MAX EASTMAN: THE MAN UNDER THE TABLE 25
In the chapter on "Romanov's Recantation," for instance, we read: "Read–
ers will no doubt imagine that I am presenting a one-sided view of the
matter in discussion, that the writers I select for comment are not typical.
They will tell me about the colorful stories and plays of Vsevolod Ivanov,
about the vivid work done by Lidin, Fadeev, the sea-yarns of Novikov–
Priboy, about Leonov, Olesha, Alexei Tolstoy, about the delicate poems
of Boris Pasternak. Perhaps they will
ventur~
to mention Panteleimon
Romanov.... " And off goes Eastman into a description of an imaginary
recantation of Romanov. . .. But we are from IHissouri. Yes, we say,
what about Pasternak, Leonov, Olesha, Fadeev, Lidin, etc. Haven't they
blossomed out during the dark days of the RAPP inquisition? Isn't it true
that Gorki, one of the most influential Soviet writers, was not a member
of the RAPP, that he disagreed with the RAPP and that it was he, not
the "sinister" Stalin, who was finally instrumental in the dissoll!tion of
that organization? Isn't it true that Lunacharsky, another prominent
figure on the Soviet literary scene, was not a member of the "all-powerful"
RAPP, did not kow-tow to it and at the height of the "literary inquisi–
tion" wrote in the magazine "Iskusstvo": "Art is a social phenomenon.
When the State attempts to regulate it it assumes an unpleasant, official
character and it begins to degenerate.... " Isn't it true? But it is easier
to get water out of a stone than the truth out of Eastman. Just when
you think you have caught him, he manages to slip away. Sure, he
admits, "I am aware that a number of excellent books have been written
in Russia during the past decade." Having, however, made this admission,
he immediately regrets it. These books, you see, excellent though they are,
"have been written by men whose natural genius is for a narrow practical
loyalty. There is, after all, a sincere literature of bigotry."
But Eastman's worst crime is his butchery of Mayakovski's genius
and personality.
If
ever there was a man who expressed the spirit of the
Russian Revolution, it was Vladimir Mayakovski. He was the poet
and inspirer of the youth of the Red Army and of the workers in the
factories. In order to discredit Mayakovski and establish a case against
revolutionary literature, Eastman cleverly manipulates with quotations
from Lenin. Lenin said some good and some bad things about Mayakovski,
but Eastman quotes only the negative things. He mentions the fact that
Lenin considered Mayakovski's 150,000,000 "affected and tricky." But
he doesn't mention the fact that when Lenin heard with what glee the
youth recited Mayakovski's poems, he remarked: "
If
the youth likes Maya–
kovski, then it is Mayakovski." Since Eastman has copied so much from
the Literary Encyclopedia perverting, of course, and twisting everything
