From: verbit@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Venedikt Erofejev: Moskva - Petushki
Keywords: Mockva,Petushki
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:42:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov8.024240.17221
Organization: Sozialistische Patienten Kollektiv

In article <1dfc3rINNjce@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> dima@maths.uwa.oz.au (Dima Pasechnik) writes:

[ regarding the book by Ven. Erofeev ]

>Anyway, Antti had recommended the book as a treatment from hangover, not
>for other purposes. 
>Since you've not read his message from the beginning to the end, as I
>suspect, you've not caught its feeling.

>Maybe the point is that you don't think that "Moskva-Petushki" is REAL
>literature. In this case your letter is quite understandable, however.
>It is in the same line as you don't understand why your attitude towards 
>V.Vysocky may be isulting for other people.
>Thus my remark, though too strong, I agree, was just a reaction to
>Antti's attitude towards the book.

	First of all, I read Antti's article in whole. Second,
	the Erofeev's book is a very good book which is always
	misunderstood by xSoviets. Erofeev wrote Moskva-Petushki
	without trying to write REAL LITERATURE and that's what
	makes this book great: it is completely out of cultural
	connotations. Say, his contemporary and rival Sasha Sokolov
	(SMOGist, too) writes sometimes in similar style, but his
	attitude is drastically different: Sokolov considers
	himself as a writer in traditional sense. Erofeev,
	on contrary, is *in attitude* similar to a (crappy :)
	Russian author Yuz Aleshkovsky. His writings are
	stories from life, which by absolutely mysterious
	reason turn out to be full of majestic poetry.
	Naturally, Aleshkovsky is totally devoid of that.

	To sum it up, Erofeev's credo is naivity with respect
	to any possibly cultural connotation: he works
	as if there were no books written before. 
	
	This is seen even better on other Erofeev's books:
	his "literature criticism" on Vassily Rozanov
	and infamous Leniniana. There, he defies any idea
	of genre: instead of writing a critical essay
	about Rozanov, he raves about hangover, love
	and suicide. Nevertheless, this essay is one
	of the best writtten about Rozanov, even if there
	is almost no of him. I have no idea how it happens.
	Probably because Erofeev displays his love to Rozanov
	better by talking about hangover than any other
	essayist - writing about Suvorin and Russkaya Mysl'.

	Now, Leniniana is *not* a political pamphlet it
	appears to be: as that, this book is devoid of
	any emotion which characterizes this genre.
	The only thing present is a quiet amusement.
	Naturally, the book have nothing to do with 
	politics (and literature in traditional sense
	as well). 

	The idea of Erofeev belonging to a "Real Literature"
	is wrong to the point of being blasphemous:
	he is a way ahead of this.

	Now, about Antti's attitude. In first sentence,
	he compared Venechka with Henry Miller. Latter
	wrote with a clear idea of belonging to a 
	Real Literature (and was belonging to that), 
	so your accusation is vain.

	More, I'd object to this comparison since
	Venechka is a way out of the literature
	in traditional sense: he is rather jester
	whose appearance is (was - alas!) one of literator.

	It is wonderful that outsider Antti detected
	this anti-literature attitude (which he expressed
	by a remark about hangover). It is shameful as
	well that insider (who, I presume, read other books by
	Erofeev and, being an insider, could understand
	more) cannot percieve it and objects to
	an innocent remark with dogmatic pretensions.

	Misha.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet