Letters to the Editor

Pushkin’s Babushka

To the Editors:

You will undoubtedly receive an avalanche of responses to your “Survival Russian” article on the Babushka Factor [July/August 2006].  How could Arina Rodionovna be mistaken for Pushkin’s babushka?  It is true that Pushkin’s babushka, Maria Alexeyevna, had an important influence on the future poet, but it was far less than that of his nanny, Arina Rodionovna.  The influence is, of course, more appropriate for Lermontov’s babushka.

I am impressed with the quality and variety of articles in your magazine.  I suggest you consider featuring a full article on babushkas.  In addition to their important social and economic role, they were a most significant factor for the spiritual life of the Russian Orthodox Christians throughout history, and especially in Soviet times.  But even Prince Vladimir had his babushka, Olga, who influenced him at one of the turning points in Russian history.

William Parsons

St. Petersburg, FL

Mr. Parsons,

Thank you for your letter. Actually, your letter was the only one we received on this grievous error. So congratulations on the “catch.” Mikhail Ivanov was himself surprised that he made this error (“it must be simply that Pushkin’s nanny was like a babushka to him,” he replied) and we are equally surprised it slipped through our nets.

Thank you also for the story idea.

– The Editors

Sholokhov Controversy

To the Editors:

In the July/August issue of Russian Life you correctly state that Mikhail Sholokhov is the fourth Russian recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature.

However, in all fairness, you should have mentioned that Sholokhov’s authorship of the book Quiet Flows the Don is very much in doubt in recent years.  Among others,  Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn has discussed this in his books From Under the Rubble and The Oak and the Calf.  One version of this story is that the real author is a Cossack officer named Fyodor Kryukov and that Sholokhov obtained the manuscript after Kryukov was killed fighting with the White armies during the Civil War.  Then the story was changed to meet the approval of the Soviet censors.

Nicholas J. Clones

by email

Mr. Clones:

We did not mention this controversy because we feel that the accusations leveled at Sholokhov are baseless and have been repeatedly disproved. A 1982 computer content analysis is widely felt to have discredited the Kryukov Theory, and, in 1991, the long-missing manuscripts for the novel, in Sholokhov’s hand, were unearthed by the journalist Lev Kolodny.

– The Editors

Ivan Kupala

To the Editors:

I greatly enjoyed your article explaining the rituals of celebrating Ivan Kupala Day. 

It brings back fun memories of being in Barnaul on July 7 a few years ago, and our translator warning us about “Ivan the Swimmer Day.”  During the day we were bombarded with water bombs from children hiding behind fences, buckets of water being dropped from windows of apartment buildings, and water being thrown from bus windows. By early evening, the fountain in Lenin Square was filled with people swimming and dancing in the jets of water. It was a fun carnival atmosphere, and a normally quiet city came out of its shell for a day.

We asked our translator the meaning of the celebrations, and she gave us evasive answers. It wasn’t until we returned home and did a little research that we learned about the original celebrations and some of the more interesting ways of celebrating the holiday. 

Thanks Russian Life for another great edition. 

Eileen Delaney

by email

Cossack Correction

To the Editors:

I was indeed happy to see the articles devoted to the Don Cossacks and Bogdan Khmelnitsky (transliteration from the Russian) in the July/August issue. I have three comments:

1. On page 40 (“The Power of Transliteration”), the Russian form is Khmelnitsky vice Khmelnytsky; as an interesting fact, this is shown in the award pictured on page 41!

2. The article “A Hetman Builds a Nation” does not make clear that one of the key goals of Khmelnitsky vis-a-vis the Poles was expansion of the registers; only those whose names appeared as Registered Cossacks were recognized as such by the Polish authorities.

3. Khmelnitsky did not have that much to do with the Zaporozhian (or Zaporog) Sich (Sech in Russian), the members of which sometimes supported the Registered Cossacks and sometimes did not; the wildly independent Sech was very distinct from the Ukrainian Hetmanate [see my book Cossacks of the Brotherhood (1990)].

G. Patrick March

Lacey, WA

Spies Unloved

To the Editors:

I want to comment on the feature “The Spies Who Loved.” [July/August 2006]

First, the Cohens: there is a difference between a spy who leaves his native land in service to his country to spy amongst strangers and spies like the Cohens, who spy on, deceive and lie to their fellow countrymen. As for their love for each other, history has many examples of terrible people who loved each other.

Next, Theodore Hall: you can find published photos of him wearing his Army uniform at Los Alamos, but he doesn’t wear the hat and he would not wear the hat, he disdained it and the uniform. Next look at photos of working class youths lying in the water at Normandy and Tarawa, they are wearing their helmets, but there are holes in them.

How much nicer to be safe at Los Alamos. When the heat was on, Teddy fled for safety. In short, Theodore Hall was a well-educated, arrogant coward. 

Doug Burgess

by email

Review Disputed

To the Editors:

Russian Life provided a much too positive book review of Anna Politkovskaya’s strident rant Putin’s Russia, thereby casting doubt on the magazine’s own credibility.  One does not have to “preserve... an idyllic view of Russia” to find serious flaws in Politkovskaya’s so-called “journalism.”  And those flaws go far beyond her bizarre, disjointed, gimmicky writing style and unprofessional, yes, “screechy and imperious,” prose.

While presenting factual problems which beset today’s Russia, the book’s title is deliberately misleading.  Politkovskaya cynically manipulates her readers into believing all Russia’s problems were created by current president Vladimir V. Putin.  In fact, Putin inherited them from previous regimes. 

The appalling conditions within the military were already entrenched in the 80’s, during the Afghanistan War.  And control over business by organized crime, mafia, and oligarchy soared in the early 90’s.  Corruption of government bureaucracy defined the Yeltsin era.  Until recently, there had never been a Russian economic “middle-class.”  Even the Chechen conflict, about which Politkovskaya has written extensively, began before Putin’s time and had devolved into terrorism and jihad several years before September 11, 2001.  

To be sure, these are all issues which Putin’s administration has tackled, with varying degrees of capability or success.  These are important topics of better books, most notably one sharing the same title, by Liliya Shevtsova.  The latter is a Fellow of the respected, liberal Carnegie Endowment, and can hardly be accused of being a Putin apologist. 

But Politkovskaya has political and personal axes to grind — and it shows in her writing.  This is, after all, the diva of the leftist press who aspires to being the “Russian Michael Moore.”  Her unflattering articles comparing Putin with George W. Bush (for example: “Kovboy frendi”) have appeared in Novaya gazeta and leftist French publications.  She might think she is being “cute” by comparing Putin to Gogol’s pathetic little clerk Akaki Akakievich.  But in this, she is simply, unwittingly, paraphrasing Putin’s vilifiers in the ultra-Nationalist Right and neo-Nationalist Left parties, who accuse him of being a “Western lapdog” and ridicule him as GWB’s diminutive, orbiting “sputnik.”  Politically, Politkovskaya endorses the misnamed “Democrats,” who boast themselves as such without the slightest sense of irony, while representing fewer than ten percent of the Russian population. 

Sure, Politkovskaya may be “widely decorated and trusted” somewhere — but certainly not by ordinary Russians.  The vast majority have a favorable opinion of their President.  Moreover, Politkovskaya’s oft-stated sympathy for the Chechen Islamist cause, and her association with rebel jihad leaders, has earned her deserved, despised reputation as a “Russian Hanoi Jane.” 

There is nothing “modest” about “Anna P.”  Notorious as Russia’s leading radical journalist, her passion is undeniable. Therefore, a certain amount of political spin could be expected from her latest book; and it will doubtless find an audience among current russophobes in the U.S. Government and NGOs.  Dick Cheney probably loves this book.  But true journalism comes down to trustworthiness, and that is where Politkovskaya fails.  As with “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which she has praised as an “excellent” model, “Putin’s Russia” is a perplexing mixture of real fact and obvious political agenda. 

Shame on Russian Life for providing Politkovskaya’s manipulative propaganda free advertising! 

Chapulina “Cat” Ramos 

Lakeside CA