About Vladimir Mayakovsky

Vladimir Mayakovsky – The Person

“Let the storms hit us

Let the heat burn us,

O, let the hunger too –

We shall look into its eyes,

Shall appease her,

By the foam from ocean alone,

But we are the Masters here!”

Who would believe that the author of these lines, who calls upon the masses to face the difficulties bravely, to put on a confident countenance in the times of trial, himself would be the possessor of a very delicate, tender, gentle heart behind the mask of a lion! This heart would easily get hurt even at the smallest pretext – like the careless ruffle of someone’s dress, the smallest sense of indifference from friends and so on and so forth.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky was a very sensitive person. The love, affection and reputation that he got during the early years after the Great October Revolution made him even more sensitive. He just could not tolerate when he noticed that he was being let down by the powerful members of the RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) and also by the authorities. The times were such that everyone wanted to gain favour from the authorities. This was the case with the intelligentsia too. In order to prove that they are serving the cause of the Revolution, they tried to paint an anti revolutionary picture of the genuine ones and Mayakovsky was one such gem who suffered at the hands of these opportunists. He would come back tired and gloomy from the office of the GOSLITIZDAT (Government Publishing House) – having waited there for ages for someone important (!) and tried to convince him what did not require any proof – throw himself on the bed and would virtually wail, “I – can’t – any…more…!”

In 1930 Mayakovsky organised an exhibition to mark the 20^th anniversary of his service to literature. The exhibition was called “20 years of Work”. IN one of the meetings of the LEF (Left Front of Arts) a committee was constituted to work out the details of its organisation. During the last two months of 1929 Mayakovsky was very busy collecting the material for this exhibition, arranging them in a proper order for the occasion. He was too much involved in this, was too optimistic and enthusiastic about the results of the exhibition – but then started the chain of his misfortunes. First thing that dampened his spirit was the design of the tickets that were printed for the exhibition and were distributed on 29^th January 1930. The very repulsive sight of these tickets was enough to drive people away from the exhibition rather than attracting them. Vladimir Vladimirovich was disturbed. He wanted that everything connected with the exhibition should have a great aesthetic sense – and here everything was being done in just the opposite manner by the organisers who were none other than boys from REF (Revolutionary Front of Arts).

Next day, i.e. on 30th of January someone wrote on the showcase of newspaper Kiosks: “Mayakovsky is beyond the reach of masses”. The organising committee had not met even once and the exhibition proved interesting only thanks to the materials displayed there in (which, obviously, Mayakovsky himself had collected alone).

The exhibition was inaugurated on 1^st February 1930. Lots of people visited it – but these included mainly youngsters. None of the Party leaders, government officials or great men of letters of that time visited the exhibition. As a result of this Vladimir Vladimirovich was deeply distressed.

Mayakovsky had attached a great importance to this exhibition. He wanted recognition from those who were in power. He wanted the Party leaders and government officials to visit the exhibition and say that He – Mayakovsky is a good poet. By this time Vladimir Vladimirovich was tired of struggle, quarrels, scandals, polemics etc. and wanted a decent settlement for himself in the society – enough money and a little comfortable life for his literary pursuits. He had been observing that all sorts of ‘liars and rogues’ live a much better life than him and Mayakovsky felt that he has a right to obtain a few comforts as well as recognition. In order to achieve this goal he had organised this exhibition.

But he did not succeed in his aim. He got nervous, felt humiliated and got converted into just the opposite to the kind of Mayakovsky whom people were used to seeing – the fighter, the fiery orator, the brave writer. This insult, combined with his failure in various love affairs together constitute an atmosphere, where in the person of his kind could not live – and he chose to finish his life.

Vladimir Vladimirovich was basically a very sensitive person who loved life in all its forms – he loved the revolution, arts, his work, women, sunrise, sunset and also the air which surrounded him. His tremendous energy helped him cross all the obstacles in his way. But the indifference shown by whosoever it might be and the fear of old age were the two things which he just could not face.

Vladimir Vladimirovich was very popular among women. Around the World War I he fell in love with Elsa Triolet who was only about 16 at that time. Vladimir Vladimirovich loved with a sense of dominance over the object of his love and demanded complete dedication from her. Soon after his acquaintance with Elsa Triolet’s sister Lily Brik – wife of famous futurist poet Osip Brik – Vladimir Vladimirovich started paying less attention to Elsa Triolet and got emotionally involved with Lily Brik. This intimacy with Lily Brik and dedication to her continued till his death – although a few parallel love affairs also went on simultaneously. He had written:

Love into days we don’t divide,

And never change the names of the beloved.

And when Elsa Triolet commented that though he writes such things but he, on the contrary, is always surrounded by new and new women, he quipped with anger, “I have never been unfaithful to Lilichka. And remember I shall never be!” Without being unfaithful to LIlichka, he demanded from other women that absolute love for him, which he could never give them. But when the woman, knowing that he would not leave Lily Brik and destroy her little life, would not stake her for him, he would become a beast. But if, by chance, someone would bestow upon him her unbounded love – he would run away from her.

This happened with Tonya. Tonya was an artist – simple, ordinary, strong, special, accurate…She just adored Mayakovsky…but due to some reason she threw herself out of window and finished her life.

Mayakovsky moved from one woman to another. He needed them all – but at the same time he longed for a single, dedicated, permanent love.

In 1928, in Paris, Vladimir Vladimirovich had a stormy affair with Tatyana Yakovlevna. Tatyana was fascinated by the great poet, but she was equally afraid of him. Mayakovsky proposed that Tatyana should come back to Russia and he had decided to marry her. But Tatyana was not at all that faithful to him. Firstly, she was scared of the hardships she would face in the new Soviet capital and secondly, she was simultaneously continuing her love affair with her would-be husband. Once Mayakovsky, by chance, saw this and that was the end of it. He was angry, depressed, humiliated. Came back to Moscow and met an actress Veronica Polonskaya, who used to work in theatre. Veronica Vitaldovna gave him that love which he was looking for throughout his life. He wanted to marry her…she too agreed. Mayakovsky insisted that she should leave the theatre, her husband, her rehearsals and should remain devoted to him. She said ‘yes’ to all his demands, but said she would quit the theatre only after completing the assignment she had in hands.

That day – on the 14^th of April 1930, Lily and Osip Brik were in Berlin. Veronica Polonskaya left for rehearsal; Vladimir Vladimirovich was alone in his room. The loneliness, of which he was so scared, took possession of him – and he shot himself down.

What were the reasons which led Mayakovsky to commit suicide? One of the most important reasons was the feeling that he was lonely – though he had friends and he was loved and honoured by them. He wanted to get recognition from the Party bosses, from RAPP: The love and admiration that he used to receive at his poetry recitation sessions were not enough for him. It was like a drop in the ocean for a person who had a ‘hungry thief hiding in his heart’, who demanded that he should be read by those who don’t read him; should be heard by those who don’t visit his poetry sessions; should be loved by that woman who does not love him. He wanted absolute recognition, absolute love, absolute praise and absolute fame. All this was very essential for a sensitive person like Mayakovsky who looked at things in his own way: ‘Someone is late for a game of cards with him, it means that he is not needed by anyone; the girl did not give him a ring, when he was waiting for her call means – nobody loves him. And if it is so – the life is meaningless – and there is absolutely no need to live such life.’

Such casual bouts of depression often tried to lead him to a catastrophe – and a thought about suicide always accompanied Vladimir Vladimirovich like a chronic disease. Even in 1916 he had once attempted to shoot himself. Early in the morning he called up Lili Brik and said: “Good bye, Lilic. I am finishing this life.” She shouted: “Wait for me!” And on reaching there she found the pistol on the table: “Missed the first shot, could not gather courage for a second one,” said Vladimir Vladimirovich like a child, who was caught while committing a mistake. Lily Brik hurriedly removed the pistol from the table, brought Vladimir Vladimirovich home and after a few hours Mayakovsky came our of the melancholy mood. But Lily was scared that Mayakovsky would shoot himself down at the slightest provocation. In 1920 Roman Jakobson had commented: “I can’t imagine Vladimir Vladimirovich in wrinkles. How would he look them?” and Lily Brik answered, “He will never get old…he will definitely commit suicide. He had already attempted once…and one is not always lucky to miss the aim.”

And it turned out that Lily was right. Mayakovsky feared old age like anything. He would always say: “In 35 years one already gets old. I would live for 30 years and then finish myself.”

And all these factors – failure of his play ‘Bath House (it was done systematically by those who wanted to degrade Mayakovsky); marriage of Tatyana Yakovlevna; inability on the part of Veronica Polonskaya to marry him at once; catastrophe with his exhibition, ‘20 years of work’; indifference shown by the Party and the RAPP members; inadequate recognition; negative criticism in newspapers and Lily Brik’s absence from Moscow during that time together constituted the climax – which Vladimir Vladimirovich – that sensitive, gentle, tender poet – could not face and he choose to finish his life rather than living the life with a sense of dejection, depression and humiliation.

*******

B.Pilnyak’s Golyi God

B.Pilnyak’s Golyi God

ORDYNIN HOUSE : MICROCOSM OF SOVIET SOCIETY OF EARLY TWENTIES OF LAST CENTURY

1. Charumati Ramdas

Russian literature has always been reflecting socio-political conflicts very effectively, be it the era of romanticism, modernism, socialist realism and so on. The writers always found ways and means of depicting a true picture of society. The most challenging period for such brave, outstanding writers were the decades of twenties and thirties of the last century, when the ‘purges’ were looming large over the country, when people used to disappear suddenly not to be seen ever again in the society. But the Russian writers had, soon after the Great October Revolution, in spite of strictest possible censure and threats of liquidation, started presenting a true picture of society, of which family is a microcosm.

Boris Andreevich Pilnyak was probably the first Soviet writer, who described the Great October Revolution, as he saw it. The first significant panorama of this Great Upheaval was presented by him in an impressionistic way. Unlike some of his contemporaries like Isaac Babel, who in his work Red Cavalry described the Revolution as one who demands blood, Alekxandr Blok, who expressed symbolically the shock and horror experienced both by the opponents and propagators of the Revolution in his poem The Twelve; Evgenyi Zamyatin who predicted the formation of a post-revolutionary society of identical people who are identified not by names but by numbers in his novel We, Pilnyak in his short story Ivan and Maria wrote, “ I think that the whole Revolution…The Whole Revolution! – smells of sexual organs.”

The very form of the novel Golyi God is anti-western. The traditional components of a novel like character development, plot structure etc., were not acceptable to Pilnyak, as they were not able to reflect the chaos and confusion which the author wanted to express. So Pilnyak chose such a form, which would portray the chaotic, as well as anti-western nature of revolution. Thus the first reading of the novel gives the impression of an unsystematic collection of random jottings, disjointed or unrelated montage of violence and disorder. It seems as if the reader is watching a song sequence on STAR TV. The characters do not develop in the ‘normal’ way – they are presented in an impressionistic manner. They have little or no psychology and appear only to portray different view-points of the revolution, or as the various aspects of pre- and post-revolutionary society the author wishes to portray at a given moment.

In order to depict the social life, PIlnyak describes the lives of a few families – but we can’t still say with guarantee, who are the central characters or which family constitutes the essence of social life. There is the Ordynin family symbolising degenerating noble class; family of communist Arkhip Arkhipov who is the proud representative of future communist society; family of Ivan Koloturov – President of village committee, Olga Kuntz and Laitis, then there is a small village family, which is the symbol of purity for the author, various unconnected, unrelated characters whose lines of action and fates do not at all influence each other. But taken together they succeed in portraying the confusion and chaos that prevailed in the country; it is enough to have a glance at each family and the whole country stands before the readers.

The Ordynins live in a big and strong house which stands as a monument to the past that has now been swept away by the forces of history. The conflict of personalities within its walls represents the ideological conflict outside. For a hundred years the house has stood as a symbol of Tsarism in Russia, just as now its decaying walls and syphilitic inhabitants symbolise both the destructive power unleashed by the events of 1917 and the rotting condition of the society which is on the verge of self liquidation.

Ordynin household consists of two branches – Ordynins and Volkoviches. Volkoviches had only one survivor left – Andrei Volkovich who had joined Bolsheviks after revolution. Ordynins had Prince and Princess Ordynin, their three sons, three daughters and two grand children in this house. A servant maid Marfusha also lived in the house. Out of the three sons Boris was suffering from syphilis, Yegor was a drunkard, Gleb – the youngest was a truth seeking artist, who was celibate and pure. It is obvious, thus, that there will be further expansion of Ordynin family. Out of the three daughters Lydia, an actress, and Katerina, the youngest were also syphilitic. Natalya was a doctor, a Bolshevik, the only hope for future. Boris describes her like this, “Gleb is degenerate, Katerina is degenerate, Lydia is degenerate – Natalya’s the only human being.”

The Princess still clings to her grand routine of distributing the maids’ duties and the old Prince is retreating more and more into a world of make-believe. He has wrapped himself in the overcoat of religion so as to protect himself from the icy winds of revolution.

But the children don’t approve of their parents. Natalya goes to stay in the hospital; grandson Anton Nikolayevich joins the association of young communists; Boris shoots himself; Lydia and Katerina are also on the path of moral degradation.

Then there is the family of Arkhip Arkhipov. This young communist, who wears leather jacket, writes an order to shoot his father, as he is considered enemy of the working class. Father, at the same time, comes to know that he is suffering from cancer and before the CHEKA could shoot him, he shot himself in the mouth.

Natalya and Arkhip Arkhipov finally get married, thus suggesting that they will produce a new line of healthy children. Here Pilnyak introduces another of his favourite notions – the need for the nobility to regenerate itself through intermarriage with the lower classes.

Olga Kuntsova, the soviet young lady, who works in the Peoples’ Polise Department prepares arrest warrants through a copier. She goes to theatres, flirts with influential people, signs search and arrest warrants against whomsoever she wants. She, after an affair with the Head of the Peoples’ Police Department, Ian Laitis, signs arrest warrant against him. But Laitis proves more powerful than Olga Kuntsova and arrests her. Through these characters the general portrai of young soviet women and abuse of power by bureaucrats are reflected. This abuse leads them to their end.

Boris Pilnyak probably suggests that the Revolution has cleaned the society of its vices and a new society of healthy, honest citizens is in the making. But it is not this conclusion or the fates of various characters which is the highlight of the novel. Most astonishing is the form and style of the author.

Before discussing the stylistic characteristics of the novel, let us have a quick look at the arrangement of chapters and their titles. The novel consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Exposition and Conclusion. Further, Introduction consists of two sections : Ordynin Town and China Town. Pilnyak has used similar introductory sections in his novel Mahogany too. While ‘Ordynin House’ traces back the history of Moscow since eighteenth century, undermining apparent stability of capitalist Moscow, the constant symbolic references to China Town, which peeps around the corners at night like soldiers’ buttons, anticipate the return to a consciousness of Oriental antiquity, jolted by the Revolution.

Exposition consists of seven chapters. Chapter I has three sub-sections – ‘Tomatoes sold here’ describes the life in Ordynin Town, depicts the various households, and of how they interact with each other; ‘Olenka Kuntz and the Warrant’ tells about misuse of power and arbitrariness of bureaucrats. This chapter ends with the section ‘The Death of old Arkhipov’.

Chapter II, entitled ‘The Ordynin House’ deals in detail about the members of Ordynin household, their philosophies their way of life in the four sub-sections named, ‘Without a Title’, ‘Two Conversations’, ‘The Old Men’ and ‘Denouements’. In this chapter children of Ordynin family express a genuine, though confused interest in the events going on outside. The conflict between the Old and the New Russia is highlighted. Gleb, like PIlnyak, is unclear in his mind about his attitude to the Revolution. Both welcome it as the destroyer of the capitalist world, but both realise as well that Western influence has actually been enhanced by Revolution. Author emphasis on resurrection of the Oriental past.

For personal interpretation of Revolution, author uses the technique of Skaz in chapter III. Starting from the assumption that the Revolution brings ‘Freedom’, PIlnyak describes in detail how the different characters look at this freedom. Use of Skaz enabled the author to express certain feelings or ideas about the events of the story from the viewpoint and in the speech style of one of the characters. Pilnyak often tells not in his idiom but in that of a vulgar town character, a peasant, a criminal or a news paper. This made possible the inclusion of critical or satirical comments on soviet life for which the author would not have to take responsibility. ‘Through the Eyes of Andrei’, who seeks his freedom among anarchists, freedom means depriving others of their freedom. For Natalya, freedom means being allowed to lead the academic life of an archaeologist, supporting the Revolution, but not actually taking part in it; while for Irina ‘Freedom’ implies arrogance, survival of the fittest, liquidation of the weak. This chapter beautifully reflects the doubts in the author’s mind about the nature of Revolution and whether or not to welcome and support it.

But most telling ic Chapter VII which is about a title and consists of only three single nominative sentences:

Russia

Revolution

Snow Storm

Author probably wants to predict that after the Revolution there will be snowstorm which would destroy everything.

The whole work, as said earlier, lacks continuity in episodes. The reader gets the impression that a few separately published scenes are put together in a haphazard manner. The author has also tried to create some confusion by various other devices. He uses the same names for Bolsheviks and religious sectarians, for doctor Natalya and archaeologist Natalya, one of whom dies and the other marries Arkhip Arkhipov. Pilnyak’s manipulation of time and nature is also striking. Through manipulation of time the author wants to create the impression that though time has moved forward, a new Soviet State has been created – but in fact nothing has changed.

Pilnyak frequently suspends the narrative at a critical point by inserting a depiction of natural phenomena. Various passages of this type emphasise that man is inseparable from nature. He is in fact a part of nature.

In spite of all its confusing and incomprehensible nature, it is clear that through his novel Boris Pilnyak wanted to portray the chaotic state of the country, for which he uses three families and through the fate of these families he succeeded in predicting a healthy future which would be created by joint efforts of Bolsheviks and a few active sympathisers from the old noble class.

*********

Discussion on M&M

Hi!
Hopefully by tomorrow I shall complete uploading Chapter TWO.
This chapter has key to many things...
I know It is not easy to read chapter 2, in that case after chapter ONE, you can go to Chapter 3.
Significance of the theme started in Chapter TWO...I shall tell later.
Good reading!

Shall we discuss M&M here?

Hi! I am uoloading M.Bulgakov's Master and Margarita in Hindi on the blog

http://masteraurmargaritahindi.blogspot.com

So far posted about two chapters. As each chapter is pretty big, decided to split it into small units of 2-3 pages.Read the first chapter and pay attention to the following:

Who are the characters introduced in this chapter?
Where is the action taking place?

Is there any indication of time, space?

Is anything worrying the characters? What are they discussing?
Description of the stranger.

If you want, you can send me answers to these questions. We shall go slowly...when one chapter is uploaded, we shall take it up. Pl don't miss the link. Every thing is important in Bulgakov's works.

Shall respond to your queries if any. 

Two Boys

Two Boys, Two Authors, Two Solutions to Problems

                                                                A.Charumati Ramdas

Children seldom occupy centre place in a literary work. Literature often moves around the elder members of the society. But recently two short stories, dealing with the dreams and ambitions of two eight year old boys, have appeared in fat literary journals. The aspirations of these two boys vis-a-vis the support/opposition they receive from their parents are depicted in two entirely different ways by the authors.

The first among these stories which is going to be discussed here is called Chasyi (The Alarm Clock) written by Elena Olegovna Dolgopyat (b. 28.12.1963). It appeared in the journal Druzhba Narodov, No.8/2004. And the second one is Anton by Nina Victorovna Gorlanova (b.23.11.1947). It appeared in Zarubezhniye Zapiskyi, No.14/2008.

It won’t be out of place to have some information about the two authors:

Elena Olegovna Dolgopyat was born in Murom of Vladimir region in the family of a military officer and her mother was a teacher. She completed the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers and also a course in Script Writing from Vladimir Institute of Cinematography. She is being published in various journals since 1993.

Nina Victorovna Gorlanova is comparatively much elder to Elena Dolgopyat. She was born in a village in the Perm province and is presently stationed at Perm, along with her husband Bukur, who is also a well known writer and in whose co-authorship Nina Victorovna has written a few works. She was even nominated for the Russian Booker Prize.

Nina Gorlanova completed Philology Faculty of the Perm University in 1970. She worked as a junior scientist in Perm Institute, then as a librarian and also methodologist in the House of Pioneers and School Children. She has won many awards; but in spite of that her financial condition is very miserable. She lives in a community flat, her husband is very sick and she too has always been a sickly person. Her neighbour gives her a lot of trouble. All these problems of life get reflected in her works. Having a very thorough knowledge of the child psychology, she, along with her husband, has written Roman Vospitaniya. In the short story, Anton, which is going to be discussed in this paper, one gets a clear glimpse of Gorlanova’s understanding of a child’s inner world.

Coming to the plot of the two stories:

Elena Dolgopyat narrates the story of eight year old Sashka whom his mother has sent to get some bread and sugar. As  Sashka is about to enter the Departmental Store, a very dirty, poor, badly suntanned man in just a coat wrapped over his body stops him and offers an angry alarm clock for money. Hesitatingly, Sashka gives him all the money, that his mother had given him and takes possession of the Alarm Clock.

Sashka comes home. His mother is busy watching a detective movie on the TV. She asks from there itself, “Have you brought?” Sashka answers in the affirmative. During the breaks (when they are showing ads there on the TV) mother enters the kitchen and finds out that Sashka has used the money for clock. Obviously Sashka is scolded and then the mother relents. The clock is placed on the shelf in the kitchen, near a flower vase and mother again goes back to watch her detective.

Sashka tries to bring down the clock and breaks the flower vase. Thanks to the loud chase of cars on the TV, mother does not hear the sound. Sashka gathers the pieces of the broken vase and throws them into the dust bin. He starts examining the angry clock. He notices that instead of the customary two keys, it has a third one as well, which Sashka could move only in the anticlockwise direction. As soon as this extra key is moved, a strange man appears in front of Sashka and asks for his ‘command’. Sashka understands that this man is the ‘genie’ of the alarm clock and asks him to get for himself some bread and sugar, but the man says that his job is only to correct an event in the past.

Sashka first asks him to restore the flower vase…this is done and the man disappears.

Sashka again winds the key and calls him, but suddenly the mother enters the kitchen. Sashka introduces the man to his mother as “he stays in the next building.”

Mother goes back to watch her movie without paying any serious attention to him. And then, Sashka tells the man, “Look! Last year I had broken my leg and so, I could not go for skiing along with other boys. They all went there: Petka, and Seryozha, and Tanka. Taking advantage of my absence Tanka got friendly with Petka, though earlier she was my friend. I don’t care about it at all, but is it possible to do like this, that my leg is not broken and then I would go with others for skiing?”

The man closes his eyes, mutters something in lips, then he opens his eyes and says, “If the fracture in your leg is removed from your past, many things will change in your present. And all the more, Tanka will not be there at all!

“How come?”

“You will be living in another house, will be studying in another school, your mother will get married.”

“How come?”

“This is how….You will go for skiing. She will go to visit her friend; there she will meet a person whom she will marry eventually. You will go to live with him. His flat will be much bigger and better than yours. He will teach you how to drive a car.”

This car, this temptation, does the trick. Though the man tells him that this change will be last change in Sashka’s life; he will not remember anything from his past life, and, of course, the angry clock will also not remain with him, Sashka agrees to everything.

Everything happens as narrated by the man, and in the last scene, Sashka is seen alighting from the car to buy chocolate for his mother. The new father is also there. And the same strange man appears again and offers him the clock for money, but Sashka refuses to accept it even for free and the man vanishes into darkness.

Nina Gorlanova’s Anton is from a more familiar background. Anton’s parents find it difficult to manage everything that their four children would expect.

Here, the mother is complaining that she is unable to buy herself a new purse, while Anton, the eldest of the four children is demanding a bicycle. He argues that it helps in improving the mathematical capabilities of children.

Anton’s classmate Timoshin gifts him his old bicycle which immediately breaks down as Anton’s sisters and their friends recklessly ride it.

The very next day Timoshin gifts it to another boy Gladkov, and so, the bicycle is taken back by Timoshin. It was a heartbreaking episode for Anton, but then the parents buy him the children’s logic kit and using it Anton is able to tell the character of a person. Bicycle could not be purchased for him, but in the month of August, a bicycle is hired for him for one whole week.

Coming to the comparison of the two protagonists:

Anton comes from a very ordinary family. He has three sisters and when his mother complains that she is unable to manage things for all the four children, Anton quips, “You should have thought well about your means and strength before producing the fourth child!”

The mother again complains that she banked upon Anton’s help and here is Anton, driving her mad with his mischief.

When papa does not allow Anton to have an apple at night, Anton shouts and says that he won’t give them any apple in their old age! Papa starts cutting apples into pieces and saving them in a big carton for their old age!

In short, it is a happy family, in spite of non-availability of comforts. They love each other; they fight with each other and live for each other.

This warmth is missing in Dolgopyat’s story. Sashka is a loner. The mother seems least interested in him. While requesting the ‘genie’ to change his past, Sashka does not deem it fit to consult his mother. His mother’s prospective marriage too is not going to make any difference to him, as he is delighted by the thought of getting a car!

Both these children are of the same age…about eight years. In both stories the action starts in the evening. In Alarm Clock it gets over within that evening, while in Anton it lasts for a few more months.

Both the children get what they long for: Sashka gets a car and Anton- a bicycle; in two spells; once as a gift for a day and then, on rent for one whole week! Probably he won’t feel the urge for it later. A very practical solution!

Both the authors have shown fulfillment of their dreams. Dolgopyat uses the magical device which gives instant result; Gorlanova, on the other hand, goes about it in a more practical way, which is easily accepted by the readers. Dolgopyat goes the escapist way, while Gorlanova believes in struggle to achieve the goal.

Gorlanova writes in a very simple, day-to-day manner. The reader feels that he has become a part of Anton’s family, sharing their small joys, small grieves!  Dolgopyat’s description, on the other hand, is like a script for a film. The reader remains a spectator, is eager to know what will happen next.

Gorlanova’s story seems complete in itself, but it still ends with the mention of the bicycle which was broken and repaired and not returned by Timoshin to Anton. The reader understands that this bicycle is not going to find a place in Anton’s future life.

“The Alarm Clock” has an open end. The story ends exactly as it had begun: The same strange man is seen offering his alarm clock to Sashka; but this time Sashka refuses to accept it, thereby indicating that there would be no place for miracles in Sashka’s life in future.

Thus we can conclude that children are slowly finding a place in literature- may be , to a limited extent, and the authors are trying to study their problems, their psyche and making an attempt to fulfill their ambitions in their own way, again depending on their social background and approach to life.

 

Controversy around the novel Dr. Zhivago

Controversy around ‘Dr. Zhivago’

A.Charumati Ramdas

In the history of Russian literature, perhaps no literary work and its author became more controversial than Boris Leonidovich Pasternak and his novel Dr Zhivago.

Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize for 1958 “for outstanding achievement in modern lyrical poetry and in the field of great Russian prose.” Pasternak had to reject this highest honour and his novel could not be published in Soviet Union till 1987. During those stormy days when Pasternak was subjected to total humiliation, he had said, “ – remember – several years hence you will have to reinstate me – there are no two ways about it. This will not be the first such case.”

How rightly did Pasternak say these words! Perhaps every great poet always felt the gap between the age he lived in and eternity, towards which he strives. Boris Pasternak felt this gap even more tragically. He always thought that he was a ‘captive of his times’. But he was sure that as the time passes, his poetry will come out of this captivity and sound in future. Fragments of this captivity are preserved in history and knowledge of them unfolds a whole chain of tragic events which surrounded his immortal novel since its conception.

Boris Pasternak began writing Dr Zhivago a little after the Second World War and he completed it in 1955. Novyi Mir and Znamya had earlier shown interest in publishing Pasternak’s novel.

But as Pasternak became famous in the West and his name started being considered for the Nobel Prize since 1947, authorities started paying attention to him. It was the time when the intelligentsia was facing rough weather in the Soviet Union. Many famous writers were either sent to concentration camps, or killed or tortured. Since Pasternak was already known in the west, he could not be liquidated so easily. So they started writing against him in newspapers and literary journals. The conclusion of all such articles was that Pasternak was an agent of the capitalist world, he was writing against Soviet society and hence Soviet literature cannot tolerate him anymore.

In 1949 Pasternak’s companion and faithful friend Olga Vsevolodovna Ivinskaya was arrested and she was asked to give a brief summary of the ‘anti Soviet’ novel that Pasternak was writing. Ivinskaya wrote that Dr. Zhivago was the life story of a doctor (and also a poet) who suffered a lot in the span between the two revolutions. Ivinskaya was sent to a concentration camp for five years and when she came back in 1955 the novel was complete.

During those years Pasternak developed close contacts with those people who were constantly being ‘watched’, he would openly call Stalin a murderer. He realised that if during that time he escaped untouched, it was because ‘they’ could not force Ivinskaya to write anything against Pasternak. He remained indebted to her.

After the novel was complete it was sent to Novyi Mir as per earlier agreement. But Novyi Mir refused to publish the novel in its present form. They said they would publish only a few chapters. Pasternak understood that the novel won’t be published in the Soviet Union. He decided to give it to people for reading.

As long as Pasternak was busy writing the novel, he aimed only at depiction of reality. He wanted to be honest to himself. But when he read those two beautifully bound brown volumes, he realised that Revolution is not described in them as a ‘creak coated cake’, which has been the practice in the Soviet literature. So it was obvious that the novel won’t be published in the Soviet Union.

Soon approached the year 1956. Novyi Mir neither published the novel nor expressed any adverse comments about it. Even then Pasternak, by then, had not thought of publishing it in the West. But suddenly a few things happened with lightning speed and the novel reached Italy.

It so happened that in May 1956, the Italian Service of Moscow Radio broadcast the news that publication of the new novel of Boris Pasternak is expected. The novel is based on the events of past 70-75 years. This announcement was the beginning of a whole sequence of tragic events.

On hearing the news, famous Italian publisher Feltrinelli sends his representative Sergei D’Angelo to Pasternak with a proposal to publish the Italian version of Dr. Zhivago. Pasternak agreed to this and gave them the novel. Later on when Ivinskaya explained to him that this action might lead to a stormy scandal, Pasternak requested her to get back the manuscript from D’Angelo.

But D’Angelo had already sent it to the publisher and Feltrinelli, after having managed to read it, was bent upon publishing it.

When the literary world came to know about it there were mixed reactions. While some people laughed out the matter, others got wild. Pasternak was asked to get back the manuscript from Feltrinelli or at least request him to stay the publication till the novel was published in Soviet Union. But Feltrinelli did not yield to any pressure and the novel came out in 1957 – first the Italian version, then Russian and then in other 23 languages.  

Soon after Dr. Zhivago was published once again Soviet newspapers and journals sharply criticised Pasternak.

On 23 October 1958 Pasternak was awarded the Nobel prize for his outstanding achievements in the field of Russian literature. Pasternak responded with the words, “…grateful, glad, proud, embarrassed.”

But next morning Konstantin Fedin visited him and threatened that Pasternak should immediately refuse the prize, otherwise the newspapers would start a campaign against him the next day. Pasternak replied that no one can force him to reject this highest honour bestowed upon him, though he is ready to donate the money to the state exchequer.

This happened on 24 October and on 25 October media unleashed a planned conspiracy to torture him psychologically, to pin him down, and to demolish his image. Pasternak was termed as a “venomous citizen”, who openly hates the Soviet people…his novel is “mean, nonsensical, substandard…”

On 27 October the Writers’ Union met to discuss ‘Pasternak affair’. He was also called, but he, instead of attending the meeting send a letter consisting of 22 points. Boris Leonidovich wrote that:

-         It is possible to write Dr. Zhivago and still remain a Soviet citizen. The novel was completed at a time when Dudintsev’s Not by Bread Alone was already published which created the impression of a ‘Thaw’;

-         I gave the novel to an Italian Communist publisher and awaited the censored version of the same. I was prepared to revise the passages that would be suggested by the censor;

-         I thought that Dr. Zhivago would be met with healthy criticism;

-         No one can deprive me of the honour of receiving the Nobel prize, though I am ready to hand over the prize money to the Government Exchequer;

-         I don’t expect any justice from you. You can shoot me, exile me, do whatever you like. I forgive you in advance…I would simply suggest that you don’t act in haste. This will give you neither happiness nor fame.

  On 28 October Literaturnaya Gazeta published a letter signed by almost all famous writers of that time. The letter concluded that Pasternak was a puppet in the hands of capitalists and that he got Nobel prize as a reward for his anti soviet activities. It declared that the Writers’ Union expels him from the Union.

Though the western press was supporting Pasternak, it no longer interested him. On 29 October he wired to Stockholm: ‘In view of the importance which has been attached to the prize by the society to which I belong, I must decline it, and beg you not to be insulted by my voluntary refusal.’

But this did not help to ease out the tension. It was clear that their intention was not only to force him to refuse the Nobel Prize. They wanted to condemn him totally, humiliate him publicly, wanted him to confess all his ‘mistakes and sins’ and apologise publicly. They wanted to conquer this sensitive soul by devilish means. Moscow writers requested the government to deprive Pasternak of citizenship and deport him from the country. But for Pt Jawaharlal Nehru’s intervention, it would have been exile.

To diffuse the explosive situation, Pasternak was made to sign a letter, prepared by the authorities from the various views he had expressed on different occasions. These were put together, distorted, twisted, cut to suit their purpose. Pasternak was too exhausted to protest any more and he wanted to stop all this humiliation, hence he signed the letter, which had the following gist:

Pasternak was forced to declare that the novel was anti-revolutionary and that it was conceived out of his ignorance of the significance of the October Revolution. Further he stated that the award of the Nobel Prize was the result of an anti-Soviet conspiracy by the West to misguide the Soviet people and consequently of his own accord he was rejecting the award. He also assured the Soviet government and the Russians that he would never forsake his beloved country. He concluded with the words: ‘I believe that I shall be able to regain my old fame.’

This letter was published by Pravda on 5 November 1958. But the attacks against Pasternak continued for some more time and then slowly things became normal.

In 1989, during the centenary year of Boris Pasternak, the Nobel Prize Committee decided to recognise Pasternak’s refusal of the Nobel Prize as taken under pressure and therefore invalid, and to hand over the same to the family of the deceased prize winner. It was received by his son Evgeni Pasternak on 9 December 1989.

*******

In short about M.A.Bulgakov

बुल्गाकोव का संक्षिप्त परिचय
मिखाइल  बुल्गाकोव का जन्म युक्रेन की राजधानी कीएव में सन १८९१ में हुआ. उनके पिता कीएव की स्पिरिचुअल अकादमी में प्रोफ़ेसर थे. परिवार बड़ा और पढ़ालिखा था. परिवार में तीन लड़के और चार लड़कियां थीं . 
मिखाइल बुल्गाकोव ने मेडिकल कालेज की पढाई पूरी की, और रूसी क्रांति के उपरांत वे दूर-दराज़ के गाँवों में प्रेक्टिस करने लगे. इन अनुभवों के आधार पर उन्होंने कुछ कहानियां भी लिखी हैं.
जल्दी ही उन्हें इस बात का एहसास हो गया की डॉक्टरी में उन्हें ख़ास दिलचस्पी नहीं है, अत: सन १९२१ में वे खाली हाथ मास्को आ गए, पत्नी के साथ, और डॉक्टरी को पूरी तरह तिलांजलि देकर लेखन कार्य में जुट गए.
अनेक नाटकों तथा उपन्यासों के इस लेखक ने अखबारों में मजाकिया खाके लिखकर अपनी साहित्य यात्रा आरंभ की. साथ ही अनेक कहानियां भी लिखीं जिनमें कुछ डॉक्टरी जीवन के संस्मरण तथा कुछ व्यंग्यात्मक रचनाएं थीं. सन १९२४-१९२६ के बीच उन्होंने तीन लघु उपन्यास लिखे -- दिआबिलियादा (शैतानियत) , रोकोविए यैत्सा (दुर्भाग्यशाली अंडे ) और कुत्ते का दिल(सबाच्ये सेर्द्त्से).
तत्कालीन सोवियत जीवन पर  निर्ममता से प्रहार करने वाली इन रचनाओं के कारण उन पर शासन द्वारा ज्यादतियां की जाने लगी.
बुल्गाकोव ने कुछ नाटक भी लिखे जिनमे प्रमुख हैं : बेग (पलायन), ज़ोय्किना क्वार्तीरा (जोया का फ्लैट), दनी तूर्बिनीख (तूर्बिंन परिवार के अंतिम  दिन ) तथा बग्रोवी अस्त्रोव(लाल द्वीप).
कुछ अन्य रचनाएँ हैं: उपन्यास बेलाया ग्वार्दिया (श्वेत गार्ड ), जो स्वयँ बुल्गाकोव को बेहद पसन्द था; झीज़्न गस्पदीना मोल्येरा (मोल्येर महाशय का जीवन) और तिआत्राल्नी रमान( किस्सा थियेटर का)..
अपना महानतम उपन्यास मास्टर और मार्गारीटा उन्होंने  सन १९२८ में आरंभ किया. अपनी आखों की ज्योति खोकर भी इस उपन्यास को पूर्ण करके सन १९४० में वे हमेशा के लिए इस संसार से बिदा हो गए.
मित्रों, हमारा प्रयास रहेगा की बुल्गाकोव का उपन्यास हिन्दी में आपके सम्मुख प्रस्तुत करें, कठिनाइयां तो अवश्य आएंगी, जैसा की बुल्गाकोव पर काम करने वालों के साथ होता है, पर आशा करते हैं की बुल्गाकोव का सहयोग इस कार्य में हमें प्राप्त होगा.
बुल्गागोव पर बनाए गए ब्लॉग का पता है:
http://masteraurmargaritahindi.blogspot.com
आमीन!    

   

Abot OBERIUs

“OBERIU” and Alexander Vvedensky’s Christmas Tree at the Ivanovs

--A.Charumati Ramdas

Absurd! Incomprehensible! Erotic! – These adjectives are not enough to describe Christmas Tree at the Ivanovs. They, on the contrary, reflect just one aspect of almost all the works of OBERIUs (who were not as well known as the futurists and other formalists of the 20’s of the last century), one of the founder figures of which, along with Daniel Charms , was Alexander Vvedensky.

Russian literature of the first 20-30 years of the XX century was known for formalists as well as for socialist realists. In the post revolutionary-post symbolist scenario, almost every literary group – whether of formalist or socialist leaning tried to assert itself, tried to prove that it was the true representative of their epoch and hope for the future! In fact, during the early 20’s, almost everyday literary groups were emerging and vanishing in quick succession. Only a handful of them could survive for a substantial period of time and leave some imprint on the literature.

As is well known, during the first half of 20’s, young Soviet poetry was in search of new forms of expression. Obviously, the new challenges, the new life demanded a dynamic language that would not remain confined within the four walls of a room! Silence was not the need of the time, but it was the street talk that was required. Typical examples of such a ‘talk’ could serve A.Blok’s The Twelve and V. Mayakovsky’s Mystery Buff.

But, at the same time, some really “incomprehensible” type of poetry was also being written by futurists, where the poet was more concerned with rhythm rather than the communicative function of the language or the social obligation of poetry. Famous among the futurists were Khlebnikov, Kruchenykh, Kamensky, Pasternak, Shklovsky, Mayakovsky etc. To these famous futurists clung a few ‘lesser known’ formalists, but such associations often proved short-lived. Later these ‘less famous’ formalists organised their own groups and continued writing ‘incomprehensible poetry’. Young poets, like A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms, considered their poetry as ‘revolutionary poetry’. One of them, A.Tufanov even proposed an ‘incomprehensible, axial classification of poets’ according to which, “poets within an angle of 1⁰ -40⁰ correct the world, those within 14⁰-89⁰ reproduce, those within 90⁰-179⁰ decorate it. Only the ‘incomprehensibles’ and ‘expressionists’ situated between 180⁰-360⁰, while distorting or reforming it, prove to be the real revolutionaries”.

Though these poets were called ‘Zaumniks’ by the established ones, A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms preferred to be called ‘Chinarists’. They were taken as ‘non-serious’, ‘jokers’ of the new times. In fact they were presenting poetry of a non serious nature where an absurd but lively world was created. Everything was topsy-turvy, abnormal: the dead came back to life, porridge was not eaten but drunk (along with the box!), people walked with their backs forward and all such nonsensical things! In order to create such jokes they not only distorted the form of the ‘word’ but also confused its relation with other words. By doing so, they tried to kill boredom and depression and posed a challenge to ‘realism’ which, according to them, was ‘hypocritical’.

At the end of 1927, the ‘Chinarists’ formed a new group ‘Association of Real Art (Obyedineniye Realnogo Isskustva) or ‘OBERIU’ (ОБЭРИУ) and now, instead of non-serious things they tried to depict the world in a subjective, clear, bright, clean way. The ‘art’ free from the norms of day to day world was indeed the ‘real’ art in their opinion!

“You might suspect,” wrote OBERIUs in their manifesto, “that this is not the same object that you see in life? Go nearer and touch it with your fingers. Look at the object with naked eyes, and you will notice that it is free from the dilapidated literary gilt. You might think that our subjects are ‘non-real’, ‘illogical’? But does art need worldly logic? We appreciate the beauty of a woman’s portrait, ignoring the fact, that contrary to anatomical logic the artist has turned her shoulder blade and shifted it to a side. ‘Art’ has its own logic and it does not destroy the subject, but helps to identify it.”

The group (OBERIU) consisted of only a few poets: A. Vvedensky, Daniel Charms, N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov, I. Bakhterev and B. Levin.

   

Each of them had his own logic, which looked naïve, fantastic.

OBERIUs paid attention not to the idea, not to the subject, nor the form of a literary work, but to something else which was very hazy and incomprehensible to a rational mind, while being comprehensible only to them. They framed their own model of the world, of world order, relations between words seemed illogical in their works but it was convincing, natural. But in spite of its ‘illogical’ nature the poetry of OBERIUs was poetry of thought, of deep and warm ideas.

‘Time’ and ‘Death’ occupy an important place in the works of OBERIUs. Man’s interaction with nature, the dignity of man and other such problems of human life attracted them. The wonderful thing about these problems is that they talked as if on behalf of a child or an eccentric creature or a ‘real thinker’. This enabled them to cast a clear, clean glance at the object. But as a result of this ‘child’s perception of things’, a comical situation is often created. But OBERIUs don’t make fun of life; don’t look at it from the view point of a satirist.

OBERIUs also loved the grotesque, absurd, erotic, unusual, incomprehensible, and fantastic. That is why in spite of not being in the limelight and facing victimisation, the poems of Vvedensky and Charms have not totally disappeared even today. Both of them were famous as ‘children’s poets’ but they also wrote a few things for the grown ups.

In the light of these observations we shall discuss A.Vvedensky’s play Christmas tree at the Ivanovs. Vvedensky’s ‘childish adult’ image is seen here and there in the play. 

*************

Written in 1938 Christmas tree at the Ivanovs consists of four acts comprising a total of nine scenes. The action takes place in the 90’s of the XIX century i.e. two decades before the October Revolution, so it is quite possible that the author acts like a fortune-teller and predicts the events that are likely to take place after two decades of the October Revolution.

A.Vvedensky is fond of Time and does all sorts of experiments with it. A few details deserve special mention:

1. At the beginning and end of every scene, the author does not forget to describe the clock on the wall and the time shown there in. This facilitates parallel depiction of events. In the first scene the clock shows 9.00 o’clock in the evening and the scene ends with the clock showing midnight. In the second scene the action takes place in the nearby wood and the same clock shows the same 9.00 o’clock of night as the beginning and the scene ends at midnight. The position of the clock is also fixed, it is “to the left of the door.” Every scene begins with the mention of time in this clock irrespective of whether the action takes place in the house of the Ivanovs or in the woods, or in the street or in the court, or in a mental asylum. By making the clock show time the author has also shown that the total action lasts for 22 hours i.e. from nine in the evening to 7.00 o’clock next evening. A very good use of this device is made to show simultaneous actions at different places.

2. Another peculiarity is the ‘actors’ of the play. Each one of them deserves a special mention. The author talks about the age of ‘children’, but there is no mention of the age of parents. The youngest is ‘one year old’ Petya Perov. Then comes 8 years old Nina Serova, followed by Varya Petrova, 17; Volodya Komarov, 25; Sonya Ostrova, 32; Misha Pestrov, 76; and Dunya Shustrova, 82. It is interesting to note that the petronym of these children is not the same, though they are the children of same father. But order of the patronyms is rhythmic:

Petrov, Komarov, Pestrov; Serova, Petrova, Ostrova, Shustrova.

The family, apart from these seven children and their parents consists of servants and cooks as well. Among the other characters are teachers of Latin and Greek.

It is clear that this family represents an old aristocratic type of family, symbol of old, pre-Revolutionary Russia.

The plot in short is this:

The Puziryev family is waiting for a Christmas tree, which is scheduled to be decorated the next day. The parents have gone to the theatre. While the children are given bath in a common tub, some altercation takes place between Sonya Ostrova and the maid. The maid cuts off the head of the naughty girl and on the eve of Christmas the first death in the family takes place. The maid is arrested, the Christmas tree is decorated and one by one all the children, followed by their parents, die. Even the judges in the court, where the murderer was tried, die. So, it is death and more death. Death on the eve of Christmas! The Christmas tree, which symbolises birth, witnesses so many deaths. But it is the old, aristocratic system that dies on the eve of birth of something great – the new system. Even those who survive, like the wood cutter and other servants, study and become teachers, this also conforms to the changes that took place in the social system of Russia.

Some expressions are really startling. In the second scene of first act are shown wood cutters who are cutting trees in the wood. The scene begins with their song, but a little later the author explains that they are dumb, and the song which they were singing happened just by chance! And life is full of such accidents!

In the next scene the severed head, on witnessing the melancholy scene around, comments:

 HEAD: Body, did you hear?

BODY: O HEAD, I did not hear anything. I don’t have ears. But I have felt everything.

This is the description of those who don’t hear anything, who remain indifferent to everything around them. The confession of Petya Petrov is also similar: “I can’t speak. I speak by thoughts. I am little, I am a fool, I don’t remember anything!” Such people, as we know, were in abundance in the Society during the 30’s of XX century.

A.Vvedensky, shows his talent as a poet in many dialogues. Some examples will show what sort of poetry he wrote:

Scene eight has this song, which the judges in the court sing one by one:

Russian                                  Transliteration                     Translation

Судим                                 Sudim                                Judging

Будем                                 Budem                              Shall be

Судить                                Sudit’                                  Judging

И будить                             I budit’                              And waking

Людей.                               Lyudei                                 People.

Несут                                  Nesut                                  Carrying

Суд                                    Sud                                       Judgement

И сосуд                              I sosud                                And vessel

На блюде                           Na blyude                              On a plate

Несут                                 Nesut                                   Carrying

На посуде                          Na posude                            In a dish

Судей                                Sudei                                     Judges.

Seventh scene has this song by the dog VERA:

Я хожу вокруг гроба.                     I roam around the grave.

Я гляжу вокруг  в оба.                    I look at both.

Это смерть – Это проба.                 Here is death – Here is trial.

--------------------                           --------------

Жизнь дана в украшение.             Life is given in decoration

Смерть дана в устраешение          Death given in horror

Для чего же разрушениею.            Why then this destruction?

The author has beautifully used proper nouns Kozlov and Oslov with their common noun counterparts: (common nouns Kozlov means ‘goats’ and Oslov means ‘donkeys’):

Зимним вечером Козлов               On a winter evening Kozlov

Щёл к реке купать козлов             Took the goats to the river

Видит ществует Ослов                 Sees approaching Oslov

Он ведёт с реки ослов.                Bringing donkeys from the river.

In the last pathetic scene, when one after the other all the children are dying, Puzireva – the mother asks, “Is there a Sun behind the window?” The question seems ridiculous how could the Sun be there at seven o’clock in the evening in December, when “there is so much snow that you can happily carry it in carts; (scene 2); but there is another contradiction to this in scene 3, when, while describing the setting the author talks about a candle flowing in the river! How could there be water on the surface of river during December! So, it is clear that Puzireva’s question is not about the presence of the Sun, it is about Hope and Optimism which could enable them to live despite their sorrow. But Puzirev’s answer is not at all promising: “How can there be a Sun, when it is still evening.” There is no indication of an earlier end to this evening that has witnessed so many deaths at the same time! The whole Puzirev family dies, two judges die ‘without waiting for Christmas’ and the remaining judges exclaim:

We are scared by two deaths.

A rare event – judge for yourself.

Obviously this refers to the purges of the 30’s when there were deaths everywhere and people were always scared. They pretended not to see, not to say anything. They pretended to be dumb and blind. This was really the order of the day and Vvedensky in this absurd, incomprehensible manner tried to depict the reality of the 30’s when while waiting for a new life, people were dying without any complaint! As if they were waiting for their turn!