب خب.
کنراد واقعا استاد نوشتن است منتها خواندنش حوصله میطلبد و دقت. او با فصل اول شما را به دل یک سری وقایع انقلابی در روسیه پرتاب میکند ولی در فصل های بعد چنان از سرعت خود میکاهد تا به آرامی در کتاب حل و هضم شوید. کنراد استاد این است که حرفش را بزند بدون آنکه به آن اشاره‌ی مستقیمی بکند. در نتیجه این اثر نیز مانند دیگر شاهکارش دل تاریکی، چیزی ورای یک رمان سیاسی یا تاریخی است. نویسنده‌ای که از داستایفسکی بیزار بود، در این رمان بیش از هر کسی به داستایفسکی نزدیک است. مسلما آثار کنراد باب طبع بسیاری نیست ولی آنکه تحمل میکند و غرق در کلماتش می‌شود، این بخت‌یاری را دار�� که زیست فکری بدیعی را تجربه کند. از اینکه مترجم این کتاب احمد میرعلایی فقید است و توانسته نثر سنگین کنراد را به نحوی شایسته به فارسی برگرداند شادمانم.

دی هزار و چهارصد

What is Joseph Conrad writing about in this novel? Russians and the political situation in Russia before and between the first failed Russian Revolution of 1905 and the Revolution of 1917. Conrad is of Polish descent. The antagonism existing between Polish and Russian people is evident. In any case, Conrad’s disfavor of the Russian people, Russian revolutionaries as well as the autocracy in place is manifestly shown in this novel, published in 1911.

One cannot help but draw comparisons between Joseph Conrad's Under Western Eyes and Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment! Both novels deal with the themes of alienation and guilt. I am by no means saying the two are equally good. The writing styles are very different. One I like. One I don’t. I feel empathy for Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov. I feel nothing for Conrad’s Razumov!

I will explain why Conrad’s book does not work for me.

The writing is wordy. The language, the words strung together into sentences are those of one who is articulate, educated and learned, and yet they fail to flow naturally.

The tale jumps back and forth, both in time and in place. It is set in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Geneva, Switzerland. This is confusing. A sentence begins, and you don’t know who is speaking, where you are or which events have already occurred. What should have been explained earlier in the book is withheld until later.

The narrator of the story is one of the characters in the story. He is a teacher of languages. It is he that represents the “western point of view”, referred to in the book’s title. He has access to diaries written by Razumov. The diaries and what he sees, hears and is told by others are the basis for the story told. It is he who teaches English to Natalia –she is the sister of a revolutionary who is executed and also, as we comes to see, the love object of Razumov. It is through the narrator that the story’s characters are connected; he functions as the story’s hinge pin. His role, and the manner by which the different parts of the story are tied together is however not smoothly executed, adding to the general confusion of the novel.

The book does not feel properly worked through. It is said to be a reworking of Conrad’s earlier book The Secret Agent. Clearly the author sensed an inherent weakness in the tale, which in my view, has not been fixed.

The behavior of characters is not logical. It doesn’t make sense that Victor Halldin goes to Razumov’s apartment in the first place, nor that he has no viable escape plan in place after the killing. It is crazy that at the end Tekla chooses to care for Razumov.

The entire ending is overblown, as is the love relationship between Natalia and Razumov. It feebly explains why Razumov acts as he does but the reader never sees or feels the love that grows between the two.

So, the book is confusing, the writing is wordy and its parts not smoothly interconnected. The characters act illogically, and the melodramatic, overblown ending is not to my taste. I am done testing Conrad. His manner of writing does not fit me.

Geoffrey Howard narrates the audiobook very well. He speaks clearly and at a good pace. I have no complaints whatsoever with the audiobook narration—four stars for Howard’s performance.

I believe the book intends to show what living under autocratic rule does to people.

***********************

*Typhoon 4 stars
*Heart of Darkness and Other Tales 3 stars
*A Personal Record 3 stars
*Victory 1 star
*Under Western Eyes 1 star
*The nigg*r of the Narcissus maybe
*Lord Jim maybe
*The Secret Agent maybe

The fact that the Westerner narrator is an uncomprehending observer (whose character's eyes are in the title 'Under Western Eyes') and that the Russian character of the story, Razumov, has the reputation as a great listener (strikingly so, pun intended) is told us, gentle reader, upfront by the author Joseph Conrad, made strongly explicit. It must mean something.

Razumov is an unformed human being, which in the first chapter is spelled out both in the description of his face as well as his reactions in discussions -he is easily swayed. He is a third year philosophy (!?!) student who may lack intellectual power or trust in his own convictions, which might be the reason behind an unusual silent demeanor he affects in conversations; he is perhaps an uncomprehending listener. (In this silent listening he is unusual because apparently most Russians are observed to talk much like parrots.)

Throughout the book people seem to be uncomprehending observers and listeners and speakers of disjointed words. The most uncomprehending is a drunken servant, beaten black and blue while passed out thus he has no idea of how it happened but that the Devil (father of lies!) must have done it, torments himself with misinformed ideas of what happened. Another servant, a woman acting as a secretary to a revolutionary, is doing the job but she feels unhappy. She is a very bad secretary because no one really notices who she really is. She herself had no idea that the job would make her so unhappy until she got the job and got to know the people she was working for.

Back to Razumov, it is noted in the first pages many people think he is a strong personality because of his lack of speech. What is made clear to us, gentle reader, is he fears and respects authority and simply wants his college degree. Instead, the plot thickens when a group of revolutionary students mistake him for one of them. He is forced into choosing sides due to a fatal bombing by a student who then wants Razumov to hide him. Fear drives Razumov to turn the bomber over to the police, who then recruit him to be a spy.

He reluctantly tries to spy, but he cannot rid himself of a strong distaste and disgust for it all. The expat Russians living in Geneva, where the action is taking place, believe him a hero and attempt to draw him into their plots against the czar. The sister of the bomber is desperate to hear of her brother's last moments from Razumov believing him to be her brother's friend. Her mother (Mother Russia?) sits in a room day after day dying slowly from incomprehension.

The narrator, as a teacher of languages he comprehends many words; however he admits he can make no sense of how the Russians feel about things. In an interesting side note he finally understands more when he reads Razumov's diary; in other words, a book.

While Conrad's book is about the conditions of the expat Russians he observed in Geneva which might represent the issues behind the Russian Revolution, I think since Conrad literally skims over those conditions with such a minimal use of words his real object was exposing why the Russians fail to politically organize as he saw it. The book is really a very sly, and harsh, condemnation of the Russian soul in not translating into effective self-help.

'Under Western Eyes' seems to follow the usual plot points of Dostoevsky's books but with a very different focus. Dostoevsky seems to explore the inevitability of personality over fate, along with the mores of culture and class over morality, of history over free will in shaping Russian soul and destiny.

Conrad seems to be ascribing the inability of the Russian heart and mind to coalesce decisively into clear thoughtful words (philosophy) as the source of political failure. He also appears to be saying that that failure is fatally crippling to any action taken.

I think Conrad is also making a point that the West finds the East difficult to understand due to lack of philosophical words we can comprehend which the West assumes is due to language differences, but Conrad seems to be saying the West can't understand the East because the East is incomprehensible to itself.

Of course maybe I'm getting this all wrong but my musings allow me to feel Conrad is writing a clever book here.

Published in 1911, Conrad’s Russia novel (or so I’ve decided to call it) seems to predict the Bolshevik Revolution. It begins with a young student of philosophy, Razumov, who returns to his flat one night to find a classmate, Victor Haldin, standing in his kitchen- or rather, in Conradian fashion, with an English narrator relating Razumov’s story, pieced together from Razumov’s diary and a few encounters with the man. Haldin, it turns out, has just assassinated a high-ranking Russian official, the repressive Minister of State, Mr. de P ---- (read: Vyacheslav von Plehve); Haldin and an accomplice lobbed bombs at de P ----‘s carriage from the side of a road. A few innocent bystanders, we’re told, were also killed. Haldin wants Razumov to help him organize his escape; they are not close friends, in fact they barely know each other, but Haldin, having noticed Razumov listening quietly to the other students’ discussions about the injustice of the Tsar and the autocracy, has inferred that Razumov shares his, Haldin’s, convictions. There is something a little unbelievable about this, especially when we learn how many sympathetic associates Haldin had; why not go to one of them? Furthermore, his entirely improvised getaway seems inconsistent with the meticulously planned assassination. But setting that aside, Haldin has inferred wrongly; Razumov, after searching his conscience (although who can with absolute certainty distinguish in one’s self moral choice from the fear of punishment?), makes the decision to go to the police. “Razum”, or “разум”, in Russian means “mind”, but Conrad renders Razumov’s decision almost as a darkly religious experience, particular to Russians:

In Russia, the land of spectral ideas and disembodied aspirations, many brave minds have turned away at last from the vain and endless conflict to the one great historical fact of the land. They turned to autocracy for the peace of their patriotic conscience as a weary unbeliever, touched by grace, turns to the faith of his fathers for the blessing of spiritual rest. Like other Russians before him, Razumov…felt the touch of grace upon his forehead.

The novel is prescient, but prescience often seems to involve just paying a reasonable amount of attention in the present. It probably would’ve been hard for Conrad not to: he was writing after the failed revolution of 1905 and during the social unrest that followed. Furthermore, both of his Polish parents, when he was a child, were persecuted by the Tsarist authorities for dissidence. It's probably safe to say that he never became too unfamiliar with events in Russia; and one of the main themes of the novel is the way autocracy affects ordinary people, perhaps like his parents, and forces them into moral conflict. “Whenever two Russians come together”, the English narrator (who nevertheless, we’re told, spent a few early years of his life in St. Petersburg, and is therefore, like Conrad, someone familiar with both the west and the east) says, “the shadow of autocracy is with them, tinging their thoughts, their views, their most intimate feelings, their private life, their public utterances- haunting the secret of their silences.” But if the autocracy is unjust, the revolutionaries as Conrad depicts them are grotesque and sad*stic, tyrannical in their dealings with others; they’re as fit to be heads of government as Colonel Kurtz. So what’s the correct form of government? Well, that’s not Conrad’s job- he had a tragic view of life, and it seems to me in line with the sentiment expressed in his earlier novel,Nostromo: things may not be great, but revolution doesn’t really fix anything, and it might make things worse. As the narrator says,

...in a real revolution the best characters do not come to the front. A violent revolution falls into the hands of narrow-minded fanatics and of tyrannical hypocrites at first...such are the chiefs and the leaders. The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures...may begin a movement- but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims...

Conrad is far from the first to suggest autocracy as a defining aspect of Russian life, and many have invoked it in a positive light. Count Sergei Uvarov, for example, in the early 19th century, proposed three pillars of Russian identity: autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. InCrime and Punishment, Raskolnikov ultimately succumbs to his conscience and the beneficence of Orthodoxy; he vanquishes in himself the western ideas that allowed him to believe he had the moral right to take a life. InUnder Western Eyes, the country’s true religion, the presence that people carry with them even in “the secrets of their silences” and eventually find peace in, is autocracy.

„In Life, You See, There Is Not Much Choice. You Have Either to Rot or to Burn.”

As depressing as this limitedness of choice may seem – however, that is exactly what life as such boils down to –, what may be even more depressing is when the decision pounces upon you instead of being taken by you. In short, it is probably worse to be made to burn than to burn. So it happens to Kirylo Sidorovich Razumov, the tragic hero of Joseph Conrad’s political novel Under Western Eyes (1911), who would rather have gone in for rotting in peace and quiet, but whom circ*mstances seem to predestine for burning.

Razumov, the illegitimate son of a Russian nobleman, uses the scarce means provided for him in order to study philosophy, hoping to qualify for an appointment as a civil servant in tsarist Russia, thereby attaining the ultimate position this autocratic system would hold in store for him. He is well under way making his mark as an excellent student, but one night, fate crushes all his careful plans in the person of Victor Haldin, a fellow student of his and, as it soon turns out, the man who assassinated a high tsarist functionary some hours ago. Haldin, under the notion of a certain trustworthiness inherent in Razumov, has sought refuge in his fellow-student’s apartment and asks him to help him flee from the country. Razumov, finding that Haldin’s accomplice to help him leave Russia, is a carter, now inert with drunkenness, decides to turn Haldin in to the authorities because he does not want to become further entangled with these revolutionaries. However, once his name becomes known to the authorities in connection with the revolution, he cannot go back into his old life. Instead, he is browbeaten into agreeing to be sent to Geneva in order to spy on the revolutionary exiles’ plans against tsarist Russia. There he very soon meets Victor Haldin’s mother and daughter, who have no idea that Razumov is anything but a true friend and a sharer of Haldin’s beliefs but the man who caused his execution.

Under Western Eyes is the dark psychological tale of a young man who is neither void of egoism nor completely base and unfeeling. In fact, Conrad took great pains to retain a sense of moral ambiguity, avoiding taking sides for or against Razumov. We are able to share the young man’s sense of isolation due to his – as contemporaries would have it – ignoble origins, to understand his ambitions and his will to get on in life, and we may also understand his rejection of any form of partnership in Haldin’s political course, however justified it might be in itself. Nevertheless, although the novel certainly presents Haldin in rather positive a light – there is an abundance of religious allusions –, it still points out that the bomb thrown by Haldin also killed innocent bystanders. It is this sense of ambiguity that makes “Under Western Eyes” such an intense experience, because, like Razumov, we find ourselves groping for light and a way out of the dilemma caused by the young man’s act of betrayal.

The tale is redolent of Dostoievsky’s greatest psychological novels, in theme, but also to a certain degree in style, for Conrad has none of his marvelous descriptions of nature here and instead concentrates on the characters’ inner lives. However, it also challenges one of Dostoievsky’s most dearly-held views, namely that Russia could be healed from her ailments by returning to her Russian values and discarding Western influences. Conrad makes it quite clear, and he seems to be right in this, as is shown by a look at present-day Russia and the continuance of disregarding human rights, that autocracy is something inveterately Russian and that it is only by taking example from the West and its political culture that Russia can overcome the curse of oppression and iniquity. Significantly, the narrator of the story, an English teacher, who spent his childhood in Russia, is regularly at a loss when it comes to understanding the thoughts and values of the Russian exiles in Geneva, and he points out that no one who has grown up in England can really measure the deforming effects of autocracy on the human mind and soul.

Conrad not only criticizes the amount of ideological exorbitance on the part of the autocrats, who even need no ideology in order to support their claim to power, but rely on the normative force of the factual. The narrator’s major mock is one of the revolutionaries, a certain Peter Ivanovich, an enthusiastic utopian feminist, who nevertheless ruthlessly exploits the women around him in order to further his own interests, and who is a man whose self-righteousness definitely exceeds his intelligence.

Summing up, I can highly recommend this novel as another instance of Joseph Conrad’s power as a political writer.

In a word, this book was torturous, a long, slow torture. An unreliable narrator intimate with so many details, supposedly due to a diary, & yet unable to truly understand the Russian mind. "Words are the enemy of reality." Truly.

I liked a lot of Conrad's thoughts, depressing as they were. There is a dark incisiveness to them, but as good as they were individually, I found the whole unconvincing & melodramatic.

What impressed me the most were the incredible similarities between Russia under the Czar & under Communism. Razumov's entire way of thinking from 'Mother Russia, the only family he's known' to his paranoid interviews with the police, intercession of a high 'party' official, & his subsequent use as a spy could all have come from a Solzhenitsyn novel. Weird - the more things change, the more they stay the same. It must be in the character of the society to manage to shape such disparate governing systems into a twin. That lends a lot more weight to the title.

As much food for thought as this provides, it's often boring as hell. Right at the beginning he makes a point of the Russian's love of words, but they have nothing on him. This could have played out with half the words & been twice as impressive. I'm tempted to give it 2 stars, but will bump it to 3. Geoffrey Howard did a great job reading it.

From Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes:

-- To a teacher of languages there comes a time when the world is but a place of many words and man appears a mere talking animal not much more wonderful than a parrot.

That's on the first page! I knew at that moment that I had chosen the right book. Also:

-- In Russia, the land of spectral ideas and disembodied aspirations, many brave minds have turned away at last from the vain and endless conflict to the one great historical fact of the land. They turned to autocracy for the peace of their patriotic conscience as a weary unbeliever, touched by grace, turn to the faith of his fathers for the blessings of spiritual rest.

and lastly: (this was written in 1910:)

--... in a real revolution the best characters do not come to the front. A violent revolution falls into the hands of narrow-minded fanatics and of tyrannical hypocrites at first. Afterwards, comes the turn of all the pretentious intellectual failures of the time. Such are the chiefs and the leaders. You will notice that I have left out the mere rogues. The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement -- but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims: the victims of disgust, of disenchantment -- often of remorse. Hopes grotesquely betrayed, ideals caricatured -- that is the definition of revolutionary success.

If you like these, you'll love this book. The first 50 pages are gripping, the middle sags a tiny bit, the end is great. Complex but worth the effort

That propensity of lifting every problem from the plane of the understandable by means of some sort of mystic expression is very Russian.

It is fairly safe to say at this point that Conrad was looking to present his view of the opposite of pan-Russianism, whether red or white, or at least to point to the cracks in the foundation. In 1911 Russia and adjacent Europe were so wracked by revolutionary fervor and anarchist violence that the rather conservative author may have wanted to counter the onrush of history as he saw it. That the orphaned Conrad's father was a patriotic Pole who flaunted the authority of Russian hegemony, that it was an era when the world was on the brink, would both have been influential.

There is so much here to have loved that it's hard to call it what it seems, though. The era; the scrubby, grandiose/atrocious views we get of the Russian capital of the Czars, contrasted with the sparkling miniature-utopia of Geneva, all tiny parks, promenades and arched bridges ... provide an atmosphere for a political spy tragedy that shouldn't have missed. It does miss, though, and there is some evidence that Conrad was looking to settle certain scores with his novel that set the whole project into the 'contrivance' category. But not right away.

As often with Conrad, locale, character and exposition on-the-fly are frontloaded and forced into the narrative mix quite early in the story; much as a modern film will mesh those elements directly into the first few shots, rather than languish in establishing shots or chit-chat from minor characters to set the stage. We're in the midst of it, right away, rather than waiting for a staged introduction. And even the 'Narrator' here is something of a ploy, as he too will come to be a major player, very early in the second act.

Speech has been given to us for the purpose of concealing our thoughts...

Even in ranting against the rebels, the author is bloodthirsty in his condemnation the empire. Even in looking to upset the mystic, pan-Slavic logic of revolution, Conrad wants to indict not the ideals but the weaknesses of the personality types to whom a broad revolution will appeal. And he has no shortage of strange characters to present.

As usual with Conrad, we are immersed here within multiple frames of a narrative plan that rearranges, slightly, the stream of events we are to witness. Frames of various perspectives overlay the minimal action, while the emphasis is left to fall on the viewpoint, the spin, at any given point. Almost the entire novel is accomplished in terms of the "walk & talk", where much is described by characters exchanging their take on the proceedings, while walking through Geneva (much beloved of television copshow writers, who need these wordy strolls to further their under-budgeted plots). And here (as with Henry James, often enough) the broth is beautiful but the soup is overcooked.

Having said that, there are interesting resonances at hand, in Conrad's tale of a self-doubting and panicky student fallen into the embrace of international intrigue. An excruciating sequence of agonized reversals draws our anti-hero along the path: miscalculation somehow leads to being spared by luck, which leads to overconfidence and self-regard that is not matched by character; horribly bad luck and self-loathing await, and the author is not kind to his central character. One of the scores Conrad wants to settle is surely with the ghost of Dostoevsky.

Protagonist and unwilling co-collaborator Razumov is well beyond his depth by the first page of the book, and once led to the circle of spies in Geneva he becomes the plaything of the era's worst influences, the fool of history. The operatic character-types of the spies of Geneva are straight out of Maltese Falcon or, perhaps, Dante. Dark gargoyles look down over all of the proceedings, but even more diabolical ones lie in wait, behind the locked doors of the conspirators.

Very much in the style of Dostoevsky (not my favorite Russian author) but intriguing look at a young man caught between revolutionaries and self-interest. The double meanings of much of the text are marvelously done. This Conrad novel, from 1911, is quite different from his most famous "Heart of Darkness".

I'll start with 2 questions;
Why, I wonder, isn't this novel better known or more widely acclaimed? It shows moments of insight into the beginnings of World War I as well as the nature and outcome of the 2nd, and successful, Russian revolution. All the more remarkable then, is that being published in 1911, it pre-dates both of those two momentous events. Secondly, how to write a review that shows the novels worth without giving it away so as to spoil it for others?

Well, for starters if you like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, or already like Josef Conrad's other novels then there's a good chance that you are going to like this. Using the socio political climate of early C20th Russia as a background context obviously lends a flavour to this novel similar to some of those by Dostoevsky or Tolstoy; they are literary kin. This novel IS complex. In the first instance, precisely because of the differing expressions of it's characters; the central triad being the most humane and well created. They are bought into focus by the vaguely nightmarish or etiolated caricatures that surround them, both in Russia and in exile. These secondary characters reminded me quite strongly of those in G.K. Chesterton's spiritual conspiracy fantasy 'The Man Who was Thursday'. Secondly, whilst Mr. Conrad also conjures similar atmospheres to Dostoevski; inner mental tension, social squalor and a sense of human suffering and so forth, unlike Dostoevski, any questions that this poses are asked as an outsider looking in, namely 'The Westerner' grappling with the eastern European mindset, whilst simultaneously and more akin to Tolstoi or Dostoevski, (I'm thinking of 'Notes from Underground' or Levin in 'Anna Kerinina') there is also the 'Russian' outsider coming to terms with his own historical legacy. Any conclusions reached are therefore bound, to some degree, to be a little wide of the mark since all interpretations written within the text are by definition only incomplete (There is a kind of post modern inner dialogue throughout in which the narrator questions and discusses his own validity in such a role, and Razumov likewise doubts and questions pretty much everything). Nathalia Haldin is the one exception of the the central three, in that her estrangement from events is attributed to innocence, inexperience and purity; a kind of mythical Russian womanhood. Conrad's writing is at times a little cumbersome and verbose in comparison to the two great Russians. Lastly, the use of a non linear four part plot chronology adds to the aforementioned complexity by inviting or even purposefully allowing a certain interpretation before decisive and relevant information is made known.

As to the cast, the story is framed by the narration of an Englishman, whom I believe voices the opinions of the author: A "teacher of languages"; the first of three main characters and the 'western eyes' under which the novel's story unfolds. " I cannot pretend to any understanding of these people and their baffling actions" he excuses himself early on, yet proceeds to provide his opinions of Russians and their culture throughout his telling of the story...citing cynicism as the moral/spiritual state that 'informs' The Russian, be he statesman, revolutionist, or prophet. The novel's second central figure, an anti hero, is Kyrilo Sidorovitch Razumov, a gifted student, an angst ridden, existential outsider in the spirit of Camus or Kafka. He is a strong and yet simultaneously fragile character, easily knocked out of equilibrium by social events and many of his interactions. He is tortured by his own thoughts and emotions as he finds himself unwillingly 'chosen', drawn into a conspiratorial revolutionary underground that accentuates his standing as 'an outsider' and yet also at times centre's itself around and confirms him. We are invited to see him as victim but of what?, himself?, his inner world?, Russian Society? His lack of love and family? His themes are loneliness, redemption, displacement, estrangement, angst, anger and the struggle to be genuine and free. If that all sounds a little post modern (1911 remember!) then check this! As the central young man of the novel, he is, at one point attributed the protest that he is 'not a young man in a novel'! Bravo Mr Conrad!
The third central character is Nathalia Haldin,a young woman with 'the most trustful eyes in the world', a Russian in exile related to Razumov by circ*mstance and events, as what exactly? conspiracy? fate? Providence? The main plot revolves around this triad. These three are caught up in circ*mstances not entirely of their making, but to which they willing contribute. In the midst of this, whilst 'The Russian', his political ways and his history are examined (or rather defamed by Conrad) the themes of belonging, redemption, fate, conscience and 'the efficacy of remorse' are explored.

I'l be thinking and ruminating on this novel for a while and I'll certainly mark it it as one to re read.

I'm of two minds of this book. I've read this is Conrad's response to Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, and perhaps in someway it is, but I think this is first and foremost about destiny and how forces beyond your control can converge to take control of your life.

Someone commits a crime of great consequence and implicates you through association. You react. You understand the danger. You make decisions you feel forced to make yet still regret. Now the decisions you make have great consequence for yourself and others. You are becoming someone you don't want to be. Yet no matter what you do, no matter which way you squirm, you are implicated and therefore involved. Soon your entire life has changed, kidnapped by fate. Destiny plays with you as it will.

The question is what can you do, if anything, to retake control of your life.

That is what is good about this book.

What is not good about this book is the narrator. He represents Europe, I'm quite sure, but the reason why is never explained. Nor do I understand what Conrad is saying about Europe, except possibly that it is old and musty.

And the narrator's also unreliable, or at least he's trying his best to convince us he is. He tells us as much, anyway. So now we are seeing everything unfold through the eyes of a false witness. Or are we? Are we forced us to question everything? To what purpose is this done? And why does the narrator take up so much space? What's the deeper meaning I'm missing? If you figure it out, please let me know.

Under Western Eyes is a novel by Joseph Conrad published in 1911. The novel takes place in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Geneva, Switzerland, and is viewed as Conrad's response to the themes explored in Crime and Punishment. Conrad was reputed to have detested Dostoevsky, which isn't at all nice and he shouldn't have let it be known if he did. But that is the first thing I ever read about the book, well besides the title and author name on the cover. I, of course, had to go find out why Conrad despised Dostoevsky, who I would have thought, if I didn't know better, wrote Under Western Eyes. Here is what I found:

I have an idea that his real hatred for Dostoievsky was due to an appreciation of his power. It is on record that he once told Galsworthy that Dostoievsky was "as deep as the sea", and for Conrad it was the depth of an evil influence. Dostoievsky represented to him the ultimate forces of confusion and insanity arrayed against all that he valued in civilization. He did not despise him as one despises a nonentity, he hated him as one might hate Lucifer and the forces of darkness. Richard Curle (whoever that is)

Dostoevsky he resented and rejected, but sharing many of his concerns, found the Russian novelist sufficiently absorbing to engage him in an ideological and artistic polemic.

Ralph E. Matlaw (another person I have no idea who he is) claims that "The patent similarity of two great novels, Crime and Punishment and Under Western Eyes, is unique in literature". Although this may be an exaggeration, what is certain is that there is no other Conrad text that invites to be read, at least in part, as a polemical response to the work of another writer.

And the simple:

Conrad despised Russian writers as a rule, due to his parents' deaths at the hands of the Russian authorities, making an exception only for Ivan Turgenev.

It doesn't seem very nice to despise all Russian writers for something done to his parents, why do they get all the blame? Did he hate all Russian doctors too, or bakers, or, well, you know what I mean. I guess I'll give him a point for liking one guy anyway. Another thing I came across looking for the Conrad-Dostoevsky link, had nothing to do with Dostoevsky, but my favorite author was mentioned:

Joseph Conrad hasn’t had it easy. Beloved by critics, read by millions of students, and lost in the middle. No other novelist has written so many recognized classics and still been so forgotten.

Consider his offerings in my assembled version of the Western Canon. Conrad has six entries, one of which you’ve probably read, many of which you’ve heard of:

Heart of Darkness
Lord Jim
Nostromo
The Secret Agent
Victory: An Island Tale
Under Western Eyes

The only novelist who easily exceeds Conrad in universally-acclaimed output is that leviathan Charles Dickens with 12. Otherwise, no other celebrated literary heroes, from Henry James to William Faulkner, can outmatch him.

And then we have Vladimir Nabokov's opinion on both writers:

Conrad, Joseph. A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people. Certainly inferior to Hemingway and Wells. Intolerable souvenir-shop style, romanticist clichés. Nothing I would care to have written myself. In mentality and emotion, hopelessly juvenile. Romantic in the large sense. Slightly bogus.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously

"The Double". His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol's "Nose."
"The Brothers Karamazov". Dislike it intensely.
"Crime and Punishment". Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

I wonder what the guy had to say about other authors, if he liked anyone but himself. Ok, on to the book.

We begin with meeting the narrator, an English teacher of languages living in Geneva, he is going to be narrating the personal record of Kyrilo Sidorovitch Razumov. He spends a little bit of time in the beginning telling us it isn't his story, he has no high gifts of imagination, he is just telling us the story, that kind of thing. He begins by telling us that Razumov is a third year student in philosophy (which sounds awful) at St. Petersburg University. Razumov wants only to study, he plans to win the silver medal;

"Razumov, going home, reflected that having repaired all the matters of the forthcoming examination, he could now devote his time to the subject of the prize essay. He hankered after the silver medal. The prize was offered by the Ministry of Education; the names of the competitors would be submitted to the Minister himself. The mere fact of trying would be considered meritorious in the higher quarters; and the possessor of the prize would have a claim to an administrative appointment of the better sort after he had taken his degree."

The other students consider him an "altogether trustworthy man" who was liked for his "quiet readiness to oblige his comrades even at the cost of personal inconvenience. He is the son of no one. Perhaps, one person, perhaps another, but he considers himself all alone, the son of Russia. He receives a modest but sufficient allowance from an obscure attorney, attends the obligatory lectures regularly and is considered a promising student. Also, he is always accessible and has nothing secret in his life. That's Razumov, or it was until he came home one day and found Victor Haldin, another student, in his room. It seems that there has been an attempt on the life of the Minister of State, he is said to be invested with extraordinary powers. He is described as a;

"fanatical, narrow-chested figure in gold-laced uniform, with a face of crumpled parchment, insipid, bespectacled eyes, and the cross of the Order of St. Procopius hung under the skinny throat."

I'll have to go look up St. Procopius after this, I've never heard of him before. Anyway, Mr. Minister of State who's name I can't remember, is an awful man who serves the monarchy by "imprisoning, exiling, or sending to the gallows men and women, young and old, with an equable, unwearied industry." Not a nice man at all, and now this attempt on his life has been made, and not only that it has succeeded, and not only that, the person who succeeded was now sitting in the rooms of Razumov. Haldin jumps right in by telling Razumov that it was him who murdered the Minister that day. As for Razumov;

"Razumov kept down a cry of dismay. The sentiment of his life being utterly ruined by this contact with such a crime expressed itself quaintly by a sort of half-derisive mental exclamation, "There goes my silver medal!"

That's for sure. From this point on nothing good happens, not that I can think of anyway. People are either murdering each other, planning to murder each other, or just got murdered by one of the others. I felt long before this point that I had fallen into Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Nothing good ever happened in that book either. In fact, I can't think of a Russian book I've read that had any happy people in it. I should go back and re-read all my Russian authors carefully, looking for anyone who laughs, or even smiles. Smiles when they aren't about to kill someone else that is. But for now, Razumov goes out to find help in getting Haldin away, away from the scene of the crime, away from the city, and mostly away from his room. Remember, all he wants in life right now is a silver medal, but this is what he is thinking:

"The police would very soon find out all about him. They would set about discovering a conspiracy. Everybody Haldin had ever known would be in the greatest danger. Unguarded expressions, little facts in themselves innocent would be counted for crimes......Razumov saw himself shut up in a fortress, worried, badgered, perhaps ill-used. He saw himself-at best-leading a miserable existence under police supervision...."

So he goes forth to get help for Haldin. Haldin doesn't get help. The revolution goes on and on. People keep hating each other. Oh, and Razumov doesn't get a silver medal. No one does.

I found this in at a rummage sale: gleeful of the find I hurried home, but I must say it took some effort to get through it. Written at the beginning of the previous century, I should, I suppose, make allowances; but ... and I don't know if this method of constructing a story was the norm back then, but ...

The author, Joseph Conrad, proclaims the story originates from the journal entries of a university student, Razumov (the main character), in St Petersburg in 1905; along with statements given by others during that time; and is told by an elderly English teacher who is known by the family of a fellow student who assassinated a political figure and was then turned over to the cops by Razumov. Consequently Razumov flees Russia and finds his way to the family of the student he turned in, who are living in Vienna.

For me this was not an easy read and the first question I asked was why not tell it in the first person or from an omnipresent POV? Would have made reading the story far simpler.

It's said to be a great work, well ... I'm not of that mind. Maybe I haven't the intellect for such a literary classic, but whatever others think I see this as a far too lengthy dribble of internal anguish. I accept that Razumov is portrayed as deep thinker and has the life he planned for himself thrown off kilter by the actions of a fellow student that he hardly knew, but the perpetual anguish and soul searching did wear me down.

Talked of as a spy novel and a work that must have been used as fodder by the likes of le Carré and Greene ... well, some might think so, but I would argue that. 'The Riddle of the Sands' was written in this era and if I had to choose which of the two was fodder, I'd plump for Erskine Childers' tale every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

This is a great book about the Tsarist Police State which forced Conrad to leave the traditional Polish Territory of the Russian Empire in 1874.

After the unsuccessful Decembrist Revolt in 1825 led by Russian officers who had participated in the campaigns against Napoleon, the Tsar decided to creative a massive secret police in order to infiltrate any group suspected of revolutionary activity. This force slowly developed an expertise in recruiting informants that continued to improve up until the fall of the Tsarist regime. The communist Cheka picked up where the Tsar's police left off and its successor organizations are still refining their methods.

Conrad's father was one of the catches of the Tsarist police who nabbed him in 1861 for his involvement in the January uprising of 1861. Conrad's father who was eventually released decided to send his son to live in the West when he was only 16 in the hope that he would live freely. Conrad spent his entire life convinced that the secret police could never be beaten. In 1911 he published Under Western Eyes to explain why.

The Tsarist police and their communist successors were very careful about who they recruited. They wanted vulnerable people who could be controlled. After World War II, police forces in all the Slavic communist countries targeted heavy drinkers. When a person was caught operating a motor vehicle while drunk the police acquired a very forceful wedge. The individual either had to go to jail or turn informer.

Razumov the protagonist of Under Western Eyes is the prime example of a vulnerable person open to recruiting. Razumov is not involved with any revolutionary groups but a casual acquaintance who is arrives on his door several hours after committing an assassination. Razumov lets him in without knowing what he has done and is instantly trapped. He has without realizing it agreed to harbour a political assassin and has no way to prove his innocence. He is an orphan and he has no protectors. Razumov is trapped. He agrees to work with the police and his tragic destiny grimly works itself out.

Under Western Eyes is a superb novel about the workings of the Tsarist police state. As such it is of tremendous value to any student of Russian history.

Written in the years between the failed revolution of 1905 and the collapse of tsarism in 1917, "Under Western Eyes" is one of the finest political novels of the 20th-century. A meditation on the costs and uses of terror and on the nature of repression, and a novel that bears re-reading all through the new century.

An intelligent, well written novel about Razumov, a young man grappling with his conscience. He unwittingly allows Victor Haldin, a revolutionary individual who has just killed someone, to stay in his bedroom for some hours. Razumov is very uncomfortable and leaves his apartment to go to the police to inform on the murderer, notwithstanding that Razumov has similar political views as the murderer. Afterwards, Razumov is plagued with guilt at what he has done. His conscience is tested in that he learns that Victor Haldin is killed and the Haldin’s sister and mother want to speak with Razumov as they learn that Razumov was one of the last people to speak to Victor Haldin.

Another very interesting, satisfying reading experience by Joseph Conrad.

This book was first published in 1911.

The title refers to the setting/milieu for 4/5 of this great, all but unknown today, Joseph Conrad novel: i.e. Geneva, Switzerland, in 1907. There, Russian conspirators and Russian secret agents are all gathered to either infiltrate and bring down the repressive Tsarist government or infiltrate and bring to grief the conspirators movement. It's one of the ongoing great stupidities of how literature is taught in American universities that people will graduate with honors having read two of Conrad's dopiest and least characteristic stories: Heart of Darkness and The Secret Sharer, thereby missing most of his great writing, i.e the novels Nostromo, The Secret Agent, Victory, and especially Under Western Eyes. But no one since Conrad has done this subject or kind of story better--John LeCarre coming closest. A young Russian student in Moscow has his flat invaded by another student who has just assassinated the head of the secret police with a bomb and is hiding out. Drawn into the ridiculous situation, the student balks at the role he is being forced to play. He goes to his unacknowledged nobleman father and they meet with a dignitary who arranges for the killer to be captured while attempting to escape. Even though the government knows our student was on its side, still he is put under enough surveillance that his prospects for a career are ruined. We meet him six months later in Geneva among the Russian emigre community. The student is now deemed a Hero of the Revolution, despite his true role. He meets with a rich woman funding the revolt and her protege, who wishes to become what Lenin will eventually be. Also various hangers on, including a slob of an assassin who our hero figures out is a double agent. And the betrayed student's beautiful, intelligent sister and grieving mother. All try to draw the student into their plots and the sister into her life, forever. Their machinations and ideas and ideals are wonderfully done, and each character is gorgeously laid out and developed. I'm only amazed this story hasn't been turned into a play or film, as the inner and outer drama is intense and real. Some critic called this the greatest Russian novel written by someone not Russian and I would agree. It's a masterpiece. Read it.

For me this was a book of two halves - as much as I enjoyed the first two parts, I found myself plodding through the second two. Perhaps it is just that this novel has not aged well: the world is much closer, and the whole premise of western eyes contemplating the inscrutable Russian society applies surely much less, if at all, to the sensibility of any contemporary Western European. In addition, many of the sex stereotypes, though well meant, sound quite tired. The third part, in which Razumov is employed as double agent in Geneva and crumbles under the pressure of Miss Haldin's trustful eyes, was the less palatable, the characters too grotesque, the dialogues too disjointed to draw me into the novel. Razumov himself, however, is a great character, and Conrad's instrument to argue for the pros and mostly the cons of upheavals and revolutions, of the naivete of those who are its instruments and end up crushed by the unstoppable wave they've helped push forward. I wish Conrad had stopped at Razumov's exit followed by NN and his henchmen, leaving a doubt as to his end, too forced and symbolic for my taste. Overall, an interesting read.

Finally...
I got through by sheer force of will.

تخيل نفسك طالب فلسفة في السنة الثالثة بجامعة سانت بطرسبرج معقل النشاط الثوري الروسي في عام 1910 .. أنت طالب مجتهد جدا ومجد ، مكافح على نحو استثنائي ، غامض وغريب الأطوار .. أنت لا تعرف أباً ولا أماً . مقطوع الأوصال إلا من الإنتماء لروسيا وحدها . بدافع من غموضك المتفرد يُعتقد فيك ميلا ثوريا مكبوتا . لكن على العكس من ذلك تماما أنت ليس لديك أدنى إهتمام باي من القضايا الكبرى . ليس لديك موقف محدد واضح من أي شئ اللهم إلا من مثابرة واصرار على النجاح من ناحية . ومن ناحية أخرى تقدريك وإمتنانك العميق للأمير ك . كفيلك الذي يرعاك في دراستك .. تطلق عيه لقب "هو ".لنفترض الأن أن إسمك هو رازاموف .
زميلك هالدين .. فيكتور هالدين ، طالب ثوري يثق فيك ثقة عمياء على نحو غامض وغريب . لا تربطك به صلة حقيقة يمكن الاستناد عليها لنمنح علاقته بك لقب صداقة . و��لى الرغم من ذلك أنت بالنسبة له محل ثقة .هالدين بالاضافة لشخص أخر يقوم بعملية اغتيال لوزير دولة " مجرم ووحشي " السيد دو بـ . لكن القنابل المستخدمة تودي بحياة أجير للوزير والقاتل الأول المرافق لهادلين وعدد من المارة . وفي مساء تلك الليلة والتي من المفترض أنها تعني لك الكثير لأن اليوم التالي سيشهد اختبار ا لك في الجامعة لطالما تحمست له .. تدخل غرفتك لتجد فيكتور هالدين هنالك ينتظرك . ينظرك أنت في غرفتك دونا عن جميع الروس . ويصارحك بكل قحة بالحقيقة التي صعقتك . ويطلب منك أن تساعده على الهرب . أن تذهب لتجد زيمانتش الذي سيتم له عملية الهروب الكبير . والأن عزيزي رازاموف . مالذي يتوجب عليك أن تفعله ؟

هذا هو موقف رازاموف المعقد والغريب الذي تدور حوله رواية جوزيف كونراد " تحت عيون غربية " . والتي تبدو في رأيي واحدة من أعظم الروايات على مر العصور . ومشكلتي الوحيدة مع هذه الرواية هي أنني لا استطع أن أكتب عنها مراجعة ليس لفرط عظمتها فحسب بل لأنها تحتاج دراسة مطولة لابراز مدى العظمة التي تتضمنها الرواية.
لذلك سأدع كونراد نفسه يفعل ما إستعصى علي لعدة ليال . يقول كونراد في مقدمة الرواية أنها :
1-
ليست محاولة اتقديم الحالة السياسية لروسيا بل لسيكولوجينها بالذات . والتعبير على نحو متخيل عن الحقيقة العامة التي تكمن وراء أحداثها .
2-
حين شرع كونراد في كتابة روايته ، كانت لديه فكرة جلية عن القسم الأول فحسب . الشخصيات المحددة تماما هالدين رازاموف والمستشار ميكولين .. ولم تتضح له القصة تماما إلا بعد القسم الأول . لذلك يرى كونراد ومن الجيد أنه يرى ذلك أنه ليس ثمة ما يدفع لتقديم الرواية بشرح سير الحدث. إذ أنه فرض نفسه عليه كمسألة شعور أكثر منها مسألة فكر .
3-
يشير كونراد إلى الجهد الذي بذله في سبيل التجرد من أجل الوصول إلى مرد أي عمل قصصي " الحقيقة " ولذلك يرى أن الحقيقة وحدها هي سبب اذدهار الرواية في روسيا عن انجلترا .
4-
لم تكن شخصيات الرواية نتاج تجربة خاصة بل معرفة عامة بأحوال روسيا .. الأخلاق والعاطفة ، المزاج الروسي ، اليأس الأحمق الذي إستفزه الإستبداد الأحمق . فهو يعرض لمظهر وصفة ومصير الأفراد تحت أنظار غربية لمعلم لغات عجوز .
5-
يدافع كونراد عن لهجته الحيادية ولهجة معلمه العجوز ونظرته الغربية بالتالي فيؤكد التعاطف مع جميع أبطال العمل . فرازموف لديه طموحات جد معقولة . وهو يتمتع بضمير عادي . وكونه لا يعرف أبا ولا أما يجعله يشعر بنفسه أكثر من غيره على أنه روسي أو هو لا شيئ .فهو نتاج العبثية الدموية للجرائم . والتضحيات المتأججة في تلك الكومة الفوضوية التي تحيط به وتحطمه .
لا وحوش في هذه الرواية .
أما بيتر ايفانوفيتش والمدام دو سـ فعبارة عن لعبة مشروعة . قردان من قرود الغابة البشرية .
حتى نيكتا نفسه فلم يكن سوى الزهرة الكاملة للبرية الارهابية . وما أزعج كونراد فيه لم يكن فظاعته بل إبتذاله
6-
أشد الأفكار إثارة لرعب كونراد أن كل هؤلاء الناس ليسوا سوى نتاج العادي لا الإستثنائي .
" شراسة وغباء نظام الحكم الفردي الذي يرفض كل مشروعية ويؤسس نفسه على الفوضوية الأخلاقية الكاملة ، يثير الجواب الغبي الذي لا يقل وحشية . جواب الثورية الطوباوية المحضة التيتقوم أولا بالتدمير بأي وسيلة .
7-
أهم مايراه كونراد هو :
هؤلاء لا يستطيعون رؤية أن كل ما يمكنهم إنجازه هو تغيير الأسماء . فالعالم يواجه اليوم وكل يوم والله حقيقة القول : " النمر لا يستطيع تغيير جلده المقل�� . كما أن الفهد لا يستطيع تغير جلده المرقط .

***
يقسم كونراد الرواية إلى أربع أجزاء ، كل جزء ينقسم إلى أربع أقسام . تدور أحداثها في سانت بطرسبرج ، وجينيف .. حيث يوجد الراوي وهو معلم لغات عجوز علاقته بالأحداث جائت عبر صداقته مع الأنسة هالدين أخت فيكتور هالدين . يتمتع هذا الراوي بحس مرهف وملكة تحليلية عالية . ويستطيع أن يقترب من مجتمع الثوار الروس في جينيف لما لأخت فيكتور هالدين من مكانة بينهم ، وهو على ذلك محايد بالفعل .
إن المعلم العجوز يتمتع بعيون كونراد نفسه . تتلخص متعة قراءة أفكاره لا في الأفكار نفسها بل في إنتباهه للتفاصيل الدقيقة التي لا يكتب عنها أحد. وسرده لها بحبكة دقيقة نسجها بجهد جهيد . وهو هنا يتماس مع دوستيفسكي ــ والذي شاع عن كونراد كرهه له ـ في أن هذه الرواية تدور في بيئة روسية غير كاملة .. منقوصة من شيئ ما .. وضوح ربما .. غياب الإيمان ووجوده في نفس الوقت .. البعد عن مكز العالم والتواجد في قلب الحدث . يخلق هذا رؤية كاملة عن عالم منقوص.
ان وضع الحدث الروائي تحت عيون غربية يؤدي في النهاية إلى وضع حدود غاصلة بين عالمين مختلفين . وبالتالي تعقد مقارنة بين الروسي والغربي .
إدراك هذا الإختلاف والحد الفاصل بين هنا وهناك وضع البطل رازموف نهبا ليأس شخصي غرق فيه حتى مات . يأس من أي أمل في التغيير . حتى وصل إلى لحظة تعري كاشف فيها الحقيقة .. الحقيقة التي من أجلها كتب كونراد الرواية .

I loved the tension in this!!!

The story follows Russian university student Razumov after he gets approached by a classmate who just assassinated a minister in the government. The narrator is an old Englishman living in Geneva who seems to be just a lowly language teacher. He tracks Razumov's movements and has translated Raz's diary for the reader, which makes up the book. Due to this, the reader is left constantly wondering who to trust, why we are getting some information and not other, and how much we can believe. It is a really riveting ride!
I felt very connected to Razumov's character, his solitary temperament, and love of writing. Other memorable characters appear, such as Sophia Antonova, Natalia, Madcap Kostia, and--of course-- the infamous Haldin.
I would recommend this book highly to anyone interested in Russian history, government intrigues, and novels which explore questions of morality and justice.

((also, I just picked up a book on hom*osexuality in the Life and Work of Joseph Conrad , and I kind of get a hint of that here?? Will definitely be reading that soon!))

About Under Western Eyes, Conrad said, "In this book I am concerned with nothing but ideas, to the exclusion of everything else." So what ideas are we talking about? At one point the narrator states, “Hopes grotesquely betrayed, ideals caricatured – that is the definition of revolutionary success.” Clearly Conrad is not sympathetic to violent revolution. On the other hand, “This is a Russian story for Western ears, which….are not attuned to certain tones of cynicism and cruelty, of moral negation, and even of moral distress.” He also has trouble with the nature of the Russian personality.

This book agitated me. Maybe that’s what Conrad intended. He is said to have had a nervous breakdown while writing it. I am not surprised. I have been an admirer of Conrad since my college days, when my first reading of Heart of Darkness in my Freshman year changed my life (this is not an exaggeration). But in the case of Under Western Eyes, the language is elliptical and inscrutable, as though poorly translated from another language, while many of the conversations have the feel of idealogues speaking past each other rather than actual humans speaking to and with each other. It’s clear that Conrad meant the work as a poison dart aimed at Dostoevsky, reframing Crime and Punishment as a, well, punishment to the Russian master’s audacity. There is a faintly shrill quality that seems to have been intended to entice the reader into an acceptance of the validity of Conrad’s anti-Russian, anti-revolutionist, anti-autocratic rhetoric.

OTOH, Razumov is an extraordinary fictional character, one that holds up well when measured against Raskolnikov (note the intended similarity of the names). His fear, his bitterness, his regret, his anger, his inability to thwart forces that, after all, are not inevitable; these are palpable in the writing. His thoughts are awash in powerful emotions, which then erupt in nearly every conversation he has.

Natalia Haldin is an enigma, a character who thinks she thinks clearly and decisively, yet is, in the words of the narrator, dangerously inexperienced, and subject to brain-washing. She grows up during the story, but never abandons her ideals.

Then there is Peter Ivanovitch, the highly respected but ludicrous and hypocritical political theorist whose tragic personal history elevates his banal writings into revolutionary gospel in the eyes of the true believers. He is allegedly “Europe’s greatest feminist”, but Conrad delights in repeatedly throwing this absurdity in the reader’s face. Conrad must surely have loved creating this shallow, egotistical, sexist character.

Nearly all of the characters suffer from hubris and grandiosity. Conrad has created a monstrous evocation of delusion, from the points of view of both the revolutionists and the autocrats. His own antipathy comes through loud and clear. No wonder writing this book was an act of anguish and torment.

I felt frustrated much of the time, yet I could not put the book down. I desperately needed to know the resolution.

I read the Penguin Classics version, not the one displayed here. It makes a difference because the Penguin version has an excellent intro by Allan H. Simmons, a professor of modern and 20th-century literature at St. Mary's University, Twickenham, in London, and a recognized expert in Joseph Conrad literature (don't read the Intro until after you've finished the novel).

I waited quite a while before deciding whether I'd even write a review to say what I thought about this novel, or give it a "star" rating. Who am I to rate the great Josheph Conrad, a favorite author of mine?
I also think that someday I'll read it again. When I finished it, then read the Intro, then thought about it for a few days, I almost picked it up to read it again right then and there. I will eventually, maybe right after I finally make it through Nostromo, which I've started and stopped twice already.

In the Intro Simmons writes: "The novel [Under Western Eyes] completes the trilogy of political novels - the others are Nostromo (1904) and The Secret Agent - that ... are now generally regarded as his crowning creative achievement."

Well, how could he have left off Heart of Darkness? Perhaps its not a novel, but a novella?

UWE is written from the perspective of a language Professor from Western Europe, thus telling us this story of Russia through the perspective of his "Western Eyes." He knows of the story because of a diary he found of the principal character. Right off the bat I love these kinds of stories.

UWE is about Russian revolutionaries, their murder and intrigue, their own "society" if you will. The principal character, Razumov, isn't a revolutionist, he's a university student with delusions of grandeur who gets caught up in the intrigue. Because of this, there's a lot of introspection, self doubt, hand wringing. It's said this was Conrad's answer to Doestoevsky's Crime and Punishment. Personally I don't think it rises to that level.

UWE was a little tough to digest at times, and there's no way real people would have the extensive, elaborate vocabulary Conrad gives his characters. There's a lot of references to people, places, and things of the time, so the foot-noted references are helpful.

I think someday, when I read it again, I may like it even more than the first time.

I need another shelf called, "I'm still thinking about it." It struck me as, "What if Dostoevsky and Henry James got married and had a baby and named it CRIME AND PUNISHMENT UNDER WESTERN EYES?" I'm still uncertain whether this book is an exploration of individual characters; an allegory of "oppressive autocracy", "indifferent democracy", and "fanatical revolutionism"; a paean to the power of Woman, or what. Maybe all of the above.

Worth reading? Yes. I'm glad I did. I might even reread it some day; I have a feeling a later rereading will be rewarding.

Why did I only give it two stars, if it impressed me so with thought? Because I didn't like it much. I'd rather read Dostoevsky and James.