From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Moskva, Petushki
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:08:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov15.130827.17462
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov14.181444.17443@husc3.harvard.edu>
verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>Michael Zeleny writes:

>>In article <1992Nov11.155243.17352@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>>verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

MZ:
>>>>With any luck, your attention span will rise to the occasion.

MV:
>>>       No luck.

MZ:
>>Your loss.

MV:
>	Hmm?

Let me make it clear: either you share my interest in finding out the
true meaning of the work, assuming that there is truth to be discovered
therein, or you are solely concerned about winning the argument.  In the
latter case, please do not bother answering, -- I concede your point by
default.  Life is to short for this sort of interminable bullshit, and I
have other cats to flog.

MV:
>	[ I congratulate myself with 
>	  deleting a lot of irrelevant stuff ]

If you got this far, please pay attention to every word.  Nothing I say
is irrelevant to my argument, just as no part of _Moskva -- Petushki_ is
irrelevant to the understanding of the whole.

MV:
>>>       Well, connection with Rozanov, Radishchev, Lenin
>>>       and some others is pretty obvious; I'd say that
>>>       the persistent claim that it exists (despite
>>>       that no one other claims that it does not)
>>>       is rather banal.

MZ:
>>What is not obvious is how to interpret this connection.

MV:
>	Sure. Not obivous also is why we should
>	make up the interpretation when the connection
>	is trivial. 

Look, just your saying so will not make the connection to Ovid,
Rabelais, or Pascal trivial; indeed, to the extent that I succeed in
arguing to the contrary, the quality of my argument will attest to the
profundity of the connection.  So at this point the ball is in your
court; unfortunately, you are yet to come up with a cogent position
statement, much less an argument, unrelated to Rozanov, whose connection
to _M - P_ is not just trivial, but evidently nonexistent.

MV:
> [ Further on, Zeleny quotes Erofeev who, allegedly, is trying to 
>   communicate some sort of religious message ]

VE:
>>	Shall I tell you why?  Because my soul is ill, but I never
>>	show any sign of it.  Because, as long as I can remember, all
>>	I have done has been to simulate spiritual health, dedicating
>>	to this task every single one of my powers, whether mental, or
>>	physical, or any other.  That is why I am boring.  Everything 
>>	that you talk about, every one of your daily cares, -- all
>>	that is infinitely alien to me.  There.  And of that, which I
>>	care about, -- of that I shall never breathe a word to anyone.
>>	Maybe because I am afraid of being thought a headcase (iz
>>	boyazni proslyt' stebanutym), maybe because of something else,
>>	but anyway -- not a word.   ("Nikolskoe to Altykovskaya")

MZ:
>>Sounds like he is aware of some disorder in his soul, doesn't it?

MV:
>	This is clearly ironic, even in your translation
>	which is highly inadequate: eg, you omit profanities.

Bullshit.  The sole expression which could be said to approach profanity
in the original, is the one I cited, -- `stebanutym'.  If anything, it
is an euphemism for `ebanutym'.  On another level, either you still have
not looked at the text, in which case you are arguing in bad faith, or
you have done so, in which case you are lying.  Either way, there is no
point in continuing this exchange, until and unless you come to your
senses.  Should you fail to do so, you are welcome to have the last word
in this debate.  Otherwise, substantiate your attribution of irony to
the passage in question, and if you believe yourself to be better
qualified, feel free to supply an alternative translation.

MV:
>  [  More translations from Erofeev, with the same degree
>     of accuracy ]

Up yours, Verbitsky.  If you want to pass for a watchdog of accuracy in
academia, then show your credentials.  For all I know, your grasp of
Russian grammar may be of the same quality as your mastery of English.

MZ:
>>I am beginning to wonder whether you have read the same book I am
>>talking about.  In the chapter "Moscow to Hammer and Sickle", Venichka
>>takes stock of his worldly goods:

MV:
>	Hehe, it looks like that... As I read the Russian
>	original, and the translation you use is nothing
>	like it.

See above.

MZ:
>>	I took all my goods out of the little case, and went through
>>	them carefully: from the sandwich to the fortified rose' at a
>>	ruble thirty seven.  I made this inventory -- and suddenly
>>	started pining (zatomilsya).  I did it again -- and withered
>>	(poblek)...  Lord, you see before you the sum of my
>>	possessions.  But is _this_ what I need?  Is _this_ what my
>>	soul is yearning for (po chemu toskuet moya dusha)?  This is
>>	what men gave me instead of that which my soul yearns for!  
>>	And if they had given me _that_, would I have needed _this_?
>>	Look at this, Lord: fortified rose' at a ruble thirty seven...
>
>>	And the Lord, all wreathed in blue lightning, answered me:
>>	-- Do you think St Theresa needs her stigmata?  They are also
>>	not what she needs.  But they are what she longs for (oni ej
>>	zhelanny).
>
>>	-- That's it! -- I replied in ecstasy.  -- And I, -- I too
>>	long for this, but I don't need it!
>
>>	"Well, then, Benny, if this is what you long for, then drink",
>>	I thought to myself (tikho podumal ya), but still hesitated.
>>	Would the Lord say anything more, or won't he?
>
>>	The Lord was silent.

MZ:
>>Now, what was that you said: Venechka does not have inner
>>contradictions between the will to see God in the world and the
>>impossibility to do so?  Methinks you are full of shit.

MV:
>	Only a person with complete absense of the sense
>	of humour can not discern irony there. The same
>	irony that, as Block asserted, destroys the will,
>	the faith and the conscience of a modern generation.

Well, I have news for you: Erofeev is not of Blok's generation.  In
fact, if we are to believe his own count, for the 29 Blok poems he knows
by heart, he can recite 77 of Igor Severyanin.  And if you like irony,
check out the reference to Blok in "Kuskovo to Novogireevo".

MV:
>	I have not detected any of these qualities in
>	Erofeev writings. 

Why does this fact have to be interpreted as indicative of anything more
impressive than a personal failure?

MV:
>			  Surely, the person with 
>	his degree of sarcasm towards religion (and
>	the saint Teresa too) cannot seriously
>	believe in God, especially Catholic God.

Do I have to explain the difference between mockery of the institution,
and denunciation of that, which the institution professes to serve?

MV:
>	Moreover, if you want to attribute Erofeev
>	to Pascal's tradition, please explain me why
>	there is no irony towards God and his
>	angels in Pascal (or other theologist of
>	the same ilk). The Rabelais tradition, on the other
>	hand, is completely anti-Catholic:
>	who do you think finally founded Thelem 
>	sanctuary? 

Misha, the Thelemites may not have had a place to go to Mass, but each
of them had a private chapel.  What do you think Rabelais expected them
to do there, -- jerk off?  It is well known that the utopia of Rabelais
has its origins in the Augustinian identification of freedom and worship
(see the oft-cited article by Per Nykrog in the _Revue d'Histoire
litt\'eraire de la France_, LXV (1965), 385--397), -- indeed, its very
name is replete with evangelical connotations associated with the
author's friend, Erasmus.  It is equally well known that the peculiar
anticlericalism of the author of _Gargantua_ is fully consistent with
his Christian faith, -- just read the famous book on the religion of
Rabelais, written by no less of a historical authority than Lucien
Febvre.

>  [ more deletions ]

MZ:
>>Try the *Catholic* idea of love, as exemplified, say, in _Les fleurs
>>du mal_, for fit with the case of the red-haired broad in "Kuchino to
>>Zheleznodorozhnaya".  You are absolutely right, -- this is not
>>Sonechka Marmeladova; more like Jeanne Duval.

Your response?

MV:
>>>       Reading the same essay and Moscva-Petushki
>>>       you learn that *real* (in the sense of Rozanov)
>>>       Christianity (i. e., love) is, as Erofeev
>>>       puts out, destructive and bound to death
>>>       and materialism.

MZ:
>>I see no connection between this and my thesis.

MV:
>	That's good, but does it mean Catholics worship
>	to death and materialism? I thought that
>	they themselves disagree. Ergo, your interpretation
>	of Catholicism is wrong.

See above.  Incidentally, the question of whether or not Erofeev was a
"good" Catholic, whatever that might mean, has no relevance to this
discussion.

MV:
>>>       BTW, one thing common to Erofeev and Rozanov
>>>       (and Russian esoteric Orthodoxy in general):
>>>       the idea of *impossibility of the sin*.
>>>       There are no sins in Erofeev's world.

MZ:
>>Doubtful about Rozanov, inapplicable to Erofeev.  Complacency, as
>>exemplified in the cited passage, surely is a tragic flaw in the
>>Aristotelian sense, and quite undistinguishable from sin in its
>>consequences.  But even if this were the case, the consequential
>>innocence of the hero would only amplify the Christ-like connotations.

MV:
>	E. g. if Judas would be consequentially innocent
>	as the hero of Moscva-Petushki is
>	you'd attribute to him Christ-like connotations?

Pardon me, but whom does Venichka betray?

MV:
>	That sounds as a typical gnosticism in better
>	traditions of Russian esoterical Orthodoxy
>	(Rozanov, Bulgakov, Andreev, etc.) but 
>	not like anything Catholic. Moreover,
>	this idea was understood by Erofeev well enough
>	to get its destructive consequences:
>	the word without positive moral
>	values (and children-Venechka-Christ, as Erofeev paints
>	them, are clearly amoral due to their innocence)
>	is bound to self-destruction. No wonder 
>	that all Erofeev's books end tragically,
>	and that there are no sinners there.

Dear Misha, the tragic hero must have his tragic fault.  In the passages
I cited above, Erofeev characterizes this fault, in my considered (and
amply substantiated) opinion, quite unambiguously.  Feel free to explain
them in a different manner, but do not bother to repeat your dismissive
sneers, for in that case they will be ignored with the rest of your
reply.

MV:
>  [ more connections with Catholicism, which are
>    clearly sarcastic in original, deleted ]

Misha, your repetitive attempts at proof by intimidation may work with
your colleagues, but leave me quite unimpressed.

>	Misha.
>
>The Dragon's coming out of the see,
>with the shimmering silver head of wisdom looking at me.
>He brings down the fire from the skies,
>You can tell he's doing well by the look in human eyes.
>You'd better not compromise.
>          It won't be easy.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."