Customer Reviews

Shostakovich: A Life

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I have two fundamental problems with Fay's book, both of which really prevent me for giving it a solid endorsement, much less considering it a benchmark in biography.

First, Fay has taken the position that all of her sources must be written (and generally published). This not necessarily a safe thing to do in a society with a free and open press, and becomes very problematic for a prominent Soviet citizen. Were articles published in Soviet books, journals, and newspapers true and accurate? Were they free of political influence? Can anyone verify the authorship of any of these? Even with the extensive endnotes offering references with publication sources and dates, it's hard to consider her work to be any more valid than, say, Solomon Volkov's "Testimony", which Fay hates so much that she cannot be objective about it.

I draw here on the statistical definitions for reliability and validity, in which "reliable" merely means that a result can be reproduced reliably, while "valid" implies that a result accurately represents what it claims to represent. This seems to be a useful distinction, and I will hedge, and grant Fay's book reliability, but not validity.

What she leaves out is equally troubling. There are many people still alive who knew Shostakovich. How many of them did Fay talk to? How many of them did she quote? Virtually none. Are such sources really any less valid than, say, an article in Pravda? In each case, one should note the source. If there are contradictory statements, one should note the contradictions. If sources may be less than credible, one should say why. Fay's biography is noticeably lacking in contradictions, which is remarkable in a biography of a man who himself seems to have been full of contradictions, and who lived in a society that was full of contradictions.

I wouldn't have such a problem with all of this if Fay had taken the position that "these are what the published sources say" rather than "this is Shostakovich". As long as a reader understands the difference, then yes, Fay's biography is an invaluable source. I do wish that Fay had drawn this distinction.

Finally, along these same lines, I have to question Fay's position of objectivity. Selection and omission of sources are always a source of bias. And there are times, particularly in relation to the Jewish issues of 1948 (the existence of the "doctor's plot" and the question about how much Shostakovich really knew about the risks of using Jewish subject matter in writing his music), where Fay takes a strong stand that is not supported in her sources, and which does not hold up in light of Shostakovich's previous use of Jewish themes or his previous connections to the Russian Jewish community. While Fay paints an unflattering picture of Shostakovich, the person she really defames is herself.

My second concern, much of which flows out of the first, is that this is a bloodless biography. I finished the book with a sense of the history, or at least one version of it, but in no way did I ever feel in Fay's book any presence of Shostakovich himself. There are glimpses, such as the quote by Shostakovich about party criticism of the eighth symphony (which he looked forward to as "one step forward, rather than one step back"), but the irony of this statement came across more because I knew of Shostakovich from other sources (writing, and of course the music), rather than from Fay herself. If I knew nothing of Shostakovich, would I have noticed this? It's hard to get a feeling whether Fay even likes or respects Shostakovich, either as a man or as a composer. There is no life in "Shostakovich: A Life". There is no music in "Shostakovich: A Life". Without these things, what is the point?

Good biography does not have to be this way. As an example of what *can* be accomplished, I highly recommend "Patton: A Genius for War" by Carlo d'Este. D'Este accomplishes what Fay fails to do, which is to capture the full humanity of a brilliant, complex, difficult, enigmatic, and controversial public figure. If there is a standard for judging biographies, it starts with this book; one comes away knowing what formed and motivated Patton, and more importantly, one learns to see both the private and the public man in everything he did and said. D'Este combines Fay's level of documentation with Elizabeth Wilson's level of personal insight in "Shostakovich: A Life Remembered", and it is a remarkable achievement. For anyone looking for a single volume on the life of Shostakovich, Elizabeth Wilson's book is the one to get.

In fairness, I don't think we'll ever see such a biography of Shostakovich, because the documentary record is much, much weaker, and because Shostakovich was so closed about himself. But I do wish that Fay had at least tried to capture "A Life". As it stands, Fay is only one of several "required readings", and I wouldn't put her at the top of the list unless one has need of her endnotes.

Having recently discovered Shostakovich, I quickly ran into the controversy regarding the official versus private accounts. Fay includes the official denunciations by the Stalinist regime, most infamously in 1936 and 1948, and so clearly moves beyond the "loyal son of the Communist Party" propaganda line, but rejects as unreliable much of the recent testimony of those who knew Shostakovich, including the memoirs called "Testimony." Personally, I am convinced by the mass of testimony that Shostakovich was indeed a passionate dissident, and that his music expressed that "to those with ears to hear," in the words he often used.

Take this volume for what it's worth. For now it is the standard biography, and has no competition in that regard. It tells the whole story, but leaves us feeling that we are missing the true inner story. For that story, other sources are clearly invaluable -- the book of reminiscences compiled by Elizabeth Wilson ("Shostakovich: A Life Remembered"), Solomon Volkov's "Testimony," and "Shostakovich Reconsidered," which contains much valuable commentary beyond simply defending Volkov's book.

I am listening to Rostropovich conducting Shostakovich's Fifth as I write, and nothing seems more absurd than the notion that the composer was a party apparatchik. Shostakovich's music expresses deep sorrow and suffering, and his defiant humanism. The music speaks for itself, but I am confident that Fay's biography will be surpassed by accounts that more fully convey the spiritual significance of Shostakovich's life and music.

[...]
First of all, the language is dry and unimaginative. Second, the work lacks any considerable citations. In most of the cases, making statements, Fay doesn't care to cite the source. Consequently, there is very little we can discover about Shostakovich's personality in this book. Third, Fay ignores some considerable and valuable sources, like Shostakovich's letters to Glickman, as well as she questions the statements of Elizabeth Wilson's (Life Remembered) book.

My first feeling, when I read this so-called biography was, that it was a merely English abrupted translation of the Shostakovich's Soviet biography by Sofia Khentova.

Fay doesn't trust any letters or memories. On the contrary, she widely uses the publications of the Soviet officialese, including Shostakovich's articles and speeches, most of which were even not written by the composer himself!

This book is an attempt to describe the life of a Soviet composer without reference to, or apparently any knowledge of, the conditions that the composer was working under. The author's obvious ignorance of the milieu created by the Soviet regimes under which Shostakovich worked results in a work of overwhelming dishonesty - one that cruelly misrepresents the composer and the works he created. This book is so misconceived, both from the standpoint of empathy for the subject and overall scholarship, that it would take several pages to address even its most blatant errors. Fortunately, for those who might be tempted, for whatever reason, to check this out of the library, or even, God forbid, to buy the thing, there is a website where one can read an intelligent and balanced discussion of the sort of feeble anti-revisionism that this book represents (see below). If amazon does not allow links, search for "Music Under Soviet Rule: The Shostakovich Debate."

[...]

I also don't get some of the negative reviews here. This is the only biography available that lays out the basic facts of Shostakovich's life, what was going on with him when he composed his various works, his personal relationships, etc. I would absolutely recommend starting with this book. In no way does Fay say or imply he was just an apparatchik as some commentators have said.

I got Elizabeth Wilson's book thinking it was a biography and only after getting into it found out it was oral history by everyone she could track down that knew S. I wish I had read Fay's book first, then Wilson's then Volkov's.

Did S have a natural propensity for satire and sarcasm in his music? Of course. But did he at some level and sometimes believe in the ideals of communism? Yes, and I think Fay reveals the sources of conflict of his life more realistically than just labeling him a closet subversive.

Having read Laurel E Fay's biography "Shostakovich: A Life" (2000) I was surprised by the negative if not nasty reviews in Amazon.com. To be sure, as one reviewer says (and Fay seems to agree with him), the definitive biography of Dimitri Shostakovich has yet to be written, but this Life offers the reader an overall and absorbing portrait of an accomplished artist as well as a complicated person. Another review complains that the dark days of tyranny in which the composer lived are not adequately represented here, but for a detailed description of that period one should go to Solzhenitsyn. In this book the example of Vsevolod Meyerhold's summary arrest and execution is enough to give the reader a strong idea of the terrifying atmosphere in which Shostakovich and colleagues lived under Stalin. There are also intimations that Shostakovich is not treated with proper deference as a citizen nor as a composer. As a citizen, he often submtted to the Party's dictates, but how much was political wisdom and how much was sincere opinion is often unclear; his complicity in the denunciation of Andrey Sakharov in 1973 is still debated. I suspect that Shostakovich, like Ninotchka, wanted to be thought of as a good Russian, even while becoming disillusioned with Soviet ideals. As a composer he has many detractors, but I think Fay makes it clear she admires his music very much. Granted, his devotion to Mahler leads to derivation, but I don't think that makes his own voice any weaker. (And I'm sure Shostakovich realized that, obviously, Mahler was his superior.) Also, I think Shostakovich had no illusions about his various inspirations. For instance, he knew that the "Invasion" theme in his 7th Symphony would call up comparisons to Ravel's Bolero, but he said " ... that's how I hear war". Finally in the 15th Symphony he frankly quotes Rossini and Wagner. Fay closes "Shostakovich: A Life" with detailed chapter notes, giving sources for all her information, a lengthy bibliography, a complete listing of the composer's works (a great deal more chamber music than one usually associates with Shostakovich), and a glossary of the names of people important in the composer's life, so that this book is not only a highly-qualified biography but a valuable desk reference as well.

aDmitri Shostakovich (DDS) was probably the gretest composer of the 20th century. Unfortunately, a burning controversy has unjustly erupted around the perceptions of his personality and actions during his illustrious career regarding the question of whether he was a principled opponent of the totalitarian
Communist and Stalinist regime of the USSR, or whether he was a passive opportunist who used his talents to ensure a comfortable life for himself at the expense of his moral integrity. In 1979 Solomon Volkov published DDS's memoirs in the West. This showed DDS to be a bitter opponent of the regime, writing music that reflected this, while at the same time, castigating himself for the public face he had to show ostensibly in support of the system (just as everyone else had to do in order to survive especially during Stalin's terror, but also during other, more supposedly "relaxed" periods). The author of this book being reviewed, Laurel Fay, has devoted the last 25 years to a crusade trying to discredit Volkov and the image of DDS he presented to the world, saying that while DDS was a great composer, his music doesn't reflect any protest against the system which he willingly accomodated himself to. This biography is another contribution to this argument.
Unfortunately for her position, the fall of the Communist regime in the USSR has allowed many friends and relatives of DDS to speak openly for the first time and their view of him overwhelmingly strengthens the view of DDS provided by Volkov's book "Testimony" and rebuts Fay's point of view.
Fay seems to be oblivious to the terrible dilemmas that people faced living in the totalitarian regime that was the USSR and there was terrible pressure on everyone to conform. This book contains many quotations of what people call "source material" consisting of quotations from articles in Pravda (the USSR's official newspaper) and other "official sources". Fay accepts these basically uncritically, apparently unaware that these organs of communication did not exist in order to provide information to their readers, but rather to propagandize in favor the the regime, regardless of the truth. She does acknowledge in the book that articles that had DDS's name on them, supposedly indicating that he had written them, often were written by others and submitted to him for his signature, which he provided without even looking at the manuscript, but she then goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily mean that he DIDN'T
agree with what was written there. Fay does not bring any proof for this statement, and so the reader has no way of knowing which viewpoints expressed in the articles DDS supposedly agreed with. Perceptive people in the USSR ignored the propaganda entirely and didn't take what was written in these "official" organs seriously at all.
Fay also claims that DDS's composing his famous "From Jewish Folk Poetry" in 1948 which was rejected by the establishment musical authorities because of the the gathering "anti-Cosmopolitan" (i.e. anti-Jewish) campaign was the result of a pathetic attempt to please the authorities by writing music based on traditional folk music of the various nationalities of the USSR and it was just his "rotten luck" to choose a group that would soon be under attack. This claim of Fay's is nonsense because the the anti-Jewish attitude of the regime started already in 1942 and was accelerating in 1948. DDS had many Jewish friends and contacts with people in high places and was quite aware of what was going on. He wrote this piece as a protest against the regime's anti-Semitism! Fay is again oblivious to this.
Finally, Fay views DDS's joining the Communist Party in 1960 as another attempt to promote his personal interests, yet Fay has fallen for the prevailing myth that after Stalin died and the "Thaw" began under Khruschev, the regime stopped terrorizing the intelligentsia. In reality, there was still coercion, but it was done in a more subtle manner. Instead of threatening arrest and deportation to the Gulag, people could be threatened instead by refusing to allow one's children into good schools and jobs, or possibly, in DDS's case, refusal to allow decent medical care since his health was deteriorating. DDS castigated himself because he felt he had capitulated to the system, but it is probable that he had no other choice. As one gets older, it is harder and harder to keep up the frontal struggle.

In summary, a reader interested in the life of DDS would be better served by reading "Testimony", Elizbeth Wilson's "Shostakovich-A Life Remembered", Ho and Feofanov's "Shostakovich Reconsidered" and by looking at thewritings of the late Ian MacDonald on his "Music Under Soviet Rule" website.

The negative reviews are mind blowing. Fay's work is one of the best documented references about the composer that exists, period. The book calmly and rationally lays out the inherent contradictions of the composer's life and times, nuancing the discussion with facts as opposed to making outrageous claims or using Shostakovich to prove a personal political point. It is fantastic scholarship. As a scholar who has written and published on Shostakovich, I can vouch that anytime I write on the composer, Fay's biography is at my side, and is frequently referred to.

This biography definitely adds to what we know about Shostakovich, but is somewhat academic.

Historical accuracy is the goal at every point, and there is much clearing up of obvious falsehoods from other quarters. Not too much light shed on anything one couldn't already glean from other sources, except for precise dating, and cross-referencing of sources, which is of interest only to musicologists, and not the general public.

A good book and a must-read for any Shostakovich aficionado, but not as good a read as Elizabeth Wilson.

Why is this "book" so bad? Laurel E. Fay doesn't give a hoot about her brilliant subject. Ms. Fay only has an extreme political agenda(developed by her unbalanced mentor), and she makes her arguements very poorly. The life and times of DS are facinating, tragic, and heroic, but in the hands of Ms. Fay, his story becomes just plain dull. Worse, it's just plain wrong. Her factual inconsistincies are appalling, even spurious. Laurel E. Fay is the "Kitty Kelly" of academia. The great Dmitri Shostakovich deserves, and has justly received, better. Please, for the sake of all that is decent, do NOT buy this badly research, and badly written "book".