Russian Literature and Vladimir Sorokin:

Russian Literature and Vladimir Sorokin: What Is the Goal and Is the Soviet Response Reasonable

The plots in the two novels by Vladimir Sorokin are sharply different, however the author's approach appears to be relatively similar. The use of extreme depictions of violence and unusual rituals are evident in both Next Item on the Agenda and Four Stout Hearts. Whether or not the novels are obscene is an issue in addition to the question of the author's goals.

Censorship of such works must also be examined in light of Soviet and post-Soviet attitudes toward literature and the reasoning behind such censorship. Sorokin is a postmodern writer who raised while Communism was the standard in the Soviet Union. He existed as an "underground" author, something we Americans quickly identify as censored or banned based on the terminology. Attempts to censor, ban and even level criminal charges were unsuccessful and subsequently propelled Sorokin onto the world stage, granting him international notice and literary acclaim. The effectiveness of his works coupled with the imagery, originality and attention to detail make Sorokin's offerings unique, however difficult it might be to comprehend.

In Four Stout Hearts, the excerpt involves four individuals united in some unclear goal and their methods in the pursuit of this goal. The excerpt begins with a boy, Oleg, bread and an old man, Genrikh Ivanych or "Staube," who tells Oleg a story of impoverishment. (Sorokin, 1991, pp. 15-18) the details are meant to explain to Oleg why throwing a loaf of white bread into the trash is such a tragic waste.( p. 19) but before the reader can react with sympathy and understanding of Ivanych's experiences, the old man begs Oleg for a sexual favor in exchange money. (p.21) Since Sorokin regularly uses obscenity and/or pornography in his literature, what is the meaning of this specific episode? Certainly, the poverty after World War II is explained and the story may represent the Soviet expectations for its' people to suffer in silence and gratitude simply for the opportunity to live. Oleg understands the story and takes the lesson seriously but is utterly appalled when Ivanych makes his attempt at sexual gratification. One might view this as Sorokin's way of showing how the Soviet people were expected to accept life with Communism without complaint and then be subjected to further "rape" at any given moment. Indeed, many people view such Russian literature as an exploration of Soviet and post-

Soviet life through the prism of the psychology of "totalitarian" political culture. (Matthews)

The reader is then introduced to another boy, Seryozha, who reminds the old man of some unidentified contract that seems to refer to the attempt with Oleg. (p. 22) Seryozha and Ivanych then engage in a sexual act without the use of force or coercion although Seryozha is not necessarily pleased with the idea. (p.22-23) Seryozha and Ivanych or, Staube, proceed to the home of their friend Victor Valentinovich, nicknamed Rebrov. (p.24) There they meet with the last member of their quarter, Olga Pestretsova and quickly proceed to engage in some kind of ritualistic act. (p.24-26) Their behavior involves complete nudity of all members and wooden box or cube placed onto Rebrov's back into which Staube is placed and shut. (p. 25) They then conduct a ritual speaking of numbers, colors and musical notes in no apparent order. (pp. 25-26)

Interestingly, according to Birgit Menzel, Sorokin's novels are parodies of post-Soviet political occult ideologies. (Menzel, 2007, p. 13) Perhaps the ritual in this excerpt is precisely such a parody and some type of occult goal is actually being sought by the group. Again, Menzel

claims that Sorokin's approach to prose fiction is the use of "subversion by affirmation" and a "ritualized depiction of a dominating ideology." (Menzel, p. 14) the ritual in this except could be affirmation of one another in the group since their later actions would probably seem subversive to the Soviet government if discovered. The excerpt moves on to the group heading out to Seryozha's home.

This particular part of the excerpt appears to be connected to a plan to steal an Arabian

box, but Sorokin uses it to an even further purpose. Rebrov waits in the car while the group murders Seryozha's parents after having been welcomed into the home and proceed to mutilate their bodies. (Sorokin, p. 30-31) the mother's lips are excised and the tip of the father's penis is removed and placed in his son's mouth who proceeds to suck on the tip. (p. 31) the theft of the box is achieved and the group return to the car. After some minor discussion of the murder the talk shifts to prices at the market as "daylight robbery." (p.33) After such vicious acts of murder

Olga describes her apparently recent trip to St. Petersburg and her subsequent attempt to visit her grandmother. (p. 34) Olga tells how no one answers the door, friends and neighbors fail to discover her and the eventual discovery. (p. 34) Staube goes on to rant about the indifference of people as if their own behavior, including himself, had no connection to indifference. (p.35)

This dialogue reflects how one might interpret the whole in that one standard does not apply to all equally, that indeed, a separate and perhaps unfair standard or multitude of standards may exist. A thinly veiled attack on Communism and even Socialist realism could be Sorokin's goal.

Along their drive to a country house that belongs to one of them, the tip of the penis is passed to Olga who continues the sucking. (p. 35) it is at this home that the group is involved in some truly grotesque activity.

Held in this seemingly lovely home, the group had a prisoner in the cellar. (p. 38) the man has no limbs except for his left arm and is covered in excrement. (p. 38) Evidently the group required their prisoner to memorize certain long paragraphs, one expressing love for the sea, the second, a discourse on defecation and the third about artificially opened skull bases. (pp.

40-41) Apparently the prisoner fails to satisfy the group and they discuss how the "Red-Guard

scoundrel" took advantage of their leniency. (p. 43) They won't be removing the last limb and likely he is to be killed. (p. 42) What is their purpose in having this prisoner subjected to such cruelty and violence? In an interview in 2007 with Spiegel Magazine, Sorokin said that as a child, his perception was that oppression held everything together and violence was a natural law. (Spiegel, 2007) He was also quoted as saying that his main theme in his literature was why human beings are unable to do without violence. (Spiegel) Violence and its' uses in Sorokin's novels are coupled with sexual overtones, some of which are quite graphic. According to one criticism of Sorokin, Four Stout Hearts is specifically pointed to as horrific by Russia. (Rogal)

The criticism goes on to state that Four Stout Hearts is "grotesque and repulsive" and that

Sorokin's Russian audience finds the novel blasphemous. (Rogal) if, as Sorokin himself said, his use of violence is to try to understand why humans cannot live without it, then one would think that the potential Russian readers could comprehend that goal. It seems that Sorokin is too modest because the close examination of such uses can be seen to mock the Soviet government's violence against its' people. Lack of food, jobs and education throughout the reign of Communism and the continued lack subsequent to the collapse are surely the focus of many of the post-Soviet literature, including Sorokin.

The second novel excerpt from Next Item on the Agenda revolves around a factory committee meeting of several people and they must deal with one man, Piskunov, who fails to meet their standards. (Sorokin, p. 324) the group is focused first on vacation time and how it is to be allotted, supposedly fairly, while taking time to find reasons to verbally abuse Piskunov.

(pp. 324-25) the committee lists the worker's infractions, including failure to care for his machinery, fighting, drunkenness and complete lack of respect for others. (pp. 326-27) the most shocking part of this excerpt is the strange attack that occurs with Piskunov somehow involved.

The repulsive actions include attacking one another and themselves, the murder of a woman who had been cleaning at the location of the meeting and the stuffing of worms in the holes of her back. (pp. 338-42) There are strange ritualistic behaviors exhibited as if by direction and seems focused only on those within the meeting place except for Piskunov. The violence ends with a female member of the committee shooting herself in the mouth. (p. 343) to what purpose the drama was to achieve is shrouded uncertainty to some extent, however the fact remains that it was a clear attack on the Communist Party's control of factories, workers and foreman. Even the underlying basis for the meeting, the divvying up of vacations, is a reference to the extreme control Communism placed upon citizens in every conceivable area of life.

Through an illogical narration, the postmodern Russian writers, including Sorokin,

emerged out of the "underground," shaped a world out of nonsense, where the never ceasing sequence of parodies, arranged in progression, projects man's knowledge of the world at the limit of "reason" and language. This new "absurd" model of conceptualization of the world offers the means for analyzing the many breaks and discontinuities which characterize Sorokin's literary texts.

Socialist realism was the official state art style in Russia as late as 1991. (Socialist realism, 2009) Therefore, censorship was a fact of life for artists since the purpose of Socialist realism was to elevate the common worker by presenting his or her work as admirable.(Socialist realism, 2009) the Next Item on the Agenda utilizes this style to the extreme by using Piskunov as the "common worker" and how he overcomes the attacks from the committee which is clearly not the real purpose of Socialist realism. Sorokin's "revolutionary" technique of wiping out the "cult" value of the Russian "realist" canon has a well-established structure. A precise, careful and creative organization of information through the narration first lures the reader into a comfort zone of an established horizon of expectation. As the narrative develops, a point is reached where it fails to fulfill this expectation in a radical fashion, throwing the reader into deep bewilderment, and robbing him of the ability to interpret the text. Ultimately, this technique produces a consequential detachment or alienation from the text, rather than an involvement with it.

Sorokin has faced numerous efforts at censorship by the Russian government and according to Rogal the censorship served no purpose because Sorokin is so unpopular in Russia

and his sickening works are themselves an "insurance policy" against success. (Rogal) Public

literary works under Communism in the Soviet Union have been subjected to censorship from the beginning. (Matthews) of significant interest is a quote from Sorokin in the Washington Post in which he calls literature a narcotic. (Hoffman, 2002) in that article, Sorokin goes on to say that without literature we cannot survive, as without art in general. (Hoffman, 2002) "If it's a drug and I am a person producing a narcotic, then my main task is to make it strong enough and clean. How they take it, how they distribute it, how they sell it and how it works-this is not my business." (Hoffman, 2002) Faced with such a potent statement it is obvious where the two novels Four Stout Hearts and Next Item on the Agenda stand relative to being strong enough to feed an addiction. Sorokin has made it clear that he never viewed himself as the conscience of society. (Hoffman, 2002) With this kind of information one can be certain that Sorokin's novels are meant to be interpreted by the reader without the author giving explicit directions as to motive. The paradox of post modernism relies specifically on the fact that it affirms what it denies:promoting uncertainty, it does nothing more than creating another paradigm of interpretation; in destroying traditional structures, it does nothing more than replace them with new ones, less secure for the human subject, yet valid and applicable. The expected structures in both novels are utterly destroyed when Sorokin replaces them with unusual turns and horrifying occurrences, leaving the reader stunned and shaken until the next page. Sorokin is irreverent and this alone offends the Russian state.

Sorokin also has his own opinions regarding censorship and expressed those in 2007. (Spiegel, 2007) According to Sorokin, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not result in a purifying revolution and that lack of revolution has resulted in a real lack of understanding. (Spiegel, 2007) the power of the Soviet Union was ingrained in people over a period of seventy years and the disinterest of students and sleepy people since the collapse needs to be replaced with awakening the citizen himself. (Spiegel, 2007) Sorokin does not believe that Russia is headed in the direction of democracy and would like the West to be more "vocal" in demanding the Russians protect human rights. (Spiegel, 2007) the prospects for the future, according to Sorokin, are that Russia is slipping slowly back into authoritarianism. (Spiegel, 2007)

These two novel excerpts fit into the arms of censorship since both attack standards that the Russian conservatives seek to maintain. Any sense of reality is missing because there is so great a divide between the actual events that appear normal and those that shock the reader into disbelief. How such works escape censorship are commonly due to eventual international distribution. This is demonstrated in an article by Yuri Zarakhovich in which he views the attempts to ban Sorokin's works as having made them international bestsellers. ( Zarakhovich, 2002)

Opponents to censorship have accused the conservatives with being dictators ("This stinks of Comrade Stalin," Sorokin has said) and with having their priorities wrong. (Wilson, 2005) "If the deputy cared as much about Russia's true children… Russia could be a paradise" one liberal reporter has printed. However, there is much about this situation that is unlike most across the globe. First of all, when the Soviet Union fell, so did the considerable censorship power of the state. (Wilson, 2005) the well-known unofficial motto of "there is no sex in Russia" was suddenly replaced by frontal nudity on billboards and pornography openly displayed on newsstands. (Wilson, 2005) it was and, although it has abated some, is still a shock to the former Soviet culture. It is historically commonplace for a sudden, shocking change to any culture to be followed by a backlash. Also, since "freedom of expression" is still a very new concept to Russia, some evolution in its legal definition should be expected. The question most Russians will argue, then, is: "How far back should the pendulum swing?" (Wilson, 2005)