ABSTRACT
‘Writers appeared to compete among themselves: who will most smoothly and artificially show the evolution of a Kolkhoz from incomplete happiness to ultimate perfection.’ Thus in 1954 F. Abramov 1 castigated the literature about the peasants which appeared in the last years of Stalin’s life. There were few exceptions. Nikolaeva’s Zhatva (‘Harvest’) did touch on reality, 2 and Valentin Ovechkin’s Rayonnye Budni (‘A working day in the district’), which appeared in Novyi Mir in September 1952, was surprisingly hard-hitting. But these exceptions merely proved the rule. There developed a staggering contrast between the deplorable state of agriculture and the sunshine stories insisted upon by the Soviet literary censors, and even more between peasant attitudes as they really were and as they were portrayed in print. Consequently the history of the post-Stalin period is one in which more and more of the disagreeable reality found its way into literature, i.e. there was a closer relationship between literature and the truth. Reality itself was, of course, changing, and on balance the change has been for the better. Few can doubt that the Soviet peasant is, on average, significantly better off in 1963 than in 1953. By contrast, literature has become much more sharply critical, refers in vigorous language to all kinds of abuses. A warning is therefore necessary against treating the increase in critical material as ‘proof’ that there is also an increase in evils which are criticized. In Soviet conditions there is often a reverse correlation: criticism in print means that action is being taken with a view to correcting the defects complained of. For instance, there was hardly a mention of bad housing conditions in the last years of Stalin’s life (in fact, the dictator announced, in 1948, that there were no slums in Moscow!). It was after the launching of a major house-building programme that frankness on this issue was permitted. Then, overlaying all such considerations, there have been ups and downs (mostly ups) in the amount of literary freedom allowed to writers and editors in general, and of course this factor has helped those Russian writers who have longed to give expression in their works to real thoughts, grievances, living conditions, of the peasant population.
