It's extremely anti-soviet, almost propagandistically so. It wouldnt be out of place as a work made at the request of Voice of America, although the author is an Englishman.

It's good that it antisoviet, isn't? Soviet Union was responsible for millions of deaths. In Soviet Union, you will be prosecuted as American spy just because you have account on HN.

Not really. In Soviet Union it was possible to have connection to the outside world only in case you were completely trusted (checked by KGB many times). No one was prosecuted in SU for unauthorized access to western computer resources because they had not a single chance to get it without state permission.

If we are talking about the same time period as the book (which opens up in the 30's, I believe) then you would absolutely be persecuted for having contacts with the West. And by contact, it could be something as innocuous as you were happened to a tailor who worked on diplomat's clothing.

The law was written to make it illegal to be suspected of counter-revolutionary activities. So it's the burden is not to prove the crime, just to prove the suspicion of a crime.

So you are working for KGB. Right? ;-)

Soviet Union and KGB are long dead.

Well, the USA was also responsible for millions of deaths in countries around the world, but don't suppose you think being anti-US is good on that account.

It looks like you mismatched USA with Britain Empire.

Honestly curious what you mean by anti-Soviet.

I don't feel being anti-Soviet is bad, unless it means misleading people to serve your goals (as the comparison to Voice of America and by extension to propaganda implies).

I guess you mean some aspects of Soviet Union were mischaracterized, or presented in a more negative way then they should have been.

Did you feel that's what the book did? I'm curious what part?

The book takes place during Stalin era, yet hardly mentions Stalinist atrocities.

It is as if someone wrote an anti-US book that takes place in antibellum South and never mention slavery.

I'm not saying that every book set in a certain time period must delve into the worst parts of that period, but it could hardly be called anti-that country if it doesn't.

Should the novel be pro-soviet?

Do you think it's necessary for a novel to take a strong position on the Cold War? Propaganda from an enemy state is not a way to get a clear picture of what a place was like.

The opposite of anti-Soviet isn't necessarily pro-Soviet.

So are those the only 2 options? Why the fondness for a dichotomy? Sign of the times I guess.

To expand my comment, the problem is not that it criticizes the soviet regime, that is OK and even needed.The big problem is the total lack of nuance which robs the work of any artistic value. When you read non-fiction and fiction soviet authors (Chekhov, Dostoevski, Grossmann, Zhukov, Bulgakov) there is always criticism of the government in general and the individual in particular, to different degrees, but there is also a human side present, this human warmness. Yes, the bureaucrats suck and the party establishment are bastards, but summer in the dacha is fantastic, getting drunk with friends is a brotherly experience and there is Masha waiting for me hopefully to form a nice family. All of this is mostly absent or totally disfigured in western authors treating soviet themes, this work one of the worst exponents. The soviet union portrayed in Rocky IV and Ivan Drago are more credible and three-dimensional than any character in this work. The people are only corrupt, incompetent and bad to the core (meany meany commies) or helpless victims of the system with 0 agency whatsoever. It's painfully obvious the author has not clue about the actual psyche of a soviet citizen or functionary.

It sounds like Spufford fails to see the Soviet citizens as real humans.

For an example how to not do that, all one must do is read any of the authors you mention (or Tolstoy, Chukovskaya, Gogol...) Tolstoy in particular has a knack for painting the interior psychological worlds of his characters fluidly and from a place of deep empathy.

That is definitely not the impression I got from reading the book. I can mostly only recall accounts of ordinary people trying to make the best of the absurd situations they faced.

Much like the USA, lots of stuff about the USSR was bad. Lots was good. Including the political decisions the respective countries made.

They don’t even compare. USSR was the empire (a country plus its occupied territories) people literally were losing their life trying to get the hell out of.

Shocking that a regime in which, "the communist leaders of the Soviet Union were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths." could be painted in a bad light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

To paint a government in a bad light is one thing. To rob its citizens of their humanity is another. A bad writer thinks they're equivalent.

Red Plenty absolutely does not rob the Soviet people of their humanity. If anything, it emphasis their humanity and juxtaposes it against the inhuman absurdities of a command economy.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945323-the-red-web is a nonfiction work on the subject (and a bunch of other related stuff) and is excellent.