WRITERS IN EXILE
33
NAUM KORZHAVIN : I think that the problems that existed for
me in Russia exist here too. Despite the stupidity, the conferences,
and all the rest here, I exist as I did there .
VLADIMIR VOINOVICH: I would like to add that despite what I
said about the bond with the reader in the Soviet Union being felt
less tangibly, all the same there is a bond, and they devour our books .
Often here in the West I am asked, "But how, what, for whom will
you write?" Every writer writes in the first place for the reader who
will be reading his books in the same language in which they were
written . And if these books are sufficiently common to all mankind,
then they might be translated; and if they are translated well, then
they will reach an audience in other languages. There are many
writers here who, maybe because they have lost a sense of this bond,
begin to write sloppily.
EFIM ETKIND: We have lived in the Soviet Union under Party
terrorism, and we grew accustomed to this terror. Concretely, ter–
rorism was expressed in the fact that one single opinion and one sin–
gle literary style was prescribed . The expression of a differing opin–
ion and a different style was viewed as subversive. For the writers
who have come to the West, the most difficult thing of all has been to
get used to the fact that different opinions and different styles have
equal rights. So we must attend to an inner retuning, a polyphony
of differing opinions.
I don't think that the Soviet attitude towards literature and
thought is an expression of Soviet ideas at all. It's simply the habit of
a monopoly of opinion - rightist, leftist, it doesn't matter what kind.
This monopolistic demand on writers may be pro-Soviet or anti–
Soviet; it is still an expression of Soviet ideology. During the time
that I have been here , I have had to read more than one book with
such a tyrannical nature. I think , for example, that Vladimir Maxi–
mov's
Saga oj the Rhinoceri,
which is now being published, is such a
terrorist, tyrannical book. Therefore I view it as a book belonging to
Soviet ideology, regardless of the kinds of ideas it expresses . Victor
Nekrassov spoke of courage, of the fact that one must be courageous
there, while here it's possible to get by without courage . And he even
spoke of a certain nostalgia for the risk. But taking risks is not neces–
sary
only
there . For example, Siniavski's recent publication of a large
article in the papers called "My Personal Experience of the Dissident
Movement" is a show of courage , because the prevailing opinion dif–
fers from that which he expresses in the article, and to go against the
prevailing opinion is to take a risk. So even here it's possible to satisfy
