The book Alive as Life carries the subtitle “A Conversation about the Russian Language,” and indeed, its structure feels more like a conversation. It covers several topics, all of which are related in some way to the development of the Russian language.
It’s clear that the author had a deep love for his native language, cared for it passionately, and wanted future generations to preserve and enrich it. Perhaps that’s why he begins the book with a chapter discussing changes in the language—how the younger generation brings new elements, while the older generation resists these changes with all their might. Kornei Chukovsky wrote this 55 years ago, and it’s already evident how much the language has evolved since then.
Some innovations have faded on their own, while others, once considered strange or even “vulgar,” have taken root and become an integral part of the language (albeit often in colloquial speech). This is precisely why the first chapter is so fascinating—it allows you to compare the current language with the “newfangled” expressions of those years and recall which words and phrases have appeared or taken on new meanings since your own childhood.
Next, Chukovsky explores the impact of foreign words on the language and whether concerns about preserving the purity of the native tongue are justified. He offers an intriguing discussion of the rise of abbreviations, which were unthinkable before the revolution but suddenly became immensely popular in the early decades of the Soviet Union (from TsIK, VLKSM, and upravdom to completely unreadable letter combinations). Once again, we see how some of these words became firmly entrenched in everyday use, like “главбух” (chief accountant).
A significant portion of the book is devoted to канцелярит (bureaucratic jargon). This was the most disheartening chapter for me, as it highlighted how we are conditioned from the earliest school years to adopt this official, stilted way of expressing thoughts. Chukovsky was deeply concerned about how schools were destroying the ability to speak personally and eloquently. He hoped that things would change (this was the 1960s), but from my own experience and the current situation in schools across the former Soviet Union, it’s clear that nothing has really improved. It’s a pity that education officials rarely read such valuable books.
I would have rated the book highly if it weren’t for one major drawback—the overly apparent influence of the era. The author couldn’t release a book without praising the role of the Party and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. These constant references to “even V.I. Lenin condemned this and that” and “media following the unified line” seriously detract from the narrative and spoil the overall impression. It feels as if the author was constantly looking over his shoulder, wondering how the authorities would react, and adding references to Lenin to ensure no editor could object. After all, no one could oppose Lenin. If you stripped away all this fluff, the book would be much clearer and better.
