Hacker News Reader

I don't read Russian, so I can't comment on that article.

I don't find the anti-semitism charge very credible, he speaks out against anti-semitism very strongly in both the Gulag Archipelago, and several essays. He also claimed that an anti-semitic essay attributed to him was a hatched job by the KGB, which seems at least possible. I also stand by my claim that he was a brilliant writer. I think if you try to take everything in his descriptions of the Gulag system as literal fact, you'll find historical discrepancies, but his work isn't meant to be wholly historic, but rather more expansive.

> I think if you try to take everything in his descriptions of the Gulag system as literal fact, you'll find historical discrepancies

What ones stand out for you? I am relatively ignorant on the subject. Your comment stimulated me to google a bit and I came up with this¹ critical (and currently topical) criticism of him for anti-semitism in which he is accused of blaming Jewish people for playing a leading role in the red terror:

His reported self defense included a reference to the Kiev/Kyiv Cheka (precursors to OGPU and NKVD): 'To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect."'

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

Sidenote: regardless of the merits of the book or its criticisms I thought this was a funny line: "This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. "

I think he gets some fair criticism for reporting some third hand accounts of some mass executions and publishing some inflated numbers, but I don't think his intention was to pin those down precisely, but rather to give account of the magnitude of the tragedy.

It’s not credible, and anyone who has read more Solzhenitsyn than a summary of Two Hundred Years Together knows that.

When he published it he spoke of Jewish friends praising Russian silence on the history he covered. This is kind of the same thing. There is a really unfortunate tendency by certain groups to equivocate criticism of historical Jewish actions with criticism of the Jewish people, and the word antisemitic has lost almost all meaning as a result. Reaction to that book is far from the sole example.

It is possible to criticize the behavior of certain historical Jews without filling your heart with hate for an entire people and preaching Hitler’s ideologies. That is a nuance that is lost by Jewish people who call others “antisemitic” at the first hint of criticism. That said, however, it is also somewhat fair because the Jewish people have endured unspeakable horrors in a blink of history.

I've read The Gulag Archipelago and some essays, but not Two Hundred Years Togethers so I can't comment on that work. I generally get the sense from his work that I have read that he harbored no ill will towards anyone based on ethnic or Religious identity.

Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilliant?

I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it.

In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography?

If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.

Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes.

If Solzhenitsyn writes a brilliant but mostly exaggerated and fictitious account of Communist Russia, do you really want to celebrate this achievement? I do not and that's why I posted.

Even if The Gulag Archipelago was mostly fictitious, which it certainly is not, it would still be a staggering work of literary brilliance. There is quite literally no other work I'm aware of in Western literature that is even comparable. The prose is incredible, moving, at times dark and punishing, and in a turn hilarious and you really feel the wight of the exercise of having written the thing while reading it.

The broad facts are well supported by what's come out of Soviet archives since the 90s and further details are supported by the Mitrokhin Archive. The surviving Stasi archives also paint a similar picture.

> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes.

It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful.

Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance?

You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*?

Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.

He is brilliant, sure. This is the problem.

So I found a translation of that article and another article by the author. It seems like the gripe is that Solzhenitsyn wrote about some Bolsheviks and gulag camp administrators in a way that drew attention to their Jewish identity, and that leads some critics to believe he was in fact an anti-semite. Is that a fair reading?

I don't actually see any evidence that his portrayal of life in the Soviet Union was anything but accurate, at least from the perspectives available to him at the time. I'm sure there were a great many possible life experiences, especially for people born after the terror, but the terror too was part of the Soviet experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com