Crimean Peninsula, Russia/USSR ( )

There was a lot here and at times too much or at least left me wishing to excise sections,

This is Vodolazkin’s first novel. The author writes repeatedly of the character’s, Solovyv’s, youthful sexual experiences. Frankly, this is something a novice writer might do, as if early sexual awakenings are significant events. To the author, they may be. With all the tragedy in human history, to us, the reader, less so.
The translator, in her acknowledgements, tells us that the footnote information was incorporated into the text. Footnotes are information. For the translator to take such information and “incorporate it” into the narrative risks stopping the narration for the sake of information. It gives us the translator’s narrative voice, not the authors. It could be objected that the translator and author worked together to “incorporate(d) the footnote information.” Understood. As a reader, however, it is hard for me to accept. Information needs to be interwoven with the narration as far as artistically possible. The author does it with skill in his later works, less skillfully in his first novel.

Which takes us to another issue. A good writer of fiction with historical elements will attain a level of writing where scholarship follows the writing. She/he is a writer first and foremost, a researcher second. In this, his first novel, Vodolazkin writes as if he is a scholar first, a writer second. Vodolazkin is a medieval scholar which, in this, his first novel, becomes tediously obvious. In Laurus, Vodolzaskin is able to write a superlative novel because he has relegated scholarship to the mission of writing. He fails to do this in Solovyov and Larionov.

The strength of Vodolazkin’s writing is the interiority of his narration. In all three of his novels which I have read -Solyonov and Larionov, Laurus, The Aviator – he always achieves a skilled interior narration. I expect he achieves the same in Brisbane (which I have yet to read).

Solyonov and Larionov should be read as a seminal work by a now excellent writer. Many times a good writer may get their later work published first and then, with recognition, his earlier work becomes available. If you want to read the beginnings of skill in a writer who went on to write mature and fine works, Solyonov and Larionov is worth the effort. In doing so, be prepared for the kind of mistakes which young, inexperienced novelists commit: far too much space narrating sexual experiences which do nothing for character development; information which fail to get interwoven with the narrative effectively; a writing which follows scholarship instead of the reverse.
Hillary Mantel illustrates how an author pilots the reader through a narration where scholarship has been stitched into the very fabric of the story, showing us a fine work of fiction, not of scholarship. Vodolazkin achieves the same, but not in this, his first novel. ( )

I'm not going to try to summarize or explain the plot, if there is one. This sly novel pokes fun at a number of things that need a little (a big?) dose of satire. Academics takes a hit, bureaucrats are not spared, biographical accuracy is questioned, literary detective stories are spoofed, and there's more. How accurate are memoirs? And what about plagiarism? Coming of age novels? There is also a love story, sort of. This was so much fun to read! ( )

My first time reading Evgeni Vodolazkin and I found it an enjoyable experience. A historian (Solovyov) searching out details from the life of a white army General Larionov during the civil war after the Bolshevik revolution. Book segues back and forth between present time Solovyov and historic time Larionov and kind of seams both present and past together. A fun read. ( )