For the Good of the Cause (14 page)

Incidentally, in drawing attention to Knorozov’s careerism and despotism, you claim that the writer has been little concerned about “portraying him as a real, living person.” But don’t you see that the Knorozovs have no living features (on the ideo-aesthetic level)? They are petrified bureaucrats. On the other hand, the truly living Grachikov was not to your liking. You did not see in him a “real Party official.” This makes odd reading … The sincerity, the warmth, and the ability to become fearlessly “rooted to the ground” (without concern for his own safety and well-being), to risk his life for a just cause, and to join a bitter battle—and what a difficult one!—with people like Knorozov: Did you not notice any of this? You make practically no reference to the text of the story when you criticize Grachikov. I will also not quote—my letter is long enough as is—but I believe that if you read Solzhenitsyn’s story once again (and the work of a great and complex writer has to be read more than once, even by a very experienced reader), you will see that a truly typical Communist of the Leninist type, a man of high principles, shines through Grachikov’s remarkable, unique personality.

You are right when you call Solzhenitsyn a writer of great and honest quality. And there can be no argument that every talented writer should be subjected to serious criticism. But you will agree that a great talent deserves above all a positive interpretation.

A major talent is almost always complex, demanding of the critic great care, I would even say delicacy. And least of all, it seems to me, should one judge the work of such a talented author with the sort of finality that brooks no argument, as you have done in labeling
For the Good of the Cause
a “failure.”

For the Good of the Cause is typical of Solzhenitsyn—taut, tragic, and at the same time optimistic. Solzhenitsyn’s story is evidence of the increased vigor of our literature, of its profound impact on life and on the most controversial developments in the world at large, and of the growth of our sense of social responsibility. And in these conditions it is becoming ever more difficult for all sorts of degenerates and careerists, dogmatists and demagogues to survive, because people like Grachikov, Lidia, and Fyodor Mikheyevich are becoming steadily stronger. I am sure that for the good of the cause and for the sake of justice (that is, for the sake of the national interest), we must offer every kind of support to a talented writer when he appears in our midst and explain the strength of his talent and his works, and not lead readers astray through categorical and basically inaccurate and unjust criticism. That is why I have written this letter and I hope that you will understand me and agree with me.

L. REZNIKOV

Lecturer at the University of Petrozavodsk

“IS THAT THE WAY?”

It occurs to us that in assessing the specific Situation described by Solzhenitsyn, Barabash is a victim of the demogogy of people like Khabalygin, who are past masters at pursuing their own selfish aims under the guise of defending the national interest.

In our view it is men like Grachikov and the principal, Fyodor Mikheyevich, who defend the interests of the nation, not the Khabalygins with their predatory methods. Unfortunately, one still hears of cases of people like Knorozov and Khabalygin … supposedly “for the good of the cause” cutting down forests, polluting reservoirs, or ruining expensive instruments by the removal of some small part which they need. In other words, they skim the cream off the milk.

The attempt by Khabalygin and his influential protectors to take the building away from the school is quite on a par with this sort of behavior. In the decisions of the Twenty-second Congress of the CPSU and in the speeches of N. S. Khrushchev, there is one thought that occurs over and over again: We have finished with the days when no price was too great for economic development. The Party is waging a relentless battle against the irrational and uneconomic expenditure of national funds and is focusing attention on the economics of production and construction.

It is difficult, therefore, to understand how one can talk seriously of the good of a “cause” that requires alterations on a scarcely finished building to the tune of nearly one and a half times the cost of the original construction…

We thus have a clash between the bureaucratic methods of yesterday, the approach which was so familiar in the period of the personality cult, and the democratic foundations of Soviet life today. That is why Barabash is absolutely wrong when he states that the justice for which Solzhenitsyn’s heroes fight is abstract and outside time and place…

Some people may object that the question of where and how soon the new institute is to be set up is outside the competence of the teachers, and certainly of the students, of the school whose building is being taken away. Of course, this is something that cannot be decided by a general vote. But in the given circumstances—the new building has been put up with the participation of the people involved, and an enthusiastic community has formed around this common cause—it was absolutely imperative, both on ethical and on political grounds, that the question be decided in consultation with this collective, and not behind its back.

Let us suppose for a moment, however, that there are compelling arguments in favor of depriving the school of its new building and of forcing it to continue working for another year or two in abnormal conditions. We have no doubt that any Soviet or Komsomol collective would understand and would arrive at a correct decision. But nobody must be permitted to defile the pure enthusiasm of those fine young boys and girls, with their shining faith in justice and their legitimate pride in their work.

That is not the way. That is wrong, says Solzhenitsyn in a story that defends our Soviet, Communist justice, the ethical norms of the moral code, and the democratic foundations of our life.

V. SHEINIS

Lathe operator in the Kirov factory,

shock-worker of Communist labor

R. TSIMERINOV

T-crane operator 

The editors of
Novy Mir
have had their say in this controversy [about Solzhenitsyn’s work] by publishing three letters from readers.

Literaturnaya Gazeta, No. 148, December 12, 1963, and No. 154, December 24, 1963

There appears to us to be no particular need to iterate what has already been said by the editors of
Literaturnaya Gazeta
about the commendable vigor of the story’s attack on bureaucracy and officialdom, as well as the work’s serious failings: They were dealt with in detail in Barabash’s article and Seliverstov’s letter.

We would simply like to point out that the editors of
Literaturnaya Gazeta
provided an opportunity for
different
opinions about Solzhenitsyn’s story to be voiced in its pages, feeling it only natural that at the end they should express their editorial opinion as well. The editors of
Novy Mir
apparently consider this type of discussion too democratic. The letters they have published contain only unqualified praise of the story and are unanimous in their attacks on the author of the critical article in
Literaturnaya Gazeta
.

It stands to reason that the opportunities which a magazine has for praising works which it publishes are truly unlimited. But it is scarcely necessary to point out that this is done at great cost—at the expense of objectivity and a sense of proportion.

We have no reason whatsoever to doubt the sincerity of the authors of the contributions published in
Novy Mir
. What is strange, however, is that, in making their selection of letters, the editors found it impossible to mention, let alone to publish, any readers’ letters containing criticisms of the story. It is difficult to believe (and this is borne out by
Literaturnaya Gazeta’s
own mail) that the editors of
Novy Mir
received only letters singing the story’s praises…

In this connection we would like to say the following: Any editorial board is responsible not only to its readers; it also bears a moral responsibility toward the writer whose work it publishes. It is the sacred duty of editors to help a writer, to draw attention to his weak points, and help him to overcome them. In summing up the discussion about Novy Mir’s statement on Solzhenitsyn’s story, it is worth pointing out that true respect for a writer excludes any form of indulgence toward his weaknesses and errors as an artist…

(The December 26, 1963, issue of
Literaturnaya Gazeta
printed a reply by the editors of
Novy Mir
. After summarizing the debate and quoting the essential passages from
Literaturnaya Gazeta’s
comments, Novy Mir’s letter continued:)

Thus the editors of the magazine [
Novy Mir
] are in effect being accused of misrepresenting the views of its readers. This compels us to give an account of the mail which the magazine has received about Solzhenitsyn’s story.

The editors of
Novy Mir
received a total of fifty-eight letters dealing with
For the Good of the Cause
. Many of them amount in effect to long articles of between ten and twenty typed pages of detailed argument. The authors of fifty-five letters, three of which we published, thoroughly approve of Solzhenitsyn’s story and take issue with his critics…

it should be pointed out that twelve of these letters were carbon copies of originals sent to
Literaturnaya Gazeta
. This is the case with two of the letters which we printed. In view of this,
Literaturnaya Gazeta’s
chosen method of conducting a debate is hardly likely to strike anybody as “too democratic.” Of course, any editorial board is free to disagree with the majority of its readers about the value of a work and may express a contrary opinion. But in that case, this probably ought to be done openly and the readers should have the mistakenness of their views explained to them, rather than have their views misrepresented in this manner.

And now for that part of
Novy Mir’s
mail containing “critical comments” on Solzhenitsyn’s story, which
Literaturnaya Gazeta
demanded that we publish. Two letters contain comments on the language used in the story …

Only one of the fifty-eight letters (from N. L. Marchenko, railroad station Udelnaya, Moscow region) expresses disapproval of Solzhenitsyn’s story. However, there is not a word in this letter about the actual content of the story, its subject or its characters. It was apparently only an excuse for the writer to condemn Solzhenitsyn’s work as a whole. N. L. Marchenko considers the publication of any of Solzhenitsyn’s works as harmful. We find that we cannot quote from this letter, because it is written in an inadmissibly offensive manner. But we are ready at any moment to show it to the editors of
Literaturnaya Gazeta
.

We recognize the justice of
Literaturnaya Gazeta’s
demand that readers’ mail should be treated objectively and some idea should be given of the range of opinion expressed by readers, if only by indicating the number of letters supporting either side in a controversy.
Novy Mir
proposes to follow this practice in future in its “Readers’ Forum.” It is much to be desired that
Literaturnaya Gazeta
do likewise.

EDITORIAL BOARD of
Novy Mir

The End
~~O~~