KARAMAZOV: Secondary Material, Soviet Dostoeology ETC
Talk Le Salon Littéraire du Peuple pour le Peuple
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1QuentinTom
From TGLI thread:
Tomcat have you any information what the communist attitude was towards the brothers ?
More info on this coming up.
Tomcat have you any information what the communist attitude was towards the brothers ?
More info on this coming up.
2QuentinTom
The first chapter of Bakhtin’s Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics is a review of the main Soviet critics, not on BK specifically, but on Dostoevsky’s work as a whole. Summarising from the main bits here, with links to the relevant critics Bakhtin mentions.
Lunacharsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunacharsky
One of the few soviet critics to see the polyphony of D, and attributed it to the social splintering of his era.:
Only the internal splintering of D’s consciousness, together with the splintering of young Russian capitalist society, awoke in D the need to hear again and again the trial of socialist principles and socialist reality – but meanwhile the author heard those trials under conditions as unfavourable as possible to materialistic socialism."
From: "Dostoevsky’s plurality of voices"
Kirpotin
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Valerii+Iakovlevich+Kirpotin
Evidently there was a thaw in Soviet attitudes to D in 1946-48, during the 125 year anniversary of D’s birth.
From the glossary to PODP:
Kirpotin’s task was to integrate Pushkin and D into soviet culture: his approach was to make D respectable by saturating him with quotes from Marx and Lenin .K encouraged a tolerance for D ‘s conservative ideology on the same grounds Lenin had defended Tolstoy: both great novelists “mirrored the contradictions of their epoch.”
Here’s a quote from Kirpotin:
In contrast to the degenerate psychologism of Proust and Joyce, signalling the decline and fall of bourgeois literature, D’s psychologism in his affirmative works is not subjective, but realistic. His psychologism is a special artistic method for penetrating into the very heart of the social relationships which so agitated him, and a special artistic method for reproducing them in the art of the word. D thought in psychologically wrought images, but he thought socially.
Which is utter bollocks, of course.
More later if there is interest.
Lunacharsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunacharsky
One of the few soviet critics to see the polyphony of D, and attributed it to the social splintering of his era.:
Only the internal splintering of D’s consciousness, together with the splintering of young Russian capitalist society, awoke in D the need to hear again and again the trial of socialist principles and socialist reality – but meanwhile the author heard those trials under conditions as unfavourable as possible to materialistic socialism."
From: "Dostoevsky’s plurality of voices"
Kirpotin
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Valerii+Iakovlevich+Kirpotin
Evidently there was a thaw in Soviet attitudes to D in 1946-48, during the 125 year anniversary of D’s birth.
From the glossary to PODP:
Kirpotin’s task was to integrate Pushkin and D into soviet culture: his approach was to make D respectable by saturating him with quotes from Marx and Lenin .K encouraged a tolerance for D ‘s conservative ideology on the same grounds Lenin had defended Tolstoy: both great novelists “mirrored the contradictions of their epoch.”
Here’s a quote from Kirpotin:
In contrast to the degenerate psychologism of Proust and Joyce, signalling the decline and fall of bourgeois literature, D’s psychologism in his affirmative works is not subjective, but realistic. His psychologism is a special artistic method for penetrating into the very heart of the social relationships which so agitated him, and a special artistic method for reproducing them in the art of the word. D thought in psychologically wrought images, but he thought socially.
Which is utter bollocks, of course.
More later if there is interest.
3QuentinTom
There's also this if anyone has access to jstor:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2491527
we need a wikileaks for jstor. don't see why we have to pay for this kind of scholarly information. grumble grumble
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2491527
we need a wikileaks for jstor. don't see why we have to pay for this kind of scholarly information. grumble grumble
4urania1
Opinions of Dostoevsky shifted back and forth. Mary Mackler in her translation of Leonid Grossman’s Dostoevsky: A Biography offers a general summary and some specific quotations from Communist critics.
From Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1930): “many of his historico-biographical and literary-descriptive are interesting in concept and realization . . . as a disciple of Taine, Apollon, Grigoryev and Vyacheslav Invanov, he displays extreme subjectivism and inconsistent methodology in all his works, which weakens them considerably.”
Literary Encyclopedia (1930) criticizes D. for “emphasis on style and evasion of the question of the social causes of specific styles.”
Mackler says “Marxist intellectuals labeled D. as a reactionary and obscurantist.”
Lenin and Gorky both were suspicious. Lenin detested the “arch-noxious imitation of the arch-noxious Dostoevsky by writers who paint all kinds of horrors and frighten themselves and the readers.
Gorky said The Devils was “socially harmful.” Gorky also wrote “of course, one should not frighten others or take fright oneself. But neither should one . . . open wide the sluice-gates of literary sewage.”
A. V. Lunacharsky (first People’s Commissar of Education of the Russian Soviet Republic) gave D. good marks for literary genius but said, “To submit to the direct influence in Dostoevsky is out of the question. This would not only be harmful for the proletariat, it would be shameful and is, in fact, hardly possible. Should such influence be observed in anyone it would be proof of philistine individualism.”
David Zaslavsky wrote in response to Gorky’s aforementioned comment, that one ought to include The Brothers Karamazov as well.
From 1930a-to mid 1950s after Stalin’s death, D. was considered dangerous, reactionary and counter-revolutionary—all the more dangerous for being a talented writer.
Yermilov (Against the Reactionary Works of F. Dostoevsky, 1948) accused his work of being “a betrayal of humanism because it praised meekness.”
Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1952) “Soviet writers and Soviet literary criticism are continuing to fight against the reactionary aspects of Dostoevsky’s works and their canonization by the arms-bearers of foreign reaction.”
B.S. Ryurikov (from journal Kommunist 1956.2) Calls D “a great realist artist, a sharp-eyed and impassioned student of life, an inspired psychologist who knew the human soul . . . but we do not idealize Dostoevsky. To minimize the contradictions in his work, to ignore what is unacceptable to the revolution in it, would be to betray the fundamental interests of the work of educating the working people.”
M. Krapchenko (Kommunist 1971.16) “The view that Dostoevsky world outlook was conservative in all important respects is not true. It is disproved by the ardent protest against social injustice that imbues the writer’s artistic creations, a protest that was not merely spontaneous, but was closely linked with his awareness of social disasters, his inner emotionality and torments. . . . While he did not accept the ideas of revolutionary socialism, Dostoevsky portrayed with extraordinary depth social conflicts from which the only escape was a basic reorganization of social relationships . . . Dostoevsky’s finest artistic creations are an enormous contribution to Russian and world literature. Imbued with the ideas of humanism, they attract the hearts and minds of readers of diverse countries and nationalities. All progressive people of the world highly appreciate Dostoevsky’s works, their enormous role in the spiritual development of mankind. The Russian people, all the peoples of the Soviet Union, are deeply proud that Russia nurtured this literary genius—this incomparable master of literature. Dostoevsky’s word burns with the flame of inspired intelligence and ardent feelings. It is inextinguishable. It has lived intensely, lives, and will live for ever and ever.”
From Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1930): “many of his historico-biographical and literary-descriptive are interesting in concept and realization . . . as a disciple of Taine, Apollon, Grigoryev and Vyacheslav Invanov, he displays extreme subjectivism and inconsistent methodology in all his works, which weakens them considerably.”
Literary Encyclopedia (1930) criticizes D. for “emphasis on style and evasion of the question of the social causes of specific styles.”
Mackler says “Marxist intellectuals labeled D. as a reactionary and obscurantist.”
Lenin and Gorky both were suspicious. Lenin detested the “arch-noxious imitation of the arch-noxious Dostoevsky by writers who paint all kinds of horrors and frighten themselves and the readers.
Gorky said The Devils was “socially harmful.” Gorky also wrote “of course, one should not frighten others or take fright oneself. But neither should one . . . open wide the sluice-gates of literary sewage.”
A. V. Lunacharsky (first People’s Commissar of Education of the Russian Soviet Republic) gave D. good marks for literary genius but said, “To submit to the direct influence in Dostoevsky is out of the question. This would not only be harmful for the proletariat, it would be shameful and is, in fact, hardly possible. Should such influence be observed in anyone it would be proof of philistine individualism.”
David Zaslavsky wrote in response to Gorky’s aforementioned comment, that one ought to include The Brothers Karamazov as well.
From 1930a-to mid 1950s after Stalin’s death, D. was considered dangerous, reactionary and counter-revolutionary—all the more dangerous for being a talented writer.
Yermilov (Against the Reactionary Works of F. Dostoevsky, 1948) accused his work of being “a betrayal of humanism because it praised meekness.”
Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1952) “Soviet writers and Soviet literary criticism are continuing to fight against the reactionary aspects of Dostoevsky’s works and their canonization by the arms-bearers of foreign reaction.”
B.S. Ryurikov (from journal Kommunist 1956.2) Calls D “a great realist artist, a sharp-eyed and impassioned student of life, an inspired psychologist who knew the human soul . . . but we do not idealize Dostoevsky. To minimize the contradictions in his work, to ignore what is unacceptable to the revolution in it, would be to betray the fundamental interests of the work of educating the working people.”
M. Krapchenko (Kommunist 1971.16) “The view that Dostoevsky world outlook was conservative in all important respects is not true. It is disproved by the ardent protest against social injustice that imbues the writer’s artistic creations, a protest that was not merely spontaneous, but was closely linked with his awareness of social disasters, his inner emotionality and torments. . . . While he did not accept the ideas of revolutionary socialism, Dostoevsky portrayed with extraordinary depth social conflicts from which the only escape was a basic reorganization of social relationships . . . Dostoevsky’s finest artistic creations are an enormous contribution to Russian and world literature. Imbued with the ideas of humanism, they attract the hearts and minds of readers of diverse countries and nationalities. All progressive people of the world highly appreciate Dostoevsky’s works, their enormous role in the spiritual development of mankind. The Russian people, all the peoples of the Soviet Union, are deeply proud that Russia nurtured this literary genius—this incomparable master of literature. Dostoevsky’s word burns with the flame of inspired intelligence and ardent feelings. It is inextinguishable. It has lived intensely, lives, and will live for ever and ever.”
5urania1
Interesting piece of trivia,
Grossman's biography includes lots of information obtained in conversations he had with Dostoevsky's widow in the 1920s. Poor Grossman had a tough time of it. He loved D., but for decades wrote nothing on him. Too much was at risk. During the Stalinist era, Dostoevsky enjoyed great esteem outside the Soviet Union, but his reputation within the Soviet Union languished.
Grossman's biography includes lots of information obtained in conversations he had with Dostoevsky's widow in the 1920s. Poor Grossman had a tough time of it. He loved D., but for decades wrote nothing on him. Too much was at risk. During the Stalinist era, Dostoevsky enjoyed great esteem outside the Soviet Union, but his reputation within the Soviet Union languished.
6QuentinTom
superbly useful! thanks Urania! wooohoo!
7LolaWalser
Bakhtin published his first works on Dostoevsky in 1929 and his admiration is unreserved. Whatever the strictures under which Soviet criticism suffered, there simply was no sweeping under the carpet a giant the size of Dodo. Marxed or not, schoolkids had to read him...
Consider the related Russian/Soviet cinematography:
(1910, The Idiot)
(1915, Nikolai Stavrogin, after The Demons)
(1915, Brothers Karamazov)
1931, The House of the Dead
1934, Petersburg Nights (after Netochka Nezvanova and White Nights)
1958, The Idiot
1959, White Nights
1960, Krotkaya
1966, Uncle's dream
1966, The gambler
1966, The swinish incident (don't know usual Anglo translation)
1969, Crime and punishment
1969, Brothers Karamazov
1983, The adolescent
1984, Another's wife and a husband under the bed (don't know usual Anglo translation)
1989, The village of Stepanchikovo etc.
There have been many more stage dramatisations, but they are a hell to track (and Soviet publishing data. Plus I admit I'm lazy on a sunny day.)
Consider the related Russian/Soviet cinematography:
(1910, The Idiot)
(1915, Nikolai Stavrogin, after The Demons)
(1915, Brothers Karamazov)
1931, The House of the Dead
1934, Petersburg Nights (after Netochka Nezvanova and White Nights)
1958, The Idiot
1959, White Nights
1960, Krotkaya
1966, Uncle's dream
1966, The gambler
1966, The swinish incident (don't know usual Anglo translation)
1969, Crime and punishment
1969, Brothers Karamazov
1983, The adolescent
1984, Another's wife and a husband under the bed (don't know usual Anglo translation)
1989, The village of Stepanchikovo etc.
There have been many more stage dramatisations, but they are a hell to track (and Soviet publishing data. Plus I admit I'm lazy on a sunny day.)
8QuentinTom
oh lola, that's too tantalizing for words. don't we get youtube links? I want to see all these movies, simultaneously, with subtitles, please, asap. othjerwise I shall never rest.
The swinish incident: 'A Nasty Incident'
Another's wife and a husband under the bed: 'The Eternal Husband'
interesting big gaps there in the cinamatography, in the teens and 20s, and during the 40s and early 50s. probably someone in Forensics with contacts to the CIA could map those gaps with periods of critical neglect and/or opprobrium.
The swinish incident: 'A Nasty Incident'
Another's wife and a husband under the bed: 'The Eternal Husband'
interesting big gaps there in the cinamatography, in the teens and 20s, and during the 40s and early 50s. probably someone in Forensics with contacts to the CIA could map those gaps with periods of critical neglect and/or opprobrium.
9LolaWalser
I can't guarantee the completeness of data... Odd hole in the seventies, for instance. And, this is feature film only, no television.
