Poetry in Exile
Charles Russell :
As you may have rea li zed by now, the titl es of our
sessions have been interpreted quite freely at this conference. The title of
this session is " Poetry in Exil e"; Mr. Manea's remarks on fo reignness have
been perhaps the most eloquent and moving discussio n of exile here so
fa r. W e w ill continu e to fl oa t free ly w here th e parti cipants' thoughts
take them , and we w ill foll ow th em happil y. W e w ill first hear from
Stani slaw Baranczak.
Stanislaw Baranczak:
I'm afraid I ca n 't ge t started with my prepared
remarks before adding to th e controversy that Ms. T olstaya's speech in
the previous session of the conference has provo ked in thi s room. Let me
make o ne thing clea r: I'm by no means speaking from the position of an
offended nati onalist. The positi o n that I have represe nted in my writing
has always been criti cal o f chauvinisti c and self-absolving nationali m in its
w idest possibl e sense, one whi ch O rwe ll put fo rwa rd almost half a cen–
tu ry ago in his memo rable, "N o tes on N ationalism. " N o r can I be ac–
cused , mo re spec ifi cally, o f harbo ring some typi call y Polish prejudices
against Russian culture; in fac t , a large chunk o f my life has been spent
o n making it ava il abl e fo r my compatri o ts by, amo ng o ther things,
translating Russian poetry into Polish. H owever, it is prec isel y because I
side with those who prefer di alogue to hatred that I was appalled by Ms.
T olstaya's speech .
W e all count o n Ru ss ian intell ectuals today: it is they who are ex–
pected to lead the way in elimin ating hatred and introducing dialogue
amo ng the nati ons of the Sov iet emp ire. But what kind of di alogue is
that go ing to be, if a prominent and respected Russian w riter dispenses
so easily with the two most prec io us ingredi ents that literature can use to
that end: with its ability to call things by th eir true and exact names, and
with its ability to empathi ze, to understand what mo tivates others and
what others may feel? By provoca ti vely calling herse lf a Russian imperi–
alist, Ms. T olstaya wants to throw us o ff balance, to make us think in a
way we are not used to , and those are very good tac ti cs fo r any writer
under any circumstances. But
wh(/ t
she wants us to think , spec ifically, is
something like this: "She ca lls hersel f a Russian imperi alist. She, such a
ni ce, cultured , fri endly, outspo ken woman , a Russian imperialist? Come
on! If she is a Russian imperialist, then the w ho le no ti on of Russian im–
perialism must be just an absurd fa bri cati on."
