On the current literary and cultural situation in Ukraine:
discussion between Volodymyr Tsybulko and Yuriy Tarnawsky

CONCLUSION

Recently, two well-known figures of Ukrainian letters - Volodymyr Tsybulko from Kyiv and Yuriy Tarnawsky from New York - exchanged thoughts on the current Ukrainian literary situation and the state of Ukrainian culture in the global context. The discussion was carried out in light of their perception that, after the euphoria of the early years of Ukrainian independence, with its hope of a speedy national revival and an enthusiastic cooperation between the mother country and the diaspora, came the disillusionment and gradual drifting apart of the two partners. The situation, they hold, is true of not only literature, but of many other fields as well.

Tsybulko: I believe in syncretic genres. Your excursion into playwriting - was it a spontaneous act or a conscious decision to look for a new mission of literature? Nowadays, interacting with the reader presupposes multimedia channels rather than a single one. Perhaps our traditional natiocentric society isn't looking in the right places as it tries to find its uniquely national style. But at least, thank God, the profession of being Ukrainian is going out of style. We're becoming more like the rest of the world. Is it the world that's making us like that? In other words, what's your view on the freedom of communication?

Tarnawsky: During my "classical modernism" stage I firmly believed in the purity of genres. I particularly tried to preserve the difference between poetry and prose. The former was to be hazy, associative, such that it forced the reader into co-creating the work during the act of reading through the stimulation of his/her imagination, so that it'd be as active as possible. The latter was to be a strict control of the reader through a strict control of the language. I led the reader by the hand, word by word, sentence by sentence, where I wanted him/her to go, not letting him/her make a step to the side. In my self-assurance I was particularly proud of my ability to control the language I used and even went so far as to create an artificial language, a subset of English, to achieve my goal. (It was in the English-language novels "Meningitis" and "Three Blondes and Death.") What's ironic is that it was precisely this artificial language that had a poetic effect - it evoked a feeling of alienation not so much through its semantics as through its form, something I could no longer control.

I feel now that there's no clear-cut distinction between different genres and that it's perfectly normal to take elements from different existing genres in composing a book. This becomes clear when you consider that genres aren't objects that exist by themselves and suddenly you find them like a mushroom growing behind a bush, but simply products of the human mind. It's purely a chance happening that we have the particular genres that we have in the literatures of the Western world. Things could have been completely different. When you realize that, you see that you may mix genres any way you like.

This is the theoretical basis of genre syncretism, so to speak. But I came to practice syncretism quite spontaneously, totally unaware of what I was doing, following my own instincts and tastes, all the while adhering to the principle of modernism, which I always followed, that the only criterion you have to follow is your own taste. ("You can't please everybody, so you might as well please yourself.") My first book of this type is probably "U ra na." In the text of it, to start with, there are passages in a style which normally isn't considered poetry - slogan-like lines that rely on rhetorical devices. But the book consists of two parts - the text and the notes to it. It's the interaction between the two that constitutes the book and to read the text without the notes isn't the same as to read first one and then the other or the other way around. They complement each other and thus create one whole.

"The Boring Bitch of Despair," which is the first work in the tetralogy "Triangular Square" or the hexology "6x0," is both a poem and a pIay. I patterned it on classical Greek drama, but played around with that form and came up with something of my own. Why? I don't really know, but I just had a need to do it. As I explain in the notes for "6x0," writing these six plays, which constitute a whole, I had an urge to play around with the technique of narration which was used so effectively in Greek drama. That's why in this book I play around with both the themes of classical Greek drama and with the form. The most radical of the six plays, I think, is the fifth one, called "Horses," which consists of a reading of a novel on the stage. I got a lot of pleasure writing that play.

The novel in that play consists of fragments from a novel called "The Beauty of the Night." It's actually also a new, syncretic genre which I call the "mini-novel." I have written, in addition to this one, five more and they're collected in a separate book. (It's in English.) A mini-novel is a short prose work between 10 and 40 pages, which doesn't deal with one major event, as is the case with a short story or a novella, but one or more characters, as in a novel. It consists of short separate scenes which provide the necessary details, and the gaps or lacunae between them force the reader's imagination to fill in what's missing. So the gaps here are just as important as the text. As you see, I use here the same technique as in poetry. In these mini-novels I also frequently use the form of drama. Instead of describing some event I put together a little skit, as if on a stage, with a description of the physical surroundings and a dialogue. This comes out very naturally.

To play around like that with various techniques is for me sheer joy. And I do whatever comes to my mind. My goal is to evoke a certain reaction in the reader. This is the only principle.

Tsybulko: But being a writer carries some obligations - at least an obligation to create as God does. There are also the duties to the state, to the society, to oneself. Or is it much simpler - just to be an American writer of the imaginary Ukraine or a Ukrainian writer of American reality?

Tarnawsky: You know, I don't believe in obligations imposed from the outside. If there are any obligations, they must be imposed by yourself. I'm convinced that the rule that an artist must serve society is a false rule, a rule that's harmful - moreover, harmful both to the writer and to the society. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union. Was it good for the artists? Of course, not. And was it good for the society? Also no. And it's not only for Ukrainians, because the system was anti-Ukrainian. It was bad for Russians, too, although the system was pro-Russian. How much of what was written then or painted will survive over time? Very little.

The only thing I agree with you on is that an individual who has a need to create, and has the gift for it, should create. It's part of the human psyche and is encoded in the genes. But an artist must create as his conscience and tastes tell him. As an artist, you must be honest in your work as everyone should be in everyday life. You have to be a good member of the society you live in, the same as everyone else. And the best you can do for the society is to make good art.

I've always written what I felt like writing and have never followed any directions and didn't obey any commands. Lately I've seen statements in the press to the effect that I have abandoned my principle to write only about myself and for myself by writing "U ra na." Those who say this don't understand me and "U ra na." I was driven to write "U ra na" by the pain I felt at Ukraine's fate and this pain was the same kind of pain I might have felt at an unhappy love affair. I didn't write the book out of patriotism. "U ra na" is a deeply personal work as is proven by the fact it hasn't been picked up by Ukrainian "patriots." It'll never be popular as I will never be popular myself.

But let me get back once more to the subject of "obligations." I did impose on myself as a writer an obligation to try to instill in Ukraine the elements of Western culture that have become part of me. This is perfectly in agreement with the principles of modernism by which I am driven - to be myself above all else. Writing as I do, I hope to graft the elements of my writing (modernism) onto Ukrainian literature.

Tsybulko: To me, you are a man of Ukrainian hopes, American reality, Spanish emotions and Polish sentiments. This enables you not only to be nourished by these cultures but to find analogues to them. I, for instance, think it's a blessing that Ukrainian popular culture is underdeveloped. But I have a pretty clear idea what kind of society I want. What kind of society - what kind of consumer of your ideas - do you want?

Tarnawsky: Why "a man of Polish sentiments"? Perhaps you have in mind "a man of Ukrainian patriotism of the Polish type"? This would probably be correct. I do think that if I were to be found wounded somewhere on a battlefield my first words would be "I'm Ukrainian." But my "Polishness" is my "western Ukrainianness." After all, I'm from Halychyna. But you left out something - my German rationalism. It's a very important component of my personality. My formative years were spent in Germany, and Germany has had a very strong influence on my development. I'm really made up of these four elements.

What sort of society do I want? In other words, what sort of Ukraine would I like to see? A modern, European country with well-educated, prosperous people, who respect themselves, as well as their fellow citizens, and who are Ukrainian patriots even if not necessarily of Ukrainian ethnic background. Where all without exception not only speak Ukrainian but prefer to speak it. Where those in government feel deeply for the people, where they don't sleep at night, thinking how to make the people's lot better, where the legislators likewise don't sleep at night, getting ready for the session in the morning, where judges have characters of steel and consciences clean as a freshly washed and starched shirt. Everyone is neatly dressed, the streets are clean, the parks neat, the signs all in Ukrainian, among the names of streets and city squares not a single name of an enemy of Ukraine, fewer monuments in general and not a single one for an enemy of Ukraine, historic monuments beautifully restored, Kyiv, Lviv, Chernihiv, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Baturyn, Hlukhiv, Chyhyryn, Subotiv, etc., etc., tourist meccas, to which Ukrainians and foreigners throng to find out about Ukraine's glorious past; well-equipped, modern hospitals, universities, high schools, grammar schools, kindergartens, museums, libraries, theaters. ... In other words, a dream world. But is it possible?

Kidding aside, I'm convinced that Ukraine's future lies in the West. Ukraine must become part of Europe. There's no other choice. To do this, Ukraine must go through a process of de-Russification - a cleansing off of everything Russian, but first of all of the souls and minds of Ukraine's citizens. Everything must be done to turn Ukraine toward the West and make her start moving in that direction.

Tsybulko: So when can Yuriy Tarnawsky be most Yuriy Tarnawsky? In other words, what sort of reading of your work would you find most convincing? In your opinion, which writers have received the most correct reading?

Tarnawsky: Reading is a very difficult matter. Actually, as I once said in my article "Literature and Language," a literary work is what arises in a reader's mind after the reading of a text; there are as many literary works as there are readings. But a reading depends on how the text resonates in the reader and how sophisticated the reader is.

I remember the reaction of a reviewer of the second volume of my collected poetry "They Don't Exist" to the poems "The Last Blonde I" and "The Last Blonde II." The word content of these poems is identical, except they're broken up into different lines - the first one in a "natural" way and the second one "unnatural." As you know yourself, breaking up into lines is one of the few prosodic devices free verse puts at the poet's disposal. It controls the phonetic as well as the semantic rhythm of the poem; in other words, it gives the poet a way of stressing different phonetic and semantic parts of the poem. This is what I wanted to illustrate in these two poems. The reviewer reacted to this with sarcasm. He said: "The only explanation one can find for this experiment is that the second of Tarnawsky's 'last blondes' was skinnier than the first one." Some sophistication! You want to stop writing when you have such readers.

It's ironic that one reason why I chose that name for the book was the fact that I feel that a literary work is what arises in a reader's mind after reading a text, as I just mentioned. These poems don't exist. The reader has to create them himself by reading them. I explain this in the foreword to the book. And then I get such a "reading." But this isn't a simple reader, it's a reviewer! I remember similar reactions to my reading my play "Not Medea" in public at the Writers' Union in Kyiv - "It's not literature but mush!" and so on.

I obviously need a reader who's favorably disposed towards me and who's well versed in contemporary Western literature. The fact that there appears to be some interest in my writing among university students in Ukraine fills me with hope, although just mild hope for the time being.

Tsybulko: "The mother country" screams in the direction of the diaspora: "Why aren't you translating us?" The loudest screams come from those who have little to show and even less to say. What Ukrainian writers are the most likely to find readers in America? Who from the contemporary Ukrainian writers might be interesting to the Western reading public? Because for Ukrainians, those who are interesting are so because of their political views. I suspect that the outside world would find little of interest in the politicized Ukrainian literary borshch. But it's the non-political writers who are interesting. Who are your favorites?

Tarnawsky: Oh, my dear countrymen, so you want "money and translations!" (It sounds like "panem et circenses.") And what do you propose to do for us in return? You obviously expect us to be like those stone breakers in Ivan Franko's poem who build roads for others so that your fame "will come traveling over our bones." I find so silly, Vlodko, this burning need of Ukrainian writers to be famous in the rest of the world ... silly for a number of reasons.

First of all, the issue is not just to translate but also to publish. But to publish is not so simple. You can always publish on your own, but in the West if you publish a book by yourself it not only won't help you but will hurt you in the long run. So you have to find a publisher who doesn't take money. But publishers are businessmen, and why should they lay out money for something which won't sell? So it's a marketing issue. In other words, we must be dealing with commercial literature. But Ukrainian literature, thank God, is not rich in commercial writing, and what there is (you know who I'm talking about - the most vocal of the crowd) isn't so very good from a commercial standpoint. And it wouldn't do credit to Ukraine to boot.

But to publish is only the beginning. A more difficult part is to find readers for what you've published. For this to happen, the publisher, first, must be prestigious and, second, must be willing to put in energy and money into promoting the book because without such an investment the book will not sell.

As you see, these are huge problems which you could hardly expect the poor "diaspora" to overcome. They could be solved if Ukraine became better known and respected in the world and people would want to read about it. But this is a task for "the mother country." This is the kind of country you guys have built and these are the results. Go and vote in another crew if you don't like who's in charge now. We don't have the right to vote.

Now, who should be translated? I have very idiosyncratic views on this subject which probably few would agree with. I feel that the best developed genre in Ukrainian literature is fiction - classical fiction, such names as Hryhorii Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Panteleimon Kulish, Marko Vovchok, Mykola Storozhenko, Anatolii Svydnytsky, Ivan Nechui-Levytsky ("The Kaidash Family"), Vasyl Stefanyk, Marko Cheremshyna, Mykhailo Yatskiv, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky, Hnat Khotkevych, Mykola Khvyliovy, Mayk Yohansen, Valeriian Pidmohylny (his short prose), Viktor Domontovych, Teodosii Osmachka. They produced some beautifully written works, very original and exotic from the standpoint of the Western reader, and I think that a well-prepared academic edition of a corpus of such works, properly promoted, would be successful and would help build up interest in Ukrainian literature.

In contrast, Ukrainian poetry, until recently, was in general less interesting, stylistically backward and not very original, in spite of the fact that it did have a number of talented figures. The situation changed with the appearance of the New York Group and the Kyiv School (in the latter I include all of those that came immediately after the Generation of the '60s i.e., the "Shestydesiatnyky"). These poets wrote some completely contemporary works, sometimes truly original, such that they have no precedents in world literature. After them, amazingly, came a decline.

Although you can't say that there are no talented figures among the generation of the '80s and '90s, the great majority among them practice traditional poetics and they haven't introduced anything interesting not only into world poetry but even into Ukrainian. (I consider you one of the few exceptions and that's why I've translated you into English.) The youngest generation, what I know of it, seems even less interesting to me. I don't see a single outstanding figure among them.

Contemporary Ukrainian prose looks even worse. Before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in my opinion, it was better. The only book of fiction I know of which I like is Volodymyr Zakusylo's "The Book of Laments." It's a highly original work and I suspect it'll be considered one of the most important ones from this period in Ukrainian literature. No wonder no one talks about it. It's in keeping with Ukrainian tradition.

But in spite of all of this, I've never heard anywhere so many people being called geniuses. This poet is a genius for this one, the other one for someone else, and everyone is a genius for himself. The young poet I mentioned earlier was also referred to in the press as a genius, by a well-known critic, and a future Nobel prize winner to boot. This poet isn't bad and has potential, but to call him a genius and a future Nobel prize winner? It's too much too soon. I generally respect the opinions of this critic and can't figure out what's behind this statement. I don't believe it's based on literary evaluation. And as to geniuses, in my opinion Ukraine hasn't produced a single genius poet and the only genius writer it produced - Hohol - unfortunately wrote in Russian. It did produce a genius film director, however, namely Oleksander Dovzhenko.

As to the Nobel prize, it's a real Ukrainian hang-up. Everyone thinks he should get it and almost as many are nominated for it, including people who have published a few slim volumes which caused a little scandal in Ukraine. This is bad in itself. But you also have to understand that a Nobel prize in literature is given not for art per se but for programmatically humanistic works which sing praise to "man's nobility in his struggle to survive," or something to this effect, if my memory doesn't mislead me. (Remember Pearl Buck and her "The Good Earth," as well as the fact that it was Polish poet Wislawa Szymborska who got the prize and not Tadeusz Rózewicz.) So you should look for candidates who fit these criteria. Besides, a Nobel prize is big business and big politics. Behind a Nobel prize there must stand a powerful publisher and a powerful country. Get ready for the next election, Ukrainian Nobel prize candidates!

Tsybulko: Does it make sense to try to make Ukrainian literature popular with the general public? I would rather try making the general public more sophisticated. Which medium, aside from literature, is potentially a good nation-building device? I would exclude television from this because it isn't an art genre but a channel for ferrying information. Popular literature for me is not a platform for a clash between ideas but a way of "lassoing-in" the Ukrainian "man in the street."

Tarnawsky: Popular literature is not literature but a commercial product. These two concepts shouldn't be confused. The former is art, the latter entertainment, just as a crossword puzzle in a newspaper. Society needs both, but each of them plays a different role. A nation's literature is its passport, or the photograph or fingerprints in its passport. It tells us who the nation is and what's the best it can do. Popular or commercial literature satisfies more mundane needs of the people. It's what a tired person will read on the bus on the way home from work. Both are necessary, but in different ways and to different degrees.

Ukraine needs popular Ukrainian literature - popular Ukrainian culture - in order to be Ukrainianized. As long as Ukrainians live on Russian "cultural products," Ukraine will not be fully de-Russified. But without a thorough de-Russification we won't have a Ukrainian Ukraine. For Ukraine, to this day, the main channel for world information is the Russian language. Take a look at the bibliographies of scholarly works or encyclopedias. There they'll send you to the workshops where they Russify.

This is outrageous, but it probably can't be helped at this time. Ukrainians don't know English or other European languages and the path to knowledge in them lies through Russian. Ukraine needs more translations and more publications of primary sources so that the channel that carries the Russian language would dry up. This applies also to popular literature. There's a real need for Ukrainian translations of popular Western literature so that Ukrainians have access to it. And let there be Ukrainian popular literature if there are writers who want to write it. They won't be competing with literature.

Tsybulko: Who of your "heroes" has not merely withstood the test of time but still is relevant today? Who is timeless? Who of the literary heroes of the past few years is most emblematic for our time and place?

Tarnawsky: I don't have many "heroes." I noticed a long time ago that there are few ideal figures in life and that great persons aren't necessarily great in everything; sometimes they're midgets in some areas.

But here's a list. (I don't necessarily like everything these people did but at least I like some of it): Literature: The Greek tragedy trio, Shakespeare, Hohol, Kleist, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Proust, Becket, Ionesco, García Márquez. Art: Egyptian, Maya, the Middle Ages, Brueghel, Bosch, Mantegna, Botticelli, Vermeer, Zurbaran, Bauhaus, constructivism, surrealism, Miro, Moore, Giacometti, Naguchi. Film: Dovzhenko, Kurasava, Buñuel, De Sica, Ray, Antonioni, Rohmer, Bergmann, Paradjanov, Muratova, and the cameramen of the Ukrainian school, especially Demutsky and Illienko. Music: The Middle Ages, Renaissance, Flamenco, Ukrainian church and folk music, Bach, Scarlatti, Couperain, Webern, Berio, Xenakis, Boulez, Glenn Gould (interpreter).

As to "the most emblematic" for our times - I'll take a chance. In literature: Becket and Ionesco. (I think they're the most original playwrights since Shakespeare.) In art: Giacometti and Naguchi. (Existential pain and organic abstractness.) In film: Bergmann. (Psychology, drama, imagination - in a word, everything.) In music: Webern, Gould. (Essence and intellect.) But the greatest of them all, in all genres, is Bach. He's the most perfect combination of the rational and the intuitive as no one else. And his works in Glenn Gould's interpretation is for me the most perfect realization of music. Bach is just as relevant today as he was in 1750.

Tsybulko: What does one write for? What do you write for?

Tarnawsky: As I said earlier, I feel that the need to create is encoded in people's genes. This is true of all people, but for those who feel themselves to be artists the need to create takes on the shape of the need to create a specific form of art.

I write only when I absolutely have to. At least when I don't have a genuine need to write and force myself to do it out of a force of habit or because of a neurotic reason (for instance, am afraid I've stopped being able to write), ultimately I fail, and so I stop forcing myself and then feel better. But I'm the happiest when I have a genuine need to write and sit down and do it. When what you're writing comes out the way it's supposed to, it's a fantastic feeling. That's how a bird must feel flying up in the air or a fish swimming in water.

So, I write because writing brings me pleasure, makes my life meaningful. That's reason enough to write. The criteria as to what to write I set myself while I'm writing. I try to relax as much as possible and let this that has already arisen inside me come out into the open.

Tsybulko: In my opinion, the New York Group is a significant accomplishment of the Ukrainian people. No other nation in the world would turn its back on such a phenomenon. In our spiritually impoverished times these are people who've become quite successful in the societies they live in while at the same time they have laid their hearts on the altar of the land of their ancestors. It wasn't by their own choice that they had to leave their homeland but they've remained one with their people.

So why does the elite in "the mother country" try so hard to distance itself from you and your work - work which has profited from contact with the outside world and is so different from ours? Doesn't it look to you that those among us who at one time complained so much about the Iron Curtain have created today a glass one which is no less strong than the other one was? Is it merely a fight for a place in history?

Tarnawsky: It's hard for me to be objective about the New York Group since I'm one if its founding members. I've been singing praises to it lately and perhaps should stop doing this. But I don't praise my own accomplishments except those of the group as a whole. In spite of the fact that every member of the group has mediocre works and that these are people of diverse talents and accomplishments, I still don't feel uncomfortable saying that the group is one of the most interesting phenomena in Ukrainian literature not only of the last few decades but in general.

This is because the group, unquestionably, has introduced a number of innovations which Ukrainian literature sorrily needed, such as depoeticizing of the language and contemporary poetics. Also, it has introduced a number of styles and a world outlook under the influence of poetry of non-Slavic nations such as English, American, Spanish, Latin American and French. I've no doubt that innovation is something without which a culture cannot stay alive. And even if the literary accomplishments of the group weren't very great, the fact that it has introduced these innovations makes it, without a doubt, an important phenomenon in Ukrainian literature.

Let me go back once more to your second question and my answer to it. To claim that someone is modernizing Ukrainian poetry under the influence of the Beat Generation in the light of the existence of the New York Group is sheer nonsense. This kind of modernization took place 40-50 years ago. The New York Group arose at the same time as the Beat Generation and has much in common with it. If what is being said is really true, that is. if that particular poet is writing under the influence of the Beat Generation, then it's a typical Ukrainian process of latching onto something that has been done generations ago. This is the way Ukrainian neo-romantics based themselves on the long-passed symbolism and the neo-classicists on the even more forgotten parnassianism. The New York Group and the Kyiv School did away with it and here we have the latest generation returning to the old bad habits. Such is the current state of affairs in Ukrainian literature.

But I want to say one more thing about the New York Group - give some information. Just now one of the members of the group, Roman Babowal, is finishing an Internet anthology of the group's poetry. It has extensive selections of all the 12 members of the group together with their biographical and bibliographical data. I have contributed an introductory essay to it called "An Aquarium in the Ocean." In this essay I describe how the group arose and tell its history as well as give my views on its importance in Ukrainian literature. Although the site still isn't quite completed it can be viewed by accessing: http://users.belgacom.net/babowal/indexnyg.htm. I think people who are interested in the group will find the site useful.

Perhaps this is a good point to stop the interview. It's turned out to be longer than I expected. But it was useful for me to pause and think about the issues that you raised. I hope it'll turn out to be interesting to the readers. Many thanks.

PART I

CONCLUSION

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, April 20, 2003, No. 16, Vol. LXXI

| Home Page |