[1] Maxim Gorky, though not a participant in the August orientation or tour of the construction site, was chosen as the head editor and leader of the writers' brigade.

[1] Along the way, the writers were intended to have meetings with the “canalarmyists” (Russian: Kanaloarmeitsy from kanal, canal, and armeets, one who is part of the army) where they could interview the inmates and gain direct insight into the reformative aspects of the labor camp.

[1] When writers did meet inmates, they were generally common criminals rather than political prisoners, who would have provided more critical views of the canal's labor methods.

[1] An additional limitation in the writers’ method of collecting information presented itself in the interviews with engineers which were performed through questionnaires delivered weeks to months after the trip itself rather than in person.

[3] A series of “Authors’ Notes” were created as readers read each other's draft manuscripts of chapters and recorded their comments and reactions.

In December the manuscript was passed to the printers and on January 20, 1934, the book was published in Russia, in time for the Seventeenth Party Congress.

These include government decrees, State Political Directorate (GPU) orders, camp bulletins and newspapers, and archival materials.

[3] The volumes also included maps of the canal and the greater waterway, which highlighted the Soviet's ability to transform and reshape landscapes.

Indeed, the new understanding of time extended to the ”five in four” slogan which proudly emphasized that projects within Stalin's Five-Year plan could be completed in four years.

[1] The method of group composition also resembled the technique of montage, which was widely popular during this period in Soviet photography and film.

Although the reality they saw was manipulated, once on the site they could gather the raw materials related to the industrialization project and use that first-hand knowledge to document and create a history.

[1] Within that history, Gorky placed greater emphasis on the social and cultural consequences of the canal project rather than its economic motivation.

For example, despite the many similarities in harsh labor conditions and high fatality rates during the Canal construction and a Tsarist-era boat conduit project, The I.V.

Although the individual translators are never credited, they were likely Soviets working with the intention of creating a version of the narrative that would be palatable to English-speaking readers.

The very existence of an English translation emphasizes the importance of the construction project within Russia and its desire to highlight the achievement to audiences abroad.

[1] Criticism initially focused on a lack of detail about the technical aspects behind the canal's construction or on the inability to capture the topic within a single volume, where many more works would be necessary to do it justice.