Regarding the new version of the first paragraph: is it known that Stalin personally presented any opinion of Tsvetaeva's poetry? And the word "bolshevik" there is an anachronism.
Generally, the article is much too biographical for my taste. Of course, it's nice of me to talk the talk while I don't change it, and perhaps I'll try. --AV
Difficult to say, and I am trying to interpret history intelligently here; the odds are that Stalin was certainly aware of her work, and if so would have been critical. If you look at what happened to her peer, Osip Mandelstam, for example, who admittedly was openly explicitly critical of Stalin (he was eventually executed for writing poetry), or the obloquy into which Anna Akhmatova was forced, and also consider the significance of peotry within Russian culture, you will realise immediately why he would have been interested. Her work was personal and certainly attracted considerable opprobrium from the official Writers' Guilds (pah!), but just how far up the greasy pole this goes is (probably) impossible to ascertain (but I will see if I can nail this one: I remember Elaine Feinstein saying something about it and I will write to her; also I will dig out the V, Schweitzer biography and see what I can discover). The policy, however, did come all the way from the top.
On your second point, the biographical framework is just a beginning. I will deal with the poetry and her work as I go along. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated. sjc
OK: the Stalin letter of 1930 in Bolshevik which concerns "superstructure" effectively gave explicit voice to a policy which had previously been unspoken: nothing could be published which was at variance with the official point of view. This, as Nadezhda Mandelstam points out in Hope against Hope, effectively made censorship unnecessary. Given that Tsvetaeva's work was primarily personal and thus "manifestly un-Soviet", QED. sjc
- It's just that, well, Stalin's explicit remarks about and interest in, say, Pasternak and Mandelstam are well-known, but I recall no evidence for his explicit interest in, or pronouncement on, Tzvetaeva's poetry. That it was the kind of poetry that was made unwelcome by Stalin's policies is clear, but did he specifically mention her or her poetry at any time? -- I don't think so, though I'm no expert in the field. --AV
You don't think the arrest and execution of Sergei Efron and the arrest of Ariadna were purely coincidental do you? Particularly since Efron by this time was a puppet in the hands of the NKVD? It was clearly orchestrated to remove her sources of support. Moreover, she was sent to Yelabuga and not allowed to remain with the other evacuated writers. The Writers Guilds closed all their doors. She was being made a non-person at someone's behest. Given what we know about Stalin and his attitude towards poets it doesn't take a lot to start to put the pieces in place. But I will endeavour to locate the concrete evidence as you are so insistent on the subject, and not because I think Stalin deserves even the remotest hint of the benefit of the doubt. I think common sense indicates that the instructions came right from the top: in Mandelstam's case we have documentary evidence; ditto the obloquy to which Akhmatova was consigned. What on earth makes you think he would have nothing to do with arranging an unpleasant fate for Tsvetaeva, who was as important a poet? sjc
This article was taken practically verbatim from: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/T/tsvetaevavanovna/1.html Some cosmetic changes were made, but large sections were copied word for word. I wonder of the additional material was also taken from a copyrighted source. Danny
- This article has been around for some time -- who is to say that they didn't take the text from us? I vote to keep it. The worse case scenario is that they either are the copyright owners or think they are and tell Jimbo to remove it -- which he will. I only say this because the article was created in the old UseModeWiki days (back in February). --mav
- My guess is that we took it from them just because of the material that was removed to shorten it to a more Wiki format. Also, the absence of key links. I will put it back if you think it is okay, but we should be careful. Danny
- I say we put it back and give the original contributor the benefit of the doubt. Even though you are probably right this really isn't a clear enough case for me to justify deletion and the consequences if I am wrong are minor (that's if the other website ever notices). However, you probably already know that I check for and delete a lot of copyright violations -- but these are found quickly after they are created so there is no question that they are in fact violations. --mav
- Well, since I wrote the body of this essay over 12 years ago, and it has been generally in the public domain for that time, I think we can safely say that the reason that this has turned up in another place is that someone has borrowed from those notes. I don't personally hold any copyrights on this since it was largely in a handout form I dished out when giving talks on Tsvetaeva. user:sjc
- This also raises the interesting question: just exactly how do we protect our backs when something like this occurs? user:sjc
- Now that is a very good question. Since we have edit histories for everything marking the exact time and date of article creation and edits (even the old UseMod ones), then I would say that in a case like this another website would have to conclusively prove that we stole from them and not the other way 'round. I will ask the list this question. --mav
- I've been thinking about giving this a good going over for some time, in any case. Probably now is as good as any. It recycles a couple of canards which I regret (particularly the Lily Feiler comments about the abuse of her daughter); also the section on her poetry needs more structure to it, it's just a bit more of a biography on wheels. user:sjc
- About the last paragraph ("What other writers have said about..."): this seems rather selective and is not a really useful section to me. I'd like to read "negative" or at least some criticism here, to keep the article neutral. I'd even vote to delete the section alltogether, since Boris Pasternak's opinion on Tsvetajeva's work is as useful to me as of fellow Wikipedians or my next-door neighbour - and we're certainly never going to list those. But guess that opinion will not be shared by everybody. Jeronimo 00:33 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)
- OK, there were plenty of people ready to denigrate Tsvetaeva. I'll try and balance it out. But I do think that Pasternak's views on anything are interesting. He has a rare and penetrative mind. user:sjc
- Thanks for the effort - my point regarding Pasternak was that interesting is not the same as "encyclopedia-worthy". See also: What Wikipedia is not (shouldn't that be in the Wikipedia namespace?, btw) points 1, 7, 8 and 9. Jeronimo 00:50 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)
- The point I would make is this: if it serves to throw light on the subject, there is no reason not to include it. If I hadn't thought that it might conceivably be useful, I wouldn't have put it in. user:sjc