2017: A Novel

By Olga Slavnikova

Winner of the Russian Booker Prize, a sensational novel of Russia set exactly 100 years after the revolution

In the year 2017 in Russia-exactly 100 years after the revolution-poets and writers are obsolete, class distinctions are painfully sharp, and spirits intervene in the lives of humans from their home high in the mythical Riphean Mountains.

Professor Anfilogov, a wealthy and emotionless man, sets out on an expedition to unearth priceless rubies that no one else has been able to locate. Young Krylov, a talented gem cutter who Anfilogov had taken under his wing, is seeing off his mentor at the train station when he is drawn to a mysterious stranger who calls herself Tanya. A scandalous affair ensues, but trouble arises in the shape of Krylov's ex-wife Tamara and a spy who appears at the lovers' every rendezvous. As events unfold, Krylov begins to learn more than he bargained for about the women in his life and realizes why he recognizes the spy from somewhere deep within his past. Meanwhile, Anfilogov's expedition reveals ugly truths about man's disregard for nature and the disasters stemming from insatiable greed.

Olga Slavnikova stuns with this engaging and remarkable tale of love, obsession, murder, and the lengths people will go to get what they want.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Penguin Group
• Release date: Sep 25, 2012
• ISBN: 9781468302905

Olga Slavnikova

Born in 1957 she is one of the major Russian writers of her generation

Reviews for 2017

[technodiabla · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I am glad I finished this book. I enjoyed it immensely though it very difficult to get through the first chapter. The language there is overloaded with analogies that are overly conspicuous to the point of being a distraction. After that it seemed the author forgot about trying so hard to write, relaxed and wrote the rest of the story-- which is imaginative, complex, and vivid. I really enjoyed the blending of myth, sci-fi, romance, and adventure. I'll admit that there were aspects of these that were just touched on, and then not followed up on very clearly-- so you'll have to fill in some blanks with your own imagination. The characters are almost archetypal in nature; they are clearly under the control of fate and destiny-- a strong theme of the novel. The characterization lends itself well to the authenticity theme of the novel as well (none of them are authentic-- they are universal puppets).The Riphean mountain area is beautifully imagined and vividly created for the reader (my favorite part of the book). It is contrasted sharply with the city-- which was equally vividly described as dull, dreary, even rotten.The sci-fi gadgetry was somewhat ridiculous-- and very uneven given the lack of other technology that does actually exist but seemed not to in the novel. I don't think it was necessary to the plot and could have been omitted. Overall I thought it was an unusual & totally original book with writing that ranged from awful to genius (not sure how much the translation played a role here). It was a challenging read, and even now that I've finished it I don't completely understand the political aspects of it (possibly due to my 0-knowledge of modern day Russia). I would recommend this book to anyone who is patient enough to take in it's complexities and is tired of the lightweight formulaic novels that American writers are churning out these days. 4 stars

[heidilach · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I wanted to like this book. I really did. Let me start by saying that I love Russian fiction, especially that of the Golden and Silver Age. And I've seen a lot of other reviewers who have made similar comments - they love Russian fiction, they're avid readers of Russian fiction, but they couldn't get into this book. I think I'm starting to understand what the problem is...What we typically think of as "Russian fiction" tends to be fiction written by Russians in the Imperial or early Soviet period. This is an entirely different animal (in my opinion) than fiction written during the high Soviet period (conforming to the so-called "Soviet realist" style), or post-Soviet fiction. Before I received this book, I had read somewhere that the novel compared to Mikhail Bulgakov. Though Bulgakov was active during the era of Soviet realism, he remained true to his own literary vision, a move that would ultimately cost him his career. While 2017 has the element of the fantastic and the commentary on government and society, elements that are frequently present in Bulgakov's works, the novel utterly lacks all of Bulgakov's charm and flow and literary "oomph", for lack of a better description. When I read Bulgakov, he makes me understand why his words are important. He makes me understand the weight of what he has to say and why he has to say it that precise manner. I didn't feel the author's urgency in 2017 at all. I don't want to be overly harsh, but I don't know why she wrote this, or why she wrote it in this style. I have no notion as to what her intentions are.I would much sooner compare 2017 to Viktor Pelevin's works, Pelevin being another post-Soviet fiction writer and past winner of Russia's "Little Booker" prize. I also found the author's writing style, even in translation, to be very "Pelevin-esque." I've read a lot of comments regarding the translation, and I have to agree that it makes for a really clunky piece of prose. I speak and read Russian, and there were numerous passages that could have been translated more smoothly. And if that is evident to me, it was surely evident to a professional translator. I can only surmise that the translation is an attempt to remain true to the overall style of the work. I have not read 2017 in Russian, but I have read Pelevin in the original, and I can tell you that the style is extremely odd. His sentences are very long, it's often difficult to connect the focus of one sentence to the next, and there are instances where it's very tricky to puzzle out the true subject of a sentence. He also invents a lot of words that aren't normally used in Russian (or any other language). I saw a lot of that happening in the English translation of this novel. I will say that it is extremely difficult to translate something that is of a very particular style and manage to keep that style intact through a translation, so kudos to the translator.In the end, it's all well and good to maintain the true style of a piece, but this particular brand of post-Soviet fiction is not everyone's cup of tea. I know it isn't mine.

[kristenn_43 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

2017 is one of those complex satirical observations about society and the human condition where everything is symbolic, and those go right over my head. Definitely similar to Bulgakov and in minor ways to Gilliam's Brazil. (I'm the only person who didn't care for Brazil, so take that into account in my lukewarm response to this book.) Everyone is dour and amoral and mostly unpleasant in that classically Russian way, but at least they have plenty of historical justification for their attitude, unlike the bored Manhattanites of most contemporary literature. Surprisingly, a lot of the fantasy elements set up in the beginning never worked their way into the plot. The inevitable revolution was oddly desultory, in a way that wasn't fully explained by the main character's analysis of its causes. Somehow (at least in my pre-release copy), the first chapter or so is an almost unreadable jumble but then it smooths out into some real poetry. Everything is described with at least one metaphor. The girlfriend and ex-wife had similar enough names that I'd mix them up and have to start sections over again; that may have been due to a lack of real engagement with the story. The main character seemed to be a pretty poor judge of character and thus every conversation had two levels -- what he thought people were saying and what I thought they were saying. (Then again, maybe the poor judge was me, but it did make things interesting.) Either the author or translator is very fond of the word antediluvian.

[kvanuska_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

2017 true to its Russian roots, is not easy to wrestle into submission. The story alternates between Krylov, a gemcutter looking for love, and his mentor Professor Anfilogov, looking for gems in the wilds of the Riphean Mountains (a region loosely based on the Ural Mountains). In 2017, earth spirits as devious as Puck and as beautiful as Titania intervene in the quests of both Krylov and Anfilogov. Those looking for the remnants of the Communist Revolution of 1917 will find its echos in this novel's class distinctions and the determination of each character to pursue their individual (rather than communal) passions with greed and determination. While reading this book leaves me weary, it's a good weary -- the kind you feel after an intense workout.

[mapthis_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I received this book through the Early Reviewers program.The blurb intrigued me and I liked what I thought the plot was, but I didn't really enjoy the book. It was hard to get into, partly I think because it is a translation and partly because the beginning was not as tightly constructed as it could have been for my tastes. It felt like the author was trying to hard to "write" it instead of just telling the story.

[gcplreader · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

As a lover of classic Russian literature, I was thrilled to read a modern award winning Russian novel. But what a dense, confusing mess this book turned out to be. The literary writing, at times, shines, but the plot was a disappointment. I would have preferred just the story of Krylov on a quest for gemstones and falling in love with the mysterious Tanya, not this convoluted, tedious thriller with spies and the collapse of the government. This was not an enjoyable book for me and I can not recommend it.

[barbharper · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I was very surprised that this novel won a major literary prize in Russia. I realize the difficulty in translating from Russian to English, but the English text appears to be a first draft in need of further editing. The text contains too many obscure and obsolete words, eg, skilly, morion, centner. I wanted to like this, but found the style at times torturous, with phrases tending to meander away. The author's over-use of simile and metaphor bordered on the bizarre. Entire paragraphs were replete with "like" and "as" comparisons, and I made a game out of counting how many comparisons (including "resemble" and "seem") could be crammed into a few lines. The characters and plot are neither compelling nor memorable. There are, however, some interesting themes: conventional ideas of social norms are corrupt, inauthentic and unnatural and stifle art and free expression; history is a communicable virus that impels people to act irrationally and participate in violent mass movements. 2017 ends as Russia is on the brink of revolution, the future uncertain and grim.

[visibleghost · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

2017 won the Russian Booker prize. I would be surprised if the English translation wins any sort of prize. There are some dazzling descriptive passages but more often than not they are followed by asinine similes with incongruent adjectives. Lots of adjectives. Attention grabbing adjectives that throws the reader completely out of the story. There is a sort of folkloric magical realism or lite-fantasy element that floats around untethered to the rest of the text.2017 is a comment on the existential angst and runaway materialism in modern Russia. Unexamined consumption and the pursuit of wealth at all costs leaves some with pockets full of rubles while their hearts are empty and callous. It is a satirical novel but the satire can be nebulous to the point of disappearing entirely. I cannot read Russian, but for those readers that can, 2017 probably works a lot better in Russian than it does in English.

[egarabis_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I am an avid reader of Russian fiction and I was delighted to have won this book in the Early Reviewer's group. I delightfully took the book out to a picnic lunch and after reading over 100 pages, I was devastated to not be able to carry on. I will pick it up in the future and give it another try. I really do hope this is an issue of translation, espcially in translating such an abstract work. Sadly, I can only give it one star because I rarely don't even finish a novel.

[bostonbibliophile · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Turgid, dull-as-a-doorknob prose and opaque plot characterize this prize-winning novel. I tried to read this- I really did, and I wanted to like it, but it was nearly impossible to read. Every attempt I made ended in failure or a nap. It reads like a rough draft and just didn't hold my attention. Boring.

[jennmaine · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Krylov the Riphean (a fictional area of Russia analogous to the Urals) gem-cutter understands the transparency and nuance of stone, but often moves in an obtuse stupor through his own life in 2017 Russia. No wonder, for his city has become a nightmare of excess, materialism, and unchecked thuggery. His entrepreneurial ex-wife, Tamara, runs a chain of boutique funeral parlors and takes advantage of cosmetic nanotechnology. His mysterious mistress, Tanya, meets him for trysts even as a spy openly stalks them. Dashes of dystopia, cyberpunk, geographical determinism, and campish political upheaval punctuate this dense, almost inaccessible novel. More heavy handed and absurdist than Bulgakov, the satire here is closer to a future only seven years away than is comfortable to admit. I found the read worth the effort, however, and look forward to more from Olga Slavnikova.

[hairball_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I expected to really like this book, but I could barely get through the first 100-150 pages of it. Part of this, I think, was due to a misapprehension on my part: I was judging the book by its cover (bad, yes!), and the first line of its promotional copy--both of which seem to promise a political novel of some sort, maybe even an alternative history in which the Berlin Wall never fell. Juicy! Alas, while there is a political aspect to this novel, it is more of a background. That doesn't make it bad, just different from what I expected.As for what 2017 is, well, I believe it's supposed to be a critique of Russia on several fronts: environmental, political, industrial, personal, social. The environmental critique employs a whiff of magical realism, while the social gives a nod to Evelyn Waugh--so either this makes more sense if one knows a great deal about Russia (or is, in fact, Russian), or the author is trying to do too many things at once.Some sections of the book are really engaging--some, not so much. The book doesn't hang together very well, even though all of the separate threads are tied together at the end. A couple of personal peeves: the overuse of the word "antediluvian." I've never seen so many things described with that word. Aren't there other words for "old"? Also, the characters rage on about inauthenticity, but sometimes the context is terribly odd--plus, they end up sounding like middle-aged Holden Caulfields.

[the_awesome_opossum · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

2017 takes place in near-future Russia, when the entire country has been taken over by a rabid sense of materialism and a subsequent stark differentiation in class and social status. Most are content to live this way, and make the most of what they have, but discontentment sometimes rises to the surface.The protagonist, a gem cutter ("rock hound") named Krylov, embodies such suppressed discontentment. He lives in bland and substandard bachelor-pad-like conditions, despite his work with opulent and priceless jewels. He is divorced but still in a sort of relationship with his ex-wife, who got rich by transforming the funeral industry into a tasteless lottery (bury your dead with us, get a chance at a cruise giveaway!). In contrast to this opportunistic materialism, Krylov has begun a relationship with a woman he meets by chance and knows literally nothing about – not her name or address, nothing, so they agree on meeting places every day, only one day in advance. When he loses this woman by accident, he goes on a long search to find her, but also elevates his memory of her far beyond human capabilities into a demigoddess.Krylov is obsessed with the twin abstracts of transparency and authenticity. The hyper-materialist post-modernized culture of Russia has left him with a sort of emptiness, and the nebulous question of authenticity runs throughout the story. People search for their own truths: history, culture, family, love. Krylov's story felt very disconnected at times; his search for gems had little to do with his ex-wife's success and little to do with this mysterious new affair. But Krylov himself was very directionless, stuck in the middle of modernization and his romantic notions of sincerity and a less cynical society.

[keja_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I was really looking forward to 2017 as the storyline sounded intriguing. I haven't had any experience with reading contemporary Russian authors and it appears their prose isn't similar to the classic greats if Olga Slavnikova is typical. The book reads like how those stereotypical Slavic characters sound in the movies. When reading, the voice in my head is speaking in participle-free guttural sentences. Some sentences are very short (“Their bodies held absolute lightness”), while others are quite long and somewhat rambling. But all seem to have one thing in common: they wander all over the place. And the metaphors! I lost count of the metaphors and similes at 17 after 4 pages. Here’s one: “Krylov suddenly felt he simply couldn’t face the solitude of the day which was still as fresh and radiant as if the sun’s warmth had just dissolved its minty, sleepy haze but which already held nearly its fill of the heavens’ void.”I made it through, but just wasn’t all that excited about it. It was hard to follow along, for me at least, with the wandering sentences and the metaphors. Maybe something gets lost in the translation of Russian, but at least it looks good on my shelf next to 2666.

[viking2917_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

2017 won the Russian Booker Prize in 2006. I received an Early Reviewer copy of the about-to-be-released first English Translation. Not normally a fan of Russian literature (loving Gorky Park Martin by Cruz Smith is about as close as I come), I decided to take a flyer on it. It had the promise of some good thematic elements. Set in 2017, explicitly mentioned as 100 years after the Russian Revolution, I somewhat expected some form of science-fiction projection of the Russian Experiment into the future. Krylov is a young apprentice gem cutter & miner, who is taken on board by Anfilogov as a mentor. Krylov is a train wreck. Divorced from a wealthy wife, hired on as a middle-aged, un-paid apprentice gem cutter, disheveled and unmotivated, he doesn't paint a pretty picture. Yet, the novel improbably sets Krylov onto a series of trysts at random locations with a mystery woman named Tanya. It seems like the novel has all the elements of a good story. And yet, it breaks down for almost from the beginning. Oh my lord the commas! I don't know whether the translation is responsible or not, but every sentence on the first 5 pages has four parenthetical comments. It's impossible to scan even one sentence without re-reading it. There are periodically bouts of humor (of a literary / Russian sort): "You're not one of those political types are you? They're crazy and they hand you completely dopey leaflets on the street.” says Tanya. "Excuse me but do I look crazy?" replies Krylov. "Forgive me, but you look a little like an intellectual", says Tanya. The trysts are completely un-erotic and asexual. In fact the rock-hounding is written more lovingly than the lovers' unions. The lovers’ first kiss:The kiss was painful Ivan felt the firm lath of Tanya's teeth, and his own, which were wobbly as splinters. Pulling back, he was amazed at how badly Tanya's lipstick was smeared.Contrast that with the jewelry he bestows on her:...Krylov chose the stones with taste: moss agates that the eye saw as soft March woods with soggy snow; agaates with geodes where the blue amygdule was encased in quartzite crystals like large grains of salt,; picture jaspers with scenes of ancient volcanoes erupting; and brocade jasper, which made you think of the mystery of life as seen under a microscope. There were tiger's eye cabochons whose vertical pupils seemed to narrow in the light; incrustations of uvarovite a saturated chemical green; peachy cornelians....I found no real reason the book is set in the future - in tone and subject matter it could mostly have been set in the 1800s, except for a few mystical/fantasy elements. There's no real sense of anything political in the book that might speak to a criticism of either communism or the new Putinism, although perhaps there are allusions in the book not visible to a non-Russian - but I doubt it. The language and prose is very rich, almost baroque, in places, but the plot wanders maddeningly and aimlessly for most of the book. I can't really see why it won a Booker.