From: verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Moskva, Petushki
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:40:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov16.174101.17510
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv


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

>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.

	I think that in the case of Erofeev the question
	is not of truth, but one of *context* in which
	his book is taken. Clearly, we disagree what
	context is appropriate: you propose one of Roman
	tradition, my guess is the Russian avangarde
	and conceptualism, starting with Silver Age
	and ending somewhere around SMOG. I respect
	your preference, but, as usually with good
	books, the meaning is derivative from context.

	Borges once wrote a story where the contemporary
	Spanish author writes Don Kishot identical to
	Cervantes' one, but due to different context the
	story acquires completely different meaning.
	This is what you are doing with Erofeev:
	putting his work in context of Thomas Aquinat, Beckett
	and Rimbaud (IMO, totally alien one) you 
	completely redefine the meaning of his book.
	
	From the scholarly point of view, that's
	a fine exercise, and I am sceptical enough
	towards the process of truth seeking to
	assume that this is a natural purpose of scholarly
	practice.


>>  [  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.

	A nice exchange...


>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.

	Ditto for Christianity of Parny and Pushkin's
	translation from latter: there are always people
	who will rabidly argue that every particular
	person is Christian. I don't think that this
	discussion could be resolved.

	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.