Viktor Erofeev's novel "The New Barbarism" is a provocative metaphor for modern Russia, in which Moscow is becoming a living organism dictating the world order, and Russian guilt is taking on a human form. Why is it dangerous to admit your guilt in Russia, how does the new barbarism differ from the old, and what role can literature play in new times - the writer talks about these topics with DW.
DW: Your book begins with a childhood memory and a strong image - of a blue cup that your grandmother breaks, but instead of admitting her guilt, she says that "the cup is broken". How does the unrecognized "Russian guilt" is connected with the new barbarism?
Viktor Erofeev: In Russia, things have historically turned out in such a way that the punishment is always more severe than the crime itself. The feeling is that if you admit your guilt, a terrible punishment awaits you, which can end in death. A broken glass in Russian history can become the story of your execution.
"We live in a world of murky uncertainty"
We know such examples: During the terror, Zabolotsky began to pretend to be crazy and by chance survived. Kharms did the same during the war, but did not manage to save himself - he was destroyed. This is completely absurd logic: if you admit your guilt, you will most likely be severely punished, and if you do not confess - a miracle may happen and you will get away with a camp instead of being shot. Today in Russia, all this is still unpredictable: the punishment can be very serious, or you can slip through the holes in the system. Everything is based on chance and chaos. (…) You can accidentally do something small and find yourself guilty. Other times you can consciously do something serious and get away with it. We live in a world of murky uncertainty. I also included this memory in the book: I was already grown up when my grandmother assured me that Lenin was a bad person. And when I asked her why she didn't say it earlier, she replied: "Because then it could have ruined me." Such is our history.
DW: You also compare Russian guilt with the acknowledged and revised guilt of the Germans in World War II. It turns out that in how the people perceive their guilt, the circumstances and the historical context matter?
Viktor Erofeev: Things are more complicated here. The Germans realized their guilt after the war, when they fell to their knees before the world. They lost, their army was destroyed, an unimaginable number of people died, the country was in ruins. The question “Who is to blame?“ became inevitable, and the answer was obvious – they themselves. There was a rational element in this tragedy.
"If you want to survive in Russia, forget everything that prevents you from moving forward"
In Russia, everything is more complicated. For example, the Soviet-Finnish war: the Soviet army did not win it, but it did not lose it either. The Finns still remember – if you sit at the same table with them, the conversation sooner or later comes to this war. And in our country it is simply forgotten. Perhaps what is happening now on the battlefields between the Russian and Ukrainian armies can also disappear from memory in a historically Russian way. Because in Russia, all history tells you: if you want to survive, if you want your family and children to be safe - forget everything that prevents you from living in the future.
DV: Today, the world is increasingly confronted with aggression and brute force that permeate politics and public life. Can this be called a manifestation of the “new barbarism“ that you write about?
Viktor Erofeev: When my previous novel “The Great Gopnik” was published, it was perceived as the story of a specific person with a poor childhood in Leningrad and a certain upbringing. Now it is clear that "gopnikism" has taken a step forward - it has become international. Now the "American gopnik" has emerged on the political Olympus, the new Khlestakov (the main character of Gogol's comedy "The Inspector General" - ed.), who can be false, aggressive and belligerent. We are on the threshold of this new barbarism. What will happen next is impossible to predict.
And yet I do not suggest that we give up. I say that we must find our place in this world. Despite all the seriousness and tragedy of the topic, there is a love line in the book - between the main character and "Russian wine". Someone may ask: "How can you fall in love with wine?". But in the Russian consciousness, the stove could speak, and the apple tree, and the river. In fairy tales, concepts come to life. In my case, "Russian guilt" becomes a woman who goes through the entire novel as the main character. And I won't say how it will all end, because this is a novel and there is intrigue in it.
DV: Sometimes barbarism can have a positive side - it does not allow civilizations to stagnate. Do you agree with this?
"We don't know ourselves and others well"
Victor Erofeev: The main problem of our time is that we know ourselves very poorly. We understand better from objects - machines, computers, telephones - than from our own souls. We don't distinguish where in us is the barbarism, where is the liberal part, with which part of our soul we love, and where we keep sadistic inclinations. The Greeks, for example, through mythology looked at themselves very carefully. Then came the Middle Ages - gloomy, but still ended. “The Divine Comedy” became its result, uniting barbarism and faith. I do not pretend to make such generalizations, but I also want to understand how we got to the current disaster - first of all because we don't know ourselves and others well.
The European liberal civilization, which I have loved since childhood, is weak today. It defends itself more than it moves forward. Europe has almost completely lost its metaphysical dimension and no longer unites people. The desire to simply “preserve” itself becomes an end in itself. People say: “If something happens, we will go to New Zealand”. But Europe has a huge baggage of culture and heritage. We need to look at this baggage again, open it, review everything and make it help us, and not just lie somewhere in our attic.
DV: How does the new barbarism differ from the old one - what the Huns and Goths brought?
Viktor Erofeev: First of all, in scale. The Huns could not destroy the planet. Today, one person is able to question the existence of humanity. And this humanity is forced to live or die according to his will. We are in a situation that did not exist before.
"Political correctness has become a new form of prohibition"
Moreover, we wanted to fool the censorship in authoritarian countries, but we fooled ourselves - political correctness has become a new form of prohibition. At first it seemed hypocritical, but now it has become an agenda. Because of it, the culture is losing its ability to speak freely. I still belong to this culture that wants to say everything it considers necessary. But this is becoming more and more difficult.
DV: Your novel “The Great Gopnik” ends with the victory of evil, the Western world is destroyed. Is there hope in “The New Barbarism”? Maybe it lies in the love between the main characters?
Viktor Erofeev: Read to the end. In “Gopnik“ destruction is associated with the sadistic pleasure of one person who wants to be immortal, destroying everyone else. But here everything is different. Maybe love is a more serious answer than it seems to us at first glance.
Author: Marina Konstantinova