Context
Letter from Russia: Contemporary Émigré Writing
Margaret Meklin
It
is no surprise that many Russian writers now reside outside their
native country, since it has been a subconsciously deep-rooted
tradition in Russia to oust its own intellectuals as far as possible.
The other factor contributing to this phenomenon, of course, has been
the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left many Russian-speaking
republics on their own—as a result, there are a number of writers
living in the former republics and abroad who have never been accounted
for by Russian critics and Slavists. During my brief visit to Kazakhstan this past summer I was
assigned to evaluate Musaget, a Russian literary organization that, in
a country suspicious of independent writing and thought, stays afloat
through financial support from a Dutch cultural fund. Musaget’s goal is
to nurture—through its creative writing seminars, contests, and the
literary quarterly Apollinary—emerging avant-garde writers in an otherwise malnourished literary Kazakhstan. Contemporary literature is hardly of any issue in this
ex-USSR republic; Socialist Realism is still the favored genre, ideal
for casting the former Soviet province in a falsely positive and upbeat
light. Writers walking on the sunny side of the page get published by
state-subsidized publishing houses; writers choosing dangerous,
derelict paths, who dare to depict impoverished, impossible lives are
ostracized; writers criticizing the president and his clan are driven
into seclusion and silence. It would be too easy to say that the lack of democracy in
Central Asia is slowing down cultural development. Beside external
barriers, there are internal ones too, such as internalized shame,
self-victimization, and the lack of individualism. The phrase “made in
USSR” is so deeply engraved within anyone born in the Soviet Union that
many generations will have to come and go before this stale mentality
is completely dissolved. In an attempt to preserve the native Kazakh
culture, the Writer’s Union of Kazakhstan, still not free from its
nomenclature, pressures its writers to incorporate “Kazakh motifs” into
their works. With great reluctance the Union admits new members who
write in Russian, openly emphasizing the preference for writers who
write in Kazakh. In general, it can be said that one of the factors slowing
down the literary process in Kazakhstan (and perhaps in other former
republics of the USSR) is ethnic tension. During the Soviet era,
Russian was viewed by many as the language of the oppressor. Once the
republics dissociated themselves from the Soviet Union, they
immediately began instigating ethnic, if not nationalistic, feelings,
subsequently trying to get rid of Russian culture and language at once.
Still, there is a massive Russian presence in Kazakhstan, with Kazakhs
approximating 45% and Russians 35% of the population. Taking into
account that Russian is still widely used in various literary and
academic circles, émigré Russian writing in Kazakhstan remains rather
unimpressive. Overlooked by the local writer’s unions and invigorated
mostly by nonprofit organizations such as Musaget, Russian literature
in the republics of the former USSR is simply ignored in Russia. Dmitry
Kuz’min, a Moscow critic, once wrote in his Internet blog that, its
existence assumed, Russian literature in the former Soviet
republics—where Russian is the native language for many—is of an
extremely poor quality. Whereas a critic or writer from Kazakhstan will
try to catch every “new word” whispered in St. Petersburg or Moscow, it
is unlikely that a columnist from Russia’s cultural capitals would pay
any attention to a publication from Kazakhstan or any of the other
“provinces.” Even the locals in a country starving for democratic freedoms
have little regard for their own authors, preferring contemporary
literature imported from Russia. Shelved under the rubric “contemporary
literature,” the Kazakh bookstores sell fiction and nonfiction from U-Factoria (Ekaterinburg), Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie (Moscow), Inapress (St. Petersburg), and Amfora (Moscow—St. Petersburg). Books in Russian produced locally by
independent nonprofits, such as Musaget, are rejected by salacious
market-oriented bookstores. Russian literature, unlike the fruitful, though frightful,
“white émigré” era, does not flourish even in Europe. Take for instance
the French-Russian literary quarterly Stethoscope, a thinner twin of Kazakhstan’s Apollinary,
devoted in its entirety to new Russian writing. With many similarities
between them—both magazines encourage a writer’s innovation and inner
freedom and display no special penchant for politics or polemics (or,
as the nasty narrator from Nabokov’s Look at the Harlequins would say, they express a “pathological indifference to politics, major
ideas in minor minds, and such vital problems as overpopulation in
urban centers”)—Stethoscope is luckier than its Kazakh counterpart, having secured some distribution in Russia, no matter how miniscule. One of the most prominent of Stethoscope’s
contributors is Andrei Lebedev, a Parisian in the prime of his prose,
who, in spite of a prolific pile of writings in Russian, failed to find
a publisher and financed all his projects himself. His latest
collection entitled Gorodorog [a Russian palindrome for A City of Many Paths]
is an anthology of essays by contemporary Russian writers. Inspired by
Guy Debord and “situationist” ideas about psychogeography as a science
researching the influence of geographic environments on the emotions
and behavior of its émigré inhabitants, Gorodorog, an
insightful analysis of Russian writers living in Lima, San Francisco,
Istanbul, and Krakow, is reminiscent of Dalkey Archive Press’s Amerika: Russian Writers View the United States. There is one feature that Lebedev and the editors of Stethoscope and Apollinary (which claims to be the first journal in Kazakhstan to print an essay
by Jacques Derrida) share: they welcome authors not only from France or
Kazakhstan, but also from Germany, Russia, Romania, the United States,
and other countries. The allure of the literary American dream is so big that many
Russian émigré writers, such as the Guggenheim fellow Mikhail Iossel or
the “Russian debutante” Gary Shteyngart, both originally from St.
Petersburg, have abandoned their Russian word wells and started
drilling in English (this move could prove successful: had Vladimir
Nabokov’s Lolita failed to impress the American public,
Russians, suckers for foreign flattery, would probably still go on
debating whether to consider him great). Many not very well-known, but nevertheless gifted Russians
living abroad, who are not perceived to be “commercial” by various
publishers, are paving and paying their way into the literary scene
with their own dollars, showering money on magazines that will
accommodate them. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the
sluggish literary process in Russia is propelled by literary prizes
given preferably to Russians living in Russia, turning magazines into
fiction factories, wholesale suppliers of on-demand literature for the
patrons, who promote the magazine. The second reason is the assumption
that whoever lives abroad is rich. Often Russians depreciatingly call
their former compatriots ham—not head—hunters, suggesting that the
industrious émigrés, who have left Russia for France or the United
States, are now able to afford hefty portions of ham. Having nothing to do with this stereotype, many Russian
émigrés in the States are eager to participate in group literary
activities that usually take place in New York. One of the major
players on the New York literary scene, Koja Press, is pouring money
not into ham, but into handsomely bound editions, publishing the
literary periodical Magazinnik. A recent success of this press is Edison in Paradise,
a miniature poetry chapbook by the New Yorker Leonid Drozner,
originally from Kharkov, a minimalist poet, prose writer, and painter
with an affinity for the Lianozov Poetry School. The second player on the New York scene is the Ugly Duckling
Presse, with its economically packaged Eastern European poetry series.
One of the upcoming exceptional entrées on this publishing house’s menu
is Arkadii Dragomoschenko, an eloquent essayist and poet of the
language school from St. Petersburg, whose elegant novel Chinese Sun—with
its love for the fluidity of time and flirting, philosophy of language
and Wittgenstein, bicycles, Borges, and bytes (Dragomoschenko is one of
the first Russian writers to use computer terminology in his
works)—will be published by Ugly Duckling (a second volume of essays
titled Dust forthcoming from Dalkey in 2006). An underground guru,
Dragomoschenko is well-known in Russia for his pro-American views, an
image only reinforced by his teaching stints at SUNYBuffalo and the
University of California (San Diego). A frequent lecturer in the
Philosophy department of St. Petersburg University, Dragomoschenko has
positioned himself at the vanguard of intellectual thought. Take
American literati such as Paul Bowles and Eliot Weinberger, Lyn
Hejinian and John Ashbery, Diane di Prima and Allen Ginsberg, or the
Russian philosophers Aleksandr Sekatzky (St. Petersburg) and Mikhail
Yampolsky (United States)—Dragomoschenko has collaborated with all of
them at one time or another, translating and introducing their writings
in Russia through his tightly weaved, erudite essays full of literary
allusions and homemade aphorisms. Regardless of the various attempts of Russian prose writers
in the United States during the nineties, no charismatic figure emerged
aside from already established émigrés of the older generation such as
the late humorist Sergei Dovlatov or the “borderland” essayist
Alexander Genis. Uprooted from the country of their upbringing, writers
who do not mix with New York-based literary Russian circles have almost
no means to reach their audience and their books remain “undiscovered.”
The diminishing interest in Russian affairs does not help either.
Behind the Iron Curtain, the West perceived “the Russians” as a
desperate and bewildered folk, who lost their sophistication soon after
the glasnost era and have become less intriguing. As a result, despite
the violent conflicts in Chechnya or South Osetia and the war waged
against freedom of speech, Russian dissident writers (a niche occupied
in the past by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Yuz Aleshkovsky) have lost
their appeal in the West. Among the émigré writers, Konstantin Pleshakov, who claims to
have been influenced by the rawness of Burroughs’s characters and Vadim
Mesiatz, whose novel Treatment by Electricity became a finalist
for the Russian Booker Prize, were able to get some attention in their
native country. Neither Pleshakov nor Mesiatz, however, were able to
achieve popularity, unlike the aforementioned Alexander Genis, who has
become a Russian Frances Mayes, penning pseudo-ethnographic,
consumeroriented essays on fishing in Philadelphia or gardening in
Great Falls. The reason for the meager response to the works of
Pleshakov and Mesiatz is perhaps the fact that Russians are not ready
yet for true multi-culturalism. A globetrotting tramp and omnisexual
snob hopping planes and flip-flopping from a Mulatto girl to a Greek
boy (because of his gay themes exploration, Pleshakov has been a
welcomed guest in the avant-garde Russian journal Mitin Zhurnal published in Prague) is not a common figure on Russian pages. And yet
in their fiction, both Pleshakov and in their fiction, both Pleshakov
and Mesiatz develop eccentric characters who are equally interested in
French philosophy and fine dining, Russian slang, American slums,
foreign airports, and multi-lingual Internet portals. The intended
absence of a defined plot and the omnipresence of word play put these
authors in a niche of difficult writers and limit their accessibility,
and only a few who have a penchant for bizarre books might find
Mesiatz’s Treatment by Electricity an experimentation written very much in the style of Nabokov’s Ada. As for other émigré literati, the selfcongratulatory
atmosphere never leaves the crowded gatherings of these Broadway
brodskovites, many of whom, borrowing Zinovy Zinik’s expression, “turn
exile into a literary exercise.” Consumed by their experiences of
displacement, these authors fall into the habitual spin of writing
about working in brothels or brooding on a Salvation Army divan while
composing poetry, or better yet, their bittersweet Soviet childhood
seen through the veil of American life—they deny themselves unique
voices, placing higher importance on the excruciating details of their
expatriate existence instead of launching their own stylistic
expertise. One of the more notable books written in this genre is Poor Lass, or Apple, Hen, Pushkin by Yulia Belomlinskaya, a Russian who, having spent fifteen years in New York, recently returned to St. Petersburg. However, the sparse existence of “émigré literature” does not
necessarily manifest the existence of exemplary fiction, which
according to the critic Viacheslav Kuritzyn, is nearly impossible to
find even in the Russian literary capitals. Another Russian critic,
Dmitry Bavilsky, echoes Kuritzyn, stating that Russian writers, skilled
either in avant-garde confessional concoctions reminiscent of unedited
diary entries or in disposable detective stories, cannot find a balance
between the two. The lack or absence of good émigré literature can also
be explained by the critics’ and publishers’ inability to reach out to
the gifted writer residing outside of Moscow or St. Petersburg. With
almost no Russian literary criticism present abroad, writers outside of
Russia do not feel that their literature is of any importance and write
with no hope of seeing their works published. With limited and heavily
biased information available on émigré writing, it is important for
Slavists to stop relying on just the few established critics residing
in Moscow or St. Petersburg and start addressing the issues of this
exiled literature.