WRITERS IN EXILE
525
ly to reality, without avoiding social questions. In this sense, I
feel that the writer, as a teacher of society or at least of conscien–
tious people of society, is still alive. But in the West, esthetics very
often requires that artists keep aloof from reality, from vulgar
reality. And in this, I think, lies the very deep gulf between ethics
and poetics, if I can borrow the title of Professor Baranczak's
book. And I would be interested in knowing what you think
about this question. And if this is so, how do you deal with this
gulf, especially when you write for the Western reader?
ANDREI SINIAVSKI: As far as I understood it, the essence of
the issue is that Western writers differ from Russian writers by the
fact that Russian writers connect literature with social problem–
atics, whereas in the West this is not accepted. And the question is
whether there is really a difference in this.
If
I were to answer, I'm
afraid that we would all begin to argue. I think that Russian liter–
ature is in many respects characterized by the fact that it is one of
the most spiritual literatures, tightly connecting at the same time
social and moral problems with esthetics. But in my view, this
bears not only positive, but the most horrifying results. For ex–
ample, Russian writers went into politics, which became a re–
ligion. Take the fate of Mayakovsky. Or, like Gogol, they went
into religion and ceased to be writers. So that this concern about
benefiting society is a double-edged sword. I think it is the great
fortune of Russian literature-what makes this literature great–
but simultaneously it is a great misfortune.
WILLIAM PHILLIPS: I'm afraid we've run out of time. We
have to travel
to
New York tonight, where this conference will
continue tomorrow. Thank you all for coming.
