This book wasn’t a sucess in the “west”, but it was in Russia. The milquetoast narrator may have had something to do with it - if he represents the west, then to a westerner his blandness is neither accurate nor engaging and may be off-putting, but perhaps Russians of the time might have been more likely to accept him without much thought since to them he was the foreigner of the novel.
Non-protagonist first-person narration can be less than ideal because the narrator is almost always wallpaper, so I have the same problem with this story as with any story with this type of narration, but aside from that I don’t think Conrad’s use of it was any better or worse than par. Using the narrator had an important function - with the title of the book and the many mentions of western eyes watching, Conrad wanted to convey not only the paranoia of any Russian possibly spying on or watching another, but also of the west constantly watching them all; even the book itself was written by the narrator under his western eyes.
What was most interesting to me were the themes of autocracy versus revolution and the faults of each. I find it extraordinarily interesting that he wrote this before the successful revolution in Russia that turned out so badly in the end and for such a long time. It was as if he were a prophetic sage delivered in the character of the much-maligned narrator (as also quoted by BelleZora earlier):
Quote:
|
…in a real revolution—not a simple dynastic change or a mere reform of institutions—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. There have been in every revolution hearts broken by such successes...
|
This book is also interesting because the theme can apply not just to the Russia of the early 20th century but also to any country with revolutionary fervour. I couldn’t help but think of the Arab Spring while reading, and what chaos that has turned into in many countries.
Razumov was an interesting character. He reminded me a bit of Conrad himself - only a bit - because in Razumov’s half-aristocratic/half-other lineage that left him isolated without a family or a proper class to fit into, I could see a glimpse of Conrad’s various nationalities that left him writing in English in England yet also intrinsically understanding the Russian mind. Razumov’s parentage was also symbolic in its duality which creates in Razumov a conflict that led to his trouble in the first place. Yes he was conservative, but Haldin mistakenly trusted him because he had been willing to entertain revolutionary discussions with him. This also led Razumov to not immediately throw Haldin out of his rooms and not immediately go to his father. I even believe that if Ziemianitch had been lucid, Razumov would’ve set up the meeting and perhaps told no one. As it was, Ziemianitch forced Razumov’s hand.
Aside from the political and Russian themes, this was also a psychological portrait of a man who is placed in a very uncomfortable situation that ruins his entire life through almost no fault of his own. These kinds of stories are usually just one unbelievably bad thing after another happening to the same person presented in an almost leering manner, but I think Conrad handled it here with skill. It’s interesting that the central conceit of Crime and Punishment is an action the protagonist takes while the central conceit of Under Western Eyes is an action taken upon the central character. The strength of Razumov’s character can be seen by the various opinions on it within the interesting discussion of this thread.
This book doesn’t compare to Heart of Darkness but nevertheless it was a quality read.