Table of Contents
In the aftermath of the release of Alexey Navalny’s memoir, Patriot, significant discussions have emerged online regarding differences between the Russian and English versions of the book. The Russian edition notably excludes Navalny’s social media posts made during his imprisonment, including his anti-war sentiments, while the English version incorporates them.
Although this discrepancy was recognized at the time of publication, it has gained renewed attention, sparking a passionate debate about how literature is adapted for different audiences and who influences Navalny’s lasting legacy.
The context of Patriot’s publication
Released in October 2024, Patriot serves as both an autobiography and a collection of Navalny’s prison diaries, chronicling his experiences following the assassination attempt in 2020. His writings, which were interrupted in September 2022, reflect a personal journey marked by struggle and resilience.
Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s spouse, has recounted the increasing restrictions he faced regarding writing materials during his incarceration, leading to potential losses of significant works after his passing in February 2024.
Initially, it was widely known that the English translation of Patriot included not only the memoir but also Navalny’s social media updates from behind bars.
Mikhail Zygar, a prominent writer and journalist, highlighted this contrast in his review for Meduza, suggesting that the inclusion of these posts is essential for future generations to grasp the full context of Navalny’s thoughts and evolution.
Reviving the discussion on social media omissions
The conversation surrounding this issue was reignited by Andrey Volna, a trauma surgeon who left Russia due to his anti-war beliefs. He contended that the Russian edition should have included Navalny’s social media posts, particularly those addressing his views on the conflict in Ukraine.
Volna remarked, “Was it really not possible to include his clearly anti-war, and in some ways pro-Ukrainian posts?” Political analyst Sergey Medvedev echoed these sentiments, noting that these posts represented a crucial shift in Navalny’s understanding of both Russia and the global landscape.
Responses from Navalny’s allies and critics
Medvedev criticized the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), which Navalny established, for allegedly manipulating Navalny’s legacy for political gain. Alexander Etkind, a cultural historian, expressed similar concerns, indicating that the handling of Navalny’s work by his successors raises significant issues. However, the FBK has firmly denied any involvement in the editorial choices made regarding the memoir, asserting that the decisions were made independently by the teams responsible for the Russian and English editions.
Maria Pevchikh, chairwoman of FBK, explained that the English editors deemed Navalny’s posts vital for contextual understanding, while their Russian counterparts chose not to include them, emphasizing that the book focuses on the diaries rather than a compilation of all texts Navalny produced. This distinction has elicited mixed reactions within literary and political circles.
The editorial choices and their implications
Varvara Babitskaya, the editor for the Russian edition, addressed the controversy by clarifying that the absence of social media posts was a matter of editorial policy. She articulated that a personal diary is distinct from an Instagram post, representing different genres of writing. Babitskaya noted that the Russian readership had already accessed Navalny’s posts, which remain publicly available, and that the memoir was designed to reflect Navalny’s carefully curated intent.
Despite these explanations, critics like Yevgenia Albats, editor-in-chief of The New Times, have labeled the omission a significant error. She questioned the authority of anyone to determine which aspects of Navalny’s political views should be included in his posthumous work, especially given the importance of these messages to the Russian audience he aimed to reach.
A complex narrative unfolds
The debate surrounding the divergent editions of Patriot reveals the intricate relationship between literature, politics, and legacy. As discussions evolve, many are left pondering the implications of editorial choices on the understanding of a figure like Navalny, whose contributions to Russian politics and society are profound. This situation serves as a reminder that the narratives we construct around prominent figures can be as contentious as the figures themselves.
