Väinö Linna's novel "Unknown Soldier" as a critical source

[Panssari Salama]

The interpretation Vanhala's quotes are targeted against right-wing revisionism is yours. I am, at the moment at least, not agreeing with that interpretation.

Then you are a good example of why Linna felt it was necessary to keep in the anti-militaristic bits that his editor wanted to take out.

I am still not seeing the ending in the same light than you but I will leave it at that.

Instead, it is unfortunate the link I provided is not available in english or swedish, as it discusses the various reasons certain segments were taken out while some where left there, and why Linna was better off with the editing having taken place.

The thesis lists the following categories under which some segments of text were edited out.

Editing for political reasons:
- nationalistic views, e.g. his irony towards home front and how they related to early successes of 1941
- foreign policy (ie. related to Soviet Union) views, e.g. several segments commenting Stalin's propaganda, but also comments regarding UK's (!) cynical view of putting countries against other

Editing for military related views:
- views related to events of war, e.g. commenting on runaways, executions, and general hindsight in e.g. "finlandization" of Eastern Karelia.
- views related to how regular men and officers viewed each other, this includes several segments of text on how men behaved in battle, how they related to each others, how Linna handled Mannerheim, how he again had men commenting home front, ... (I was wondering how Linna's grunts would have welcomed Yrjö Keinonen's character, an enthusiastic, but very responsible officer who demanded a lot from his men. Another Lammio?)

Reasons related to moral, religion, etc:
- racistic views, e.g. commenting on Lenin's asiatic features such as his eyes, and there are several other,
- religious views, e.g. some quite strange prayers dying men made, etc.
- sexistic views, e.g. some obscenities, and some outright sexist remarks,
- descriptions of killing, especially various comments on executions

All the tidbits mentioned in the thesis, and there are several, are indeed quite naiive, pathetic, or obviously lecturing in hindsight. Without the editiorial input it seems to me the result would have been a quite different book than what the outcome was.

Regarding the editorial process, what interests me especially is how different was the editorial process in regards to Unknown Soldier, in comparison to Under the Northern Star series?

[Philip S. Walker]

I must say this surprises me. By far the main bulk of these changes to the text seems to have no literary basis whatsoever. I can understand why the author was upset, since a lot of pretty crucial stuff that would have clarified his real intentions was clearly taken out for purely political reasons of various kinds. This doesn't look like literary editing at all, more like political censorship.

How much text are we talking about all in all, measured in full pages?

[Panssari Salama]

Half a dozen pages in total? My guess only.

And no, not all of it was done for political reasons. A lot of it was due to editorial reasons. It is a pity you can't compare the two.

But yes, there was political censorship, or self censorship, related to comments re. USSR and UK which latter I find quite funny.

[Anne G,]

And no, not all of it was done for political reasons. A lot of it was due to editorial reasons.

Linna explained a lot what was already clear to a reader. This was against the ideals of modernism.

"Political" is a too vague term as there were much sexual words.

Linna's biographer, Väipö Varpio, thinks that it's futile to criticize the deletions according to the standards of later times. They only tell what was allowed to say in the public in the middle of the the 50ies. In Here Under the Northern Star some of the remarks were allowed.

[Anne G,]

Linna's biographer, Väinö Varpio, tells that "good second" was a common phrase in the fall 1944.

[John Hilly]

Linna's biographer, Väinö Varpio, tells that "good second" was a common phrase in the fall 1944.

In my honest opinion, it reflects the relief soldiers felt of the fact that Finland was not occupied afterall.
"Was our sucrifice vain?" - No!

With best regards
Juha-Pekka

[Philip S. Walker]

Linna's biographer, Väipö Varpio, thinks that it's futile to criticize the deletions according to the standards of later times. They only tell what was allowed to say in the public in the middle of the the 50ies.

By the mid-1950s those standards were certainly beginning to move, in fact that had already started with Henry Miller some twenty years previously. The big literary issue in this respect in the Nordic countries was Agnar Mylke's novel "The Song of the red Ruby", published in 1956. Unlike these writers, however, Linna's mission had little to do with sexual liberation. He was simply trying to tell the truth about the soldiers of the Continuation War as he had experienced it, using the language that these soldiers actually used.

"Political" is a too vague term as there were much sexual words.

Sexual and political issues are often interwoven, and they most certainly were in the 1950s.

Linna's biographer, Väinö Varpio, tells that "good second" was a common phrase in the fall 1944.

As we move along in these discussions, what is emerging to me among other features in the Finnish national character is an ingrained inability to admit defeat - the negative side of the "sisu" phenomenon I suppose, since defeat and failure are what we mainly learn from in this life. For a writer like Linna it is an absolutely prime mission to disclose to his countrymen such weaknesses in their collective behavioural patterns, and he wouldn't give a toss whether it made him unpopular or not because that is simply what he feels he has been put here on Earth to do. If he has heard the "good second" phrase spoken around him in the fall of 1944 - as seems to be the case - he would typically use it in his novel by putting it into the mouth of a person whom he has solidly established as a mocker of all kinds of pathetic self-delusion, and then he would let him laugh at it.

Linna explained a lot what was already clear to a reader.

Clear to some, undoubtedly, but he was also aware that his message could easily be misinterpreted since he was very much a writer whose whole mission depended on his audience's ability to perceive irony. The Finnish people, as I see it, does indeed have the rather rare quality of understanding irony. But Linna was well aware that this would have to be measured against the aforementioned ingrained inability to admit defeat. That was why he was so keen on using overstatement, and as we can see even from our very own discussions so much of Linna's irony is lost on Finnish readers even today - or perhaps even more today than it was in the past.

One question that interests me is whether Linna was actually giving the Finnish people what they truly needed. Yes, you need self-realisation in order to learn from your experiences and move on. On the other hand, perhaps the Finnish inability to admit defeat is really a necessary survival mechanism because it beefs up the moral.

The Danish philosopher Villy Sørensen - who was a fan of words with double meanings - says in his book "Uden mål - og med" (in itself a pun that can't be translated) that: "You can be right about something without having the (moral) right to present it to someone who can't bear it." Perhaps that is what Linna does - and me too, incidentally.

[Anne G,]

Linna's mission had little to do with sexual liberation. He was simply trying to tell the truth about the soldiers of the Continuation War as he had experienced it,

Linna's biographer, Yrjö (sorry, I made earlier a mistake) Varpio, thinks that Linna's basic aim was existential, meeting with death. Only after when his novel was interpreted as a realistic story about the war, he began to think it in that way.

Also Linna's stories about his own life changed, i.e. he interpreted them in various ways.

[Philip S. Walker]

Linna's biographer, Yrjö (sorry, I made earlier a mistake) Varpio, thinks that Linna's basic aim was existential, meeting with death.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Not even for a fraction of a second. In fact, Linna is very deliberately avoiding such issues in order not to divert from the real subject matter, which is pure political criticism.

I don't see much of a development in personality either from "Unknown Soldier" to the trilogy. Perhaps afterwards, which perhaps prevented him from writing more.

[Panssari Salama]

Let us get back to that famous Vanhala quote shall we.

I believe what Linna says here is: "In future, the authorities will try to make this defeat look like half a victory as well, just like they did with the Winter War." I'm not aware that Linna felt the Continuation War had saved Finland's independence, not even the very important Tali-Ihantala defensive victory, which the novel almost pretends never happened.

The opening chapter of the book is discussed in length earlier in this thread. And what an opening it is, indeed. One can only admire how the stage is set for the whole book in just those few lines and paragraphs. Hats off to Linna, no doubt about that.

So let us reflect on the closing stage as well. As Linna so masterfully painted the landscape in the beginning of the book, he must have done the same when saying goodbyes to our now so dear characters.

When you look at the closing chapter V as a whole, I actually don't see any need for analysing Vanhala's quote for some subtle messages for generations to come?

In paragraph one we find the protagonist sitting out the one last terrible enemy artillery barrage, only thing in their mind the wish they would not die in the very last minute of the war. As Linna describes, they ceased the hostilities already a day ago, but the enemy does not. They are digging their nails in, realising the war is lost, their last counter attack a futility, and this very river they were so fiercely defending soon lost forever.

Yes, Linna continues, they had lost. Received their punishment. The thing they have in their side, Linna says, is that by losing they have also been freed of the responsibility of being a victor. Freed from responsibilities of their actions, freed from responsibilities of their victory being a reason for another future conflict.

The first paragraph is the longest one, and Linna certainly uses his chance to get his message out: war has been lost.

In paragraph two the shelling finally stops, and Määttä had saved a shell shocked comrade from getting killed. In silence, the men stand up from their fox holes. War has ended.

In paragraph three, the men are brewing coffee, and the above mentioned discussion takes place. Vanhala at his best, certainly. As Linna describes, Vanhala snickers having made his point while trying to get the flame up. Soon, all is quiet as the exhausted men fall into deep sleep, one after another.

Then, for the final words of the final paragraph. Linna's closing words. The last things he has to say before the book closes. Here we go:

Väsyneet miehet nukkuivat. Hyväntahtoinen aurinko katseli heitä. Se ei missään tapauksessa ollut heille vihainen. Kenties tunsi jonkinlaista myötätuntoakin heitä kohtaan.

Almost done. Here's the quick translation by me:

The tired men were full asleep. A tender sun watched over them. By no means was it angry to them. It might have actually felt sympathy to them.

And the final sentence. All alone by itself. Are you ready?

Aika velikultia.

Now, this took me actually by surprise! Linna's last sentence, the last thing he says about them is: Aika velikultia.

But how to translate that, to get the full effect of it in English?

Dear, dear lads. Or, Boys, they are always boys.

Indeed, something you would say to those fair sweet six years olds, who again have been too lively for their own good, but who are now sleeping while their mother looks at them with misty eyes.

So, what is Linna's parting gift to generations to come? Why would you need to look for a subtle message within Vanhala's quote, when Linna spends quite a while telling us the war was lost, and good thing it was!

Good second seems to refer to opening chapter, where as we remember Winter War was a good war, as both sides won. Here, there are no ambiguity in winner. But, maybe Vanhala actually disagrees with Linna, maybe all was not in vain despite of what was said just a bit earlier? After all, Finland did cross the finish line, they were a good second, and can find solace in silver medal once the bitternes of losing the gold medal is gone?

But the thing is the book does not stop yet.

Instead, Linna clearly forgives his grunts. You should not be angry at the individual soldier, you should be symphatetic to them. Blame the leaders, do not blame the common people who were thrown into deep without having an option.

Because, as he says, they were jolly fellows, afterall.

The ultimate message by Linna, then, as he has had ten years to obtain a perspective to it all, is to warn the next generation of turning against their fathers. Left wing politicians were already in fifties putting all the blame to Finland as an aggressor, who should and could have stayed out of all wars. Do not turn on these common men, Linna says.

But the sixties-seventies generation did not listen. "Why did you go there?" they mocked their fathers. "You stupid, stupid fools!", they continued.

And then came the inevitable turn to opposite. Grandchildren being proud of their grandparents. People appreciating a free and democratic country, as the cold war ended. Paying homage to those last survivors, to counter the cynicism they were given for having spent their best years in war.

The very thing you are reading in Vanhala is actually something that would not have ever happened, should the previous generation read their Linna.

As for any future Lammio there, give him the whole book to read, that should silence him.

That's my interpretation anyways

- Petri

[Anne G,]

Linna's biographer, Yrjö (sorry, I made earlier a mistake) Varpio, thinks that Linna's basic aim was existential, meeting with death.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Not even for a fraction of a second. In fact, Linna is very deliberately avoiding such issues in order not to divert from the real subject matter, which is pure political criticism.

Linna isn't avoiding death, on the contrary the death of each character is described in an individual way.

If the novel had been "pure political criticism" and not a work of art, one can't understand why so many Conservatives liked it.

[Philip S. Walker]

@ Petri

Nice analysis, well written English too! I liked that very much.

Where you go wrong, however, is in regard to the first chapter.

Good second seems to refer to opening chapter, where as we remember Winter War was a good war, as both sides won.

What you are referring to is a highly ironic remark as well:

Finland's Winter War had been fought, the best of all wars so far because both sides were victorious. Still, in a way the Finnish victory was smaller since the country had to hand over landscapes to its opponent and retreat behind new borders.

Go back an see the discussion we had about this. In short, on the first page, as well as the last, Linna is mocking the inherent Finnish inability to admit defeat. This is serious stuff, since what we mainly learn from in life is defeat and failure. If you can face these things, you are blocking yourself from moving on as a person. Linna is kicking his own people in the balls here. He can be nice to them, but never for very long. That is why he is an important writer. If he just rubbed the dick of every reader and told them everything is fine, he wouldn't be an important writer.

And just think about it. How ridiculous is it when you compare a war to a competition where there are only two competitors and the looser refers to himself as "a good no. 2". Seriously.

@Anne G

Linna isn't avoiding death, on the contrary the death of each character is described in an individual way.

Linna deliberately cuts away from his characters at the very moment of death. There are no descriptions of the actual departure as such. The most obvious example is Hietanen who is followed very closely in the ambulance etc., but at the very moment of death Linna cuts to some otherwise completely unknown soldier who lies with Hietanen on top of him and Hietanen's blood dripping into his face. (This recaptured from memory and the Danish translation, admittedly.)

@Anne G

If the novel had been "pure political criticism" and not a work of art

The catalyst that ignites the novel is pure political criticism, not an urge to address anything metaphysical except perhaps in Linna's deep infatuation with nature, inside and outside of people. That isn't the same as saying that he works according to some party political program. You are right that if he did that it would most probably have been impossible for him to turn it into a work of art.

one can't understand why so many Conservatives liked it.

They read it like the Devil reads the Bible, to use an old Danish proverb.

[Panssari Salama]

@ Petri

Nice analysis, well written English too! I liked that very much.

Where you go wrong, however, is in regard to the first chapter.

Good second seems to refer to opening chapter, where as we remember Winter War was a good war, as both sides won.

What you are referring to is a highly ironic remark as well:

Finland's Winter War had been fought, the best of all wars so far because both sides were victorious. Still, in a way the Finnish victory was smaller since the country had to hand over landscapes to its opponent and retreat behind new borders.

Go back an see the discussion we had about this. In short, on the first page, as well as the last, Linna is mocking the inherent Finnish inability to admit defeat. This is serious stuff, since what we mainly learn from in life is defeat and failure. If you can face these things, you are blocking yourself from moving on as a person. Linna is kicking his own people in the balls here. He can be nice to them, but never for very long. That is why he is an important writer. If he just rubbed the dick of every reader and told them everything is fine, he wouldn't be an important writer.

Thank you for your compliments! Now, let us quickly go back to disagreeing about Linna

I do intepret the quote about Winter War as highly ironic. Linna really gives the reader no option about that, does he. I still feel though it cannot be a coincidence Vanhala makes a closing remark as how the war ended this time. Instead of having two victors, this time there can be only one.

But let us not not take the Vanhala quote out of context. Before the lads went on to make some coffee, we just finished reading a whole chapter where Linna goes very close to his lecturing worst : This time the war was lost, and good thing it was as the other alternative would have been too terrible.

Not that I would disagree with that interpretation at all, as I really really would not like to have any border disputes with Russia, the current or the past one. But Linna is clearly lecturing, and as a result the text comes out in a forced, unnatural manner.

Where were we? Oh yes, Linna mocking the Finnish capability of not admitting defeat, as your thesis goes.

And just think about it. How ridiculous is it when you compare a war to a competition where there are only two competitors and the looser refers to himself as "a good no. 2". Seriously.

But that is what he does. First the lecture about lost war and how lucky we were in that. Then making Vanhala say the quote about crossing the finish line as a good second. Then clearly forgiving all the protagonist for any sin done during the book.

Vanhala (and Linna) is clearly being ironic about the good second. I agree with that as well. But I disagree he is kicking anyone in the private parts, in this particular quote.

My interpretation is that he makes us laugh at Continuation war with Vanhala. A very dangerous thing of course, so OK maybe there is a kick there.

He seems to be implying that while we (ironically) came as a good second, there is a bright side as well. We can now close the door for the period of hostility with Soviet Union, and the common soldier was not at fault should a guilty party be needed. As the left were already looking for guilty ones.

Some editing to my summary.

[Philip S. Walker]

Okay, I misunderstood you there. I get it now.

With regard to Linna's lecturing, it is a funny thing. I once tried to cleanse a couple of chapters in the book of them, and the whole thing simply fell apart. It is a necessary feature and it is also a feature that points back at Aleksis Kivi, who even goes so far at one point as to burst into his story as a first person narrator, completely out of the blue. It's everything that our teachers in college told us a writer mustn't do, which makes it even more lovely in my eyes.

Of course, Meri in his own books never stopped taking the piss out of Linna for his lecturing. Meri is the master of the most completely crazy lecturing and generalizing ever seen printed on paper. My favourite is the scene in "The Manilla Rope" where the main character stumbles, lies on the ground with ants crawling across his face, and we are given a song and dance about how these ants are highly puzzled about this huge creature that is suddenly blocking the path they normally crawl along with no obstructions. Completely without any connection to the actual story. It takes a truly great writer to pull something like that off, and Meri does it all the time. I've had periods in my life where I felt he is simply the greatest writer to have ever lived. I once spoke to the Danish writer Gynter Hansen, who himself is a great author, and he told me that his first five novels had been a deliberate attempt to emulate Meri - without even remotely getting there.

I do think Linna likes to kick his readers in the balls occasionally, but he also likes to tickle them and stroke them gently. Because he does both, and because you're never quite sure when he will suddenly shift from one to the other, it has a significant impact. In that respect he's a bit of a control freak, actually.

With regard to Finland being lucky to have lost the war, I don't think it has much to do with borders against Russia etc. Linna simply shudders to think of the psychological effect it could have had on the Finnish people if they had won that war. Success is a very hard thing to cope with, and particularly if it comes out of a partnership with Nazis. And there's nothing like a good fiasco to make you move on in life. When the current director of the second largest employers union in Denmark started out, he was asked in an interview about the most positive things that had ever happened to him. He then mentioned his two biggest personal defeats. That, in my opinion, is a very brave and clever man talking.

At the same time he seems to be also implying that while we ironically came as a good second, there is a bright side as well. At least we can now close the door for the period of hostility with Soviet Union, and that the common soldier was not at fault.

I couldn't agree more. This is huge.

[Anne G,]

@Anne G

Linna isn't avoiding death, on the contrary the death of each character is described in an individual way.

Linna deliberately cuts away from his characters at the very moment of death. There are no descriptions of the actual departure as such. The most obvious example is Hietanen who is followed very closely in the ambulance etc., but at the very moment of death Linna cuts to some otherwise completely unknown soldier who lies with Hietanen on top of him and Hietanen's blood dripping into his face. (This recaptured from memory and the Danish translation, admittedly.)

Can one really describe death? No living has experienced it.

@Anne G

If the novel had been "pure political criticism" and not a work of art

The catalyst that ignites the novel is pure political criticism, not an urge to address anything metaphysical except perhaps in Linna's deep infatuation with nature, inside and outside of people.

You leave out Linna's own experience of being the only one left alive when others got killed. Then there is his "Messias crisis" which moved him from Dostoevsky to Tolstoy, but the questuons remained.