SEER,Vol. 79, No.i, Januagy 200I Russian Literary Postmodernism in the I990S MARK LIPOVETSKY FROM the title of Vladimir Novikov's I997 article on Russian postmodernism ,' 'The Ghostwith No Features',one would assumethatthe author had given up his ambition to define the specificityof Russian postmodernism.Forthat reason, it is rathercuriousthat it was he who organized the firstconference, in what was still the USSR, about this veryghost (LiteratureInstitute,Moscow, I990). The ghost-likecharacter of Russian postmodernism is paradoxical. On the one hand, even such enlightened Russian critics as Vladimir Novikov, Stanislav Rassadin, and Evgenii Ermolin, or Western experts such as N. N. Schneidman or Marjory Perloff, deny any originality in Russian postmodernist literature.2 On the other hand, postmodernism in contemporaryRussian culture is extremely fashionable, which results in a spreadofpostmodernculturallanguageintothepopularconsciousness . On one occasion one Minister of InternalAffairs(probably, the least well-knownone in post-Soviet history)was even heard to use the term 'postmodernism' when referring to the lack of order in the country a fact that was immediately mentioned in all Russian newspapers. One can find several explanations for this paradox. First of all, Russian postmodernism emerged, like its Westerncounterpart,in the second half of the I 96os-beginning of the 1970s.At thisperiod of time such seminal texts as Moskva-Petushki (Moscowto theEnd of theLineor MoscowCircles,i969) by Venedikt Erofeev and Pushkinskii dom(The PushkinHouse, I97i) by Andrei Bitov were completed. During this period conceptualism was also evolving in Moscow. From this time until the end of the I980s the development of postmodernistaesthetics was takingplace underground,in constantconfrontationnot only with Mark Lipovetsky is lecturer at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Vladimir Novikov, 'Prizrakbez priznakov', Exlibris NAG,I July I997, no. i, p. 8. 2 See Vladimir Novikov, 'Chetyre vozratsa russkogo modernizma', in his Zaskok.Esse parodii,razmyshleniia kritika,Moscow, I997, pp. 379-93; Stanislav Rassasdin, 'Nomenklatura -2. Polemika', Kontinent,89, i996, 3, pp. 350-72; Evgenii Ermolin, 'Mezhdu kladbishchem 1 svalkoi: Postmodernizm kak paraziticheskaia versiia Postmoderna', Kontinent, 89, I996, 3, pp. 333-49; N. N. Shneidman, RussianLiterature, I988-I994. TheEndofanEra, Toronto, Buffalo and London, I995, pp. I 72-75; Marjorie Perloff, 'Russian Postmodernism : An Oxymoron?', Postmodern Culture: An Electronic Journalof InterdisciplinaijCriticism,3, January 2000, 2, Cary, NC. 32 MARK LIPOVETSKY official aesthetics and ideology, but also with society as a whole. The very modusvivendi of Russian postmodernism seemed more typical of modernist and avant-garde rebellion than of postmodernist indifference . Also, it is significantthat those writerswhose workswould later be named as classics of Russian postmodernism did not actually perceive their art as opposed to the modernist tradition, but rather dreamed of a revival of this traditionwhich had been interruptedby the aggressive nature of totalitarian culture. For Russian postmodernism , the period from the late I960s to the late I980s can, without any exaggeration, be defined as heroic. However, the very juxtaposition of the terms 'postmodernism'and 'heroic'soundslike an oxymoron. Secondly, in the late I98os, with a little delay after the launch of 'glasnost",non-realisticliteraturebegantobe recognizedbythecultural establishment.Simultaneously,the disintegrationof the officialSoviet line reached its climax. Against this background, Russian postmodernism eventually realized its independence both from the avantgarde tradition and the aesthetics of dissident (anti-socialist)critical realism. These undoubtedly positive processes, which developed with extreme intensityfrom I989 to I992-93, also had a negative side. The spread of postmodernism to a wider public acquired a radicallyantihistoricalcharacter .The publicationof thepostmodernistclassicsof the late I960s and early I970S coincided with the emergence of the literary underground of the 1970S and with the cultural works of a new generation of authors. Venedikt Erofeev naturally became confused with Viktor Erofeev, Sasha Sokolovwas publishedwith a forewordby Tat'ianaTolstaia, Prigovand Rubinshtein became well-knownsignificantly earlier than the conceptualists of the I960s (such as Vsevolod Nekrasov, Igor Kholin, Genrikh Sapgir). These paradoxes became typical of the literary milieu of the 'glasnost"period that presented Russian postmodernism not as a historical phenomenon but as a powerfulchord in which voices of at least threegenerations(frequently arguingwith or isolatedfromeach other)sounded simultaneously.The forceofthisaestheticimpactblurredtheclarityofitsdistinctivefeatures. Now, since the situation has calmed down and discussions about Russian postmodernism have acquired a less passionate and more academic character, it appears that under the umbrella term of 'postmodernism'at least...