COMMENT
by
John Riley
The publication of Laurel Fay's Shostakovich - A Life has already opened
the pro- and contra- Testimony debate. But before people get carried away
with what is or isn't in Fay's book (often the subtext being what they
think should or shouldn't be in it) we should remember that no human endeavour
is completely objective. Any biography (indeed any study of any subject)
has to sift.
What we as readers have to do is assess the relative importance of the
material that is included and excluded, and the strength of the arguments
stemming from the chosen facts. Both the selection process and the analysis
will affect the book's placement on a nominal 'scale of objectivity' as
will the often-forgotten preconceptions that the reader brings.
I haven't seen a copy of Fay's book yet, so I'll hold off 'definitive'
judgements though the above gives an idea of the scepticism with which
I would hope to approach any such enterprise. But if the argument hinges
on objectivity we should realise that ultimately the struggle to present
an 'objective' biography is as futile as it is offensive.
It is futile because authors are just as subjective as readers. It is
their duty to try to take that subjectivity into account. It is offensive
to the reader to imply that such a thing exists. It is offensive to the
subject, since it gives the impression that the biographer has completely
'possessed' the subject or 'solved' them like a crossword and is, in some
way, implicitly greater than the subject.
Pravda articles by and about Shostakovich are objective facts in that
they do undeniably exist. Their provenance and content may or may not
be factual. There is a political background that is, to some degree, objectively
describable. The link between these is the grey area around which the
debate rages.
The argument does seem to be going in a particular direction and one with
which I personally agree. At the same time I struggle to recognise and
accept that my perception of a shift may be affected by my viewpoint and
my desire for that viewpoint to prevail.
But who knows what will emerge in the future to shift aspects of the discussion
one way or another. I do not want to see the debate closed down by claims
of 'objectivity' even if we get to a point where a particular position
(wherever it may be on the scale) is generally accepted as 'correct.'
It's unlikely that there'll be a radical shift (Khrennikov as a closet
dissident, anyone?) but the continuing investigations are interesting
for their own sakes, for the particular studies at hand (in this case
Shostakovich), and for the broader cultural concerns that they raise.
It is inevitable that biographers will continue to illuminate only aspects
of their subjects.
It is to be hoped that readers will read widely to try to pick up elements
that are variously, deliberately or accidentally, excluded from various
sources.
