I hope it’s the former.
The Wall Street Journal has 6 crossword puzzles a week and I clip them and fill them out when I have spare time or at night when I’m trying to get to sleep.
The one I did last night was “Short Stories” by Alex Eaton-Salners. It was very clever and enjoyable.
Which made the one discordant note all the more disturbing. The clue was “October Revolution target.” The answer: tsar. Do you see a problem? Alexander Kerensky would have. That’s his picture above.
In a section in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead Rand explains Ellsworth Toohey’s strategy. It’s to undercut people’s beliefs in freedom and individualism with the “softer” parts of a newspaper. When reading those parts, readers don’t engage their critical faculties as much, so someone trying to communicate a subversive message can get further. The crossword puzzle would be such an instrument.
It’s quite possible that Eaton-Salners is uninformed. I hope he is. I don’t like the alternative.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Brady
Nov 25 2020 at 4:21pm
What is the alternative? That Alex Eaton-Salners deliberately chose to have Tsar Nicholas II remain in power in order to make the Bolshevik Revolution look good?
The fact is that Alexander Kerensky, the leader of the Russian provisional government of 1917, refused to sign a peace treaty with the Germans and so prolonged the agony of the war for Russia and its conscripted armed forces.
The Bolsheviks’ opposition to Kerensky because of his refusal to withdraw Russia from the war was crucial to their success in the October / November Revolution.
David Henderson
Nov 25 2020 at 6:02pm
You ask what the alternative is. The alternative is to get this important fact right.
Mark Brady
Nov 25 2020 at 10:41pm
An important part of “this important fact” is surely that Alexander Kerensky sought to prolong the war with the Central Powers at the expense of the Russian people.
David Henderson
Nov 25 2020 at 11:43pm
Sure, but it doesn’t change who the target of the October revolution was.
Mark Brady
Nov 26 2020 at 4:35pm
But recognition of what Alexander Kerensky stood for (war) explains greatly the popular support for, and the success of, the October / November Revolution. And that is rarely, if ever, recognized by opponents of that revolution, who view it simply as a minority of Bolsheviks succeeding in overthrowing a democratic regime.
Michael S.
Nov 29 2020 at 7:39am
are you consciously or unconsciously misleading?
”The Bolsheviks’ opposition to Kerensky because of his refusal to withdraw Russia from the war”
You confuse one of two supremely successful slogans (the other was land to the peasants) with the Bolsheviks’ motivation.
As it turned out, they quite consciously eschewed a peaceful political transition via a “Constituent Assembly” («Учредительное Собрание»), which had been the proclaimed goal of all Russian democrats for years (and massacred lots of people demanding it, making their position unmistakably clear). They consequently plunged the country into a civil war which was even bloodier than WW I.
As to the other slogan, they quite consciously took back the land from the peasants (murdering millions more on the way) as soon as they were in the position, about a decade later.
And if you want to discuss motivations: nothing they did was unannounced by strategists like Trotsky. That would be a bit like denying Nazi motivation in the face of “Mein Kampf”
Philo
Nov 25 2020 at 5:31pm
Ignorance of history among American voters is already vast, and the magnifying effect of the NY Times Crossword must be negligible. Your worry is misplaced.
Mark Z
Nov 25 2020 at 8:08pm
I imagine to even many well-educated people, ‘the October Revolution’ is just a synonym for ‘the Russian Revolution’ and the distinction between February and October. Alternatively, was it a goal of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution to execute Nicholas? I don’t know much Russian history but if they were in part motivated to overthrow the provisional government because it was ‘protecting’ the deposed Tsar (from getting the Louis XVI treatment), he could be described as a target of it.
It’s probably tough to make crosswords that aren’t too obvious.
Vivian Darkbloom
Nov 26 2020 at 6:28am
I think this objection goes too far. The clue was “October Revolution target” which is not preceded by “the”. Absent that specific definite article, I think the clue is properly interpreted to mean “a” target not only but especially given crossword puzzle usage. Clearly, the tsar was *a* target of the October Revolution (in addition to those in line to become Tsar) in that the Bolsheviks not unreasonably feared a return of tsarist influence of one form or another (if that had not been the case, the tsar’s (extended) family would not later have been murdered). This holds even if Karensky was also a target and even if Karensky was the main target. While Nicholas II had already abdicated (on behalf of himself and his son) in March, he certainly did not intend to irrevocably end the tsarist role in Russia’s rule. He had, in fact, drawn up a document that named his youngest brother, Grand Duke Michael, the next tsar. Michael did not accept or refuse the appointment; rather, he declined to accept becoming tsar until the Russian people would have approved it. They never got the chance. Michael was later arrested and murdered by the Bolsheviks.
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 26 2020 at 12:01pm
+1 to Vivian’s thoughtful response.
Holding crossword puzzle constructors to historical accuracy (if that can even be adequately defined in a case like this one) is a laughable waste of time. Their goal is to put together a puzzle while providing reasonable clues for the solver. I do the daily LA Times puzzles that the Washington Post carries and often find clues laughable. Evan Birnholz who does the Sunday WaPo puzzles is superb in both theme and construction. He always provides an on-line rationale for his clues and reasoning.
robc
Nov 26 2020 at 1:23pm
You proved David’s point as there was no tsar in October.
Jon Murphy
Nov 26 2020 at 7:26am
Given these two options, I’d say the former. As Walter Williams says, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
I strongly suspect Mr. Eaton-Salners made the same mistake I did and Mark Z points out above: People combine the February Revolution (which targeted the Tzar and his government) and the October Revolution (which targeted the Provisional Government). So, I bet Mr. Eaton-Salners was going off his “common knowledge” of the time period rather than trying to sow an insidious story
David Seltzer
Nov 30 2020 at 6:35pm
Re Toohey, One can institute a dictatorship if a majority of individuals are willing to forfeit their autonomy and blindly follow a leader. Howard Roark refused to do that. He was his own person. He needed no one’s approval. When Toohey asked, “Why don’t you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us.” Roark replied, “But I don’t think of you.” Rand may have used Roark’s red hair as an indication of how rare independent egoists are.
Comments are closed.