Review: The Dead Lake by Hamid Ismailov

The literary cinema of Peirene rumbles on with The Dead Lake, part of it’s new 2014 series ‘Coming of Age: Towards Identity’. The first in the series, The Dead Lake  begins in a way that rings bells with the a growing trend in modern cinema; the based on a true story epitaph. Postmodern cinematic trends aside, the movies rely on these epitaphs in ways that the novel does not because we are expecting to be suspended in fictional reality with a novel. The movie increasingly needs to add credibility to it’s tired Hollywood vehicle. However two non-fictions here are the brief paragraph at the beginning that details the history of Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site; 468 nuclear explosions were carried out there, and that Kyrgyzstan born Hamid Ismailov is exiled from Uzbekistan. As you continue to read, another pertinent truth of sorts emerges.

They add another arc to this self-conscious, fable-esque novella (exquisitely translated by Andrew Bromfeld) that is as much a story as it is a mediation on the art ofnarrative and story-telling. An immediate referential opening sets this in motion with the opening line; ‘The story began in the most prosaic fashion possible.’ Once upon a time there was a story, another story in the world of stories. Our principle, first-person narrator is on a train journey. Into his fourth day on the train a ‘ten or twelve year old boy’ appears in the carriage playing Brahms on his violin. Speaking to him it transpires that the boy is a twenty-seven year old man who sets out to tell his story.

Yerzhan was born in a barren outlet on the East Kazakhstan Railway line that consists of two families; Yerzhan’s and his childhood love Aisulu’s family. Nobody seems to know how Yerzhan was conceived – nobody knows his father, no-one perhaps ‘except God’, which summons Granny Sholpan to invent stories about his arrival. but he was found in ‘The Zone’, which is also where Uncle Shaken works carrying out nuclear tests. Intermittent booms, which are test bombs (on most occassions) persist through the story, like all the other noises that awaken Yerzhan, like the ear for the violin he has that awakens the narrator to him. He associates a gadfly ‘that became the droning word: Zone…And the word began buzzing around in the child’s imagination’. The fly gets stuck in Yerzan’s dreams, and with it so does his fear of the Zone. The transfer of language to noise to crystallized experience.

One day Yerzhan is finally taken to the zone that torments his childhood, “and the gullies and ravines brought them to the zone that had tormented Yerzhan’s boyish curiosity like a gadfly for all these years”. This is Uncle Shaken’s workplace and the nuclear testing site is being used in case of an imminent war with America, where the point is constantly battered home by patriotic Shaken. This is the moment Yerzhan arrives in the zone “Has Aisulu seen this?” he asked Uncle Shaken fearfully. The man shook his head. ‘If we don’t simply catch up with the americans and then overtake them,’ he added in his usual manner, ‘the whole world will look like this’. The prophetic visions of war resemble the earth’s terminus, but Shaken, is unshaken in his duty to serve the government by working at the site.

One blast, distinctly more powerful than the others interrupts school lessons that Yerzhan and Aisulu are in. As a result, their class is taken on a school trip to where Shaken works and they are explained about Nuclear testing site. Finally toward the evening they are shown, what the novella lends it’s title to, the dead lake; a crater as a result of a bomb filled with unhealthy, unnatural water. In a daring moment of bravado by Yerzhan, which it is difficult to surmise why he does it, he takes off his shirt and walks into the lake. It isn’t just dead in appearance, but it is dead in the sense that it kills any kind of growth in Yerzhan (there is a vicious irony when Yerzhan is taken to a doctor and told that the growth zones in his body are dead) and why the narrator knows Yerzhan as the dwarfed talented violin player.

This pivotal moment is also where Ismailov’s writing is showcased. It is in these moments that the complex political nature of the test site is laid out for the school children in it’s basic terms, and the ‘chain reaction’ of the events that would set in motion a world war, and where they are expected to abide by it.The children are shown a video about nuclear war, but how Yerzhan cannot understand the greater meaning of the demonstration , ”They were shown a film about the peaceful use of nuclear power. Some of the children had never watched a film before and the rustling of the sound and the quick scene changes frightened them and they cried”. Brilliant writing of the highest quality: The blend of irony with an overwhelming, belated sadness.

The implications of Yerzhan’s stumped growth as he watches other children and Aisulu grow up quite literally as Yerzhan does not, retaining the consciousness of an older person but not fulfilling it in height. It’s a question that not only Yerzhan deals with, but is enveloped in the greater one that the likes of Uncle Shaken are trying to answer and justify in their pursuit of America. It is one that has particular resonance at the moment, and one that Ismailov has commented on, with the Winter Olympics in Russia. If the financial crash has taught us anything it has taught us nothing. Instead it has strengthened leaders egotism on the world stage. They are more willing to show that cost does not effect their treasuries, and at the same time more than willing to gloss over the clear fact, denies those who really need the money. The Winter Olympics has cost Russia £30 billion. How much of this will go to the workers, migrants and Russians building these in hideous labour conditions for a paltry sum? Not as much as is likely to go to the corporate companies, and sponsors on all levels of the corruption spectrum. Let us not forget the scandal over LGBT persons rights in Russia in the sense that they don’t have any. Talks of boycotting by other nations are quickly quelled as they go on the pursuit to, once again, strengthen their countries credentials by the pursuit gold medals. They’re all playing the same games on a sporting but also political level. Great Britain for one has an embarrassing presence at Winter games, yet still feel the need to go and compete for the three medals it is aiming for, when a boycott may just show it’s regard, for once, it’s recognition of human value over the egotistical assumption of sporting and national glory. Could we not go 4 year’s without 3 gold medals? We’re all caught up in these games of ideology whether we like it or not as citizens. As is most often in these cases, and as Ismailov openly admits, it is not the elites who pay the price, it is those at the bottom, like in the case of Yerzhan. He is the chain reaction as he admits at one point.  Interchange any world leader saying ‘One day we will take over America’ for Uncle Shaken. And this is not just something that happens to those behind the old iron curtain. This is something all our countries are responsible for, but sport is a great source of monetary capital, a great big advertising vehicle. This is not just something refined to the old iron curtain as the west would have us believe.Britain shoddily treated it’s security staff expecting voluntary work, then giving the best seats to corporate sponsors who failed to show up on most occasions, and Britain has an unrelenting belief in itself as a powerful nation. And look at the continuing scandal of IDS: Iain Duncan-Smith.

Towards the end, Ismailov finds time to ask metafictional questions in a more blatant manner, as the first person narrators intrusion becomes problematic. There are stories within stories in here, but they all seem to emanate when characters get bored, like the narrator on the long train journey. And to return to that opening, ‘the story began in the most prosaic fashion possible’; is that not just the modern day debunking of ‘Once upon a time’? It’s the stories that we tell ourselves of our own existence but also the stories that nations tell themselves, and we’re all expected to go with it and be patriotic citizens. The overwhelming point Ismailov seems to be getting across then is to deconstruct these stories, the ‘beautiful lies’ as Althusser might call it, and uncover real truth’s behind narratives. This is why writers like Ismailov are exiled from nations, because the governments cannot bear these truths being exposed.  Ismailov’s writing draws parallels with that other famous exile, Salman Rushdie.

In this fable of sorts, the moral if we are to assume one is clear: the cost of human life is so often less regarded than the cost of pursuing and building our nations. But if Ismailov is demonstrating to us the strength of storytelling, he has done it an almost implausible manner; maybe a lot of it is down to the timing of this review, but the overriding moral of it is timeless.

All this in the novella. But this is not a championing, or surpassing of one form over the other, it is rather just the brilliant and powerful art of fiction In whatever length or form and it’s ability to illuminate truth’s like no other medium can. These really are beautiful lies.

If you’re wanting justification for novels, stories and writers in the modern day technological, capitalist world, here is one of them.

The Dead Lake (122pp) by Hamid Ismailov, translated from Russian by Andrew Bromfield is published by Peirene Press (£12.00 rrp) and is released on the 27th February 2014.  Hamid Ismailov is also the BBC’s Writer in Residence and works for the World Service.

Thank you to Peirene Press for providing a review copy.


Having The Spirit.

The ideology of a piece can be determined in some cases more obvious than others. Newspapers are easy because we’re already accustomed and know what to expect when we pick up a certain paper, and is usually the reason we pick up that newspaper. And I am sure you will be able to detect my beliefs in some of the reviews and longer posts. Indeed, as Orwell said, everything is political, even saying that you are not political.

The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone by Richard Wilkinson, and Kate Pickett, book argues, as the title suggests, that instead of living in a society where inequality is better for a few, live in a society where equality is better for all. Since it’s release, it has generated a wide range of controversy, support and criticism. I’m not going to go into a full discussion of the book, it’s there to be read, and there to challenge or support whatever views you have. Their central thesis is obvious though, that rising inequalities in ‘developed’ western nations is responsible for a whole range of demographic problems, from teenage pregnancies to mental illness. Wilkinson and Pickett use a wide range of statistics to demonstrate their point.

These statistics have come under the fiercest scrutiny, as is standard for statistical support for anything. Statistics are there to be disputed. Predictably it has also come under fierce opposition from the right. Christopher Snowdon, from the Washington based think-tank Democracy Institute, published a book The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left’s New Theory of Everything, and also produces a blog which regularly tries to disseminate Wilkinson’s and Pickett’s findings.

Another notable critic is Charles Moore, who, in the Daily Telegraph declared it ‘a more socialist tract than an objective analysis of poverty’. This is the Charles Moore who published an 896 page biography of Margaret Thatcher (that’s just the first volume). You know, that Margaret Thatcher of Thatcherism.

There is a famous quote attributed to Twain and Disraeli, that Is overused but it rings pertinently true; ‘there are lies, damned lies, and statistics’. Numbers boost arguments, because numbers can’t lie. I did an undergraduate degree in Psychology, a subject that is over-reliant on statistics to support it’s claims. Now, I am studying a postgraduate course that is basically a criticism of the whole mainstream approach of psychology, because we claim, it is embedded in a paradigm of individualism that does nothing to empower those who need empowering. It is served by it’s statistical methods which dehumanise it’s population samples:  it is ‘critical psychology’ and in doing so we are explicit about our ideology, whereas mainstream psychology isn’t. By exposing one ideology can expose another.

Not that I am trying to generalise the left’s position to say that statistics are not required, but instead shows that they can be manipulated to satisfy our own ends on either side of the spectrum. Nor am I saying this is what Wilkinson and Pickett do, because they demonstrate that inequality is bad for the majority of people.

Do we really need statistics to show that inequality is bad? A conscientious observer of the world just needs to look around them, and think. Think for themselves. It’s not a matter of academic bickering which important social issues, or often did in psychology, become most of the time; taken away from the real world to be fought over technicalities in academic journals.

Wilkinson and Pickett have set up the Equality Trust that campaigns to reduce income inequality, and in turn improve the quality of life for all. Why would we need statistics to prove this? People in the lowest rung of society are constantly lambasted and told that is there fault (you might want to see Zoe Williams piece in the Guardian about what the ban on smoking in cars really means. This is exactly it though; laws that seem to be universally good, are shrouded in rhetoric, when in effect it is more prejudice against the lowest earners of society). Channel 4 broadcasts a programme called Benefits Street which justifies peoples assumptions that all people on benefits are of no use to society and are scrounging off it. There are people that exploit the benefit system, but the overwhelming majority of them do not. It seems that even by taking benefits, by ‘accepting them’ you are exploiting the system, and then what else do you accept? Have you seen all those people in benefits In their council built ivory towers? The term benefits itself is a derogatory and patronising word. We can even go as far to say that if Channel 4 were to do a second series of Benefits Street, they could set it in Buckingham Palace.

The world didn’t wake up after the financial crash. It went back into it’s shocked lumber of believing that growth is the only way (Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom puts it nicely in that In most cases, growths are thought of as bad; cancer, the population, yet capital growth is not). There seems to be no alternative for the left anymore. Labour wasn’t responsible for the financial crash, but it sure enjoyed the free-market ride. I could try and put it into my words, but i am going to borrow off Gore Vidal, the American essayist; when he was covering the Blair election campaign was asked, how similar is British politics to America’s, he replied that ‘well you do resemble us in that you now have a single party with two right wings’. Blair’s ‘New Labour’ was the third way championed by Anthony Giddens. Blair himself in that election was a man who had gone to public school and cavorted with the elites that we often deride for being out of touch with the ‘real world’.

The Conservative leader, John Major, was the one with the humbler background. So Blair shrouded policies in a left-wing rhetoric of equality. Look at education; by getting more young people in higher education in middle ground institutions, he created fodder for the middle-classes. The middle income ones sat at a desk earning a ‘respectable salary’, that as a collective whole will reap a lot of taxes and keep in line the idea that the only way is up. This is something I did. A steady degree, at a steady institution (I am not criticising any of these institutions. The ones that have served me are both brilliant environments to study and educate, and brilliant places to experience and live), but when the crash came, there was no jobs for all these degrees. These degrees, suddenly did not look that prestigious.

So here are some of my reasons for supporting the Equality Trust. And don’t be mistaken, i’m not donating masses of sums to it because i cannot afford to. It’s minimal, and frees up lots of other charitable money that you might reserve for other causes. I am sure, and hope, that there are plenty more trusts and groups supporting this kind of cause, or even a genuine political party, it is just that I picked up this book and swayed my beliefs, like effective political arguments are meant to do. They are not political party, but I believe it is certainly political.

As Gore Vidal finished in his essay, simply titled Blair, he wrote: “Question I never got answered by anyone: You are an offshore island. But off whose shore? Europe’s or ours?”

The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (2009) by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett is published by Allen Lane (£10.99 rrp). The Equality Trust website can be found here:

Gore Vidal’s essay ‘Blair’  was originally published in The Nation (27th May, 1997), and retrieved from the collection of essays ‘The Last Empire’ published by Vintage.