Getting legit through literature?

I was overjoyed to learn from Austrian television that Serhii Zhadan is among Europe’s Top 5 Poets by December ratings, but last night I read about that “international discussion” where Yelena Zaslavskaya, a poetess from the self-styled DNR-LNR, was a guest invited by Zhadan. This and especially Zhadan’s presentation, along with Yurii Vynnychuk’s comment on Facebook, were a cold shower. Vynnychuk wrote: “… all this was financed by Europe. It ordered the music… Germans got what they had ordered. What’s the problem? It was their scenario.”

I will not comment on Zhadan’s role in that tragicomedy. I’m almost sure that he played it with a degree of self-irony. Social networks offer various assumptions, ranging from mistake to accusations – that Zhadan is starting to work against the interests of his country – to explanations – that the writer must have been driven by idealistic concepts, by his desire to make peace, and so on. Some believe that people should get used to the existence of “DNR-LNR literature,” that certain social groups will thus get used to each other, to the existing situation – in other words, to Russian occupation. Zhadan’s motivation is not the point.

“INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION”: FORMAT, CUI BONO?

To begin with, the whole international discussion show as a “literary dialog” between Ukraine, in the person of its leading man of letters, and the literary elite of “Novorossia” launched a trend that will have serious sociopolitical consequences.

I hope to God I’m wrong, but I believe that this was act one of a scenario commissioned by Europe, Germans – no matter by whom – and that Zhadan had to play the leading part. Also, that this scenario is not aimed at rapprochement within Ukraine. A closer and sober look at the whole affair, knowing the way pragmatic Europe sees war-weakened Ukraine and its role in Europe, shows that such “discussions,” their very existence mean the beginning of recognition of the DNR and LNR, writing their history (short as it is), whether or not those who organized that discussion and took part in it realize the fact. My colleagues ask why Zhadan did not compliment and then criticize the poetess over coffee, behind closed doors, as colleague to colleague. Instead, there was all that publicity. Why? Cui bono?

The fact remains that this “international dialog,” as part of Ukraine’s intellectual discourse, will be mentioned in school history textbooks, ditto notions such as “Novorossia,” “DNR,” “LNR,” “literature of Novorossia.” Slowly but surely they are making the “Russian myth” a reality, using means other than literature. Of course, this does not mean that Russian occupation will not end, but that’s a different matter.

WHY DOES EUROPE NEED “NOVOROSSIA’S” LYRICS?

Why should Germans – or Europe for that matter – get suddenly interested in poetry originating from the DNR-LNR – in other words, from the occupation zone? Why should this happen at a time when an exhausting war is underway in the east of Ukraine – in fact, in the east of Europe? One ought to bear in mind that comparatively few Europeans realize that this war is being fought in the east of Europe, that this is a war of Europe, not only Ukraine, let alone that most in Austria are traditionally pro-Russian, that this attitude is rooted in the tradition of “great Russian literature.” For most Austrians the Soviet Union and Russia remain “great,” and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine only stresses this grandeur. I don’t have public mood statistics, but I trust my long contacts with people in German-speaking countries, particularly in Austria. Today I spoke on the phone with a literature professor in Germany. He tried to reassure me that Ukraine belongs to the Slavic space, that this civil war will end, that everything will be fine. He really believed that what had happened was an international discussion and seemed unperturbed when I translated into German the first four lines from Yelena Zaslavskaya’s “gem of poetry” (which I personally refer to as vaginocentric: “I’m neither Tsvetaeva, nor Akhmatova, / Even though caressed by cranks. / But I’m also a poetess and my c…t / Has golden Donbas lips!”). He told me that one can find even dirtier passages in modern anthologies. True, the man knows neither Ukrainian, nor Russian history, let alone that of the Soviet Union. He promised to read on the subject.

Getting back to the consequences of such “international discussions,” let me point out that (1) European democracy, of course, envisages dialogs, forums, debates, discussions, roundtables, and so on. Here the main principle is the freedom of expression and meetings, the need to hear both sides. There are always those who organize such events and fund them. That’s the way it is. However, when it comes to threatening national values, like denying the Holocaust or writing and disseminating neo-Nazi literature, there are quite a few individuals serving prison terms in Austria. Or take the migrant influx. It has got so the situation is being kept under control using means that are anything but democratic, with barbed wire fences built and desperate weeping children behind them. Certain democratic principles simply stop working in a situation threatening democracy or public order. Naturally, in a situation like that no one is willing to reach a politically destructive compromise. Therefore, such an “international discussion” should not be regarded as a defensive maneuver, but as an indirect way of politically legitimizing the DNR and LNR through literature. (2) Such an “international discussion” is a deliberately architected information precedent for the European media. Nor was it coincidental that the project under study involved a well-known litterateur. Had Zhadan refused, someone else would have taken his place on stage. The main thing was to make the audience believe his lines without questioning the righteousness of his position. Any European who is familiar with Ukrainian literature must have read Zhadan and will interpret such an “international discussion” as “traditional reconciliation of public intellectuals in the context of civil war in Ukraine,” as a “step taken toward the European values.” Needless to say, the rightist and leftist pro-Russian European lobbyists will capitalize on the situation. (3) Last but not least, the world literary canons are being actively revised. World literature in modern understanding has nothing to do with literary quality or aesthetics the way Goethe saw it. Modern world literature is representative; here literary quality simply doesn’t matter. Theories reconsidering the notion “world literature” were initiated by Mads Thomsen, Ottmar Ette, et al. They were picked by the academe. One has to brace oneself for finding in European anthologies stuff written by the likes of DNR-LNR Yelena Zaslavskaya, on a par with true verse by Liubov Yakymchuk, Iryna Tsilyk, and Oksana Zabuzhko, to mention but a few. Worst of all, their presence will be recognized as perfectly legitimate from the literary point of view.

Translators will be found as easily as are authors with brand names. Why Germans and Europe need such “international discussions” with “Novorossia” is understandable, as is the reason why the DNR and LNR need them. Comrade Zaslavskaya can only rejoice in the course events have taken.

One thing that remains to be understood is why Ukrainian society should need any of this.