JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EAST-WEST-RESEARCH Archives


EAST-WEST-RESEARCH Archives

EAST-WEST-RESEARCH Archives


EAST-WEST-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAST-WEST-RESEARCH Home

EAST-WEST-RESEARCH Home

EAST-WEST-RESEARCH  January 2005

EAST-WEST-RESEARCH January 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

The flickering aesthetics of Victor Erofeyev (TLS)

From:

"Serguei Alex. Oushakine" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Serguei Alex. Oushakine

Date:

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:04:00 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (249 lines)

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspxstory_id=2109760&window_type=print

The flickering aesthetics of Victor Erofeyev
Oliver Ready
19 January 2005

KHOROSHI STALIN
Victor Erofeyev
383pp. | Moscow: ZebraE. | 5 94663 132 2

LIFE WITH AN IDIOT
Translated by Andrew Reynolds
Victor Erofeyev
242pp. | Penguin. Paperback, £7.99. | 0 14 023621 X


Fame has stalked Victor Erofeyev since his schooldays. On a café veranda on 
the Côte d’Azur in the mid-1950s, a short man in a striped vest asked him 
who he wanted to be. “No one”, Erofeyev replied. Pablo Picasso, his 
interrogator, was impressed, and complimented the child on his musical 
fingers and his eyes “as sad as those of Jean Cocteau”.

The incident is reported in the documentary novel, Khoroshii Stalin (The 
Good Stalin), recently published in Russian and in German, and by some 
margin Erofeyev’s most engaging work to date. Assuming that the conversation 
actually took place, one can agree with the conclusion that the child’s 
reply proved strangely prophetic. Now entering his late fifties, Erofeyev 
has become, in Russia, both a celebrity and a nobody; the lack of mystique 
evoked by his name matches the calculated charmlessness of his fiction. In 
Moscow, where he has been based for several decades, he regularly appears in 
all the media, yet far more is produced by him than about him, while the 
verdict of the literati remains stubbornly dismissive, especially following 
the commercial and critical success in the West of his debut novel Russian 
Beauty (1992). The fact that Khoroshii Stalin first came out in Berlin has 
further entrenched his reputation as a writer for export only.

In Khoroshii Stalin, Erofeyev confronts directly a primary reason for the 
intelligentsia’s antipathy: its refusal to forgive him his “disgusting 
origins”. Erofeyev’s father, to whom the book is dedicated, is the good 
Stalin of the title. Among his postings, this loyal Soviet emissary worked 
in France to promote cultural exchange, and in Senegal and Gambia as 
ambassador; back in Moscow, he worked under Molotov and even as an assistant 
to Stalin himself, translating René Clair’s film Sous les Toits de Paris 
(1930) directly into the Leader’s ear. On the verge of still greater 
honours, Vladimir Ivanovich Erofeyev’s career ended abruptly after his son 
instigated and co-edited Metropol (1979), an unofficial literary almanac 
which provoked a political scandal and led to the emigration of several of 
its better-known contributors. Indeed, Khoroshii Stalin begins with the 
confession: “In the end, I killed my dad”. Yet, not even metaphorical 
parricide ensured Erofeyev’s good name among writers whose respect he 
craved; nor, it seems, has he earned reprieve through his influential 
articles trumpeting the death of Soviet literature in all its guises and 
championing the “alternative” literature whose roots lie in the Soviet, 
non-dissident underground, and which he anthologized in Russia’s Fleurs du 
Mal (1995). In Khoroshii Stalin, Erofeyev resigns himself to his 
unpopularity. With characteristic capriciousness, he delights in the 
memories of his sheltered, “Stalinist” childhood and in the charms of the 
nomenklatura’s retreats, among mushrooms “untouched by the people”.

Erofeyev’s career has also been plagued by a different curse: before it even 
started, another, unrelated, V. V. Erofeyev (Venedikt), had penned 
Moskva-Petushki (1969), the most widely acknowledged classic of Soviet 
underground prose. This absurd, finally wearying, coincidence warrants only 
passing mention in Khoroshii Stalin, but it is treated at length, and with 
admirable good humour, in an earlier essay “Erofeyev vs Erofeyev”: “I met 
Erofeyev for the first time in the lift. He looked straight ahead. I looked 
straight down. We ascended in silence. Both of us knew he was better than me 
in every way. Taller, more handsome, straighter, nobler, more experienced, 
more daring, more stylish, stronger in spirit. And infinitely more talented”. 
Advisedly, the impostor barely takes issue with the legend of homeless, 
meek, vodka-sodden “Venichka”, generated at the intersection of 
Moskva-Petushki and the life of its author. It has endured as Russian 
culture’s standing reproach to the establishment represented by the family 
of the other Erofeyev.

In the same essay, Erofeyev consoles himself that the “vampiric” influence 
of his namesake, who died in 1990, has at least freed him from writer’s 
vanity. It must also have encouraged him in his efforts, quite against the 
Russian grain, to turn the cult of the author into one of his most 
persistent targets, whether in  Khoroshii Stalin (“profound complacency 
accounts for 30 per cent of any given writer; fear of death, 20 per cent; 
belief in his own uniqueness, 50 per cent”) or in his early stories from the 
1980s, which may now be read in this vigorous translation by Andrew 
Reynolds. In Life With an Idiot, literary types appear in many guises, all 
of them idiotic. In “Boldino Autumn”, Sisin is shaken out of his writer’s 
block soon after recalling Ivan Karamazov’s formula, “If there is no God, 
then everything is permitted”; but his creative burst is modest, amounting 
to a dozen variations on the phrase, “Everything is shit”.

The slow death of the Russian author amid the devalued words of his 
ancestors is a theme of both Erofeyevs (one wonders why, given that both 
witnessed, through samizdat, the explosive recovery and discovery of 
numerous literary geniuses and innovators). Moskva-Petushki ends with the 
narrator describing his own death. Victor Erofeyev, by contrast, has sought 
to make a radical break with what he calls the “subjectivism” of his 
forebears. His characters are not allowed to be meaningfully self-absorbed, 
nor to tempt identification with the author; speech is freed from their 
illusory control. Instead, they are subjected to a narrative that jumps 
between place and time, voices and dreams, a “flickering aesthetics”.

Paradoxically, however, a number of the stories collected here prove inert 
and indigestible. It soon becomes clear that what Erofeyev’s Modernist 
experiments actually depend on is a fixation with corpses and various 
“flowers of evil”: torture, aggressive insanity and all-consuming Eros. The 
stories only get going when several of these ingredients are in play; 
indeed, it is only then that narrative is possible at all, and that the 
endless collision of speech registers and citation comes alive. “The 
Parakeet” takes the form of a deranged letter from an unidentified official 
to a father, describing his abuse and murder of the father’s son as 
punishment for the child’s attempts to get a dead bird to fly; in “Cotton 
Wool”, a mother goads her child into suffocating himself with a plastic bag.

Such is the tenor of Erofeyev’s “anti-humanism”, whose premisses he has 
since articulated, with fearless generalization, in his critical 
manifestoes. In his introduction to Russia’s Fleurs du Mal, he attacks not 
just the Soviet cult of optimism and immorality, but also the 
nineteenth-century novelists for making such idiocies possible: nearly all 
of them (including Dostoevsky and Tolstoy) are charged with colluding in a 
false philosophy of hope in mankind, a conspiracy Erofeyev traces back to 
the Enlightenment and forward to the Soviet atrocities committed in the name 
of utopia. Even Turgenev’s nihilist Bazarov, he notes, promoted the belief 
that man is good – it is his circumstances that are to blame.

Life With an Idiot also pursues the concerns of Erofeyev’s earliest essays 
on existentialism and on the Marquis de Sade. Just as Russia had yet to 
recognize itself in Sade’s exploration of violence and eroticism, Erofeyev 
had written in 1971, so too had Russian authors failed to learn from a 
writer who “never wanted to teach or to heal”. The essay, however, rests on 
the same contradiction that would characterize Erofyev’s fiction: just as 
Sade, in Erofeyev’s account, teaches not to teach, the stories in Life With 
an Idiot are oppressively didactic in their overwhelming nihilism, their 
one-sided emphasis on man’s destructive impulses. In the absence of any 
counterweight, the stories seem overdetermined; it is hard to believe 
Erofeyev really means it, even though he has the history of the Russian 
twentieth century on his side. More-over, in a few cases, his experiments 
seem imitative of the “alternative” literary tradition that he would later 
chronicle. Two of the better stories – “Cotton Wool” and “The Maiden and 
Death” – are strongly reminiscent, down to signature linguistic features, of 
the grotesque fictional world of hysterical craziness, domestic cruelty and 
necrophiliac yearnings created in the 1950s and 60s by Yury Mamleyev.

Erofeyev’s most successful marriage of underground themes and “flickering 
aesthetics” occurs in the title story, which has translated well into an 
opera by Alfred Schnittke (1991) and a less well-known, but skilful andn 
unsettling film directed by Alexander Rogozhkin (1993). Andrew Reynolds has 
also succeeded in transferring it into another cultural idiom, showing great 
inventiveness in his wordplay, and replacing Erofeyev’s intentionally 
hackneyed quotations, from Gogol and Akhmatova, with lines from Shakespeare 
and Yeats.

With its provocative title, Erofeyev’s text immediately throws down the 
challenge to its precursors. Against the frequent idealization of the mad 
and the “wholly foolish” in Russian literature, Erofeyev asks what it would 
be like to take them home. Life with an idiot is the narrator’s unexplained 
punishment – and ours as readers. We follow the narrator into the asylum, 
where he chooses an inmate whom he fancies to have a professorial, 
Leninesque appearance and whom he nicknames Vova. The narrator, then, is an 
idealist (or an idiot), looking for a sage (or a dictator). Bringing Vova 
home to his Proust-loving wife, he unleashes the homo-erotic anarchy of his 
befuddled writerly dreams. The interest of the story lies in the fact that 
it is more than parody and more than deconstruction. There is genuine 
tension in the treatment of the madness and ecstasy spread by Vova, as 
Erofeyev revisits the dilemmas of writers of the Silver Age such as Andrei 
Bely (in Petersburg), or Alexander Blok, who, in “The Collapse of Humanism” 
(1919), breathlessly described how the world was ridding itself of a surfeit 
of civilization. The story also continues Erofeyev’s ambivalent engagement 
with Dostoevsky. In The Idiot, Erofeyev observed in an early essay, 
Dostoevsky had shown the failure of “restrained, rational love”: “Only the 
madness of love can save. Only with that kind of love can you carry people 
with you”.

It is probably wise not to seek too many comparisons with “Life With an 
Idiot” when reading the more restrained Khoroshii Stalin, which was written 
almost a quarter of a century later, but which is also based on the 
relations between three people – mother, father and son. In Erofeyev’s 
account of his childhood years in France, which supplies the book’s most 
memorable pages, his mother emerges as a reluctant politico’s wife whose 
dream was to be a literary translator and who was quick to assimilate 
Parisian ways; his father, by contrast, emerges as a reluctant cultural 
attaché who barely ever read a book but who remained  a devoted, even 
ascetic adept of the “good” Stalinist dream:
"I know: my father is a good Stalin. Every family is a Communist cell. The 
father is master: he loves, he hates. Stalin took all Russians for 
children – that’s what they are. I never once saw my father drunk."

As this passage shows, Erofeyev has not abandoned his flickering style or 
his preference for unattributable speech, but here he generally employs 
these devices in a more measured manner and to greater effect, teasing 
historical allegory out of a rich store of personal and paternal testimony. 
The psychological focus of the novel is the son’s vacillation between mother 
and father, between refuge in culture and seduction by power. Erofeyev 
confesses openly to his absurd pride in Stalin’s affectionate treatment 
towards his father, and even to the enjoyment with which he savours the 
barbaric retribution carried out by the Red Army at the end of the Second 
World War.

In contrast to this radical self-exposure and self-damnation, he sculpts a 
vivid biography of a strong and morally consistent father, a “Soviet 
 Candide”. He describes at length his father’s peregrinations in Europe as a 
wartime diplomat, and his refusal of an amputation that seemed to be his 
only hope. He also relates his father’s many narrow political escapes as he, 
or his superiors, fell in and out of favour; and his ultimate act of 
magnanimity towards his son, whom he dissuaded from writing a public 
statement of apology during the Metropol  crisis. More broadly, the father 
serves as a battering-ram by which to arrive at an explanation of the 
enduring status of Stalin as a hero of the people:  "I’ve grown up and 
understood a thing or two: for the West and the greater part of the Russian 
intelligentsia, Stalin is one thing; for many millions of Russians, he’s 
another. They don’t believe in a bad Stalin. They can’t believe that Stalin 
could ever have tortured or killed. The people have squirrelled away their 
image of a good Stalin, saviour of Russia, father of a great nation. My dad 
walked with the people. Don’t insult Stalin!"

Apparently honest to a fault, Khoroshii Stalin is also a deliberate tease, 
as much a mockery of the reader as the earlier stories: are we faced with a 
fiction that reads like an autobiography, or an autobiography disguised as a 
novel? The author’s ageing parents clearly took the former view and, not for 
the first time, the Erofeyev family drama has been played out in the 
national press. In an extraordinary article in Moskovskie Novosti last July, 
Erofeyev describes his parents’ appalled reaction to the book, especially to 
the portrait of the father as
a cultural philistine and to an episode that related their joint beating of 
their son. Erofeyev admits that several of the episodes have been entirely 
made up but refuses to say which ones. Acknowledging and enumerating his 
parents’ criticisms, and reiterating his love for his mother, he 
nevertheless stands by his novelistic approach.

Khoroshii Stalin also prompts reservations of a different nature. The 
bookish sections are unsatisfying, with a lengthy chronicle of the Metropol 
affair substituting for real insight into the literary and artistic circles 
to which Erofeyev remains heavily indebted, especially in his treatment of 
the relationship between artist and authority. His statement, for example, 
that “My Stalin is the great artist of life”, echoes rather loudly a 
celebrated comment by the philosopher Boris Groys, that “Stalin was the only 
artist of the Stalin era”. Elsewhere, the musings on chance and accidental 
guilt recall the concerns of Andrei Sinyavsky, whose Good-night! (1984) is 
another example of autobiographical, Stalin-centred fiction.

Other writers of recent decades may have confronted the past with more 
profound originality (the philosopher Dmitry Galkovsky would be one example 
from a younger generation), but few have commanded Erofeyev’s global 
readership. With Khoroshii Stalin, he persists as a media don for the 
alternative academy of the late Soviet era, exposing to greater light the 
preoccupations of a remote and often hermetic intellectual context. The 
threshold, he states, is his homeland. After a life lived between languages 
and cultures, between the shadows of the powerful (his father) and the 
mythically powerless (his namesake), this is one postmodernist claim to 
which Victor Erofeyev remains uniquely entitled. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager