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: 10 Nov 92 09:01:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov10.040159.17294
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv

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


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 :)

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

	Does it make a difference?

>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.

	[ my humbly text on Kharms' little stories
	  omitted ]

>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.

	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

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

	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.


>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?
	
	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.


>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!

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


>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.  
 	
	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.


>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?

	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.

	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.

[ stuff by Beckett about Proust deleted ]

>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.  

	Huh? 

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

[ 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.


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

	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 :)

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

	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.