stereotypes (was Contemporary Russian Literature)

[Edward Dumanis]

George G. Grabowicz wrote:

>         Edward Dumanis' reply to Hanya Krill (Re: Contemporary Russian
> Literature) is questionable on at least two counts. One is its hectoring
> and apodictic tone (the opening lines, for example,
> >So, what?
> >What is your problem?
> sound more like a preface to a street brawl than to an intellectual
 discussion).

So what? What is your problem?

Okay! Just kidding.
However, honestly, it is not a shame to speak apodicticly in the context
of Hanya
Krill's objections to Valentina Zaitseva's integral approach to
literature in
general, and Russian Literature, in particular.

I have never thought that anyone would consider my tone hectoring, and,
if someone
does, I want to apologize for that.  It was not meant to be such.

A very gentle tone of your message most certainly gave everybody an
example to
follow.


>         The other is the use of uninformed and inflammatory assertions, e.g.,
> >...regarding Shevchenko, do you think that his anti-Semitic and
> >anti-Polish convictions diminish his role as possibly the greatest Ukrainian
> >poet?..
>         Shevchenko's use of the term "zhyd/zhid" (cf. the earlier SEELANGS
> discussion on this) or the picture of the Jewish character Lejba in the
> poem "Hajdamaky" partake of given linguistic and poetic conventions (those
> very paradigms Dumanis speaks of).  If one is looking for convictions (!)
> one should take note of the collective open letter to _Russkij vestnik_
> (1858) which he signed (along with such Ukrainian writers as Pantelejmon
> Kulish, Mykola Kostomarov, Marko Vovchok) in protest against anti-Semitic
> articles in the journal _Illjustracija_. (Further information on this and
> attendant issues can be found in _Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical
> Perspective_, Peter J. Potichnyj and Howard Aster, eds., Canadian Institute
> of Ukrainian Studies, Edmonton, 1988.) As to Shevchenko's "anti-Polish
> convictions," a counterpoint to the Romantic pathos of "Hajdamaky" is found
> already in the (Slavophile) postscript to the poem itself.  Another text
> that one usually refers to in this connection is "Poljakam" (Shche jak buly
> my kozakamy). In general, the critical literature on Shevchenko's broad and
> often warm contacts with Polish writers and exiles and his relation to
> Polish literature is substantial.
>         One can only support the idea of going beyond stereotypes. As
> Dumanis writes,
> >I think that on the threshold of the XXI century we can free ourselves
> >from the >old stereotypes, and see the people for what they really are in
> >the whole
> >variety and complexity of different paradigms.
> But anyone making that appeal should first put his house in order.
>                                                                 G. Grabowicz

I appreciate this information on Shevchenko whose poetry I used to like
very much
until one day when I opened "Hajdamaky." l never read this poem before,
and I
thought to find some material there that I could recommend for pleasure
reading to
my advanced Ukrainian students.  And it was not the word "Zhyd/Zhid"
that is used
there (it just stands for "Jew" in Ukrainian and Polish to the best of
my
knowledge), it was the poem itself.
So, what is my problem?
The next day, I told my students that I had found in this brilliantly
written poem
so much hatred towards Jews and Poles, that I honestly cannot recommend
it to
anybody, not for pleasure reading, anyway.  It is not a stereotype of
Shevchenko
that led me to my conclusion about his anti-Semitic and anti-Polish
convictions but
the poem itself.  I am very glad to hear that this might be wrong.
However, on the
other side, Mr. Campbell from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s "Mother Night" comes
to my mind, and the question of what is the most important paradigm for
viewing Shevchenko as a person does not seem to be closed.

So, I guess, my house is in order.

Nevertheless, it is not what my original message was about.
Shevchenko there was just an example of a person closely related to
different
paradigms, the paradigms in which his value can be judged differently.
I am sure that you can easily pick up somebody else to give a similar
example if you
do not like mine.
The essence of my former message is very simple:
Literature (in any given language, Esperanto including) is formed by
those who
contribute to it.
This is true for any area of human activity.
I would like to see somebody removing Napoleon from French History (some
Corsicans
might try!)
So what?
What is your problem now?

Sincerely, (and with my best regards even to those whom I made angry but
who
nevertheless view themselves of a good nature and open minded)

Edward Dumanis <dumanis at acsu.buffalo.edu>