I've been thinking about this story and the Lu Hsun story 'An Incident', and I'm struck by the similarities - a first person account of a 'small' incident that reveals so much about the character and creates for them an intense moment of introspection. But in Lu's piece, the moment of introspection is brought more heavily into focus (so …
I've been thinking about this story and the Lu Hsun story 'An Incident', and I'm struck by the similarities - a first person account of a 'small' incident that reveals so much about the character and creates for them an intense moment of introspection. But in Lu's piece, the moment of introspection is brought more heavily into focus (so much so, that the entire story is framed around it), whereas in Babel, we get a leaving and returning to the courtyard and an admission of 'languishing' and that is all (on the surface level). And that got me thinking about this key difference - Lu's as a framed story vs Babel's as an unframed story. How would 'My First Goose' work as a framed story? Would it work? How does the presence/absence of the frame change the escalation of the story and the reader's 'take-away'?
I'm still struggling with the answers to these questions, but part of me recalls our earlier conversations around 'An Incident' and how the frame acts as a legal argument of sorts - 'this is the truth of the matter, and this is how I can prove that to you'. So, without a frame, we're left uncertain about the fate of our narrator and can not answer our questions about whether this new division/duality in him will prevail, will succeed, will tear him asunder. Will he adapt or will the division eventually pull him one way and into the consequences that necessarily follow?
And what does that mean for the story? In Lu's story, we're left to judge our own actions by the conclusions of the rickshaw passenger (when, in our lives, have we been shamed by our inaction in the face of someone else's honour/courage/decency?), but in Babel's, we're less reflective and more immediately in the story - instead of retrospectively applying the narrator's moral conclusion to our own lives (as we do in 'An Incident'), we're proactively applying our moral judgement and hopes onto our Lenin-reading, goose-killing, pork-eating, languishing, entangled narrator. In this way, Babel reminds me more of Chekhov (hot young Chekhov or stately elder Chekhov, take your pick) - there is no moral judgement; questions of "is it good or bad? forgivable or reproachable? reasonable or cowardly?" are merely answered with "yes" (or perhaps, "you decide, if you dare judge")
I found the observations you've offered and the questions you raised really useful for prompting me to think further about these two stories.
I agree that Lu Hsun's story focuses more on, and makes more explicit, the narrator's introspection. In Babel's story, even though the narrator has made a conscious and considered decision to take certain action (in contrast to the narrator's behaviour in "The Incident", which seemed to me more impulsive/habitual/not fully conscious), we don't obtain much insight at all in "My First Goose" about the narrator's internal deliberations and feelings that lead to him deciding to kill the goose (except that he is "lonely" and tiring of being hassled by the cossacks – and (we surmise) he has calculated that it is simply necessary in order to enable him to get on/survive with this group). Perhaps that absence causes us to "lean in" more in order to divine what is going on in the narrator's mind (and thus consider ourselves how we might act in similar circumstances). One other observation I'd make in this regard is that it seemed to me that, in "My First Goose", the narrator's more objective description of events (in contrast to those of the narrator in "The Incident") might have a similar purpose/effect (i.e., causing us to lean in more).
I like your observations about the effect of framing (or its absence). For me, the first paragraphs of both "The Incident" and "My First Goose" seem to serve similar functions, insofar as they establish the respective character of the stories' narrators. Then the main events follow and, in the final paragraph of both stories, the narrators describe their reactions to their conduct. Like you, it seems to me that there is little ambivalence in Lu Hsun's narrator's evaluation of the moral value of his (and the driver's) actions. In Babel's story, the narrator's emotional reaction is clear, but Babel leaves us to consider (as you pointed out) whether the narrator's actions were "good" or "bad", and whether we would, in similar circumstances, act in the same way the narrator did. My take-away (which I think is similar to yours?) was that the absence of an end-frame in "My First Goose" best serves this particular story because of that ambivalence. On my reading, there is also potentially some cross-talk between that ambivalence/absence of explicit moral judgment and the narrator's reporting of Surovkov's comment about Lenin's ability to pull the truth "out of the pile" .. "like a hen pecking at a grain". I am sure Surovkov's comment has other layers of meaning, but it seemed to me that, in describing one of the cossacks offering a powerful simile/image in this way (i.e., like an intellectual?), Babel is showing us the capabilities that lie within different "types" (and thus each of us) – a soldier is capable of offering a powerful simile, which we would typically consider an "intellectual" activity, and the narrator, an intellectual, has shown himself capable of killing in order to survive in the particular environment that he is in. In this way Babel could be said to be highlighting a commonality/potential that exists in all of us.
One further thought I had regarding framing: if Babel's story included an introduction like the one in "The Incident" (i.e., establishing the narrator's character), it seems to me that we would lose the (effective, and highly entertaining) initial illustration of Savitsky's and the narrator's respective character (because the narrator's character would at least be partially established in that intro), including the contrast between them, which also serves to set up the dynamic that's to follow between the narrator and the cossacks.
Anyway, I really appreciated and found useful your comments – thank you for sharing.
Geoff, I loved your comments! You're right - the lack of framing in Babel's story almost mirrors the mysterious curve of Lenin's straight line! Having thought about it more, the lack of framing also nicely echoes his admonishment to the old woman "I didn't come here to reason with you" (or, in another translation "I'm in no mood to start debating with you!") - there is no dwelling on this moral quandry for our narrator, no rationalisation can be achieved, no justification made. It is, simply, what it is.
And yes, there would be no wonderful Savitsky introduction with a tightly framed story. Or it would be less impactful. It is as if the framing puts the first person perspective more in focus with Lu's 'An Incident', but in Babel's 'My First Goose', its absence allows us to slide a little into other perspectives - Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Old Woman, the Cossacks.
Thanks again for your reply - I really enjoyed it and it pushed to venture down the rabbit hole (or along that mysterious curve) a little further...
Just re-reading this and appreciate what you say about the absence of a frame allowing us to slide a little easier into other perspectives - that totally makes sense to me.
I appreciate the spearing across from one story's 'silos' of reading and reflection to another story's 'silos' Mikhaeyla. Such cross comparison is, I'm sure, going to be helpful and will probably add a little more worthwhile reading and reflection to our 'to do lists'.
An immediate thought that crosses my mind is that whereas Lu Hsun's story is, essentially, worked around a single salient incident Isaac Babel's works around series of salient incidents (or could I just as well say 'pulses'?)
da da da DUM DUM DUM da da da da > 'An Incident' ?
da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM > 'My First Goose' ?
Recently read 'A Letter', which is a story from early in Red Cavalry and seems a dizzying story in a frame in a frame in a frame... quite an interesting place to go for comparison
Have requested 'Red Cavalry' from the library, but while I was searching for it, I found this online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePR-JWNxdvg My favourite line is early on when the narrator speaks of knowing 'the essence' of things. I feel like that is very much a part of 'My First Goose' - every description (of Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Cossacks, the old woman): they all speak to their essence. I love how that gives a real sense of honesty and authenticity to the story.
I've been thinking about this story and the Lu Hsun story 'An Incident', and I'm struck by the similarities - a first person account of a 'small' incident that reveals so much about the character and creates for them an intense moment of introspection. But in Lu's piece, the moment of introspection is brought more heavily into focus (so much so, that the entire story is framed around it), whereas in Babel, we get a leaving and returning to the courtyard and an admission of 'languishing' and that is all (on the surface level). And that got me thinking about this key difference - Lu's as a framed story vs Babel's as an unframed story. How would 'My First Goose' work as a framed story? Would it work? How does the presence/absence of the frame change the escalation of the story and the reader's 'take-away'?
I'm still struggling with the answers to these questions, but part of me recalls our earlier conversations around 'An Incident' and how the frame acts as a legal argument of sorts - 'this is the truth of the matter, and this is how I can prove that to you'. So, without a frame, we're left uncertain about the fate of our narrator and can not answer our questions about whether this new division/duality in him will prevail, will succeed, will tear him asunder. Will he adapt or will the division eventually pull him one way and into the consequences that necessarily follow?
And what does that mean for the story? In Lu's story, we're left to judge our own actions by the conclusions of the rickshaw passenger (when, in our lives, have we been shamed by our inaction in the face of someone else's honour/courage/decency?), but in Babel's, we're less reflective and more immediately in the story - instead of retrospectively applying the narrator's moral conclusion to our own lives (as we do in 'An Incident'), we're proactively applying our moral judgement and hopes onto our Lenin-reading, goose-killing, pork-eating, languishing, entangled narrator. In this way, Babel reminds me more of Chekhov (hot young Chekhov or stately elder Chekhov, take your pick) - there is no moral judgement; questions of "is it good or bad? forgivable or reproachable? reasonable or cowardly?" are merely answered with "yes" (or perhaps, "you decide, if you dare judge")
Hi Mikhaeyla,
I found the observations you've offered and the questions you raised really useful for prompting me to think further about these two stories.
I agree that Lu Hsun's story focuses more on, and makes more explicit, the narrator's introspection. In Babel's story, even though the narrator has made a conscious and considered decision to take certain action (in contrast to the narrator's behaviour in "The Incident", which seemed to me more impulsive/habitual/not fully conscious), we don't obtain much insight at all in "My First Goose" about the narrator's internal deliberations and feelings that lead to him deciding to kill the goose (except that he is "lonely" and tiring of being hassled by the cossacks – and (we surmise) he has calculated that it is simply necessary in order to enable him to get on/survive with this group). Perhaps that absence causes us to "lean in" more in order to divine what is going on in the narrator's mind (and thus consider ourselves how we might act in similar circumstances). One other observation I'd make in this regard is that it seemed to me that, in "My First Goose", the narrator's more objective description of events (in contrast to those of the narrator in "The Incident") might have a similar purpose/effect (i.e., causing us to lean in more).
I like your observations about the effect of framing (or its absence). For me, the first paragraphs of both "The Incident" and "My First Goose" seem to serve similar functions, insofar as they establish the respective character of the stories' narrators. Then the main events follow and, in the final paragraph of both stories, the narrators describe their reactions to their conduct. Like you, it seems to me that there is little ambivalence in Lu Hsun's narrator's evaluation of the moral value of his (and the driver's) actions. In Babel's story, the narrator's emotional reaction is clear, but Babel leaves us to consider (as you pointed out) whether the narrator's actions were "good" or "bad", and whether we would, in similar circumstances, act in the same way the narrator did. My take-away (which I think is similar to yours?) was that the absence of an end-frame in "My First Goose" best serves this particular story because of that ambivalence. On my reading, there is also potentially some cross-talk between that ambivalence/absence of explicit moral judgment and the narrator's reporting of Surovkov's comment about Lenin's ability to pull the truth "out of the pile" .. "like a hen pecking at a grain". I am sure Surovkov's comment has other layers of meaning, but it seemed to me that, in describing one of the cossacks offering a powerful simile/image in this way (i.e., like an intellectual?), Babel is showing us the capabilities that lie within different "types" (and thus each of us) – a soldier is capable of offering a powerful simile, which we would typically consider an "intellectual" activity, and the narrator, an intellectual, has shown himself capable of killing in order to survive in the particular environment that he is in. In this way Babel could be said to be highlighting a commonality/potential that exists in all of us.
One further thought I had regarding framing: if Babel's story included an introduction like the one in "The Incident" (i.e., establishing the narrator's character), it seems to me that we would lose the (effective, and highly entertaining) initial illustration of Savitsky's and the narrator's respective character (because the narrator's character would at least be partially established in that intro), including the contrast between them, which also serves to set up the dynamic that's to follow between the narrator and the cossacks.
Anyway, I really appreciated and found useful your comments – thank you for sharing.
Geoff
Geoff, I loved your comments! You're right - the lack of framing in Babel's story almost mirrors the mysterious curve of Lenin's straight line! Having thought about it more, the lack of framing also nicely echoes his admonishment to the old woman "I didn't come here to reason with you" (or, in another translation "I'm in no mood to start debating with you!") - there is no dwelling on this moral quandry for our narrator, no rationalisation can be achieved, no justification made. It is, simply, what it is.
And yes, there would be no wonderful Savitsky introduction with a tightly framed story. Or it would be less impactful. It is as if the framing puts the first person perspective more in focus with Lu's 'An Incident', but in Babel's 'My First Goose', its absence allows us to slide a little into other perspectives - Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Old Woman, the Cossacks.
Thanks again for your reply - I really enjoyed it and it pushed to venture down the rabbit hole (or along that mysterious curve) a little further...
Just re-reading this and appreciate what you say about the absence of a frame allowing us to slide a little easier into other perspectives - that totally makes sense to me.
I appreciate the spearing across from one story's 'silos' of reading and reflection to another story's 'silos' Mikhaeyla. Such cross comparison is, I'm sure, going to be helpful and will probably add a little more worthwhile reading and reflection to our 'to do lists'.
An immediate thought that crosses my mind is that whereas Lu Hsun's story is, essentially, worked around a single salient incident Isaac Babel's works around series of salient incidents (or could I just as well say 'pulses'?)
da da da DUM DUM DUM da da da da > 'An Incident' ?
da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM > 'My First Goose' ?
Recently read 'A Letter', which is a story from early in Red Cavalry and seems a dizzying story in a frame in a frame in a frame... quite an interesting place to go for comparison
Have requested 'Red Cavalry' from the library, but while I was searching for it, I found this online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePR-JWNxdvg My favourite line is early on when the narrator speaks of knowing 'the essence' of things. I feel like that is very much a part of 'My First Goose' - every description (of Savitsky, the Quartermaster, the Cossacks, the old woman): they all speak to their essence. I love how that gives a real sense of honesty and authenticity to the story.
Thanks Niall - will check it out!