There are various questions here; these questions have serious significance for the development of literature. I want to speak on a question that has no bearing on Avdeyenko's book -- on the approach to literature. There is an approach to literature that is truthful, objective. Does this truthful and objective approach mean that it can and should be dispassionate -- simply depicting, photographing? Can a living person, a writer who wishes to be truthful and objective, be equated with a photographic apparatus? Not at all. This means that truthfulness and objectivity must not be dispassionate, but living. This is a living person; he sympathizes with some of his characters and dislikes others. That is to say, truthfulness and objectivity serve some class.

Plekhanov said that literature cannot help being tendentious, and when he unpacked this, it turns out that literature must serve certain conditions, a certain class, a certain society. Therefore, literature cannot be a kind of photographic apparatus. One must not understand truthfulness in that way. Literature cannot be without passion; it sympathizes with someone, hates someone. I believe that from this standpoint we must approach the evaluation of literature -- from the standpoint of truthfulness and objectivity.

It is demanded that works give us the enemy in all his principal guise. Is this correct or not? It is not correct. There are different manners of writing -- the manner of Gogol or Shakespeare. They have outstanding heroes -- negative and positive. When you read Shakespeare or Gogol, or Griboyedov, you find one hero with negative traits. All the negative traits are concentrated in one person. I would prefer a different manner of writing -- the manner of Chekhov, who has no heroes, but gray people who nevertheless reflect the main current of life. This is another manner of writing.

I would prefer that we be given enemies not as monsters but as people who are hostile to our society yet not devoid of certain human traits. The most utter scoundrel has human traits; he loves someone, respects someone, wants to make sacrifices for someone. He has certain human traits. I would suggest that enemies be given in this form -- as strong enemies. What advantage is there if we made all that noise -- there was a class struggle of capitalism against socialism -- and then beat some riffraff? And the enemies made a great deal of noise; they were not so weak. Were there not strong people? Why not depict Bukharin -- whatever sort of monster he may be -- he has certain human traits. Trotsky is an enemy, but he is a capable man -- undoubtedly depict him as an enemy who has negative traits but also good qualities, because he undoubtedly had them.

The point is not at all that Avdeyenko depicts the enemies presentably; the point is that he leaves our own people in the shade. We need a truthfulness that depicts the enemy fully, not only with negative traits but also the positive traits that existed -- for example, perseverance, consistency, the courage to go against society. These are attractive traits; why not depict them? The point is not that Comrade Avdeyenko shows the enemies in a presentable light, but that the victors who defeated those enemies, who led the country, he leaves in the background -- he has no colors for them. That is the point. This is where the fundamental lack of objectivity and lack of truthfulness lies.

Much was said here about not indulging young beginning writers, not promoting them too early, because it goes to their heads and they are spoiled. That is of course true, but one cannot recommend a kind of guild mentality in professional literature. The old guild mentality was this: an apprentice may be capable, but a fixed term is prescribed. A journeyman may be three heads taller than the master, but since the term is prescribed, he must serve it out. Then they give him a slap and elevate him to master.

Is that the philosophy you are preaching, dear comrades? And if among the young, some are found who in talent and gift are no worse than some of the old writers -- are you going to hold them back? In that way, you may ruin capable people to whom God has given a gift and who want to grow. You must cultivate them; you must look after them, tend them, as a gardener tends his plants. You must help them; this guild mentality must be broken. The guild traditions must be ended; otherwise it will never be possible to promote people.

Now take the finest military commander in our country, Suvorov. He was a monarchist, a feudalist, a nobleman, a count himself, but practice told him that certain foundations must be broken, and he promoted people who had distinguished themselves in battle. And only as a result of this did he create around himself a group that broke everything. He was disliked for violating the traditions of the guild mentality. "Well, he is not a very able commander, but just consider, he has such a name, such connections at court, such a nice man -- how can you not like him?" But Suvorov promoted little-known people, broke the foundations of guild mentality. He was disliked for it, but he did create around himself a group of able people, good commanders.

The same is true if you take Lenin. How did Lenin forge cadres? If he had noticed only those who had spent 10-15 years in party circles in leadership positions, and so on, and had not noticed those young people who grow like mushrooms but who are capable people -- if he had not noticed that and had not broken the traditions of seniority, he would have been lost.

Literature, the party, the army -- all these are organisms in which certain cells must be renewed without waiting for the old ones to die off. If we wait until the old ones die off and only then start renewing, we will be lost, I assure you.

With these qualifications, I agree about the promotion of youth, but people must not be restricted, kept in a pen.

This remark concerns the small fry, as they were called here, the thousands. After all, the old ones are few. Of course, it is good to have old writers -- that is a treasure, a find -- but there are few of them. And in our party, too, there are few old-timers who never grow old in spirit, who are capable of absorbing everything new. If you build your literary front only on such old-timers who never grow old -- there are such old-timers who do not grow old -- then your army will be very small and it will not live long, because the old cadres will eventually die. Hence the question of beginning writers. Here they spoke of small fry, of several thousands. In our party, too, there are middling workers who are unknown to anyone, more or less known to the CC, who have not yet distinguished themselves in any particular way, but who are capable. There are such people; they must be worked with, and from them usually come good workers. All of us were middling; someone corrected us once or twice, pointed things out where needed, and from the small fry grew not bad workers. We have a great deal of small fry, and so they should not be forgotten; one must work with these small fry and not say that they exist just for decoration. That is no way to treat people; it is very offensive. There must be patient work in educating and selecting these people. If out of 20 you get one, that is good. Then you will have a whole army of writers. Our country is large, and we need to have quite a few writers. If a person is talented, capable, he must be lifted up, helped to advance, perhaps even by violating the charter. Without violations, sometimes nothing works.

About Wanda Wasilewska. Why is her letter liked? In her works there are gray, simple people, inconspicuous figures, but they are well depicted in everyday life, they are deftly and well chosen. I do not consider her the most outstanding writer, but she is quite talented and writes very well, in my opinion, yet for some reason she is passed over in silence. She does not push herself anywhere. Read her works and you will see that she is a talented person.

We have many talented people who are well-known. Take, for example, Panfyorov. He has good passages, but in general, a person can write when he works on himself. This Panfyorov is well-known, but I assure you that Wanda Wasilewska could rise higher than Panfyorov, yet no one pays any attention to her; she is considered a foreigner, yet she is a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Union.

Now about Comrade Avdeyenko. You see, I have already said that the matter is not that he has errors, not that he portrays the types of our enemies or the friends of our enemies in a more presentable light, not as monsters but as people who have certain good traits -- and there is no person without them. The most utter scoundrel, if you look closely, has good traits. He may lay down his life for a good friend; that is, the point is not that he portrays our enemies well, but that the people who exposed these enemies are shown as non-Soviet people. Things do not happen so easily. In our country, for example, some 25-30 million people were going hungry, there was not enough bread, and now they have begun to live well. The enemies within the party reckoned thus: we will give this to the Germans, that to the Japanese -- there is enough land for our lifetime. But things turned out the opposite with us: we give nothing to anyone; on the contrary, we are expanding the front of socialism. Is that not good? Is that not good from the standpoint of the balance of forces in the world? We are expanding the front of socialist construction; this is favorable for mankind, for the Lithuanians, the western Belorussians, the Bessarabians consider themselves fortunate -- we have freed them from the oppression of landlords, capitalists, police, and every other kind of scum. This is from the standpoint of the peoples. And from the standpoint of the struggle of forces on a global scale between socialism and capitalism, it is a great plus, because we are expanding the front of socialism and shrinking the front of capitalism.

In Avdeyenko, the people who should be fighting are shown as some sort of riffraff, plain, grayish -- how could these people have defeated the enemies? The whole sin of Avdeyenko consists in the fact that he leaves our own people -- the Bolsheviks -- in the shade, and he has no colors for them. He studied the enemies so well, became so well acquainted with them, that he can depict them from the negative as well as from the positive side. He has not studied our reality. It is hard to believe that he did not understand and did not notice.

Now about this same film -- "Law of Life." Why "law" -- he did not explain. What did you want? "So, you Bolsheviks, no matter what you say, there is a law of life, love of the kind I understand it, and it will have its way, because there is a law of life." He lacked the nerve to say it to the end, but love -- anyone who can think understands what this means.

Ognerubov is a fine fellow, an eagle, who fell victim to the stupidity of the mob. He went and voted. Does that happen? Heroes fall; men of genius find themselves in a narrow-minded milieu. A milieu of our riffraff and heroes who fell victim to it. Like some sort of Chatsky, crushed by his environment.

He has no colors for portraying our people. And here he sins against serving any cause. You can feel that he sympathizes with some, does not sympathize with others. I would like to know which of his characters he sympathizes with. In any case, not the Bolsheviks. Why else does he not have enough colors to show real people? Where did the Chkalovs, the Gromovs come from? Where did they come from? They did not fall from the sky. There is an environment that produces heroes. Why does he have no colors to show good people? Why no colors to show the bad traits, no colors to build a new life? Why no colors to depict life? Because he does not sympathize with it.

You will say that I am exaggerating. I would like to be mistaken, but in my view, he hardly sympathizes with the Bolsheviks.

Take 1934. He was corrected then. The same thing. Then in 1938 he was corrected, things were pointed out. He keeps doing the same thing. That camp of his is alive; our camp is somewhere in the shadows. I, he says, am of proletarian origin. Don Juans do not come only from the gilded youth. Don Juan was... Where does this stubbornness come from?

There is the film "Law of Life." The same thing -- many colors. Where does this come from? Is it a mistake? No, it is not a mistake. The man is self-confident, writes laws of life for people -- practically a monopoly on educating the youth. Laws! That is the kind of mistake there has been since 1934. If he had not been warned, had not been corrected, that would be another matter, but there were warnings both from the CC and a review in "Pravda," and he continues his work.

To climb into a person's soul is not my business, but I do not want to be naive either. I think he is a man of the enemy's tail end -- of Sarkisov, Kabakov -- and he is echoing the enemies: "I live among fools; they will pass my works anyway, they will not notice; I will get the money, and whoever needs to will understand, and as for the fools, to hell with them, let them remain fools."

Kinovedcheskie Zapiski [Film Studies Notes]. 1993/94. No. 20. Pp. 104-114.

RGASPI F. 77. Op. 1. D. 907. L. 72-82.