From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Moskva, Petushki
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:06:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov10.120703.17298
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov10.040159.17294@husc3.harvard.edu>
verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>Ohmygod, it's getting longer and longer...

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

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>>>>>>Erofeev's book contains explicit allusions to books by Ovid, Rabelais,
>>>>>>Goethe, Turgenev, and Pushkin, among many others.  

MV:
>>>And his book on Lenin contains direct quotes from Lenin's letters :)

MZ:
>>It is hardly a book, Misha, -- more of a missal.

MV:
>	Does it make a difference?

Yes, indeed.

MZ:
>>>>Indeed, Kharms' skit consciously exploits the ridiculous veneration in
>>>>which the Russian public holds the names of Pushkin and Gogol.  Try a
>>>>thought experiment: substitute for the above the names of Verbitsky
>>>>and Zeleny, and consider the question of whether the work's meaning
>>>>remains the same, or changes significantly.

MV:
>	[ my humbly text on Kharms' little stories
>	  omitted ]

MZ:
>>Dear Misha, you have avoided answering my question.  At the moment, I
>>am not interested in any other sketches by Kharms; kindly tell me your
>>opinion of the one *you* brought up.

MV:
>	Surely it changes! Substitute "Pakin" and "Rakukin"
>	for Verbitsky and Zeleny and you'll see the difference.
>	Or Gorbunov-Petrakov for Rabinovich. Moreover, I admit
>	that Gogol' and Pushkin are *on their places* in the
>	sketch. This does not exclude Kharms from the great
>	Russian tradition which had have a slogan "Drop Pushkin
>	and Rafael from the Ship of Today" The story is out
>	of any other tradition, though. Connection of
>	Erofeev work with *any* tradition (except SMOG's one :(
>	is much more superficial

First of all, you were the one who brought up Kharms; in this case, I
do believe that the connection is very tenuous, not to say
nonexistent.  As for Erofeev's connection with the literary tradition,
the internal textual evidence is all there; it remains only to be
interpreted, but certainly requires no further confirmation.  By the
way, the Swiss lady is not a terribly good scholar; she is like a
grunt fieldworker gathering ethnographic data from some Polynesian
tribe, whereas the big guys make like Durkheim and Mauss, and read her
trip reports in the comfort of the Bibliotheque Nationale.  Like in
all other fields, in philology the best scholarship is synthetic.

MZ:
>>As you can see, the only quotation is from Erofeev himself.  On the
>>subject of his religion, see the necrologue in _Kontinent_ 67.

MV:
>	You'll never make me believe that a man who
>	created a picture of a chaotic, God-less world
>	like in Moscva-Petushki (and enjoyed this
>	picture) could believe in God. Better to
>	allege the religious belief to Sartre, who
>	quoted Catholic authors a lot more often,
>	and in many cases with rather positive attitude.

Well, there's your problem.  Instead of playing doubting Thomas, go
read Blaise Pascal, a Catholic apologist who created a picture of a
chaotic, God-less world three centuries before Venichka.  I did say
_Deus absconditus_, didn't I? do you need further explanations?

MZ:
>>Say what? at this point, I am not at all interested in the putative
>>political context of the work, on the subject of which I will most
>>likely agree with your thesis, if only by default.  My question stands
>>as formulated: what do you make of the pervasive *religious* imagery
>>in the book? do you think these images are set up only to be
>>destroyed?

MV:
>	Sort of. He uses Rozanov's imagery and clearly
>	cherishes it, but nevertheless he destroys his
>	pathos. The same with angels (and dancing
>	children): they are being desecrated. This
>	could happen only in God-less world: desecrated
>	angels who speak about vodka and children
>	(in Russian literature, usually symbols
>	of Jesus Christ) who are mocking the corpse.

Then I suppose the recurring images of Gethsemane (compare e.g. the
chapter "Moscow to Hammer and Sickle" to Matthew xxvi.36-46) and the
Crucifixion (cf. "lama sabachtani" in the last chapter to Matthew
xxvii.45-46) are meant as blasphemous? give me a break, Misha.  One
does not destroy the pathos by allegorizing his hero as Jesus Christ.

MZ:
>>Do you think it is insignificant that this emblem of his
>>imminent fall comes to have the lower part of his body reduced to tiny
>>fragments and scattered all over the place, while the top half, from
>>the waist up, remains undamaged and standing by the rails?  Come now,
>>this is the sort of question I would ask of a freshman literature
>>student!

MV:
>	This is a typical scene from Vaugh circa Vile Bodies
>	or (once more) Sartre, or... 

I see no connection of this sort.  (By the way, in your holy war
against orthography, I wish you would spare proper names from your
righteous wrath.)  Think of this image as an antithesis to the
Bakhtinian atmosphere of the earlier parts.  (Remember, Venichka was a
philology student around the time Bakhtin's dissertation finally
appeared in print.)  What does it say to you that his narrator is
explicitly set up for a comparison to a man who dies from total
annihilation of his lower parts?

MV:
>	As far as of Erofeev's attitude towards
>	religion, this could be seen as a existentialist
>	or humanist establishment of primate of human
>	over God and Angels (cf Sartre "Electra" or
>	whatever it's called) and as a religious statement
>	of a final reconcilation with God. The scene is 
>	too good written to be a definite statement.
>	This is quite typical for Erofeev: he writes
>	as if he does not care at all about what's
>	true and what belongs where. The literature
>	of empty place :)

I don't know Sartre's "Electra" or whatever it's called; would you
elaborate?  In any case, give me an "existentialist hero", even in the
extended sense that would subsume under this description Camus'
Meursault or Caligula.  Then compare *his* demise with that of
Venichka.  Observe that, in the latter case, there is no proud
defiance, nor is there a last statement of philosophical principle;
instead of metaphysical rebellion, there is Christ-like martyrdom.

MZ:
>>Misha baby, once again -- save your dogmatic claims about "the real
>>meaning" for more credulous audience.  I am not about to take you at
>>your word on this, or anything else.  Just pretend for a moment that
>>you have to demonstrate your views as you might demonstrate a theorem,
>>-- give me sone textual evidence, and argue for them.  

MV:
>	Sorry, I don't have Erofeev online, and I don't
>	even have a translation... Moreover, I don't think there
>	is a translation of Radishchev available.

I assure you that they have both books at the Widener library; in
fact, "M-P" may even be found in Schoenhof's.  As for translations, do
like I did, and roll your own.

MZ:
>>You might start
>>by telling me -- how do you explain all the bloody apostrophes to God
>>and his angels?  Do you think Erofeev is spoofing religion in the same
>>way he spoofs the official culture?

MV:
>	He spoofs *all* culture regardless of it officiality.
>	Say, Rozanov. Or angels. Besides, I guess you know that
>	the trihotomy official-underground-classical 
>	is for wimps :) I don't see why do you think that
>	Erofeev uses it anywhere.

I implied no such thing; the reference to the official culture was
meant to cover "the busts of various scumbags which you see standing
on pedestals all over the city", or the "great quartet" of Venichka's
executioners.

MV:
>	The angels and children are being used in Erofeev's
>	book as creatures without the knowledge of good
>	and evil (quite adequately). As such they appear
>	comically and sometimes evil. This does contradict
>	with religious idea that Angels are messengers
>	from God and as such are saint creatures. Moreover, 
>	depicting Angels as silly and comical
>	(and depicting childrens, who are clearly parallel
>	to angels, as evil), Erofeev does a blasphemy. His
>	iconoclasm does not end with Rozanov, Lenin 
>	(and dissident movement) and Radishchev: 
>	he desecrates angels on the boot. Hope
>	that's clear.

No, that is not clear; in fact, it is clear to me that by depicting
angels as *cruel* (rather than silly and comical), Erofeev emphasizes
the spiritual aspects of his hero's martyrdom.

MV:
>[ stuff by Beckett about Proust deleted ]

MZ:
>>In the context of your political interpretation, to claim that Erofeev
>>deliberately "destroys this pathos and shows that Enlightement ideas
>>in Russia imply only carnage", puts him squarely in the camp of the
>>plebs, mob, rabble, and canaille.  

MV:
>	Huh? 

Read the Beckett passage before eliding it; you will figure it out.

MZ:
>>By contrast, I prefer to regard him
>>as a true artist,

MV:
>[ deleting some parts and quotation ] 
>
>	Why do you think that to say "the artist" of someone
>	means compliment? For me, this is rather insult.
>	Sasha Sokolov is an artist, while Venechka
>	is from other plane of existence. I guess
>	that if you'd call him "the artist" he would be
>	rather disappointed.

Well, it is your *assumption* that Erofeev "is from other plane of
existence"; by contrast, I have *argued* and *concluded* that his
literary values place him *inside* of a certain cultural tradition.
Incidentally, I cannot stand most Modern Christian art, precisely
because of the high level of hypocrisy involved therein (cf. Claudel
or Pasternak); but notwithstanding my differences with their personal
faith, I have nothing but respect for quintessentially Christian
writers like Beckett, Peguy, Erofeev, or Apollinaire.

MZ:
>>  Once again, you are welcome to your own
>>reading, as based on your own personal values, however banal they
>>might be.

MV:
>	That's priceless! You are entitled to be the topic
>	the new issue of my AI exercises, but somehow
>	I am reluctant to post them. Please clarify
>	if you have no objections for me to express 
>	my banality :)

No, Misha, I have no objections to your playing to the canaille.  It
may sadden me a little, but then, at my old age, I am quite used to
disappointment.

MV:
>	And last note: nothing more banal
>	than the dihotomy Art-nonArt and then
>	dropping everything which is not Art
>	as a junk. 

That's your dichotomy, not mine or Beckett's.

>	Misha.
>
> 		I know thy works, and where thou 
>		dwellest, even where Satan's seat
>		is: and thou holdest fast my name, 
> 		and hast not denied my faith, even in
> 		those days wherein Antipas was my 
>		faithful martyr, who was slain among you,
>		where Satan dwelleth.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet