A Biographical and Critical Study of Russian Writer Eduard Limonov by Andrei Rogachevskii (review)

Abstract

582 Reviews and neologisms, so the theatre should be seen as built on aesthetic borrowing and ex? change (Bertolone). The authors recognizing this dynamic as the fundamental feature of Yiddish theatre?Barbara Henry, Paola Bertolone, Seth L. Woliz, and Miroslawa Bulat?speak of the influences of Slavic folklore and Italian opera, among others, on the development of Yiddish theatrical tradition, attesting therefore to its richness and complexity. In their articles, Yiddish theatre is portrayed as collaborative, dynamic, and in fact international. Speaking of the repertoire of Yiddish theatre, the book does an impressive job of 'unearthing' forgotten names and works, and returning them to the canon. Indeed, it challenges the reader's idea ofthe Yiddish theatre canon. Had itincluded the practices of Yiddish troupes in the countries not mentioned in the collection, such as Canada, France, or Africa, the book could have broadened the horizons of the canon even further. Finally, I would like to emphasize the happy timing of this work. It is not only a politically opportune moment to investigate the history of Yiddish theatre as the Russian archives have finallybeen opened (p. 75), but also the time to create a compre? hensive study of Jewish theatre, comparable to what has been done in publications on the history and traditions of Jewish film. It is a pleasure to acknowledge that Yiddish Theatre: New Approaches constitutes a very effectivestep in this direction. University of Ottawa Yana Meerzon A Biographical and Critical Study of Russian Writer Eduard Limonov. By Andrei Rogachevskii. (Studies in Slavic Languages and Literature, 20) Lewiston, Queenston, and Lampeter: Mellen. 2003. xvi + 265pp. ?74.95. ISBN 0-77346847 -1. With his rich, informative, and detailed monograph on Eduard Limonov (b. 1943) Andrei Rogachevskii focuses on one of the most controversial Russian writers of our times, and tries in his study to solve the entangled problem of the relationship between art, life, and literary archetypes. The book provides an impressive quantity of archive materials (especially the correspondence with the Russian emigres Vladimir Maksimov and Nikolai Bokov) and a thorough and brilliant survey of all of Limonov's texts?narrative, publicistic, poetic?in order to establish facts which may help to establish who Limonov really is. This proves a challenging task because of Limonov's 'true lies', as Rogachevskii ironically defines the writer's favourite prac? tice of giving opposite indications and contradictory information about himself. The firstchapter of the book, based on a biographical-psychological approach, is entirely devoted to these investigations. Notwithstanding the variety of sources consulted and the author's accuracy in analysing them, one must acknowledge that Limonov's reluctance to reveal his true self and his delight in wearing masks are overwhelming. Thus, even assuming that Limonov the writer and Limonov the character are not the same person, Rogachevskii moves with both caution and courage, and succeeds in establishing some facts and linking them to some of Limonov's inventions, though without establishing a univocal approach to the writer's biography. This, however, was not Rogachevskii's aim, as he very clearly states in the conclusion ofthe book. Undoubtedly, Limonov views himself as a 'hero ofmodern times' and Rogachevskii successfully describes the writer's general concept of a hero, reminding the reader that heroism as an existential category has nothing to do with ethics (as Limonov's life and works very well prove). In connection with this concept of the heroic life,Ro? gachevskii focuses on two possible literaryparallels: firstly, an 'unconscious' parallel to the atamanP. N. Krasnov, author ofthe anti-utopiannovelZtf chertopolokhom[Beyond MLR, 100.2, 2005 583 the thistle] (Chapter 2), and secondly a very conscious parallel to V. V Maiakovskii (Chapter 3). As faras Krasnov is concerned, Rogachevskii warily defines this parallel as 'dangerous' because of its highly hypothetical, almost exclusively psychological, nature. Much more convincing is the parallel with Maiakovskii; the peculiar similarity is often referred to in critical literature, but scarcely studied in detail. Maiakovskii's megalomania, narcissism, and latent split personality find an interesting correspon? dence in Limonov, as Rogachevskii demonstrates in his detailed analysis ofthe texts of the two writers. They share not only topics, poetic devices, and literary idiosyncrasies, but also the centrality of love, which...