Under Western Eyes

This is a Russian story for Western ears, says the narrator, an Englishman who teaches languages in Geneva at the beginning of the 20th century. A Russian student in St.Petersburg is faced with a dilemma that must have been experienced in similar form by many others in many times and countries, and by many more in their imagination. What would I do, if... Say, you were a German student with vaguely leftwing orientation in the early 70s, and Ulrike Meinhof had just gone underground, and by some strange combination of coincidences she turns up in your flat and asks for temporary shelter and some minor help in an escape plan. This is the situation that Conrad puts his hero Razumov in. Not with Meinhof, silly, but with a freshly successful assassin of a high Russian politician; the 2 students knew each other barely. From here, Conrad develops a compelling story of betrayal and espionage and political revolution, starting in St.Petersburg, then moving to Geneva. Like in real life, one might say. Switzerland becomes the playground for the Russian revolutionaries in exile and for their hunters. The title of the story means exactly that: Russian fights fought in the West for `them' to watch and wonder over. (This book is another case of oddly misinforming book descriptions, here on an otherwise blameless Penguin: the back cover says that the book explores the conflict between East and West. What nonsense. The book explores no such thing.) Conrad was far from sympathizing with `the Russians', but he seems to have known them quite well. His Razumov (the word means `reason' or `mind', says the writer of the notes) is a variation on Razkolnikov. Conrad disliked Dostoyevsky, who was `too Russian' for him, but he was rather obviously writing `against' him here. Razumov's guilt is his betrayal of the assassin, and his atonement/punishment comes in hard struggles between reason/self preservation and emotion. The novel has a rather simple structure, for a major Conrad novel. The narrator came into possession of Razumov's diaries; he paraphrases and summarizes them for us. (Why not stick to the fiction and let us read the `original' diary, as Nabokov might have done? - I thought of Nabokov here because VN, like JC, disliked Dostoyevsky; it may be an interesting subject to compare the differences of the dislikes of JC and VN.) Part 1 is the story in St.Pete, by the diaries. Then we follow the narrator's personal experience in Geneva. Protagonists in the story have not read part 1, of course... This gives the narration a Hitchcockian flavor. We know more than the people in the story, and that drives suspense. JC did not have the benefit of the Bolshevik revolution hindsight, that's why some of the politics are oddly off target. It could hardly be otherwise in 1910. The novel has more women than most other Conrad books. This about the main female character: at the educational institutions, she was looked upon unfavorably. She was suspected of holding independ

...of the 20th Century written in English by a Pole! Honestly, you could remove any and all of the prepositional qualifiers from that assertion, and I'd still be willing to defend it. Under Western Eyes is a superb novel in every way - in emotional impact, in intelligence, and in narrative art - and it is very specifically a Russian novel as well as a novel about Russia. Anecdotes suggest that Conrad wrote it in response to his reading of Dostoevsky; if so, he exceeded his model in dazzling narrative acrobatics and in intelligence. The central character, Razumov, is the most dislikable anti-hero in all fiction, so it's an amazing feat of empathy by which Conrad brings us to care about his fate. Conrad's genius as a narrator is his ability to place himself and the reader in a realm of detachment, so that every event and every character can be observed from several angles at once. The "unreliable narrator" is child's play for Conrad. I don't want to spoil any of the prismatic effect of Conrad's narrative structure by telling any more of the tale of Under Western Eyes, but I will mention that the title is not insignificant. The Russia portrayed in this novel is a land of cynicism and naivete intertwined - hyper-emotionalism and psychological repression in equal measure - omnicompetent surveillance and hopeless myopia - ruthless bureaucracy and utter disorganization - a land in short of oxymoronic self-destruction. This is NOT, however, the Russia of Communism! The novel was written in 1911! This is Russia as it existed under the Tsarist autocracy, and everything about it clamors for revolution. It's interesting to compare Conrad's portrayal of the old regime with the nostalgic and idealized version served up by Vladimir Nabokov in his memoir "Speak, Memory." Nabokov wrote far more beautiful sentences, but Conrad saw deeper. The horror for us, post-Stalinist readers, in Conrad's depiction of the pre-revolutionary state-of-things is that we KNOW that change will not change much, that autocratic, arbitrary repression will be replaced by...more of the same. Conrad wrote two novels aground, away from the sea - this one and The Secret Agent. They are among his best. Some readers of today seem to find Conrad's style involuted and dry, and blame it on his status as a 'second-language' writer. To my mind, they are missing the point, the complex lensing of perspective through the minds of Conrad's narrative intermediaries. This is a book to be read slowly and observantly; the effort will be rewarded.

Joseph Conrad is one of the most wonderful writers for me (although there are a couple of his novels that I am yet to come to grips with). Often novels give me cause to reflect on my life and my place in the universe, but this one is so personal to me that I wonder if my recommendation can be meaningful to others. You see, the narrator of Under Western Eyes is an English speaking man, an older man, an observer, who becomes a possessor of secret knowledge which reflects on the things he sees taking place around him - of the one holding the secret, of the ones ignorant of it. But the second most important character is a young woman, Natalie Haldin, living away from Russia with her mother (in Geneva). And by chance I have a work-based friendship with a colleague who happens to be a Russian woman living away from Russia (in Australia). The last chapter telling of the final meeting between Natalie and the narrator - for quite personal reasons (but it is so well written) was an emotional torment for me, my final meeting has yet to occur - I hope! The most important character in the novel (I discount the narrator, as I would myself, although he is of great importance - you may think the greatest) is a young student, Razumov, who betrays Natalie's brother and then is imposed on by the powers to spy on Russian dissidents in Geneva. There he meets Natalie and others who are totally unaware of his role in Natalie's brother's betrayal and subsequent execution. But it is known that he was a fellow student of Natalie's brother so they are drawn to him. Would Natalie and Razumov become romantically allied? Only if the secret is kept? I will not answer these questions. But I will say that Razumov, weak throughout the novel with the same sort of uncertainties that challenge me, turns out to be the most courageous of characters and, in fact, is afforded one tiny morsel of reward. Conrad is a great user of words although he does say very early on that words are the great foes of reality (page 1). The title of this review is a quote. Here are two more): The man who says he has no illusions has at least that one (page 188) There is always something to weigh down the spiritual side in all of us (page 122) While the novel may not have the same personal impact for you as it did for me, it is very engaging and rewarding. Typically for Conrad though, the writing is very dense, and for me at least, needed lots of time and reflection.

"Perhaps life is just that," reflected Razumov, pacing to and fro under the trees of the little island, all alone with the bronze statue of Rousseau. "A dream and a fear." It is on this small space of remote land that young Razumov finds what we all seek after--a place for quiet contemplation (reminds me of Hemingway's "A Clean Well-Lighted Place"). And in this very thought-provoking Rousseau-inspired environment Razumov stumbles upon the thesis that all of life is but a dream--a dream full of constant fear. The taciturn, exiled, young Razumov reminds us of Joyce's Stephen Dedalus, and even more so Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov. Indeed, Conrad attempted to continue the legacy of the great Russian novelists, by forcing an eclectic grasp on some of Dostoevsky's themes (like the need for, and final apparent conclusion of, man's suffering) whilst straying away from other Dostoevskyian qualities. All in all, Under Western Eyes is about ideas--as Conrad repeatedly suggests-an ideal gripping psychological tale of a young intellectual's suffering for choosing the path of the czarist leaders. If Razumov, like Stephen Dedalus, was more skeptical, more prone to the need for exile (not the exile he indeed does embark on to Geneva via the Councilor's strategic plan) would he have ultimately had his eardrums smashed by a revolutionary brute? Certainly, Razumov must confess for his betrayal of Haldin; Razumov realizes the intelligence, love, and raison d' étre of Haldin altogether too late. Razumov, who knowingly understands that because of his actions Haldin lost his life, gives up his own body for lifelong suffering. And by doing so, Razumov seems to willingly accept his punishment, and further he lives no longer in fear. Upon completion of this wonderful novel, we can bask in the warm sunny glow of Conrad's wit that shines upon us--"Peter Ivanovitch (or any person who opposes despotic cruelty) is an inspired man." Joseph Conrad is an inspired man.

Having just finished reading Under Western Eyes, I would like to say that I found it to be one of Conrad's best books. It is beautifully written, not too difficult to read (unlike some of his other works) and raises thought-provoking ideas about revolution and personal integrity. Conrad is one of the greatest English language writers ever and this book is very much worth reading.