DOCSLIB.ORG

Barrett Ziegler Platonov and His Communist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barrett Ziegler Platonov and His Communist Barrett Ziegler Platonov and his Communist Critiques: Not invited to the Party Andrei Platonov’s dedication to communist ideology should have made him a significant figure within the Party. His extensive technical training allowed him to write with knowledge on the current and future state of communist economics in the Soviet Union. His writings were often rooted in his exposure to common Soviet people and the Party’s economic projects. There was a “genuine” quality in his writing that lost him the Party’s favor and complicated his relationship with Joseph Stalin. Once, in a meeting with Party elite, Stalin called Platonov a “fool, idiot, and a scoundrel,” only to later call him “a prophet, a genius.” It is curious that such a “prophet” would not be published uncensored within his home country, within his own lifetime. Also odd is that such a disgraceful author would survive the Stalinist Purges with little harassment by the Party. Platonov’s communism evolved with the politics around him; he often tried to appeal to what the Party, and Stalin, wanted from him. His devotion to communism would make the Party’s ideology a type of religion to Platonov – and its patriarch: Stalin. But, he would be accused of departing from the approved communist ideology a number of times, most pointedly in Kotlovan and Schastlivaia Mockva, surrounding the development of his literary voice. The beliefs of Platonov and the communist Party were based on popular schools of thought present in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most notable for Platonov were the futurist movement and the Proletkul’t, both founded by Alexander Bogdanov. Ayleen Teskey attributes the optimism present in much of Platonov’s early works to Bogdanov’s considerable Ziegler 2 influence on the young author1. One focus of Bogdanov is the influence of laborers on the world around them. This writing on the agency of humans on their surroundings also becomes a primary focus for his paper on “Organizational Science”2 where he describes a system of four organized realities. Bogdanov presented his thoughts to the All-Russian Association of Proletarian Writers in October 1921, where a young Platonov was in attendance: “(1) The primal world environment-- … where the world is a chaotic mass of elements with practically no organization. ... (4) The highest level—the human collective-- …On this level life expands and reconstructs the world.”3 This speaks to the very nature of communism; to establish a human collective based on class- consciousness. This consciousness would expand the value of life beyond the individual and would work to encompass the entirety of the collective and was necessary for humanity to exist apart from the chaos of nature. An idea prevalent in Platonov’s later work, Kotlovan4 (1930), is that of a conflict between the worker and the natural world. It is by exhibiting their agency upon the world that the workers have meaning and develop value. This leads towards the 1Ayleen Teskey, “Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer”, page 23. 2Published in Tekhtologiya 1922. 3Ayleen Tyskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer. 25. Emphasis added. 4In this essay, The Foundation Pit is occasionally referred to by its phonetically Russian title, Kotlovan, depending on the sources’ preferences. Ziegler 3 production of an ideal collectivized society where the value of life has expanded beyond the individual to affect the world. This theme that the idea of being human is expanded by the expression of agency on nature is another founding principle of the Prolitkul’t movement, “the connection of spiritual and physical labor.”5 Considering this connection between the spirit and labor, we can see how many in the Party saw Platonov as a counter-revolutionary; the Party, too, subscribed to Bogdanian ideas of labor. Platonov’s writings display a common theme of the proletariat overcoming a lack of efficiency -- this to mean that protagonists often faced challenges such as too little food, too few tools, or corrupt officials. If read by a Party member Platonov’s work could be seen as an attempt to discredit the Soviet industries and, ultimately, Soviet labor. As the contemporary Bogdanov equates the two, labor with spirit, Platonov’s writings now become an attempt to discredit the Soviet spirit as well -- the spirit of Stalinist communism. Both the Party and Platonov were influenced by Nikolai Fyodorov’s ideas as well. His contribution to futurist thought is significant. His writings introduce many ideas from the manipulation of Earth’s weather patterns to a solar energy replacement for expendable fossil fuels.6 While Fyodorov does assert the importance of human agency on the workings of nature, like Bogdanov, his conclusion differs from simply expanding human consciousness. Cosmism 5Ibid. 26. 6Ayleen Tyskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer. 15-16. Tyskey hints at the drought of 1891 as a point of history which drew Fyodorov’s attention toward the mortality of man, holding humanity back from developing themselves ethically. The fight against death was a distraction from man’s true “ethical commitment” (93). These projects mentioned above are the first step in his “Regulation of Nature”, to be followed by the reduction of human reproduction. Ziegler 4 focuses strongly on humanity overcoming death through the efforts of “men themselves”.7 This, Fyodorov asserts, will allow mankind to pursue their “predestined…ethical commitment”8 of turning away from a past of self-centered egoism and using their knowledge to resurrect other lost civilizations. With the use of revived ethical knowledge, mankind could develop a greater human consciousness. The role of life, death, and individual value had a strong influence on Platonov’s works, especially prevalent in Kotlovan and “Fourteen Little Red Huts” (1932), as well as on the development of Soviet ideology in the early to mid-20th century. In communist ideology, there developed the theme of a “Bright Soviet Future”9-- one of a united, ethical, mankind that was derived from Fyodorov’s ideology. In Platonov’s work the labor of the individual is valued as progress towards a similar utopian future. While this is less prevalent in his later works, such as Vozvrashchenie (1946), it is a present theme in his earlier writings. Among these philosophical influences on Platonov, the influence of the Party’s rhetoric is not to be underestimated either. Lenin’s campaign to electrify the country drove Platonov to technical school and, after graduation, into the countryside. The work, Elektrifikatsiya (1921), details Platonov’s work with the Voronezh Land Commission. In this piece we begin to see how a young Platonov has combined Bagdanov’s theories of agency with Fyodorov’s futurism to communist ends, “communism is not only a struggle against Capital, but also against nature. Electrification is our best form of artillery in this struggle.”10 This work is very detailed when it 7Ibid, 93. Here, I interpret this to mean the ‘sciences’, a founding tenant of futurism and a testament to rationalist ideology. The action of “men themselves” excludes the belief in religion and focuses all action on the ability of man to comprehend and control his world. 8Ibid. 9Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 7. 10Andrei Platonov, Elektrifikatsiya. Page 12. Translated by Ayleen Teskey. Ziegler 5 describes what is to be done to accomplish the quest for electrification. His technical background allowed for specific criticisms within his work and many of the suggestions are Platonov’s own designs when he worked with Voronezh but, were overlooked at the time due to corruption and favoritism within the Party. It may have been here that he began to feel a need to earn the Party’s recognition. This devout communist may have felt rejected by minor Party officials and so began looking for recognition and value from the higher Soviet powers, from Stalin. I have already discussed some similar ideological roots for both Platonov and the communist Party in Russia. But this appears to be a “chicken and egg” scenario; were the ideas present at the time influencing Platonov toward the Party or did the Party’s interest in these ideas draw an already communist Platonov towards these ideas? What I hope to explore is how the Party leaders’ voices influence Platonov, Stalin in particular. But, we should also consider Lenin’s influence as the Father of Russian Communism and why he had less of an effect on Platonov. It is peculiar that Platonov should be so enamored with Stalin’s communism. Why not Lenin’s? His would be closer to the “pure communism” Brezhnev would campaign for after Stalin’s fall. But what made each iteration of communism different? In 1917, Lenin explicitly defined communism as “merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the whole people.”11 This interpretation of Marxism explains the deviations Lenin performed in serving the Soviet Union. These policies had varying degrees of separation from Marx’s original definition of communism. Lenin’s New Economic Policy worked to provide 11Ayleen Teskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer, 93. Ziegler 6 the bourgeois infrastructure Marx required for a Socialist state, but was executed under a “communist” government. This would “serve the people” but also gave concessions to capitalism. Other policies were explicitly contrary to the idea of communism, such as Lenin’s endorsement of a dictatorship.12 But here, Lenin was enforcing his idea of a “state monopoly”. Oddly enough, Bogdanov was a strong rival to Lenin in the years leading up to the 1917 revolution concerning the ideological leadership of the Party.13 The ideas put forward by Lenin were greatly warped by Stalin, but the results of Stalin’s reign would draw Platonov toward him instead of toward the traditional “Father of Communism.” Let us divide Lenin’s quote into four points; a capitalist aspect, the state, a monopoly, and service to the whole people.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CV, Full Format
    BENJAMIN PALOFF (1/15/2013) Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures 507 Bruce Street University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 48103 3040 MLB, 812 E. Washington (617) 953-2650 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 [email protected] EDUCATION Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures, June 2007. M.A. in Slavic Languages and Literatures, November 2002. Dissertation: Intermediacy: A Poetics of Unfreedom in Interwar Russian, Polish, and Czech Literatures, a comparative treatment of metaphysics in Eastern European Modernism, 1918-1945. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan M.F.A. in Creative Writing/Poetry, April 2001. Thesis: Typeface, a manuscript of poems. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts B.A., magna cum laude with highest honors in field, Slavic Languages and Literatures, June 1999. Honors thesis: Divergent Narratives: Affinity and Difference in the Poetry of Zbigniew Herbert and Miroslav Holub, a comparative study. TEACHING Assistant Professor, Departments of Slavic Languages and Literatures and of Comparative Literature, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2007-Present). Courses in Polish and comparative Slavic literatures, critical theory, and translation. Doctoral Dissertation Committees in Slavic Languages and Literatures: Jessica Zychowicz (Present), Jodi Grieg (Present), Jamie Parsons (Present). Doctoral Dissertation Committees in Comparative Literature: Sylwia Ejmont (2008), Corine Tachtiris (2011), Spencer Hawkins (Present), Olga Greco (Present). Doctoral Dissertation Committees in other units: Ksenya Gurshtein (History of Art, 2011). MFA Thesis Committee in English/Creative Writing: Francine Harris (2011). Faculty Associate, Frankel Center for Jewish Studies (2009-Present); Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies (2007-Present). Service: Steering Committee, Copernicus Endowment for Polish Studies (2007-Present).
    [Show full text]
  • Tolstoy, Khlebnikov, Platonov and the Fragile Absolute of Russian Modernity
    Three Easy Pieces: Tolstoy, Khlebnikov, Platonov and the Fragile Absolute of Russian Modernity The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37945016 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Three Easy Pieces: Tolstoy, Khlebnikov, Platonov and the Fragile Absolute of Russian Modernity A dissertation presented by Alexandre Gontchar to The Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Slavic Languages and Literatures Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2017 ©2017– Alexandre Gontchar All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: William M. Todd Alexandre Gontchar Three Easy Pieces: Tolstoy, Khlebnikov, Platonov and the Fragile Absolute of Russian Modernity Abstract This dissertation shows how three Russian authors estranged and challenged the notion of human freedom as self-determination—the idea that meaningful self-authorship is possible in view of the finitude that every human being embodies under different aspects of his existence, such as the individual and collective awareness of the inevitability of death, as well as the narrative inclusion of any existential project within multiple contexts of history, culture, and language, all of which are always given already. At first glance to be free is to transcend these multiple limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Weiss. Andrei Platonov. Ragnvald Blix. Georg Henrik Von Wright. Adam Michnik
    A quarterly scholarly journal and news magazine. March 2011. Vol IV:1 From the Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES) Södertörn University, Stockholm FEATURE. Steklov – Russian BALTIC temple of pure thought W O Rbalticworlds.com L D S COPING WITH TRANSITIONS PETER WEISS. ANDREI PLATONOV. RAGNVALD BLIX. GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT. ADAM MICHNIK. SLAVENKA DRAKULIĆ. Sixty pages BETRAYED GDR REVOLUTION? / EVERYDAY BELARUS / WAVE OF RELIGION IN ALBANIA / RUSSIAN FINANCIAL MARKETS 2short takes Memory and manipulation. Transliteration. Is anyone’s suffering more important than anyone else’s? Art and science – and then some “IF YOU WANT TO START a war, call me. Transliteration is both art and science CH I know all about how it's done”, says – and, in many cases, politics. Whether MÄ author Slavenka Drakulić with a touch царь should be written as tsar, tzar, ANNA of gallows humor during “Memory and czar, or csar may not be a particu- : H Manipulation: Religion as Politics in the larly sensitive political matter today, HOTO Balkans”, a symposium held in Lund, but the question of the transliteration P Sweden, on December 2, 2010. of the name of the current president This issue of the journal includes a of Belarus is exceedingly delicate. contribution from Drakulić (pp. 55–57) First, and perhaps most important: in which she claims that top-down gov- which name? Both the Belarusian ernance, which started the war, is also Аляксандр Лукашэнка, and the Rus- the path to reconciliation in the region. sian Александр Лукашенко are in use. Balkan experts attending the sympo- (And, while we’re at it, should that be sium agree that the war was directed Belarusian, or Belarussian, or Belaru- from the top, and that “top-down” is san, or Byelorussian, or Belorussian?) the key to understanding how the war BW does not want to take a stand on began in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • A Companion to Andrei Platonov's the Foundation
    A Companion to Andrei Platonov’s The Foundation Pit Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures and History Series Editor: Lazar Fleishman A Companion to Andrei Platonov’s The Foundation Pit Thomas Seifrid University of Southern California Boston 2009 Copyright © 2009 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-934843-57-4 Book design by Ivan Grave Published by Academic Studies Press in 2009 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com iv Effective December 12th, 2017, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. The open access publication of this volume is made possible by: This open access publication is part of a project supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book initiative, which includes the open access release of several Academic Studies Press volumes. To view more titles available as free ebooks and to learn more about this project, please visit borderlinesfoundation.org/open. Published by Academic Studies Press 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE Platonov’s Life . 1 CHAPTER TWO Intellectual Influences on Platonov . 33 CHAPTER THREE The Literary Context of The Foundation Pit . 59 CHAPTER FOUR The Political Context of The Foundation Pit . 81 CHAPTER FIVE The Foundation Pit Itself .
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Soul by Andrei Platonov Andrei Platonov: the Genius Who Supported Communism but Mocked the Soviet System
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Soul by Andrei Platonov Andrei Platonov: The genius who supported communism but mocked the Soviet system. Nobel Prize-winning poet Joseph Brodsky described Platonov as an “outstanding writer of our time”, and one of the major figures of 20th century literature, placing the blue-chip Soviet author alongside Marcel Proust, Franz Kafka, Robert Musil, William Faulkner and Samuel Beckett. But here is the thing, Platonov was someone who supported the Bolshevik Revolution and joined the Communist Party while his multi-layered, richly detailed books showed no mercy, exposing the totalitarian society built around a lie. Platonov’s characters buried themselves in communism but found no relief. Early career. The son of a railway worker was born in the town of Voronezh in 1899. Platonov was originally Andrei Klimentov. He created his pen name in 1920 to pay homage to his father, Platon Klimentov, who had some inventions to his credit. The oldest in a family of eleven children, Andrei took his first job as an errand-boy. He was 13. Around that age, he also began writing poetry. Following in his father’s footsteps, the teen worked as an engineer’s assistant for the South-Eastern railway, a symbol of Soviet industrial might at the time. One of Platonov’s most recurrent images, pointing metaphorically toward the theme of revolution and utopia, became that of the train or locomotive. Andrei Platonov, 1925. Like many other young people of his generation, Platonov welcomed the Revolution of October 1917 with palpable enthusiasm. When the Civil War broke out, he was a locomotive driver assistant on trains delivering ammunition to the Red Army.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Platonov Revisited. Past and Present Views on the Land of The
    Platonov Revisited. Past and Present Views on the Land of the Philosophers Ben W. Dhooge & Thomas Langerak The disclosure of Platonov’s long forbidden and inaccessible oeuvre and the subsequent start- up and maturation of its scholarly study, by scholars worldwide, have been showing an irregular, bumpy and fragmentary course since the writer’s death in 1951. Early Platonov studies, from the mid-1960s onwards, centered around certain works, like ‘Такыр’ (Takyr), ‘Мусорный ветер’ (Rubbish wind), ‘Фро’ (Fro), ‘В прекрасном и яростном мире’ (The fierce and beautiful world), ‘Река Потудань’ (The Potudan River) or ‘Одухотворенные люди’ (Inspired people), all of which were considered acceptable by the Soviet authorities and Soviet printing houses and journals1 (or were altered even, to a greater or lesser degree, by them in order to make them acceptable2). The actual disclosure of Platonov’s most well- known works took place in the second half of the twentieth century, and initially even at different paces in Russia and abroad. While in Europe and the United States, Platonov’s Чевенгур (Chevengur) and ‘Котлован’ (The foundation pit) found their way to the public as early as in the 1960s and the 1970s3 and led to a series of scholarly publications on Platonov’s oeuvre, in Russia these masterpieces were published only in the perestroika era4. Of course, Platonov’s ‘major’ works had already been known before in certain circles (like people active in the samizdat), but often in an incomplete form. The publication of the novel and the novella – with the author’s postscript! – and the subsequent edition of other unknown and forbidden works, like ‘Антисексус’ (Antisexus) and Счастливая Москва (Happy Moscow), in enormous print runs in Russia gave a strong impulse to the existing scholarly study of Platonov’s work, both in Russia and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • On the First Socialist Tragedy’ Occupies an Unusual Place in Platonov’S Oeuvre
    introduction to platonov The year 1934, his thirty-fifth, was a significant watershed in the life of Andrei Platonov. He had already written The Foundation Pit and Chevengur, the novels for which he is today best known, but neither had been published in full. Soviet readers knew him mainly for a few short stories and, above all, his semi-satirical account of collectivization, ‘For Future Use’, which had been met by a storm of official criticism when it appeared in 1931. For the next three years, Platonov was unable to publish anything. But in the spring of 1934, he was included in a brigade of writers sent to Turkmenistan to report on the progress of Sovietization, and the same year was asked to contribute to a series of almanachs. Under Gorky’s gener- al editorship, these were to celebrate the completion of the second Five-Year Plan in 1937; but they never appeared. The text reproduced here was written for one of these, titled ‘Notebooks’; it arrived on Gorky’s desk in early January 1935—a month after the assassination of Kirov, an event which unleashed a wave of purges that presaged the terror to come. Within a few days Gorky had rejected Platonov’s text as ‘unsuitable’ and ‘pessimistic’; in early March the organizing secretary of the Writers’ Union publicly denounced the unpublished article as ‘reactionary’, ‘reflecting the philosophy of elements hostile to socialism’. The text was probably written in the first half of 1934, after Platonov’s return from Central Asia; a notebook entry from mid-April—‘dialectic of nature in the Karakum desert’—makes clear he was already considering its key themes there.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonconformist Soviet Classics in Post-Soviet Perspective
    Russian Culture Center for Democratic Culture 2012 Rethinking the Canon: Nonconformist Soviet Classics in Post- Soviet Perspective Alexander Zholkovsky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/russian_culture Part of the Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons, and the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons Repository Citation Zholkovsky, A. (2012). Rethinking the Canon: Nonconformist Soviet Classics in Post-Soviet Perspective. In Dmitri N. Shalin, 1-28. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/russian_culture/18 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Russian Culture by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking the Canon: Nonconformist Soviet Classics in Post-Soviet Perspective Alexander Zholkovsky I. The Problem of Reinterpretation In the four-plus decades since Stalin's death, the Soviet literary canon has undergone a series of changes. Thus, Fedor Dostoyevsky, Konstantin Leontiev, and Apollon Grigoriev, seen in all their complexity, gradually resumed their pride of place in nineteenth-century literary history, while Gogol was allowed to be more of a conservative thinker and modernist stylist than during the period of High Stalinism.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Literary Theory and Criticism
    1. Literary Theory and Criticism A. History of Literary Theory and Criticism Plato, Republic, Book X ------ Phaedrus Aristotle, Poetics Horace, The Art of Poetry Longinus, On the Sublime Plotinus, On the Intellectual Beauty Dante Alighieri, Letter to Can Grande della Scala Sir Philip Sidney, An Apologie for Poetry Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Essay on the Origin of Language David Hume, “Of the Standard of Taste” Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement, Books II and III Friedrich Schiller, On Naive and Sentimental Poetry G.W.F. Hegel, Introduction to The Philosophy of Fine Art Wordsworth, Preface to Lyrical Ballads Victor Hugo, Preface to Cromwell (extracts) Charles Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music Matthew Arnold, The Function of Criticism at the Present Time Oscar Wilde, “The Critic as Artist” Stéphane Mallarmé, “Crise de vers” Leo Tolstoy What is Art? B. Contemporary Literary Theory and Criticism Formalism/Structuralism Roland Barthes, “Death of the Author” Wayne Booth,*“Pluralism and Its Rivalry” Roman Jakobson, from Linguistics and Poetics Ferdinand de Saussure, from Course in General Linguistics Victor Shklovsky, *“Art as Technique” Yuri Tynyanov, *“On Literary Evolution” Poststructuralism Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Introduction: Rhizome Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?” Julia Kristeva, *“Toccata and Fugue for the Foreigner” from Strangers to Ourselves Marxist Theory and Criticism Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” Mikhail Bakhtin, *“Discourse in the Novel” Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art at the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility” Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Platonov's Life
    Platonov’s Life Chapter 1 Platonov’s Life 1 For someone justly considered one of the major figures of twentieth- century literature, Platonov left behind a surprisingly meager collec- tion of written or other materials from which his biography can be reconstructed. The paucity of biographical materials in his case is mostly a legacy of the Stalin period of Soviet history in which he lived most of his life, when private documents could be turned into incriminating evidence in the event of a search by the agents of the NKVD (the Stalinist secret police). But even against this background the material is sparse. Platonov kept a series of notebooks in which he wrote down ideas for literary works and technical inventions, and these have been published in recent years; but they reveal almost nothing of his private life and even relatively little about the composition of his literary works. He is not known to have kept a diary, though many of his contemporaries did, sometimes prolifically (see, for example, those collected in Garros, et al., Intimacy and Terror. Soviet Diaries of the 1930s and those discussed in Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind. Writing a Diary under Stalin). Some letters by and to him have survived and been published, but not very many. Reminiscences by some of his acquaintances have also been published, but few of their authors seems to have known Platonov particularly closely—or, since some of these reminiscences were published in the Soviet era, to have been willing to say much about Platonov’s views. At various times from the 1920s–1940s Platonov filled out questionnaires for one or another journal or literary organization, but the information in them is sometimes contradictory and we lack even a full account of his non-literary employment for various land-reclamation agencies in the 1920s and 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Lyrical Museum
    From: After the Future: The Paradoxes of Postmodernism and Contemporary Russian Culture, Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. Thing and Word: On the Lyrical Museum By MIKHAIL EPSTEIN . oh, for such saying as never the things themselves hoped so intensely to be. fleeting, they look for rescue through something in us, the most fleeting of all. Rainer Maria Rilke, Ninth Duino Elegy 1. What is a Lyrical Museum? Normally, things are selected for museum display for one of three reasons. Either very old and rare things are selected by virtue of being one of a kind or intrinsically valuable, in which case we have a thesaurus-museum, a treasure trove like the Kremlin Armory or exhibits from the Diamond Fund. Or things possessing the significance of typicality are chosen for their ability to represent an entire class or category of similar things—in this case we have a catalogue- museum, a systematic collection on the order of most museums of technology, minerology, zoology and the like. Finally, things may be neither especially unique, nor especially typical, but derive their interest from the fact that they belonged to some remarkable person. In this instance we have a memorial museum, which recreates the surroundings of a famous writer, scientist, military leader or whomever. Of course, these three functions of a thing—as rarity, as example or as relic—may intersect and combine in actual practice, but traditionally any one of them could guarantee the museum status of things; they elevate things to the category of display items. The museum which I plan to discuss here, however, does not belong to any of the types listed above.
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefit of Meaning in Andrei Platonov: Russian Motivation
    MRSP #1792247 VOL 58, ISS 3 The Benefit of Meaning in Andrei Platonov: Russian Motivation Toward Life and Work Grigorii L. Tulchinskii QUERY SHEET This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left are hyperlinked to the location of the query in your paper. The title and author names are listed on this sheet as they will be published, both on your paper and on the Table of Contents. Please review and ensure the information is correct and advise us if any changes need to be made. In addition, please review your paper as a whole for typographical and essential corrections. Your PDF proof has been enabled so that you can comment on the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat. For further information on marking corrections using Acrobat, please visit http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/acrobat.asp; https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/how-to-correct-proofs-with-adobe/ The CrossRef database (www.crossref.org/) has been used to validate the references. Changes resulting from mismatches are tracked in red font. AUTHOR QUERIES Q1 Please double-check spelling as Nikolsky or Nickolsky here and in notes RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY 2020, VOL. 58, NO. 3, 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1792247 The Benefit of Meaning in Andrei Platonov: Russian Motivation Toward Life and Work Grigorii L. Tulchinskii ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This article presents the research on three issues. First, Andrei Platonov; 5 revealing the features of Russian culture’s semantic comprehension; death; life; picture of the world in relation to a person’s position- motivation; meaning; work ing in society and attitudes toward work, as they are expressed in A.
    [Show full text]