Vladimir Mayakovsky: Russian Poet

What do you think about him? My favorite is "The Cloud In Pants".

A Cloud In Trousers - epilogue

Your thoughts,
dreaming on a softened brain,
like an over-fed lackey on a greasy settee,
with my heart's bloody tatters I'll mock again;
impudent and caustic, I'll jeer to superfluity.

Of Grandfatherly gentleness I'm devoid,
there's not a single grey hair in my soul!
Thundering the world with the might of my voice,
I go by — handsome,
twenty-two-year-old.

Gentle ones!
You lay your love on a violin.
The crude lay their love on a drum.
but you can't, like me, turn inside out entirely,
and nothing but human lips become!

Out of chintz-covered drawing-rooms, come
and learn-
decorous bureaucrats of angelic leagues.

and you whose lips are calmly thumbed,
as a cook turns over cookery-book leaves.

If you like-
I'll be furiously flesh elemental,
or - changing to tones that the sunset arouses -
if you like-
I'll be extraordinary gentle,
not a man, but - a cloud in trousers!

Read More......

Nihilism in Russian Literature

Fathers and Sons and Crime and Punishment are two novels that deal with similar issues as well as having what might be considered as parallel characters between the two novels. Both of these great pieces of Russian literature focus on what was a big issue in Russian society during the time they were written, nihilism. Webster defines nihilism as "A doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility". This definition fits our situation of 19th century Russia quite well, for it shows the conflict between the younger (those rebelling) and older generations (the authority).

The main characters in both novels, Bazarov in Fathers and Sons, and Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, are nihilists, and both have close friends who adhere more loosely to these ideals of nihilism. There are, however, some distinct differences in the characters that display themselves over time throughout the novels. We see that Raskolnikov acts out his nihilism; he respects no authority and even commits a double murder to act out his ideals. Bazarov, however, seems to only preach about nihilism and even seems to question himself as the story progresses. These differences in personality traits become interesting once we also begin to compare the living situations, the environments, of these different characters.

In Fathers and Sons, Bazarov and Arkady live in manors with large estates that are taken care of by peasants. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov and Razumikhin live in small apartments in St. Petersburg. After examining these differences in characters and their environments, we can begin to analyze what these differences actually mean, that is what the authors are trying to say through them.

To understand the characters in Turgenev and Dostoevsky's great novels we need to not only understand the persons themselves but their environments as well, for their living spaces reflect and create much of their character. Turgenev's novel, Fathers and Sons, takes place in rural Russia, on large manors such as Arkady's Marino. The open spaces lend themselves for a unique experience, much different from that of the city, especially one such as St. Petersburg.

St. Petersburg is as Dostoevsky says, "the most artificial city in the world". Peter the great ordered it to be constructed after conquering the land it was built on. Many of Russia's resources were spent constructing the city, and it was even forbidden for stone buildings to be created outside of St. Petersburg while it was being built so that all the stonemasons and serfs would work to build St. Petersburg instead of other things. The building itself was very tricky as well, for St. Petersburg lies right on the water in what is essentially a swamp. It is estimated that around thirty thousand people died in the creation of the city.

These details may seem trivial, but by examining them closely and learning about how St. Petersburg was built, we can begin to see the mood that it exudes - the city's personality. This is important because it was not by chance that Dostoevsky chose to use this particular city as the
setting for Crime and Punishment. The city itself creates a stuffy, suffocating sense of claustrophobia that can be felt throughout the story. Add to the general dirtiness of the city the fact that the main character, Raskolnikov lives in a bad part of the city in a tiny apartment that is constantly referred to as a "closet" and you can understand the horrible living conditions that Raskolnikov deals with every day. These conditions contribute to Raskolnikov's "illness" his sense of despair and his nihilism. Raskolnikov seems to be fundamentally different than Bazarov in this way, for Bazarov managed to be a nihilist despite living in relatively good conditions. Raskolnikov's seems to characterize a true, bred from the earth, nihilism that began only when society had pushed Raskolnikov down into the depths of poverty and despair. It is very interesting to look at how Dostoevsky characterizes Raskolnikov's nihilism, for he repeatedly refers to it as is an "illness". (quote) This treatment of Raskolnikov's nihilism paints is as a product of the environment, a reaction to inhumane living conditions. Therefore it can be seen as a true nihilism with just cause behind it, yet it is in the way that this kind of thinking unfolds itself for Raskolnikov through Crime and Punishment that will tell us Dostoevsky's take on this intellectual trend of his time. (discuss if raskolnikov is a real nihilist or just rebelling against circumstances)

Bazarov's conditions are quite different from Raskolnikov's, however, for he grew up in a more rural area of Russia and in a manor instead of an apartment. Instead of having a tiny one room "closet" for all his needs, such as Raskolnikov has, Bazarov's family has an entire manor and even peasants under him that work on the manor. Rural Russia proves to be quite the opposite setting as St. Petersburg as we can see when Arkady has a revelation upon seeing the beautiful landscape and forgets his problems. (quote). At face value it seems very strange that these two similar characters could come from such different environments, but it is only in closer inspection of Bazarov that we can see that they are not necessarily so similar.

Bazarov preaches nihilism to anyone who is there to listen, but never seems to act on his ideals, only talk. This inaction could quite feasibly be connected to the better than average living conditions that Bazarov benefited from. Growing up on a manor with peasants instills a certain mindset of superiority and a sort of managerial leadership - the notion that you can tell people what to do, or what to think in Bazarov's case, and they will do it. After learning of the movement of nihilism in school, it seems as if Bazarov has taken it upon himself to force it onto other people in this way even though he himself is not fully immersed in its ideals. We can see Bazarov's faith in nihilism begin to dwindle as he falls in love with Madame Odintsova and is confronted with a real situation in which nihilism should be applied.

(more info)

Due to the environment which fostered his nihilism, he is unable to follow through with its ideals and succumbs to the forces of love. Comparing this to how Raskolnikov treats a situation in which he can test his nihilistic beliefs and ends up committing a double murder, we can see the difference in character between these two despite their common belief system. Having studied Turgenevs treatment of Bazarov's nihilism through the novel we can now deduce how he, Turgenev, feels about this interesting social movement of his time.

Since Bazarov and Raskolnikov are characters with similar beliefs, by examining how they are treated throughout their respective stories, we can learn a great deal about what the authors' opinions were on these beliefs. Turgenev's character, Bazarov, follows through with the motions of
nihilism but does not seem to completely accept the tenets of this idealism, for he does not act out his belief. As Nietzsche states, nihilism is not just the lack of respect for authority, but it is the act of destroying authority and deconstructing society's values. Although Bazarov does not follow this course of action, it is clear that he does believe in the values (or lack of values) associated with nihilism. From this, one might say that Turgenev is attacking nihilism with this novel, showing how it is a set of values that is easy to preach but impossible to maintain in action, yet Arkady's relationship with Bazarov makes this a much harder interpretation to accept. Arkady idolizes Bazarov, considering him a great influential man. (quote). This other character's notion of Bazarov can show us something of what Turgenev is thinking, and perhaps is why Turgenev's novel was not received well from either the revolutionary (nihilist) group or the conservative group. It is hard to tell just exactly what Turgenev was saying, for he seems to straddle the issue here by presenting these contrasting views. (elaborate)

Dostoevsky, however, is quite clear in how he treats the nihilist movement. Raskolnikov's nihilism is more pure in form, more rooted in reality and experience. Since Raskolnikov is able to pass his test of his values (he commits a double murder instead of falling in love like Bazarov) we can tell that he is a true nihilist. From Dostoevsky's interpretation, this seems to only be possible if you are one of the downtrodden, living in despicable conditions such as Raskolnikov. Therefore, nihilism becomes a reaction, an "illness" associated with the poor and underprivileged. This "illness" causes one to be a delinquent in society, to cause trouble and commit heinous acts. It is therefore delegitimized and associated as a sort of hoodlumism that can attain no useful product. From this analysis we can see that Dostoevsky is blatantly conservative and that Crime and Punishment is an assault on this nihilist intellectual movement of his time. Therefore by analyzing the different environments of Bazarov and Raskolnikov and comparing them with their form of nihilism we learn that Turgenev is unable to take a distinct position on this matter, instead straddling the line in an attempt to please both sides yet ends up angering them, while Dostoevsky unabashedly criticizes nihilism and preaches his own conservative politics.

Read More......

Russian Literature in the 20th Century (3)

Writers began to get excited; Ehrenburg expressed the feeling that circumstances were improving for the literary world of the Soviet Union and that now they need not be afraid of what they wrote. Even with their new found freedoms, some of the administrators of the Union of Writers still clung to the styles and techniques that were required during Stalin's regime. They were very much opposed to the new "formalistic and negative writing" that was emerging.[29] More recent authors feel the best post-Stalin writings that emerged were the ones that had remained true to pre-Stalinist traditions and styles.[30]

Another sign that writers were gaining more freedom was the revival of the authors who had been pulled from the shelves of the Soviet Union. People, whose writings had not been seen for thirty years or more, emerged into circulation again as if nothing had happened. Writers who had been stricken from records reappeared on the lists. Nothing was said as to what had happened to the authors during those years; many having died in "unfortunate" circumstances. Occasionally it was mentioned that an author had "perished after unfounded accusations" but the public in general knew what had befallen the writers.[31]

Through the 1960 and 1970s, there were less government restrictions created and upheld. While the government was still not keen on criticism, it was not as controlling over the literature and press that was published. It allowed authors to speak their minds without fear of retribution. New forms of writing emerged and classical works were revived. Some areas suffered from the restrictions, like the poetry, but were able rebound eventually.

I have had to limit my research up to the 1970s, as I was unable to locate anything of significance past that.

-------------
This article written by Rebbeca Wickert published at associatedcontent.com.


=============
Bibliography

Brown, Deming. Soviet Russian Literature Since Stalin. London: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Ehrenburg, Ilya. Freedom or Death (SovLit.com: 2005) http://www.sovlit.com/war/freedomordeath.html> (5 December 2005).

Frankel, Benjamin ed. The Cold War: 1945-1991. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1992.

Gibian,George. Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw, 1954-1957. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960.

Lowe, David. Russian Writing since 1953: A Critical Survey. New York: Ungar Publishing Company, 1987.

Moser, Charles A., ed. The Cambridge History of Russian Literature. Cambridge, Eng: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Parrish, Thomas. The Cold War Encyclopedia. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.,1996.

Reavey, George. Soviet Literature To-Day. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.

Shneidman, N.N. Soviet Litureaure in the 1970s: Artistic Diversity and Ideological Conformity. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1979.

Simmons, Ernest J., ed. Through the Glass of Soviet Literature: Views of Russian Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.

Struve, Gleb. Russian Literature under Lenin and Stalin: 1917-1953. Norman, Ok.: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1971.

Slonim, Marc. Soviet Russian Literature: Writers and Problems, 1917-1977. New York City: Oxford University Press, 1977.

[1] Marc Slonim,

Soviet Russian Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). 246

[2] Gleb Struve,

Russian Literature under Lenin and Stalin: 1917-1953 (Norman, Ok: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971). 3

[3] Harold Swayze,

Political Control of Literature in the USSR, 1946-1959 (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1962). 8

[4] Ibid., 10

[5] Marc Slonim,

Soviet Russian Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). 4

[6] Ibid.

[7] Deming Brown,

Soviet Russian Literature Since

Stalin (London: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 352

[8] Ibid., 374

[9] Ibid., 352-353

[10] Ibid., 356-357

[11] Thomas Parrish,

The Cold War Encyclopedia (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1996). 258

[12] Ibid., 150

[13] N.N. Schneidman,

Soviet Literature in the 1970s: Artistic diversity and ideological conformity. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1979). 47

[14] Ilya Ehrenburg,

Freedom or Death (SovLit.com: 2005) http://www.sovlit.com/war/freedomordeath.html>

(5 December 2005).

[15] Harold Swayze,

Political Control of Literature in the USSR, 1946-1959 (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1962). 31

[16] Ibid., 37

[17] N.N. Schneidman

Soviet Literature in the 1970s: Artistic diversity and ideological conformity. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1979). 48

[18] Ibid., 3

[19] N.N. Schneidman

Soviet Literature in the 1970s: Artistic diversity and ideological conformity. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1979). 3

[20] Gibian 6

[21] Gleb Struve,

Russian Literature under Lenin and Stalin: 1917-1953 (Norman, Ok: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971). 178

[22] George Gibian,

Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw, 1954-1957 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960). 7

[23] Deming Brown,

Soviet Russian Literature Since

Stalin (London: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 374

[24] David Lowe,

Russian Writing since 1953: A Critical Survey (New York: Ungar Publishing Company, 1987). 8

[25] Ibid., 6

[26] Ibid., 19-24

[27] Ibid., 32

[28] Ibid., 43

[29] George Gibian,

Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw, 1954-1957 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960). 9

[30] David Lowe,

Russian Writing since 1953: A Critical Survey (New York: Ungar Publishing Company, 1987). 47

[31] George Gibian,

Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature During the Thaw, 1954-1957 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960). 10

Read More......

Russian Literature in the 20th Century (2)

Post-war literature is characterized as being devoid of any artistry. It appears that Stalin cracked down on the government bashing and authors that published works with any negative sentiments were shipped off to prison or some other fate. This time was also very treacherous for writers, even those who chose to conform to the government requirements. It was not uncommon authors who believed themselves to be in a safe zone in their work to find themselves in trouble.[17] At times the "safe" topics were not safe.

Any literature that was written after the Cultural Revolution and before Stalin's death noticeably differs from pre-Revolution and Western writings in that the writers were required to convey a message to the people. They were permitted to reflect the authors' style, as John Grisham and Stephen King, but they had to remain with in the standards set by the government.[18] One definition of the requirements is as follows:

...requires from the artist a truthful, historically concrete representation of reality in its revolutionary development. Moreover, truth and historical completeness of artistic representation must be combines with the task of ideological transformation and education of the working man in the spirit of socialism.[19]

This was the "official" method of Soviet Literature, known as socialist realism. The only literature that was published were writings that had been conformed to the requirements set forth by the Soviet leaders.

The mid 1950s is considered the beginning of the thaw in Russian literature. With the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet government eased up on the restrictions writers faced trying to have their works published. The next three years would see important changes take place for writers. Topics and ideas which had been considered taboo during Stalin's lifetime were not as unmentionable now as they once were. How World War II was viewed in literature also changed. During the war and up until the 1950s, the Russian soldiers and government were the heroes, often exaggerated, and nothing bad could be said against them. The end of the decade allowed more freedom to write the actual truth and nothing more.

Following Stalin's death, as soon as a month afterwards, some writers began to question and criticize the system that had been in place for the last thirty years or so. One of the first people to do so was poet Olga Berggolts. She had been asked during a poetry
program to add something a little more lyrical than what had been read. After examining the works that had been produced under Stalin, she saw that there was nothing all that lyrical about the poetry that had been written during the last ten years. This she blamed on the Soviet government's restrictions that had been placed on writers and not allowing them to write about "the most important thing...humanity, the human being."[20] What people were writing about were construction machinery and the outside of a person, nothing worthy of being called beautiful.

Russian poetry, which had previously dominated literature, began its decline about 1925. Poets for some reason stopped writing poetry and turned to fictional writings and those that did stick with poetry tried prose instead of lyrical. They were attempting to bring the two forms closer together in content and style.[21] The quality of Russian poetry did not improve. Stalin must have had something against poetry as well. He personally ordered several poets out of the country or had them arrested for one reason or another. This did not help the problem any. After Stalin's death, poetry was in dire need of help.

A prominent author, Vladimir Pomerantsev, said that the latest writings were bad for the simple reason that they did not give an accurate sense to reality. They polished up the disagreeable facts and gave a more pleasant description compared to what was actually true. Pomerantsev also blamed the government for guiding the writers astray, but also blamed the writers for following along so willingly. Ilya Ehrenburg, a famous war-time writer in favor of authors gaining creative freedom, said "Books cannot be ordered or planned,"[22] meaning that if good literature is desired there can be no restrictions or guidelines to what can or cannot be done. The post-Stalin government eventually realized the damage to the literary world that had been cause and made an effort to rectify the problem. They saw a need for a renewed sense of culture and aesthetics. While authors were still subject to government scrutiny, they were encouraged to get creative in their works.[23]

Since the Cultural Revolution, censorship had been a major obstacle in the literary world, especially when the Soviet government was first being established and during the post-war era. Many authors who were not of the Soviet era were removed from libraries in 1946 and forced into oblivion because their writings were too liberal, too contemporary for Soviet tastes and might be harmful to the literary world.[24] The next seven to eight years was a time where originality and independence for writers was non existent. Editors at companies were replaced and many writers were exiled or sent to prison. Throughout the mid to late1950s, the works of authors, living and dead, were slowly revived and their writings brought back into circulation. Even if they had not originally been removed from the shelves, these authors' works would not have had much effect on the common people. Even though the government denied it, the average Soviet reader had limited access to any writings that might have been available.[25]

Following Stalin's death, another area of writing began to prosper; memoirs and histories. The wish to give an accurate view of their experiences compelled many people who had been in prison or in exile to write about what they went through during their imprisonment. This was a taboo topic while Stalin was in power, and still even more so after he died. It would not do to have the late Soviet leader's name tarnished by bad reports of why people were arrested and what took place in the prisons of the Soviet Union.

Not surprisingly, countries would not publish the memoirs where the author gained the materials necessary to write their book. Since they could not find publishers within the Union, authors went to companies in Ann Arbor, New York, Paris and Milan to have their works published.[26] It was not just prison memoirs that had difficulty being published; some prominent Soviet workers who realized that what the Party was doing was not right wrote about their experiences to expose the wrong-doing that took place. Raisa Berg, a geneticist, gave an eyewitness account of the chaos Trofim Lysenko, an impostor, had on the biological and genetic research done in the Soviet Union. It was not until she emigrated to the United States in the late 1970s was she able to publish her book in 1983.[27]

Forms of writing expanded significantly after 1953. The literature that was in circulation was large, boring novels, fabricated histories and exaggerated propaganda articles. Short stories reemerged towards the end of the decade through the beginning of the 1960s.[28] Two types of prose also evolved at this point too; country and urban prose. Each gave a differing view point of contemporary lifestyles in Russia and the Soviet Union. Writers, since 1953, seemed to have a tendency to recreate the past in their works. But for no apparent reason, no one wanted to touch the time periods before 1900; they stuck with the current century. [part 3]

Read More......

Russian Literature in the 20th Century (1)

Here in America, we are granted in the First Amendment to the Constitution the right to freedom of speech and press, something our country has enjoyed since its founding. However, other countries have not been as fortunate as America in their governments allowing that freedom. The governments have changed hands several times in a short period of time and a good way for a government to put out its agenda is through the press. Hence, we find countries where authors and editors are restricted in what they can write, print and publish. Russian literature in particular went through a tumultuous period in the twentieth century. In the first five decades, through the Revolution, World War II and Stalin's regime, the literary world had decidedly less freedom than the two following.

Russian literature was decaying at the outset of the Revolution. There had been two major types of writing prominent in Russia in the early twentieth century, realism and symbolism. The realism style was a carry-over of the great Russian novels by authors like Tolsty and Dostoyevsky. The novels written in the decade following the Revolution were historical in theory, dealing with oppressed commoners who catered to a revolution to improve their situation.[1] It was old and worn out. Symbolism emerged from the modernist movement of art and literature that was taking place in Europe. At the beginning of the 1900s, it played a very important role in the cultural changes that took place in Russia. Symbolism is credited with rejuvenating literature and raising the bar on writing techniques. [2]

After Lenin's rise to power, he took over immediate control of the literary world. Based off Marxist ideals that literature should be geared towards the social and ethical problems of the country, he put into practice what he stated in an article in 1905, that "the literature must become Party literature," and "must become a part of the proletarian cause."[3] The article outlined a plan in which party supervision of literary procedures, including publishing companies, libraries and newspapers; all accountable to the Party. Lenin felt that the liberties "bourgeois writer" had were simply an excuse for how they earned their money. By 1924, there were no companies in the literary world that were independent of the government's influence and supervision. It was made clear there was no place for any author whose views differed from the Party.[4]

Under Lenin, a new period of literature emerged. I would not say it was all beneficial to the country, but book printing did increase. With the current authors slowly disappearing in their individual ways, a new group of writers faithful to the government emerged from the commoners and Party members. War Communism was the theme for a majority of the works published during the 1920s, forcing authors to face grisly situations with apathy and indifference. For a time, the government was kind and encouraging to non-Communist writers, but it did not last long.

Works written after the Revolution and before World War II, from 1917-1941, were marked by the transition of government from the tsarist rule to the Bolshevik regime. The government was very strict in what they permitted authors to discuss and publish in their writings. Shortly after the Revolution, writers had a decision to make; conform to the new government and their requirements for literature or not, very few chose to follow the new rules in the beginning. Many prominent writers chose to forgo their writings rather than "collaborate with usurpers of power.[5]Some decided to mingle with the common people and lived as peasants in the country until the end of the civil war. Then they returned to the cities as educated workers, such as librarians, teachers, technicians and the like. Others chose to leave the country altogether and go settle in Western Europe or America as political émigrés. The literary salons that had been in Russia now opened up in the areas where authors had moved.[6]

For the writers who did not leave the country, switch professions or conform to the Communist style of writing; they wrote underground literature, which meant that their works were not published legally. No distinct line between what was considered "underground" or "aboveground" literature existed. There are a few categories for why books were in the underground circulation. First, books were underground books because editors rejected them for publication based on the book's lack of literary merit. Second, the books were from authors who had been pulled from the shelves. Third, if the government suddenly made a switch in its literary policy, an author who had been in line with government regulations would run into censorship difficulties. The final category for underground books consisted of those authors who simply chose not to submit their works for publication. The method of government censorship is the main reason for the underground book movement.[7] In order to get published at all, writers had to been forced to become dishonest or phony.[8]

The underground literature had no coordination or organization; it just happened. The handwritten or typed carbon copy books circulated in a newspaper form. Those who participated in the movement, author or printer, lived a difficult, grueling and uneasy lifestyle. While the literature did not violate any edicts and technically was not illegal, the government was very adamant about quenching the movement. They went to great lengths to prove that the underground books were supported by anti-Soviet groups and foreign associations, arresting anyone found connected to the underground organization.[9]

The magazines that printed the underground works were known of abroad by word of mouth. Many of the manuscripts made their way to foreign nations where they were published and sometimes sent back to Russia where they were circulated in book form through the underground. While it was not illegal for authors to send their works abroad for publication, the government was also set on squelching that practice as well by pressuring authors and threatening criminal examinations of anti-Soviet propaganda. The topics were never totally anti-Communist in nature or directed against the government, but protested about the way the government held the domineered over the literary world in the Soviet Union. The magazines carried outlandish titles, such as Boomerang, Cocktail, and Sphinexes.[10]

Two prominent newspapers emerged under the Communists and were well known around the world, the Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News). Pravda was the best known Soviet paper; it was established in 1912 under the Bolsheviks. During World War I under the tsarist rule publication was forbidden. Printings resumed in February of 1917 at the outset of the Revolution under the editorship of a man named Joseph Stalin. Pravda was the chief paper for the Communist Party from the Revolution all the way until August of 1991 when the editor made the mistake of supporting the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev. It was shut down, but is now a private independent paper.[11] Izvestia was a government run newspaper before the Revolution and the Communists took over. While not as prominent as Pravda, Izvestia was still a top publication that the Party used to put out its agenda.[12] While both papers were used by the Communists, Pravda was used by the Party as a whole and Izvestia was a government publication.

Since the Cultural Revolution, there have been three distinct periods of Russian literature: war time writings (from 1941-1945), post war literature (1945 to the mid 1950s), and the 1950s until the present. War time works, better know as propaganda, were used to mobilize the Russian people against the Nazis. The common theme among writers was portraying the Russian soldiers as the heroes and they emphasized the horrors and atrocities committed by the German soldiers against their enemies.[13] Germans were described as being "barbarian SS, sergeant-majors fat with beer and arrogant foreigners" forcing "the intelligentsia to disappear."[14]Several writers who had been silenced and viewed with distrust during the 1930s where permitted to work again as they were contributing to the war effort.[15]

Throughout World War II, writers expressed optimism about the development of literature in the Soviet Union after the war. They hoped that there would be less government influence and they would be able to have more freedom in their creativity. Their hopes were dashed. In August and September of 1946, several decrees were made in reference to the Soviet Literature and what was expected. Two main points were set forth as follows:

The task of the Soviet literature is to aid the state to educate the youth correctly and to meet their demands, to rear a new generation strong and vigourous...Consequently, any preaching of Ideological neutrality, of political neutrality, of "art for art's sake" is alien to Soviet literature and harmful to the interests of the Soviet people...Such preaching has no place in our journals.[16] In short, all literature that was to be published for the public had to be related in some way or another to the Party, their leaders and policy. [part 2] [part 3]


this article written by Rebbeca Wickert published at associatedcontent.com. Read the completed article here

Read More......