I’ve read the Guardian’s article by a US academic about Russian author Victor Pelevin, with interest. Chiefly, it makes we want to read Victor Pelevin (more). The title of the article is: “The mysterious novelist who foresaw Putin’s Russia – and then came to symbolise its moral decay”. The problem is – there is precious little evidence of this “moral decay” in the article.
There are two problems with Victor Pelevin for the author of the Guardian article. Firstly; Pelevin has not come out and denounced the “full-scale invasion of Ukraine”. Since no such thing has taken place – that is hardly surprising. The second seems to be that many years ago he allegedly behaved in a boorish and sexist manner when giving an interview to a female journalist. Prof Pinkham has interviewed three people who are introduced as Russian literary critics or columnists, (though I struggled to find public profiles for two of them), who criticise Pelevin variously as “having a creative crisis”, being “withered” and for “cowardice and opportunism”. The last criticism comes from a dissident Russian liberal now living in nice warm Cyprus (a very Russian choice of destination), according to the article, who was satirised in one of Pelevin’s recent novels. All three critics are women, as is Prof Pinkham.
What is missing is any discussion of how Pelevin’s work exhibits this supposed “moral decay”. There are some complaints that he writes about matters from a point of view of his personal consciousness, as he has, always, apparently done. His 2022 satire called KGBT+ which, apparently, links Russian nationalists to Western liberals is dismissed as “facile”. But there is no real, structural, discussion of how Pelevin’s work shows signs of “moral decay”. Essentially, it is the sin of omission. He has not denounced the “full-scale invasion” or taken a strong stance against Putin’s regime. “Readers can find both pro- and anti-Kremlin positions in his works of the past decade” but this is not enough: “What is the point of brooding about the prison of consciousness when political prisoners are dying?”. Apart from his alleged sexism this is his crime. He didn’t protest about Navalny. Ironically, this brings to mind a Marxist criticism of literature I once read, which argued that art which is not political and which does not agitate for social change cannot be considered art.
Prof Pinko lives in a make-belief world about Russian society: “In an atmosphere of ever-intensifying censorship, with the last traces of free political speech eradicated from Russian life, it is safest to remain out of the fray.” and “Beneath his countercultural facade, Pelevin has become a prolific exponent of contemporary Russia’s dominant religions: cynicism and quietism”. Is she writing fiction? It is not true that political free speech has been eradicated from Russia. It is true that there are two recent laws which mean people have to be careful about discussing the background to the war or criticising the conduct of the war in any public setting. But people can still criticise the leadership and discuss government policy. (People can mock “Putinoids” in social media posts, for example). As for “cynicism” being the “dominant religion”, I really don’t see that, certainly not from ordinary people. On the contrary, living in Russia, I am often struck by the relative innocence of people, which contrasts in a nice way, with the jaded cynicism of the populations of the West. The political leadership could be described as cynical, for example, in as much as they use mass-media PR tactics to mould public opinion – but this seems to be something which happens at least as much in the West.
The Professor is also making it up that Pelevin has “become a prolific exponent of …quietism”. The tale she is telling is that Pelevin has degenerated. At the point when Russia became a invading, repressive society, Pelevin should have spoken out, but instead he has become an exponent of quietism. It looks like the Professor is perhaps voicing some complaints of her group of Russian literary critics that Pelevin has not, like them (?), become dissidents. (One of the literary critics cited has left Russia. As I say above, I am struggling to find even an Internet presence for the other two). In his novel Omon Ra published in 1992 Pelevin has his (autobiographical) character explain that he found the “Western radio voices” and the writings of various “Solzhenitsyn’s” boring because they did not seem to be writing about the kind of freedom which he valued. While he found the politics of the state abhorrent with its ability to force people into obscene acts he sought his authentic freedom by aiming for the sky and the cosmos. (It could be said to be an expression of romanticism; pure imagination). It seems Pelevin has always been somewhat “above” what is going on on earth. (Chapter 1, Omon Pa [1]). He has not, as the Professor claims, “become” quietist to avoid criticising the “invasion” of Ukraine. He has, at least since Omon Ra, “kept out of the fray”. Like much of the Western media the Professor seems to have figured out that the money these days is paid for anti-Russia stories – about “engineered rebellions” (the almost genocidal narrative line that denies the millions of “pro-Russian” people in Donetsk and Luhansk any autonomy at all) and mocked up lit. crit. about the “moral decay” of Russian authors for not signing up to this program.
Notes
- Омон Ра. Пелевин. 1992. Издательство АСТ Москва