WRITERS IN EXILE
25
BORIS SHRAGIN: On this point I do not agree with our chair–
man, and I think my position is probably that of all the panelists.
Some of our colleagues here - for instance, Voinovich, or Aksyonov,
or Nekrassov, or even Siniavski - belonged in the past to the literary
world of the Soviet Union. It would not be fair, nor would it be
good, I think, to divide us by where we live because there is only a
totality of Russian culture; and it continues to exist under very hard
conditions, under oppression; but it continues to exist in the Soviet
Union. Maybe sometimes some voices- not so loud, maybe, not so
open, but still voices inside the country- are even much more im–
portant than our voices from abroad. You have to remember that
emigration has one important drawback: we are separated from our
country, and time is slipping away. Our Russia, our homeland, as
time goes on, becomes something in our memory only.
It
is impossi–
ble for us to represent or express some tendencies, some problems,
some conflicts that are developing now or might develop in the
future of the Soviet Union.
VASSILY AKSYONOV: Let me say a few words about these two
literatures. A year ago we had a conference in Los Angeles on the
subject of how many Russian literatures exist nowadays: two or one,
or three? I would say there is only one Russian literature, which ex–
ists both abroad and at home. But it seems to me that there are, side
by side, Russian literature and a paraliterature, that is, a substitute
for literature, a false surrogate of literature. The Soviet authorities
are trying to create, to develop this sort of literature, and we have to
learn to recognize the border between real literature and this para–
literature. This border is sometimes invisible, sometimes vague.
From time to time it runs even inside a single book. Especially in
Russia, you can find some very talented writers who are trying to
create real literary works; but they waver from time to time.
WOMAN FROM AUDIENCE: I'd like to know ifany of the panel–
ists have comments about the importance or the unimportance for
the future of the Soviet Union of nationalistic movements among the
minority nationalities.
PAVEL LITVINOV: There are many, many minorities-among
them very big minorities like the Ukrainians and smaller ones like
the Lithuanians, and then even smaller ethnic groups, and groups
with histories as separate states like Latvia and Estonia, and those
who don't have a history like the Ukraine but who nevertheless al–
ways considered themselves separate and wanting to be independent.
The movement for the independence of these countries developed
