Connect with us

Alaska

At different points in their notable careers, cartoonist Shel Silverstein and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explored Alaska

Published

on

At different points in their notable careers, cartoonist Shel Silverstein and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explored Alaska


Soviet exile Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, left, and cartoonist Shel Silverstein both visited Alaska at different points in their careers. (Wikimedia Commons)

Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.

Two weeks ago, this column covered the path of hard-boiled crime writer Dashiell Hammett — a sickly, famous, and nearing 50-year-old member of the Communist Party — as he went from Hollywood celebrity to Army enlistment to his posting in remote Adak. Last week, this column covered the forced several-month sojourn of author and religion inventor L. Ron Hubbard in Ketchikan. Of course, Hammett and Hubbard are far from the only celebrated authors with ties or significant visits to Alaska. From Jack London to freshly minted Pulitzer winner Tessa Hulls, Alaska has lured and inspired numerous writers. This time, let’s look at the two disparate characters, cartoonist Shel Silverstein and Soviet exile Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

In 1960, Sheldon “Shel” Silverstein (1930-1999) was not quite the beloved author and illustrator he would become. The Korean War veteran grew up drawing whenever he could. During his Army tenure, he published a series of cartoons for Stars and Stripes, a transformative experience. In a 1968 interview, he stated, “The Army was the best thing for me as far as my art work went because I didn’t have to worry about coming through any commercial way. I knew I wasn’t going to sell or I wasn’t going to appear anywhere. I could draw what the hell I wanted to draw, so I did. And I ate three meals a day, which is lucky because usually your meals depend on how well your stuff sells.”

After leaving the service, he published a couple of compilations of old cartoons and went to work for Playboy in 1957. There, he began to expand his fame, most notably with a travelogue series called “Shel Silverstein Visits.” Basically, Silverstein was forced to circle the globe and create some cartoons about the experience, shuffling from the likes of Paris to Moscow to Italy. In the summer of 1960, he took off for Alaska and Hawaii, a chance to document life in the new states.

Advertisement

He arrived in Anchorage in mid-July 1960. As would happen elsewhere in Alaska, the Daily News warned locals that he appeared like a “Beatnik” from the neck up but was in fact a gentleman, as indicated by his suit and tie. Silverstein famously went with the shaved head, bearded combination, which is, of course, a well-evidenced signifier of intelligence and manliness in writers. The Nome Nugget likewise warned its readers that the “beatnik,” “bearded young man who is about town with a sketch book” was, in fact, nothing to fear, just an itinerant Playboy representative.

There was something of a nationwide panic then about supposed counterculture youths undermining American society. From the 1950s to the late 1960s, blame shifted from juvenile delinquents to beatniks to hippies as the elders learned new words. To be clear, it is evident that no one in 1960 Alaska had the clearest idea of what exactly a beatnik looked like. Silverstein told the Daily News, “Why, in some places if you don’t wear a tie, you’re a beatnik.”

While in town, he was a judge for the Miss Alaska contest won by June Bowdish. Conversation naturally arrived at the nature of Playmates, and the Daily News asked him how many Alaskans would be worthy. He replied, “We haven’t seen one yet,” a review that sounded worse after he revealed his thoughts on Playmates. “It doesn’t take a mental giant to be a Playmate. We just want good-looking dolls. We don’t care if they have brains.”

From Anchorage, he flew around the state, including stops at Fairbanks, Nome, Kotzebue and Barrow, now Utqiaġvik. With more experience in Alaska, he offered a litany of takes to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Alaska Natives were the “warmest, most sincere people I’ve met.” The sandwiches were “ridiculously skimpy and prohibitively expensive.” On liquor, “It’s absolutely fantastic the amount of liquor consumed in Alaska.” Overall: “If I ever was unhappily married, this would sure be the place to bring my wife on vacation.” Silverstein notably never married.

The May 1961 edition of Playboy featuring an drawings about Alaska by Shel Silverstein. (Provided by David Reamer)

The resultant piece was published in the May 1961 Playboy. Other features in that issue of the urbane men’s magazine include a deeper dive into private airplane ownership, fiction and satire from the most respected authors of the day, an analysis of gambling systems, and something called “The Girls of Sweden,” apparently an exposé on the lack of clothing in the Scandinavian nation. Occasional actress Susan Kell was the centerfold.

Material from the interior may be too mature for some readers, but suffice to say, Silverstein was shocked by the difference between the real Alaska and the version portrayed in television and movies. The introduction notes, “There’s still gold in them thar hills, he discovered, but more panning is done by north country film critics than by adventuresome treasure seekers. Putting the lie to a crop of Hollywood fiction, Shel found nary an igloo, but did find an array of Eskimos weary of flicks about intrigue in the ice domes.” The cartoonist himself said, “Shooting a moose out of season is considered a worse offense than shooting your wife.”

Advertisement

As shown by his cartoons, Silverstein expected a wild country of subsistence hunters, trappers, and assorted wild men and women. Instead, he found pinball machines, electricity and overpriced food. A cook tells him in one cartoon, “OK, OK, so the hamburger was tough. What do you expect for a lousy $3.75, anyway?” After accounting for inflation, $3.75 in 1960 is about $40 in 2025 money.

Silverstein also worried about how the layers of garments affected relationships. In another cartoon, he tells a woman, “Sure, it would be fun, but I’d have to take off my outer parka, then my fur parka, and then I’d have to take off my sealskin vest, and then my sweaters, and then I’d have to take off my flannels, and by that time I’d be too tired.”

This Alaska trip occurred four years before “The Giving Tree” was published, and 21 years before “A Light in the Attic.” Playboy collected the “Shel Silverstein Visits” articles, including the piece on Alaska, in the 2007 book, “Silverstein Around the World.”

To put it simply, the Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) had a different perspective on the world from Silverstein. Solzhenitsyn was an artillery officer in the Red Army during World War II. He was an intellectual sort, deeply scarred by the wartime horrors he witnessed and increasingly critical of Soviet leadership, particularly Joseph Stalin. Unfortunately, he put those criticisms to paper, leading to his arrest in February 1945 and a sentence of eight years in the labor camps, the back-breaking, soul-crushing gulags. The person he might have become was erased, ground into nothing and reshaped by the dehumanizing experience. Yet, the morbid twist is that his subsequent fame and literary relevance were built, in large part, upon those dire years.

Stalin died in 1953. In the years immediately following, the concentrated powers that be in the Soviet Union strove to undermine the cult of personality surrounding the former General Secretary. This de-Stalinization included the previously unthinkable, the publishing of material critical of him and his oppressive regime. And so, under the express permission of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Solzhenitsyn’s first novel was released in 1962.

Advertisement

That book, “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” is a dire, unsettling account of life in a labor camp. Indeed, its title is literal, following the eponymous main character through a day, seeing the stark limits of his agency, seeking only to ensure the arrival of the next minute, grabbing at the smallest increments of success. At the end, the hero gained an extra bowl of mush and a metal scrap that would minutely ease his labor, bricklaying in freezing conditions. It was his best experience in recent memory; “Nothing has spoiled the day and it had been almost happy.”

The gulags were a central aspect of Stalin’s long rule, one of several heavy sticks that ensured obedience. Petty criminals, real and imagined dissidents, ethnic minorities, political rivals, and intellectuals were dispatched to these prison labor camps. Millions passed through the camps. “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was the first time such an open account of Stalinist gulags was published in the Soviet Union, and it became the way many Westerners first learned of the camps’ existence. In 1970, Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. In his acceptance speech, he stated, “During all the years until 1961, not only was I convinced I should never see a single line of mine in print in my lifetime, but, also, I scarcely dared allow any of my close acquaintances to read anything I had written because I feared this would become known.”

But times changed in Russia. Khrushchev was toppled in 1964, and his more open approach to Soviet history was abandoned. Solzhenitsyn’s subsequent works were published abroad. And that Nobel speech was mailed in. He dared not leave the country, afraid he would not be allowed back in. In 1973, he published “The Gulag Archipelago,” a three-volume nonfiction series on the gulag. The next year, he was arrested and deported, sent to live in West Germany.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Father Cyril Bulashevich in Juneau. (Associated Press photo)

On May 27, 1975, Solzhenitsyn landed at Ketchikan and stepped onto American soil for the first time. He had been travelling in Canada, but his arrival in the United States came without fanfare and little notice. From Ketchikan, he and his wife, Natalia Svetlova, rode the ferry to Juneau, where they checked into the Baranof Hotel. Father Cyril Bulashevich, minister at Juneau’s St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church, acted as guide.

Gov. Jay Hammond hosted a small dinner to honor the author. Some press were there, but to their explicit irritation, Solzhenitsyn asked not to be quoted and granted no interviews. As far as he was concerned, this was a “private vacation.” In the gap of actual facts, rumors spread that he was looking to settle in Alaska or perhaps tour the Russian Orthodox churches here.

To be frank, Solzhenitsyn was deeply critical of many, many things about and all over the world, including the inquisitive nature of the Western press. In his 1978 commencement speech at Harvard University, he denounced “the shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan: ‘Everyone is entitled to know everything.’ But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.”

Advertisement

Back in 1975, Solzhenitsyn unsurprisingly struggled with English words. In the most entertaining anecdote from his short stay in Alaska, he was having trouble pronouncing “process” during the Hammond party. He and his wife disagreed on how to say it, and he tossed her their little travel copy of a Russian-English dictionary. The great writer assumed the text would verify his version. Instead, she was right.

They visited Sitka and, on June 1, 1975, left Alaska. In keeping with his private nature, they did not announce their destination or further travel plans. Under perestroika and glasnost, the cultural and political thaws promoted by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, many of Solzhenitsyn’s books were legally published in the country for the first time. In 1990, his citizenship was restored. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he finally returned to his homeland in 1994, where he lived out the rest of his days in a home on the Moscow outskirts.

True to form, he complained that the country had gone to hell, that there was “too much freedom” and crime. He declared, “It is Gorbachev’s glasnost that has ruined everything.” Gorbachev responded, “Well, without glasnost, he would still be living in exile in Vermont chopping wood.”

Silverstein was 29 when he visited Alaska, still in his physical prime, if before his eventual fame. Solzhenitsyn was a worn 56, lines carved deeply upon his face, the ravages of imprisonment, disease, and fear readily apparent in his movements. Two authors so widely different, yet they both found a reason to visit Alaska.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Alaska

Opinion: A new energy project, new risks and new responsibilities for Alaska

Published

on

Opinion: A new energy project, new risks and new responsibilities for Alaska


Speaker Bryce Edgmon speaks with members of the Alaska House at the Alaska State Capitol on August 2, 2025. (Marc Lester / ADN)

Alaska may soon face major decisions about the future of the Alaska LNG project and, if so, the Legislature will need to ensure that every step serves the best interests of Alaskans.

It is essential to remember that Senate Bill 138, the blueprint for state involvement in Alaska LNG, was passed in 2014 for a very different project: one led by ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips, with a key role fulfilled by TransCanada. Today’s project is led by a private-equity developer, Glenfarne, pursuing a structure that diverges dramatically from what lawmakers contemplated more than a decade ago. When a project changes this much, the underlying statutes need to be revisited.

In June, the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s president told his board that AGDC would be coordinating with the developer, the administration and the Legislature regarding legislation needed to support project development. He also noted that AGDC would work with the administration and Legislature on policies required to exercise the corporation’s option to invest 5% to 25% equity at Final Investment Decision, or FID. When AGDC itself signals that legislation is necessary, we should look forward to their outreach.

SB 138 also assigned important responsibilities to the departments of revenue and natural resources that may require legislative action. One key responsibility is the Legislature’s authority to approve major gas project contracts negotiated by the DNR commissioner. The law clearly states that balancing, marketing and gas sale agreements for North Slope gas cannot take effect without explicit legislative authorization. That statutory requirement was intentional and recognizes a project of this scale demands legislative oversight.

Advertisement

We also know that the pressure for speed on complex megaprojects often backfires, sometimes creating more problems than it solves. The Legislature must balance the legitimate need for progress with the responsibility to ensure Alaskans are not asked to assume unreasonable financial risk. As Speaker Bryce Edgmon recently observed, legislation of this magnitude “could dominate the session” and “take significant time.” Senate Finance Co-Chair Bert Stedman was even more direct: if we get this wrong, it could be “detrimental for generations.”

Last week, 4,000 miles away in Washington, D.C., Glenfarne and POSCO International announced a major strategic partnership. It is a meaningful milestone. But Alaska has seen similar announcements before, and it does not diminish the need for hard questions. If anything, it raises them.

Final Investment Decision is when investors and lenders commit billions based on the project’s economics and the state’s fiscal terms. Any legislation affecting property taxes, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes, aka PILTs, state equity, fiscal stability, or upstream royalties and production taxes must be decided before this takes place.

The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee has focused on providing lawmakers and the public with the information needed to understand the choices ahead. I revisited the Legislature’s 2014 “Alaska LNG: Key Issues” report, which helped lawmakers evaluate the original SB 138 framework. Building on that model, I directed our consultants, GaffneyCline, to prepare an updated “key issues” report; not to endorse or oppose the current project, but to provide a high-level overview of potential policy choices, which should be available to the public within the next few days.

The refreshed “key issues” report will be an important starting point. I ask Alaskans to approach it with an open mind and to read it as objectively as possible, free from assumptions shaped by past disappointments or early optimism. Keep asking tough questions of the Legislature, AGDC, Glenfarne and the administration. Don’t assume the project is a done deal or a doomed one. This is not about cheerleading or obstruction, but insisting on rigorous analysis, strong oversight and a fair deal for our children and grandchildren.

Advertisement

Some Alaskans have raised questions about a potential conflict of interest: GaffneyCline is a subsidiary of Baker Hughes, which recently announced agreements with Glenfarne to help advance the Alaska LNG project. I share those concerns, which is why I have met with the Legislature’s director of Legal Services and with GaffneyCline’s North America director. I have been assured by GaffneyCline’s leadership that no one outside the GaffneyCline project team has influenced their analysis, and that their global reputation for independence and trust remains intact. Still, we also must fully vet this issue when we convene in Juneau next month. Transparency and independence are non-negotiable.

The recent ceremony in Washington, D.C., with Glenfarne and POSCO International underscores the project’s potential; however, the authority to determine how and when Alaska monetizes its resources rests here, not with dignitaries celebrating overseas commitments. Our future will be determined in Alaska, by Alaskans, based on the fullest and most honest understanding of the choices before us.

Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, represents Senate District G, which includes Midtown, Spenard and Taku Campbell in Anchorage. Sen. Gray-Jackson serves as the chair of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Trump Repeals Biden Land Protections in Alaska, Other States

Published

on

Trump Repeals Biden Land Protections in Alaska, Other States


President Donald Trump on Thursday signed several congressional measures designed to undo Biden administration land conservation policies restricting energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and federal lands in three Western states.



Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska Hosts US Bomber Exercise Against ‘Threats to the Homeland’

Published

on

Alaska Hosts US Bomber Exercise Against ‘Threats to the Homeland’


The United States deployed two bombers to simulate strikes against “maritime threats” to the homeland in response to a growing Russian and Chinese presence near Alaska.

Newsweek has contacted China’s Foreign Ministry for comment by email. Russia’s defense and foreign ministries did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Why It Matters

Russia and China have closely cooperated in military matters under their “partnership without limits,” including a joint naval maneuver in the north Pacific near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands involving 11 Russian and Chinese vessels in summer 2023.

Facing a growing Moscow-Beijing military partnership, along with increased Chinese activities in the Arctic, the U.S. has been reinforcing its military presence in Alaska by deploying warships and conducting war games with its northern neighbor, Canada.

Advertisement

Bombers, capable of flying long distances and carrying large amounts of armaments, are a key instrument for the U.S. military to signal its strength. The American bomber force has recently conducted operations as a show of force aimed at Russia and China.

What To Know

According to a news release, the Alaskan Command executed simulated joint maritime strikes with Air Force B-52H bombers and the Coast Guard national security cutter USCGC Kimball in the Gulf of Alaska on Tuesday as part of Operation Tundra Merlin.

The bombers are assigned to the 2nd Bomb Wing out of Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, while the Kimball is homeported in Honolulu. The 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska also deployed four F-35A stealth fighters.

Other supporting units included two KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft and an HC-130 aircraft on standby to conduct personnel recovery missions, the news release said.

During the operation, the bombers received target information from the Kimball for standoff target acquisition and simulated weapons use, while the F-35A jets—tasked with escorting the bombers—enhanced mission security and operational effectiveness.

Advertisement

According to an Air Force fact sheet, each B-52H bomber has a maximum payload of 70,000 pounds and is capable of carrying up to 20 standoff weapons—designed to be fired from outside enemy defenses—such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

The simulated strikes “demonstrated the capability of the [U.S. Northern Command] and its mission partners to deter maritime threats to the homeland,” the news release said.

Homeland defense is the Alaskan Command’s top priority, said its commander, U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Robert Davis, adding that the ability to integrate with other commands and partners is key to safeguarding the U.S. northern approaches.

What People Are Saying

U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Robert Davis, the commander of the Alaskan Command, said: “Operations in the Alaskan Theater of Operations are critically important to North American Homeland Defense. Operation Tundra Merlin demonstrates the Joint Force’s ability to seamlessly integrate capabilities from multiple combatant commands and mission partners to deter and defeat potential threats in the region.”

The Alaskan Command said: “Operation Tundra Merlin is a Homeland Defense focused joint operation designed to ensure the defense of U.S. territory and waters within the Alaskan Theater of Operations (AKTO). The operation includes integration with partners in the region with the shared goal of North American defense in the Western Arctic.”

What Happens Next

It remains to be seen whether Russia and China will conduct another joint air patrol near Alaska following a similar operation over the western Pacific earlier this week.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending