From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Erofeev religiosity and his influences
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:31:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov17.203121.17552
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1e8t70INNa8k@agate.berkeley.edu> 
muh@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.182605.17478@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>If you sanction the use of Erofeev as a
>>hangover treatment (I prefer Tylenol #3), would you likewise approve of
>>using Rabelais for ass-wipe?  (Cf. the duscussion of _torchecul_ in
>>Chapter XIII of _Gargantua_.) 

YM:
>The difference between hangover and ass-wipe, is that the ultimate solution
>for the later is found several centures ago. (See beforementioned quote).
>Huge experimental work, made by mankind, and to lesser extend by womenkind
>in solving first problem, did not yield decisive results.

May I assume that you follow the counsel of young Gargantua by using
young goslings (gunsels for Yiddish Bogart fans), held by the neck?

MZ:
>>On the subject of your
>>"refutation", take note that in literary scholarship, like in any other
>>empirical discipline, nothing is ever refuted by claiming absence of
>>evidence.  

YM:
>OK, First general remark on empirical discipline. Do you know the diffrence
>between mathematician and physicist? Here:
>
>Physicist says: There are no elephants in this room.
>Mathematician says: There are elephants, but their number is equal to zero.
>
>As you may see, lack of evidence is accepted in _empirical_ science.

Sorry, but "There are no elephants in this room" lacks the generality
which characterizes a nomological (lawlike) statement.  Now, in an
ideographic discipline, it might do for an observation; however once
we admit that the study of *meaning* is the proper object of literary
scholarship, the domain of our research becomes practicaly unbounded,
comprising the extent of the literary tradition including the work,
and thereby excluding the above sort of statements from playing the
primary part in critical discourse.  To put it differently, the
philologist should be concerned with what *is*, being that he is
hardly ever in a position to pronounce on what is *not*.

YM:
>In the obscure waters of lit.cr. I would use as much clues as possible.

I agree.

YM:
>Finisded work may stand on its own, critisism must lean on something. It's
>better to lean on as many things as poosible, you'll be more stable. I
>still not sure, that finding the who influenced whom is worth the effort,
>but if are decided to do so, notebooks looks like a usefull piece of evidence.

Indeed they are.  As for questions of influence, they are not terribly
interesting in and of themselves; their import is mainly in their
utility for situating the author's own views as part of a certain
historical development.  For instance, should we become convinced by
internal clues, or even by extrinsic evidence, that a certain text by
Rozanov was a primary influence on a certain text by Erofeev, it
becomes sensible to ask just which of the classic's propositions were
accepted by his epigone, and which were reacted against.  In the
process, we are likely to get a clearer understanding of the motives
of the latter, as well as the potentialities implicit in the former.

YM:
>I have not red the notebooks, so I hardly can be a judge, but since you may
>your discussion public, I feel free to interfere. Verbitsky's
>arguments looks more convincing for a stand-byer. I can hardly imagine
>author destroing _only_ notebooks, having quote's of French authors in them. 

My suggestion was made only half-seriously; however there are good
reasons for such strange behavior, which ought to be recognized by
anyone who had the good fortune to live in a totalitarian state.  Also
consider that Erofeev's hero explicitly states that he will talk about
all sorts of frivolous matters, without ever mentioning the subject of
his true concern.  Elsewhere, he habitually uses the typical Russian
figure of derisive ellipsis, of the sort "I won't explain what I mean,
because it is known to every fool".  Sapienti sat.

>Yury M.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky soc.culture.soviet:10062 rec.arts.books:20335