Wonder Confronts Certainty: Russian Writers on the Timeless Questions and Why Their Answers Matter by Gary Saul Morson

Wonder Confronts Certainty: Russian Writers on the Timeless Questions and Why Their Answers Matter Reviews

• 
  Stephen

  While the title of Morson's study doesn't flow smoothly from the tongue, it is helpful to know where it comes from (thanks to the abundance of helpful endnotes in the book!). The three words, "Wonder confronts certainty," which Morson also quotes as an epigraph and again later in the book, come from the Introduction to Rufus Mathewson's The Positive Hero in Russian Literature. There Mathewson notes, "Much of the intellectual history of the nineteenth century may be read in the light of the struggle between those who were concerned with the larger implications of the ideas and those who would convert them immediately into social levers. Here investigation, speculation, and experiment stand in opposition to rationalization, persuasion, and exhortation. Wonder confronts certainty. Theory and ideology challenge each other as mutually exclusive modes of thought." One difference between theory and ideology is that theory is open to questioning, while ideology is not. What the Russians suffered from was ideology, which ultimately led to violence and tens of millions dead.
  
  In making a case for the value of realist fiction, Morson observes, "Ideologies seduce with clarity; novels teach complexity" (203). Morson points out how the realist novel, as a literary form, is uniquely suited to test ideas by their outcomes. The novels of Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy show us how the ideologies of the intelligentsia could lead to bad consequences, and history proved the novelists to be correct. Those ideologies persist to this day, making these literary warnings as relevant now as they ever were.
  
  In the literary works of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov, we see the value of the present moment over against the future, and the prosaic -- the ordinary, everyday things about which Morson is especially passionate and eloquent -- over against the extraordinary. The emphasis on the present and the prosaic "ran counter to the prevailing Russian ethos and to Russian historical experience" (323). As Morson explains, the Russians would never do anything in moderation: "To be Russian was to be immoderate. Good sense was for Englishmen, and prudence for the Germans" (14). The intelligentsia would take ideas imported from Western Europe and follow them to the extremes, pushing for revolution toward a utopia.
  
  As a teacher of literature, and particularly Russian literature, I found Morson's explanations of the value of Russian literature to be helpful. As he says at the end, in his generous Acknowledgments section, "Russian history is a study of worsts and bests, of horrors and glories, of cruelties and compassion; and it is Russian literature, with its deep wisdom and concern for human suffering, that remains Russia's greatest contribution to the world" (461).
  
  There is much more that I could say about this study; Morson compiles wise and fruitful observations on life and suffering from many Russian writers, including many who could not be silenced by the totalitarian regime of the 20th century, and concludes with the exhortation, "Let us keep the conversation going" (395).
• 
  Clay

  Amazing! Russian thought has always been rooted in the big questions of life and the soul, the opposite of the refined, polite small talk of Western Europe. Russian authors took a big turn towards the end of the Enlightenment (not to say that they were ever on the same track), which narrowly defined happiness as the sole objective of existence. Professor Morson masterfully explains why this is, citing anecdotes from their unique history and literature. He explores and makes accessible the major themes of Russian literature -- meaning vs. happiness, the value of suffering, the importance of personal freedom and self-determination, how to find belief in a secular world, and many others.
  
  From the book: "The greatest Russian writers do not tell us what life's meaning is, but they show us what the discovery of it looks and feels like. That is because meaning is not a proposition we could learn, as we master the binomial theorem. If there were such a proposition, we would all already know it. It would be the first things we had been taught. In Karamazov Madame Khokhlakova implores Father Zossima to prove that something beyond 'the menacing phenomena of nature'--something truly meaningful--actually exists. 'There's no proving it,' Zossima replies, 'but you can be convinced of it.' The distinction is crucial: some things cannot be adequately addressed from a third-person perspective. Physicalism and materialist philosophy notwithstanding, the world as described 'from nowhere' is incomplete. As it leaves out consciousness, the third-person perspective bypasses meaning. Meaning cannot be learned by scientific demonstration or mathematical proof. Strictly speaking, one does not know it, one senses it; that is why it isn't proved, but rather convinces. And it convinces only if one leads the right sort of life. When Madame Khokhlakova asks exactly what sort of life, Zossima replies: a life of 'active love. Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably. In so far as you advance in love, you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbor, then you will believe without doubt.'"
• 
  James

  I was disappointed by this -- too much of it, for my taste, was stuck in a Cold War framing of "Chernyshevsky is bad because he wants revolution and pretends to have certainty and is a bad artist, other and more famous writers are good because they have wonder and ask questions and care about dialogue, and lots of their work is a critique of Chernyshevsky and his epigones." Some major issues that were not addressed: 1) nothing at all about the social history of Russia and why revolution seemed so important, and so necessary. 2) Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were themselves fanatics of a sort! Dostoevsky a crazy anti-Semite, Tolstoy a Christian anarchist. Are they really all that different from Chernyshevsky? I'm not sure, but I don't think that Morson really poses this question properly because he wants, in my read, to turn them into liberals.
  
  I don't want to be mean, Morson is clearly a deeply learned and humane scholar, but this book didn't do it for me.
• 
  David Dunlap

  The subtitle describes the book much better than I ever could do! The author demonstrates how the various major authors of 19th Century Russian literature (especially Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, and -- to a lesser extent -- Turgenev) examined life in their novels, depicted life in their novels, and challenged their readers to engage with asking life's questions in their novels. He compares and contrasts these writers with those who followed after in the Soviet years. -- An utterly amazing volume! I suspect the subject matter will limit its broad appeal, but this is a timelessly relevant book: the questions these Russian greats dared to pose have not changed, and we (readers or not) must find our own responses to them. Most highly recommended!
• 
  Brittany

  Discussed on glow podcast by Colin Hansen on issue of can we trust a God who is silent in the face of evil